How To Cancel Your Social Security Card

How to Terminate your Social Security Number..............

Interesting call to the Social Security Administration today Posted January 17th, 2009 by juliusbragg

So I've been contemplating turning in my social security number, in order to stop being a Federal United States employee, so I called the SSA today just to see what they would say.

SSA: Hello this is Dorothy, how may I help you?

ME: Hello Dorothy, I recently learned that Social Security is a voluntary insurance program, and that I may terminate my SS number at any time and get out of it, my question is, do I get all of my money back that I payed in when I turn in my number?

SSA: (pissy) No

ME: So I'd probably have to file suit for that?

SSA: Probably

ME: one more question, is there a SSA form that I fill out to cancel my number?

SSA: hold on let me check... (2 minutes)

SSA: sir?

ME: I'm here

SSA: we don't have a form for that, you would have to send in a letter and your card. (much nicer attitude for some reason)

ME: O.K., I was surprised to find out it was voluntary, I always thought it was mandatory to have a number.

SSA: Are you in the United States

ME: do you mean in the United States as defined as the District of Columbia, or do you just mean one of the states?

SSA: one of the states (no hesitation or surprise in her voice)

ME: oh, one of the states

SSA: yeah it actually is mandatory to have one if your not paying into another pension program to the federal or state government.

ME: Oh, you mean if I'm a state or Federal Employee?

SSA: Yes ME: Oh, ok, yeah, I'm not a State or Federal employee, ok, thanks for your time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For anyone else interested in doing so, the SSA can be reached at 1-800-772-1213. Edward, ID Number DELETED, my SSA customer service rep looked into the termination section of their manual to verify the procedure for terminating my social security number. He gave me the office address and number of my local office and told me to send it in with a letter describing the fact that I wish to terminate my number as it is voluntary. He asked why I wish to terminate my number and I stated that I wished to stop contributing to the program voluntarily. "Well," he said, "You can just tell your employer to stop withholding the money from your paycheck. That way you can still get the benefits that you have paid into so far. " I explained to him that I tried to do so with my employer, but my employer believes that he is required to continue withholding. He then went on to say that if I did terminate my social security number through the process he described that I would receive a letter stating that I have terminated the number and withholding can terminate as well.

Brilliant!!!! Absolutely brilliant.


Did it work ?

I have wondered for years, since I am 51, and my mother sighned me up for social security, against my will. Why I cannot cancel it and get my money back. Has anyone tried this?

Why would one want to opt out of SSS

for reasons other than right wing moonbattery?

If you're into opting out of the system, let me tell you about Free Citizen 14th Amendment liens.

Obomber, Federal Reserve, Elitist Liberal Bags of D---che.

There are lots and lots of reasons for opting out of the SS system, many of which are simply Conservative, some of which are Libertarian, and some of which are deep understandings of just how Eugenic a system like Social Security really is. And that understanding is taking hold on the Left, as well as the Right.

Last year, I made $4,369.19 in "Wages and Tips and Other Compensation." (W-2 2009). I had $270.89 of Social Security tax withheld from me, as transfer payments to other users of the SS System. I had $24.00 in Federal Income Tax withheld in the same period. Guess which one I can file to get back? Yep - it's not even worth the 24 bucks to do it. It might be worth the $271 to file to get that SS money back, but I can't show I'm paying into any other retirement system (is Federal Prison for Subversion a retirement plan?) so I won't be getting that back anyway.

So, Laurian - you gonna play the ball or call names?

Since I really could care less about this

I think I'll stick to name calling.



That one is going into your permanent dossier.

I'm flattered that I am deserving of a dossier

but it must be some really boring reading.

I'm listening

Laurian, "Free Citizen 14th Amendment liens"...

...wassup with all that? 


Some places to begin...

Core assertion:
"Today, patriots have a tendency to embrace even the most outlandish theories in an attempt to explain the legal machinery of the New World Order. The reason for this tendency is not unlike the person who refuses to acknowledge the death of a loved one. The reality is difficult to bear. With this denial, comes the list of excuses which allow for the belief that the government is still obeying the law, but that the Constitution has been somehow altered or made of no effect due to this or that voluntary association or act. The result being, that some lessor form of government exists, nested within the original form of government (i.e.our Constitutional Republic). We are forced to address such theories because they do great harm to the education of everyone involved and to the movement as a whole. So it is with the argument put forth which contends that we are "14th amendment citizens." Perhaps you've heard of it. In essence, the premise stems from the belief that our present condition (which is not unlike that of slaves) is the result of the 14th amendment which has made us (by conspiratorial design?) to be "subjects" rather than citizens. The argument has little or no merit, and whatever relevance it may have, depends on half truths and distorted logic."

Core assertion:
"The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments."

Keep in mind that I'm only passingly familiar with the arguments made here due to my upbringing and education, and I do not endorse these points of view, I only argue that civility demands we hear them when they are made in our community in this forum. Unless somehow the rules change for circumstance?

Or conversely...

Tax Protester FAQ:

In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as “frivolous,” “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “preposterous,” or “gibberish.” If you don’t read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument “frivolous” or “ridiculous.” Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for “absurd.”

A very long document, but interesting reading.

And then...

that becomes "proof" that the judges are also in league with the federal reservists.

So: are you arguing for it or against it?

You might be able to say that the legal system supports taxation, but are you arguing that our system is right, fair, and just? If so, I doubt you need an analogy. Just cite the law and make a case. Tell us why we should have a private bank issue debt based money rather than have a constitutional money system. Go ahead! I'd love to actually hear you grapple with the facts rather than a hypothetical.

Welcome to Drew's Gish Gallop.

Sorry if you don't appreciate my satire.

Wasn't referring to your non analogy, but make a point!

Gug, sniping is unbecoming of your skills. Any luck with that 9/11 book?