Slashdot Mirror

The initial basic list of people that can require your SSN, when the SSN was created was simply:

A- the IRS (which can also mean the person that submits your taxes)
B- your employer
C- your bank

There is a more comprehensive and current list at the US Govt SSN web page:

-Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans;
-Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes;
-States for the school lunch program;
-Banks for monetary transactions;
-Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number;
-Department of Labor for workersâ(TM) compensation;
-Department of Education for Student Loans;
-States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law -within its jurisdiction;
-States for child support enforcement;
-States for commercial driversâ(TM) licenses;
-States for Food Stamps;
-States for Medicaid;
-States for Unemployment Compensation;
-States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or
-U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

I don't see "AT&T", "Apple", or even "Cell phone providers" on that list anywhere.

Further, they state:

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number, and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Since they discuss "consequences", I wonder if that means they can refuse to sell you services or products if you refuse to give them your SSN. Kind of looks that way? But since it specifically says you should ask what LAW requires you to give your ssn, it would appear that they must give you an alternate option. But it also says that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested so this web page appears to present conflicting information.

Aaaand 35 minutes on the phone later...

AT&T wireless customer support number is 1-800-331-0500, 1, 2
- prepaid has no credit check and thus does not require ssn
- iphones cannot do prepaid, can only do monthly plans
- monthly plan requires credit check to determine the amount of the necessary deposit
- ssn required for credit check **
- rep was not aware of options for paying the largest deposit in leu of the credit check

called AT&T wireless customer care at 1-866-801-3600
- rep agreed with everything I've said so far but is unsure if AT&T offers an alternate method of credit check or flat rate downpayment to skip the credit check.
- rep contacted the AT&T Activation dept (they have NO external phone number for this department!)
- the activation dept said I need to go to an AT&T wireless store and they can perform the activation without a credit check, but will require a deposit, most likely the upper limit deposit of $1,000, and will issue you a "generic id" in leu of your SSN

You can also call Activation at Apple, at 1-800-694-7466, but they may not know how to deal with this, and may not be able to handle this flat rate deposit and issuing of a generic id at an Apple store. (it's possible the law may require them to here also, but they will probably just direct you to the nearest AT&T wireless store)

** I wonder if your ssn is truly required for a credit check? According to the SSA web si

Most of it is invested into other parts of the economy. Providing jobs and growth. It would be better if wealth were more evenly distributed but it's not that bad. In effect they are paying everyone elses wages at market rates, ie. supply and demand sets the price not them.

When you have most of the supply locked up, you call the tune. Wealthy individuals and companies don't operate in markets, they use their wealth to control markets.

The investment class doesn't "provide jobs and growth" so much as it skims wealth off of the top. The U.S. GDP is about $14 trillion, the workforce of about 150,000,000: the average American worker creates about $93,000 worth of value per year.

But the average annual wage is only about $39,000.

So where does the majority of that value created by workers go? GDP = rents + interests + profits + wages + some statistical fudge factors. Most of the value created by the average worker goes to the investing class in the form of "unearned" income - profits, interest, and rents.

This idea that we should be grateful to the wealthy for giving us jobs and growth is like beggars at the back door of the palace heaping praises on the nobility for passing out scraps from the banquet. I say fsck the nobility, time for a little peasant uprising.

Social Security, the largest of those programs, is paid for by the poor. Have a look at how the Social Security taxation works. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html

Payment is proportional to income only up to income of ~$100,000. It is a regressive tax (the biggest earners pay the lowest percentage).

Citation required.

Here
Here
Here
Just a start.

Since this is the federal government, you must mean the interstate highway system? Having recently driven all the way across the country at 60 mph without hitting a single pothole, what are you smoking?

Ok. I was joking there, but never the less. Touche.

Yes, you can walk into the emergency room, where treating you will cost me (a taxpayer) ten times as much as if I just paid for your health insurance so you could make an appointment at a primary care office.

Ok. So since our government has proved to be so smart handling medicaid at a reasonable cost, you'd like to have them handle all health care?

Well, I'm going to go ahead and discount your theories as long as you keep discounting the rest of the industrialized worlds actual experience, okay

Why is it fair to compare the way that the rest of the world does health care in a vacuum. Germany has good health care, sure, but they also pay around 50% tax.

She does all the work of raising her crop of tomatoes and getting it to market. No leeching there, she doesn't get government farm subsidies, she just works. But, whatever she makes for selling her crop, it depends in large part on having roads to transport it. It's not that she's a leech, nor lazy...

Using public goods, or other common resources, is not leaching off of others. I'm speaking of the parasitic nature of the "investment class", the absentee owners of capital, who do no productive work yet reap dividends.

Consider a worker on an assembly line. She assembles parts into a product worth (as valued by a free market) $10. Lets say that the parts that she starts with, plus the support services (the power and maintenance costs of the factory, the back office costs, and so on, again at a fair market value) come out to $7. Does she make $3 on the deal? No. Because the investors, who are not doing any work here, have to get their cut.

Let's look at some numbers. These are back-of-the-envelope calculations, but the U.S. GDP is about $14 trillion. With a workforce of about 150,000,000, that's about $93,000 per capita - $93,000 worth of value, created by the average American worker per year.

Does the average American worker make anything like $93,000 a year? Not even close. The average (which seems to be mean, here) annual wage is about $39,000; the median, about $26,000.

So where does the rest - the lion's share, indeed - of that value created by workers go? GDP is rents + interests + profits + wages + some statistical fudge factors; basically, about $50,000 of the value created by the average worker goes to the investing class in the form of profits, interest, and rents.

I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years

And the 90% of Americans that don't earn anywhere near $100K a year -- even if they saved every penny they earnt.
Average wage in the U.S. is about $45k -- it was under $40k in 2006 http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

IMHO the only people who should receive handouts are the handicapped, or children.
Able-bodied people should pay their own bills with their OWN money, not raid their neighbors' wallets.

Why should handicapped get handouts? Why should children get anything for free?

You're right, I forgot that FICA (the social security tax) is capped. Supposedly rich people won't get higher benefits, but in reality probably nobody of my generation will get those benefits anyway.

The cap is about $102,000 this year, BTW - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series .

Let's put this in context. "A generation or two of union costs on them" does not just appear out of nowhere. The company and the union had to *agree* to it.

Of course they did. I never suggested otherwise.

The difference between the US and the Japanese union legacy costs is that the Japanese, by law, had to actually (heaven forbid!) fund the benefits in advance, not just expect superprofits to cover this completely expected cost when it comes due. The US companies did not. The money that they should logically have set aside to fund the benefits, was instead thrown off as bonuses and dividends.

Any chance you have something to support your claims? I recall reading in the late 90s about Japan's struggles with their national pension plan because of their long-term economic slump and an aging population (sound familiar?). I believe that to combat future problems, they began cutting back from promised levels and increasing employee costs. (Here's the best I could find in 30 seconds on Google: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v63n4/v63n4p99.pdf

How do you propose the large companies should fully fund the benefits in advance? On the day they hire an employee the company must deposit a check for the full cost of their pension assuming they work there until retirement age? Of course, they must somehow account for future inflation, increases in health care that outpace inflation, etc. Most companies with pension problems simply suffer from too many retirees compared to the current profit (exactly what Japan has been dealing with for at least 10 or 15 years).

I will grant you that, based upon my understanding of Japanese pension law, Toyota does seem to benefit compared to US companies because the Japanese government holds most pension responsibilities. I don't know enough to say how their national pension compares to US Social Security or GM's pension plans.

No one seems to complain on here that much about the National Retirement Fund, the post office (though Canada's partial privitization of it has had lackluster results) or spoke out against the possibility of nationalized of health care in the US (by no means an endorsement by me of the job insurance companies do now). If one is going to critique monopolies, they have to look at both the private and public sector though. After all, slashdot of all places should know that just because something is solely in the hands of the "public" does not mean it has much more of an interest in the public than a private corporation.

> Um, how about no. SocSec is NOT A TRUST FUND. The government cannot legally operate a trust fund.

