Talk:Social Security

Social Security Trust Fund

15 points (Virginia Raines , Wed 10:25)

The debate about social security doesn't seem to have brought the various viewpoints any closer together. The feedback is pretty much the same -- people either refute the idea entirely or they agree with the essential position that there is a fund without any funds in it. However, the various tangential points often seem to be the source of most of the differing positions. ...

I am not trying to argue the merits of a SS system scheme!! I am not trying to prove that it was not part of an international enslavement conspiracy. I am not trying to prove that the people who created it had altruistic, pure motives. I am not trying to prove that there weren't deliberately misleading propaganda campaigns. I am not trying to prove the SS system is constitutional. All of those arguments are good to debate but they don't prove whether or not there is a trust fund.

Also, debate about whether SS "insurance" is really insurance or the SS trust fund is really a trust fund, because one has certain assumptions about the characteristics, is a different matter. ...

The only serious response which is completely beyond the scope of this effort is a wonderful, thoughtful perspective from Gregory Williams which starts out thusly (and I really couldn't disagree): "The only thing in the Social Security trust fund is the people, the sureties of the trust, and all that they have legal title to...." Maybe he will make it available at his web site: Virginia Raines

---

Original Response from Gregory at the ekklesia

Trusting in the Social Security deception [the beast]?

Welcome to the Corvee'

It might be useful to see text of the Social Security Act and what the author and others said about it in the context of History. I even include footnotes for anyone willing to check it out. This entire system and situation is really very simple. One of the problems is that most people are completely devoid of even the most basic knowledge of history.

But before I begin I would like to make a comment on a statement by Mark.

Mark responds: > > ... http://lawgiver.cjb.net > > > > Specifically read "The United States is Still a British Colony". The > > evidence and research done by the author is irrefutable.

I do not disagree with what he said but I think it would help to add a broader perspective by saying that the United States is a subject of the Holy Roman Empire or unholy Roman Empire, depending on your perspective, which would now be the 'image' or similitude of the beast that was operating at the time of Christ. e.g. The Roman Empire. Note that one of the titles of the kings and queens of Great Britain is, "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire" Treaty of Paris September 3, 1783

As to the Social Security Trust...

The only thing in the Social Security trust fund is the people, the sureties of the trust, and all that they have only a legal title to.

And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat[dwelt] by the flesh pots [in the caldron of mankind], [and] when we did eat bread to the full;... Exodus 16:3

In the 1930s as a new social program was being debated in congress, "one could look into a caldron in which the Government and the people of the United States were moving around in response to a new idea,..."

"First: The tax which is described in statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty an impost or an excise upon the relation of employment" Is the act of employment the act of selling oneself into servitude for the hope of security in society?

In Summary of American Law by George L. Clark p 635 you will find the only entry for 'employ' or 'employee' in the index is, "EMPLOYEES See Master and Servant (this index)"

"People have not yet discovered they have been disenfranchised. Even lawyers can't stand to admit it. In any nation in which people's rights have been subordinated to the rights of the few, in any totalitarian nation, the first institution to be dismantled is the jury. I was, I am, afraid."

Were the Israelites 'slaves' in Egypt?

"Slaves never became an important ingredient of Egyptian civilization. The large subject population and enforcible corvee' system - by which serfs had to work temporarily as slaves - made a permanent force of slaves unnecessary."

The man who gives me employment, which I must have or suffer, that man is my master, let me call him what I will.

"Other forms of servitude related to slavery, and sometimes indistinguishable from it, are serfdom, debt bondage, indentured service, peonage, and corvee (also called statute labor)."

"This was a new type of legislation--- nothing of the sort had ever come before the congress of the United States before, it took much explaining and much patience."

"The corvee' was different from other forced labor arrangements because it was labor performed for the government, involuntarily, on large public works projects. (The word corvee' meant 'contribution,' signifying one's obligation to the state.) In some cases the corvee' meant a specified amount of time given to the state every year, as prescribed by law. Another name for it was, therefore, statute labor. It was used by the Romans for the upkeep of roads, bridges, and dikes but got its name in France early in the 18th century."

The word involuntary only refers to the fact once within the Roman civil jurisdiction by submission the contribution attached itself in an obligatory way.

We often hear an income tax obligation called a contribution. In Pharaoh's Egypt in the days of their captivity, the tribute tax paid by his subjects was equivalent to two and a half months, all the gold and silver was in the government treasury instead of the hands of the people and everyone only had a legal title to their land, their stock and their lives. To pay off the average corvee' tax liability in 1995 for employees in the United States required four months and five days. A citizen of the United States Government who has legal title to what appears to be his property (land, vehicles, labor etc.) has no right to its beneficial interest or use.

" How doth the city sit solitary, [that was] full of people! [how] is she become as a widow! she [that was] great among the nations, [and] princess among the provinces, [how] is she become tributary !" (La 1:1)

Here tributary was translated from the Hebrew word "mac {mas}" meaning "gang/body of forced labourers, task-workers, labour band/gang, forced service, task-work, serfdom, tributary, tribute, levy, taskmasters, discomfited ... forced service, serfdom, tribute, enforced payment."

"Of the twenty-three uses of this term, all but three (Isa 31:8; La1:1; Est 10:1) occur early in the literature. The institution of tribute or corvee involves involuntary, unpaid labour or other services for superior power-a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler (Ex 1:11; Est 10:1; Lam 1:1). in Gen. 49:15, Jacob's blessing on Issachar identifies him as bowing to 'tribute.' In Egypt, the Israelites find themselves in that position (Ex 1:11). This unpopular measure, and Rehoboam's refusal to moderate it, was the immediate cause of the secession of the ten tribes and the establishment of the northern kingdom."

"The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

It is not the 16th Amendment that creates an obligation of contribution in the form of a tax but your voluntary entry into a corvee system of slavery.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

August 14, 1935

TITLE VIII---TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES " SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of wages (as defined in section 811) Sec. 811. When used in this title---. . . " (b) The Term "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed within the United States by an employee for his employer except--- employment in a foreign country: such term includes an individual who is a citizen of the United States.

" A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety in the presence of his friend. ( Pr 17:18)

" Did or does Congress have the authority or power to establish a retirement scheme? Even with its formidable power to control interstate commerce the congress was never given the duty to become an insurance company for every ill that might fall the inhabitants of this land.

" "The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.

"Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power."

" If Congress did not have the power to establish an insurance system who wanted it?

" "The President wanted everybody covered for every contingency in life---'cradle to the grave,' he called it---under the social insurance system... But the Government of the United States is not an insurance company and so it could be done."

" Neither the President nor the Congress had the power to compel the free people of America to began to labor without pay. They could not force the entire population into becoming tax collectors and surfs, taskmasters and statute laborers.

How could an entire nation be bound into slavery?

"20 C.F.R. . 422.1(ii) Any person who wishes to file an application for an account number may do so by filing Form SS-5."

"Wishes"?

What have you wished for?

Not so: go now ye [that are] men, and serve the LORD; for that ye did desire. And they were driven out from Pharaoh's presence. (Ex 10:11) 20 C.F.R. . 422.103 (b) Applying for a number - (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed form SS-5, "Application for A Social Security Number Card," at any social security office and submitting the required evidence.

"May apply"?

Who should you be making an application to for your daily bread and security?

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." (2 Peter 2:3)

When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou [be] a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: ..for they [are] deceitful meat. Eat thou not the bread of [him that hath] an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: For as he thinketh in his heart, so [is] he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart [is] not with thee. The morsel [which] thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words. (Pr. 23: 1, 3 6, 8)

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Rev 13:16, 18)

This beast or jurisdictional authority was able to cause everyone to get this mark, that is to say to get a badge of servitude. If they refused they cannot enter their market place., which would include their labor. If they did not work for the beast they would be excluded even if they die.

Not everyone works for the government, do they? The news media announced this April 15 that the average worker works three hours a day for the government or over 4 months out of every year. That would be serving the government or the ruling authority for 4 months, wouldn't it?

For thou, Lord, [art] good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee. Give ear, O LORD, unto my prayer; and attend to the voice of my supplications. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me. (Psalms 86:5,7)

Is it not the "Social Security Number" or "Employee Identification Number" or "Tax Identification Number," being all one in the same, that is given as the sign of your eligibility for the benefit of legal employment, legal conversion? Whether you hand your card to your prospective licensed employer/taskmaster or simply give him your diligently memorized numerical identifier it is still that number that marks you for service. Your enforced payment will be collected before you even see it and you will toil without pay.

