# Anyone NOT gettting a Social Security Number for their children?



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

I am planning an unassisted homebirth later this year, for many reasons. One of them is that I don't agree with all the government bull, and I want to avoid arguements about by decisions to delay or not vaccinate, and not to have a Social Security Number assigned to my child. As I'm sure some or most of you know, participation in Social Security is not a requirement, legally. You are automatically assigned a number at birth, and most people just sign the paperwork, and don't think to argue. Once you have that number, it is near impossible to expunge if you later want out of the system. But some people decide not to get the number for their children at birth (You can always get one later, anyway). Hospitals make this VERY difficult. Many of them will bully you and try to con you into believeing that is is mandatory.
Anyway, to the point. I am not getting a SS number for my DC, and I wondered how many others of you chose not to get a SSN? Have you had difficulty getting insurance coverage or anything? Again, it's not a legal requirement to have a SSN, but I've heard some insurance companies simply don't know that, and they make you go through hell to get coverage.
Also, I hear you cannot claim your child on your tax returns if that child has no number. Is this so? If it is, it's bullshit, but I digress....

Are there any freedom-loving mamas out there who can offer me some support, advice, or horror stories related to this stuff? Thanks.

***edited*** After a lot of research into this topic, I thought i'd post a bit on info I found. No, you cannot claim a child for a tax exemption without that child having a SSN. You can claim a child if they get an ITIN (individual tax id number), BUT you cannot get an ITIN unless you are unelligible for a SSN. It's a loophole designed to force people to get their child enumerated. If, like me, you still refuse to get a SSN for your child at birth, here is a site by a man who details life without a SSN. He has been able to easily get a lease, utilities, insurance, even a passport, all without a SSN... and without having to sue anyone for his rights.
His site is: http://www.cjmciver.org/free.shtml

Also, for those who may want to know, you CAN have your child's application for a SSN destroyed after the fact IF if was applied for without your consent or knowledge, or if you were mistakenly told that it is required... and IF the number has NEVER been used (including for tax exemptions). My child was given a SSN throught the government's "enumeration at birth program" when she had to be born in the hospital (she was five weeks preterm). I ticked "no" to the SSN application, but the hospital "accidentally" ticked yes for me later. The Social Security Administration does have a policy to delete SSN accounts in these cases. PM me if you want the address for the central office where you have to write to start the process. You will return the SSN card and the process takes months... but it is possible.


----------



## bec (Dec 13, 2002)

I thought you had to have a number in order to file for your child deduction on your taxes. I honestly don't know what the legal implications for that are. I know that, in order to work in the US, your child will eventually need to get a SSN, but don't know about any of the other. I, honestly, don't even know what my opinion is about it.

I'll definitely be paying attention to this thread, though.

Bec


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

You definitely need it for tax reasons...we put the wrong number once on our return (totally an accident) last year and the govt wanted the deduction back from us - we were charged for the full amount and neglecting to pay all of our taxes. Apparently I gave them the number of a 97-year old woman in the Bronx, recently deceased. We called and straightened it out with the correct number, but it still took a while for everything to be cleared off. The IRS lady said you needed to have a number; and then have the _correct_ number in order to claim a deduction or EIC credit.

http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw175.html :
My daughter was born at the end of the year. We are still waiting for a social security number. Can I send in my return and later supply the social security number for her?

If you file your return claiming your daughter as a dependent and do not provide her social security number on the return, the dependent exemption will be disallowed. You have two options. You could file your income tax return without claiming your daughter as a dependent. After you receive her social security number, you could then amend your return on Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return . You have three years from the later of the due date of the return or from the date the return was filed to amend the return.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

We played with the idea briefly, but yes, you can NOT take your child as a deduction without a #, so money won over for us on this one. We got the # and our $...

-Angela


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Well, my DH decided that if that's the case, we simply will not get the tax refund. Bummer, but oh, well.
And you can work in the US without a SSN; the difficult thing is to find an employer who will hire you. Some employers don't pay taxes anyway (since they're unconstititional), but that's a whole other pickle....
Egads, I bet I just opened a whole other can of worms.... If anyone is so inclined, you can find plenty on info on the subject on income taxes neing unconstitutional by doing a search. Or renting "The Truth About the Income Tax."