Source, please? Because the SSA says you are mistaken.

of someone coming around and issuing a number that can identify each and every individual in the country? I'm sorry, but last time I checked we already had a national database of (nearly) all of our (mostly) legal residents. Seems like nobody is scared of a social security number given to your children at birth, but we've been using them since what, the 30s? I think we are used to the idea of non-privacy now.
Granted, you can't really take a SSN and determine sex and current address from that number alone, but you can check state of birth, and have a reasonable idea of when they were born. Given the right knowledge and "1337 skillz" one can also phone up their local office and request the information on a given number at any given time. Now then... don't you feel even more secure about your special super secret only to me(and everyone I want to do business with) ID number?
Also, just to step on both sides of the fence for a minute, you are not required to get a social security number in the US. Your parents did you the favor, so they can claim you on their taxes. Granted, without a SSN, you'll be hard pressed to get a job that doesn't involve picking fruit or disposing of bodies. Good luck getting a bank to look at you for very long either. Even though there is no law requiring you to show proof of a SSN, without one you might as well kiss anything that requires money goodbye.

A Social Security card is not an ID. I don't know of any place that will accept a Social Security card as an ID. Legally, no place is allowed to request a Social Security card as an ID. It says *right on the friggin' card* that it can't be used as an ID. They may want your Social Security *Number*, but that's different.

If your information is right it seems to fly in the face of several acts and laws...

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_010705.html
"Section 7214. Prohibition of the Display of Social Security Account Numbers on Drivers' Licenses or Motor Vehicle Registrations

        * Prohibits Federal, State, and local governments from displaying SSNs, or any derivative thereof, on drivers' licenses, motor vehicle registrations, or other identification documents issued by State departments of motor vehicles. "

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051016t.pdf
Regarding many uses of your SSN

https://www.smartwebmove.navsup.navy.mil/swm/documents/SWM1Authority9397.pdf
The executive order regarding SSNs as use for identification

It is also surprising to note that there is no mandatory requirement to have a SSN, however in practice this is like saying there is no mandatory requirement to have a driver's license; it is next to impossible to do anything without one. It is also worth noting that many of the forms which ask for a SSN can be skipped; particularly those which are government oriented and not directly related to the uses authorized for the number. Doing so simply may mean that your forms don't get processed in a timely manner.

For some reason or other the Gov't and people in general frown on swindling.

Unless they're the ones doing the swindle...

Is 30 middle aged nowadays? Personally, I'm planning on living a full life well past my 80's. I guess you must be expecting to bow out sooner? Or maybe even sooner than you think if you keep on calling 30 year old women middle aged anywhere near them...!

"Well past your 80's" is not likely, unless you're well over 60. Actuarial Life Tables are a lot of fun. From that 2003 table, I'd say midlife is 38.5, because that's when you can expect to live to twice your current age. At 60, you can expect to live to 80. It's not until 75 that you can expect to live to 85. Assuming you aren't female.

Aside from neglecting to mention these numbers were retroactively trended down in the direction you say they should be - Michael J. Boskin was the head economist for the Reagan White House. Revising these numbers down allowed for less government spending on Social Security. In fact it is a neat trick - the spending is cut, yet they could say they were not cutting anything, as prices were supposedly not going up quickly and Social Security was supposedly keeping pace. The AFL-CIO put out a paper that criticized the findings at the time. Of course, the AFL-CIO has a certain interest on this, but on the other hand, it was not like Reagan and Boskin had no interest in reducing government spending and were politically neutral on this. Boskin's main work going back to the 1970's was concerned not with inflation but finding a way to hit Social Security. Saying inflation was over-stated was the answer then, now they talk about privatization.

As far as technical innovation, some things are neglected. For example, in the initial years that VCRs came out, they were well-made, after a number of years of being mass-produced, they began using cheaper junk parts. Before the DVD took over completely, it was better to repair your old VCR than to buy a new one. And this is a trend in many things - it is true some things may get cheaper, but often they go from well-made, artisan like things to cheap junk. Look how professionals go to Chipotle rather than Taco Bell, Trader Joe's over Wal-Mart, organic food over non-organic etc. The mass-produced junk is not the same as the older often better but more expensive artisan like stuff. Of course some things fall in line with the inflation-head ideas - TV sets are certainly better-for-the-same-inflation-adjusted-price than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. But there is also a lot of stuff where there is not a quality improvement handed for free to the consumer - a lot of time it is cheaper because it becomes more like junk.

As far as the substitution effect, it does not have a direct effect on CPI because it is done as a basket. If inflation was tied to one item, the substitution effect could shift CPI, since CPI is with a basket of goods, the substitution effect does not effect things. I should also point out that the substitution effect goes both ways, if CPI was tied to one product (which it isn't), CPI could be understated due to the substitution effect.

You also neglect to point out how housing costs have skyrocketed relative to CPI. It is much, much more expensive to buy or rent somewhere than it was a few decades ago. Even in the same old buildings which were around in the 1960s. Of course you mention iPods and other frivolous things, whereas the real hit to people's wallets has been in necessities like a roof over ones head. I know I am paying a larger percentage of my income to rent than I was back in the 1990s, and there certainly not has been a quality improvement in my living. In fact, my landlord spends little money on renovating his building, things are only repaired after they have completely fallen apart. Even the housing bust that is happening will not have as much of an impact as people might think.

FYI, the medicare amendment to the Social Security Act was signed into law on July 30th, 1965. The 1973 book, 'The Screwing of the Average Man', talks about how Medicare's costs went out of control from the very beginning.

The government's bonds are worthless, as they're IOUs to itself. If you or I did what the government's done with the taxes collected for Social Security and Medicare, it'd be considered fraud.

You are correct that doctors order all these tests because they're scared of getting sued. I know - my father does this too. But they're only able to do it because someone else is usually paying for the patient's care. So even if they know the test is going to be inconclusive, they order it anyways.

Then there are all the other procedures which, under objective evaluation, are worthless. One researcher concluded that "bypass surgery belongs in the medical archives", because it didn't make a difference in the patient's outcome. Same thing with arthroscopic knee surgery - no better than a placebo.

There are plenty of dissenters in the medical community - Robert Zieve, M.D. helped me find the right modality with his book, Healthy Medicine. Andrew Weil also advocates more effective medicine.

(1) The Reconstruction Congress forcing the ratification of the 14th Amendment as a condition for readmitting the Confederacy to the Union. This eventually gave the federal government final say over whether just about anything the states did was Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment binds the state governments in much the same way as the first ten Amendments binds the federal government.

It exists because of the inevitable abuses in state power in a society in which every aspect of life is shaped and corrupted by institutions that reinforce racial superiority, chattel slavery and peonage.

Texas and Florida can no longer execute children. The Muslim is free to built a mosque in Tennessee. The fly-trap rural township in Georgia does not get more votes in the state legislature than the whole of metropolitan Atlanta.

Would you believe that the Supreme Court determined that a man growing wheat for his own family's consumption could be prevented from doing so because that consumption, taken together with others doing the same thing, would overall reduce the national demand for wheat? You should, because it not only happened, it's still good law.

Would you believe...

In 1934 lower courts had begun overturning major parts of the New Deal program. Potentially the most serious threat came from rulings invalidating the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which used the same broad power to levy taxes for the general welfare as the basis for its program of agricultural price supports and controls. Lower courts ruled this unconstitutional and the Supreme Court followed in January 1936, ruling that ". . .a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. . ." There was a silver lining in the cloud, however, because the same opinion ultimately sided with Hamilton on the larger question of a strict or a flexible interpretation of the general welfare clause by holding that: " . . .the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."
The AAA was an attempt to rescue farmers from the collapse of the farm economy that happened with the coming of the Depression. It sought to control agricultural production in order to stabilize prices and restore farming to profitability. The 1937 Supreme Court Rulings on the Social Security Act

3) Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus on United States soil as applied to United States citizens.

