The government has been borrowing money from SS since 1983 in the Ronald Reagan years.
Wrong. Absolutely, completely wrong.
USSC made this clear as far back as 1937
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.
6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays (a special kind of "employment/income tax") do nothing more than qualify him for consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do not guarantee him anything. They do not guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire process at any time.
Justice Hugo L. Black, dissenting in the Nestor case, stated that the whole Social Security thesis, as expounded by the majority of the court, is that the government is giving the participating citizen "something for nothing and Congress can stop doing so when it pleases." He further stated:
"I cannot believe that any private insurance in America would be permitted to repudiate it's matured contracts with its policy-holders who have regularly paid all the premiums in reliance upon the good faith of the company."
[Flemming v. Nestor, supra]
[Justice Black dissenting]
++++++++++++
The sooner this farce called Social Security is junked, the better.
Facebook
Twitter