----------



## MomBirthmomStepmom (May 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
Well, my DH decided that if that's the case, we simply will not get the tax refund. Bummer, but oh, well.
And you can work in the US without a SSN; the difficult thing is to find an employer who will hire you. Some employers don't pay taxes anyway (since they're unconstititional), but that's a whole other pickle....
Egads, I bet I just opened a whole other can of worms.... If anyone is so inclined, you can find plenty on info on the subject on income taxes neing unconstitutional by doing a search. Or renting "The Truth About the Income Tax."

Just curious, but how far into your child's future are you looking?

You're already content with letting him/her fight like hell to even find a job cause he/she has no number, and even then, he/she might not have the choice to even file taxes?

I wouldn't be surprised if once your child became an adult, he/she tries to get a SS# anyway, because life can't be all that easy without one...

I agree, that sucks, but I wouldn't want to purposefully make things that hard for my child... JMO.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

I have looked into the future, that's why I'm doing this.

If she wants a SSN in the future, it's a very simple process. The government makes it VERY easy to sign up for their slave numbers, believe me.

Is no one here aware of how our SSN are being used as a national ID these days? It's even required for a driver's licence- even though that is illegal.

When the Social Security Administration first introduced the SSN, they promised it would not even be used as an ID number.... now it's used specifically as an ID number everywhere!


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

I could see serious red tape with colleges, and major challenges applying for financial aid, etc as well. Unless they're planning on living off of the grid their whole lives I would imagine many obstacles ahead...

I'm curious to see if anyone has done this and how it's gone







:


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Wow... all I have to say is that it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume that your child will want to live his/her life completely off the grid until he/she dies, hopefully at a ripe old age. At some point, they have to have a SSN if they ever want to be part of society. He/she will never get health insurance of any sort, be able to file his/her OWN taxes, get a job or even make a living at all since there isn't a job in the world that works on a cash-only basis, apply for credit, or go to college (I'm assuming lower school is not an issue here, as you will obviously un or home school). It also means your child can never travel outside the country, which seems (to me anyway) a great way of enlightenment. He/she will never be able to really do much of anything but stay at home. If that is your intention, then it seems you've figured out a way to never have an empty nest. There are better ways of fighting the establishment. Using your child as the tool seems foolish to me. My opinion, but... there it is.

BTW - I cannot even *IMAGINE* the kind of mess you might make for your child if he/she goes 18 years without a social security number, then wants to apply. 18 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she weren't just chucked into some military prison for that. To be 18 and just NOW applying for a SSN???? These are the kinds of things our paranoid government are just fishing for. Like I said, if you have a beef with the administration, with the establishment, with government... do your own fighting, don't make your kid an instrument. (P.S. I don't like big government, either.)


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

I didn't have a social security number until I was 14. I only got one then because I wanted to get a summer job. I don't know why my parents didn't get one for me; my mom says she really doesn't remember.


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

velochic - credit and passports for travel...two good points I hadn't thought of....I think renting an apartment (even if you didn't want to buy a house some day and needed a mortgage) would be impossible as well...


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
I have looked into the future, that's why I'm doing this.

If she wants a SSN in the future, it's a very simple process. The government makes it VERY easy to sign up for their slave numbers, believe me.

Is no one here aware of how our SSN are being used as a national ID these days? It's even required for a driver's licence- even though that is illegal.

When the Social Security Administration first introduced the SSN, they promised it would not even be used as an ID number.... now it's used specifically as an ID number everywhere!


Move to Canada... they call it a health care number (or some such name... help me out friends to the North)... would that make you feel better? Or better yet... move to my old nation of choice... GERMANY... where you have to register your address with the national database every time you move. Oh.... better yet... Russia... used to live there. You have to have your national I.D. card on you at all times.

Just out of curiosity... how do you have your internet connection? Did you just tell them that you'd take in cash payments every month and that you don't disclose your name or any personal information?


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *llyra*
I didn't have a social security number until I was 14. I only got one then because I wanted to get a summer job. I don't know why my parents didn't get one for me; my mom says she really doesn't remember.

I was 12-ish when my parents got me one; I think it was around then that they started requiring it for tax deductions. Things are different now!

At any rate, please ensure that you have the documentation your child will need to get his or her number- a legal birth certificate or whatever. He or she will have a really hard time getting a job without one (most people don't want to work under the table their whole lives) and should be able to make his or her own choice when it's necessary. If you do not have legal documentation of the kid's existence, they may assume he or she is an illegal alien.

At my hospital birth, they gave us the forms for the SS# and we mailed them in ourselves. This may have been because we were leaving early (four hours after birth) but they didn't make it a big deal, at any rate.