"Art thou less a slave because thy master loves and caresses thee?"

There are many benefits you shall receive besides your wages. Banks shall welcome you, schools, public assistance, unemployment, workmen's compensation, credit cards, of course, social security, medical aid, government assistance, loans and grants and finally the deductibility of your children. The list goes on under these new covenants and contracts offered the American people and the world. Who will repent and turn away from benefits and privileges? In fact, he burdens his neighbor and creates an obligation by choosing to "enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another."

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, with the words of thy mouth... How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? [Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man. (Proverbs 6:1,11)

You have a legal entitlement to work and the equitable title or true or lawful owner of your labor is another. You are given into a trust at the moment of your conversion. The trust in turn holds that ownership of your labor as a surety for the debts of the trust.

42 U.S.C. section 666, reflects the amendments made by "The Welfare Reform Act of 1996" ". 666(a) In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following... "(13) Procedures requiring that the social security number of - "(A) any applicant for a professional license, driver's license, occupational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application..." etc., etc., etc...

The list goes on and on and on, 42 U.S.C. section 666 (Public Law 104-193) and "The Balanced Budget Act of 1997" (Public Law: 105-33). Additionally, a sister law, Public Law 104-208, contains information for National ID cards using State driver's licenses.

HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996, a.k.a. Public Law 104-191 - 104th Congress, An Act.

It begins, "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of health insurance, and for other purposes. (NOTE: Aug. 21, 1996 - (H.R. 3103))" So, what do they mean other purposes?

Way down at the bottom of this book size bill we find section 511 through 513 which provides for the forfeiture of property of anyone who losses his/her United States Citizenship (within the meaning of section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). "nonresident aliens individuals."

Also, section 403 of H.R. 3103 will amend Title 42 US. Code section 405(c)(2)(c)(i) by changing the word "MAY" to the word "SHALL" which will require an SSN on all state or county (a political subdivision) documents. This will in effect nullify the Privacy Act as the local governments bow down to federal funding. H.R. 3130 also establishes a national "instant check" employee/employer database system. Employment is a privilege/benefit. No number, no work. Also, county deeds, courts agencies as well as state licenses, permits, and documents will no longer be available without the card in your hand or the number in your head for computer verification.

Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, Slavery! said I, still thou art a bitter draught.

Why are forfeiture laws for a citizenship change found buried in an act about insurance?

"If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants [are] wicked." (Pr 29:12)

How have we been so deceived to believe slavery is freedom and bondage is security?

"For 140 years this nation has tried to impose objectives downward from a lofty command center made up of 'experts,' a central elite of social engineers,... It hasn't worked. It won't work... It doesn't work because its fundamental premises are mechanical, anti-human, and hostile to family life. Lives can be controlled by machine education but they will always fight back with weapons of social pathology: drugs, violence, self-destruction, indifference, and the symptoms I see in the children I teach."

"It destroys communities by relegating the training of children to the hands of certified experts - and by doing so it ensures our children cannot grow up fully human ...- becoming instead mindless automatons programmed by the state's change agents. Rather than instilling in youngsters an appreciation for individual liberty, the system has brought to life the ancient pharaonic dream of Egypt: compulsory subordination for all.... Schools teach exactly what they are intended to teach and they do it well: how to be a good Egyptian and remain in your place in the pyramid."

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean (thing); and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthian 6:15-18)

Gregory at the ekklesia

---

---

15 POINTS

(Virginia Raines , Wed 10:25) To: "Virginia Raines

1. The 1935 legislation didn't create a social security program or trust fund. .

Proposed Answer: Correct. In 1935, legislation was introduced after several years of planning by a commission. This legislation was subsequently renamed the Social Security Act. It furthered an already on-going government (state and federal) agenda of financial assistance to certain people (e.g, unemployed).

At that time, there was an account set up at the federal level for this purpose. It was called an account, and it was to hold securities and other gifts and bequests, etc. The account was for all intents and purposes a "reserve" for future needs. The bulk of what was on the books were securities.

During this time, there was established a Social Security Board. It was widely stated that people didn't want to be on a government dole, but they would be receptive to a scheme in which they contributed in order to receive benefits at a future time. The explanations appear to be fairly clear that the payments were not actually being deposited in an account for an individual but rather were being used to pay current recipients. What is less clear is that there seemed to be an implied contract about rights, benefits, etc., and some of that confusion was perhaps intentional.

