ONLY IDIOTS pay social security!! AND HERE'S WHY

Ladies and gentlemen, have you noticed that your social security checks are now called a benefit? Did the hair on the back of your neck go up when you saw it? Were you instantly angry because you thought Social Security was a contract with government, old-age insurance and a "right"? It was sold that way. Think again!

The U. S. Government in 1937 in the case Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) argued that:

"The government’s summary declared flatly that the (Social Security) Act “does not constitute a plan for compulsory insurance within the accepted meaning of the term ‘insurance’.” [FN 72: Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, at 624; emphasis added.] Arguing before the Court, Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson reiterated that, “these benefits are in the nature of pensions or gratuities. There is no contract created by which any person becomes entitled as a matter of right to sue the United States or to maintain a claim for any particular sum of money. Not only is there no contract implied but it is expressly negated, because it is provided in the Act, Section 1104, that it may be repealed, altered, or amended in any of its provisions at any time. This Court has held that a pension granted by the Government is a matter of bounty, that the pensioner has no legal right to his pension, and that they may be given, withheld, distributed, or recalled at the discretion of Congress.” [FN 73: U.S. Congress, Senate, Oral Arguments in Helvering et al. v. Davis involving the Old-Age Benefit Provisions of the Social Security Act Before the Supreme Court of the United States, May 5, 1937, S. Doc. 71, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1937]" [Bold emphasis added]

In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960) the Supreme Court again addressed the nature of Social Security benefits. Justice Harlan said:

"The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress’ power to ‘spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare,” Helvering v. Davis, supra, 301 U.S. at page 640, 57 S.Ct. at page 908, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. * * * But each worker’s benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed 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. See Wollenberg, Vested Rights in Social-Security Benefits, 37 Ore.L.Rev. 299, 359. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it ‘(t)he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision’ of the Act."

[link to www.newswithviews.com]