Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
I read an argument the other day (I forget where, otherwise I'd link it) that, in light of the conservative arguments as to the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act, it seems private Social Security private accounts, which many conservatives support, would also be unconstitutional. It goes something like this: if the government cannot force a person to purchase private health insurance, the government cannot force a person to invest a portion of his or her income in a private investment account.

Anyone that thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional but Social Security private accounts are constitutional want to help me out on this one?
 
????...I've never heard of a plan forcing anyone to invest in anything.....the proposals have always been to permit people the option.......
 
Interesting take on it. The main difference is in every partial-privatization plan that I've seen one would have a choice where to put the money, solely on the government insurance or that small portion into a private account.

Basically (and ironically), IMO had the Ds held on to the "public option" rather than tossing it due to polling, while making it automatic for those who do not choose to purchase any insurance by increasing their share of taxation (IMO this was not done to keep the "nobody under 250K will see even one dime of increase in taxes promise at least partially intact), this too would be constitutional. Basically, it would no longer be forcing people to buy a specific product from selected "blessed" receivers from your government enforced guaranteed cash-cow... the people.
 
The government has all ready quaranteed people social security the current system is unstainable and is going bankrupt. Privatizing social security may allow people to actually recieve social security when they retire. Privatizing is an option the government could also reform the existing system what matters is providing people with a retirement plan that the government has all ready promised the american people. Social Security started in 30's its to late to talk about ending it what matters is securing peoples money.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????...I've never heard of a plan forcing anyone to invest in anything.....the proposals have always been to permit people the option.......
Click to expand...

thats what i thought as well, you can either give it to the government to "invest" or put it a private account of your choice...

apples/oranges to the mandate issue
 
NigelTufnel said:
I read an argument the other day (I forget where, otherwise I'd link it) that, in light of the conservative arguments as to the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act, it seems private Social Security private accounts, which many conservatives support, would also be unconstitutional. It goes something like this: if the government cannot force a person to purchase private health insurance, the government cannot force a person to invest a portion of his or her income in a private investment account.

Anyone that thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional but Social Security private accounts are constitutional want to help me out on this one?
Click to expand...
Well, it would be a valid argument IF the proposals were to FORCE people to invest part of their SS funds privately. However, every single proposal for privatization I have heard simply gives the individual the OPTION of investing privately. As long as it is an OPTION and not a requirement, there can be no claims of coercion or force.
 
Fair enough. So you would agree, then, that any privatiziation plan that does not include a choice as to whether to participate in the private accounts would be unconstitutional. That is, if the plan were to create private investment accounts for everyone it would be unconstitutional?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Fair enough. So you would agree, then, that any privatiziation plan that does not include a choice as to whether to participate in the private accounts would be unconstitutional. That is, if the plan were to create private investment accounts for everyone it would be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

does it automatically follow then, that requiring everyone to invest in the government operated fund, is unconstitutional?.....I think we should look into this further....
 
NigelTufnel said:
I read an argument the other day (I forget where, otherwise I'd link it) that, in light of the conservative arguments as to the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act, it seems private Social Security private accounts, which many conservatives support, would also be unconstitutional. It goes something like this: if the government cannot force a person to purchase private health insurance, the government cannot force a person to invest a portion of his or her income in a private investment account.

Anyone that thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional but Social Security private accounts are constitutional want to help me out on this one?
Click to expand...

Show us the privatization plan that FORCES individuals to invest in a private account.

Every one that I have seen gives people the OPTION of doing so... and then further gives them the OPTION of whether to invest in the stock market or in bonds.

The only plan that FORCES people to invest in an account would be.... the current Social Security system.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
does it automatically follow then, that requiring everyone to invest in the government operated fund, is unconstitutional?.....I think we should look into this further....
Click to expand...

yes.... good thing Nigel caught this. We should question the constitutionality of the current government run ponzi scheme.
 
Superfreak said:
Show us the privatization plan that FORCES individuals to invest in a private account.

Every one that I have seen gives people the OPTION of doing so... and then further gives them the OPTION of whether to invest in the stock market or in bonds.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I haven't seen any actual plan. I have seen summaries of what people would like to see happen with SS, but I haven't seen any actual plans. Can you link a few for me?


