You say Williams is a blatant liar. OK, why don’t you comment on my citation from Social Security on line,
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html. Certainly, this there is no interest here in eliminating SS
Here’s the last 2 paragraphs again:

There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled “RESERVATION OF POWER,” specifically said: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor’s denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor’s benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Your comments please.

Finally, you continue to avoid directly adressing my bottom line point. Everything else is minor:
The working poor, living pay check to pay check could use every penny they make. How do you justify making these people pay into SS for an uncertain payout years in the future vs. putting that money, perhaps into paying the rent, feeding their kids well, saving for a home or investing in their education. An individual may perceive these things to be of greater value over the long run, especially if one considers where their present SS contributions are going. I don’t see how you can justify not allowing them the choice.

Williams lied blatantly.

He said the Helvering case decided “SS wasn’t insurance”–when it had nothing to do with that question & never mentioned the word.

He took a quote out of context pretending it supported his point, when in fact it had nothing to do with it. He implied the Court had ruled Congress could do whatever it wanted with SS monies.

He has a PhD. If he read the case, he knew he was lying. So since he’s a deliberate liar, there’s no reason to pay attention to anything else he might have to say.

But Williams’ lying essay is all over the internet & hard copy media. Why is that, do you think?

Most of the SS debate is deliberately deceptive. The privatizers can’t win on the facts. That’s why they’re lying, & that’s what demonstrates their utter contempt for ordinary people & democratic processes.

You’re philosophically opposed to SS. Fine. Stick to that argument, it’s honest.

The “SS crisis,” though, is phony, manufactured, deliberately, by big corporate money, in its own interest.

So here goes

First, as regards to Helvering v. Davis. You say that Williams lied. You are the one distorting the issue. SS is promoted by many as insurance. Your right, insurance is not mentioned in the decision. You state, “This was so because SS taxes had just begun being collected that year, & the regulations as to the management of funds & the TF hadn’t been laid out completely“. Right you are again. “On the question of whether the then-lack of a specific earmark meant Congress could do whatever it wanted with the money, the Court explicity refused to decide the question“: You are right again! “The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will…
We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open. ” You got the text right but you completely miss William’s point completely, given the uncertainty about management of the funds, and the payouts, SS by definition could not possibly be considered insurance.

“Williams misrepresents Fleming as well, but I think I’ve proven the point: he isn’t an honest critic.” Au contraire. William’s stated “you have no legal right, in the sense of a contract, to Social Security payments. “ In what way did Williams misrepresent Fleming?

Here’s the Case Information from Social Security Online. It’s quite clear that William’s is right.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor

Background to the Case:

The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program’s funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish “rights” to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are “an earned right.” This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility–and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled “RESERVATION OF POWER,” specifically said: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor’s denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor’s benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

OK, so you don’t want to figure out rates of return, because I guess you think it’s a waste of time. Well since you won’t say, I’ll do it. In my little thought problem where one receives twice as much back 30 years later after a one time deposit, the yearly rate of return is about 2.3%. Actually, an easy rule of thumb applies when one tries to estimate the rate where one doubles their money is the rule of 72. Simply divide the number of years into 72%. That comes out to 2.4% over 30 years. Close enough for government work. When one factors in inflation, this isn’t very good. Not being able to make estimates like this means one is going to have a more difficult time choosing among alternatives for their money and resources.

The bottom line here is that I do not believe you have adequately addressed in my main point and complaint about your point of view Retirement isn’t necessarily the most important item to consider. The working poor, living pay check to pay check could use every penny they make. How do you justify making these people pay into SS for an uncertain payout years in the future vs. putting that money, perhaps into paying the rent, feeding their kids well, saving for a home or investing in their education. An individual may perceive these things to be of greater value over the long run, especially if one considers where their present SS contributions are going. I don’t see how you can justify not allowing them the choice.

Using someone else’s exact words without attribution is plagiarism:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=754
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052400.asp
“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200006/ai_n8904803″

Using someone else’s claims without researching them isn’t a good idea.

1. The author (Walter Williams) of your plagiarized post seriously
misrepresents Helvering v. Davis. In fact, he lies about it.

It wasn’t a decision about whether SS was insurance, it was about whether parts of the 1935 SS act were Constitutional.

There’s no discussion at all about whether SS is “insurance.” In fact, I can’t find the word “insurance” in the case, though I may have overlooked it.

Read it yourself, you’ll find the quote in P. 6.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=301&invol=619&friend=nytimes

The quote occured in Justice Cardozo’s’ outline of the facts of the case, not in the decision.

