Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

you're forced to buy a special passport picture for the passport...that is through a private service, at least mine was
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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?
Click to expand...

:palm:

no
 
If the government can't force everyone to pay into social security then more people would be screwed over. The more money put in the longer social security is sustainable. Serious cuts would have to be made if people could opt out of it. Social security is really a retirement tax that gets distributed to people who retire.
 
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about we just raise the ceiling on the pay roll tax and provide legislation making it unlawful to raid the SS surplus when there is one and there's been an SS surplus nearly every year since they instituted it and then means test SS so that any one above say, $250,000 a year in retirement income isn't eligible to collect. Actually the first two measures alone would fix the problem with no need to raise retirement age and if things were to get tight implement the later. SS is an easy fix.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
you're forced to buy a special passport picture for the passport...that is through a private service, at least mine was
Click to expand...
Again, requirements for something you can choose not to get like a passport that is also within the purview of the enumerated powers is certainly not the same thing as making you buy my widget specifically, especially when it is not within the enumerated powers.

Being deliberately disingenuous about it doesn't change what I have stated and you force me to repeat by direct deliberate ignorance.

They were clearly given power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", for this purpose they can require such things as passports if you wish to travel to those places.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How about we just raise the ceiling on the pay roll tax and provide legislation making it unlawful to raid the SS surplus when there is one and there's been an SS surplus nearly every year since they instituted it and then means test SS so that any one above say, $250,000 a year in retirement income isn't eligible to collect. Actually the first two measures alone would fix the problem with no need to raise retirement age and if things were to get tight implement the later. SS is an easy fix.
Click to expand...

what kind of ceiling are you talking about? how high?

i think it should be unlawful to raid any part of the SS fund, surplas or principle. i don't agree with forcing people who have been forced to pay taxes for their working life to have to go without it. they've paid into this government run insurance program. they should get their alloted amount back.

the retirement age needs to be raised. it is currently based on outdated actuary tables.
 
Damocles said:
Again, requirements for something you can choose not to get like a passport that is also within the purview of the enumerated powers is certainly not the same thing as making you buy my widget specifically, especially when it is not within the enumerated powers.

Being deliberately disingenuous about it doesn't change what I have stated and you force me to repeat by direct deliberate ignorance.

They were clearly given power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", for this purpose they can require such things as passports.
Click to expand...

damo...i'm just fleshing out the forced to buy argument, i've never said you're wrong or that i disagree, but you've done a great job of extrapolating when and where and why the government can force you to buy something.

thanks
 
Yurt said:
damo...i'm just fleshing out the forced to buy argument, i've never said you're wrong or that i disagree, but you've done a great job of extrapolating when and where and why the government can force you to buy something.

thanks
Click to expand...
I would dislike it if they used their enumerated powers in such a way, but they can tax and provide services like insurance, else things like medicare would be unconstitutional.
 
The basic argument of "purchase by force" would be eliminated if there were an "opt out of government program" and the argument they currently use to say that this health care program is unconstitutional would be moot. They would have to attack it in a different direction, one that I don't really see at this moment. Anybody see a flaw in my reasoning?
 
Damocles said:
I would dislike it if they used their enumerated powers in such a way, but they can tax and provide services like insurance, else things like medicare would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

thats why i've never understood why they simply don't expand medicare. make it for all ages, raise taxes IF and as minimal as possible necessary and you don't have a completely new (and stupidly) seperate government run entity. first priority, cleaning up the massive waste within medicare, be it fraud, loose accounting, clean it up, that alone would save billions. the insurance system is already in place, people running it, there is simply no need to create another government run program. medicare for all ages.
 
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...

Correct me if I'm wrong, But I believe you are referring to the Paul Ryan's Road Map for america's future. In that plan, specifically Here Ryan suggests putting 1/3 of your FICA in a Private Thrift Savings Plan.

Is it constitutional, Don't know. I haven't seen it structured beyond a Idea. I don't see a problem with government taxing you, then giving it back to you.
 
Yurt said:
thats why i've never understood why they simply don't expand medicare. make it for all ages, raise taxes IF and as minimal as possible necessary and you don't have a completely new (and stupidly) seperate government run entity. first priority, cleaning up the massive waste within medicare, be it fraud, loose accounting, clean it up, that alone would save billions. the insurance system is already in place, people running it, there is simply no need to create another government run program. medicare for all ages.
Click to expand...


They didn't do that because it would never have passed. The major proponents of reform would have been more than willing to do that.
 
Yurt said:
what kind of ceiling are you talking about? how high?

i think it should be unlawful to raid any part of the SS fund, surplas or principle. i don't agree with forcing people who have been forced to pay taxes for their working life to have to go without it. they've paid into this government run insurance program. they should get their alloted amount back.

the retirement age needs to be raised. it is currently based on outdated actuary tables.
Click to expand...
Why? Why punish our seniors like that when we don't need to? If we just adjust the SS ceiling for the rate of inflation since that ceiling was implemented we can keep SS solvent at the current age. In fact we would run a surplus doing that even if we dropped the retirement age to 65. Why should seniors be forced into working longer into their golden years? Haven't they earned their retirement after 45 years of hard work?
 
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...

Really?

On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the "stream" of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the only question is: will we, or won't we, have a paddle?

When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene -- and worry about the bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.

But afterward, there IS a bill -- and someone has to pay it. Leaving out the details, that someone will be us. It will be paid through our taxes, or paid in our health premiums. In other words, we, the insured, ARE being forced to 'enter the stream of commerce' involuntarily, to pay the bills of those who opted out. Bad enough to be forced to buy something for yourself -- how about being forced to buy something for the other guy, who opted out of the system and left the bill to you and me? ref
 
Bfgrn said:
Really?

On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the "stream" of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the only question is: will we, or won't we, have a paddle?

When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene -- and worry about the bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.

But afterward, there IS a bill -- and someone has to pay it. Leaving out the details, that someone will be us. It will be paid through our taxes, or paid in our health premiums. In other words, we, the insured, ARE being forced to 'enter the stream of commerce' involuntarily, to pay the bills of those who opted out. Bad enough to be forced to buy something for yourself -- how about being forced to buy something for the other guy, who opted out of the system and left the bill to you and me? ref
Click to expand...

what does your response have to do with his comment regarding private accounts for social security?
 
Bfgrn said:
I was replying to this:



Do you need an interpreter?
Click to expand...

I guess I do. I re-read your response and it is about health care. The comment you responded to was about proposed plans for personal accounts for Social Security. I'm missing the connection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top