From the 1936 pamphlet:

"THE same law that provides these old-age benefits for you and other workers, sets up certain new taxes to be paid to the United States Government. These taxes are collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the U. S. Treasury Department, and inquiries concerning them should be addressed to that bureau. The law also creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the United States Treasury, and Congress is authorized to put into this reserve account each year enough money to provide for the monthly payments you and other workers are to receive when you are 65. "

A few years later, it was decided that the next step in this program would be to set up a trust fund. In fact, more than one trust fund, for different purposes, were set up. These trust funds are "on the books of the Treasury". Along the lines of what was just said about the misleading information:

From Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kevin J. Lansing:

"The terms "trust fund" and "contributions" were carefully selected during the crafting of the 1939 amendments to the Social Security legislation. They suggest that participants have earned the right to future benefits, and create an impression of asset management for the exclusive benefit of contributors under an inviolable set of rules. These labels have proved misleading because Congress has exercised its legal right to change the tax and benefit structure on numerous occasions. Indeed, frequent changes have caused OASI to grow from a small initiative for providing retirement security into a massive and complex program that involves huge cross-generational resource transfers. The lopsided nature of the investment deal that rewards earlier participants at the expense of those who enroll later raises serious questions about the program's intergenerational fairness."

In any event, Social Security Amendments established the trust funds. None of them are named Social Security Trust Fund; however, collectively, they are usually referred to this way. The primary trust fund in the system is known as the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. For all practical purposes, the funds operate together. Beginning in 1941, the designated trustees began making annual reports to congress.

The text which refers to this set-up is appended below in truncated form. It is Title 42- The Public Health and Welfare; Chapter 7 - Social Security; Subchapter II- Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits; Sec. 401. Trust Funds. It says towards the beginning:

"The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund..."

It will be apparent that prior to the creation of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the predecessor (Old-Age Reserve Account) was already a vehicle by which securities were listed as assets of the account (in other words, a "surplus" which had been transformed into debt).

2. When social security was introduced, we weren't told that we were going to be taxed for it.

PA: Per the 1936 pamphlet, the formal government explanation (prior to any trust fund discussion) explicitly described the method by which the 1935 plan would be financed, which consisted of payroll taxes collected from both the employer and the employee.

How it might have been discussed in the media is a different issue. Certainly, the entire scheme was more or less fraudulently presented.

3. When we make our social security "contributions", they go into general revenue. They are nothing more than another taxation.

PA: That is absolutely correct. Although many terms are used, it has always explicitly been a tax.

4. Since these are taxes, congress can do anything with them.

PA: That is true. The courts support the fact that as taxes, the payments don't go directly to a SS fund, nor can Congress be compelled to do so. However, congress is simultaneously required to appropriate to the fund a matching amount. In part, this reads as follows (from Title 42)

"There is hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for each fiscal year thereafter, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 per centum of -

(1) the taxes (including interest, penalties, and additions to the taxes) received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (and covered into the Treasury) which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal revenue before January 1, 1951;"

I am unaware at this time of any year in which congress might have appropriated less than the 100 percentum specified, from "any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated". It is true that in 14 years since 1937, expenditures from the fund have exceeded receipts. This is not quite the same thing. As far as I know, congress has always met the requirement that they appropriate 100 percentum (or more).

In other words, amounts equal to the total paid in payroll taxes are appropriated by congress to Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. However, in several instances the language has read that congress was authorized to appropriate ("deposit") an amount adequate to pay the benefits (1936 pamphlet: "Congress is authorized to put into this reserve account each year enough money to provide for the monthly payments you and other workers are to receive when you are 65."

This leads to two other points. First, this helps to justify the concept that a "reserve" needed to be built up, since it was assumed at the very beginning of the program that future benefit claims would begin to exceed income to pay for them. Second, there is the weasel concept about the payments you are to receive -- congress may change the level of benefits regardless of how much you have paid or they have appropriated for payments.

5. Nothing is deposited into the trust fund.

PA: That is correct. It is appropriated to the fund. All of this is done on the "books" of the Treasury. These are bookkeeping entries.

6. Because the payroll taxes aren't dedicated to the social security system, congress uses those payments to hide their real budget.

