Flemming v Nestor

Reader comment on: Amity Shlaes on the Tax Deal

Submitted by Amity Shlaes (United States), Dec 14, 2010 23:38

Thank you for the mention. The Supreme Court held in Flemming v Nestor, 1960, that someone who had paid into the system was not necessarily entitled to the payout. SS was not an "accrued property right."

"APPELLEE'S RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS CANNOT PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN OF THAT ORDER."

However, the following year the SSA was still publishing brochures for regular people that made it hard to think Social Security was not insurance, i.e., a contract. "Your card shows you have an insurance account...." ; this dissembling continued all along. "Insurance" suggests "contract."

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Comment on this item