Topic: Opting out of Social Security - page 2. (Read 7319 times)

Not to mention that sedm.org lists various court cases as "proof" of their nonsense when in fact they're anything but if you bother to read the actual rulings......... and they also list biblical references as if these count for anything in a secular court.

This is again total nonsense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

I don't know, that's almost exactly what I said at my last job when they asked for one. I had to stop working there but they still got me a last check.

There's no point in rescinding the number - its attached to a juristic entity that the government owns as well - the ALL CAPS version of your name. You can't ask them to change THEIR record keeping system.

What you can do is take ownership of the juristic entity that is your ALL CAPS name and then just stop using a SSN since it doesn't apply to you anyway.

It'll be a LOT harder to get a job, because most employers are rightfully intimidated of being shut down. But you'll be off the grid.

I've known my SSN for longer than I can remember, probably before I even became a teenager. How do you force the government to rescind your number (whether you've paid nothing into SS, very little because you've mostly been unemployed, or lots) without forfeiting U.S. citizenship? And if you want to have a "legit" job or do anything else where SSN/TIN is asked of you, how do you respond? There's nothing more I'd like to do right now than say "I don't have that number and you can't make me get one."

...snip...

So at least in recent years, she's been subsidizing the lives of UK citizens when she didn't have to. No wonder you have free healthcare with leadership like that.

The Queen baffles me.  One of the richest people in the world and she gets both an old age pension and a massive public subvention.

Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio). King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, with holdings of £7.3 billion in 2011.[5] It is held in trust, and cannot be sold or owned by the Sovereign in a private capacity.[6] In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid.[2] For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period.[7]

Can someone point to the law that REQUIRES me to have a SSN?

Actually once you complete the paperwork they are legally obligated to recognize it. Of course people will find it odd, but that doesn't change the law.

Brits say that the private companies do the same work for less money than having civil servants do it because you can't fire incompetent civil servants.  Most of the guys who say that publicly are part of a magic circle that bounces between these big companies and parliament so they have a vested interest.

You obviously don't have a clue about the US social security system. First of all it is already paying out more than is coming in since 2010. Second, by the time he retires THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT FOR ANYONE. Additionally they are already talking about taking not just public, but PRIVATE retirement pensions to help pay for "austerity measures". The US government uses social security money as if they own it. They use it to fund other government projects, and to feed their thief crony buddies retiree's money. He worked hard for his pay, he should get to keep every penny if he wants instead of paying it to some bloated bureaucracy infested by fascists and parasites.

Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.

Again, you miss the point. See if you can figure it out from this example:

Let's assume that governments instead had passed a law which stated that seat belts may not be worn while driving. Mr. Stossel, then, would find such a law to be an affront to his belief about what constitutes a violation of his personal liberties. Being the libertarian that he is, he would do 'research' (note the quotes), arriving at the conclusion that seat belts increase his personal safety while driving. He does not care about the real truth of the efficacy of seat belts. He cares about having his personal liberties violated. Thus his 'research' is questionable, as his goals are politically motivated, as opposed to getting to the real truth. I'm surprised you still haven't learned your lesson after a thorough discussion about this months ago. Do you recall how you fell for the shenanigans of a 'scientist' discussing climate change who also happened to be a shill hired by the tobacco industry to say cigarette smoke does not cause cancer?

You see, Mr. Stossel, and essentially all libertarian 'think tanks', and essentially all creators of articles linked to by the individuals here are not to be taken as seriously as you believe they should. But we already have proof that you have fallen victim to such charlatans yourself, so if anyone can benefit from my analysis, it should be you. If you wish to revisit the discussion about your own gullibility and a thorough analysis of it, please reread this thread, starting right about here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62099.140

Experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers also indicated that wearing seat belts should lead to reduced risk of death and injury in car crashes.

Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.[www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811206.pdf]

An earlier statistical analysis by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US. According to Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data:[6]

    "Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce fatal injury by 71% for infants less than 1 year old and by 54% for toddlers 1-4 years old in cars. [...] Among passenger vehicle occupants over 4 years old, safety belts saved an estimated 11,889 lives in 2000."

In Victoria, Australia the use of seat belts became compulsory in 1970. By 1974 decreases of 37% in deaths and 41% in injuries, including a decrease of 27% in spinal injuries, were observed, compared with extrapolations based on pre-law trends.[citation needed]

By 2009, despite large increases in population and the number of vehicles, road deaths in Victoria had fallen below 300, less than a third of the 1970 level, the lowest since records were kept, and far below the per capita rate in jurisdictions such as the United States. This reduction was generally attributed to aggressive road safety campaigns beginning with the seat belt laws.[7][8]

First ascent,

Provide some data to refute or agree with then. There has been none on either side so far in this thread so attack the messenger strategy is out of place.

In 1983 seat belt use in front of vehicles becomes compulsory
Back seat belt use by children becomes law in 1989; extended to adults in 1991

In 1982, 37% of drivers wore seatbelts - by 2007, it was 94%

Even the best safety regulations have unexpected costs. Seat belts save 15,000 lives a year, but it's possible that they kill more people than they save.

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly.
It's called the Peltzman Effect — a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

Also, while passengers were less likely to die, there were more accidents and more pedestrians were hit.

Perhaps the best safety device would be a spike mounted on the steering wheel — pointed right at the driver's chest.

There's another reason to think seat belt laws have been counterproductive. Before government made seat belts mandatory, several automakers offered them as options. Volvo ran ads touting seat belts, laminated glass, padded dashboards, etc., as the sort of things that responsible parents should want. I concede that government action expanded seat belt use faster than would have otherwise happened, but by interfering with the market, government also stifled innovation. That kills people.

Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard. Because they would be more comfortable, more passengers would wear them. Over time, the free market in seat belts would save more lives.

We don't know what good things we might have if the heavy foot of government didn't step in to limit our options.

In a free country, it should be up to adult individuals to make their own choices about risk. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me safety, or give me death." Liberty is what America is supposed to be about.