Court: Feds can take Social Security

Wildcard

Moderator
So much for social security being a necessary safety net.

Disclaimer: I do not like the SS program, it needs to be scrapped.

Court: Feds can take Social Security
A person's benefits can pay off old student loans

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the government can seize a person's Social Security benefits to pay old student loans.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision that went against a disabled man, James Lockhart, who contends he needs all of his $874 monthly check to pay for food and medication.

His government benefits had been cut by 15 percent to cover debts he incurred for college in the 1980s.

Lockhart also lost at the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Congress had eliminated a 10-year time limit on the government's right to seek repayment on defaulted student loans by seizing payments, including Social Security, to individuals.

The Bush administration had maintained that the case was important because outstanding student loans total about $33 billion, which includes about $7 billion in delinquent debt. Of the delinquent loans, about half are over 10 years old, government lawyers have said.

Justices were called on to clarify federal laws that sent conflicting messages about the collection of loans that are more than a decade old.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said that Congress "unambiguously authorized, without exception, the collection of 10-year-old student loan debt ... in doing so, it flatly contracted and thereby effectively repealed part of the Social Security Act."

He complained that Congress often passes laws and says they cannot be overridden later.

"I think it does no favor to the members of Congress, and to those who assist in drafting their legislation, to keep secret the fact that such express-reference provisions are ineffective," Scalia wrote.

O'Connor's ruling will likely be one of her last. She is retiring after 24 years.

Also Wednesday, new Chief Justice John Roberts announced his first ruling, in a case involving legal fees.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/07/scotus.studentloans.ap/index.html
 
Hmm, call me old fashioned, but I don't see a problem with it. He borrowed the money and didn't repay it. If he didn't want to repay he shouldn't have borrowed. I really don't care if it was 10 years or 200 years. I'm tired of hearing this "it's not my fault" bs. How about going back to a time when your word meant something and you were responsible for your actions?
 
I agree with you on that. I just find it funny that when election time rolls around, or when you talk about messing with SS, some scream dont take the retirement away.

I agree, you should pay what you owe. I also would like to see SS scrapped, and let people be responsible for their own retirement. SS screams income redistribution.
 
The problem is that SSI is supposed to be unable to be levied against. No garnishments, leins, etc are allowed. Now SCOTUS has just tossed that protection away.

Soc Security is a good thing. It's NOT "wealth redistribution". It's a protection/guarantee against becoming a burden on a society which has no ability at a local level to fund programs for those who become "burdens". SSI is that program.

For instance, SSI disability is a program which allows individuals who are unable to work to at least exist instead of starve to death or die from exposure. They get medical benefits (which aren't that great) so that they can afford to see a doctor for treatment for their disabilities which they otherwise couldn't do.

And do you think that those people who lost everything when Enron collapsed should now just suck it up when they get too old to work anymore and get fired/laid off? Soc Sec will be there to help them survive.

Yet some believe that this program should be "scrapped". A belief which most likely springs from their comfortable existence which fails to recognize the more humble day-to-day fight for survival which others are subject to.

And the "it's not constitutiional" argument is wrong. SSI is just a tax like any other tax.
 
The problem is that SSI is supposed to be unable to be levied against. No garnishments, leins, etc are allowed. Now SCOTUS has just tossed that protection away.
But is that bad? After all, people do not deserve SSI. Nobody has a right to free government money, and in this case, the guy had outstanding debts, which he seemingly had no intention of repaying.
Yet some believe that this program should be "scrapped". A belief which most likely springs from their comfortable existence which fails to recognize the more humble day-to-day fight for survival which others are subject to.
Or perhaps it stems from the view that we are creating a welfare culture which rewards those who are too lazy to work, or too foolish to save for themselves.
And the "it's not constitutiional" argument is wrong. SSI is just a tax like any other tax.
But are all taxes constitutional? ;)
 
so i pay into ss all my life, and when i retire i " do not deserve it "
I would argue that you should get out what you put in. The point I was trying to make above, and which I see I have worded very poorly, is that it is not his right to get free money. The gov is not taking away something that is rightfully his by cutting into his monthly paycheck to settle his debts. You do cannot make the claim "well, I get X amount every month by right." Yeah, if he paid X into it he should get X back out, but the idea that SSI can't be levied from is ridiculous.
 
It's hard for me to feel sorry for him. They took 15% a month. In the military if you get over paid they take all you owe them at once. I once received $0.00 pay checks for two pay periods because they messed up my pay and over paid me $50 a pay period for a year. Being young and not knowing I was getting overpaid was no excuse. My lesson learned, look at my LES and know what I'm supposed to get paid.
 
But are all taxes constitutional?

Apparently they are. All attempts to show that the ratification of the 16th didn't happen have been unsucessful/

Nobody has a right to free government money,

As has been pointed out, it's not "free govt money" but rather a benefit payment from proceeds already paid in. sort of like your life insurance policy except you're still alive when the benefit kicks in.

Yeah, if he paid X into it he should get X back out, but the idea that SSI can't be levied from is ridiculous.

The idea was to protect those who's only source of income is Soc Security from a fate worse than death. Soc Security was designed so that it is supposed to be free from levy. This was so that little old ladies couldn't be taken advantage of by slick willie who then garnish the Soc Sec to pay for the blue sky contract the senior was pressured into signing. By eliminating that protection, our seniors and disadvantaged are once again prey for the unscrupulous.
 
It's a protection/guarantee against becoming a burden on a society

Yeah, right.

Social Security IS THE BURDEN. It is the reason that SS taxes have to increase by 40-something percent or benefits have to decrease by 20-something percent to pay for the baby boom generation.

And when the financial health of SS gets worse (and it will), taxes will increase accordingly again. Until no one can afford to save anything and are dependent on SS.

It's a tempting moneypot for congress to dip into whenever the whim takes them.

Our nation is poorer for having social security.
 
Regarding doing away with Social Security, how would those who suggest that course answer the following?

People spent their working lives "contributing" to Social Security, their employers having matched these "contributions". These individuals could have made other arrangements with "their" money, quite possibly ending up much better off financially. In theory,their employers could have paid them more, without any increase in total employee costs.

For those who suggest "doing away with Social Security", what happens to the above mentioned people, and remember, there are a lot of them.

As for the gentleman who didn't replay the student loans he took out, how come he didn't repay them. He is currently disabeled. He borrowed the money in the 1980's. When did he become disabeled?
 
Well, you know the old saying:

What the government giveth, the government can taketh away

Don't you know that money that you have/make is not yours? It states that it belongs to the United States Treasury and that office is owned by the US government.

They are just allowing you to use it to pay for things; it's not really yours to begin with.

Wayne
 
Existing "contributors":

It was never a contribution. It was a tax to pay for someone else who was getting something for free. The original recipients never payed into it. Somebody's gotta pay something into it and get nothing back to balance that out. Let that be me. I've paid in for 10 years now. Let's scale back 30 percent that the governement takes for the next 10 years. Scale back another 30 percent 10 years after that. Remove the last 40 percent in the last 10 years.

I am not really concerned with the dupes that bought into this for the last 50+ years. They had the chance to change the system or retire it. Now I am exercising my right to attempt to fix the system. I don't want it and am willing to lose my "investment" in it to get rid of it.

Do something to encourage employer-matched 401k or similar programs. Corporate tax credits or something like that. Make payroll deducted investments that are not called-in for 20 years completely tax-free at payout to encourage long-term retirement savings. Reduce capital gains tax.

Prior to SS, people lived with their families if they couldn't support themselves. SS was supposed to add a little extra food to the table, not pay for viagra and rent on an apartment in arizona. I know I am exaggerating, but SS covers a lot more than it was designed to, and for a longer period of retirees lives. Scale back benefits so that family becomes a component of the safety net. Another incentive to invest for retirement:p
 
Social Security is history's biggest wealth redistribution and ponzi scheme.

When Social Security was created in 1937, the retirement age was set at 65 while the average life expectency of people born in 1937 was 60 (with appropriately shorter life expectencies for people born before 1937). So, on average, workers were expected to die before they could ever collect a penny of their "contributions."

The so-called contributions were taken from the masses of workers and some of the money was paid out to the lucky winners of life's longevity sweepstakes. Most of the money piled up in the Social Security "Trust Funds" which Congress had conveniently required to be invested in US government securities.

So what about the Social Security Trust Funds and the $1.8 trillion they contain? Well, all of that money is in the form of US government securities. In short, since day one, the government has taken and spent everyone's Social Security contributions and the only thing left is government IOUs. As a matter of interest, the government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds represent over 22% of the national debt of the United States.

How are current and future retirees going to be paid? Simple - the government collects taxes (including future Social Security contributions) to pay off the government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds.
 
Soc Security is a good thing.
Funny how some so-called "civil libertarians" defend SSI.

Please do explain how being forced, by threat of violence by the state, to participate in a retirement scheme that you cannot opt-out of, is "good" for me? Explain how the federal government can dictate to me, or rather coerce me, on how to plan for my retirement?
 
Okay, point of order.

SSI is Supplemental Security Income. In a nutshell, it's for people with disabilities who have NOT worked enough to qualify for SSDI.

SSDI is Social Security Disability Insurance. Benefits are based on how much you made and how long you worked. If you don't qualify for much it's possible to also get a little SSI to go with it.

Then there's Soc. Ser. Retirement.

As far as "I am not really concerned with the dupes that bought into this for the last 50+ years." Well, I'm sure they're not concerned about you either.

John
 
For those who suggest "doing away with Social Security", what happens to the above mentioned people, and remember, there are a lot of them.
Several plans detail paying existing retirees for the next generation and allowing younger people to phase in personal investments.

You can answer your own question with a few google searches.

Rick
 
Back
Top