Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> If the government decided to make Social Security a private corporation it could

No, it couldn’t. There were promises made with the full faith and credit of the United Stares.

> obligations that need to be paid to the people who paid for them

Everyone pays taxes. Social Security and Medicare obligations are treated differently because of politics. Otherwise, they’re like any other expense: the Congress can amend them at will. (As is currently expected, e.g. with Social Security benefits beginning to be curtailed from 2035.)

View on HN

I agree on Medicare. But it's plausible that the Supreme Court could find government meddling on Social Security unconstitutional, because similar decisions have already been made in other countries.

In Finland, the mandatory pension system is similar to Social Security, except that it aims to replace ~60% of earned income without any limits. Pensions based on past contributions have been established as constitutionally protected private property. If the system seems to be out of balance, the basic tools are raising the contribution rates without increasing the benefits and increasing the retirement age for younger generations. Any changes that would substantially lower the pensions that have already been earned would have to go through the same process as constitutional amendments. (There is also a third tool: increasing the tax rates for all retirement income, regardless of the source. But that is understandably unpopular.)

> But it's plausible that the Supreme Court could find government meddling on Social Security unconstitutional, because similar decisions have already been made in other countries.

I sincerely hope SCOTUS doesn't care at all about similar decisions made in other countries. What is or is not constitutional in the US should be based solely on the US constitution.

> If the government decided to make Social Security a private corporation it could No, it couldn’t. There were promises made with the full faith and credit of the United Stares.

I'm not a lawyer so I'll rephrase. In an alternate universe the U.S. government created a corporation to run Social Security. It mandated that people participate in it. Everyone called it a pension system because that it what it is.

Congress can amend them at will.

All pension systems are subject to amendment. Many pension systems have been amended over the years.

> In an alternate universe the U.S. government created a corporation to run Social Security. It mandated that people participate in it. Everyone called it a pension system because that it what it is

If the U.S. then explicitly guaranteed that corporation's liabilities, sure.

> All pension systems are subject to amendment. Many pension systems have been amended over the years

No. Many state legislatures, for instance, are constitutionally prohibited from fucking with certain obligations, commonly pensions.

> Many state legislatures, for instance, are constitutionally prohibited from fucking with certain obligations, commonly pensions.

Which is a serious problem. The entire idea of a truly guaranteed pension is not feasible and always leads to a pyramid scheme and then insolvency.

> entire idea of a truly guaranteed pension is not feasible and always leads to a pyramid scheme and then insolvency

Sure. But the point of full faith and credit is it's irreversible. (Actually, the point of credit, period. You can't declare your past debts pyramid schemes and unilaterally absolve yourself of them.)

Irreversibly, like all political concepts, is a fiction that humans choose to believe in rather than a law of physics. If social security became insolvent while the US was distracted by some other future national crisis, I'm certain that the people of the future would find a way to cut the pension while staying within the letter of the law (probably via inflation or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRgRz3nSG7o).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com