While the Confederate Congress - in its usual paralysis over state's rights - did nothing until 1864. Lincoln had at least a clear sense that the Executive in wartime must act decisively.

Whereas, The Constitution of the Confederate States o America provides..that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it;" and whereas, the power of suspending the privilege...is vested solely in the Congress, which is the exclusive judge of the necessity of such suspension; and whereas, in the opinion of the Congress, the public safety requires the suspension of said writ in the existing case of the invasion of these States by the armies of the United States; and whereas, the President has asked for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus...

Confederate States of America. Congress. Senate. Senate Bill, No. 119: Secret: A Bill to Suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Certain Cases.
Confederate States of America. Congress. House of Representatives House Bill, No. 267: Secret: A Bill to Suspend the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus, in Certain Cases, for a Limited Time.

From this announcement:

System Requirements ...iPhone activation requires an Internet connection; an iTunes Store account or a major credit card; a valid Social Security number (as required by AT&T); the latest version of iTunes available at www.itunes.com and a PC or Mac with a USB 2.0 port and one of the following operating systems [blah, blah, blah...]

Social Security number? WTF? This is 2007, companies that want my business should need my social security number.

As the Social Security Administrationtells us, "Your number is confidential... You should be careful about sharing your number with anyone who asks for it (even when you are provided with a benefit or service)." I reluctantly give it to banks and brokerages who need it for tax purposes. I very, very reluctantly give it to medical organizations.

A phone company? No, thank you.

"107. Totalization Agreements http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.01/ha ndbook-0107.html [ssa.gov] ..."What are "totalization agreements"? The Social Security Act allows the President to enter into international agreements to coordinate the U.S. social security programs with the social security programs of other countries. These agreements are known as "totalization agreements." With what countries does the U.S. have totalization agreements? The United States currently has Social Security agreements in effect with 21 countries - Australia (2002), Austria (1991), Belgium (1984), Canada (1984), Chile (2001), Germany (1979), Finland (1992), France (1988), Greece (1994), Ireland (1993), Italy (1978), Japan (2005), Luxembourg (1993), the Netherlands (1990), Norway (1984), Portugal (1989), South Korea (2001), Spain (1988), Sweden (1987), Switzerland (1980), and the United Kingdom (1985). What are the purposes of totalization agreements? Totalization agreements have three main purposes: 1. To eliminate dual social security coverage and taxation. This situation occurs when a person from one country works in the other country and is required to pay social security taxes to both countries for the same work; 2. To avoid situations in which workers lose benefit rights because they have divided their careers between two countries. Under an agreement, such workers may qualify for partial U.S. or foreign benefits based on combined work credits from both countries. 3. To increase benefit portability by guaranteeing that neither country will impose restrictions on benefit payments based solely on residence or presence in the other country."

While the idea of granting citizenship to H-1B people is debatable (does economic utility translate to political allegiance ?), H-1B visa workers are apparently treated identically to US residents like me when it comes to social security and medicare taxes. I found this on Google : http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=60 2432 In particular : "107. Totalization Agreements http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.01/ha ndbook-0107.html ..."What are "totalization agreements"? The Social Security Act allows the President to enter into international agreements to coordinate the U.S. social security programs with the social security programs of other countries. These agreements are known as "totalization agreements." With what countries does the U.S. have totalization agreements? The United States currently has Social Security agreements in effect with 21 countries - Australia (2002), Austria (1991), Belgium (1984), Canada (1984), Chile (2001), Germany (1979), Finland (1992), France (1988), Greece (1994), Ireland (1993), Italy (1978), Japan (2005), Luxembourg (1993), the Netherlands (1990), Norway (1984), Portugal (1989), South Korea (2001), Spain (1988), Sweden (1987), Switzerland (1980), and the United Kingdom (1985). What are the purposes of totalization agreements? Totalization agreements have three main purposes: 1. To eliminate dual social security coverage and taxation. This situation occurs when a person from one country works in the other country and is required to pay social security taxes to both countries for the same work; 2. To avoid situations in which workers lose benefit rights because they have divided their careers between two countries. Under an agreement, such workers may qualify for partial U.S. or foreign benefits based on combined work credits from both countries. 3. To increase benefit portability by guaranteeing that neither country will impose restrictions on benefit payments based solely on residence or presence in the other country." In particular, the biggest users of H-1B visa (citizens of India and China), are not covered - which means that they pay social security taxes (and medicare) like you and me, but have no expectation of ever receiving the benefits unless they become citizens. I am not going to win any friends on slashdot by saying this, but it seems to me that we are in a sense exploiting most H-1B workers (since they are from India and China) by taxing them without any legal right to enjoy the benefits when they grow old unless they become citizens in the meantime. Its a different matter that my brother keeps telling me that even I am not going to be getting any benefits by the time I am old enough to retire as the social security system is going to go bust long before that, but at least we have the legal right to them. So, your suggestion that we make these H-1B workers citizens may do a lot to fix this wrong, but other than that, I do not see how it solves anything.

