| |
|
|
Government -
Law
|
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the ! participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated ! the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! The worst part about it is this: uninformed citizens believe it!
Social Security: House of CardsIn the history of the United States, there is probably no more dramatic demonstration of deliberately designed misinformation than the literature put out by the social Security (FICA) administration. One need go no further than 3 decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, two in 1937 and one in 1960, to realize what blatant deception the current Social Security literature contains. Here is
what the court said:
The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into any pool or trust fund but: "The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way." Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619, 635 (1937)
The court points out that payroll deductions of American workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind, but are simply income taxes; "...eligibility for benefits... does NOT in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of Taxes." Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 603, 609 (1960)
Furthermore, payments made by employer for each of their employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the employee, but constitute an EXCISE tax on the employers rights to do business. Consequently his so-called "Contributions" go directly into the general fund of the treasury and "are not earmarked in any way." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 635 (1937)
People participating in Social Security payroll deductions do NOT acquire any property rights or contractual rights through their payments as they would IF they were paying an insurance policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply, there is NO guarantee! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to citizens even though they had paid SS taxes. Also, the payment of amounts of benefits are at the option of Congress. Fleming v. Nestor, 363 US 603, 610 (1960)
Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or gesture of charity. As the court states: "Congress included in the original act, and has since retained, a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the act." Fleming v. Nestor, 603 US 610-11 (1960) In effect, Social Security benefits are like pensions to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress.
Payroll deductions which a worker pays (income tax) do nothing more than qualify him for consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do NOT guarantee him any thing. They do NOT guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire program at any time. Literature from the Social Security headquarters also continued to talk about its "insurance plan" and the "contributions" which are "pooled" in a "trust fund." All of this was deliberately misleading in view of the Supreme Court decisions cited above. Had a private insurance company so grossly misrepresented its position on this same manner, its officers probably would have ended up in jail?
Ever since 1935 the SS Administration has laid such great emphasis on its "trust fund," that the average citizen believes his benefits are paid out of this fund. The administration knows this is NOT true since benefits are paid out of the general treasury fund. It therefore refers to its so-called trust fund as a "reserve of assets" to back up the SS program. What this "reserve fund" amounts to is simply an accumulation of US bonds which wouldn't pay the liability of the system even it they were all cashed in tomorrow. Furthermore, a US Bond is nothing more than a claim on the American people for taxes not yet collected. This is also true of the interest which has to be paid on the bond. Neither the bond or the interest to be paid on it constitutes an "asset" in any real sense of the term.
For government agency to accumulate a quantity of the government owned bonds and call these a "reserve" of assets is like a man writing himself a bundle of I.O.U's and listing these assets on his financial statement to the bank. Because ALL funds collected in the name of SS are NEVER earmarked for any special way they are intermingled and spent each year like other funds.
In recent years there has been considerable talk about the SS system becoming "insolvent" and getting close to "bankruptcy." The government itself is largely to blame for this misconception because it has used this line to justify the gigantic leap in SS TAXES. They said these increases were absolutely necessary to keep the
system "sound." At the same time, the SS Administration has been promising tremendous increases in "benefits" if the people would tolerate this new wave of increases. The main thing to keep in mind is that SS cannot go bankrupt in the ordinary sense of the term because it is able to depend upon government power to raise revenue through taxes rather than a trust fund such as insurance companies
are required to have.
The SS board of trustees emphasized their power to tax as a secret weapon in a 1972 report to Congress: "Because compulsory social insurance is assured of continuous income, it does not have to build up a kind of reserves that are necessary at all times in an institution that cannot count on current income to meet current obligations." This single decision assured ever mounting tax bills for the system without any possibility of relief.
|
|
|
