-
Flemming v. Nestor (1960) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to apply a law that denies Social Security benefits to people who were deported from the United States for certain reasons. The law is in the Social Security Act and is called Section 202(n). The lower court said this section was unconstitutional because it took away benefits without a good reason. But the Supreme Court said the right to receive Social Security benefits is not like owning property. Congress can change the rules for giving out benefits as long as they have a good reason.
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
Supreme Court of the United States
363 U.S. 603, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1435, 80 S. Ct. 1367, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 917, SCDB 1959-114
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/flemming-v-nestor-87769948
---
Law School Data has ov...
published: 17 Jul 2023
-
Flemming v Nestor: NO right to Social (in)Security “benefits”
The cases cited here are: Carmichael v Southern Coal & Cokw 301 US 495; Oregon v Mitchell 400 US 112; Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537; Ashwander v TVA 297 US 288,341.
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my NEW Anti-COVID 19 Vaccine and Testing Document Packets. Information on all my Packets are available on request. You can e-mail me at: [email protected]
published: 25 Nov 2015
-
Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney | 466 F.3d 65 (2006)
Res judicata ordinarily prevents issues that have been resolved by litigation from being raised again in a later case. But how does this apply in the employment discrimination context? A federal court considers the reach of res judicata in Nestor versus Pratt and Whitney.
Pratt and Whitney fired Gale Nestor, a machinist, after she allegedly got in a fight with a male coworker. Nestor filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging she’d been fired because of her sex. Under Connecticut law, the commission could only award back pay....
published: 12 Mar 2023
-
Social Security is NOT Guaranteed?!? 😮❗
One of the biggest social security myths is that a benefit is guaranteed. It’s not…and in this video I’m going to tell you why. The federal government can change the eligibility rules at any time (and has done so)! There have been two separate cases where the Supreme Court has recognized the ability of Congress to modify the program as needed.
🔥🔥 Get the Ultimate Social Security Cheat Sheet! It takes the essential information from the 100,000 page Social Security website and condenses it down to just one page! http://devincarroll.me/sscheatsheetyt 🔥🔥
📍We can show you how to retire with confidence! 📍In our Retirement Roadmap plan, we can help make your retirement savings last longer and reduce your taxes by coordinating your Social Security filing strategy, retirement account withdraw...
published: 22 May 2019
-
United States v. Fleming Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. Fleming | 739 F.2d 945 (1984)
To differentiate murder from manslaughter, a murder conviction requires a defendant to act with malice aforethought. In the case of United States versus Fleming, the Fourth Circuit had to decide whether drunk driving could ever result in a murder conviction.
On June 15, 1983, David Fleming lost control of his car on the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia. He crashed head-on into a car driven by Margaret Jacobsen Haley, killing her. Before he crashed into Haley, witnesses saw Fleming traveling southbound on the Parkway at speeds estimated at between seventy and one ...
published: 02 Mar 2021
-
3 reasons to abolish Social Security now!
The old-age entitlement is unsustainable, unfair and unnecessary. Replace it with something that helps the needy of any age.
https://reason.com/video/2023/02/15/3-reasons-to-abolish-security-now/
--------------
You know you're in deep, deep trouble when Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on anything—and that's especially true when it comes to insisting that nobody should ever cut "a single penny" from Social Security, the nation's income program for people over 65.
Here are three reasons why Social Security should be scrapped completely and replaced with a plan that will help the truly needy without impoverishing everyone else.
Social Security is unsustainable. Created in 1935, Social Security is paid for by a 12.4 percent payroll tax on income up to $160,200. Supporters pretend that Soci...
published: 15 Feb 2023
-
Social Security 1
published: 09 Dec 2016
-
Social (in)Security suspension of benefits(our property STOLEN!)
cases for the video are: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my NEW Anti-COVID 19 Vaccine and Testing Document Packets. Information on all my Packets are available on request. You can e-mail me at: [email protected]
published: 06 Feb 2017
-
Debt Ceiling and Social Security payments
It gets complicated, especially if you manage a trust. Flemming v Nestor (1960) can really matter, and so far nobody (not even the hardline GOP) has noticed.
