Doesn't the U.S. constitution say that everyone has equal rights? (not end of question)

Question

So if the government was going to use the idea to limit wealthy people benefits when they retire (to fix the social security problem) wouldn't that be against the constitution?

Answer 1

The Constitution does not guarantee equal rights for every person in the US.  The Constitution guaranties certain "basic" rights that the courts have said may be infringed upon by the government if the government has a legitimate reason to do so.  (I.e.:  no guns on airlines despite our right to bear arms.)

Certain groups of people receive special treatment because of race, gender, and/or age.  For the government to interfere with the rights of the people comprising those groups, the government must show a very strong reason, otherwise the government's action is unconstitutional.  These groups are called "Protected Classes."

Being wealthy does not make one a Protected Class and the government can treat us differently than those who are not wealthy.  It can collect taxes (Social Security is a tax) from us and then redistribute the money collected to assist those who did not have the same opportunities to save as much as we do for retirement.  

I cannot deduct the interest of my student loans from my taxes like most people can, I could soon lose my ability to defer taxes on income diverted to my 401(k), and I will not receive the same Social Security benefits as someone who earns far less than me.  It's all legal.  I don't like that, but it is legal under the Constitution.  

Answer 2

Well yes, in fact the constitution says nothing of benefits.

Remember the constitution strives toward equal opportunity not equal outcome

Answer 3

Well, yeah, but they are already starting to tap our land lines too.....it's a free country.., as long as you abide by the laws *rolls eyes*

Hey, speaking of other people's money, where's all the people's gold that government stole way back that's stashed away at Fort Knox???? Show me the money!!!!

Answer 4

No

Nobody has a "right" to other people's money.  Besides that, the Constitution doesn't guarantee everybody equal rights.  It can't because it grants to some people (those who get the most votes in an election or are appointed to an office by somebody who gets the most votes in an election) a "right' to tell other people what to do.

Under the Constitution, Social Security is unconstitutional because the government is not enumerated the power to establish wealth transfer programs.  All powers that are not expressly enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution are denied to it.  The only way to defend Social Security's constitutionality would be to claim that the Supreme Court's word is the Constitution.

Answer 5

No, means testing would be constitutional. Under the current system, payments are based on contributions. There's lots of constitutional leeway here.

Answer 6

http://getinganswers.igorpolevoy.com

you can get much information in this website,stay a minute in website and check anyone link at a time,you can aslo get your answer in Google Search in this website, which has helped me alot

Answer 7

Tax laws are not constitutional amendments so this does not apply to the rights issue.

This follows more along the lines of spreading the pork projects that congressmen dish out to their constituents to keep getting votes.

Answer 8

The constitution doesn't protect rich people.

The constitution protects black people.

the cosntitution protects people from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, etc............    

wealth is not among those factors.

Answer 9

Its an absolutely stupid idea, for sure.

The problem is that SS will go insolvent in the next few years.  That means either raising taxes, or lowering payments.