[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: It's not your Money:The truth about Social Security It's not your Money:The truth about Social Security By Robert Greenslade Published 12. 14. 02 at 18:19 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 billion "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)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Luke The Spook, 4 (#0)
Exactly the reason it will never get done.
Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Very good insight on the Social Security. However, case law is not the law but is evidence of an existing statutory law ( re Social Security Act) and what it's original intent was. For example, SSN's was never meant to be used as a form of Identification. The true purpose of the Social Security Act was designed for single women with children and was absolutely NEVER NEVER intended to be for elderly people to retire on.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||