A.L.E.R.T.
(America Law Education Rights & Taxation)
11-13-2001
Exchanging
Liberty For Benefits
Reproduced today is a thoughtful e-mail inquiry I recently received regarding 'the relationship between the Social Security number and participating in the social security system' and asking whether 'it [is] possible to quit the Social security system and yet still retain the number for identification purposes?.' Correspondent wrote:
Dear Mr. Phillips,
I am currently a graduate student in the Masters in Taxation program at (Redacted) State University. While browsing the web for a class presentation topic, I stumbled across your website. I am absolutely astonished and fascinated by this information, and would like to do my class presentation on the 'voluntary' social security system and our legal right to elect non-participation.
I have been a homemaker for the last 15 years, and have just recently entered the workforce. Because of this, I have not made significant contributions towards SS, and would like to elect not to continue doing so. I am not, however, ready to 'all out' fight the system by refusing federal and state withholdings.
I'm unclear in my understanding of the relationship between the Social Security number and participating in the social security system. Is it possible to quit the Social security system and yet still retain the number for identification purposes? I mean, if I were to file an Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission in order to stop contributions towards and participation in the system, then how would I file an IRS return for federal withholdings? I want to take small steps. Can I quit one without the other?
Furthermore, if you don't have a social security number, how are you identified for credit purposes? We would like to purchase a house in a few years and, as you know, the SSN links us to our credit history. It seems that life would be very difficult without a SSN. Please share your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Name Withheld
* * *
Gordon Phillips replies:
Dear Name Withheld,
First of all, my sincerest kudos on your willingness to entertain new and unfamiliar information on this subject. You obviously have your Thinker set on 'high'. I'm certain that the facts available at my web site will NOT be included in your 'Masters in Taxation' textbooks any time soon.
Of course, were I to point out the obvious collusion between college administrators and federal bureaucrats with regard to student loans, Pell Grants and other such seductive 'guarantees' (all of which I lump into the category 'free cheese'), I would be a conspiracy theorist, so I will refrain from commenting.
Regrettably, 'academia' in all of its purple robes and mortarboards continues to demonstrate a well-honed mental laziness in the area of constitutional taxation, running neck-in-neck with their well-heeled peers in the financial professions in a photo-finish competition for the 'Dummy' (an award I have proposed, comparable to the 'Emmy' ;-).
With regard to your comment that you 'would like to do my class presentation on the 'voluntary' social security system and our legal right to elect non-participation', you stated the situation precisely.
Participation in wealth (property) redistribution is -- and can only be -- 100% voluntary for citizens within the States of the Union. The Framers of the Constitution understood this well, guaranteeing under Amendment V '... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation', thereby slamming the door on socialism.
Indeed, those twelve words bar all forced participation by the citizen in government sponsored wealth redistribution (vote-purchasing) programs such as the cleverly misnamed 'Social Security'.
I write the following in my book 'Losing Your Illusions', under the chapter heading 'Exchanging Your Liberties For Benefits':
'After the Great Wall Street Crash in 1929, daily newspaper photographs of mile-long soup and bread lines persuaded a frightened public to eagerly embrace the introduction of European style socialism in the form of Social Security, written and contrived in smoke-filled rooms by the same politician-puppets of the bankers who had engineered both the crash and the depression. A public eager to exchange liberty for benefits would now vote for those politicians who would promise to provide them with the greatest 'fair share' of the public trough.'
A close reading of the Constitution reveals that the sole jurisdiction of the federal government within the Union States is twofold: interstate commerce and postal roads. That's it: interstate commerce and postal roads. Period.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (a name that will one day live in infamy) tried using the only one of these two avenues he possibly could -- interstate commerce -- as the pretense for his first attempt at socialist wealth redistribution when he cajoled Congress into passing legislation in 1934 to provide for the retirement of railroad workers, arguing (presumably with a straight face) that railroad workers cross state lines in the course of their employment -- ergo, interstate commerce was involved, thereby ostensibly justifying the viability of a federally sponsored insurance retirement program.
Until that time, virtually no citizen in the entire history of America had ever received so much as a dime of largesse from the federal government. Many, including my maternal grandfather, God rest his soul, disparagingly referred to FDR's proposal as the 'dole'.
Patrick Henry did NOT declaim: 'Give me Liberty, or give me Benefits!'
Fortunately, the supreme Court of that time, unlike today, still contained a sufficient number of sagacious panelists who understood the principles of republicanism as crafted by Madison, Jefferson and others. Seeing through FDR's transparent ruse, they wasted no time in shooting down the Railroad Retirement Act as wholly unconstitutional in their decision in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company decided May 6, 1935, in which they stated:
'The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the comfort and satisfaction of his employees, seems endless. Provisions for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of Congressional power'.'
