Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Letter to WSJ on Social INSecurity...

...sent to 63 recips

Chicago Tuesday 31 August 2010

Editors, the Wall Street Journal


The Wall Street Journal article ("Social Security Cuts Weighed by Panel”, Friday 20 August) drew a fine set of letters on Thursday 28 August, one lamenting “What has been lacking for well over a half century is a clear statement defining what Social Security is intended to be.”

The United States Supreme Court appeared to have read the legislation thoroly for their 1961 Fleming v Nestor decision, susinctly determining that “The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act.”

Social Security first and finally has never been anything but a tax on enployers. Employers are required to tell the employee in writing with every paycheck that they are paying half of it, but the entire check going to the US general fund is written on an employer back account, never a wage earner's.

Because it is required from every employer, no employer hs any competitive incentive to not pass the complete tax on to their customers in higher prices, resulting in Social Security being nothing but a silent, painless national sales tax.

The evil George W Bush realized what a terrible scam we are passing on to our successors, and the only way to kill it is at its source: the tax on employers.

There's no need to stop a single payment to the 40 million citizens now receiving SocSec payments. That $615 billion annual cost will disappear painlessly in 40 years. The people who have allegedly already paid into the system can be told to give it up for our children, and be glad they are not Chrysler bond holders.

Arnold H Nelson

No comments: