You did not pay into Social Security

  • You did not pay into Social Security
  • Not so Secure Socialism
  • Social Security is not insurance.
  • Social Security is not an entitlement.

Carelessly repeating lies that you heard somewhere is not going to make it become true. The lies you heard from your socialist cult leader are not even written down.

You keep insisting that Social Security is a trust fund.
You keep insisting that you paid into social security, or that it is your money, or that there is a trust fund with money earmarked for you.
You did not pay into Social Security anymore than you paid into IRS (and the only reason you paid is because you are an alien as far as the government knows). You only paid a tax. If you have proof that you “paid into” a trust fund account, you should tell the SS Administration, and the Supreme Court, and Congress, because they don’t know about any such law. If there was a law it would be unconstitutional AND — in the words of President Grover Cleaveland — “subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Even the Social Security Administration says there is no ‘earned right’ to benefits. BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. Never has been.

“This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are “an earned right.” This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility–and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.”

This same government website says that you did not pay into Social Security.

“There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law.”

That’s right. Your imaginary ‘trust fund’ is ONLY a debt IOU that we are obligated to pay. We must pay those who purchased the Treasury bonds that funded it. (and bankruptcy will not be an option when your covering is gone).

“When your Social Security taxes get to Washington, they are spent – right then and there. What preserves the illusion of a ‘trust fund’ is that the Social Security system is given government bonds in exchange for the money that Congress takes and spends. But, no matter what kind of accounting sleight-of-hand you use, you cannot spend and save the same money. Those bonds in the Social Security ‘trust fund’ represent no tangible assets – not houses, not factories, not cars, not trains. They are promises that can be kept only by taxing future taxpayers.”
— Thomas Sowell, Economist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution

The United States Supreme Court, in their 1937 Helvering case, said Social Security as an exercise of the Constitutional taxing power of Congress for the benefit of the general fund of the United States Treasury (NOT you). The Supreme Court also said that “Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country” having “no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.”
[The Social Security Tax, by Clarence E. Manion. U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Steward Machine Company vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548 (1937); Helvering vs.Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).]

Read that again: “no constitutional power” to have an imaginary ‘trust fund’ that your delusion thinks is yours.

The Supreme Court, in Helvering v. Davis (1937), ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program: “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” YOU DID NOT PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. You paid a tax. There has never been a division of funds since the beginning of Social Security. There is no separate fund created by payments of the Social Security tax. The Supreme Courts words “not earmarked in any way” means there is no trust fund. The payments are not for you.

The national debt skyrocketed under FDR. He prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years. The debt had skyrocketed between 1930 to 1934. The Federal Reserve was tightening the money supply as the debt expanded. Something needed to be done to guarantee the payment of the interest on that debt. YOU are the guarantee.

When FDR introduced the Social Security Act to Congress and the American people, “The President wanted everybody covered for every contingency in life— ‘cradle to the grave,’ he called it… the social insurance system… But the Government of the United States is not an insurance company and so it could be done.”
— from the Forward by Frances Perkins Secretary of Labor 1933-45, to the book The Development of the Social Security Act, by Edwin E. Witte

While the system of Federal Social Security was “sold as if it were insurance” it was not. There is a strong delusion that social security taxes are payments of insurance premiums to obtain specified benefits at a specified time. There is no such right. HINT: “AS IF IT WERE INSURANCE” is not insurance. Don’t be fooled by the misnamed FICA.

As discussed above in both Supreme Court Davis cases:
The Social Security Tax Act, [link to the original act:] gives the government no obligation to pay benefits as “an earned right”. This is because the government has “no contractual obligation” to make any return payment, and it has carried the provision from the very beginning that, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Therefore “Congress could continue to collect the so-called social security payroll taxes even though Congress discontinued all social security benefit payments.”
[quote is from The Social Security Tax, by Clarence E. Manion.]

The 1935 Supreme Court case was also reaffirmed by the 1986 Supreme Court in Bowen et. al. v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment et al., 477 US 41 (1986).

Government Welfare is not sustainable, and never has been (See Polybius and Plutarch). The “promises that can be kept only by taxing future taxpayers” (quoted above) must crash. 57% of the Federal Budget goes for Social Security, Medical assistance and poverty programs. Not including state and local funding. They borrow money against the national debt to get the funds. None of this is constitutional, so they must use foreign accounts to money-launder the funding (IMF and IRS). Welfare will destroy the United States.

An essential purpose of the system introduced as social security was to add the labor of Americans to the collateral of the State so the people would become a surety of the already increasing debt that powers your central government. To believe that you have a right to get back specified benefits because you think you “paid into” Social Security is a delusion.

“The fact that social security benefits are financed in part by taxes on an employee’s wages does not in itself limit the power of Congress to fix the levels of benefits under the Act or the conditions upon which they may be paid”.
— Supreme Court Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 210, 97 S.Ct. 1021, 1028, 1977

“Congress has wide latitude to create classifications that allocate non-contractual benefits under a social welfare program.” and United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 101 S.Ct. 453, 459 (1980).

Social Security is clearly a “noncontractual governmental benefit” and has never been, and is not now a contract. See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610, 80 S.Ct. 1367 (1960).

Carelessly repeating a lie that you heard somewhere is not going to make it become true.