PA: Yes. The payroll taxes are used in the Unified Budget and appear to make the budget look better than it is. This does not negate the fact that congress also "appropriates" a like amount to the trust fund.

7. There is no trust fund -- the government cannot hold revolving accounts and can't invest in the private sectors.

PA: The government at all levels (local, municipal, state, federal) has myriads of trusts.

The social security accounts, or trust funds, are required to invest only in particular securities and they may not invest in the private market. Neither of these considerations means prima facie that they are not trust funds. Those are two different issues. To subsequently say (for example), 'well, just because the government calls it a trust fund doesn't make it so because of the two objections mentioned here' simply avoids the fact that the government has multiple trusts and can specify any damn thing it wants to with regard to how the trust is run.

If these objections were true of the so-called social security trust fund, then it could not have others, either, which is obviously not the case. 8. There is no trust fund because it's just a name on the books and there's nothing in it.

PA: This gets close to my point. There is a trust fund by name, on the books of the Treasury.

What's in it is a different matter. How it got started:

"The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and :amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and, in addition, such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided in subsection (i)(1) of this section, and such amounts as :may be appropriated to, or deposited in, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter provided."

Since then, Congress has been directed by this section to appropriate an amount equal to 100 percentum of payroll tax payments (including fines, penalties, etc.) which amount is then put on the books of the fund at Treasury.

Which leads to part B of the complaint that there's nothing in the fund.

For 47 of the years since 1937, receipts for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund have exceeded expenditures (chart: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html)

The excuse for taxing at a higher rate than is needed to pay benefits has always been the need to have a "reserve". The surplus is not a reserve, however. That surplus is exchanged for "special Treasury securities" which carry interest and are not marketable anywhere else. The so-called surplus from payroll taxes that have been paid is then turned into a future government liability. Taxed once; taxed again to redeem the securities. Paying off the securities will come from other types of taxes and inflation, but it still comes out of the same pocketbooks, even if you have become a SS beneficiary by that time.

Hence, my assertion that there is a fund, there are no funds in the fund. But since there are government debts in the fund, you can expect to pay more in the future to get rid of those debts. In the case of a government trust fund which is essentially created with money that is taxed in the first place, having a Treasury security in place of the tax money is not an asset.

9. This isn't an insurance plan. Congress can change the rules.

PA: Yes and no. Congress can change the rules. Flemming v. Nestor proved that payees do not have property rights or annuities. http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html Congress may choose to lower the level of benefits being provided (or raise them, which it normally does). Congress may choose to exclude a class of people entirely, even though members of that class have paid payroll taxes. A lot of the terminology is definitely misleading. SS is not an insurance policy; it was often called social insurance. This type of language, and the overly simplified explanations of a government program which often distort the real mechanics, certainly led to mistaken assumptions (sometimes deliberately).

First, without resorting to a legal dictionary, let us simply ask, what is insurance in the first place? Basically nothing more than multiple payments from many people to some central organizing principle, for the purpose of distributing payments when certain conditions are met. Payments to the system were never comparable to deposits to a personal account, a private investment, or an insurance policy. In the first case, for instance, you have property rights that you don't have with social security. In the second case, you normally don't have any guarantees. In the third case, you may expect the insurance company to comply with the provisions of the policy. Those are very elementary comparisons, not meant to be comprehensive but illustrative nonetheless.

In the case of social security, there is no policy that states you have a defined benefit. Like insurance, your payments are collected for the purpose of making payments to many parties, unlike a private investment. Unlike a typical pension plan, there is neither a defined contribution (fixed payments that don't change; the payroll tax rate has gone up from a couple of percentage point to over 15%) nor a defined benefit (Congress is free to determine what level of benefits to approve). Aside from the claim in the 1936 pamphlet that you will "always" receive more in benefits than you pay, there is nothing but rhetoric as to what this social insurance is.

But that doesn't completely invalidate the use of the term "insurance" for the program, since it does provide some of the same functions that an insurance plan would, although it certainly is not equivalent to a corporate version of insurance.

One would be hard-pressed to come up with a full and complete definition of insurance which would totally omit the SS version, even though the way SS really works is not what the layman has in mind when thinking of insurance. On the other hand, most insurance companies operate more like the SS scheme than people assume, too. (Constantly trying to get out of their liability to pay, constantly trying to reduce the claim, constantly trying to get find ways to get undesirables off the plan, changing the terms of the policy to their own advantage as frequently as possible,.... etc. -- you get the picture).

Lastly, whether you call it an insurance policy, an insurance plan, social insurance, or social insecurity, the funds use the term "insurance" in their titles. If you disagree about whether the plan is insurance, then go tell Congress to change the name of the trust funds (the trust funds that many people deny exist) and remove the term "insurance" entirely. Fine. At least there might be some meaningful debate to come out of it.

10. Social security is only a statutory right and can be taken away at a whim of Congress.

PA: True. That has nothing to do with whether a trust fund exists.

11. Employers SS contributions are a separate tax for the privilege of hiring employees and are not for matching the employees SS contributions. PA: Different argument. If the taxes which the employer pays are included in the 100 percentum amount appropriated by Congress pursuant to the title, then for all practical purposes these payments are included in the SS system scheme.

12. SS is STRICTLY for Government workers ONLY.

PA: Again, a different argument (constitutional). Per the 1936 pamphlet:

The 1936 Government Pamphlet on Social Security To Employees of Industrial and Business Establishments FACTORIES-SHOPS-MINES-MILLS-STORES-OFFICES AND OTHER PLACES OF BUSINESS "This will go on just the same if you go to work for another employer, so long as you work in a factory, shop, mine, mill, office, store, or other such place of business. (Wages earned in employment as farm workers, domestic workers in private homes, Government workers, and on a few other kinds of jobs are not subject to this tax.)"

The federal government is free to set up any system it wants for government workers. Social security was not set up for government workers. Whether the federal government had a constitutional purview for setting up SS for non-government workers is a different issue. As many people have pointed out, we put ourselves into federal control when we take the SS number. The entire argument about whether someone who is eligible by working in a covered employment must take a SS number has pretty well been decidedyou are not required to have a SS number to work, unless you are required to do so by virtue of some status which makes you subject to federal jurisdiction (e.g., a federal employee).

In any event, SS was not set up for government workers, government workers were excluded, and it was an extension of assistance programs already in place at the federal and state levels. The government put on a big campaign to make people not only think they would be eligible for benefits, but also that it was mandatory for them to participate. Again, that is an issue that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a trust fund.

13. I don't have a SS number and I don't believe there is a trust fund. My life is not impacted by that argument.

PA: First, the payroll taxes that are extracted from employers must be added to the cost of doing business. Everyone pays more because of it.

Second, at the end of 1998, the "assets" (in millions) listed for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was $ 681,645. Virtually this entire amount would perforce (in accordance with all the preceding legislation and code since 1935) be "invested" in special Treasury securities that pay interest.

How do you think those Treasury securities and interest are paid?? They must be paid by raising additional government revenue. At this time, my personal opinion is that they cannot be paid (unless Congress amends something) by taking payroll taxes and giving them to the Treasury Department to pay off the securities that are on the trust fund books. The reason this can't happen is that an amount equal to 100% of the taxes are to be appropriated by Congress to the trust fund books. So, any excess in payroll taxes is simply not available elsewhere to pay off the securities. If that appropriation process should change in the future by amendment, the entire scheme would be in the bizarre situation of taxing payrolls at a higher amount than is needed to pay benefits that year, and diverting those sums to Treasury for the purpose of removing existing government debt from the books of the trust fund, such government debt having arisen in the first place from excess payroll taxes. Could happen, but not likely.

It's been suggested by some smarter people than I am that the government IOUs can be erased by reducing the SS benefits in the future. Well, that brings up the same problem as above. Reducing benefits merely increases the ratio of surplus in the appropriated bookkeeping entry, which surplus is mandatorily "invested" in those same special Treasury securities. Reducing benefits under that scenario only worsens the fundamental problem!

Pretty much the only way to redeem those securities is going to be through additional government revenue which will mean additional taxes and more inflation.

14. The entire system is a scam because it takes from one person or group and gives to another.

PA: Right again. It is a scam. That doesn't negate the problems outlined above, which will have to be resolved somehow anyway.

15. The entire system is a scam. The FED has told us that the monetary system works exlusively with credit. When we pay taxes, it isn't even money. All that is going on is bookkeeping entries. No debt can be paid under this system.