Sorry you're being attacked; I don't know why this topic is making people so angry....


----------



## Cheshire (Dec 14, 2004)

We got our son's number when he was born but we have shared it with no one (except on our tax return). Our health insurance company does not require it and assigns their own ID numbers.

We've never given his SSN to the doctor's office, either. Our life insurance company says they need it to add him as a beneficiary but that's bull and we're fighting it.

I've been a victim of ID theft three separate times. Not related to each other and I am extra careful with my own information. The first time I don't know how they got my information. The second time I got the letter from Lexis Nexis that my information may have been hacked and the third time I know I was part of the stolen cc numbers from the data processor (for American Express).

It's awful to go through and we won't give out his number to anyone. But, I'm glad we got him a number because he will eventually need one and it will be his choice how to use it.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

I'm sorry you feel that way about the goverment (heck we all have our hang ups about'em) but the bottom line is you can't *live* withOUT a SS#.

When I lost my purse, it had my whole identity in there (Driver's License, SS# etc) and I couldnt' replace one without the other. Talk about feeling lost and hopeless. It's a nightmare.

I didn't know it was legal to deny a social security number though.

And I'm still not sure of *your* reasoning to not get one for your child.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
Wow... all I have to say is that it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume that your child will want to live his/her life completely off the grid until he/she dies, hopefully at a ripe old age. At some point, they have to have a SSN if they ever want to be part of society. He/she will never get health insurance of any sort, be able to file his/her OWN taxes, get a job or even make a living at all since there isn't a job in the world that works on a cash-only basis, apply for credit, or go to college (I'm assuming lower school is not an issue here, as you will obviously un or home school). It also means your child can never travel outside the country, which seems (to me anyway) a great way of enlightenment. He/she will never be able to really do much of anything but stay at home. If that is your intention, then it seems you've figured out a way to never have an empty nest. There are better ways of fighting the establishment. Using your child as the tool seems foolish to me. My opinion, but... there it is.

BTW - I cannot even *IMAGINE* the kind of mess you might make for your child if he/she goes 18 years without a social security number, then wants to apply. 18 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she weren't just chucked into some military prison for that. To be 18 and just NOW applying for a SSN???? These are the kinds of things our paranoid government are just fishing for. Like I said, if you have a beef with the administration, with the establishment, with government... do your own fighting, don't make your kid an instrument. (P.S. I don't like big government, either.)

What's presumptuous is to assume that my child will WANT to be hooked into the grid from birth in the first place. It's a lot easier to hook yourself in than it is to ever get yourself out. At least she has a choice this way -- how could you possibly consider it presumptuous to give her the choice and not presumptuous to plug her in for life?

I think it's amazing that even in an open, alternative group such as this, that simply asking advice about something that some may disagree with gets you attacked by people afraid to stand up to the government they claim to dislike, even when they know the government is wrong.

You sound like any other fear mongering government minion out there trying to make people feel guilty for standing up for themselves. Would you DARE raise a Christian child in a muslim-extremist world? How DARE you use your child to make a religious point in a place that shuns christianity?!! How irresponsible and selfish of you to be so presumptuous! How do you know that your child will even WANT to be Christian?

Back-off, thank you very much.

I'm not here to make enemies. If I wanted to do that I'd ask the Social Security Administration.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Ds has a social security number. I got it for him because it was much less hassle just doing it when he was born than it would be for him to do it years later.

I'm also not in the least bit concerned about it being used to track him. If the government wants to track him, they'll do it, social security number or not. I'm just careful about who I supply it to (right now, the IRS is the only entity that I've given it to).

That said, I have nothing against parents who choose not to get SSNs for their children. I'd just hope that they keep all documentation available for their children so that it will be as easy as possible for them to obtain one if/when they decide they'd like to.

This thing about taxes being unconstitutional: Have you actually read the Constitution? It expressly gives to Congress the power to tax for the general welfare of the nation. It's one of the few things in our Constitution that is actually clear. I can see being up in arms about the extent to which we are being taxed, but it's beyond a stretch to say that taxing, in general, is unconstitutional. And any employer who doesn't pay taxes for that reason is really setting him/herself up for a major headache at some point.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

BTW, about the SSN being required for the Child Tax Credit:

I'm fairly certain that you can get a Tax Identification Number (TIN) for your child if you want to claim him/her on your taxes. You can contact the IRS to find out the procedure.

