Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[P@triot]

By requiring SS benefits be paid.

Total non-sequitur. Saying that people can't demand SS payments doesn't mean the government can't have an actual trust fund instead of the vapor one we have now. That actually makes sense to you? The Supreme Court said the government can't actually save the money? You're a strange little man

And angry. You forgot angry. He's a strange and angry little man.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25%

What I always find amusing is how know-it-all CON$ don't know that there is a piece of information conspicuously missing from that deliberately deceptive half truth making it a whole lie.
Obviously that info is deliberately misleading without knowing how much the top 1%'s income increased over the same period. The fact that it was deliberately left out should tell you that it was a lot more than the 7% increase in tax dollars, which is why I was not surprised to find out the income of the top 1% had grown 60% from 1981 to 1989.

Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-

"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"

So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.

The real issue is you lied when you said St Ronnie did not give tax breaks to the rich because they paid 7% more taxes after his tax cuts on a 60% income increase.

Please understand, the rich paid and overall larger portion of the total tax collected after the tax cut because yes, they made more money. Here is the simple math- if you make $50 and pay 50% in tax, you pay $25. If you make $100 but only pay 35% in taxes, you pay 35 or 10 dollars more. What Reagan do to increase their income also increased the total amount they paid in spite of the lower rate.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-

"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"

So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.

BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.

Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

 

[edthecynic]

The Gore "Lock Box" never happened after Bush stole the election, so yes there is no SS Trust Fund, just a bunch of IOUs Trump will welsh on.

You can't put SS in a lock box. It has to be invested. It's invested in bonds. They are safe. If they are not safe, then nothing is safe.

Nothing is safe. SS bonds without Gore's lock box can be reneged on and Trump will renege on them.

The 1960 Flemming vs. Nestor Supreme Court decision said citizens don’t have a right to Social Security benefits, no matter how long they paid into the system. Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

 

[edthecynic]

The Gore "Lock Box" never happened after Bush stole the election, so yes there is no SS Trust Fund, just a bunch of IOUs Trump will welsh on.

What was his "lock box" going to be since even you admit there is no money?

A lock box would overturn Flemming V Nestor.

How so? You haven't supported that. Explain

By requiring SS benefits be paid.

Total non-sequitur. Saying that people can't demand SS payments doesn't mean the government can't have an actual trust fund instead of the vapor one we have now. That actually makes sense to you? The Supreme Court said the government can't actually save the money? You're a strange little man

From Bush's 2005 Congressional Research Service report on Social Security reform:

Congress’s authority to modify provisions of the Social Security program, was affirmed in the 1960 Supreme Court decision in Flemming v. Nestor, wherein the Court held that an individual does not have an accrued “property right” in his or her Social Security benefits. The Court has also made clear in subsequent court decisions that the payment of Social Security taxes conveys no contractual rights to Social Security benefits.

 

[edthecynic]

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

The problem with that "logic" is the wealthy are not taxed at all. There is no wealth tax, there is an income tax where wages are taxed, but the wealthy do not work for wages.

I'll let your own MessiahRushie explain it to you:

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[edthecynic]

I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25%

What I always find amusing is how know-it-all CON$ don't know that there is a piece of information conspicuously missing from that deliberately deceptive half truth making it a whole lie.
Obviously that info is deliberately misleading without knowing how much the top 1%'s income increased over the same period. The fact that it was deliberately left out should tell you that it was a lot more than the 7% increase in tax dollars, which is why I was not surprised to find out the income of the top 1% had grown 60% from 1981 to 1989.

Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-

"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"

So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.

The real issue is you lied when you said St Ronnie did not give tax breaks to the rich because they paid 7% more taxes after his tax cuts on a 60% income increase.

Please understand, the rich paid and overall larger portion of the total tax collected after the tax cut because yes, they made more money. Here is the simple math- if you make $50 and pay 50% in tax, you pay $25. If you make $100 but only pay 35% in taxes, you pay 35 or 10 dollars more. What Reagan do to increase their income also increased the total amount they paid in spite of the lower rate.