The only thing I have is a copy John Smith's SS card that may or may not be real along with his W-4 that I have no way of verifying

It just sucks being held criminally liable to verify something that I can't verify

You know that you CAN verify if an SSN is ligit and if it belongs to that person right? You also know that you are supposed to have a new employee fill out a I-9 form, which includes instructions on verifying employment eligibility, right? Look at it and hit page 3. Assuming all you have is an SSN card and a drivers license (typical for new hires) then you can verify that the SSN is ligit through the SSA. If your new hire thinks ahead (I did) they will bring their passport and save you the trouble.

Either way, it's pretty easy to verify that somebodies SSN isn't fake and that they can legally work. The tools are there for those that want to use them. The problem is that the people hiring illegals don't care.

Q. Are Social Security Numbers re-assigned after a person dies?

A. No. We do not re-assign Social Security numbers. We have assigned more than 440 million Social Security numbers and each year we assign about 5.5 million new numbers. Even so, the current system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future.

The law states what the goverment can use your social security for:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/en duser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=78&p_created=955482891&p _sid=jw34mSzi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcm NoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9 OSZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9MTYsMzUmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0yLj M1JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9w YWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1

everything else is supose to be voluntary, but with the current method of doing things... it is not!

Until 1972 SS cards specifically stated "Not for Identification", While the law does not prohibit using it for ID by non-goverment agencies, the law does specify when a social security number is required.

from http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Although, John Sweeney received the first SSN account, his was not the lowest number ever issued. That distinction fell to New Hampshire resident, Grace Dorothy Owen. Ms. Owen received number 001-01-0001.

They certainly do not need it. In fact, I seem to recall an article in some legal code on the SSA site a couple of years ago stating that they are not allowed to demand or require it. It seems like that may have changed recently, or else I just read it wrong. Nevertheless, that kind of protection should be in place. It is amusing how casually they admit that the purpose of the Social Security Number has degraded into a near mandatory unique identifier.

In December 2005, about 6.5 million disabled workers received Social Security disability benefits. The U.S. labor force is about 150 million, so assuming all 6.5 million disabled workers would/could be part of the labor force, the rate of disabled workers is about 4%.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/20 05/sect01.html#chart1

In 2006 Q4, the long-term (greater than 15 weeks) unemployment rate in the US is only 1.4%. 69% of unemployed Americans have been unemployed fewer than 15 weeks.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseed10.pdf

We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 420 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

What about the massive cut in capital gains and dividends conicidentally followed by a big increase in corporate dividend payments- who did that benifit? All those working class families with big portfolios?!?

I'd think there'd be some law that would penalize falsifying something like a SSN - have you talked to the SSA about this yet? http://www.ssa.gov/

Or you might end up with an invalid one. There are rules for how the number is constructed and there are easily-googled programs into which you can input a nember to see if it's valid.

If a company simply validates SSNs, without any further checking, they may still catch an arbitrarily constructed invalid number.

Be especially careful about modifying the first three digits. It's well known that the first three follow a pattern across the country, so they constitute a pointer to where the card was issued. Try to use a San Francisco-issued number in Miami and you may get tripped up if someone asks a question about where in the Bay Area you were living when your card was issued.