But then, that's also "putting them on the grid."


----------



## bethsmama (Aug 13, 2005)

Hi there,

I just want to clarify that Canada does have something called a social insurance number which differs from a health care number. According to Canadian law, you do need one for specific social programmes. More information can be found http://www.sdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp...tml&hs=sxn#q10

I'm just curious as to the advantages of not having a social security number?

Thanks


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

to the OP. I hear what you're saying. We did consider not getting one. Our wonderful-hands-off midwife got so used to us NOT doing everything, she specifically asked if we wanted to do that or not (there's a box to check on the birth cert. paperwork here to do it at the same time) We tossed the idea around, but living in the city- on the grid- it didn't seem very feasible to make it far without one. If I lived in a rural area where we could be more self-sufficient I would consider it seriously.

-Angela


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

To the op: Could you provide maybe a short list of reasons why you don't want to get a ssn for your child? I'm seeing a lot of reasons why it's a crucial thing to have (and I agree with them), but I haven't seen you state your reasoning behind not getting one (other than that bit about the "slave state"), and I'm very curious.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
What's presumptuous is to assume that my child will WANT to be hooked into the grid from birth in the first place. It's a lot easier to hook yourself in than it is to ever get yourself out. At least she has a choice this way -- how could you possibly consider it presumptuous to give her the choice and not presumptuous to plug her in for life?

I think it's amazing that even in an open, alternative group such as this, that simply asking advice about something that some may disagree with gets you attacked by people afraid to stand up to the government they claim to dislike, even when they know the government is wrong.

You sound like any other fear mongering government minion out there trying to make people feel guilty for standing up for themselves. Would you DARE raise a Christian child in a muslim-extremist world? How DARE you use your child to make a religious point in a place that shuns christianity?!! How irresponsible and selfish of you to be so presumptuous! How do you know that your child will even WANT to be Christian?

Back-off, thank you very much.

I'm not here to make enemies. If I wanted to do that I'd ask the Social Security Administration.


First of all, you're not "attacked". It's called a difference of opinion. I've been here for 3 years and sometimes I get challenged too. It makes you a better person/parent if you let it. On to the topic at hand...

No, it is harder to plug in than to un-plug. And it is getting harder by the day. A pp said that she got an SSN for dc and doesn't disclose it unless it is absolutely necessary. To me, that's a good compromise that doesn't include your child in your political fight. I got an SSN late in life and it was not easy, even in the '70's. I can guarantee that if future administrations maintain similar policies, it will become almost impossible to get the single most important item of citizenship... an SSN. Your daughter will be considered an alien, and most likely, a threat to this paranoid government. Fight the fight where it makes a difference... don't make your daughter suffer. And on the other note of your message...

_
Would you DARE raise a Christian child in a muslim-extremist world?_

Honey... you DO NOT EVEN WANT TO GO THERE with me!!! This makes me madder than hell!! You want a fight on your hands.... let's have at it. Our family is Armenian, dh raised in Turkey. You haven't even the SLIGHTEST clue about ethnic genocide or growing up Christian in a Muslim world (otherwise you would not have made your inane comparison). Families butchered before your eyes, refugees, families torn apart. You are an ignorant person to even equivocate such a thing as getting SSN to ethnic cleansing.

(In case you're not inclined to know or look it up... google for Armenian Genocide and then come back here and make your comparisons.)


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

*sigh*
The Social Security program is a Ponzi scheme. Just because it's government run, does not make it a good idea. As a voluntary 'retirement' plan, I am choosing not to enroll my child. She can always join the bandwagon later, if she chooses.
At best, SS is a raw deal. At worst, it's the perfect way to track and control people in a Nazi Police-State. Either way, I don't plan to allow my child to be taken advantage of or branded with this ID number. Luckily, it's still my choice.

Thanks for all the 'advice.' I guess next time I'll remember not to post about things that aren't 'conventional' enough.

Funny, but if I had asked for advice about, say, breastfeeding past 18 months, I imgaine I would have had a lot more support, or at least less criticism. Or even non-vaxing. I've never seen 'open minds' respond so negatively to something they obviously don't know much about.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
BTW, about the SSN being required for the Child Tax Credit:

I'm fairly certain that you can get a Tax Identification Number (TIN) for your child if you want to claim him/her on your taxes. You can contact the IRS to find out the procedure.