The fact that the rich paid more in taxes at a lower tax rate does not change the fact that Reagan gave them a tax break by lowering their rate, no matter how you try to spin it. Cutting their tax from 50% to 35%, using your numbers, IS a tax break weather they paid more taxes because they made more money or less because they made less money.

Again the top 1% in your original post paying 7% more in taxes does not mean that they didn't get a tax break from Reagan, as you claimed, because their income rose 60% so they got a 53% tax break on their additional money.

The deliberate deception that you foolishly swallowed without thought remains a deliberate deception no matter how much you try to squirm away from it rather than admit you've been had by professional CON$ervative propaganda artists from GOP think tanks.

 

[AntonToo]

Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-

"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"

So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.

BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.

Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

You know Nitwit, if you started working your ass off to become part of the 1%, then you would also get the tax cut. When you sit bitching and moaning that you only get welfare, well then you deserve to be miserable.

Working your ass off makes you an employee, Hiring people to work their ass off makes you part of the 1%.

Those who usually end up in the 1% have worked their asses off to make themselves that rich, unless you are a Kennedy, Heinz/Kerry, Gore, Clinton, or other liberal elite. I had to endure 110 degree heat working in a Hanger in Saudi Arabia, but made very good money(all tax free) which I used to make my small fortune. I used every tax loophole the liberals created in the tax code. Are you "Jelly"?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.

Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[kaz]

You can't put SS in a lock box. It has to be invested. It's invested in bonds. They are safe. If they are not safe, then nothing is safe.

Nothing is safe. SS bonds without Gore's lock box can be reneged on and Trump will renege on them.

The 1960 Flemming vs. Nestor Supreme Court decision said citizens don’t have a right to Social Security benefits, no matter how long they paid into the system. Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

 

[Fang]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

After the media EPIC FAIL in the election I'll wait to the actual tax plan comes out to decide.

 

[nat4900]

After the media EPIC FAIL in the election I'll wait to the actual tax plan comes out to decide.

The above equivalent to this.........There should be NO penalty for someone who claims he will assassinate the president.....we'll just have to wait until he DOES assassinate him or her to take action.....

Trump proposed tax plan is just propaganda???

 

[kaz]

What was his "lock box" going to be since even you admit there is no money?

A lock box would overturn Flemming V Nestor.

How so? You haven't supported that. Explain

By requiring SS benefits be paid.

Total non-sequitur. Saying that people can't demand SS payments doesn't mean the government can't have an actual trust fund instead of the vapor one we have now. That actually makes sense to you? The Supreme Court said the government can't actually save the money? You're a strange little man

From Bush's 2005 Congressional Research Service report on Social Security reform:

Congress’s authority to modify provisions of the Social Security program, was affirmed in the 1960 Supreme Court decision in Flemming v. Nestor, wherein the Court held that an individual does not have an accrued “property right” in his or her Social Security benefits. The Court has also made clear in subsequent court decisions that the payment of Social Security taxes conveys no contractual rights to Social Security benefits.

You're babbling. Where did I say government should guarantee you a social security payout? You're either word splicing or you just don't know what you're talking about. Based on our prior discussions, I'd say the latter

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing is safe. SS bonds without Gore's lock box can be reneged on and Trump will renege on them.

The 1960 Flemming vs. Nestor Supreme Court decision said citizens don’t have a right to Social Security benefits, no matter how long they paid into the system. Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

TO ENGRAFT UPON THE 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. SEE
WOLLENBERG, VESTED RIGHTS IN SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS, 37 ORE. L. REV.
299, 359. IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH
FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648,
42 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. THAT PROVISION MAKES EXPRESS WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM. SEE ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 920
921. IT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION THAT SEC. 202(N) WAS ENACTED.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A
RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED"
INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

 

[edthecynic]

Where did I say government should guarantee you a social security payout?

