Re: Is mandated healthcare insurance unconstitutional?
slide
> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
>
> The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
> and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone have any expert
> opinion on this or any other links?
>
If you take the strict constructionist position that the federal
government can only perform those functions specified that it must do
under the Constitution, pretty much everything in modern life is
Unconstitutional.
The question really is if passed, will it stand? Given the general tenor
of the times and the make up of the SCOTUS, I think if passed and
challenged somehow, it will stand. Probably the SCOTUS will simply
refuse to hear it if it's upheld at a lower court level and overturn if
disallowed.
Really today and probably back to Jefferson's presidency, what's
Constitutional is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Seth
sinebar <sineb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
>
>The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
>and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone have any expert
>opinion on this or any other links?
It claims, "Most states now require drivers to have auto insurance
before issuing drivers licenses, car registrations, or both."
I don't know of any states that require auto insurance to get a
drivers license. I know for a fact that New York and Minnesota don't.
Health care is clearly interstate commerce.
Seth
Deadrat
news:b8ff17e6-f214-4561...@e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-heal
> th-insurance/
>
> The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
Exactly the way Social Security was declared unconstitutional in the '30s.
No, wait. I might have gotten that wrong.
> and it makes a lot of sense to me.
But then you're paying attention to something called "hotair."
> Does anyone have any expert opinion on this or any other links?
My expert opinion is that you should stop paying attention to right-wing
bloviation.
Mike Jacobs
> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-he...
>
> The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
> opinion on this or any other links?
Sorry, this is pure, unadulterated right-wing-nut BS.
The rationale for universal health insurance is not to somehow "force
individual choices" on people as the linked article implies. No one
is saying a particular individual HAS TO go to a particular doctor and
get treated, or that you CANNOT go to the doctor of your choice, or
pay a private company for supplemental private health insurance
exactly as is currently permitted with Medicare. Anyone who says the
currently debated plans or ANY plan, wants to "take away individual
choice" is simply fabricating lies and fear-mongering for ideological
reasons, because they want Obama to fail, regardless of the merits of
the current plan or ANY future plan.
The rationale for universal health insurance is PUBLIC health. The
society as a whole benefits if all its members have access to the
means to be healthy, and we all suffer when there are some who do not
have such access. Even OP's phrase "mandated healthcare" shows
unconscious bias - it is not HEALTH CARE that is being mandated, it is
a new system of PAYING FOR health care that makes proper care
ACCESSIBLE to everyone AND also saves money by rationalizing the
economics of the industry. Of course, the wing nuts twist this
around and make it sound like the plan, whose actual intent is to
EXPAND health care coverage availability to everyone, is intended to
TAKE AWAY some of the largesse currently granted to the privileged
classes - thus, we get the stale and insane arguments about endless
waiting queues for receipt of care, or "death panels" to put Grandma
out on an ice floe to save money and "ration" care. It appalls me
that a program of deeply humanitarian goals, intended to expand the
availability of a public good, is made out by these crazed
commentators to sound like some ghastly Nazi experiment by a modern
Dr. Mengele.
Does Congress have the power to mandate regulations that affect the
public health, even if they impose some direct cost on taxpayers to do
so? Of course they do - or else the entire Dept. of Health and Human
Services (and all of its programs) is illegal, and the entire idea of
Medicare, Veterans' benefits, etc. is equally unconsitutional. You
know what Medicare is, right? It's CONGRESS FORCING YOU TO BUY
HEALTH INSURANCE by taxing you for it. I'm not going to get into the
detailed arguments of the sources of constitutionality for such
programs, or for the newly proposed programs, but ISTM it is a
desperation move by the wingnuts to claim unconstitutionality as a
basis for opposing these plans - their resort to that argument is on a
par with the "birthers'" claim that Obama is constitutionally
unqualified to be President because he allegedly was not born in the
USA. I am convinced these attacks arise from a deep-seated fear of
Obama, a fear which is genuine to those who feel it and which Obama
and his advisors must strive harder to understand and deal with, but
it is a fear which is groundless and has no basis in reality,
nonetheless. Keep that right-wing desperation and unfounded fear, and
the speakers' bias, in mind when reading their arguments.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Barry Gold
>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
>
>and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone have any expert
>opinion on this or any other links?
They may have a point. Ultimately, of course, the Constitution means
whatever the Supreme Court says it means. But the SC tends to be
guided by past decisions, and the current SC is unlikely to overrule
past decisions limiting the "commerce" power of Congress.
It's possible that such a law would be upheld under the preamble, "To
promote the general welfare," the same clause as was used to justify
the various "welfare" programs (AFDC, SSI, etc.).
But there's an old saying from the military -- There are two kinds of
paymasters: those who can find a reason why you can't do what you
want, and those who can find a reason why you _can_.
One possibility that occurs to me: Say that "universal" health
coverage costs $500/month/person. So Congress imposes a nationwide
head tax of $6000/year (with appropriate exemptions and/or downward
adjustents for those making under some threshold). Then Congress
offers a subsidy of $500/month to anybody who chooses to buy health
insurance.
The effect is the same as the "individual mandate", but I think this
would be found constitutional by the current court.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
Stan
> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-he...
>
> and it makes a lot of sense to me. �Does anyone have any expert
> opinion on this or any other links?
This may fall into the category of "A District Attorney could probably
get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to." The
reason is that zealots will present (and sometimes mis-present) only
those points that support what they want.
As a simple example of this persuasion tactic, the "anti's" have put
TV commercials together giving examples of problems in Canada and
England. Now how many people are there in Canada and the UK, and how
many problems are we hearing about? I sure the pro-health-care folks
could put the same kind of health-care failure commercials together by
simply using Americans as examples of those who didn't have timely or
adequate access to American health care.
Remember, Social Security was challenged all the way to the Supreme
Court (10th amendment violation, I think), and upheld by only a 5-4
decision.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-bu
> y-health-insurance/
>
> The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is
> unconstitutional and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone
> have any expert opinion on this or any other links?
The Constitution allows the US government to provide for the general
welfare. Health care certainly qualifies for that.
It also allows the governement to regulate commerce between the
states. There is no doubt that health care has an impact on
commerce.
Any claims otherwise are in the realm of tax protesters and those who
claim Obama wasn't born a US citizen.
Keith
wrote:
>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
>
>The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
>and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone have any expert
>opinion on this or any other links?
It is not a mandate, but a tax on wages if you don't buy the insurance.
It is no different then making someone paying a higher tax on higher
wages. Congress can raise everybody's taxes to 90% tomorrow and it would
be constitutional. Don't get lost in the mandate language, but just look
at the constitution that says Congress can tax you.
They could also just raise payroll taxes on everyone by 3% and if you
have health insurance you get the 3% of your tax back in a refund each
year, if you don't have health insurance the government keeps the tax
revenue.
IMHO ObamaCare is DOA anyway.
--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
Tired of Google Groups?
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/usenet.html
Robert Bonomi
sinebar <sineb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
>
>The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
>and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone have any expert
>opinion on this or any other links?
Congress has forced people to buy "retirement insurance" (i.e. "social security")
and 'unemployment insurance'.
The courts have -- repeatedly -- found those items to be Constitutional.
Why do you think health insurance would be treated any differently?
Gordon Burditt
>before issuing drivers licenses, car registrations, or both."
There is an *OR* in there.
>I don't know of any states that require auto insurance to get a
>drivers license. I know for a fact that New York and Minnesota don't.
Can you even *get* auto insurance if you have a driver's license
and no vehicle? What does it cover?
On the other hand, if you're registering a car, you do have something
for auto insurance to insure.
Cy Pres
<sineb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
>The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is unconstitutional
>and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone have any expert
>opinion on this or any other links?
It would certainly be near the outer limits of Commerce Clause
authority, but I note that the brief excerpt you cite omits two
government programs which are undoubtedly similar, and unless the
original mentions them, it is staggeringly dishonest. One is Social
Security, which is a government mandated retirement plan. It would
not have been seen as constitutional by a majority of the Supreme
Court prior to 1937. Another, a state-based program, is mandatory
auto insurance. Is mandatory auto insurance unconstitutional as well?
If one accepts the basic premise of the argument, Social Security,
Medicare, and many other programs approved of by a vast majority of
the population are also unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
One presumes that if these people are true to their principles, they
will begin agitating to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. After
all, principles are principles. It is a particular peculiarity of
this opposition that many of its most visible members are on
government healthcare of one form or another themselves, and none of
them have offered to abolish the programs which benefit *them*.
Cy Pres
<spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>sinebar <sineb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-bu
>> y-health-insurance/
>> The above link suggests that mandated healthcare is
>> unconstitutional and it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone
>> have any expert opinion on this or any other links?
>The Constitution allows the US government to provide for the general
>welfare. Health care certainly qualifies for that.
It is arguable that the "general welfare" language is indicative of
purpose and does not itself grant any powers, i.e. that Congress may
legislate in the interest of the general welfare by exercising the
rest of its enumerated powers.
>It also allows the governement to regulate commerce between the
>states. There is no doubt that health care has an impact on
>commerce.
This argument has been rejected in two other cases concerning indirect
impacts on commerce, specifically violence against women, United
States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (holding portions of the
Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional as exceeding Commerce
Clause authority); and in an earlier case, possession of guns near
schools, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (holding Gun-Free
School Zones Act unconstitutional as also exceeding Commerce Clause
authority).
>Any claims otherwise are in the realm of tax protesters and those who
>claim Obama wasn't born a US citizen.
Except, unlike the kook claims, before 1937, or at least between 1890
and 1937, were opinions held by a majority of the Supreme Court.
Indeed, it is held by four current Supreme Court Justices, with
Kennedy the wobbler.
These federalism arguments have waxed and waned throughout U.S.
history, and rarely has the Supreme Court been unanimous on them.
I come down on the opposite side in many cases, but the argument that
the Commerce Clause was meant to be nearly infinite is hardly
self-evident, and there are entirely principled arguments that it
should have its limits.
One particularly cogent argument on its behalf was propounded by
Clarence Thomas in his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
(upholding federal marijuana laws against state legalization of
medical marijuana as within Commerce Clause authority). Thomas would
have allowed California to carve out a medical marijuana exception. It
appears that Thomas is, for a change, on the right side of positive
change, even if arguably for the wrong reason.
That is, I strongly disagree with Thomas' rejection of the aggregation
principle set out in Wickard v. Filburn, which I believe is necessary
for effective regulation of the economy. 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
(upholding regulation of growing of grain for private use by farmers
because this in the aggregate overhangs the market and distorts it).
However, I think the principle is particularly inapplicable when
applied to state regulation on behalf of the state police power to
protect the health, welfare, and safety of citizens.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html (Thomas
dissent in Gonzales v. Raich).
What I find most compelling in Thomas' textualist argument is his
argument that if the Commerce Clause was meant to be a vast,
all-encompassing power that allows Congress to legislate in any area
at all simply because pretty much anything can be argued to have an
effect on interstate commerce, then why are there a score or more of
other enumerated powers? The Commerce Clause, as currently
interpreted, has effectively nearly swallowed up all the other Article
I powers. If one were to amend the U.S. Constitution to strike out
every word in Article I except the Commerce Clause, Congress would be
barely impaired in their activities.
I suspect that mandated healthcare might exceed Commerce Clause
authority. However, in the case that it does, it would still be
within the power of Congress to engage in coercive federalism, by
offering states vast funding to enact the programs, and withholding
them otherwise. It would be politically inexpedient for even the most
conservative of states to refuse federal funding for healthcare,
though no doubt a few outliers would attempt to do just that, and
thereby commit political suicide. Such coercion is entirely within
Congressional power. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
(Congress within its authority in conditioning federal grants of
highway money upon states adopting minimum drinking age of 21).
I would not view mandated healthcare, however, as beyond direct
Commerce Clause powers. I think it is within Commerce Clause powers,
though perhaps at the outer edge of them.