If you try to use a number starting with 7, be prepared to talk about which railroad issued your card to you. 700 to 728 were given to railroads to pass out to new employees who didn't already have one through 1963, then discontinued.

Even if they were still in use, I suspect you wouldn't see a lot of these in the future as few babies apply for employment with a railroad at birth, when our trusting government insists that we be brande^H^H^H^H^H^H included in our national Social Insecurity system. 729 and above are either unassigned (for future use) or are invalid.

Finally, from http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ (bottom of middle column), "Misuse of someone else's SSN is a violation of Federal law and may lead to fines and/or imprisonment."

Are SSNs of dead people later re-assigned?

Not yet, but they will eventually. That or add another digit.

Less than a century until we run out of our billion or so possible SSNs. Expect the next method to just have a new digit thrown in.

• "[Makes] misuse of the SSN for any purpose a violation of the Social Security Act"
• "Unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment."

Anyway, if our government can't be fiscally responsible (or even fiscally ethical) in its programs, how can it expect to have moral authority over real life financial scams, much less ones in video games?

- Go to http://www.ssa.gov/employer/statewebcali.htm and pick an SSN prefix for a particular state (say, CA, which is from 545 to 573).

- Go to Google, click Advanced Search, and in "With all of the words:" enter "SSN".

- In "Return web pages containing numbers between" enter 545000000 "and" 574000000.

- Click Search and stare in horror all the student listings, bankruptcy filings, etc. posted with names, SSNs, addresses, etc.

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but if you abuse any of this information, the Erinyes will come after you!

Average income, USA = approximatly $35,648.55 (2004)

Average weekly pay, New Zealand $586 * 52 weeks = $30472 (2005)

Now that I see it worked out, thats sorry reading. Thats a pitiful average income. I wonder about Australia.

Australian average weekly income $816.80 * 52 = $42432 (2006)

Oh! Thats a bit better! Maybe I should move to Australia rather than the US. I was thinking about working in the US for a little while, but Austalia doens't seem that bad and it isn't that far away.

Anyway, my point is that I (on average) earn less than someone in the US, dollar for dollar, but videogames are twice as expensive.

Yes, they can. See http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html.

According to the SSA, it is your choice whether or not you give them your number. From ssa.gov:

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

(a) On all wealth owned by a person from 1 up to One Million Dollars, no capital tax levy, it being the policy of the law that for one to own up to a million dollars does no injury to the balance of the people having comforts of life.

(b) On all wealth which one owns above One Million Dollars and up to Two Million Dollars, a capital levy tax of 1% on the second million only.

(c) On all wealth which one owns above Two Million Dollars and up to Three Million Dollars, a capital levy tax of 2% on the third million.

(d) On all wealth which one owns above Three Million Dollars and up to Four Million Dollars, a tax of 4% on the fourth million.

(e) On all wealth which one owns above Four Million Dollars and up to Five Million Dollars, a tax of 8% on the fifth million.

(f) On all wealth which one owns above Five Million Dollars and up to Six Million Dollars, a tax of 16% on the sixth million.

(g) On all wealth which one owns above Six Million Dollars and up to Seven Million Dollars, a tax of 32% on the Seventh Million.

(h) On all wealth which one owns above Seven Million Dollars and up to Eight Million Dollars, a tax of 64% on the eighth million.

(i) On all wealth which one owns above Eight Million Dollars, a tax of 99%.

Funny story about 078-05-1120

Wrong.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/en duser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=86&p_created=955483126&p _sid=WhDRek7i&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5 PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NjMmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF 9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuMTYmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p _topview=1/

Or at least Not Done to use your SSI number for any other purpose than (shock, gasp) identifying your Social Security Account. I had a seperate driver's license number, selective service (draft) number, university ID number, group health ID, and several others. For a history of its spread as a personal identification number, see this page from the Social Security Admin. The problem, of course, was the same as that of password security, people can't remember more than two ID numbers.