Superfreak said:
The only plan that FORCES people to invest in an account would be.... the current Social Security system.
Click to expand...

Social Security ........ isn't...... an investment....... plan.
 
Will if it was unconstitutional the supreme Court in the 30's wasn't doing their job but right now social security has been guaranteed to the american people. Social Security is going bankrupt something must be done to reform it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Fair enough. So you would agree, then, that any privatiziation plan that does not include a choice as to whether to participate in the private accounts would be unconstitutional. That is, if the plan were to create private investment accounts for everyone it would be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
It really depends on how it is structured. But, in essence, anything which tells the people "you MUST buy this" is not within federal enumerated powers. Now if they set up individual private investment accounts for everyone (which, from a bookkeeping POV would be easier than setting up individual accounts on demand) but did not require people to place any of their SS contributions in their private account, it would still fall under the heading of a choice.

For me, however, the idea of individual investment accounts would end up vastly over complicating a system which is already vastly over complicated. How would benefits be calculated if each individual has a different investment profile? Or even if it were held to two profiles - those who use the private accounts and those who do not - would there be a difference in benefits? If so, how would they keep track of it all without placing another administrative burden and costs on the system? If not, what is the motivation for partially privatizing your SS?

I do believe private investment is about the only way we have a reasonable chance to permanently put SS back on a sustainable footing. If we had been investing SS surplus funds since Reagan increased contributions and set up the trust fund, the SS trust fund would be almost 10 times its current size, INCLUDING the recent crash. Not to mention, had it been invested privately, those dough heads in DC could not have borrowed it all to spend on other things, as is what happens now when they "invest" the funds in T-bills.
 
Can the government really just end social security, could the american people really accept the end of social security.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
does it automatically follow then, that requiring everyone to invest in the government operated fund, is unconstitutional?.....I think we should look into this further....
Click to expand...
Both technically and practically, we are not "investing" in SS. We are paying a TAX, specifically the FICA tax. That tax is used to pay for people's SS benefits. Presumably, when you retire, other people's FICA taxes will then be used to pay YOUR SS benefits.

But like any pyramid scheme (which this is, when fully analyzed, a type of pyramid scheme, where growth of the system is dependent on future, greater growth in the base population) it cannot be sustained indefinitely as long as the population of retired and/or life expectancy after retirement continues to increase.
 
hotdog said:
Can the government really just end social security, could the american people really accept the end of social security.
Click to expand...

no, the majority of americans would not accept the end of SS. i understand a large issue is that people are living longer and what they paid into SS is virtually nothing compared to what they are recieving from SS benefits, COLA. i'm not sure the scope of the government raiding SS funds for non SS items, but i wonder if this was not allowed (which it shouldn't be), if SS would be in a better situation. does anyone know how much the govenrment has raided SS for?

if we stop that, raise the SS retirement age, it would go along way to fixing the problem. also, i like the privitization idea, but i simple haven't seen a full plan yet, so i'll wait until one is offered.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Fair enough. So you would agree, then, that any privatiziation plan that does not include a choice as to whether to participate in the private accounts would be unconstitutional. That is, if the plan were to create private investment accounts for everyone it would be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Yes, forcing you to buy something is not one of the powers of the government not matter how altruistic.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Fair enough. So you would agree, then, that any privatiziation plan that does not include a choice as to whether to participate in the private accounts would be unconstitutional. That is, if the plan were to create private investment accounts for everyone it would be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

But wait a second. Health care reform initially had a choice. Instead of an insurance mandate, they originally offerend a public option which was quicky shot down by conservatives who were the ones whom originally suggested the "insurance mandate" instead and then subsequently rejected that as "Unconstitutional" when their idea was adopted.

So by the logic being used here does this mean that if a private investment "option" for social security is constitutional then wouldn't a public option for health insurance also then be constitutional?
 
Yurt said:
passport?
Click to expand...
Charging fees for government services within the purview of the powers granted (passports are definitely within the enumerated powers) is clearly not the same thing as forcing you to buy my product which is not within those enumerated powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top