An obscure court decision against a Rhode Island town's police officers and firefighters could be a

[sheshe2]

An obscure court decision against a Rhode Island town's police officers and firefighters could be a warning sign for Social Security

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit gave us an interesting glimpse of the future last week when it ruled on an obscure case involving government pension obligations.

Ever since the mid-1990s, police officers and fire fighters in the town of Cranston, Rhode Island had been promised state pension benefits upon retirement.

But, facing critical budget shortfalls over the last several years that the Rhode Island government called “fiscal peril,” the state legislature voted to unilaterally reduce public employees’ pension benefits.

snip

The unions’ argument was that the government of Rhode Island was contractually bound to pay benefits– these benefits had been enshrined in long-standing state legislation, and they should be enforced just like any other contract.

The state government disagreed.

Read More:https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/an-obscure-court-decision-against-a-rhode-island-towns-police-officers-and-firefighters-could-be-a-warning-sign-for-social-security/ar-BBIQf5o?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=mailsignout

[PoliticAverse]

1. There already was a Supreme Court case that decided there is no contractional obligation

concerning benefits between the government and social security recipients (Flemming v. Nestor [1960] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor )

Congress can reduce benefits at any time.

It's even explained on the Social Security website:
https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[sheshe2]

2. Thanks for the links.

[unblock]

3. i think social security is on even less firm footing. it's always been subject to political support

social security retirement benefits were originally conceived as a lateral transfer from working people to retired people.
it was always talked about in terms of paying in to get out when you retire, and yes you have to work a certain period of time to collect, etc.

but legally, i don't think there ever was an explicit promise to pay in the future, i.e., that any future benefits were under the assumption that laws didn't change in the interim.

of course, we all think of it as a promise, if not a strongly implied contract, but i don't think it legally ever was written into law as such.

and they have changed the law, such how benefits are taxed and when the retirement age is.


one hopes there would be hell to pay for politicians who mess with it....