He summarize the parts of the 1935 act under dispute, saying SS collections go to Treasury by the terms of Title 8 of the 1935 SS act & aren’t earmarked. Title 2 sets up a reserve account for SS, but no appropriations have been made.

This was so because SS taxes had just begun being collected that year, & the regulations as to the management of funds & the TF hadn’t been laid out completely. They were by 1939. You can read about it here:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

On the question of whether the then-lack of a specific earmark meant Congress could do whatever it wanted with the money, the Court explicity refused to decide the question:

“The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will…
We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open. ”

Williams misrepresents Fleming as well, but I think I’ve proven the point: he isn’t an honest critic.

Neither are you, apparently, as you’re willing to plagiarize other people’s words without checking them for truth value just because they seem to support your position.

You’ve not successfully challenged one fact in this essay. Your only truthful argument is that you’re philosophically opposed to SS (& apparently taxation in general).

That’s fine. That’s a matter of personal philosophy. If you feel so strongly about the philosophy, why do you need to distort the facts & the historical record?

It’s true that every tax can be viewed as coercive.

It’s also true that without the coercive power of the state, you wouldn’t have “your” money. You’re a physical therapist, a profession whose earning power is utterly dependent on the coercive power of the state & it intrusion into the medical realm in any number of ways. To be consistent, you ought to agree to give up those coercions. But they’d mostly have the effect of lowering “your” income.

If you really don’t know how to compound interest (you keep insisting iI demonstrate for you), I suggest you google it.

.Here’s what a 1936 government Social Security pamphlet said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … That is the most you will ever pay.”

Had Congress lived up to those promises, where $3,000 was the maximum earnings subject to Social Security tax, controlling for inflation, today’s $50,000-a-year wage earner would pay about $700 in Social Security taxes, as opposed to the more than $3,000 that he pays today.

The next big lie is from the same Social Security pamphlet: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

In a later decision, Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the court said, “To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands … ” That flexibility and boldness mean Congress can constitutionally cut benefits, raise retirement age, raise Social Security taxes and do anything it wishes, including eliminating payments.

If a private retirement company reneged on its promises, we could take it to court. If Congress reneges on its promises, there’s no judicial course of action whatsoever.

Vital to any Ponzi scheme, like Social Security, is the ability to recruit as many suckers as possible. In 1999, a little noticed part of President Clinton’s plan to “save” Social Security was to force 5 million previously exempted employees into Social Security. If they were forced into Social Security, it would have created billions in additional revenue. Guess what. Twelve senators, including five Democrats — Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) — descended on the White House to demand that President Clinton not support forcing 5 million of their constituents into Social Security. They warned of the adverse impact on employees in terms of lower rates of return and lost flexibility.

Isn’t that great? These are the same politicians who are now resisting President Bush’s call to allow Americans to take a part of their Social Security taxes to put into private retirement accounts. If they’d go to bat for those 5 million workers to remain out of Social Security, to avoid the adverse impact of lower rates of return and lost flexibility, why would they fight to deny tens of millions of workers a right to use a portion of their taxes to do the same?

Here’s a moral dimension to Social Security that you don’t address. What moral principle, consistent with liberty, justifies forcing a person to set aside a certain portion of his weekly earnings for retirement and jailing him if he fails to comply? Retirement isn’t the only important item for which we should budget. How about a congressional mandate that we set aside a certain portion of our weekly earnings for housing, food, entertainment or our children’s education? Were Congress to propose a measure that would require each American to set aside a portion of his weekly earnings for these items, most of us would see it as tyranny. Pray tell, what’s the difference in principle for a congressional mandate that requires setting aside earnings for retirement versus a mandate setting aside earnings for housing or our children’s education?

Actually, when you stated: as for your “exploitation”: the day the waltons, the mellons, the rockefellers & kochs, & the political class as a whole get behind a movement to allow people to vote on every item in the federal budget, i’ll take you seriously. until then, i see no reason why SS should be a special case.” You conceded that there is at least an element of exploitation and tyranny in SS. We’re making progress here.

2 other points:
You stated: “Somehow, the only budget items their good citizenship extends to are social programs. They somehow never want to let people choose whether we want to fund wars & corporate welfare. Forcing people to pay for those programs is never described as “exploitative”.” That was a non sequitur.

You also stated: “Their outrage, & yours, is selective”. That was another non sequitur. We were only talking about SS here. What makes you think I’m not outraged by these other things. You continue to make erroneous assumptions.

Mohit, you must have not tried to read Part1 and Part2 shortly after Hannah put them up.

Thanks for all your efforts and attempts to get this truth out about Social Security. The “crisis” is phony and the media is only a propaganda mill conspiring against the interest of working people.