If the US were to cut Social Security benefits to qualified individuals, is the social contract of civil obedience broken?

An OPINION by John Adams – Photo credit Lara Jameson

If the government were to cut off Social Security benefits to qualified recipients while still enforcing tax collection, the argument for tax resistance would take on additional ethical, political, and legal dimensions. 

How could continuing to pay taxes be justified?

Ethical & Political Argument for Tax Resistance

1. Breach of Social Contract

The U.S. tax system is structured around a social contract—citizens pay taxes with the understanding that the government provides essential services, including Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, and national defense. If the government were to cut off Social Security benefits while still demanding taxes, it could be seen as a breach of that contract.

• Philosophical Justification: Tax resistance could be framed as a response to an unjust government action, similar to the Boston Tea Party’s protest against taxation without representation.
• Historical Precedents: There have been movements in U.S. history where citizens engaged in tax resistance due to government policies, such as opposition to war funding or discriminatory policies. (Wikipedia on Tax Resistance)

2. Selective Enforcement of Government Obligations

• The government mandates that citizens pay taxes but would be choosing not to uphold its own financial obligations by withholding Social Security from eligible recipients.
• If citizens are still forced to pay, the system becomes one-sided, benefiting the government without fulfilling its obligations.

3. Potential for Civil Disobedience

• Social Security recipients and their families could organize tax resistance movements, arguing that they should not pay into a system that has abandoned them.
• Such a movement could lead to legal battles challenging the constitutionality of collecting taxes while failing to deliver promised benefits.

If Social Security benefits were cut along with widespread civil disobedience

Potential Repercussions of Widespread Tax Resistance

If enough people resisted taxes in protest of Social Security cuts, the government might face:

• Severe Revenue Shortfalls, leading to a deeper economic crisis.
• Government Crackdowns, including legal action against tax resisters.
• Political Pressure, potentially forcing Congress to reinstate Social Security payments or adjust tax laws.

Historically, mass tax protests have sometimes led to reforms. For example, tax resistance movements against war funding in the 1960s and 1970s led to changes in how the government handled certain war expenditures. However, individuals who participated often faced penalties, asset seizures, and prison time.

At some point, it’s no longer the government you were born into

Is the U.S. Government Changing Beyond Its Original Design?

The founding principles of the United States, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, emphasize:

1. Government by Consent of the Governed
   • The Declaration of Independence states that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
   • If major institutions like Social Security are unilaterally dismantled despite overwhelming public opposition, is the government still functioning with the people’s consent?
2. The Right to Alter or Abolish Government
   • The Declaration explicitly states:
     “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
   • If the government is no longer serving its role in protecting the people’s well-being and only acting in its own interests, does that justify revolutionary sentiment?
3. A Shift Toward Oligarchy?
   • If financial obligations to citizens (e.g., Social Security) are cut while taxes remain enforced, it could be perceived as a government serving only elite interests.
   • A government that prioritizes corporate bailouts and war funding over social obligations might be seen as drifting away from representative democracy toward plutocracy or oligarchy.

The bad news; this has happened before and the results have been decisive and destructive for the protesters.

The U.S. government has prepared extensively for domestic unrest:

• Agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and FBI monitor domestic resistance movements.
• Legal tools such as the PATRIOT Act give the government broad surveillance and counter-terrorism powers, which could be used against internal dissenters.
• If tax resistance and civil disobedience grew large enough, would the U.S. government classify its own citizens as “domestic extremists”?

Historically, this has happened:

• The Whiskey Rebellion (1794): Farmers refused to pay taxes and were crushed by federal troops.
• The Civil Rights Era: Protesters resisting government discrimination were met with violence, surveillance, and imprisonment.
• Post-9/11 Policies: Protests and dissident movements have been increasingly categorized as “security threats.”

As these questions become more relevant, Americans may have to redefine what it means to be “American”—whether it means compliance with a changing government or resisting to preserve the original vision.