Social Security

[shikamaru]

Social Security is an alias for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program according to Wikipedia.

U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter IITrust Funds.

I can't help but notice the terms insurance and trust....

[shikamaru]

Social Security myths (according to the SSA)

(Source)

Not Voluntary. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that "the program would be completely voluntary." It is supported by taxes and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: "From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. "

.....

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself."

(Source)

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.

Notice the terms covered and non-covered.

[shikamaru]

The public interest stated and defined.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jWRAAAAAYAAJ&dq=employment%20affects%20the%20public%20interest&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false

The law of the employment of labor

http://books.google.com/books?id=4Qo9AAAAYAAJ&dq=police%20powers%20and%20employment&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=police%20powers%20and%20employment&f=false

Police powers arising under the law of overruling necessity.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x-I9AAAAIAAJ&dq=police%20powers%20and%20employment&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q=police%20powers%20and%20employment&f=false

[walter]

Helvering v. Davis

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm

There is no trust fund or insurance.

[JohnnyCash]

Remember, no Social Security number (SSN) is needed to live and work in The United Banks of America.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2128&stc=1&d=1420594020

[allodial]

Remember, no Social Security number (SSN) is needed to live and work in The United Banks of America.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...1&d=1420594020

At the least, the corporates want you to have one because it has value.

[Chex]

Remember, no Social Security number (SSN) is needed to live and work in The United Banks of America.http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...1&d=1420594020

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-...191918823.html

[Chex]

At the least, the corporates want you to have one because it has value.

Source

[ohiofoiarequest]

This assumes the 1099 recipient gave a SSN or TIN to the 1099 issuer. I believe the issuer's only obligation is to ask for said number and when refused, to issue a declaration to IRS attesting that 1099 recipient did not supply an SSN/TIN. Failure of issuer to obtain the recipients SSN/TIN is something like a $50 penalty to the issuer if I recall correctly.