Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's not your Money:The truth about Social Security
Sierra Times ^ | 12. 13. 02 | By Robert Greenslade

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.
Third, there is no retirement trust fund. The Court stated:"[t]he proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." Since these income taxes are not earmarked in any way, there are no individual retirement accounts. Both taxes are general fund income taxes, which are used to pay the general expenditures of the federal government. This means Congress can spend these so-called "retirement contributions" to pay for military appropriations, foreign aid, salaries of federal employees, etc.

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.
In their proposals to save Social Security, politicians have stated that the program will not face a funding problem until the year 2015 or beyond depending on the source. What they are really saying is when this occurs, the amount of welfare paid by the federal government from the general fund will, for the first time, exceed the amount of tax dollars collected under the guise of retirement contributions.

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)



Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)

SierraTimes.com A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: congress; lies; socialsecurity; taxes; trustfund
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
Searched for this and didn't find it so I posted it as it is TRUTH which cannot be stated more clearly!
1 posted on 12/14/2002 7:10:49 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cato; Commander8; Pern; austingirl; sinkspur; IronJack; dixie sass; Taxman; Ragin1; Dog Gone; ...
This is one you all MUST READ and understand!
2 posted on 12/14/2002 7:22:42 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
The article is accurate. That is why I like social security. It is just a social safety net, that mitigates in old age the consequences of those that led a laissez les bon temps roulez life. The phony "surplus" which is being spent is a "problem" that will soon take care of itself, when the cash flows turn negative in a few years. Then Congress will have less to spend, and you will be happy, no?
3 posted on 12/14/2002 7:40:28 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
I treat my SS taxes as money gone to the gov't, with no return expected. My husband and I do not include SS "benefits" as part of our retirement planning.
4 posted on 12/14/2002 7:50:06 AM PST by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: smallstuff
Well, cutting benefits would be less spending would it not?
6 posted on 12/14/2002 7:56:14 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Then Congress will have less to spend, and you will be happy, no?

Not until we have an HONEST tax system which exposes ALL the costs of government will I be truly happy my friend!

7 posted on 12/14/2002 8:04:34 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
My husband and I do not include SS "benefits" as part of our retirement planning.

You are wise folks!

8 posted on 12/14/2002 8:05:52 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: *Social Security
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
9 posted on 12/14/2002 8:37:46 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Not until we have an HONEST tax system which exposes ALL the costs of government will I be truly happy my friend! ...LOL!

Then you can expect to live a miserable life.

10 posted on 12/14/2002 8:42:35 AM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Then you can expect to live a miserable life.

So YOU say. I choose to think otherwise!

11 posted on 12/14/2002 8:51:05 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
If my wife and I ever see any social security money, we plan to contribute a share of it to politicians working to privatize social security. We will probably give some to the Boy Scouts too.
12 posted on 12/14/2002 9:14:33 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
If Congress was (sic) 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.

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.

13 posted on 12/14/2002 9:24:11 AM PST by Deuce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deuce
It is openly a social contract between the currently productive and formerly productive members of society.

No it isn't! It IS a government run PONZI scheme which should be done away with ASAP!

14 posted on 12/14/2002 9:30:51 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
it would also be the honorable thing to do.

That means 'Not a chance'.

15 posted on 12/14/2002 9:39:07 AM PST by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deuce
Where do you even start in response to this?
16 posted on 12/14/2002 9:41:33 AM PST by AvgWhiteMale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; Deuce
It is disastrous in theory, but workable in reality.

Remember, there is no 'Trust Fund'; it's simply a rationalized social welfare scheme. If presented as an investment, of course it's a Ponzi-like scheme, but it's not an investment at all-- it's just another tax.

When a sense of entitlement is as pervasive as folks' attitude toward SS is, then the Government has the sheeple in their hands-- the flock always hangs around for the next feeding.

SS is the bedrock of American socialism.
17 posted on 12/14/2002 9:43:46 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
No it isn't! It IS a government run PONZI scheme which should be done away with ASAP!

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

18 posted on 12/14/2002 10:00:57 AM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Remember, there is no 'Trust Fund'; it's simply a rationalized social welfare scheme. If presented as an investment, of course it's a Ponzi-like scheme, but it's not an investment at all-- it's just another tax.

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

19 posted on 12/14/2002 10:06:57 AM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
"It IS a FORCED government run PONZI scheme"

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.

20 posted on 12/14/2002 10:23:02 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson