Posted on 12/14/2002 7:10:49 AM PST by Bigun
It's not your Money:The truth about Social Security
By Robert Greenslade
Published 12. 13. 02 at 21:27 Sierra Time
|
|
|
|
|
Members of both political parties have been extremely adept in convincing the American people that Social Security is a legitimate retirement program. Workers have been told that the payroll deductions from their wages are "contributions" which are matched by their employer and pooled in a special "trust fund." In reality, Social Security is nothing but a tax and welfare scheme disguised as a retirement program. In addition, there is no "retirement trust fund" because these so-called "contributions" are actually additional income taxes that are deposited in the federal government's general fund. Immediately after going into effect in 1935, the Social Security Act was challenged as unconstitutional. In 1937, in Helvering v. Davis (301 US 619), the Supreme Court revealed the truth about Social Security. First, employees are not making a contribution into a retirement program, but are, in reality, paying a "special income tax" which is deducted from their wages and paid to the federal government by the employer. The tax is an indirect or excise tax imposed on the employee for the "privilege" of being employed by an employer. Second, employers are not making matching contributions into a retirement program for their employees, but are, in reality, paying an excise tax for the privilege of having individuals in their employ. In 1960, in Flemming v. Nestor (363 US 603), the Supreme Court provided further insight into the nature of the Social Security program. The Court stated that "...eligibility for benefits...[does] not in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes." Since the Social Security program is a form of welfare, an individual who has not paid a penny in Social Security taxes can receive various benefits under the program. The Court also ruled that individuals paying Social Security taxes do not acquire any property or contractual rights as they would in an insurance or annuity plan. In addition, the Court stated: "[c]ongress included in the original act, and has since retained, a claim expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision' of the Act." Social Security, contrary to representations by politicians, is nothing but a tax and welfare scheme masquerading as a retirement program. Payroll deductions are not "retirement contributions" and do not guarantee the receipt of any benefits. They merely qualify the individual for consideration in a federal charity program that can be modified or abolished by Congress at any time. In fact, if you woke-up tomorrow morning and heard that Social Security had been abolished you would not have any legal claim for promised benefits. Despite the fairy tales emanating from Washington, Social Security is a cash cow that generates tens of billions of general fund dollars for Congress to spend each year. In 1999 for example, then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stated that the projected federal budget surplus was $110 billion¾"all from Social Security taxes." Thus, Social Security taxes in 1999 generated approximately $110 billion in "surplus" dollars for Congress to spend in any manner it saw fit. In the author's opinion, this is the real reason most politicians do no want to privatize Social Security. The ability to tax and spend is the ultimate source of power. And power is the name of the game. As stated by Alexander Hamilton "a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." If Congress was truly concerned about the retirement of seniors as they claim in their pleas to save Social Security, they would phase out this fraudulent tax and welfare scheme and allow the American people to create their own retirement program. Not only would this stimulate the economy and create jobs, but it would also be the honorable thing to do. |
©
2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
Not until we have an HONEST tax system which exposes ALL the costs of government will I be truly happy my friend!
You are wise folks!
Then you can expect to live a miserable life.
So YOU say. I choose to think otherwise!
There is no fraud. It is openly a social contract between the currently productive and formerly productive members of society. Therefore, the fix IS NOT privatized accounts which merely MISDIRECT the funds from the elderly in need to the heirs of the account holders. Instead, all we have to do is::
1: base it on need (e.g. for every dollar earned through all other sources above $X, reduces SS benefit by, say, $.20;
2. to the extent more is needed to make the system viable, slightly adjust the level of promised benefit, retirement age, and or tax and tax base to achieve viability.
No it isn't! It IS a government run PONZI scheme which should be done away with ASAP!
That means 'Not a chance'.
You left out a very important word.. Your line should read "It IS a FORCED government run PONZI scheme"
I agree with you 100%. The key difference between a "criminal" ponzi scheme (i.e. one that's not run by the government) and SS, is that if you work, the government forces you to pay. People who invest in ponzi schemes get to make a choice, usually driven by greed.
Mark
Also, over the last few years there's been a concerted effort to get rid of the phrases "FICA tax" or Social Security tax," and replace it with "payroll tax." The liberals don't want to use the former, since this might imply that low earning workers might actually be contributing to the "pay as your go" system! Instead, they call it a payroll tax, in order to show that this is a tax that everyone pays, and that the "working families" are getting screwed over by this tax. By wanting to cut "the payroll tax," they're going to shift the burdon of social security to higher wage earners. I wonder how a plan floated by the dems would go if they used the term "cut social security taxes," vs "cut payroll taxes." Hmmm... The sheeple might see the first as the government cutting back on SS, while the second is "more fair" to "working families."
Mark
I accept your amendment.
It is mind boggling to me the furor being raised over what Trent Lott said while no one makes mention of what the left has DONE!
Social Security is patently RACIST and anyone who doesn't think so need only look at an actuarial table and compare the AVERAGE lifespan of blacks to that of whites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.