12 May 2008

Some Facts About Social Security

Posted by Roy Bischoff under: Guest Blogger .

This information was sent to me by Peter Anderson.

The Truth about Social Security

Volume 1, No. 8

by

Richard McDonald

The purpose of this Newsletter is to inform you of the truth
of the Social Security System.

First, before I begin to explain, I must define the term
“employee” and “employer”. The correct legal definitions of
these terms are: “Employee = working for the government, and
Employer = government or government protected workplace”. The
W-4 form is a class 5 gift tax form; by signing this form, you
are stating that you are receiving the gift of employment from
the government, so everything you receive is profit or gain as a
U.S. citizen.

In the history of the United States of America, there is
probably no more dramatic demonstration of deliberately designed
misinformation than the literature put out by the Social Security
Administration. One need go no further than three (3) decisions
handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court (two in 1937 and one in
1960,) to realize what blatant deception the current Social
Security literature contains. These cases are: Steward Machine
Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619
(1937); and Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960). These cases
clearly enunciate the position of the Supreme Court on the Social
Security Act and the actual legal position of those who expect to
receive benefits from it. Highlights of these cases are as
follows:

1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool
or trust fund, but:

“The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes
are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue
generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way.”

[Helvering v. Davis, U.S. 619, 635 (1937)]

2. 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.”

[Flemming v. Davis, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960)]

3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their
employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the
employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer’s right to
do business. Consequently, his so called “contributions” go
directly into the general fund of the treasury.

4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions
do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through
their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance
policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are
no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to
citizens even though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amount
of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. Flemming v.
Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).

5. 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”.

[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610-11 (1960)]

In effect, Social Security benefits are not unlike pensions
to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress.
I would encourage you to look at the rest of this which can be found here:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mcdonald/vol1-8.htm

7 Comments so far...

Angela Rogin Says:

12 May 2008 at 8:37 am.

Enforced charity? Wow, I had no idea. We always hear that social security is in trouble but I figured the government had to figure out a way to always make sure our money was there. I did think it was a contract so this was an unpleasant surprise. I had a feeling that by the time I am ready to collect, nothing is going to be there for me.

Benjamin Says:

12 May 2008 at 9:00 am.

How can they call it charity when we aren’t given a choice?

Jesse Says:

12 May 2008 at 11:36 am.

I’m glad you posted this information. I’ve known about this and have been frustrated that more people don’t know about it.

E.E. Says:

12 May 2008 at 12:05 pm.

I think current economic realities would suggest we find ways to prepare for our future that didn’t depend on S.S. I always had a feeling it wouldn’t be around when I hit 65.

I’ve been irritated that the funds have been used for other things. I didn’t know they weren’t earmarked in the first place.

M.G. Says:

12 May 2008 at 2:09 pm.

Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT
considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity
or gesture of charity.

Okay now that just makes me mad. This is crazy stuff. Can’t this be changed? Sorry dumb question.

Bryon Says:

12 May 2008 at 6:13 pm.

Wow. I think it is really up to us to take care of our selves. Why don’t we vote out this corrupt and useless burden? People who go jobless their entire lives and not contribute a dime in taxes can get Social Security? How about an enforced savings account were the money is actually in a separate account.

Matt Says:

12 May 2008 at 6:51 pm.

I wonder how much we could save if we abolished the social security department and the people saved that money themselves? I would bet a ton.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Jump Right In, Please!

We have worked hard to make our blog a friendly place to visit. We welcome everyone to join in our conversations. We are non-denominational and accept people from both sides of the political aisle, as long as everyone is treated with respect and there is no flaming. We are aware that many may feel that their writing is inadequate or that they have nothing valuable to contribute, but we encourage all to participate. Please do not feel intimidated here--we are all friends. Even a short "I agree" or "Well said" is appreciated. The only stupid questions are the ones that are not asked. Don't let Stumpy and stories about his donkey bother you. He really is just a sweet, old man! Please spread the word about us and let others know we are here.

Our Mission Statement

Encourage people to learn about our Constitution and the freedoms it preserves and to have faith in the Judaeo-Christian principles upon which it is based so that when those freedoms are threatened action may be taken to protect them.

In support of our mission statement, here is our Three-Fold Purpose of the blog, In God We Trust.

1. Defining and spreading an understanding of our Constitutional freedoms for the purpose of sustaining those freedoms.

2. Identifying threats to the unity of the conservative base, and helping people to resist the pressure to compromise values as an answer to political tensions.

3. Spreading the message that the key for healing the nation is showing respect, tolerance and kindness as we accept the political differences of others.

Our Blog Theme Song:
"In God We Still Trust" by Diamond Rio

Book of the Month Discussions

Join us in discussing the selected book. We look forward to your comments!
June 2008: 1984 by George Orwell
May 2008: (Continued) 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen
April 2008: 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen

Making a Difference

Tell us about the things you have done to make a difference in the lives of others:
Making A Difference

Blogs Worth Rereading

Pandemic Bring Down Civilization
Religion Sustains Freedom
Values vs. Dogma
Labels
Blacks & the Priesthood in the LDS Church
Putting the Press on Notice
Constitution in Peril
Winter of our Misgivings
Cow Mentality

Browse

Calendar

May 2008
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

E-mail This Post To A Friend

Send to a Friend:





Send to a friend:

Categories

Links