You clearly inferred it in your earlier Straw Man.

Ah, so you admit that Social Security isn't actually a retirement plan where we save for our future, it's just a tax and there is no trust fund? Interesting

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25%

What I always find amusing is how know-it-all CON$ don't know that there is a piece of information conspicuously missing from that deliberately deceptive half truth making it a whole lie.
Obviously that info is deliberately misleading without knowing how much the top 1%'s income increased over the same period. The fact that it was deliberately left out should tell you that it was a lot more than the 7% increase in tax dollars, which is why I was not surprised to find out the income of the top 1% had grown 60% from 1981 to 1989.

Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-

"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"

So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.

The real issue is you lied when you said St Ronnie did not give tax breaks to the rich because they paid 7% more taxes after his tax cuts on a 60% income increase.

Please understand, the rich paid and overall larger portion of the total tax collected after the tax cut because yes, they made more money. Here is the simple math- if you make $50 and pay 50% in tax, you pay $25. If you make $100 but only pay 35% in taxes, you pay 35 or 10 dollars more. What Reagan do to increase their income also increased the total amount they paid in spite of the lower rate.

The fact that the rich paid more in taxes at a lower tax rate does not change the fact that Reagan gave them a tax break by lowering their rate, no matter how you try to spin it. Cutting their tax from 50% to 35%, using your numbers, IS a tax break weather they paid more taxes because they made more money or less because they made less money.

Again the top 1% in your original post paying 7% more in taxes does not mean that they didn't get a tax break from Reagan, as you claimed, because their income rose 60% so they got a 53% tax break on their additional money.

The deliberate deception that you foolishly swallowed without thought remains a deliberate deception no matter how much you try to squirm away from it rather than admit you've been had by professional CON$ervative propaganda artists from GOP think tanks.

There is no deception. The actual numbers, not percentages, are quite clear, and you nor anybody else has neither denied them nor tried to refute them. You guys simple ignore them. The fact is, in real dollars, the top 20% pay a higher portion of all taxes now than they did in 1980, and it has been the trend since 1980.

What you also don't address or recognize is the real issue, which is the income gap. The rich pay more, because their share of the income pie has grown and is now so much more than the bottom half.

You are so intent on arguing with a conservative, that you ignore the salient facts, and fail to see that I am actually saying there is a problem in the system that is causing too much income to be concentrated among too few people.

 

[kaz]

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

TO ENGRAFT UPON THE 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. SEE
WOLLENBERG, VESTED RIGHTS IN SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS, 37 ORE. L. REV.
299, 359. IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH
FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648,
42 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. THAT PROVISION MAKES EXPRESS WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM. SEE ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 920
921. IT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION THAT SEC. 202(N) WAS ENACTED.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A
RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED"
INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

Nowhere does that quote say that "congress" has to provide due process. It can't, that makes no sense. Due process is a judicial process, this doesn't say otherwise

 

[kaz]

Where did I say government should guarantee you a social security payout?

You clearly inferred it in your earlier Straw Man.

Ah, so you admit that Social Security isn't actually a retirement plan where we save for our future, it's just a tax and there is no trust fund? Interesting

Google "implied and inferred" and learn the English language.

And no, I did not imply it, not in any possible way. You just made it up. In fact I think Social Security should be eliminated. But that's another discussion. In this one, I'm just pointing out the prima facie fact that it's welfare since it's paid by today's taxpayers like any other welfare program

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing is safe. SS bonds without Gore's lock box can be reneged on and Trump will renege on them.

The 1960 Flemming vs. Nestor Supreme Court decision said citizens don’t have a right to Social Security benefits, no matter how long they paid into the system. Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

And why aren't you googling Flemming V Nestor? Lazy or too stupid to understand what you google?

For example:
From your own link:
"The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

Clearly The SCOTUS ruling in Flemming V Nestor is saying that in any legislation by Congress on restricting or repealing SS benefits must conform to due process by applying equally to all citizens.