Nevertheless, the view that the Commerce Clause does not extend that
far is not the province of kooks and lunatics like the birthers.
Barry Gold
Article I of the Constitution) to mandate that individuals buy health
insurance.]
>On 14 Sep 2009 17:20:31 GMT, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
>>The Constitution allows the US government to provide for the general
>>welfare. Health care certainly qualifies for that.
Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is arguable that the "general welfare" language is indicative of
>purpose and does not itself grant any powers, i.e. that Congress may
>legislate in the interest of the general welfare by exercising the
>rest of its enumerated powers.
I believe that SCOTUS specifically cited the "general welfare"
language in allowing Congress to enact the income transfer
programs that we now call "welfare".
Rich Carreiro
> Can you even *get* auto insurance if you have a driver's license
> and no vehicle? What does it cover?
Person A borrows (with permission) B's car. A injures C and/or damages C's
property.
Presumably C will sue both A (as driver) and B (as car owner, claiming that
B should have known better than to let A drive). B's insurance company
will defend B, and if he loses, will indemnify B to the contract limits.
But without insurance, who will pay to defend A (other than A's pocket)
and who will indemnify A if he loses?
So I'd say there's plenty for A to want covered by insurance even
if he owns no vehicle.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com
Cy Pres
wrote:
>Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is arguable that the "general welfare" language is indicative of
>>purpose and does not itself grant any powers, i.e. that Congress may
>>legislate in the interest of the general welfare by exercising the
>>rest of its enumerated powers.
>I believe that SCOTUS specifically cited the "general welfare"
>language in allowing Congress to enact the income transfer
>programs that we now call "welfare".
Nevertheless, the source of power I have generally seen cited as
placing it within Congressional power is the Commerce Clause. I am
unfamiliar with anything directly citing the "general welfare"
language as an independent source of authority which, by itself,
grants Congress the power to do anything it could not do without that
language. It seems generally to be considered purposive rather than
enabling.
slide
>
> Person A borrows (with permission) B's car. A injures C and/or damages C's
> property.
>
> Presumably C will sue both A (as driver) and B (as car owner, claiming that
> B should have known better than to let A drive). B's insurance company
> will defend B, and if he loses, will indemnify B to the contract limits.
>
> But without insurance, who will pay to defend A (other than A's pocket)
> and who will indemnify A if he loses?
>
> So I'd say there's plenty for A to want covered by insurance even
> if he owns no vehicle.
>
I wonder if such a policy would be written by an auto insurer. I say
that because premiums are calculated on year, make, model of car as well
as where it is garaged. Since A wants some sort of floating policy which
may put him in a Bugatti which can do 250 mph or a Humvee or a Ford
Fiesta, how would the insurance company rate him?
I can see why A, if he regularly borrows cars, may wish such a policy
but I wonder if he could obtain one. Do you know that he can for a fact?
Gordon Burditt
>> and no vehicle? What does it cover?
>
>Person A borrows (with permission) B's car. A injures C and/or damages C's
>property.
>
>Presumably C will sue both A (as driver) and B (as car owner, claiming that
>B should have known better than to let A drive). B's insurance company
>will defend B, and if he loses, will indemnify B to the contract limits.
>
>But without insurance, who will pay to defend A (other than A's pocket)
>and who will indemnify A if he loses?
>
>So I'd say there's plenty for A to want covered by insurance even
>if he owns no vehicle.
But does anyone *SELL* auto insurance without requiring a VIN number
of the vehicle to be covered?
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Nevertheless, the source of power I have generally seen cited as
> placing it within Congressional power is the Commerce Clause. I
> am unfamiliar with anything directly citing the "general
> welfare" language as an independent source of authority which,
> by itself, grants Congress the power to do anything it could not
> do without that language. It seems generally to be considered
> purposive rather than enabling.
Take a look at Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976),
"It is for Congress to decide which expenditures will promote the
general welfare: '[T]he power of Congress to authorize expenditure of
public moneys for public purposes is not Page 91 limited by the
direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.' United
States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936). See Helvering v. Davis, 301
U.S. 619, 640-641 (1937)."
Cy Pres
<spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nevertheless, the source of power I have generally seen cited as
>> placing it within Congressional power is the Commerce Clause. I
>> am unfamiliar with anything directly citing the "general
>> welfare" language as an independent source of authority which,
>> by itself, grants Congress the power to do anything it could not
>> do without that language. It seems generally to be considered
>> purposive rather than enabling.
>Take a look at Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976),
A majority of the Court would overrule Buckley v. Valeo. The only
reason it hasn't been is that they can't agree which way to overrule
it. I don't think it's a particularly useful case to cite for a
controversial proposition when the case itself is so controversial
even on its central points.
>"It is for Congress to decide which expenditures will promote the
>general welfare:
Which doesn't mean they have the power to do so under the general
welfare clause ITSELF, which may merely provide GUIDANCE as to how
Congress is to exercise its legislative powers.
>'[T]he power of Congress to authorize expenditure of
>public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the
>direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.'
[Page number in text of quote snipped]
This is nothing I disagree with. However, it doesn't directly address
what I was discussing, which is whether the "general welfare" language
IS a "direct grant of legislative power." I don't think it
necessarily is.
>United
>States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936). See Helvering v. Davis, 301
>U.S. 619, 640-641 (1937)."
The same case also states: "Congress is expressly empowered to lay
taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a
result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art.
I, � 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they
were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the
power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is
that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general
welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else
they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were
intended to LIMIT AND DEFINE the granted power to raise and to expend
money." United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936). Rather than
EXPANDING the power of Congress under the interpretation of the Court
in Butler, the "general welfare" clause would, in fact, limit it.
In any case, the very fact that it is possible to have an argument on
the issue illustrates my point: that whether the "general welfare"
language does, in fact, grant additional power to Congress is
questionable. Indeed, the case you cite seems to indicate the
opposite, that it, in fact, may be limiting language.
Seth
slide <dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>I wonder if such a policy would be written by an auto insurer. I say
>that because premiums are calculated on year, make, model of car as well
>as where it is garaged. Since A wants some sort of floating policy which
>may put him in a Bugatti which can do 250 mph or a Humvee or a Ford
>Fiesta, how would the insurance company rate him?
Does an ordinary policy cover A when he borrows a Bugatti when it's
written for the Ford A owns?
Seth
slide
rated on his usual ride. If he were to rate on a Ford Fiesta but drive
the Bug 90% of the time 'borrowed' then that's plain fraud. Anyway, the
issue is how to rate the policy. Without a car to rate, I doubt there
can be a policy.
John F. Carr
My Massachusetts personal car insurance would cover me in any car
that I was using as a replacement for the car listed on my policy.
I could borrow a Bugatti from New Hampshire while my Fiesta was
in the shop and still be covered.
I wrote New Hampshire because cars registered there do not need
to be insured. If I borrowed a Massachusetts car it would
ordinarily have its own insurance policy.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Seth
slide <dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>> In article <h8u9h6$nc4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> slide <dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if such a policy would be written by an auto insurer. I say
>>> that because premiums are calculated on year, make, model of car as well
>>> as where it is garaged. Since A wants some sort of floating policy which
>>> may put him in a Bugatti which can do 250 mph or a Humvee or a Ford
>>> Fiesta, how would the insurance company rate him?
>>
>> Does an ordinary policy cover A when he borrows a Bugatti when it's
>> written for the Ford A owns?
>>
>Probably which isn't relevant to the discussion. The ordinary policy is
>rated on his usual ride.
Is it? I don't have a car, but the applications I've glanced at all
seem to ask what I own, not what I usually drive.
> If he were to rate on a Ford Fiesta but drive
>the Bug 90% of the time 'borrowed' then that's plain fraud.
Wouldn't it only be fraud if he _lied_ on the application? If the
company neglected to ask a relevant question, that's their problem.
(I'm reminded of the student who bought life insurance on his
goldfish. He filled out the application honestly; where it asked
"Occupation: ", he crossed it out and wrote "Species: goldfish". The
company issued the policy anyway. When the fish died, he filed to
collect; the company denied it and offered his money back. He sued,
and the judge said that if the company was stupid enough to offer a
life insurance policy on a goldfish, they had to pay it.)
> Anyway, the issue is how to rate the policy. Without a car to rate,
>I doubt there can be a policy.
But that wouldn't mean the policy owner would have to _own_ a car,
would it? (Suppose someone traveled a lot and rented cars, and
believed that a policy that covered rental cars was cheaper than the
claimed non-insurance sold by the rental companies?)
Seth
Mike
> In any case, the very fact that it is possible to have an argument on
> the issue illustrates my point: �that whether the "general welfare"
> language does, in fact, grant additional power to Congress is
> questionable. �Indeed, the case you cite seems to indicate the
> opposite, that it, in fact, may be limiting language.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't taxes imposed on privledges such
as owning property, or smoking or drinking or driving or working a
job. Non of these activities are considered rights. But leveling a tax
or imposing dept for being an adult sounds like taxing rights to life
and liberty and not taxing privledges. If there is no right to work
and have a job in america, then they shouldn't be imposing a need to
have these things to pay for dept. What about the Omish or other
religious communities that do not make dollars? What about those who
would take a vow of poverty? Is it now against the law not to make
money..... in order to buy insurance?
Mike Jacobs
> Can you even *get* auto insurance if you have a driver's license
> and no vehicle? What does it cover?
It's not very common, but it does exist. A car-less driver may want
to have his own policy of liability insurance even if he is only
driving other people's cars, perhaps because he wants high coverage
limits and is concerned that many of the cars he borrows and drives
may have policies with lower limits than he is comfortable with (or no
coverage at all).
> On the other hand, if you're registering a car, you do have something
> for auto insurance to insure.
You misunderstand. The "something to insure" which the car-less
driver has is his own net worth and future lifetime of earning
capability, against his potential liability for negligence. Auto
liability insurance (or an equivalent first-party no-fault coverage
for personal injuries, in states which have adopted some form of no-
fault law) is the only kind that's mandated by law. No state,
AFAIK, requires a car owner to carry collision or comprehensive
casualty coverage on the vehicle itself (although many lenders _do_
require such coverage as a condition of making a loan, to protect
their collateral). The purpose of mandatory insurance is to PROTECT
THE PUBLIC from the individual drivers' bad decisions (both as to the
operation of their car, and as to financial responsibility) that might
cause injury to innocent third parties who had nothing to do with (and
no opportunity to participate in) the decision to buy insurance or not
- that's why the government steps in and makes that decision for car
owners.
slide
> In article <h98nlj$7b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> seem to ask what I own, not what I usually drive.
>
>> If he were to rate on a Ford Fiesta but drive
>> the Bug 90% of the time 'borrowed' then that's plain fraud.
>
> Wouldn't it only be fraud if he _lied_ on the application? If the
> company neglected to ask a relevant question, that's their problem.
Well, yeah. I don't know why you have such a bug about this, but you are
proposing silly situations which can't be and then arguing them. Here
you need to state what car you are insuring or the company won't write
the policy. If you say it's a Fiesta and it's a Ferrari, yes, you are
lying.
Or are you proposing a guy has a Ferrari which he thinks is a Fiesta and
it also happens to come up as a Fiesta when he gives the insurance
company the VIN? Thus it's all a jolly good willed mistake.
Let me repeat. To get auto insurance, you must state the make, model of
the car, give the VIN and state where it's to be garaged - at least.
Check with your own agent to confirm or deny.
>
> (I'm reminded of the student who bought life insurance on his
> goldfish. He filled out the application honestly; where it asked
> "Occupation: ", he crossed it out and wrote "Species: goldfish". The
> company issued the policy anyway. When the fish died, he filed to
> collect; the company denied it and offered his money back. He sued,
> and the judge said that if the company was stupid enough to offer a
> life insurance policy on a goldfish, they had to pay it.)
Can you please offer a cite to this story which smacks of an urban legend?
>
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't taxes imposed on privledges
> such as owning property, or smoking or drinking or driving or
> working a job.
The discussion was concerning what kinds of legislation Congress can
pass and what kinds of legislation are reserved for the states. Your
comment/question has nothing to do with that issue.
Barry Gold
>Wouldn't it only be fraud if he _lied_ on the application? If the
>company neglected to ask a relevant question, that's their problem.
>
>(I'm reminded of the student who bought life insurance on his
>goldfish. He filled out the application honestly; where it asked
>"Occupation: ", he crossed it out and wrote "Species: goldfish". The
>company issued the policy anyway. When the fish died, he filed to
>collect; the company denied it and offered his money back. He sued,
>and the judge said that if the company was stupid enough to offer a
>life insurance policy on a goldfish, they had to pay it.)
There's still the minor issue of Insurable Interest. If he bought,
say, a $1,000,000 policy on a standard-issue goldfish, I would think
the insurer would win on that ground. Maybe the insurer failed to
raise that question.
>slide <dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, the issue is how to rate the policy. Without a car to rate,
>>I doubt there can be a policy.
>
>But that wouldn't mean the policy owner would have to _own_ a car,
>would it? (Suppose someone traveled a lot and rented cars, and
>believed that a policy that covered rental cars was cheaper than the
>claimed non-insurance sold by the rental companies?)
I agree. A policy covers you against a risk. Liability covers you
against the risk of damaging someone else's person or property and
being sued over it, and this risk exists for anybody who drives,
regardless of whether you own a car or not.
Now, _collision_ coverage would, I think, depend on you owning (or
leasing) a car. But _liability_ coverage should be buyable for a
driver, separate from issue of ownership. If it is not, the it's a
matter of (stupid) insurance company policy rather than one of law.
Barry Gold
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't taxes imposed on privledges such
>as owning property, or smoking or drinking or driving or working a
>job.
No. Owning property is a _right_. Nonetheless, taxes are imposed on
property that you own. Driving a car has been held to be a privilege,
as have smoking, an drinking. I suspect "earning a living" is also a
"right", in the sense that Congress may not take away your right to
seek a job. Still, taxes are imposed on the money you earn, and
Congress can, through its power to "regulate commerce among the
several states", tell you that you cannot (legally) earn a living
selling cosmetics with lead in them.
Basically, the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes.
If there were any doubt about how such taxes are to be levied, the
16th amendment specifically grants Congress the power to levy taxes
directly on individuals (instead of through the states).
>None of these activities are considered rights. But leveling a tax
>or imposing dept for being an adult sounds like taxing rights to life
>and liberty and not taxing privledges. If there is no right to work
>and have a job in america, then they shouldn't be imposing a need to
>have these things to pay for dept. What about the Omish or other
>religious communities that do not make dollars? What about those who
>would take a vow of poverty? Is it now against the law not to make
>money..... in order to buy insurance?
well, if it actually took that form, there's a good possibility that
the court would overturn it, for the same reason that courts have
taken a dim view on laws against being homeless. (A state or city can
still restrict the activities of the homeless, like everybody else.
For example, they can ban urinating or defecating in a public place --
both on the grounds of "indecent exposure" and for public health
reasons. And they can ban "aggressive panhandling" (getting in
people's faces or otherwise acting threatening, or blocking traffic),
but not simple begging which is protected by the 1st amendment right to
free speech.
But please note that the law as it is currently being drawn up
_specifically_ includes a subsidy for low-income individuals. In the
most extreme cases, people living on virtually nothing, this subsidy
would be 100% of the cost of the insurance.
Cy Pres
wrote:
>On Sep 19, 2:55�am, Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In any case, the very fact that it is possible to have an argument on
>> the issue illustrates my point: �that whether the "general welfare"
>> language does, in fact, grant additional power to Congress is
>> questionable. �Indeed, the case you cite seems to indicate the
>> opposite, that it, in fact, may be limiting language.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't taxes imposed on privledges such
>as owning property, or smoking or drinking or driving or working a
>job. Non of these activities are considered rights.
Much of the Constitution and the legal structure it was enacted to
preserve directly involves the protection of property interests. At
least under the U.S. Constitution's framework, the right to own
property is protected. The whole principle of due process is that a
citizen may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process.
>But leveling a tax
>or imposing dept for being an adult sounds like taxing rights to life
>and liberty and not taxing privledges.
I believe that to pass constitutional muster, any such scheme must
exempt those unable to pay. The question also arises as to how or
whether those who choose to opt out must be accommodated.
>If there is no right to work
>and have a job in america, then they shouldn't be imposing a need to
>have these things to pay for dept. What about the Omish or other
>religious communities that do not make dollars?
Having known a number of Amish, I can assure you they make dollars,
and in fact, often have a high net worth. When Amish purchase
property from each other for fair market value, they often purchase it
outright with cash.
>What about those who
>would take a vow of poverty? Is it now against the law not to make
>money..... in order to buy insurance?
If the law is of neutral applicability to all citizens (and is also
not unconstitutional for other reasons), then religious faith is no
excuse for not complying with the law. It is likely religious beliefs
would be somehow accommodated, however, because it would be
politically infeasible not to do so.
The next question, if there are opt-outs, is whether we continue to
treat such holdouts in emergency rooms for free, or let them die on
the streets if their decision is based upon their own obstinacy rather
than financial need. A problem with opting out is that there will be
plenty of people who refuse to pay into such a scheme when they're
healthy, denouncing it as socialism or whatever excuse they have, then
suddenly change their tune the moment they get sick.
Seth
slide <dryads...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>Seth wrote:
>> In article <h98nlj$7b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>> seem to ask what I own, not what I usually drive.
>>
>>> If he were to rate on a Ford Fiesta but drive
>>> the Bug 90% of the time 'borrowed' then that's plain fraud.
>>
>> Wouldn't it only be fraud if he _lied_ on the application? If the
>> company neglected to ask a relevant question, that's their problem.
>
>Well, yeah. I don't know why you have such a bug about this, but you are
>proposing silly situations which can't be and then arguing them. Here
>you need to state what car you are insuring or the company won't write
>the policy.
Doesn't the application ask for a list of the cars you _own_? If you
borrow your brother's Ferrari for 90% of your driving, does the
application ask about that?
>Let me repeat. To get auto insurance, you must state the make, model of
>the car,
^^^^^^^
_Which_ car? If they ask about what I _own_, that's one thing. If
they ask what I might _drive_, that's another.
Seth
Robert Bonomi
A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 23, 12:23�am, Mike <mj...@sirus.com> wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't taxes imposed on privledges such
>> as owning property, or smoking or drinking or driving or working a
>> job. Non of these activities are considered rights. But leveling a tax
>> or imposing dept for being an adult sounds like taxing rights to life
>> and liberty and not taxing privledges.
>
>adult"? What is the source of your information? This sounds like a
>figment of some tax protestor's imagination to me.
The subject under discussion is _mandatory_ health-care/medical coverage. If
the government requires every adult to buy such coverage in some form _from_
_the_government_, it -is- arguably a 'tax' or 'imposition of a debt' that is
incurred 'simply by being' an adult. It is somewhat less clear, if the situ-
ation is that the government requires you to buy such coverage from 'somebody',
with a choice of _private_ sources.
slide
> Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> But that wouldn't mean the policy owner would have to _own_ a car,
>> would it? (Suppose someone traveled a lot and rented cars, and
>> believed that a policy that covered rental cars was cheaper than the
>> claimed non-insurance sold by the rental companies?)
>
> I agree. A policy covers you against a risk. Liability covers you
> against the risk of damaging someone else's person or property and
> being sued over it, and this risk exists for anybody who drives,
> regardless of whether you own a car or not.
>
> Now, _collision_ coverage would, I think, depend on you owning (or
> leasing) a car. But _liability_ coverage should be buyable for a
> driver, separate from issue of ownership. If it is not, the it's a
> matter of (stupid) insurance company policy rather than one of law.
There is no reasonable discussion about collision or comprehensive as
you are surely in the right here. I think there is also a huge
difference in liability and PD rates as well. There are major
differences in rates for all classes of insurance due to the type of
car. Surely a high performance anything will cost more than an economy
car like a Fiesta.
Anyway, per my reply earlier, I think this is a discussion of an
impossible situation. The insurer will at least demand make, model and
VIN of the car as well as where it is garaged. I doubt any insurance
company can, by law, write a floater to cover anything the customer can
get his hands on.
Mike
> In article <189b5ee9-13fa-4557-a13f-9ec093e6b...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
When taxes were first imposed on income, it was probably considered a
privledge to make money. Back then you always had the option to live
on the farm and live off the land without the need to make money. And
of course driving a car or smoking or drinking is considered a
prevledge, not a right. I'm not sure about land ownership though. Why
again did they stop taxing food?
My point is that I wonder if today they even consider whether they're
taxing rights or privledges; is that distinction even mentioned? For
it seems obvious that you should not have to pay for something that is
inherently and constitutionally your right. If they do make that
distinction, then obviously they should not mandate a dept on people
simply because they've become an adult. That's equivalent to taxing
your right to live.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> The subject under discussion is _mandatory_ health-care/medical
> coverage. If the government requires every adult to buy such
> coverage in some form _from_ _the_government_, it -is- arguably
> a 'tax' or 'imposition of a debt' that is incurred 'simply by
> being' an adult. It is somewhat less clear, if the situ- ation
> is that the government requires you to buy such coverage from
> 'somebody', with a choice of _private_ sources.
First of all, there is no proposal presently on the table that would
do that. If there were a single payer system it might be better just
to raise everyone's income tax. But that hasn't been proposed.
Next, not everything you pay the government is a tax. Here in San
Francisco the water company is part of county government. When I pay
my water bill it's a fee, not a tax, because it is in exchange for
something I receive.
Mike
> In article <189b5ee9-13fa-4557-a13f-9ec093e6b...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Also, isn't there an explicit law in the US Constitution against
imposing prison (or other penalties) for being in debt - no debtor's
prisons? Then wouldn't that then make it unconstitutional to mandate a
debt and impose penalties if not paid?
Barry Gold
>There is no reasonable discussion about collision or comprehensive as
>you are surely in the right here. I think there is also a huge
>difference in liability and PD rates as well. There are major
>differences in rates for all classes of insurance due to the type of
>car. Surely a high performance anything will cost more than an economy
>car like a Fiesta.
Of course. THe insurance company will want to know what kind of car
you are going to drive, as well as how much and, in some cases, where
you will drive it. Driving in a crowded city gives a much higher
chance of an accident than the same yearly mileage on straight-as-an-
arrow highways in rural Kansas. Also, driving in an expensive area
like Los Angeles is likely to give rise to higher repair and medical
bills in the event of an accident, than driving in a relatively cheap
city like Dallas.
>Anyway, per my reply earlier, I think this is a discussion of an
>impossible situation. The insurer will at least demand make, model and
>VIN of the car as well as where it is garaged. I doubt any insurance
>company can, by law, write a floater to cover anything the customer can
>get his hands on.
I don't see why not. All that is _legally_ required is an "insurable
interest" -- that you have a risk of loss that the insurance protects
against, so that your "insurance policy" is not a simple gambling bet
_disguised_ as "insurance".
Now, an insurance company will probably charge more for a "floater"
policy where they don't know what you are planning to drive, than for
a one where they know you are going to be tooling around town in a VW
Beetle. Also, it is possible that an agent for such a company may
_tell_ you it is "illegal" to issue such a policy because he doesn't
want to do the work of asking the company to "rate" such a policy.
This is somewhat akin to stores telling you, "They don't make that any
more," when what they really mean is, "We don't carry that any more."
I've run into this many times.
Barry Gold
>>Who is proposing to "level a tax or impose a debt for being an
>>adult"? What is the source of your information? This sounds like a
>>figment of some tax protestor's imagination to me.
Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>The subject under discussion is _mandatory_ health-care/medical coverage. If
>the government requires every adult to buy such coverage in some form _from_
>_the_government_, it -is- arguably a 'tax' or 'imposition of a debt' that is
>incurred 'simply by being' an adult. It is somewhat less clear, if the situ-
>ation is that the government requires you to buy such coverage from 'somebody',
>with a choice of _private_ sources.
But AFAIK the government _can_ tax you merely for existing. I don't
think any state or locality does so, but I'm not aware of anything in
the constitution that would _prevent_ a "head tax". Of course, there
are tricky things in the way such a tax would be enforced:
1. They can't put you in jail for not paying the tax, because that
would be jailing you for existing and/or being poor, and the
courts have ruled that is not allowed. "Vagrancy" and similar
laws have been unconstitutional since the 1960s.
2. They can't keep you from voting because you didn't pay the tax.
That would violate the 24th amendment.
3. But they _can_ AFIAK list it as a debt you owe, let it mount
up, and eventually collect it if and when you acquire any
property that can be levied on, or a job where they can garnishee
your wages.
In any case, the actual law now being proposed establishes a mandate
to buy health insurance "for most individuals with an income above
poverty level", and applies a sliding scale on those who do not.
That is, if you have no or almost no income, you won't have to buy
insurance (or perhaps the gov't will buy insurance for you). Also
there will be a tax credit to help low-income families buy health
insurance.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qxqnxo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act_of_2009
Barry Gold
>When taxes were first imposed on income, it was probably considered a
>privledge to make money. Back then you always had the option to live
>on the farm and live off the land without the need to make money. And
>of course driving a car or smoking or drinking is considered a
>prevledge, not a right. I'm not sure about land ownership though. Why
>again did they stop taxing food?
Land ownership is a right, as others have pointed out. "No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law".
California does not place a sales tax on food -- except for
a) food sold for consumption on the premises where it is bought
b) food sold hotter than room temperature(*)
c) food "ordinarily sold for consumption on or near the seller's
parking facility"
c) food sold where there is an admission charge (i.e., inside a
theater or in a place like Disneyland).
(*) But oddly enough coffee and certain other drinks are not taxed,
even when served hot, e.g., a latte.
But AFAIK there is no constitutional ban on taxing food, and I suspect
at least _some_ states tax food sales.
>My point is that I wonder if today they even consider whether they're
>taxing rights or privledges; is that distinction even mentioned? For
>it seems obvious that you should not have to pay for something that is
>inherently and constitutionally your right. If they do make that
>distinction, then obviously they should not mandate a dept on people
>simply because they've become an adult. That's equivalent to taxing
>your right to live.
It may be, but the Constitution does not ban taxing you because you
exist. In fact, the US at one time _did_ impose a head tax
(capitation). It was abandoned because it was felt that taxing
economic activity (sales and/or income) was both "fairer" and also
produced more revenue for both the states and Federal government.
IOW, you are arguing from a false premise. Even if the health care
bill _did_ explicitly tax you for "being an adult", that would not
make it unconstitutional. Certain methods of enforcing that tax would
be unconstitutional (e.g., imprisonment for not paying it), but the
tax itself is not.
Barry Gold
>Also, isn't there an explicit law in the US Constitution against
>imposing prison (or other penalties) for being in debt - no debtor's
>prisons? Then wouldn't that then make it unconstitutional to mandate a
>debt and impose penalties if not paid?
I do not see anything in the constitution forbidding debtor's prison,
per se. Debtor's prison was abandoned for a number of reasons:
. It was felt to be unfair (never underestimate the power of public
opinion in a democracy)
. It's counter-productive -- somebody in prison is not earning money
to pay his debts with, and it costs money to keep them in
prison.
But yes, I agree that an argument can be made that you should not be
imprisoned merely for failure to pay a tax imposed on you for existing.
Still, there are other ways of collecting taxes. And they can impose
monetary penalties and interest for failure to pay.
That's how income tax is collected. If you don't pay your taxes, you
don't go to prison. Instead, the government adds interest and
"penalties" (computed much like interest) and eventually takes it out
of your bank account or seizes your land, car, art collection, or
other property to pay it.
slide
>
>> Anyway, per my reply earlier, I think this is a discussion of an
>> impossible situation. The insurer will at least demand make, model and
>> VIN of the car as well as where it is garaged. I doubt any insurance
>> company can, by law, write a floater to cover anything the customer can
>> get his hands on.
>
> I don't see why not. All that is _legally_ required is an "insurable
> interest" -- that you have a risk of loss that the insurance protects
> against, so that your "insurance policy" is not a simple gambling bet
> _disguised_ as "insurance".
>
> Now, an insurance company will probably charge more for a "floater"
> policy where they don't know what you are planning to drive, than for
> a one where they know you are going to be tooling around town in a VW
> Beetle. Also, it is possible that an agent for such a company may
> _tell_ you it is "illegal" to issue such a policy because he doesn't
> want to do the work of asking the company to "rate" such a policy.
>
> This is somewhat akin to stores telling you, "They don't make that any
> more," when what they really mean is, "We don't carry that any more."
> I've run into this many times.
There are two aspects - legality and insurance company's choice to
insure or not. I agree that it'd be perfectly legal for a company to
write such a floater policy. I'm skeptical that one would. I say that
based on anecdote exclusively. I've never seen such a policy advertised.
I've always been asked what the VIN was of the vehicle in question (as
opposed to "Do you wish a floater?") and where it is to be garaged.
I read further down in this thread that Mike Jacobs (if I read him
right) said such policies do exist. I'm willing to concede then that
they do as I've found Mike to be quite reliable.
Seth
Mike <mj...@sirus.com> wrote:
>When taxes were first imposed on income, it was probably considered a
>privledge to make money. Back then you always had the option to live
>on the farm and live off the land without the need to make money. And
>of course driving a car or smoking or drinking is considered a
>prevledge, not a right. I'm not sure about land ownership though. Why
>again did they stop taxing food?
Which "they"? Some states do. Others sometimes do, depending on the
food, where it is purchased, etc. (Yes, "where" sometimes matters;
e.g. in New York City, 1/2 lb of dried pineapple purchased at a
grocery store is not subject to sales tax; the same item, purchased at
an airport stall, is.)
>My point is that I wonder if today they even consider whether they're
>taxing rights or privledges; is that distinction even mentioned?
Sometimes, depending on the specific entity (to the extent that it's
clearly a choice made by the government). For instance, in NYC,
street-corner sellers need (paid-for) permits, except those selling
books.
> For it seems obvious that you should not have to pay for something
>that is inherently and constitutionally your right.
Yet there is still sales tax on books, and any number of taxes on
telephone service (including one to pay for the Vietnam War, since
governments don't like letting revenue streams end).
> If they do make that distinction, then obviously they should not
>mandate a dept on people simply because they've become an
>adult. That's equivalent to taxing your right to live.
When has "should" affected the decisions of a government?
Seth
Seth
Mike <mj...@sirus.com> wrote:
>Also, isn't there an explicit law in the US Constitution against
>imposing prison (or other penalties) for being in debt - no debtor's
>prisons?
Prison, yes. Other penalties, no. You can be denied a drivers
license for debts, for instance. (You can also be denied various
types of professional licensing as a result of debts.)
> Then wouldn't that then make it unconstitutional to mandate a
>debt and impose penalties if not paid?
Only if those penalties involve jail.
Seth
Mike Jacobs
> I agree that an argument can be made that you should not be
> imprisoned merely for failure to pay a tax imposed on you for existing.
> monetary penalties and interest for failure to pay.
And, of course, although most kinds of taxation (sales, income,
employer's withholding of FICA and medicare tax as well as advance
income tax payments from their employees, excise, customs duties) is
assessed and reported by private citizens or companies on the "honor
system" (since we don't have enough bureaucrats to directly monitor
_everybody_ all the time), the government can audit any taxpayer at
random _or_ on suspicion of something fishy, which may or may not
result in a different assessment of taxes than the taxpayer or private
entity charged with collecting the tax had self-reported.
> That's how income tax is collected. 锟絀f you don't pay your taxes, you
> don't go to prison. 锟絀nstead, the government adds interest and
> "penalties" (computed much like interest) and eventually takes it out
> of your bank account or seizes your land, car, art collection, or
> other property to pay it.
I hope nobody gets the wrong idea from what Barry wrote above.
Although technically and narrowly correct, it is of course also true
that one can, and many people do, go to prison for (a) not REPORTING
your income (or other basis of taxation, if you are e.g. an employer
who is supposed to pay into the FICA and Medicare systems, or a
merchant who is supposed to be collecting sales taxes) when you have a
legal duty to so report, or (b) intentionally LYING on the tax returns
you _do_ file (about the amount of income, or about the deductions you
claim, or whatever). This reporting duty, subject to criminal
penalties, is quite distinct from the PAYMENT duty that only comes
into play after the government _knows_ how much tax is owed. Which,
as noted above, the government mostly gets from the self-reports of
taxpayers, subject of course to the government's right to audit any
return or to audit someone who has _not_ filed any returns.
So, if you are flat broke and just can't pay your taxes, _but_ you
have honestly reported all your income and don't claim any improper
deductions, Barry is right, all that will happen is that your debt to
the IRS (or other taxing authority) will mount up and up, with
interest and penalties, and of course the tax authority may also go to
court to get that debt converted to a judgment so they can put a lien
on your home or other assets, and may (if they choose) sieze or
foreclose on those assets and/or garnish your wages or other source of
income, perhaps for the rest of your life, to collect the debt. And,
the law generally gives tax liens priority over all other liens. But
that is, after all, just another way of collecting money from someone
who hasn't paid a debt; in the USA the authorities don't send you to
prison anymore just because you can't pay a debt.
Mike Jacobs
[discussing non-owned-vehicle auto liability insurance]
> There are two aspects - legality and insurance company's choice to
> insure or not. I agree that it'd be perfectly legal for a company to
> write such a floater policy.
Agreed.
> I'm skeptical that one would.
Okay, to put this speculation to rest, I just Googled "non-owned auto
insurance" (without the quotes) and came up with 935,000 hits. Near
the top of the list (not counting the paid ads) were sites from
Progressive, ISP Insurance, CNA Insurance, and various independent
insurance brokers, as well as a video on the subject from Farmers
Insurance. Check them out. Yes, the concept of a free-standing,
non-owned-auto liability insurance policy does exist and many such
policies are commercially available, no question about it.
And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, non-owned-vehicle auto
liability insurance coverage is part and parcel of EVERY auto
insurance policy written in USA, as an ADDITIONAL coverage bundled
into whatever liability coverage the policyholder buys to cover the car
(s) he owns. There is no legal reason why insurers are prevented
from breaking out that form of non-owned-vehicle coverage from the
"bundle" of related coverages that are usually provided to a vehicle
owner, and offering it to a non-owner driver. As we saw above, many
insurers actually do offer such separate policies.
> I say that based on anecdote exclusively.
I'm guessing what you mean by that is, _absence_ of anecdote.
Correct me if my guess is wrong, but I'm guessing you (and most
people) have never heard any discussion of non-owner auto liability
insurance ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. The subject simply has never come
up, in your experience. Actually, it had never come up in my
experience either, until I Googled it just a few minutes ago. But, I
did know such policies exist in the aviation arena, and saw no reason
why auto insurers would not also offer them.
> I've never seen such a policy advertised.
I'm guessing most of the people who would be interested in a non-owned-
auto policy would be, frex, zillionaires who live in a penthouse in
Manhattan and who rent a car (a different one each time, natch) when
they want to drive out to the country someplace (i.e. to anywhere
besides NYC). These are people who know that Hertz, Avis et al. only
provide them with minimum liability limits ($20k or so - legal
minimums differ by state, but that's about the average) and that the
wealthy renter therefore has a lot more at stake if he gets in an at-
fault accident and gets sued by someone catastrophically injured by
his negligence. Thus, the need for non-owner liability insurance,
which may or may not be wrapped into an "umbrella" excess liability
policy to protect the policyholder and his family from _any_ kind of
liability suit?
If that is the insurer's target market for this type of coverage, why
would an insurer waste money on advertising something that very few
people buy, and that those who want it and know it exists are mostly
rich and sophisticated enough that they don't need to be told, or
actively "sold" on the concept? This is a customer-driven option,
not a salesman-driven one. Also, I imagine most of those type of
customers would hold various "commercial-lines" policies covering
their business, their professional liability, or other such coverages
that would not be actively marketed to ordinary, middle-class
consumers through a "personal lines" agent or broker, and that a
commercial-lines broker would be more likely to suggest such umbrella
coverage or non-owner auto liability coverage to a wealthy customer
who fit the profile of people who would have need of such coverage.
(Most insurers have 2 distinct divisions for internal purposes even
though there is no legal requirement AFAIK to separate them out - they
have "commercial lines" divisions that offer various types of
coverages needed by businesses and other sophisticated or unusual
risks, as well as "personal lines" divisions that market more garden-
variety coverages for auto, home, and life insurance to ordinary
middle-class consumers.)
Most personal-lines insurers would much rather sell you a "full
coverage" policy for an owned vehicle because they make more profit
with selling more coverages, and even if the customer wants "liability
only" the insurer would still rather rate it to a particular owned or
made-available-for-customer's-regular-use car, which lets them bring
in MORE premium money than they would get for a non-owned-vehicle,
occasional-use policy. Yet, the non-owned policy is a MUCH BETTER
DEAL for the consumer who does not actually own or have regular access
to a car AND who actually has a need for additional protection. This
is assuming the prospective policyholder actually has substantial
assets he wants to protect from liability claims and defense costs,
and is not one of the low-end (poor) type of non-owner drivers who,
typically, are willing to rely (if they even gives it a moment's
thought) on whatever (minimum or none, possibly) liability coverage
just happens to be carried by the owners of the cars they are driving
at the moment. So, is it any wonder most personal-lines insurers
don't actively advertise such policies?
> I've always been asked what the VIN was of the vehicle in question (as
> opposed to "Do you wish a floater?") and where it is to be garaged.
That's because they are, in a sense, "super-sizing" you. If you go
into a Mickey D and order a Big Mac (TM), the sales clerks are _not_
going to say, "Are you sure you wouldn't rather have one of our 59
cent mini-hamburgers instead?" No, they will happily sell you the
bigger burger, no questions asked, and in addition, will say, "Do you
want fries with that?"
Now, Barry Gold and other posters on this thread are right about
another issue - even if you (the prospective policyholder) are not the
legally registered and titled owner of the car you drive, BUT that car
is one made regularly available for your use throughout the policy
period, you will be rated on it just as if you owned it (although, any
additional coverages for property damage to the car itself will be
payable to the actual "loss payee," i.e. the owner or lienholder of
the car, as their interests may appear). This is of course nothing
different than what happens when you insure a LEASED auto which,
legally, is still OWNED by the leasing company although it is made
regularly available for your exclusive use for an extended period of
time. The only difference between that, and "renter's insurance" is
the duration of the bailment (typically a year or more, as opposed to
a few days or weeks).
> I read further down in this thread that Mike Jacobs (if I read him
> right) said such policies do exist.
I said, back then, that I _suspect_ such policies exist, and that I
was unaware of any legal reason why they could not exist, and that
surely some insurer would fill that niche market if there was in fact
any demand for it, but I did not go so far then as to state, as a
known fact, that such policies DO exist, except in the context of
insurance for airplane pilots who did not own an airplane, where I
_did_ know from personal experience that such policies exist, being as
how I have been a renter-pilot myself, and had such a non-owner
liability policy written for me for many years. However, now that we
have Googled the subject and found many insurers willing to write such
non-owner auto liability policies, let's hope there is no further
doubt that such a thing is both possible and commercially available.
> I'm willing to concede then that
> they do as I've found Mike to be quite reliable.
Thank you, Slide. I try.
Seth
>Mike <mj...@sirus.com> wrote:
>>When taxes were first imposed on income, it was probably considered a
>>privledge to make money. Back then you always had the option to live
>>on the farm and live off the land without the need to make money. And
>>of course driving a car or smoking or drinking is considered a
>>prevledge, not a right. I'm not sure about land ownership though. Why
>>again did they stop taxing food?
>
>Land ownership is a right, as others have pointed out.
Really? So where's the land I own (since it's my right and I wish to
exercise it)?
> "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
>due process of law".
So? What does that have to do with anything? It would seem to imply
that ownership of _anything_ (that's property) is likewise protected.
However, it even says that the government can prevent (lawful)
ownership of something by passing a law against it.
>California does not place a sales tax on food -- except for
. . .
>But AFAIK there is no constitutional ban on taxing food, and I suspect
>at least _some_ states tax food sales.
Since some food is taxed, there clearly is no ban on taxing food.
Seth
Barry Gold
>Really? So where's the land I own (since it's my right and I wish to
>exercise it)?
I'm inclined to assume that question was largely facetious. Like many
other "rights", it's a negative right. THat is, you do not have "a
right to own paroperty," but rather you have a right not to be
_deprived_ of the property you _do_ own (except by due process of
law).
>> "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
>>due process of law".
>
>So? What does that have to do with anything? It would seem to imply
>that ownership of _anything_ (that's property) is likewise protected.
>
>However, it even says that the government can prevent (lawful)
>ownership of something by passing a law against it.
Yes, within some limits. Frex, the gov't cannot say, "Blacks cannot
own land in this area" because the 14th amendment says people are
entitled to "equal protection of the law" regardless of "race, creed,
color, or place of national origin".
Similarly with the right to life. You do not have a _positive_ right
to life (that is, other people must provide you with food, and other
necessities of life). Rather, you have a _negative_ right: not to be
deprived of your life (other than by due process of law, that is,
conviction of a capital crime which _was_ a capital crime at the time
you committed it).
Stuart A. Bronstein
>
>> Also, isn't there an explicit law in the US Constitution
>> against imposing prison (or other penalties) for being in debt
>> - no debtor's prisons? Then wouldn't that then make it
>> unconstitutional to mandate a debt and impose penalties if not
>> paid?
>
> to do something that you are unable to do. But that hasn't
> happened and isn't proposed.
As I recall it has been held unconstitutional to criminalize a
status. For example they can't throw you in jail simply for being a
drug addict. Unless you actuall use illegal drugs you're in the
clear.
I'd think that debtor's prison would be a similar kind of thing - if
someone for reasons beyond his control simply can't afford to pay a
debt, that's due to his status and not his actions, and can't be
criminalized.
Seth
A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Arguably, it would be unconstitutional to punish you for failing to do
>something that you are unable to do.
How many people do you know who are capable of calculating their
Income Tax correctly? Yet despite that inability, they're required to
do so.
Seth
Cy Pres
wrote:
>Similarly with the right to life. You do not have a _positive_ right
>to life (that is, other people must provide you with food, and other
>necessities of life). Rather, you have a _negative_ right: not to be
>deprived of your life (other than by due process of law, that is,
>conviction of a capital crime which _was_ a capital crime at the time
>you committed it).
You may not have the constitutional or statutory right to food and
necessities such as medical care from any particular person, nor may
you seize this by force if you lack it (at least under the law though
under some moral systems and frameworks for revolution such is
assumed). However, to the extent one lacks the basic necessities of
life in, for example, Americans society, there are a variety of
entitlement programs created by statute. If one is denied access to
such programs for arbitrary reasons (other than not qualifying for
statutory or regulatory bases which are not without rational basis),
one can demand access to these entitlements through litigation.
So, while one may disagree on the fundamental basis of whether such
rights are inherent human rights, at least in the United States, which
is generally loath to recognize such rights as fundamental, one at the
very least has enforceable *statutory* rights to such basic
necessities of life as food (food stamps/AFDC/WIC) and medical care
(Medicaid and state or local programs serving the same purpose).
Barry Gold
[Concerning the "right to life" as a positive right (to be provided
with life's necessities) vs. a negative right (not to be deprived
of life), and citing "entitlement" programs like Social Security
AFDC, or other programs that provide support to those lacking the
means to earn their own living.]
>If one is denied access to
>such programs for arbitrary reasons (other than not qualifying for
>statutory or regulatory bases which are not without rational basis),
>one can demand access to these entitlements through litigation.
I would argue that this has nothing to do with a "right to life".
Rather, your right to obtain these benefits comes from the 14th
amendment: equal protection. If the government enacted a program
that "entitled" every citizen to one trip to Disneyland during their
lifetime, and you were arbitrarily denied this benefit, you could sue
for it.
These programs do not arise from a (legal) right to life. Rather,
they are a (we hope) considered matter of social policy: that we as a
nation have decided it is better to pay additional taxes (and/or do
without other gov't services) than to have people starving in the
streets as during Dickens's time.
>So, while one may disagree on the fundamental basis of whether such
>rights are inherent human rights, at least in the United States, which
>is generally loath to recognize such rights as fundamental, one at the
>very least has enforceable *statutory* rights to such basic
>necessities of life as food (food stamps/AFDC/WIC) and medical care
>(Medicaid and state or local programs serving the same purpose).
One also has enforceable statutory rights to the home mortgage
deduction (if you qualify), to assistance with your education if you
have been honorably discharged from the military, after serving in a
war that is covered by the applicable statute, etc.
In general, when the government offers a benefit, that benefit must be
provided to all those who qualify, by whatever criteria the
legislature specified for that benefit.
This has nothing to do with a "right to life," and everything to do
with "equal protection". IMHO, Congress can completely repeal all
"entitlement" benefits (including Social Security and AFDC) and the
courts would not strike down such a repeal. Quite the contrary:
somebody who sued to require the US to continue providing those
benefits might be subject to Rule 11 sanctions.
Hence my assertion that the "right to life" (and to liberty and to own
property) is a "negative" right rather than a "positive" one.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> You may not have the constitutional or statutory right to food
> and necessities such as medical care from any particular person,
> nor may you seize this by force if you lack it (at least under
> the law though under some moral systems and frameworks for
> revolution such is assumed). However, to the extent one lacks
> the basic necessities of life in, for example, Americans
> society, there are a variety of entitlement programs created by
> statute.
Sure. But those rights are statutory, not constitutional. They can
be eliminated at any time by Congress. And there are those in
Congress, and across the country, who would like nothing more than to
do just that.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Arguably, it would be unconstitutional to punish you for failing
>>to do something that you are unable to do.
>
> How many people do you know who are capable of calculating their
> Income Tax correctly? Yet despite that inability, they're
> required to do so.
There's a distinction between actual or practical inability and
inconvenience. People who have taxable income can either do them
well enough or find someone else to do them.
What you can't do in reality is to go back in time to change some
aspect of yourself that can't now be changed, like being a drug
addict. They can't criminalize status standing alone.
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>As I recall it has been held unconstitutional to criminalize a
>status.
That would be a bill of attainder, right? But haven't there been laws
against being a member of various organizations (rather than against
joining them, since the joining might have occurred prior to the
passage of that law)?
> For example they can't throw you in jail simply for being a
>drug addict. Unless you actuall use illegal drugs you're in the
>clear.
I've read about convictions for possession of an illegal drug in the
victim's blood stream (while he was changing planes in a jurisdiction,
with no allegations that he'd otherwise possessed or used the drugs in
that jurisdiction).
>I'd think that debtor's prison would be a similar kind of thing - if
>someone for reasons beyond his control simply can't afford to pay a
>debt, that's due to his status and not his actions, and can't be
>criminalized.
It's the (lack of) action, failure to pay, that would be criminalized.
Seth
Cy Pres
wrote:
>I would argue that this has nothing to do with a "right to life".
>Rather, your right to obtain these benefits comes from the 14th
>amendment: equal protection. If the government enacted a program
>that "entitled" every citizen to one trip to Disneyland during their
>lifetime, and you were arbitrarily denied this benefit, you could sue
>for it.
My point on that issue is simply that a statutory right is as
practically enforceable as a constitutional right. In fact, it's
generally easier to prosecute a case based on statutory law than based
on a constitution.
[. . .]
>Hence my assertion that the "right to life" (and to liberty and to own
>property) is a "negative" right rather than a "positive" one.
That doesn't really follow from a legal system. A legal system isn't
a principle but a conclusion. That one legal system in one society
operates from that premise doesn't prove the premise, any more than a
legal system which started from a premise of positive rights would
prove a positive "right to life," even if it were more successful than
the society starting from the other premise.
Cy Pres
<spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>Sure. But those rights are statutory, not constitutional. They can
>be eliminated at any time by Congress. And there are those in
>Congress, and across the country, who would like nothing more than to
>do just that.
The Bill of Rights could also be repealed through the Article V
process. It would just require more people and more process to do it
(and is even more unlikely to occur than repealing any given
entitlement). If the Bill of Rights were repealed, however, it
wouldn't change any fundamental moral principles, but would simply
remove them from the class of legal rights. Just as while the Bill of
Rights exists, it can be invoked legally, so do statutory rights.
There is also the possibility that a vast enough abrogation of settled
rights upon which the people have relied would be a violation of
general principles like substantive due process. For example, simply
abolishing Social Security, after forcibly taking people's money to
fund it for decades, would be nothing more than outright stealing.
There are definitely actions which Congress could take which, while
within the metes and bounds of their powers, could result in the
people correcting them as to the real boundaries of their powers. Most
of these are unlikely scenarios like outright repealing Social
Security (without accounting for the funds), which would probably be
unconstitutional as doing away with a property right without
compensation.
Cy Pres
wrote:
>I've read about convictions for possession of an illegal drug in the
>victim's blood stream (while he was changing planes in a jurisdiction,
>with no allegations that he'd otherwise possessed or used the drugs in
>that jurisdiction).
I'd like a cite on that, if you can. It's not that I doubt
particularly overzealous cops might do this, but I'm just not aware of
it. I don't see how you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they
possessed the drug from merely being under its influence. Someone
could have spiked their drink. I'd also wonder how they compelled the
blood test, since there's no legal basis for it, unless the defendant
were stupid enough to do it voluntarily.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>>As I recall it has been held unconstitutional to criminalize a
>>status.
>
> That would be a bill of attainder, right?
Not as far as I'm aware. According to the Supreme Court,
"A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without a judicial trial. . . . [L]egislative acts, no matter what
their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily
ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder
prohibited by the Constitution." United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S.
303, 315-316
> But haven't there
> been laws against being a member of various organizations
> (rather than against joining them, since the joining might have
> occurred prior to the passage of that law)?
They do in the UK. But in the US you can't make simple membership
in an organization a criminal offense. (In the early 20th century
being a communist was criminalized, but these days it's considered
improper to do that.)
>> For example they can't throw you in jail simply for being a
>>drug addict. Unless you actuall use illegal drugs you're in the
>>clear.
>
> I've read about convictions for possession of an illegal drug in
> the victim's blood stream (while he was changing planes in a
> jurisdiction, with no allegations that he'd otherwise possessed
> or used the drugs in that jurisdiction).
That's for possession of drugs, not for his status of being an
addict, if he is. Those are different things. He could have
prevented having drugs in his blood, but not being an addict.
>>I'd think that debtor's prison would be a similar kind of thing
>>- if someone for reasons beyond his control simply can't afford
>>to pay a debt, that's due to his status and not his actions, and
>>can't be criminalized.
>
> It's the (lack of) action, failure to pay, that would be
> criminalized.
Again, if the failure to pay was wilful - that he had the ability
but refused to do so, then it's ok. Or if he could have the money
but he quits his job to frustrate his creditors, that would fly
also. But if he doesn't pay because he simply can't for reasons
beyond his control, that would be a status crime and improper.
--
\Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Seth
>> A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Arguably, it would be unconstitutional to punish you for failing
>>>to do something that you are unable to do.
>>
>> How many people do you know who are capable of calculating their
>> Income Tax correctly? Yet despite that inability, they're
>> required to do so.
>
>There's a distinction between actual or practical inability and
>inconvenience.
Most people have actual inability to do Income Tax returns correctly.
>What you can't do in reality is to go back in time to change some
>aspect of yourself that can't now be changed, like being a drug
>addict. They can't criminalize status standing alone.
But if they give you, say, a year's notice, then you can (in theory)
break any physical addiction by refraining for a year; so would it be
Constitutional to pass a law now, saying that "As of January 1, 2011,
it will be a felony to be addicted to any illegal drug or alcohol"?
Seth
slide
>
> There's a distinction between actual or practical inability and
> inconvenience. People who have taxable income can either do them
> well enough or find someone else to do them.
>
> What you can't do in reality is to go back in time to change some
> aspect of yourself that can't now be changed, like being a drug
> addict. They can't criminalize status standing alone.
>
Aren't you brushing up against sex offender registration laws, then? The
concept, as I understand it, is that a sex offender isn't curable. He
can't change so he must effectively wear the Scarlet A (or S as the case
may be). The notice is for all decent folks to see him from a distance.
He can't even go near certain places like schools.
Also being a sex offender is, perhaps, innate where drug addiction is
acquired.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>> A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Arguably, it would be unconstitutional to punish you for
>>>>failing to do something that you are unable to do.
>>>
>>> How many people do you know who are capable of calculating
>>> their Income Tax correctly? Yet despite that inability,
>>> they're required to do so.
>>
>>There's a distinction between actual or practical inability and
>>inconvenience.
>
> Most people have actual inability to do Income Tax returns
> correctly.
Yet they get them done. They can do the best they can, they can
get a computer program or they can hire a tax preparer. It may be
difficult or inconvenient, but it's not practicallly impossible.
>>What you can't do in reality is to go back in time to change
>>some aspect of yourself that can't now be changed, like being a
>>drug addict. They can't criminalize status standing alone.
>
> But if they give you, say, a year's notice, then you can (in
> theory) break any physical addiction by refraining for a year;
> so would it be Constitutional to pass a law now, saying that "As
> of January 1, 2011, it will be a felony to be addicted to any
> illegal drug or alcohol"?
That example is not a good one, since it is generally understood
that an addict is always an addict, whether he actually indulges in
banned substances or not. Status is normally something that can't
practically be changed.
I suppose they could criminalize something like being a communist
on that basis, though free speech and freedom of association
concepts would likely void that kind of thing.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>
>> What you can't do in reality is to go back in time to change
>> some aspect of yourself that can't now be changed, like being a
>> drug addict. They can't criminalize status standing alone.
>>
> Aren't you brushing up against sex offender registration laws,
> then? The concept, as I understand it, is that a sex offender
> isn't curable. He can't change so he must effectively wear the
> Scarlet A (or S as the case may be). The notice is for all
> decent folks to see him from a distance. He can't even go near
> certain places like schools.
Except for one thing - sex "offender" means that he violated a valid
law, allowing the punishment. For offenders who were convicted
before restrictions on living location, etc., were enacted, they
aren't covered unless they are caught violating the law again. So
the punishment is not for status but for having violated the law.
Seth
Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There are definitely actions which Congress could take which, while
>within the metes and bounds of their powers, could result in the
>people correcting them as to the real boundaries of their powers. Most
>of these are unlikely scenarios like outright repealing Social
>Security (without accounting for the funds), which would probably be
>unconstitutional as doing away with a property right without
>compensation.
I don't believe that entitlement to Social Security payments is a
property right.
For instance, the government has declared that some Social Security
payments are taxable, in effect changing their actual amount.
Therefore, it could raise the tax rate on those payments, to 100%, and
order the tax withheld at the source. The difference between that and
cancelling the (payout part of the) program is left as an exercise for
the reader.
Seth
Seth
Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:33:22 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)
>wrote:
>
>>I've read about convictions for possession of an illegal drug in the
>>victim's blood stream (while he was changing planes in a jurisdiction,
>>with no allegations that he'd otherwise possessed or used the drugs in
>>that jurisdiction).
>
>I'd like a cite on that, if you can.
See South Dakota's "internal possession" law.
This isn't exactly the case I described, but the principle is the same
(conviction based solely on presence of the drug in his urine, with no
other physical evidence that he possessed it).
http://www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?category=opinions&nav=53&year=2004&month=2&record=1247
Given that testosterone is a scheduled drug, being human is illegal in
South Dakota.
Seth
slide
I agree that it's not a Bill of Attainder but it still is one of
characteristics. Let's say a State, reviewing its felony convictions,
notices that there is an extremely high rate of recidivism among
Orthodox Jews convicted of murder for hire (I'm trying to lighten things
up here).
The State passes a law stating that all Orthodox Jews convicted of this
crime must, upon release, wear a huge yellow 'M' on their robes. That's
really the same thing but put into a less inflammatory light. While
silly due to the lack of propensity of Orthodox Jews doing murder for
hire, such a proposition isn't completely out of concept if you replace
that setup with one proposing that the same State notices that more
blacks commit murder or other crimes so creates a registration base....
Let's say I'm very skeptical about making law based on the Crisis du
Jour be it child porn or drunk driving or terrorism.
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>Except for one thing - sex "offender" means that he violated a valid
>law, allowing the punishment. For offenders who were convicted
>before restrictions on living location, etc., were enacted, they
>aren't covered unless they are caught violating the law again.
I don't believe that's necessarily the case.
I know it doesn't apply to all sort of other issues (e.g. someone
convicted of a crime that didn't prevent him from getting a security
clearance years later, was after that prevented from keeping or
getting that clearance due to the conviction).
> So the punishment is not for status but for having violated the
>law.
The punishment is for the status of "having been convicted for
violating the law".
Seth
Cy Pres
[I said a number of things partly premised on the notion that
entitlement to Social Security benefits is a property right.]
>I don't believe that entitlement to Social Security payments is a
>property right.
Then you'd be correct as a matter of law, since the Supreme Court
agrees with you, as I found when I went looking to see if I could
support my statement.
"Social Security tax 'contributions,' unlike private pension
contributions, do not create in the contributor a property right to
benefits against the government, and wages rather than [tax]
contributions are the statutory basis for calculating an individual's
benefits." United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S.
200, 212-213 (2001). "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." Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S.
603, 610 (1960) (reversing District Court finding that divesting alien
deported for communist associations did not violate constitution since
entitlement to Social Security benefits is an "accrued property
right").
This doesn't change my opinion, however, that if Congress exercised
the power they have under the Constitution to repeal Social Security
entirely with no substitute, the people would be very unlikely to take
the Supreme Court's opinion into account before vigorously persuading
Congress to change its mind.
Barry Gold
[Concerning whether requiring a convicted sex offender to
register creates a "status crime" and/or a Bill of Attainder]
>I agree that it's not a Bill of Attainder but it still is one of
>characteristics. Let's say a State, reviewing its felony convictions,
>notices that there is an extremely high rate of recidivism among
>Orthodox Jews convicted of murder for hire (I'm trying to lighten things
>up here).
>
>The State passes a law stating that all Orthodox Jews convicted of this
>crime must, upon release, wear a huge yellow 'M' on their robes. That's
>really the same thing but put into a less inflammatory light.
That one would be struck down by the US District Court for that area,
and affirmed in Circuit Court and again by SCOTUS. It clearly
violates the 14th amendment rule about "equal protection of the law".
And in general, I don't think you can get around the rule against a
Bill of Attainder or status crime by combining the status with an
actual crime.
Let's say, for example, that instead of the _comparativly_ restrained
reaction to 9/11, Congress had enacted a law providing a 20 year
"enhanced sentence" for any Muslim convicted of a crime that includes
a breach of the peace (including misdemeanors). Do you think that
would stand? I don't.
>Let's say I'm very skeptical about making law based on the Crisis du
>Jour be it child porn or drunk driving or terrorism.
Me too. there is a strong tendency to overreact, and once the law is
enacted it tends to have a lot of inertia.
slide
>
> Let's say, for example, that instead of the _comparativly_ restrained
> reaction to 9/11, Congress had enacted a law providing a 20 year
> "enhanced sentence" for any Muslim convicted of a crime that includes
> a breach of the peace (including misdemeanors). Do you think that
> would stand? I don't.
I agree. It would have to be couched in the manner of the sex offender
registration laws. That is, the punishment would be enhanced not against
Muslims, but it may be for crimes primarily committed by Muslims if such
could be identified. Even then, it may be overturned if the law could be
proved to target Muslims (or others).
I suppose the difference is that sex offenders aren't a class.
Let's just say that I remain skeptical about the sex offender
registrations and feel they are the result of a hysteria. I see drunk
driving laws moving in that direction. My problem is that the class of
what's a 'sex offense' has gone too far afield just as the punishment
for drunken driving is spinning out of reality.
I had a case where some couple got into a drunken dispute on a main
street. It ended up with them tearing off their clothes or something
similar. Anyway, the fight was between these two adults yet the husband
now has to register. I see nothing here which protects society and a lot
here which harms him.
>
>> Let's say I'm very skeptical about making law based on the Crisis du
>> Jour be it child porn or drunk driving or terrorism.
>
> Me too. there is a strong tendency to overreact, and once the law is
> enacted it tends to have a lot of inertia.
It's society which gets insane and out of balance. The idea of a
republic is that the representatives are supposed to show restraint so
as to prevent mob / lynch mentality. Instead, the representatives have
learned they gain popularity by leading the mob.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>
> [I said a number of things partly premised on the notion that
> entitlement to Social Security benefits is a property right.]
>
>>I don't believe that entitlement to Social Security payments is
>>a property right.
>
> Then you'd be correct as a matter of law, since the Supreme
> Court agrees with you, as I found when I went looking to see if
> I could support my statement.
>
> "Social Security tax 'contributions,' unlike private pension
> contributions, do not create in the contributor a property right
> to benefits against the government, and wages rather than [tax]
> contributions are the statutory basis for calculating an
> individual's benefits." United States v. Cleveland Indians
> Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 212-213 (2001).
Many people make the mistake of thinking of Social Security like a
pension fund. It's not. There's a tax component and there's a
payment component. But there is no account for any individual. And
no individual has any particular rights in any of the Social Security
taxes paid.
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>Many people make the mistake of thinking of Social Security like a
>pension fund. It's not. There's a tax component and there's a
>payment component. But there is no account for any individual.
Yes, there is, and the government sends me statements about mine
regularly. What there isn't is a cash value balance type account;
Social Security is more like a Defined Benefit Plan ("you will get
$X/month, investment results aren't your problem") than a Defined
Contribution Plan ("you will get whatever your current $Y grows to,
investment results aren't our problem.").
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>>Many people make the mistake of thinking of Social Security like
a
>>pension fund. It's not. There's a tax component and there's a
>>payment component. But there is no account for any individual.
>
> Yes, there is, and the government sends me statements about mine
> regularly.
That's no account. It's just a bunch of numbers on a page, an
estimate of what you will receive. There is are no segregated
funds with your name on them.
> What there isn't is a cash value balance type account;
> Social Security is more like a Defined Benefit Plan ("you will
> get $X/month, investment results aren't your problem") than a
> Defined Contribution Plan ("you will get whatever your current $Y
> grows to, investment results aren't our problem.").
That's what they want you to believe. In reality it's all smoke
and mirrors - there is nothing there except the government's
promise to follow the law.
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As I recall it has been held unconstitutional to criminalize a
>>>status.
>>
>> That would be a bill of attainder, right?
>
>Not as far as I'm aware. According to the Supreme Court,
>
>"A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
>without a judicial trial. . . . [L]egislative acts, no matter what
>their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily
>ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
>punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder
>prohibited by the Constitution." United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S.
>303, 315-316
So a law that said "It's illegal to be Stuart A. Bronstein. Anybody
accused of being Stuart A. Bronstein is entitled to a trial to
determine whether or not he actually is Stuart A. Bronstein. If he is
convicted of being Stuart A. Bronstein he is to be sentenced to 10
years in prison." would not be a Bill of Attainder? It doesn't allow
punishment without trial, but I'd still consider it one.
>They do in the UK. But in the US you can't make simple membership
>in an organization a criminal offense. (In the early 20th century
>being a communist was criminalized, but these days it's considered
>improper to do that.)
"improper" or Unconstitutional? If the latter, under which clause of
the Constitution?
>>>I'd think that debtor's prison would be a similar kind of thing
>>>- if someone for reasons beyond his control simply can't afford
>>>to pay a debt, that's due to his status and not his actions, and
>>>can't be criminalized.
>>
>> It's the (lack of) action, failure to pay, that would be
>> criminalized.
>
>Again, if the failure to pay was wilful - that he had the ability
>but refused to do so, then it's ok.
Some laws require that an act be wilful in order to violate that law;
others are strict performance, and don't.
> Or if he could have the money
>but he quits his job to frustrate his creditors, that would fly
>also. But if he doesn't pay because he simply can't for reasons
>beyond his control, that would be a status crime and improper.
Again, improper or unconstitutional? And if the latter, why?
If I'm in Tiffany's at 3 AM (when it's closed), does the fact that I'm
not an authorized employee of Tiffany's make it a status crime?
Somebody whose status differed wouldn't be committing a crime under
the same circumstances.
Seth
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Many people make the mistake of thinking of Social Security like
>a
>>>pension fund. It's not. There's a tax component and there's a
>>>payment component. But there is no account for any individual.
>>
>> Yes, there is, and the government sends me statements about mine
>> regularly.
>
>That's no account. It's just a bunch of numbers on a page, an
>estimate of what you will receive. There is are no segregated
>funds with your name on them.
How does that differ from the pension "account" I have with a previous
employer? It says that when I retire at 65 I will get $X/month.
There are no segregated funds with my name on them.
>> What there isn't is a cash value balance type account;
>> Social Security is more like a Defined Benefit Plan ("you will
>> get $X/month, investment results aren't your problem") than a
>> Defined Contribution Plan ("you will get whatever your current $Y
>> grows to, investment results aren't our problem.").
>
>That's what they want you to believe. In reality it's all smoke
>and mirrors - there is nothing there except the government's
>promise to follow the law.
Again, that differs from the promise of my previous employer how? OK,
in the latter case there is a trust fund, but that's pledge to pay
_all_ pensions, not just mine, and at any given time may well be
under-funded for its obligations.
For that matter, if you invest in various types of investment funds,
there is no segregated anything with your name on it, you just own a
share of a particular fund that has some investments. But you're
still considered to have an account with that fund.
Seth
slide
from the US government that at this point it intends on paying you
approximately this much per month if you post a demand upon
qualification for benefits.
Let's say you are 65. The government's statement says that at 65, you
will get a benefit of $984 / month. You file. Concurrent with your
filing, the Congress passes a law changing the benefit calculation so
you will receive $400 / month.
Your first check is after this passage so you get a check for $400. What
will or can you do to get your $984? The answer - nothing aside from
lobbying to change the law back. You are only entitled to what the law
says you are entitled to and the law can change without boundaries.
Barry Gold
>> What there isn't is a cash value balance type account;
>> Social Security is more like a Defined Benefit Plan ("you will
>> get $X/month, investment results aren't your problem") than a
>> Defined Contribution Plan ("you will get whatever your current $Y
>> grows to, investment results aren't our problem.").
In reality, that's all we have anyway, about anything. If you have a
formal contract with the Federal Government, you expect that they will
follow through. But there is no guarantee.
If they refuse to pay, you can sue. And the Government can say,
"sovereign immunity, nyaah, nyahh, nyaah." Currently, Congress has
waived SI for certain cases (probably including Breach of Contract,
and also most negligent torts by the US gov't), but they can change
their minds any time they want.
The Constitution itself is a bunch of promises by the US government to
the states and to us, the citizens. If they violate it, you can sue.
If you win, they will _probably_ obey the court order.
But remember what President Andrew Jackson said: Mr. Marshall has made
his ruling. Now let him enforce it.
Stuart A. Bronstein
>>>
>>> Yes, there is, and the government sends me statements about
>>> mine regularly.
>>
>>That's no account. It's just a bunch of numbers on a page, an
>>estimate of what you will receive. There is are no segregated
>>funds with your name on them.
>
> How does that differ from the pension "account" I have with a
> previous employer? It says that when I retire at 65 I will get
> $X/month. There are no segregated funds with my name on them.
In the case of your employer, there's actual money there that
legally belongs to you. In the case of Social Security, it's an
aspirational goal. There is no actual money segregated and
assigned to you.
>>That's what they want you to believe. In reality it's all smoke
>>and mirrors - there is nothing there except the government's
>>promise to follow the law.
>
> Again, that differs from the promise of my previous employer
> how?
If your employer files bankruptcy the money is still yours. He
can't take it out of your account and use it for his own purposes.
You can't be deprived of that fund without due compensation under
the 5th Amendment.
In the case of social security, you have no rights in any specific
money. The government can change what you are supposed to receive,
and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically, you
have no recourse.
> OK, in the latter case there is a trust fund, but that's
> pledge to pay _all_ pensions, not just mine, and at any given
> time may well be under-funded for its obligations.
Your employer's plan is actual money allocated to each participant.
In the case of defined benefit plans calculated on actuarial
assumption. You can roll vested funds over into an IRA and take
control over them when appropriate. You can't do that with social
security.
In fact, that's what George Bush was trying to do to social
security - turn it more into a savings account. But there are
several problems with that. First of all it would be incredibly
expensive, just because there is not enough money in the "fund" to
pay all the "benefits" that have accrued to date.
> For that matter, if you invest in various types of investment
> funds, there is no segregated anything with your name on it, you
> just own a share of a particular fund that has some investments.
> But you're still considered to have an account with that fund.
Because there is actual money there. Otherwise it would be a loan.
In the case of social security it is more in the nature of a loan
than an investment.
Barry Gold
>>> Yes, there is, and the government sends me statements about mine
>>> regularly.
>Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>That's no account. It's just a bunch of numbers on a page, an
>>estimate of what you will receive. There is are no segregated
^^^^^^^^
>>funds with your name on them.
Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>How does that differ from the pension "account" I have with a previous
>employer? It says that when I retire at 65 I will get $X/month.
>There are no segregated funds with my name on them.
There are several differences.
1. Note the word "estimate" above. Your Social Security statement
tells you _approximately_ what you will get if you retire at specified
ages. Why? Because Congress is free to change the schedule of
payments at any time.
By contrast, a Defined Benefit pension tells you _exactly_ how much
you will get if you retire today. And any changes in your future
benefits depend _only_ on what you "put into" the pension account
(by working additional years for that employer).
But your employer is _not_ free to change the benefits you have
already earned. Those benefits are the result of a _contract_ between
you and your employer, the same as your wages. Your employer can
lower your wages for future work at any time, but *must* pay you for
the work you have already done.
2. Social Security is _not_ a contract in legal terms. There is no
"meeting of minds," no free choice. The government _requires_ you to
contribute to SS if you earn money, and it takes the money you put in
and uses it to pay current recipients. It is, in fact a Ponzi scheme.
The difference between SS and a conventional Ponzi scheme -- and the
reason that SS works (so far) is that everybody is required to
participate. And the benefits are low enough relative to
contributions that the scheme never runs out of money -- as long as
the ratio of employed to retired workers doesn't get too far out of
whack. (Which is why people are worried about the Baby Boom
retirees.)(*)
Since it is, in fact, a tax and a redistribution of wealth from the
currently working to the retired, it is not a contract and there is no
"property right" in continuing to receive those benefits.
Note that Congress has several times changed the rules. It increased
the benefit several times, added a Cost of Living Allowance in 1975,
raised the retirement age for receiving full benefits from 65 (for
those born before 1938) to 67 (for those born in 1960 and
thereafter).
I think it therefore follows that Congress can
1) Raise the "normal" retirement age for full benefits (e.g., to 100).
