I got involved in a Facebook discussion of Social Security (I know, I know) with a Social Security Disability recipient. He argued against my assertion that SS is not an entitlement, insurance, or investment (but rather is a transfer / welfare scheme) by claiming that SS is an annuity.

took me two minutes, but I came up with the Supreme Court decision FLEMMING V. NESTOR (363 U.S. 603 – 1960) (on the Social Security Admin WEBPAGE) which states ,I think, unambiguously;

…2. A PERSON COVERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF “ACCRUED” INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PP. 608-611.

(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. PP. 608-610.

(B) 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 AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. PP. 610-611.”

I guess I should have expected it, but he SAVAGELY attacked me ad-hominem, again and again, while never substantiating his argument with even ONE contrary cite.

So tell me. am I reading this wrong? Do we have a contractual and property right in a Social Security annuity after all? Do I owe this jughead an apology?;

Vince Daliessio: ‎”(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS.”

Unless you can show that this has been reversed or modified by jurisprudence or statute, I rest my case.

Scott (name witheld): “you never had a case as you can not read! That paragraph states that it IS an annuity! What a fool! If you had a 12 th grade reading level you would understand the meaning of the sentence.

Vince Daliessio: Read Justice Black’s dissent, if you want to know the history of the case, the clear violations of Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution, which prohibits the passing of bills of attainder and ex-post-facto laws.

Scott: I have no need to cite anything, YOU are sitting here spewing untruths based on your inability to understand what you obviously can not read. You interpret the fact that congress is the final governing body of the Social Security Administration as congress can limit who can get benefits, yet Scotus stated otherwise, that they only can set ..

Vince Daliessio: Where does it state that? It clearly states the opposite.

Scott: Again you display more nonsensical garbage… you can opt out of Social Security therefore there is no constitutional violation. Do you argue with the wall when you are taking a dump?do you argue with a brick? You ARE NOT a Lawyer, Nor are you anywhere close. Stop trying to act like one

Vince Daliessio: You don’t cite it because you can’t. Congress can set the benefit level at zero. It can set the retirement age at 200. It can set the tax rate at 200%. It can, according to Flemming, pass a law today outlawing behavior that occurred 15 years ago, and use that to invalidate benefits, since they have pronounced that you have no legal property right in SS. No insurance company can do this with a real annuity – they would be sued for treble damages and lose.

Scott: Look IDIOT I suggest you research Schoemann v Social SecurityAdministration of the United States and try your fucking bullshit then. YOU know absolutely Nothing about what you try to speak… you sit here spreading lies and pretending to be the authority. You’re nothing but a know it all punk without an education. Now say good bye boy

Vince Daliessio I CAN’T opt out. I don’t know where you get that idea. Only certain tightly-defined groups under the statute can opt-out.

Scott: Title 26 learn it live it love it

Scott: Gotta love know it alls and troll

Vince Daliessio: You made a statement – that SS is an annuity. Flemming clearly contradicts that. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the Supreme Court. I don’t know why you have a beef with me. I stipulated that if you are dependent on the program, you should be taken care of.”

via Social Security Online History Pages.