It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why must a child have a SS# in order to be a dependant

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This is a question that I take very seriously because I in fact have a child that I purposefully haven't gotten a SS# for. For 2 years now I have been unable to claim the child as dependant as a result, although he has not been any less of a burden on my finances as my neighbor's child who does have a SS#.

According to SSA.GOV, when you input "why do I need a social security card" in the search bar, the first result is this: A Social Security number is important because you need it to get a job, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services. Many other businesses, such as banks and credit companies, also ask for your number. This is important because my child is not trying to get a job or receive benefits or services. But if you input "Must my child have a social security number" the results read: No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. but also says You need a Social Security number to claim your child as a dependent on your income tax return.

Furthermore, I was laid-off more than 2 months ago and although I have worked non-stop since I graduated high-school and earned a Bachelor's degree, it has been extremely difficult to get any responses from employers. Again, since my child doesn't have a SS# he apparently cannot receive state benefits either. So, ultimately I want to know if you think there is a conspiracy at play?




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


If I recall correctly, there used to be alot of people claiming 20 or more kids as dependents on their income taxes so they had to find a way to see if those kids are really yours or if you are embellishing the number.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
If you pay the IRS taxes, than you are legally bound to them because you signed their paperwork.

But the newborn child has not signed any contracts.

If you desire for this young newborn child to reduce your tax burden with the IRS, they require that this newborn have a SS#.

This ensures that the new child will eventually grow up and work and pay taxes.

It's a trade off.

If you don't want your kid to has a SS #, than you have to pay higher taxes yourself because that kid will not grow up to pay taxes.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Because without a social security number you could be claiming a child that does not exist. The IRS verifies SS#s with the SSA. If the SSA has no record of your child, you could be making him/her up. This also goes for if you try to use someone else's SS#. If the name and birth date don't match up with the SS# you're trying to use, you aren't going to get anywhere.

Essentially, if you could claim a child as a dependent without an SS# then even I could simply claim a child that I don't have by putting a name on a return with no additional evidence to suggest I have one.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by budaruskie
 


If I recall correctly, there used to be alot of people claiming 20 or more kids as dependents on their income taxes so they had to find a way to see if those kids are really yours or if you are embellishing the number.


No.

Birth certificates are good enough for that.

Or other forms of ID that a kid may have, footprints/handprints etc.

They want the SS# so they can trap the people in the system and leech their wealth. It's basically a bar code.

Now why would a human have a bar code? Ohhh yeah because we are products....

Now you know why they call them "Human Resources"

[edit on 7-6-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


Yes, I have heard this before. But, if applying for a ss# is voluntary, and done so in large part to gain employment (really to track income), then how does it make sense to make it mandatory for dependant status on tax returns? Wouldn't a birth certificate or common sense work to keep people from claiming 20 children? Also, on the back of every SS card it says that the card is property of the Social Security Administration, its not even YOUR card!



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
Because without a social security number you could be claiming a child that does not exist.


Never heard of a Birth Certificate?

What about all of the other forms of ID available?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Since you are a parent, you could be filing, using your child's SS#, for this:

www.irs.gov...=106182,00.html

This is the IRS rule, for gettin a child tax credit, as of 2010.

While you might qualify for it, and it does make a bit of difference, it avoids people claiming pets, as tax dependants.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I couldn't agree with you more. My own opinion mirrors yours exactly, and I'm trying to be a loving responsible parent by not allowing them to be enslaved by debt that they did not incur. Everyone, including my own family, thinks that I am crazy. But what do you do? There isn't anyone on Earth that believes that children born in the last 2 years will receive ANY benefits from social security and if it is voluntary, how am I able to volunteer him? Isn't it a requirement in order for you to be a volunteer that you personally make the decision to do or not do something?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


A birth certificate isn't good enough because there is no centralized system that tracks birth certificates for people.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Since you are a parent, you could be filing, using your child's SS#, for this:

www.irs.gov...=106182,00.html

This is the IRS rule, for gettin a child tax credit, as of 2010.

While you might qualify for it, and it does make a bit of difference, it avoids people claiming pets, as tax dependants.


I appreciate your response, but the link didn't work.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
my mom held out on my SS# until I was in 6th grade. The new school I was going to required it. But that was 20 years ago, so it was probably a bit easier to get by without one back then. We gave in and got numbers for my kids. I hate for them to be in the system, but it just makes it easier...( to be tracked)



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


While I understand your concern I just have to ask the question in what way would you think it a fail safe way for people to put a name on a tax return and expect to get thousands of dollars in deductions, exemptions, and/or credits?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to keep the conversation going



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Sorry about that. I was open to the IRS page on 2010 child tax credits.

Here are a few more links that might explain it.
financialplan.about.com...

credit.htmwww.bankrate.com...

There is loads of information for you to read, as to how the child tax credit will benefit you.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
In addition to verifying that the child actually exists (which could be accomplished with some other form of documentation, such as a birth certificate...Although a number of "Birthers" would dispute Thatas a valid "proof" when it comes to President Obama!)...


...The other major reason you are required to supply the child's SSN when claiming him/her as a dependent is so that the IRS (and your State tax board, if you have one) can make sure that You are the Only person claiming that child as a dependent.


You wouldn't want some else to claim your child as their dependent, and thus deny you the credit you've earned, would you?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


You make another great point. As I said in another post, the IRS cross references SS #s with the SSA. The number of instances that number is used on a return for that year is provided. If there are two instances of the number being used on a return for a tax payer with a DIFFERENT SS # than your own, then they suspect fraud and won't accept the return until the situation is resolved.

I work for a CPA firm. When we submit returns electronically, sometimes a rejection will come back saying something along the lines of "this SS# has been used on another return". This typically happens in cases where the parents are divorced and the other claimed the child in the same year the other parent was trying to. Sometimes one will come back saying "the name and/or birth date do match the SSA databases SS# tied to this information".

A birth certificate or other form of ID isn't going to be sufficient enough unless there is something unique enough about it that fraud cannot happen, like say, a number on the certificate?
An SS# has different info tied to it like your name and birth date. Since people with the same name can be born on the same day, you have to also have a third option which is absolutely unique to that person. A number is quite sufficient for this.

As I said before, the IRS is not going to ask that a copy of everyone's birth certificate be uploaded to some centralized database and then cross reference every single one of them line by line with the one that has been submitted.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The blatant lie put out by SSA.gov that a Social Security Number is required to get a job, is truly evidence of the clear and present extortion committed by not just government agencies, but by willing employers as well. All one needs to do it look to the law itself to know that a Social Security Number is not required in order to have a job. Consider 26 U.S.C. Section 6109 a.) 3:

§ 6109. Identifying numbers


(3) Furnishing number of another person Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document with respect to another person shall requestfrom such other person, and shall include in any such return, statement, or other document, such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person.


The regulation interpreting 6109 provides:

26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1 (c)


c) 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), (vi), (vii), or (viii) 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) or (viii) 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), (vi), (vii), or (viii) 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. References in this paragraph (c) to paragraph (b)(2)(viii) of this section shall apply to partnership taxable years beginning after May 18, 2005, or such earlier time as the regulations under §§1.1446–1 through 1.1446–5 of this chapter apply by reason of an election under §1.1446–7 of this chapter.


(Emphasis added)

law.justia.com...

It is perfectly clear that the only burden that has ever been placed upon an employer is to request an identifying number, and the CFR makes perfectly clear what the employer must do once the request provision has been complied with and still no identifying number has been furnished. If an employer has been shown what to do in the event a Social Security Number has not been supplied, and it is clear that there will be no punishment of the employer for not getting a Social Security Number, then any attempt to demand such a number as a term of employment is nothing more than extortion and coercion.

Further, if we are to allow that the SSA made an honest mistake and erroneously has put out the information that a Social Security Number is necessary in order to gain a job, it should be clear that not only do the average citizens of the U.S. not understand the Social Security Laws, but the agency tasked with administering and enforcing these laws don't understand it either. Either that, or they are guilty of willful fraud and deception.

The Social Security Number is to be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that use is for the purposes of Social Security. The Social Security is not a national I.D. number and there are no laws that demand one should give a bank or any other business their Social Security Number in order to prove identity, and indeed, the vast majority of identity theft in this country has been due to the theft of Social Security Numbers.

The tax code is a five volume set purposely written as a tome in order to discourage the average person from actually reading the law and coming to understand how, if at all, they have become liable for a tax. If one is a "taxpayer", as specifically defined by the code, then that person is liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax", but how one became a "taxpayer" to begin with is an entirely different matter. However, if one is a "taxpayer" who has been filing valid tax returns then they can not count on any due process of law as they have surrendered their inalienable right to due process of law in order to be a "taxpayer". The signature on a valid tax return, swearing under oath, and threat of penalty of perjury, is a contract where the "taxpayer" is agreeing to abide by the rules of the club they have joined, and this club is not bound by any Constitutional restraints, because that club was able to bypass those restraints by gaining jurisdiction voluntarily by the person who signed the contract.

This means that if you want to use your child as "dependent" and rely upon that as some sort of "tax break" by the IRS, then you must abide by their rules. If you want to be a part of that club, you are subject to the bylaws and rules of that club. If you no longer want to be a part of that club, extricating yourself is infinitely harder than it would be to say; jump out of a gang, and the process so incredibly time consuming that expedience dictates perhaps it is just best to go along in order to get along. Attempting to extricate yourself from the club could cost you untold hours learning the law, untold fortunes fighting the tyrants, and could possibly destroy you and your family. It takes a brave warrior poet willing to fight regardless of the outcome in order to take on these tyrants. However, prudence is the better part of valor, and it also takes a brave soul to postpone fighting tyrants for another day, so that one may simply protect they and their loved ones now.

Short answer to your question: You have to do what they tell you to do as long as you are a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by their code.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is perfectly clear that the only burden that has ever been placed upon an employer is to request an identifying number, and the CFR makes perfectly clear what the employer must do once the request provision has been complied with and still no identifying number has been furnished. If an employer has been shown what to do in the event a Social Security Number has not been supplied, and it is clear that there will be no punishment of the employer for not getting a Social Security Number, then any attempt to demand such a number as a term of employment is nothing more than extortion and coercion.


Be that as it may, in PRACTICE, without a social security card your child will not be allowed to attend school. When the child is old enough to get a job, he/she will not be able to get a job; whether or not an employer has the right to 'demand' a SS card or not, employers won't hire anyone without one. If a potential employee refuses to produce their SS card, the employer will simply go on to the next candidate who does. Also, employers are now required to view SS cards and state ID for new hires in order to verify their eligibility to work in the US, and have been for quite a few years. They have to sign a form that "Yes I have seen this person's IDs" (2 items from a list including state ID, SS card, naturalization papers, etc).



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by riiver
 


You are not only misrepresenting the law and offering up mistakes of fact, you are doing so in order to defend a system that is quite obviously falling apart. All systems tend towards entropy and the larger the system the sooner that entropy will arrive. It is illegal for one government agency to conspire with another and quite separate government agency in order to coerce a person to submit that government agency. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you want to be a part of the system clearly failing, this is your choice. I have not advised anyone to do anything other than what they find most prudent to do, and have offered this same advice in this thread, but the difference between you and I is that when I presented law, I did not ask anyone to take my word for it, I presented the law.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Well, if you'd really like to know: your Social Slave Number (Slave Identification Number in Canada) is your government employee number which binds you to all Acts and Statutes of the United States. The birth certificate is known as your person, which is a fictional character and a corporation that is eligible for 'benefits' and licensing and other commercial services provided by your Big Brother. Upon registration your parents signed a document that both created a trade-able bond, a fiction entity and a corporation all at once. Basically they con your parents into trading a multi-million dollar bond in your name (literally YOUR NAME IN CAPS), for measly welfare cheques (if you could even qualify) or Employment Insurance (again.. a joke), Health Care (as if) and the et cetera. That red number on the back of your birth certificate is a tracking number (or routing number) for what is called a ceste que trust, to a specific branch of the Federal Reserve. This is how your children are responsible for the debt you've created, IT'S IN THEIR NAME, they are literally (and yourself included) millionaires without power of attorney over their person, their money/bond is controlled by what is called a fiduciary, and that bond is used to borrow the billions. They trick you into believing you are your PERSON when in fact you are a human being, and your person is a corporation. That's why your VISA has your name in caps. They are both CORPORATIONS. .. I could go on and on, but it seems no one actually takes any of this information to heart, and I've typed it out many many times, so take it for what it is. I'll be happy to answer questions, but again, I don't have a profile pic, so people tend to ignore me. So, carry on.





top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join