Slashdot Mirror

But, for the past 11 years or so, my name has ranked in the top ten according to SSA.gov. Personally, I preferred when it was rare and obscure.

Sort by decade or year of birth. Pretty interesting, imo. It's fun to watch which names stay on the top 10 for decades in a row and which were popular at one point and then declined dramatically.

GameTab - Game Reviews Database

In his situation, there are procedures..Getting a new SSN

Can I Get A New Social Security Number? If you can prove that you're being disadvantaged because someone used your Social Security number, visit your local Social Security office to request a new one. If you've done all you can to fix the problem and someone is still using your number, under certain circumstances, we may assign you a new number. We can't guarantee, however, that a new number will solve your problem. A new Social Security number will NOT be assigned if you: Intend to avoid the law or your legal responsibility; Commit fraud or a criminal action; Intend to avoid disclosing a poor credit or criminal record; Filed for bankruptcy; or have lost your Social Security card or it was stolen, but there is no evidence that your number is being used by someone and you're being disadvantaged by that use.

You may not realize how easy it is for someone to get access to information about you. Identity thieves get your personal information by: ...stealing personal information you provide to an unsecured site on the Internet....

Well ... lets see if this smells of a con job. First, who owns the musiccdsettlement.com domain:

Rust Consulting, Inc.
cmichelsen AT rustconsulting.com
Rust Consulting, Inc.
501 MARQUETTE AVE STE 700
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1208
US
612-359-2000

Ok, so Rust Consulting, and just who are these guys?

Michelsen, Claus
postmaster AT RUSTCONSULTING.COM
Rust Consulting
501 Marquette Avenue #700
Mpls , MN 55402
612-359-2000

Record expires on 07-Mar-2003.
Record created on 06-Mar-1996.

So far so good, same group of folks and it has been registered since 1996 so this didn't spring up overnight. Second, we can go to www.rustconsulting.com for a look at who we're dealing with:

Founded as the Rust Consulting Group, Inc., the Group was from the start a leader in applying computer technology to the practice of law. Using the most advanced computers and technology available, the Group computerized millions of documents in more than 500 cases such as MCI v. AT&T, Westmoreland v. CBS, and the Chem-Dyne environmental case.

Took a quick look at the site and found out that Rust Consulting is owned by SourceCorp which is publicly traded (symb: SRCP), not a typical thing for a con ring.

The only doubt that's left unresolved is why this thing is not SSL enabled. As for the SSN fear, your SSN can't be rebuilt without knowing what state your resided in when you were issued your SSN. The middle digits are of a random group that can't be related to any other info. They won't get far with just 4 digits. More info ...

It's always wise to be weary of "free money" offers since that's the fingerprint of pretty much all con jobs, but a quick bit of research shows this is most likely legit. However, if it isn't, they left all the necessary info to track them down.

In 2001 dollars, that would be around $7.20 per day. Now it doesn't seem like Coke or chip money any more, that's almost half a tank of gas, or a sit-down lunch at a halfway decent restaurant. Every day.

Put it in perspective. In 1965, gas went for $0.20 / gallon. McDonalds' burgers were $0.19, and so were the fries.

Keep in mind that was $0.40 for EACH person. In 1965, there was only one "average wage earner" per family, but they were supporting an average of four people. Think $1.60 per day, out of your $12.75.

And these were taxes. You don't get to say, "Hey, Uncle Sam, the kid got sick and I came up a bit short so I'm not paying for your moon shot this week." Taxes weren't optional back in 1965, either.

It was a DAMN EXPENSIVE program.

You must have forgotten that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The people have no real power whatsoever. Even if the people voted to repeal internet taxation, the politicians are under no obligation whatsoever to obey the vote. It's not really any different than a presidential election in which the Electors are under no obligation to cast their votes for the candidate that wins the popular election in a given state.

The *real* reason that internet taxation is wrong goes Way Way Back(TM) to our childhood in which we were usually taught that if we didn't have money to buy something, we couldn't buy it. The government has tried several ways to increase revenue.

First, during the Civil War, the government enacted the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This was a very small amount compared to excise taxes and tariff duties (the old way of doing it). The first self-expanding perpetual bureaucracy is born. Read more about the Civil War Bureau of Internal Revenue Here... And a way-way-cool tax history museum...

During the Johnson administration, the gubment took money off the gold standard and just printed as much as it needed to cover its spending programs. This ridiculous endeavor led to the hyper-inflation of the 70's and the 99.9% top incremental income tax bracket during the Carter administration, and the double-digit interest rates going into the 80's. It's amazing to me that the government didn't learn during this time that raising taxes does not increase revenue for the gubment - IT LOWERS IT because of the burden it places on the economy. People have less money to spend, so there are fewer sales, fewer profits, lower salaries, and LESS INCOME TO TAX. But, I digress...

