Opting out of the Social Security program??
Kevin Jones
Is it possible for U.S. citizens to legally choose to NOT take part in
the Social Security program? My buddy says it is true. I think it is
illegal. Anyone know for sure?
Comments are appreciated.
J. W. Rives, CPA
Only certain professions can opt out of Social Security the most common
are clergy and teachers who are covered by state retirement plans.
--
---------------------
J. Wray Rives, CPA
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jwrives/
Katie Jaques
Kevin Jones <vivi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Is it possible for U.S. citizens to legally choose to NOT take part in
>the Social Security program? My buddy says it is true. I think it is
>illegal. Anyone know for sure?
>
>Comments are appreciated.
Of course you can opt out of the benefits. When you become eligible, no
one will force you to apply for or accept Social Security or Medicare.
However, unless you fall into a non-covered category, or a category of
employees who have the option to choose an alternative retirement plan,
you cannot choose not to pay the taxes.
As an employee, if you refuse to provide your employer with your Social
Security number, he still must withhold the tax from your wages and pay
his half. It just doesn't get credited to your account.
If you are self-employed, you are required to pay both halves of the tax.
Of course, many people do not, but not because of a valid election out.
They are simply not in compliance.
Katie in San Diego
The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and does not
constitute legal or professional advice. Consult a professional tax
adviser before taking any action.
Paul Maffia
"J. W. Rives, CPA" <jwr...@onramp.net> writes:
>Only certain professions can opt out of Social Security the most common
>are clergy and teachers who are covered by state retirement plans.
Your statement is at best misleading, if not outright false.
Clergy can opt out of SS only if their denomination has declined to make
itself subject to it. If that has occured, they have no personal choice,
they cannot participate.
Teachers are not exempt merely because they are covered by their state
retirement plans. Again it depends on whether or not their state has or
has not brought them under the SS system. again they have no personal
choice. If their state has put them under the SS system they cannot opt
out and if the state has excluded them, they cannot opt in.
Under the law as originally written, it was not mandatory for state's
(and by extension their municipalities) to put their employees under SS.
and if they chose to be covered, the state could later withdraw from the
system if it wished. However, the law has been changed so that once they
become part of the system, they may not withdraw.
The only possibility for opting out of the SS system is for those
individuals who are practising and good faith members of certain religious
bodies such as the Amish who may, because of their religious affiliation
personally opt out of the system or take the individual decision to put
themselves under the system.
--
Paul M.
Scott Dunn
In article <5gcid1$f...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com>,
CWB...@prodigy.com (Katie Jaques) wrote:
> Kevin Jones <vivi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >Is it possible for U.S. citizens to legally choose to NOT take part in
> >the Social Security program? My buddy says it is true. I think it is
> >illegal. Anyone know for sure?
> >
> >Comments are appreciated.
>
>
>
> Of course you can opt out of the benefits. When you become eligible, no
> one will force you to apply for or accept Social Security or Medicare.
> However, unless you fall into a non-covered category, or a category of
> employees who have the option to choose an alternative retirement plan,
> you cannot choose not to pay the taxes.
>
Can you find a law that requires anyone to apply for a number? I sure
can't. Go ahead and scan chapter 7 of title 42 and see for yourself. Oh,
and if you are deluded into thinking Social Security is a contract, think
again. If Congress fails to appropriate money for SS benefits, then no
benefits can be paid.
As far as paying the taxes are concerned, it's anyone's guess as to who's
liable. But since you are paying taxes and not premiums, you are not
earning a property right. The benefits are "promised" by Congress. And
considering that unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government are now
around $50 trillion, you may have to compete with other special interests
to even be paid benefits. Good luck.
> As an employee, if you refuse to provide your employer with your Social
> Security number, he still must withhold the tax from your wages and pay
> his half. It just doesn't get credited to your account.
>
He can only withhold if there is a w-4 in effect. No w-4, no
withholding. Of course, he's not required to hire you either. Forcing
the issue is very difficult since "employers" will listen to the IRS give
advice over the phone but completely ignore all the documented evidence
you can present. Especially if their CPA agrees with the IRS.
An interesting question is are you really an employee within the context
of 26 USC chapter 24? The only persons listed in the definition of
"employee" are government employees. Perhaps the Social Security number
is your "government employee" number. If you are self-employed, you must
consider whether or not you are engaged in a "trade or business" too.
Seems that only includes duties of a public office.
> If you are self-employed, you are required to pay both halves of the tax.
> Of course, many people do not, but not because of a valid election out.
> They are simply not in compliance.
>
I don't know anyone who has successfully ridden themselves of their
socialist insecurity number. I know of many so-called 'patriots' who have
filed all sorts of declarations with the county recorder and mailed a copy
of the declaration to everyone they can think of. But still, the SSA
believes the number is still valid.
Hope this helps.
> Katie in San Diego
>
> The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and does not
> constitute legal or professional advice. Consult a professional tax
> adviser before taking any action.
Here, here!
Scott Dunn, FOIA/PA - California PRA/IPA researcher, tutor
gr...@exo.com : http://exo.com/~grin/index.html
"No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States 'to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.'" MAPCO, Inc. v Carter, (1978, Em Ct App) 573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 US 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.
Kevin Jones
Paul Maffia wrote:
>
>
> The only possibility for opting out of the SS system is for those
> individuals who are practising and good faith members of certain religious
> bodies such as the Amish who may, because of their religious affiliation
> personally opt out of the system or take the individual decision to put
> themselves under the system.
>
>
> --
> Paul M.
Well, that is shifty. Isn't that discrimination based on religion?
Kevin
Dean Arthur
Two books, "Vultures In Eagle's Clothing", and "How to Cook a Vulture",
explain very clearly and present the appropriate forms for obtaining a
printout of the money (to the penny) which was withheld from your wages
so that you can obtain a refund of that amount should you desire to "opt
out" of the scam. If you want the books, do a web search for the titles.
California has ruled that anyone attempting to initiate such a scam in
California will be a guest of the state for many years for setting up a
"wagering policy" which is a felony there.
Dean Arthur
Paul Maffia wrote:
>
> "J. W. Rives, CPA" <jwr...@onramp.net> writes:
>
> >Only certain professions can opt out of Social Security the most common
> >are clergy and teachers who are covered by state retirement plans.
>
> Your statement is at best misleading, if not outright false.
>
> Clergy can opt out of SS only if their denomination has declined to make
> itself subject to it. If that has occured, they have no personal choice,
> they cannot participate.
>
> Teachers are not exempt merely because they are covered by their state
> retirement plans. Again it depends on whether or not their state has or
> has not brought them under the SS system. again they have no personal
> choice. If their state has put them under the SS system they cannot opt
> out and if the state has excluded them, they cannot opt in.
>
> Under the law as originally written, it was not mandatory for state's
> (and by extension their municipalities) to put their employees under SS.
> and if they chose to be covered, the state could later withdraw from the
> system if it wished. However, the law has been changed so that once they
> become part of the system, they may not withdraw.
>
> individuals who are practising and good faith members of certain religious
> bodies such as the Amish who may, because of their religious affiliation
> personally opt out of the system or take the individual decision to put
> themselves under the system.
>
>
> --
> Paul M.
Ha, another who can't understand the language!
The SSA will tell you if you write to them, that the Supreme Court has
held that SS is constitutional in 32 of 33 cases. What they won't tell
you is that those 32 cases involved corporations.
All U. S. citizens are, by congressional definition, corporate
sub-entities of the foreign (to the 50 compact-nation states)
corporation titled Washington, D.C.
If you were to fill out Form 5 and mark your status as OTHER and
indicate that you are a State citizen and know what it means and how to
explain it to the dumpkopf behind the counter, you would be denied a
Social Security Account Number as only foreigners and U.S.
citizen/chattels are permitted to indenture themselves to the
government.
If you read Title 42 you will find that signing the application gives
the government the power to seize all your property and possessions to
compensate it for the cost of considering you for charity. There is NO
ENITLEMENT to benefits. There is NO ACCOUNT WITH MONEY BEING HELD FOR
YOU. All monies collected go out to recipients on the dole now.
There used to be a fund but Truman robbed 60 million for Marshall Plan
to rebuild our Europe and Japan after World War II. Then Eisenhower
robbed 90 million for Korean "Conflict". Then Johnson robbed 160 million
for the garbage weaponry we had to use in Vietnam after we got
permission to return fire from the civilians in Washington.
Dan Howell
In article <grin-15039...@ppp8.snni.com>, gr...@exo.com (Scott Dunn) writes:
>
> Can you find a law that requires anyone to apply for a number? I sure
> can't. Go ahead and scan chapter 7 of title 42 and see for yourself.
You're looking in the wrong place. Try IRC Sec. 6109 and associated
regulations.
> Oh,
> and if you are deluded into thinking Social Security is a contract, think
> again. If Congress fails to appropriate money for SS benefits, then no
> benefits can be paid.
True. Social Security is NOT a contract.
> He can only withhold if there is a w-4 in effect. No w-4, no
> withholding.
Not true. A W-4 is a withholding EXEMPTION certificate. No W-4, no
exemptions. 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1 says "...if the employee fails
to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a
single person claiming no withholding exemptions." Besides, a W-4
is for claiming exemptions against INCOME tax withholding, not social
security taxes. There are no exemptions against social security taxes
(except for certain circumstances listed explicitly in IRC Sec. 3121).
> Of course, he's not required to hire you either.
The EEOC might say differently. Regardless, the employer is required
to withhold social security taxes from your wages, whether you submit
a W-4 or not, whether you submit a social security number or not. See
IRC Sec. 3102.
> Forcing
> the issue is very difficult since "employers" will listen to the IRS give
> advice over the phone but completely ignore all the documented evidence
> you can present. Especially if their CPA agrees with the IRS.
>
> An interesting question is are you really an employee within the context
> of 26 USC chapter 24? The only persons listed in the definition of
> "employee" are government employees. Perhaps the Social Security number
> is your "government employee" number. If you are self-employed, you must
> consider whether or not you are engaged in a "trade or business" too.
> Seems that only includes duties of a public office.
This is based on the tired "includes" means "includes only" argument,
which has been so thoroughly discredited it's not even worth discussing
any more. (As if it ever was.)
> I don't know anyone who has successfully ridden themselves of their
> socialist insecurity number. I know of many so-called 'patriots' who have
> filed all sorts of declarations with the county recorder and mailed a copy
> of the declaration to everyone they can think of. But still, the SSA
> believes the number is still valid.
The SSA really doesn't give a crap until you try to collect benefits from
them. It's the IRS you have to worry about. And they will happily ignore
and file away all declarations claiming to have renounced social security
numbers, to be sovereign citizens, to be exempt from taxes for whatever
bizarre legalistic gibberish reasons, until they have decided that enough
back taxes, interest, and penalties have been built up to make full force
collection effort worthwhile.
---
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
Thom Anderson
dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan Howell) wrote:
>In article <grin-15039...@ppp8.snni.com>, gr...@exo.com (Scott Dunn) writes:
>>
>> Can you find a law that requires anyone to apply for a number? I sure
>> can't. Go ahead and scan chapter 7 of title 42 and see for yourself.
>
>You're looking in the wrong place. Try IRC Sec. 6109 and associated
>regulations.
>
Not so fast there!!! 6109 only says that you must supply the SSN if
you have one is DOES NOT REQUIRE you to HAVE one and it CANNOT REQUIRE
you to participate in a socialist program. I, and many colleagues
have corresponded with SSA and had them admit that it is not mandatory
- it is required only to get or retain benefits. If you do not want
the benefits, don't get them number.
>> He can only withhold if there is a w-4 in effect. No w-4, no
>> withholding.
>
>Not true. A W-4 is a withholding EXEMPTION certificate. No W-4, no
>exemptions. 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1 says "...if the employee fails
>to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a
>single person claiming no withholding exemptions." Besides, a W-4
>is for claiming exemptions against INCOME tax withholding, not social
>security taxes. There are no exemptions against social security taxes
>(except for certain circumstances listed explicitly in IRC Sec. 3121).
>
Well, actually the W-4 is an Employee's Withholding ALLOWANCE
Certificate!! Now, Title 26 USC 3401(c) says that an employee
includes officer, employee (don't you love tautologies), or elected
officials of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia. It also include an officer of a
corporations. This is fairly clear, but United States, and States are
not defined in section 3401, so we must look at the general definition
of these terms in section 7701. 7701 (a) (9) says that the term
United States includes only the States and D.C. 7701 (a) (10) says
that the term States includes D.C. So, there you have it the term
United States includes D.C. and D.C. and employees work for D.C. and
D.C. (United States) , a D.C. (a state), a political subdivision of
D.C., or for D.C. or they are an officer of a corporation. Just
think, we pay people to write this stuff. You might want to argue
that this is misapplied but it would be better to argue that the whole
mess should be ruled void for vagueness!! Anyhow, it you check Title
20 you will find that wages are covered earnings, so if you don't
submit a W-4, you earning will not be used to earn Social Security
credits (of course credits not the same as dollars going into an
account in your name). IF a worker submits a declaration that they
are a Citizen of the U.S. in duplicate, then their hiring company is
relieved from the obligation to withhold employee taxes, FICA, and
Medicare 26 Title 26 USC sec 6654(e)(2)(C)
>> Of course, he's not required to hire you either.
>
>The EEOC might say differently. Regardless, the employer is required
>to withhold social security taxes from your wages, whether you submit
>a W-4 or not, whether you submit a social security number or not. See
>IRC Sec. 3102.
>
Unless you give him the declaration that you are a Citizen and meet
the other requirements in IRC 6654 (e) (2) (C). If they fire you for
refusing to sign a W-4 or for not having a Social Security number then
you have a valid discrimination action based on national origin
(U.S.).
>> Forcing
>> the issue is very difficult since "employers" will listen to the IRS give
>> advice over the phone but completely ignore all the documented evidence
>> you can present. Especially if their CPA agrees with the IRS.
>>
>> An interesting question is are you really an employee within the context
>> of 26 USC chapter 24? The only persons listed in the definition of
>> "employee" are government employees. Perhaps the Social Security number
>> is your "government employee" number. If you are self-employed, you must
>> consider whether or not you are engaged in a "trade or business" too.
>> Seems that only includes duties of a public office.
>
>This is based on the tired "includes" means "includes only" argument,
>which has been so thoroughly discredited it's not even worth discussing
>any more. (As if it ever was.)
Let's concede the point for sake of argument. We still are only
liable for wages and wages are COVERED earnings and covered earnings
are earnings that are designated to earn credits. If you don't want
the credits, you have no wages REGARDLESS of whether you have a Social
Security number.
>
>> I don't know anyone who has successfully ridden themselves of their
>> socialist insecurity number. I know of many so-called 'patriots' who have
>> filed all sorts of declarations with the county recorder and mailed a copy
>> of the declaration to everyone they can think of. But still, the SSA
>> believes the number is still valid.
>The SSA really doesn't give a crap until you try to collect benefits from
>them. It's the IRS you have to worry about. And they will happily ignore
>and file away all declarations claiming to have renounced social security
>numbers, to be sovereign citizens, to be exempt from taxes for whatever
>bizarre legalistic gibberish reasons, until they have decided that enough
>back taxes, interest, and penalties have been built up to make full force
>collection effort worthwhile.
I know several persons who have rescinded their participation in
Social Security based on constructive fraud. In other words, they
volunteered to get the number because government officials mistakenly
told them that it was mandatory. However, you do not have to rescind
your participation in Social Security to stop having your earnings
credited. You would need to rescind the W-4 and supply the statement
of Citizenship of the U.S. in duplicate though. I have to agree with
a couple points you have made. Firstly, claiming sovereign
citizenship does not afford and special 'rights' when it comes to the
tax issue. The constitution clearly gives the Federal government
taxing authority (art. 1.2.3, 1.8.1, and 1.9.4). The problem is that
they intimidate you into volunteering credit you earnings and this
leads to the second point with which I agree... namely, that you will
go after you regardless of the law. In criminal court, where there
are juries, they will probably lose the argument. In civil court,
where there is no protection from judicial abuse, you're in trouble.
What does that say about our former constitutional republic?
Publius