PA: From your perspective about the FED, you are right. In fact, I've mentioned many times in the last few days that congress directed Treasury to create the trust fund on its books, and when it appropriates to the fund, it is nothing but a bookkeeping entry.

Like point # 14, however, this argument doesn't prove that there is nothing called a trust fund that is getting bookkeeping entries -- which entries are then converted into Treasury securities (debt). Since the bookkeeping entries appropriated to the fund were based on payroll taxes (taken from the accounts of employers and employees), they were essentially confiscated hashmarks, that had been acquired by work. Those hashmarks went through several stages before getting on the trust fund books, but they fall under the term "taxes".

When the new hashmarks were recorded on the trust fund books at Treasury, following an appropriation by Congress, the extra hashmarks (not needed currently for expenditures) were traded for new "paper" (which also arises from the creation of hashmarks). So now, the hashmarks are multiplied, on more than one set of books. How will those existing hashmarks be erased? Congress will acquire even more new hashmarks from more bank accounts (raise existing taxes, fines, licenses, issue more debt [inflation], sell off assets, find new ways to tax, etc.) and Treasury will use them in order to "redeem" the special securities.

Conclusion

In other words, everyone is affected, whether they have a SS number or not! You will be paying, in direct and indirect means (I listed some ways already, including inflation), in order to redeem special Treasury certificates that the trust fund (that many claim doesn't exist) "invested in" with surplus payroll taxes.

If you don't have a SS# and don't pay payroll taxes, you will still pay your share of the national cost to redeem those securities. If you do have a SS# and pay payroll taxes, guess what? You will pay twice!! First when the excess taxation was levied on your check and second when your share of the national cost to redeem those securities is spread around.

Furthermore, for those who have been paying payroll taxes, it is particularly disturbing to realize that their own budgets have been reduced by those amounts, which could have been used to improve their own financial well-being based on their own earnings. Furthermore, the payroll taxes taken from them were far in excess of the amount of benefits being paid out in all but 14 years. That surplus, since 1937, has been represented as a reserve for the times when benefits will exceed payments. Instead, that surplus has been used to create more government debt.

I know that it's gotten to the point that I am just repeating myself. Hopefully, most people have been patient enough to read the two posts before now and thus understood more about the big picture surrounding all the complaints (the 15 points, which are certainly by no means exhaustive). The surplus payroll taxes, which should be an asset for future use, are turned into liabilities! It's like a prince that is turned into a toad. Everyone ignores the fact that the prince is gone and in his place is a toad (sure, a toad with promise, but nonetheless a toad is not an asset).

Instead of being turned back into a prince when he is kissed (redeemed), he just turns into a prince-sized toad!

42 USC Sec. 401 01/26/98

TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER II - FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

Sec. 401. Trust Funds

(a) Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund :There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the :United States a trust fund to be known as the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors :Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the :Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the :amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the :books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and :amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to :transfer to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, :and, in addition, such gifts and bequests as may be made as :provided in subsection (i)(1) of this section, and such amounts as :may be appropriated to, or deposited in, the Federal Old-Age and :Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter provided. There is : hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance : Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for each :fiscal year thereafter, out of any moneys in the Treasury not :otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 per centum of- :

(1) the taxes (including interest, penalties, and additions : to the taxes) received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of the : Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (and covered into the Treasury) : which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal : revenue before January 1, 1951; and :

(2) the taxes certified each month by the Commissioner of : Internal Revenue as taxes received under subchapter A of chapter : 9 of such Code which are deposited into the Treasury by : collectors of internal revenue after December 31, 1950, and : before January 1, 1953, with respect to assessments of such : taxes made before January 1, 1951; and

(3) the taxes imposed by subchapter A of chapter 9 of such Code : with respect to wages (as defined in section 1426 of such Code), : and by chapter 21 (other than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) of : the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to wages (as : defined in section 3121 of such Code) reported to the : Commissioner of Internal Revenue pursuant to section 1420(c) of : the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 after December 31, 1950, or to : the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegates pursuant to : subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 after December : 31, 1954, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury by : applying the applicable rates of tax under such subchapter or : chapter 21 (other than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) to such : wages, which wages shall be certified by the Commissioner of : Social Security on the basis of the records of wages established : and maintained by such Commissioner in accordance with such : reports, less the amounts specified in clause (1) of subsection :

(b) of this section; and : : The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection

NOT completed page

under construction