Enter Reaganomics - now, whatever you learned in your left-wing democratic union-controlled public school about Reagan and his economic policies was blatantly incorrect. When Reagan took office in 1981, the government's purse had 18 bullet holes in it and was leaking money like a sieve. Our great country was spiraling almost inexorably toward bankruptcy, and we came very close to defaulting on a round or two of long term bonds. The fact is that after the gigantic tax cuts in the early 80's, IRS revenue INCREASED. That's right, cutting taxes INCREASED revenue for the government. *shock*

"but, but, but, what about the deficit?" - okay, the deficit was caused by Harry Truman. Yes, the deficit spending in the 80's was mainly due to the Truman Doctrine, which required the US to fight the spread of communism throughout the world. There was this little country east of Europe, called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that had at some point in history developed nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and was on the rampage. Since WWII, they had already installed their communist regimes in most of eastern Europe and were pushing west. The Arms Race was a very necessary evil, and as much as I hate to say it, we had to win the cold war no matter what. Combine that with an unchecked social welfare program that was often corrupt and abused, and we were suddenly saddled with mind boggling debt.

Here's a little perspective on the debt: if you were to pave a 12' wide road with one billion one dollar bills, you would have a road long enough to drive 252,000 miles, about the distance to the moon. If you were to pave a road with the national debt's worth of one dollar bills, you could drive 1.5 million miles. However, there isn't enough cotton on earth to make that many one dollar bills. (FYI all US currency bills are 6.14" x 2.61" and weigh approximately one gram per note, regardless of denomination).

The point here is in agreement with yours that the government is stupid when it comes to fiscal management. When their budget runs over, they just raise more taxes to pay for it. They don't care about the long term effects because there's no accountability. The worst that can happen is that they'll either get "voted" out of office or hit their term limit. But, nothing they do while in office will usually have a negative effect until they're long gone..

We need a balanced budget LAW, just just some sissy amendment that can be changed and re-written to suit the convenience of the politicians, but something that is irrevokable, unmodifiable, and carries the status of a high crime. IN fact, I can write it right now, and IANEAL:

"It shall be a high crime against the United States for any individual or group of individuals to cause a government agency to spend more money than it receives."

"It shall be a high crime against the United States for any individual or group of individuals to cause the amount of money a government agency receives to increase at an annual rate that is higher than the sum of the rate of inflation and the rate of growth of the Gross Domestic Product."

We owe it to ourselves (literally!) to pay down the national debt. Every bond you buy from the government represents money borrowed by the government, from you, to spend on $4000 toilet seats, private jets, politicians' vacations around the world, and let's not forget the $58,000 486 machines that the government is probably still buying.

Some other interesting government links:
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing
All About our Tax System
All About our Tax System, the government's version of the truth
The United States Mint
The Social "Security" Administration

Except that saying "you will not see" social security is speculation on future events. Now maybe if you know where I can get a crystal ball as functional as yours, I can dabble in the market and not have to worry about social security in the future?

Your analysis fails to support the assertion that those who are receiving social security now have not made payments into the system in the past. Without such an assertion, your argument is merely pessimism-- although a little bit of mathematical modeling can go a long way in describing the effects of the COLA changes that happened in the 50's, and how the changes in population affect the fund's liquidity, since social security money is not just sitting in a vault somewhere).

If you read a little of the history of social security, you'll find that the program has been withholding income from wage-earners since 1935, so it is unlikely that you'll find someone receiving a payment who did not make a payment (especially since the system is predicated on giving you back money based on those payments). So if there's a problem, it's that our parents didn't have enough children (revenues may not meet expenses for SS), and if we want to correct this, we'll have to have a lot more children (I say this as a 30-something). How you get from this to "rig[ging] the political system" is beyond me.

I too will question the very advisability of single sign on. There are good reasons I keep multiple banking, credit card and merchant accounts. I specifically * don't want* one single authority to be tracking my every move. I * don't want* all my finacial and personal assets and records piled up in one location.

Well, fortunately for you, there isn't one single authority tracking your every move.

There's four.

Equifax.
Experian.
Trans Union.
IRS.

Oh, and if you live outside the US, trust me, the same info is available. Just change the last one to the appropriate regional authority, and maybe change one or two of the first three names to someone else.

Obviously others disagree but I think that single access is just plain dumb

Well, oddly, the entities listed above disagree. They very much prefer to track you by a single method of access.

And just how secure do you think that is?

The argument is, of course, that there is less risk with a well protected central account, but that account is an all or nothing sort of deal

As it is with the current system. And the current system has essentially no safe guards. Once I have the magic number I can get every other account number you have. And through the wonders of Automated Clearing House and Electronic Funds Transfer I don't need any other information to get every penny out of the accounts. Nifty, huh?

The only thing protecting you from having this happen is that nobody gives a crap about you. Which is pretty much the same thing that will protect you in any future system.

pocket. I am disabled, as I see it primarily because the government passes laws that enforces opinions on how to do things that make no sense to me. You try living in a world that makes no sense to you. I get a checkevery month from the government. I get food stamps and housing assistance as well. I am prepared to face your judgement.
I am Robert Claypool and I live at:
417 S. Manning
Muncie, IN

Come and get me.