Wikipedia article Flemming v Nestor SCOTUS decision 1960 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
The Bush administration (2001-2009) wanted to privatize Social Security and turn it into an annuity but there would be no way to do this without taking away benefits now from those who don't "need" it as explained in the video. But back in the 1990s, even Harry Browne (libertarian) said we might have to do that.
Yet some of the behavior of the extremists in Congress sounds a bit like jump-starting fascism.
published: 27 May 2023
-
sandpaper table tennis pogie vs nestor nocon mojica
published: 06 Jul 2023
1:50
Flemming v. Nestor (1960) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to apply a law that denies Social Security benefits to people who were deported from the United States for certain ...
The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to apply a law that denies Social Security benefits to people who were deported from the United States for certain reasons. The law is in the Social Security Act and is called Section 202(n). The lower court said this section was unconstitutional because it took away benefits without a good reason. But the Supreme Court said the right to receive Social Security benefits is not like owning property. Congress can change the rules for giving out benefits as long as they have a good reason.
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
Supreme Court of the United States
363 U.S. 603, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1435, 80 S. Ct. 1367, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 917, SCDB 1959-114
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/flemming-v-nestor-87769948
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/Flemming_V._Nestor_(1960)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to apply a law that denies Social Security benefits to people who were deported from the United States for certain reasons. The law is in the Social Security Act and is called Section 202(n). The lower court said this section was unconstitutional because it took away benefits without a good reason. But the Supreme Court said the right to receive Social Security benefits is not like owning property. Congress can change the rules for giving out benefits as long as they have a good reason.
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
Supreme Court of the United States
363 U.S. 603, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1435, 80 S. Ct. 1367, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 917, SCDB 1959-114
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/flemming-v-nestor-87769948
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 17 Jul 2023
- views: 66
12:55
Flemming v Nestor: NO right to Social (in)Security “benefits”
The cases cited here are: Carmichael v Southern Coal & Cokw 301 US 495; Oregon v Mitchell 400 US 112; Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537; Ashwander v TVA 297 US 288,3...
The cases cited here are: Carmichael v Southern Coal & Cokw 301 US 495; Oregon v Mitchell 400 US 112; Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537; Ashwander v TVA 297 US 288,341.
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my NEW Anti-COVID 19 Vaccine and Testing Document Packets. Information on all my Packets are available on request. You can e-mail me at:
[email protected]
https://wn.com/Flemming_V_Nestor_No_Right_To_Social_(In)Security_“Benefits”
The cases cited here are: Carmichael v Southern Coal & Cokw 301 US 495; Oregon v Mitchell 400 US 112; Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537; Ashwander v TVA 297 US 288,341.
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my NEW Anti-COVID 19 Vaccine and Testing Document Packets. Information on all my Packets are available on request. You can e-mail me at:
[email protected]
- published: 25 Nov 2015
- views: 303
1:35
Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney | 466 F.3d 65 (2006)
Res judicata ordinarily prevents issues that have been resolved by litigation from being raised again in a later case. But how does this apply in the employment discrimination context? A federal court considers the reach of res judicata in Nestor versus Pratt and Whitney.
Pratt and Whitney fired Gale Nestor, a machinist, after she allegedly got in a fight with a male coworker. Nestor filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging she’d been fired because of her sex. Under Connecticut law, the commission could only award back pay. After a hearing, the commission found in Nestor’s favor and awarded her back pay. The state superior court and appellate court affirmed the commission’s decision, and the state supreme court denied Pratt and Whitney’s appeal. Pratt and Whitney paid Nestor back pay with interest.
After the state court proceedings, Nestor then sued in federal court, alleging that Title Seven of the Nineteen Sixty Four Civil Rights Act allowed for remedies that state law didn’t. The district court granted Pratt and Whitney summary judgment, ruling that res judicata barred Nestor’s federal lawsuit. Nestor appealed to the Second Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/nestor-v-pratt-amp-whitney
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/nestor-v-pratt-amp-whitney
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/Nestor_V._Pratt_Whitney_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney | 466 F.3d 65 (2006)
Res judicata ordinarily prevents issues that have been resolved by litigation from being raised again in a later case. But how does this apply in the employment discrimination context? A federal court considers the reach of res judicata in Nestor versus Pratt and Whitney.
Pratt and Whitney fired Gale Nestor, a machinist, after she allegedly got in a fight with a male coworker. Nestor filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging she’d been fired because of her sex. Under Connecticut law, the commission could only award back pay. After a hearing, the commission found in Nestor’s favor and awarded her back pay. The state superior court and appellate court affirmed the commission’s decision, and the state supreme court denied Pratt and Whitney’s appeal. Pratt and Whitney paid Nestor back pay with interest.
After the state court proceedings, Nestor then sued in federal court, alleging that Title Seven of the Nineteen Sixty Four Civil Rights Act allowed for remedies that state law didn’t. The district court granted Pratt and Whitney summary judgment, ruling that res judicata barred Nestor’s federal lawsuit. Nestor appealed to the Second Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/nestor-v-pratt-amp-whitney
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/nestor-v-pratt-amp-whitney
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 12 Mar 2023
- views: 74
7:25
Social Security is NOT Guaranteed?!? 😮❗
One of the biggest social security myths is that a benefit is guaranteed. It’s not…and in this video I’m going to tell you why. The federal government can chang...
One of the biggest social security myths is that a benefit is guaranteed. It’s not…and in this video I’m going to tell you why. The federal government can change the eligibility rules at any time (and has done so)! There have been two separate cases where the Supreme Court has recognized the ability of Congress to modify the program as needed.
🔥🔥 Get the Ultimate Social Security Cheat Sheet! It takes the essential information from the 100,000 page Social Security website and condenses it down to just one page! http://devincarroll.me/sscheatsheetyt 🔥🔥
📍We can show you how to retire with confidence! 📍In our Retirement Roadmap plan, we can help make your retirement savings last longer and reduce your taxes by coordinating your Social Security filing strategy, retirement account withdrawals, and Roth conversions. 📞Schedule your call and see if this plan is a fit for you. https://www.devincarroll.com/roadmap
🎤 If you're preparing for retirement or already enjoying it, you'll definitely want to catch my podcast, Big Picture Retirement. Your retirement's success hinges on seeing the "big picture" and tying together your legal, tax, and financial strategies. On the show, we dive deep to offer insights on effective planning, and I'm joined by my co-hosts - attorney John Ross and yours truly, financial planner Devin Carroll. https://www.bigpictureretirement.com/
➡️ Want to hire Devin and his team? -- https://www.carrolladvisory.com
Don’t miss my free online workshop, “How to Choose the RIGHT Age to File for Social Security.” In this workshop you’ll learn:
✔The Most Important Factors to Consider BEFORE You File for Benefits
✔How to Coordinate Your Social Security Filing Decision with Your Other Assets & Income for a Tax Efficient Distribution Strategy
✔Why This Is The Biggest Decision of Your Retirement
Access the workshop today at this link
https://www.devincarroll.com/SSessentialsonlineworkshop
➡️ Get a copy of my best-selling book, Social Security Basics, here -- https://amzn.to/2twsABZ
➡️ Social Security Questions? Join my FREE Facebook Group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/428684237572614
📜 HEAR YE HEAR YE: Some of my videos contain links to third party products, apps, and services. If you click through, I may receive a small referral fee to my media company (Carroll Media Properties) through their referral program. Rest assured, I only recommend products or services that I believe will be helpful and informative to my audience.
⭐⚠️⭐Please read this⭐⚠️⭐
⚠️I am not an attorney, SSDI advocate, or affiliated with the Social Security Administration or any other entity of the US Federal Government. I am a practicing financial planner, but I’m not YOUR financial planner and since I don’t really know you, I can’t give you advice. So please don’t take this video as specific advice for your specific situation. Consult your own tax, legal and financial advisors. 🙇🙇🙇🙇🙇
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://wn.com/Social_Security_Is_Not_Guaranteed_😮❗
One of the biggest social security myths is that a benefit is guaranteed. It’s not…and in this video I’m going to tell you why. The federal government can change the eligibility rules at any time (and has done so)! There have been two separate cases where the Supreme Court has recognized the ability of Congress to modify the program as needed.
🔥🔥 Get the Ultimate Social Security Cheat Sheet! It takes the essential information from the 100,000 page Social Security website and condenses it down to just one page! http://devincarroll.me/sscheatsheetyt 🔥🔥
📍We can show you how to retire with confidence! 📍In our Retirement Roadmap plan, we can help make your retirement savings last longer and reduce your taxes by coordinating your Social Security filing strategy, retirement account withdrawals, and Roth conversions. 📞Schedule your call and see if this plan is a fit for you. https://www.devincarroll.com/roadmap
🎤 If you're preparing for retirement or already enjoying it, you'll definitely want to catch my podcast, Big Picture Retirement. Your retirement's success hinges on seeing the "big picture" and tying together your legal, tax, and financial strategies. On the show, we dive deep to offer insights on effective planning, and I'm joined by my co-hosts - attorney John Ross and yours truly, financial planner Devin Carroll. https://www.bigpictureretirement.com/
➡️ Want to hire Devin and his team? -- https://www.carrolladvisory.com
Don’t miss my free online workshop, “How to Choose the RIGHT Age to File for Social Security.” In this workshop you’ll learn:
✔The Most Important Factors to Consider BEFORE You File for Benefits
✔How to Coordinate Your Social Security Filing Decision with Your Other Assets & Income for a Tax Efficient Distribution Strategy
✔Why This Is The Biggest Decision of Your Retirement
Access the workshop today at this link
https://www.devincarroll.com/SSessentialsonlineworkshop
➡️ Get a copy of my best-selling book, Social Security Basics, here -- https://amzn.to/2twsABZ
➡️ Social Security Questions? Join my FREE Facebook Group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/428684237572614
📜 HEAR YE HEAR YE: Some of my videos contain links to third party products, apps, and services. If you click through, I may receive a small referral fee to my media company (Carroll Media Properties) through their referral program. Rest assured, I only recommend products or services that I believe will be helpful and informative to my audience.
⭐⚠️⭐Please read this⭐⚠️⭐
⚠️I am not an attorney, SSDI advocate, or affiliated with the Social Security Administration or any other entity of the US Federal Government. I am a practicing financial planner, but I’m not YOUR financial planner and since I don’t really know you, I can’t give you advice. So please don’t take this video as specific advice for your specific situation. Consult your own tax, legal and financial advisors. 🙇🙇🙇🙇🙇
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- published: 22 May 2019
- views: 25633
2:20
United States v. Fleming Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. Fleming | 739 F.2d 945 (1984)
To differentiate murder from manslaughter, a murder conviction requires a defendant to act with malice aforethought. In the case of United States versus Fleming, the Fourth Circuit had to decide whether drunk driving could ever result in a murder conviction.
On June 15, 1983, David Fleming lost control of his car on the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia. He crashed head-on into a car driven by Margaret Jacobsen Haley, killing her. Before he crashed into Haley, witnesses saw Fleming traveling southbound on the Parkway at speeds estimated at between seventy and one hundred miles per hour. Several times Fleming crossed over into oncoming traffic in the northbound lanes, even crossing raised concrete medians more than once, to avoid congestion on the southbound side. Following the accident, Fleming’s blood alcohol level tested at .315 percent, which was 3 times the legal limit.
Fleming was convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, claiming that the facts in his case didn’t establish the existence of malice aforethought.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-fleming
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-fleming
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/United_States_V._Fleming_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. Fleming | 739 F.2d 945 (1984)
To differentiate murder from manslaughter, a murder conviction requires a defendant to act with malice aforethought. In the case of United States versus Fleming, the Fourth Circuit had to decide whether drunk driving could ever result in a murder conviction.
On June 15, 1983, David Fleming lost control of his car on the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia. He crashed head-on into a car driven by Margaret Jacobsen Haley, killing her. Before he crashed into Haley, witnesses saw Fleming traveling southbound on the Parkway at speeds estimated at between seventy and one hundred miles per hour. Several times Fleming crossed over into oncoming traffic in the northbound lanes, even crossing raised concrete medians more than once, to avoid congestion on the southbound side. Following the accident, Fleming’s blood alcohol level tested at .315 percent, which was 3 times the legal limit.
Fleming was convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, claiming that the facts in his case didn’t establish the existence of malice aforethought.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-fleming
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-fleming
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 02 Mar 2021
- views: 358
3:47
3 reasons to abolish Social Security now!
The old-age entitlement is unsustainable, unfair and unnecessary. Replace it with something that helps the needy of any age.
https://reason.com/video/2023/02/1...