2) Reduce the benefits (to zero)
(*) But even there, most of the "Social Security will run out of
money in 20xx" predictions are based on extremely pessimistic
assumptions -- unlike most Gov't estimates that are usually based on
overly optimistic ones. Among those assumptions:
a) That taxes cannot be raised to cover the difference (simply
removing the "cap" on SS earnings would go a long way to make up
the difference).
b) That immigration into the US will slow down significantly
(current estimates are that the US gains 2% per year in
immigration, about half of that legal).
c) That immigrants will immediately reduce their birthrate to that
of long-time US citizens. (In fact, immigrants continue to have
increased birth rates for the generation that moves here _and_
the immediately following generation.)
Seth
>1. Note the word "estimate" above. Your Social Security statement
>tells you _approximately_ what you will get if you retire at specified
>ages. Why? Because Congress is free to change the schedule of
>payments at any time.
No, it's an estimate because it makes an assumption about my future
covered earnings. If I earn a different amount, then my payout will
be a different amount.
>By contrast, a Defined Benefit pension tells you _exactly_ how much
>you will get if you retire today. And any changes in your future
>benefits depend _only_ on what you "put into" the pension account
>(by working additional years for that employer).
The Defined Benefit plan tells me exactly how much I will get only
because it's a _previous_ employer, so my compensation for my "final 3
years" is already known. If it still worked for them, the Defined
Benefit plan would also be able only to estimate the payout, based on
some assumption about my future earnings.
>But your employer is _not_ free to change the benefits you have
>already earned.
He can amend the plan, but can't affect already-accrued benefit.
However, if I were still working there, the accrued benefit would
still be much less than the estimated benefit for two reasons: first,
fewer years of accrual; and second, lower final average pay.
>2. Social Security is _not_ a contract in legal terms.
Agreed. But that has nothing to do with my point.
Seth
Seth
>> How does that differ from the pension "account" I have with a
>> previous employer? It says that when I retire at 65 I will get
>> $X/month. There are no segregated funds with my name on them.
>
>In the case of your employer, there's actual money there that
>legally belongs to you.
No, there isn't. There's a single large fund, the assets of which are
pledged to pay my pension as well as those of thousands of others.
The amount in that fund might or might not be sufficient. If it
isn't, the government has pledged to make up the difference, up to
some limit, but it could change its mind.
> In the case of Social Security, it's an
>aspirational goal. There is no actual money segregated and
>assigned to you.
There's a "Social Security Trust Fund" that holds a lot of Treasury
Bonds. None of it is segregated for me, just like the pension fund.
>> Again, that differs from the promise of my previous employer
>> how?
>
>If your employer files bankruptcy the money is still yours.
What money?
> He can't take it out of your account and use it for his own
>purposes.
Except if the fund (overall) gets too large, he probably can; and if
it's too small, I might get stuck.
>You can't be deprived of that fund without due compensation under
>the 5th Amendment.
What does the 5th Amendment have to do with it? My ex-employer isn't
the government. (But there's an interesting issue: if Congress
confiscated that fund, who would the owner, entitled to compensation,
be?)
>In the case of social security, you have no rights in any specific
>money.
Just like the pension fund. There are no dollars, bonds, or stock
shares in my name. There's just a promise, backed by a commingled
fund.
> The government can change what you are supposed to receive,
>and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically, you
>have no recourse.
The only thing stopping the company from doing likewise is the law.
And the government can change that.
>> OK, in the latter case there is a trust fund, but that's
>> pledge to pay _all_ pensions, not just mine, and at any given
>> time may well be under-funded for its obligations.
>
>Your employer's plan is actual money allocated to each participant.
No, it isn't. It's one big commingled fund.
>In the case of defined benefit plans calculated on actuarial
>assumption.
The _contribution_ made each year is calculated that way.
> You can roll vested funds over into an IRA and take
>control over them when appropriate.
No, I can't. That isn't an option in that plan.
Seth
Mike
Exactly. A drug addict might have gone to some other country where use
of that drug is legal (or even have become addicted here before that
drug was outlawed. Or even become addicted to prescription drugs.) So we
don't make it illegal to be addicted to the drug but simply to have
improperly USED it. The sex offender is penalized for what he/she DID
and not what he/she IS (maybe I have this fetish for young kids but I
never actually acted upon it. Or I got adults to dress as kids so I
could act it out. I would not have to register anywhere as being a sex
offender.)
Stuart A. Bronstein
>>2. Social Security is _not_ a contract in legal terms.
>
> Agreed. But that has nothing to do with my point.
Ok, exactly what is your point. It seemed to be that social security
is like a defined contribution pension plan. It's not. It's a tax
coupled with payouts from tax receipts to those over a certain age.
You might get more and you might get less than what you "paid in."
There is no separate fund that belongs to you. There is no money you
are guaranteed to get, nothing you can pass on to your heirs.
A defined contribution plan has money that belongs to you. You get
no more, and no less. When you die your estate gets what hasn't been
paid to you.
In essence social security is a ponzi scheme. Current payees are
paid out of money contributed by other taxpayers. The only reason
it's legal is that Congress created it.
Mike
> In article <12551168...@irys.nyx.net>, Barry Gold <bg...@nyx.net> wrote:
>
>> 1. Note the word "estimate" above. Your Social Security statement
>> tells you _approximately_ what you will get if you retire at specified
>> ages. Why? Because Congress is free to change the schedule of
>> payments at any time.
>
> No, it's an estimate because it makes an assumption about my future
> covered earnings. If I earn a different amount, then my payout will
> be a different amount.
No, from my understanding of it, what's on that paper that comes
annually is basically "if you quit working today and never earned
another dime, then when you retire at age 62/65/67/whatever, here's what
we estimate you'll get. (But if you continue to work, you may get more.)"
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>
>>In the case of your employer, there's actual money there that
>>legally belongs to you.
>
> No, there isn't. There's a single large fund, the assets of
> which are pledged to pay my pension as well as those of
> thousands of others.
You are allocated a certain amount of the fund, and are legally
entitled to it.
>
> There's a "Social Security Trust Fund" that holds a lot of
> Treasury Bonds. None of it is segregated for me, just like the
> pension fund.
That's where you've made your mistake. The social security trust
fund doesn't take in all the money and allocate it to anyone. It
is where they put the money they don't need to pay current
beneficiaries, and is merely an accounting tool. You have no real
or legal rights to any of the money that actually comes from your
own paycheck.
>>If your employer files bankruptcy the money is still yours.
>
> What money?
In the pension plan, of course. That's what we've been talking
about.
>
>>In the case of social security, you have no rights in any
>>specific money.
>
> Just like the pension fund. There are no dollars, bonds, or
> stock shares in my name. There's just a promise, backed by a
> commingled fund.
No, you're wrong. They may not be specifically in your name, but
they are in the name of a trust of which you are a beneficiary.
You are entitled to your share.
>> The government can change what you are supposed to receive,
>>and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically,
>>you have no recourse.
>
> The only thing stopping the company from doing likewise is the
> law. And the government can change that.
No they can't. The Constitution prohibits Congress from impairing
the obligaiton of contracts. Such a change in the law would do
just that.
>>Your employer's plan is actual money allocated to each
>>participant.
>
> No, it isn't. It's one big commingled fund.
Are you saying that if you own a house with your siblings, you have
no individual rights in the house? That would be flat out wrong.
And it's the same in the case of pension plans.
Roy
I think it started out as comparing Social Security to a defined benefit
plan and not a defined contribution plan. Lets not mix the two. Even
Wikipedia says that Social Security is similar to a unfunded defined
benefit plan.
Rich Carreiro
> No, from my understanding of it, what's on that paper that comes
> annually is basically "if you quit working today and never earned
> another dime, then when you retire at age 62/65/67/whatever, here's what
> we estimate you'll get. (But if you continue to work, you may get more.)"
Read the SS estimated benefits statement more closely. What it
says is that the benefit estimates (which are in todays dollars)
assume that you continue at your current earnings until you retire.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com
Cy Pres
<spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>In essence social security is a ponzi scheme. Current payees are
>paid out of money contributed by other taxpayers. The only reason
>it's legal is that Congress created it.
I disagree and believe Social Security has numerous features which
distinguish it from a Ponzi scheme. For one thing, a Ponzi scheme is,
by the very nature of the characteristics which define it,
mathematically unsustainable. A Ponzi scheme will inevitably
collapse.
For one thing, a Ponzi scheme is, by definition, fraudulent. The
victims of a Ponzi scheme would never invest if they knew what they
were getting into.
The only indicia of a Ponzi scheme which Social Security possesses are
superficial. Both are systems in which money comes from new
"customers" and money is paid out to older "customers." However, in a
Ponzi scheme, these payments are presented as dividends or return on
investment. Investors believe their principal still exists, and often
forego cashing in in hopes of future "profits."
In Social Security, payments out are pegged, somewhat directly, to the
payments in from the "customer." The amount ultimately paid out will
more or less resemble the amount paid in. The money is not imaginary,
and (improper legislative borrowings from the "lock box" aside) its
quantity is known. Generally, in a Ponzi scheme, the fluctuations are
so chaotic that eventually even the person running the scam does not
really know what's going on (particularly efficient scammers like
Madoff being exeptions). It is inevitable that a cash flow problem
will arise which causes a collapse of confidence in the scheme,
resulting in its exposure.
I believe the Ponzi scheme comparison, while it looks superficially
elegant and useful, is ultimately deceptive about what both Ponzi
schemes and Social Security are. The widespread "meme" of Social
Security being a Ponzi scheme is also toxic in the policy debate and
allows politicians to get away with sleazy misrepresentations which
endanger this critical piece of our social infrastructure.
Seth
That's an assumption about future covered earnings, isn't it? (But I
suspect they actually give more than one scenario, I don't recall the
most recent version I got.)
Seth
Seth
>
>>>2. Social Security is _not_ a contract in legal terms.
>>
>> Agreed. But that has nothing to do with my point.
>
>Ok, exactly what is your point. It seemed to be that social security
>is like a defined contribution pension plan.
No, it was that Social Security is like a defined *Benefit* pension
plan.
Seth
Wes Groleau
> sinebar <sineb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Article] claims, "Most states now require drivers to have auto insurance
> before issuing drivers licenses, car registrations, or both."
>
> I don't know of any states that require auto insurance to get a
> drivers license. I know for a fact that New York and Minnesota don't.
I don't know of any, but the statement did say "or"
--
Wes Groleau
HOW to teach grammar ?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=88
Cy Pres
<spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>No they can't. The Constitution prohibits Congress from impairing
>the obligaiton of contracts. Such a change in the law would do
>just that.
The Contract Clause prohibits States, not Congress, from impairing the
obligation of contracts. This was because of a concern that State
legislatures would continue to do just this, by passing private bills
to relieve in-staters of their legal obligations to out-of-staters.
The purpose and effect was to make bankruptcy law the exclusive
province of the federal government, since bankruptcy law does exactly
that: impairs the obligation of contracts.
Silence DoGood
>�Does anyone have any expert
> opinion on this or any other links?
Before I spend my time reading it, would you please explain how
medicare and medicaid would be constitutional, but ObamaCare not?
I was actually around and remember a lot of constitutional issues
being raised in the sixties. (Gerald Ford? minority leader in the
House and lawyer. perhaps?)
I would have to think there is a landmark case somewhere.
I can't tell you why something is constitutional at age 65, but I
suggest that I see nothing in the constitution to suggest that what
applies to someone who is 65 would be uncontitutional if applied to
someone 64 1/2.
As for the Supreme Court, if you read the constitution you will
understand that the concept of "three co-equal branches of government"
is faith based. Congress is clearly supreme, and the senate can fire
the entire Supreme Court tomorrow before lunch, if they feel like
it. ..and if the states don't like that, 2/3 can call a constitutional
convention by the end of the next day or sooner.
Oh, just one minor issue... There would need to be agreement.