There you have it, the high Court informing Congress that is has NO constitutional authority whatsoever to legislate for the social welfare of the worker. Their cogent comments should have dissuaded Congress from ever again even THINKING about trying to pass a federally sponsored, vote-mongering giveaway scheme. And rightly so, for there is no provision in the Constitution for the government to be in the insurance business, wherefore all federal welfare give-away schemes can only ever be precisely and exactly 100% participatory for citizens within the States of the Union.
Not to be outdone by a bunch of old fogies in black robes, FDR sailed around the geographical boundaries of the Constitution by getting the Social Security Act passed under TREATY provisions. This remains one of history's greatest secrets.
Under the Social Security Act, citizens of a foreign country with which our government has enacted a reciprocal tax treaty can build up credits towards our government welfare wealth redistribution scheme while residing and working HERE as aliens in the U.S., while U.S. citizens can do likewise when residing and working as aliens in the OTHER country.
This fact is none other than a revalidation of the federal taxing scheme as it has existed since the day Washington took office: citizens are taxed abroad and foreigners are taxed here at home. This is true not just with regard to the employment (social security) wage tax, but the income tax as well.
At this point in time, all 'civilized' nations of the world have government sponsored and operated welfare giveaway programs. I name them all in my book. Many Americans do not realize that the Social Security Administration mails THOUSANDS of social security checks abroad each month to citizens of other countries!
These federally subsidized foreigners once worked here in the U.S. (or in the territories and possessions) and swapped enough of their property (that is, contributed enough wages as employment taxes) to amass sufficient 'credits' so as to qualify for a monthly check from Uncle Sam for the rest of their natural lives.
Understanding the above, it is clear why 42 USC at section 405(c)(2)(B)(i) states to whom Social Security Numbers are to be assigned by the Secretary of Social Security:
(I) to ALIENS at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other ALIENS at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; (uppercase emphasis added)
(II) to any individual who is an APPLICANT for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person ...'. (uppercase emphasis added)
Please note that the 'applicant' under paragraph (II) is YOU. After all, how can a U.S. citizen be forced to use a SSN for any purpose whatsoever, including employment, when s/he cannot be forced to APPLY for one in the first place? Answer: s/he cannot! Go to the head of the class!
You see, Congress left the cell door wide open for the U.S. citizen living and working here within his own country to APPLY to participate in the social security scheme. Mandatory wealth redistribution is barred under the Fifth Amendment's absolute protection of private (personal) property ONLY when ABSENT the CONSENT of the citizen.
The citizen who is naive enough to knowingly remove himself from under the absolute protection of the Constitution and actually trust his property to a tax-and-spend legislature bent on hocking America to those foreign bankers who designed the system can volunteer to participate in the government welfare scheme of his own free will, simply by making contributions of his property (wages) towards the political promise of 'security' in old age, compliments of Washington, D.C..
Of course, all such government welfare eventually received by today's contributing worker will have deteriorated so drastically by 'retirement' (due to banker-engineered 'inflation') as to be essentially worthless when compared to today's buying power. That is, of course, assuming that the retiree actually receives anything at all. Congress could turn off the valve on all federal largesse at any time simply by voting to do so. Such a vote could occur at 10:00AM tomorrow morning and there's not a thing the worker could do about it (except weep).
You go on to ask 'Is it possible to quit the Social security system and yet still retain the number for identification purposes?' The answer is: No.
The SSN is used for the crediting of wages to be applied against future 'benefits'. Without the number, how can the Social Security Administration possibly distinguish YOU from every other person with your same name?
Using the Internet, I recently found 126 'Gordon Phillips' here in America alone. Since the British Isles, Canada and Australia all speak English as their native language as well, there must be hundreds of additional Gordon Phillips' around the world. Which am I? Without a number, I'm lost in the crowd.
Note that you or your parent (or legal guardian) must:
* APPLY for a SSN on SSA Form SS-5;
* APPLY for wage withholding on IRS Form W-4, and;
* APPLY for benefits from SSA at the end of the wealth redistribution gravy train.
See a pattern here? Can the act of making application (applying) for ANYTHING ever be required be law (forced, mandatory, compelled)?
You ask '... if I were to file an Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission in order to stop contributions towards and participation in the system, then how would I file an IRS return for federal withholdings? I want to take small steps. Can I quit one without the other?'
You misunderstand. The Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission is NOT required in order to stop participation in the Social Security federal welfare program. Participation is elective. A citizen can elect to participate one quarter and not the next, and so on. If the law does not require a citizen within the Union to participate (and it doesn't), then s/he has no lawful requirement to report ANYTHING (i.e., make a return) to the government in that regard.