The old-age entitlement is unsustainable, unfair and unnecessary. Replace it with something that helps the needy of any age.
https://reason.com/video/2023/02/15/3-reasons-to-abolish-security-now/
--------------
You know you're in deep, deep trouble when Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on anything—and that's especially true when it comes to insisting that nobody should ever cut "a single penny" from Social Security, the nation's income program for people over 65.
Here are three reasons why Social Security should be scrapped completely and replaced with a plan that will help the truly needy without impoverishing everyone else.
Social Security is unsustainable. Created in 1935, Social Security is paid for by a 12.4 percent payroll tax on income up to $160,200. Supporters pretend that Social Security is like a retirement plan, where your specific contributions build value over time. But the system is a Ponzi scheme, in which current beneficiaries are paid out of new money coming into the system. The problem is that when the program started paying out benefits in 1940, there were 160 workers per retiree, so a surplus built up. Today, there are just 2.8 workers per retiree.
In a decade, there won't be enough money coming into the system to cover the current level of benefits. By law, benefits will need to be cut by 20 percent or payroll taxes will need to be jacked up even more than they already are. In 2023, we'll be taxed on all income up to $160,200—a figure that's up from $113,700 a decade ago and $87,000 in 2003.
Social Security is unfair. The payroll tax hits younger, poorer workers harder than older and wealthier ones. A minimum-wage worker might pay virtually nothing in federal taxes, but will still be forced to fork over 12.4 percent of his or her compensation in payroll taxes.
It's a bad deal for retirees from an investment point of view: According to a 2016 Tax Foundation study, a worker retiring after making average wages could expect an annual payout of about $20,000. If that person had instead put just 10 percent of their annual earnings into an conservative IRA, they could expect an annual retirement income of almost three times more.
And don't think the government actually owes you anything when you retire, regardless of how much you paid in. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no contractual or constitutional right to receive Social Security benefits.
Social Security is unnecessary. When Social Security was passed during the Great Depression, old age and poverty went hand in hand. Now the median net worth of households headed by someone over 65 is more than double that of households headed by someone half their age. Households headed by people 75 years or older had a median net worth of $254,800 and those headed by people between the ages of 65 and 74 came in at $266,400. For those between 35-44, the figure was just $91,300.
To be fair, part of the reason older Americans are relatively flush is because of Social Security and Medicare. But it's mostly because people are living and working longer and accruing more wealth so that old-age programs are less and less important to financial stability and well-being. There's simply no good reason to pay out universal benefits to millionaires like Joe Biden and billionaires like Donald Trump.
Rather than jawboning about saving Social Security, politicians—and voters—should be talking about ways to wind it down as quickly as possible. Let people within a decade or so of retirement get benefits, but reduce and eliminate payroll taxes for the rest of us so we have more money to fund our own retirements.
The federal government can and should continue to help older Americans—indeed, Americans of any age—who need assistance with food, housing, and health care. But that doesn't require forcing all of us to pay into a system that is increasingly unsustainable, unfair, and unnecessary.
Edited by John Osterhoudt; additional graphics by Danielle Thompson
Photo: Gripas Yuri/ABACA/Newscom
https://wn.com/3_Reasons_To_Abolish_Social_Security_Now
The old-age entitlement is unsustainable, unfair and unnecessary. Replace it with something that helps the needy of any age.
https://reason.com/video/2023/02/15/3-reasons-to-abolish-security-now/
--------------
You know you're in deep, deep trouble when Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on anything—and that's especially true when it comes to insisting that nobody should ever cut "a single penny" from Social Security, the nation's income program for people over 65.
Here are three reasons why Social Security should be scrapped completely and replaced with a plan that will help the truly needy without impoverishing everyone else.
Social Security is unsustainable. Created in 1935, Social Security is paid for by a 12.4 percent payroll tax on income up to $160,200. Supporters pretend that Social Security is like a retirement plan, where your specific contributions build value over time. But the system is a Ponzi scheme, in which current beneficiaries are paid out of new money coming into the system. The problem is that when the program started paying out benefits in 1940, there were 160 workers per retiree, so a surplus built up. Today, there are just 2.8 workers per retiree.
In a decade, there won't be enough money coming into the system to cover the current level of benefits. By law, benefits will need to be cut by 20 percent or payroll taxes will need to be jacked up even more than they already are. In 2023, we'll be taxed on all income up to $160,200—a figure that's up from $113,700 a decade ago and $87,000 in 2003.
Social Security is unfair. The payroll tax hits younger, poorer workers harder than older and wealthier ones. A minimum-wage worker might pay virtually nothing in federal taxes, but will still be forced to fork over 12.4 percent of his or her compensation in payroll taxes.
It's a bad deal for retirees from an investment point of view: According to a 2016 Tax Foundation study, a worker retiring after making average wages could expect an annual payout of about $20,000. If that person had instead put just 10 percent of their annual earnings into an conservative IRA, they could expect an annual retirement income of almost three times more.
And don't think the government actually owes you anything when you retire, regardless of how much you paid in. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no contractual or constitutional right to receive Social Security benefits.
Social Security is unnecessary. When Social Security was passed during the Great Depression, old age and poverty went hand in hand. Now the median net worth of households headed by someone over 65 is more than double that of households headed by someone half their age. Households headed by people 75 years or older had a median net worth of $254,800 and those headed by people between the ages of 65 and 74 came in at $266,400. For those between 35-44, the figure was just $91,300.
To be fair, part of the reason older Americans are relatively flush is because of Social Security and Medicare. But it's mostly because people are living and working longer and accruing more wealth so that old-age programs are less and less important to financial stability and well-being. There's simply no good reason to pay out universal benefits to millionaires like Joe Biden and billionaires like Donald Trump.
Rather than jawboning about saving Social Security, politicians—and voters—should be talking about ways to wind it down as quickly as possible. Let people within a decade or so of retirement get benefits, but reduce and eliminate payroll taxes for the rest of us so we have more money to fund our own retirements.
The federal government can and should continue to help older Americans—indeed, Americans of any age—who need assistance with food, housing, and health care. But that doesn't require forcing all of us to pay into a system that is increasingly unsustainable, unfair, and unnecessary.
Edited by John Osterhoudt; additional graphics by Danielle Thompson
Photo: Gripas Yuri/ABACA/Newscom
- published: 15 Feb 2023
- views: 38650
3:36
Social (in)Security suspension of benefits(our property STOLEN!)
cases for the video are: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my ...
cases for the video are: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my NEW Anti-COVID 19 Vaccine and Testing Document Packets. Information on all my Packets are available on request. You can e-mail me at:
[email protected]
https://wn.com/Social_(In)Security_Suspension_Of_Benefits(Our_Property_Stolen_)
cases for the video are: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
I have Constitutional Defense Document Packets and my NEW Anti-COVID 19 Vaccine and Testing Document Packets. Information on all my Packets are available on request. You can e-mail me at:
[email protected]
- published: 06 Feb 2017
- views: 147
8:55
Debt Ceiling and Social Security payments
It gets complicated, especially if you manage a trust. Flemming v Nestor (1960) can really matter, and so far nobody (not even the hardline GOP) has noticed.
...
It gets complicated, especially if you manage a trust. Flemming v Nestor (1960) can really matter, and so far nobody (not even the hardline GOP) has noticed.
Wikipedia article Flemming v Nestor SCOTUS decision 1960 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
The Bush administration (2001-2009) wanted to privatize Social Security and turn it into an annuity but there would be no way to do this without taking away benefits now from those who don't "need" it as explained in the video. But back in the 1990s, even Harry Browne (libertarian) said we might have to do that.
Yet some of the behavior of the extremists in Congress sounds a bit like jump-starting fascism.
https://wn.com/Debt_Ceiling_And_Social_Security_Payments
It gets complicated, especially if you manage a trust. Flemming v Nestor (1960) can really matter, and so far nobody (not even the hardline GOP) has noticed.
Wikipedia article Flemming v Nestor SCOTUS decision 1960 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
The Bush administration (2001-2009) wanted to privatize Social Security and turn it into an annuity but there would be no way to do this without taking away benefits now from those who don't "need" it as explained in the video. But back in the 1990s, even Harry Browne (libertarian) said we might have to do that.
Yet some of the behavior of the extremists in Congress sounds a bit like jump-starting fascism.
- published: 27 May 2023
- views: 14