Re: SSA Response (July 14, 1997) to my Affidavits of Rescision!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Waite W. Worden Jr. on March 21, 1998 at 18:23:32:

In Reply to: SSA Response (July 14, 1997) to my Affidavits of Rescision! posted by Charlie @ Sterling Investigations on July 18, 1997 at 13:10:23:

Dear Mr. Charpentier:

I am writing in regard to the letter you received, dated July 14, 1997,
from the Social Security Administration.

There is an interesting internal conflict contained
in the letter regarding your "account." The letter states
that taxes paid "are not placed in individual accounts."
In the following paragraph the letter says that in order to keep
track of taxes paid, "...the Social Security account number system
was established."

Is there "an account" or is there not? Further, prior
to about 1968, cards issued said "The following Social
Security Account Number has been established for..."
After that, the cards said -and say today- "the following
Social Security number has been established for..."

I had a long and frustrating correspondence with a Delmar
D. Dowling, Director of the Office of Public Inquiries of
the Social Security Administration on this issue. I could
never get an answer as to why the change was made. He would
say only "there is no significant difference," but would
never clarify what the difference was. I finally gave
up trying to get the answer. It was clear it was never to
be forthcoming.

I have just today found your site. Keep up the good work.
I think "social security number" is one of the grandest
pieces of double speak ever perpetuated. Under the guise
of a feel-good term, the government is attempting to
to bring all under control.


Waite W. Worden Jr.
: Charles F. Charpentier
: c/o Box 883, Portage, Wisconsin
: Postal Code [53901]

: July 18, 1997

: Dear Friends,

: Following is the text of a letter which I received today from the Social Security Administration, in response to my recent action of having my Social Security contract legally rescinded. Their letter was dated July 14, 1997.

: =========================================================

: Dear Mr. Charpentier:

: This is in response to your correspondence about the Social Security program. People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program. The payment of Social Security taxes is mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee. Unless specifically exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes.

: Similarly, people cannot withdraw the Social Security taxes that they have already paid. Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers are not placed in individual accounts, but are pooled to pay benefits to eligible workers and their families. Benefits are paid only on the basis of a voluntary application. (note: for you receiving this via email, the word voluntary was underlined in the last sentence)

: The Social Security Administration (SSA) is required by law (at section 205 of the Social Security Act) to maintain records of workers' earnings and to establish any other record necessary to carry out our responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Because many people have the same name, or change their name, a reliable and permanent system was needed to distinguish one individual from another in our records. The Social Security account number system was established to meet that need.

: The constitutionality of the Social Security system, as established by the Social Security Act, and mandatory individual participation have already been established by the Supreme Court. We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the Social Security program or the withdrawal of Social Security taxes.

: The Internal Revenue Service has jurisdiction over the issue of liability for Social Security taxes; the Immigration and Naturalization Service has jurisdiction over the issue of citizenship. If you have questions about either of these subjects, you should contact one of those Agencies.

: Sincerely,

: Charles H. Mullen
: Associate Commissioner
: Office of Public Inquiries

: ===================================================

: P.S. I haven't yet had time to dissect this letter for accuracy, or outright lies. I would appreciate your feedback, citing the applicable laws. Thanks.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]