The sole purpose of the Affidavit of Revocation And Rescission is to put the Secretary of the Treasury on notice of one's new found understanding of the law and to challenge the Secretary's jurisdiction pursuant to 5 USC section 556(d) which states that the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.
The Affidavit of Revocation And Rescission becomes a powerful part of an evidentiary foundation of exculpatory evidence that can be used to educate a juror in a criminal tax trial should the government someday attempt to move forward with false charges of 'willful failure to file', etc.
The Affidavit has already played a key role in the acquittal of at least one member of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, as covered in the past issue of our newsletter 'Reasonable Action' and titled 'Sweet Victory In Kentucky' which dealt with the 1995 'willful failure' trial of Fellowship member, Donald Paul.
The prosecuting U.S. Attorney deceitfully attempted to portray the Affidavit as a dangerous, anti-government document, thereby drawing so much attention to it that the jury requested a copy to read. The subsequently educated jurors emerged from deliberations to acquit Mr. Paul. After the trial, more than one panelist asked for information about the Fellowship! It appears at this time that the Justice(?) Department is reluctant to discuss the Affidavit before a jury.
You ask '.... then how [without a SSN] would I file an IRS return for federal withholdings?' Answer: You couldn't. Aside from the fact that the IRS would not accept the form without a SSN, the SSA wouldn't know whose account to credit the contributions to.
With regard to the executing of returns of income, the only citizens required to do so are those working abroad and who have FOREIGN sources of income (see IRC sections 1 and 6012(a) and their regulations). Certain other code sections make the citizen working here in the Union also required to file returns when involved in regulated, excise taxable business activities such as the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol, tobacco and firearm products.
The only lawful application of the Form W-4 'Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate' with regard to the U.S. citizen is for the use of s/he to whom a SSN has been assigned upon application, who applies to have wages withheld to accumulate credits towards benefits, and who is working within the federal territories and possessions or abroad under a treaty. That's it.
The Code of Federal Regulations at 26 CFR section 31.3402(p)-1 refers to the W-4 form as the 'voluntary withholding agreement'. Yes, Virginia, the W-4 is VOLUNTARY! C.P.A.'s and small business owners of America - take a 'Clue Card'!
Furthermore, 26 Code of Federal Regulations, section 301.6109-1(c) states:
'Requirement to furnish another's number. Every person required under this title to make a return, statement, or other document must furnish such taxpayer identifying numbers of other U.S. PERSONS AND FOREIGN PERSONS that are described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii),
or (vi) of this section as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. The taxpayer identifying number of any person furnishing a withholding certificate referred to in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section shall also be furnished if it is actually known to the person making a return, statement, or other document described in this paragraph (c). IF THE PERSON MAKING THE RETURN, STATEMENT, OR OTHER DOCUMENT DOES NOT KNOW THE TAXPAYER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF THE OTHER PERSON, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), or (vi) of this section, such person must REQUEST the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT ON THE TRANSMITTAL DOCUMENT forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating. A person required to file a taxpayer identifying number shall correct any errors in such filing when such person's attention has been drawn to them.'' (uppercase emphasis added)
Note that the law does NOT say that the covered employer (i.e., participating for social security purposes) upon tendered a W-4 to the worker to be signed and returned to him shall 'obtain' or 'demand' the number. The law says 'request', presumably politely. Note also that here is no form necessary upon which to report the employer's request for, and failure to obtain, the number. Citizen-employers (and workers) engaged in their common law right to pursue unregulated (and therefore untaxed) occupations within the Union don't use government forms. They use self-generated, sworn statements - i.e., affidavits. Do Congress and the Department of the Treasury understand this? You bet. They wrote the law.
You ask 'Furthermore, if you don't have a social security number, how are you identified for credit purposes? We would like to purchase a house in a few years and, as you know, the SSN links us to our credit history. It seems that life would be very difficult without a SSN. Please share your thoughts on this.'
I know of no credit reporting company -- TRW (now Experion), CBI, Trans/Union, etc. -- that will establish or track a credit record without a taxpayer identification number (TIN) being associated with the account.
A state-chartered statutory entity such as a Limited Liability Company can apply on IRS Form SS-4 for an Employer Identification Number in order to open a bank account. It can then take out a collateralized loan and begin establishing credit in the name of the LLC. As for 'purchasing a house in a few years', you might want to consider the advisability of owning anything titled in your own name when your own government is provably a serial scofflaw. Rent any version of 'Robin Hood' for deeper understanding.
Should you desire further information in this area, feel free to ask me for a referral to a reputable provider of asset protection services. I hope this has helped to answer your questions. Keep in touch!
Yours For Liberty In Our Lifetime,
Gordon Phillips