It is a federal crime to _require _ your SSN for any reason other than social security.
People still believe that blatantly false urban legend? Apparently so, since the Social Security Administration has to debunk it right on their web site:
"If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested."
Sure they can't require you to give it to them, but they certainly can require it as a condition of doing business with you.

Also, "jeremiah" is an awfully odd name for someone nowadays...

Compatible across all platforms and user-friendly. Best of all, no M$ Security Patches and no DMCA quandries.

Just remember to let Social Security and Ashcroft know your new name, for um, tax purposes.

"A related idea is to attribute the current financial pressures on Social Security to a supposed dramatic increase in life expectancy in recent years. Since average life expectancy at birth is now about 76, this is interpreted as implying that people collect benefits for 14 to18 years longer than they used to. However, as Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has only increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940. So the actual increase in time that males can anticipate receiving Social Security is closer to 3 years than to 14."

Any business that demands your SSN for service can get into trouble with the Federal Govt. for doing so.

Bzzzt. Not true. A private business can ask for your SSN, and you can refuse to give it, but they can also refuse service. See the SSN FAQ at networkusa.org, the CPSR SSN FAQ or the SSA FAQ

I do not believe this is not true.

According to this document, several institutions are allowed to require or request your SSN.

Furthermore, the SSA states,

"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."

Better link here.

This comment has been submitted already, 276711 hours , 19 minutes ago. No need to try again.

Must be a government conspiracy!!! You can get the answer by searching the SSA FAQ at http://www.ssa.gov/.

Giving Your Number To Others

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. 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 your Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify their customers 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 happens if you refuse; and

what law requires you to give your number.

The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Our primary message is this--be careful with your Social Security number and your card to prevent their misuse.

If you think someone is misusing your number, ask us for the leaflet, When Someone Misuses Your Number (Publication No. 05-10064).

Originally your SS # was never supposed to be given out to anyone! But big business beat up big brother and started using it to profile each and every American. In fact, the business community forced the Government to require *all* citizens to have a SS #. So now from the second you pop out of your mother's private parts, you have to be registered with the SSA.

I personally think the ending to "Fight Club" would solve this problem once and for all.

Giving Your Number To Others

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. 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 your Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify their customers 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 happens if you refuse; and

what law requires you to give your number.

The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Our primary message is this--be careful with your Social Security number and your card to prevent their misuse.

If you think someone is misusing your number, ask us for the leaflet, When Someone Misuses Your Number (Publication No. 05-10064).

Originally your SS # was never supposed to be given out to anyone! But big business beat up big brother and started using it to profile each and every American. In fact, the business community forced the Government to require *all* citizens to have a SS #. So now from the second you pop out of your mother's private parts, you have to be registered with the SSA.

I personally think the ending to "Fight Club" would solve this problem once and for all.

One. The welfare system is not relevant to the financial plight of the disabled. Those payments are typically made by Social Security, which in theory has a separate budget and revenue/expense stream from the rest of the Federal budget. There may be additional funding for assistance for the disabled through Federally funded welfare programs, but I see it as unlikely that this will cause a sudden massive downgrade in the support for people affected by tragic accidents-- far more likely that this will hit the budget for the "willfully unemployed" or for supplemental programs not related specifically to housing and food.

Two. The current DEA budget does not seem to be having a very positive impact on crack and heroin (not "heroine", that's a female hero) addiction. Further, if my child were addicted to either substance, how is the DEA going to be a positive influence? Last time I checked, their primary method of treatment involved violating the civil rights of drug users, throwing them in jail, and turning them into criminals. Suggestion: cut the DEA budget to zero immediately and give the money to NASA-- it can't be any more wasted there than it is at the DEA.

Does this mean that I want to increase the budget for NASA without exploring possible ways for private enterprise to get in the game? I think not. At least not until I have a much better understanding of all the things NASA is probably doing that don't get on the news. Things that I'm probably benefitting from without realizing it.

Surely if the employee has no contract of employment, he/she isn't considered an "employee" in legal terms

No.

The term "employee" is defined various ways by various agencies, both state and federal, in the U.S. The existence of a written contract is just one factor in determining whether someone is an employee. There are generally 20 common law factors that are used to determine the employee status of a person. It absolutely does not matter if either or both the parties involved say they are or are not in an employee-employer relationship. The actual facts and circumstances of the situation determine if an employement situation exists.

For a short (perhaps too short) look at the way the Social Security Administration codifies these factors, look here.

For a readable, slightly expanded re-statement of the factors, look here.

And for more than you ever wanted to know, look here.

Use 078-05-1120. This was a number printed on millions of demonstration billfold inserts. The Social Security Administration has retired it permenantly. For more info, look here.


...phil

Isn't requiring an SSN as a form of identification illegal? (The answer is yes.)

However, other government agencies are permitted by law to use Social Security numbers, but there is no law either authorizing or prohibiting their use. Banks and other financial institutions use the numbers to report interest earned on accounts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Other government agencies use Social Security numbers in computer matching operations to stop fraud and abuse. For example, using Social Security numbers, some state death records are matched to Medicare records to uncover Medicare and Social Security fraud.

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested.