Are social security cards mandatory?

[Pottapaug1938]

Have any of you read and or rebutted the social security not required policy Manuel?

There is no such thing as "the social security not required policy Manuel" [sic].

I wish you would of told me that before I read all 268 pages of it then.

http://www.macquirelatory.com/social%20 ... manuel.pdf

You would do much better if you read something more substantive and legally valid than this steaming pile of legal horsedroppings. I couldn't stomach more than a quick scan of this compendium of idiocy; but when I see regurgitated sovrun gibberish, including long-discredited assertions of what the word "include" means and of the "right to travel", advocacy of setting up a fake identity through research into deaths of infants and obtaining their birth certificates, and the alleged utility of a "World Passport" and International Driver's License, I lose all respect for anyone who tries to offer this bilge as anything authoritative.

[Patriotdiscussions]

One of the things I just noticed is that, according to the SSA, an SSN might be required for a child to participate in a school lunch program. So yes, you can refuse to provide an SSN when enrolling a child in school, but you might also be waiving any right to a subsidized lunch for the child. (Congratulations.)

It is required for the school to be able to get Federal grants for the school lunch program. It is also needed for any Federal money that the school may get. So if you don't provide it the school will not get any money for the child from that grant. And, no, the child will not get subsidized lunch or breakfast if you do not provide their SSN.

School Free Lunch Programs

School “free lunch” programs are subsidized by the United States Department of Agriculture. As an expectation of receiving federal money, the schools are asked to obtain a social security number from each participant. If the child does not have a social security number, the school will give the parents a Form SSA-5, Application for Social Security Card and tell them that they must provide a social security number for participation in the program. They base their assertion on 42 USC §1758:

42 USC §1758 School Lunch Programs – Program requirements
(1) The Secretary shall require as a condition of eligibility for receipt of free or reduced price lunches that the member of the household who executes the application furnish the Social Security account number of the parent ...

However the regulations implementing these lunch programs assert a different requirement:

7 CFR §1.123 Specific exemptions.
... Sec. 6 Social security account numbers. (a) No agency shall deny, or permit any State or local government with whom it is involved in a cooperative venture to deny, to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his or her social security account number. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply with respect to: (1) Any disclosure required by Federal statute; or (2) Any disclosure to any agency relating to a system of records it maintained prior to January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to that date, to verify the identity of an individual. (c) Any agency in the Department which requests an individual to disclose his or her social security account number shall inform that individual whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority the number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it. The agency shall also insure that this information is provided by a State or local government with whom it is involved in a cooperative agreement. ...

There no requirement that the parents have or obtain a social security number:
7 CFR §226.23 Free and reduced-price meals.
... (C) The social security number of the adult household member who signs the application, or an indication that he/she does not possess a social security number; ...

7 CFR §245.6a Verification requirements.
... eligibility for free or reduced price meals. These households shall be advised of the type or types of information and/or documents acceptable to the school. This information must include a social security number for each adult household member or an indication that such member does not have one. ...

No where in the regulation is there a requirement for the child to obtain a social security number. Additionally the regulations provide for “an indication that such member does not have one” if parent does not a social security number.

[chronistra]

Tell me about what the court decided in the eeoc/Hanson case please?

The court decided that Mr. Hanson's employer, Information Systems Consulting, was making up their own rules and failed to follow the relevant federal laws in dealing with an employee who had religious scruples against having a Social Security number (specifically, 26 USC 6724). How does that help your argument?

Edited to add: Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the consent decree that ended the case:

" 6. The defendant shall make legal deductions for withholding of Federal
income taxes and the employee portion of social security from the backpay
checks. The defendant shall include with the check, an itemized statement
indicating specific amounts paid and deductions made. All W-2 forms shall
be provided as required by law.

7. The defendant shall make all employer contributions to social
security as required by law on the back wages to be paid to Bruce Hanson
pursuant to this Consent Decree."

--Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Information Systems Consulting, CA3-92-0169-T, Northern District of Texas.

[chronistra]

Sorry you are correct, it took me 3 mins to read thru and find the right one

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0640.htm

This section is about withdrawing an application for benefits. For example, if you apply for Social Security disability benefits and then decide you are not disabled and/or don't want the benefits, you can withdraw your application by following the procedures given. Similarly, if you apply for retirement benefits and then decide you don't want to retire yet (e.g., if it is financially advantageous to keep working another year or three), then you may withdraw your application for retirement benefits and apply again when you are ready.

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "revoking" your Social Security number.

[wserra]

That's interesting. Tell me about what the court decided in the eeoc/Hanson case please?

Oops. Cornered. Time to change the subject.

[chronistra]

I thought the i-9 was for agro type companies and employees?

§ 274a.2 Verification of identity and employment authorization.
(a) General. This section establishes requirements and procedures for compliance by persons or entities when hiring, or when recruiting or referring for a fee, or when continuing to employ individuals in the United States.
(1) Recruiters and referrers for a fee. For purposes of complying with section 274A(b) of the Act and this section, all references to recruiters and referrers for a fee are limited to a person or entity who is either an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub. L. 97-470 (29 U.S.C. 1802)).
(2) Verification form. Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification Form, is used in complying with the requirements of this 8 CFR 274a.1—274a.11.


What do you make of the bolded part?

8 CFR 274a is entitled Control of Employment of Aliens. For purposes of complying with federal law regarding migrant farm labor, references to recruiters and referrers for a fee mean agricultural employers and certain related entities. Note that the term employer is NOT so limited, and in fact is defined in 8 CFR 274a.1(g) as "a person or entity, including an agent or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest thereof, who engages the services or labor of an employee to be performed in the United States for wages or other remuneration," with no limitation as to field of endeavor. The I-9 is used for every class and kind of employee.

[AndyK]

• Can you show me the law that requires a person to obtain a social security number

Yes, I can -- within certain specific circumstances such as filing an EITC federal tax return or obtaining employment.

But I won't.

You have been given many examples and specific law citations.

Since you're such an expert at trolling the Internet for irrelevant and incorrect information, you should be able to do the research on your own.

[ontobserver]

In 1992, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) filed an

action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas

Division (CA3-92-0169-T) against Information Systems Consulting

(I.S.C.) for firing Bruce Hanson (an employee) on 8-15-89 solely

because he would not provide the company with a SSN that he did not

have due to his religious beliefs.

That's right, he didn't have to provide the company with his SSN due to his religious beliefs. I.S.C. should have followed 26 CFR 31.6011(b)-2 instead of firing him. No where does this decision say that the employee does not require an SSN.

edit: Correction - there was no judgment or decision in this case; the parties settled, but there are other examples of where a similar case was found in favor of the employer. All you have to do is go over to the Tax Protester FAQ as was suggested earlier.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that the main issue here can be summed up as follows:

1) PD has an intense personal need to feel that he is not required to have a SSN for any purpose; and thus:

2) PD is going to grasp at any straw he can find to prove that he is not required to have one -- even though he is resorting to cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, or to compendia like the [sic] Manuel which say what he wants to hear.

[Famspear]

"Patriotdiscussions" wrote:

Tell me about what the court decided in the eeoc/Hanson case please?

The answer is that the Court decided nothing that would be of interest to you. The parties settled the case.

Here's an excerpt from the Consent Decree by the Court in November 1992:

This Decree is being issued with the consent of the parties and does not constitute an adjudication or finding by this Court on the merits of the allegations of the complaint. By entering into this Decree, Information Systems Consulting, A Division of Diversified Human Resources Group, does not admit, nor has this Court made any determination with respect to, the claims there have been any violations of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] or any other statute, regulations or ordinance promulgated by any federal, state or local agency dealing with discrimination, by Information Systems Consulting, A Division of Diversified Human Resources Group. Nothing contained in this decree shall be construed as an admissions [sic] of liability on the part of the defendant.

-from Consent Decree, p. 3, Nov. 3, 1992, docket entry 14 (entered Nov. 4, 1992), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Information Systems Consulting, A Division of Diversified Human Resources Group, case no. 3:92-cv-00169-T, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Div.)

[Famspear]

"Patriotdiscussions" has a history of hopping around, as Wes has put it, like a "kangaroo on meth". So, I'd like to do a little hopping of my own.

Is the "Bruce Hanson" who is the subject of the aforementioned litigation the same Bruce Hanson who was a tax protester, who spent time in the federal slammer for willfully failing to timely file a valid federal income tax return for 1977?

The tax protester Bruce Hanson filed a 1977 federal "return" on which he objected to the questions on the form. Apparently, the "return" was not sufficient to constitute a legally valid return. He also sued the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, seeking to have the U.S. federal tax system declared unconstitutional. That didn't work.

(Later, Hanson did file a 1977 return which, although not timely, was a valid return. But, of course, that did not negate his criminal violation.)

This particular "Hanson" did have some victories in his battles with the IRS, though -- with respect to non-frivolous litigation. See Hanson v. Commissioner, 975 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1992).

Just wonderin' if this is the same guy.

[bmxninja357]

as a bit of an outsider to most here i can sincerely say pd's posted questions are a fishing expedition; where the answers are catch and release. in turn, i say tell him what he wants to hear just not how he wants to hear it.

a man is born with neither a name nor a number and is not obliged to have neither one. however if you wish to have any rights at all besides the basic law of the jungle you will ask for both. there is nothing stopping anyone from finding that mystical spot on the blue marble where theres no governance but law of the jungle. when you get there find the groups trying to get folks birth certificates so they can be considered persons and thus have law given rights. god gives no rights and no quarter, nor does nature. the law does. rights to anything do not enforce themselves, the law enforces it. the law provided by and for the people of the lands in general you reside on.

and if you do not like the current system instead of crying like a baby try participating in the system to change it. as it stands the patriot movement does not enjoy the support of the hearts and the minds of the people in general. and until it does your efforts are futile.

now go learn how government works. attend a council meeting. organize a political party. drop the conspiracy theories that have been pulled straight out of folks asses. if theres something you know and can actually prove then get on your soap box. but remember you dont sell a chevy by beating up a ford. so figure out the in's and out of politics and take your schtick to a vote.

until then, stop wasting everyones time.

ninj

[JamesVincent]

No where in the regulation is there a requirement for the child to obtain a social security number. Additionally the regulations provide for “an indication that such member does not have one” if parent does not a social security number.

If you are a documented alien then you do not have a SSN, which is what those quotes pertain to. If you are a US citzen then your children are also, and are required to have a SSN and you are required to produce it for your children to get subsidized meals. Been doing it for years now, since my divorce.

Your question has been answered several times now, either in legal answers or in practical answers. Where else do you want to attempt to run to?

[Famspear]

After having clearly been shown the law that requires an individual to use a social security number for federal income tax purposes, and that requires the individual to give that number to his employer on the first day of work, "Patriotdiscussions" slipped this into one of his later posts:

Can you show me the law that requires a person to obtain a social security number...

--as though no one will notice that he's asking a question for which he already knows the answer, and for which he has already been provided the answer earlier in the thread, with direct quotes from the statutes and regulations.

This trollish behavior is an example of why you receive relatively little respect here, "Patriotdiscussions."

Grow up.

[Patriotdiscussions]

After having clearly been shown the law that requires an individual to use a social security number for federal income tax purposes, and that requires the individual to give that number to his employer on the first day of work, "Patriotdiscussions" slipped this into one of his later posts:

Can you show me the law that requires a person to obtain a social security number...

--as though no one will notice that he's asking a question for which he already knows the answer, and for which he has already been provided the answer earlier in the thread, with direct quotes from the statutes and regulations.

This trollish behavior is an example of why you receive relatively little respect here, "Patriotdiscussions."

Grow up.

I'm on a mobile so I can't put much, but let me then ask a grown up question.

Tax compliance was below 50% up until the 40's, why was not 50% of the population not prosecuted?

[Famspear]

....I'm on a mobile so I can't put much, but let me then ask a grown up question.

Tax compliance was below 50% up until the 40's, why was not 50% of the population not prosecuted?

First, "prosecution" is a criminal law concept. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the statistics you're citing relate to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, which I suspect they do not. Mere lack of "compliance" does not necessarily mean criminality.

Those here who have actually worked for the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department (DOJ) can give a better answer than I can, but my understanding is that the majority of cases of criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code of which the IRS and the DOJ are aware are never prosecuted. A decision has been made, rightly or wrongly, that government resources are better spent on other things.

The last time I checked a few years ago, I believe there were only two to three thousand new federal criminal tax cases per year. The vast majority of those cases result in convictions and federal prison time.

Again, those who have actually worked for the federal government can give a more authoritative answer than I.

[Famspear]

Notice how studiously I avoided commenting on the stupidity asking why 50% of the population was not prosecuted.



I'm such a nice guy.

[Pottapaug1938]

Notice also that PD has ONCE AGAIN evaded answering direct questions put to him, and offers another factoid instead.

Troll, troll, troll....

[AndyK]

Tax compliance was below 50% up until the 40's, why was not 50% of the population not prosecuted?

Citation? Or did you just, again, pull this one out of your ass?

Absent a verifiable citation relating your statement to something factual, the appropriate answer is 'meh.'

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

I'm on a mobile so I can't put much, but let me then ask a grown up question.

Tax compliance was below 50% up until the 40's, why was not 50% of the population not prosecuted?

Assuming your figures are valid, the answer is: Because under the circumstances and with the technology of the era, it would have taken the other 50% of the population to conduct all the investigations and prosecutions.

Why is this a "grown up question?"