You don't have to be a US citizen to get a CA driver's license, but you do have to have an SSN, which means you 1) are a citizen or 2) have DHS permission to work in the country.

Moreover, the feds have threatened that if states don't collect SSN information, you won't be allowed to use that state's DL to board a plane or enter a federal office building. There is a definite push towards linking one's legal ability to operate a motor vehicle with citizenship.

1. If a woman in active labor enters a hospital, her baby is getting delivered without regard to money or insurance. Did you think we kick women in labor to the curb if she doesn't carry an American Express card?
2. Most hospitals are required to treat anyone in an emergency situation without regard to money or insurance. If you walk into one of these US hospitals bleeding out your eyes, you will get treatment. Did you think that we kick people bleeding out there eyes to the curb?
3. We have this program for poor people called Medicaid. It provides medical care for those who cannot afford it.
4. We also have a program called SSI which gives disabled people money each month to live off of.

Your grim picture of people in the US with no access to health care is totally inaccurate. Perhaps you watch too much TV.

How about if they quit freakin taxing me so much to begin with. A nice start would be SSI

From the rest of your post, I get the impression that you are talking about Social Security. You should know that the term SSI is commonly used to refer to Supplemental Security Income, which is different and completely separate from social security.

http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-i ncome/

Here's some info to help clear up the confusion regarding use of SSNs (from the Social Security Administration's site):

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Specific laws require a person to provide his/her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required/requested by:

Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

States can further regulate and restrict private use of social security numbers.

For example:

Source:http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-3 4739_20942-103001--,00.html

And some boring history:

When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936 and did not have this language.

SSA's policy is that the Social Security card is not an identity document. The card only verifies that the SSN on the card is assigned to an individual whose name is on the card. It does not verify that the person presenting the card is the person named on the card.

Therefore, the January 1946 version of the card first contained the language at the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." Then the language was changed beginning with the September 1961 version of the card to read: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". However, the language was removed beginning with the January 1972 version of the card because it was confusing to employers and others who viewed it because they were not sure whether to accept it as evidence of the individual's SSN. The language has not been on subsequent versions of the card.

Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

Here's some info to help clear up the confusion regarding use of SSNs (from the Social Security Administration's site):

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Specific laws require a person to provide his/her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required/requested by:

Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

States can further regulate and restrict private use of social security numbers.

For example:

Source:http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-3 4739_20942-103001--,00.html

And some boring history:

When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936 and did not have this language.

SSA's policy is that the Social Security card is not an identity document. The card only verifies that the SSN on the card is assigned to an individual whose name is on the card. It does not verify that the person presenting the card is the person named on the card.

Therefore, the January 1946 version of the card first contained the language at the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." Then the language was changed beginning with the September 1961 version of the card to read: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". However, the language was removed beginning with the January 1972 version of the card because it was confusing to employers and others who viewed it because they were not sure whether to accept it as evidence of the individual's SSN. The language has not been on subsequent versions of the card.

Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html

So a 2% increase is less than the 4.1% increase in Social Security. So you're "increase" in salary still means you're falling behind.

Well, there's the popularity of 'Joshua', but then also consider that naming your kid 'Jesus' can't possibly be more blasphemous than giving your kid a name that derives from a word meaning 'anointed one' or 'savior [of the whole damn human race]'. And yet 'Christopher' is pretty popular -- more popular than 'Adam' ("the first man"). In fact, it's in the top ten (albeit barely). You see the same kind of arrogance with people who practice other religions; e.g., some Muslims, who regard their prophet so highly that any criticism of him may be punishable by death, name some of their offspring "Muhammad", or some variant thereof. Presumably, they do so in hope not only that the kid will stick to the ideals of the religion, but also so that he'll get some kind of special treatment from the divine.

"Sorry, Heaven's booked full at the moment, you'll have to -- wait, you said your name is (Muhammad|Chris|Jesus|Red Sea Traffic Cop)? Oh, I'm terribly sorry, sir, please step right in!"

I'd guess it all stems from the general human desire to have bad things happen to "other people" before they happen to "my people", despite the fact that we're all the same people -- however mentally ill some of us may be.