The IRS website I referenced says this is only available for children adopted outside the country while waiting for legal citizenship. I thought that would be possible as well.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

*sigh*

People back off when their views are not met with 100% approval.

Stick around Carolyn... you'll find people that agree and disagree. I see that you're new, and don't let this thread put you off. It's hard to have people disagree, but it will happen more than once during your tenure here.

(I still think that SSN has nothing to do with thwarting the gov't.







)


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cheshire*
I got the letter from Lexis Nexis that my information may have been hacked...

Is it possible for you to explain that, even in a PM, to me? My hubby got a job with them *right* after that happened, and no one is talking about it, so we don't know what happened. As far as he can tell, his company doesn't have info like that to be let loose, so to speak, so we're really curious!

Back on topic, sort of.

*carolynrosa*, I am very familiar with the reasons people don't do SSNs and don't file taxes and all that. Became familiar while doing my time in chiropractic school.

A really great way to get people to hear you is to simply explain things, not use phrases like "Ponzi scheme" which few people can define or have even heard of, or wild comparisons, or really any explanation that sounds even wilder than the initial idea of not getting a SSN.

The off-grid stuff you are doing can be presented in a really good and understandable way, but presenting as though people already know what you are talking about is not that way. Explaining from the beginning helps.

As for me, I considered it, but ultimately I don't really care if people are watching me. I'm not doing anything illegal under current laws, well, except maybe speeding every so often, and if people want to watch me, so be it. I also had to give up all ideas of being unwatched when I found out my new stepdad worked (and still contracts with) for the CIA, and that my mom would be working there, too. Her last job with them was with the counterterrorist group; alas she was diagnosed with leukemia and then died exactly 1.5 years before the Towers...since it had been her job/specialty to monitor "chatter" in the, well, area where the guys came from, but no one had been in her computer or at her desk from mid-December to mid-March, I can't help or stop wondering what crucial information was lost with her, and what could have been different if she hadn't died. She had a really unique way of putting things together, and if I let myself think about it too much I'll go crazy...

ANYWAY that's a topic for another time! Point is, most of my family works for government now, nothing I can do about that, so me trying to hide myself or my family is pretty laughable. Very few degrees of separation, and all that.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

The first thing I want to wrap my head around here is that I'm not being attacked... hmm...

Anyway, I think your emotions are keeping you from recognizing my point. The good news is, you made it for me. Thanks.

When I brought up raising a Christian child in an un-christian world, what I'm trying to say is that if you believe something is right, you have an obligation to raise your child according to your beliefs -- religious, political, or otherwise. Regardless of how "hard" life will be for them, it is better to be right and hated for it than to duck and cower and go with the flow. Hence the analogy.

I do not plan on indoctrinating my child into what I believe is a corrupt, evil system. I agree that life with a ssn is easier, in some ways, but that's not the point. Of course it's easier. Hitler made it easy to get numbered if you were a Jew, and Bush is making it easy to get numbered and thrown into Gitmo. If you honestly believe that it is more difficult for an American citizen to get out of the system than it is to get in, there is no reason for me to continue this discussion with you. They couldn't make it any easier.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not looking for enemies here. I don't understand how people can get so upset when they hear someone else's honest opinions. We all have different backgrounds and different beliefs, and we all have reasons for our beliefs. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong. Prove it -- don't just get "madder than hell" because you dislike what I have to say. There are people being slaughtered and killed all over the world. The one thing all of these people have in common is that they were killed by government. Our government has killed more innocent people in Iraq than Saddam ever did (between the sanctions and the war).

There is nothing evil or wrong with Civil Disobedience. As long as there are honest people out there who never recieved a SSN at birth, the government will have to continue to make exceptions for them. I thought I was asking informed people about this; that was my mistake. There are millions of Americans who do not pay income taxes at all. Look it up. The government wants you to fear them -- and most people do. But I don't. I was irresponsibly raised to believe that you should stand up for yourself and your beliefs. My presumptuous mother thought she should raise me based on her own beliefs, not the beliefs of the main stream. I'll tell her how I learned today that she was wrong.

Regards


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

You need to have a SSN to claim the child as a deduction. We just got a SSN for ds2 (he's a year old) last week to file our 2004 taxes.

For ds1, the insurance we had at the time mandated a SSN within 6 weeks in order to cover him. I probably could have fought them on it, but with a newborn and postpartum health issues I just wasn't up for it. I figure he's going to need one eventually anyway.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

mollyeilis --

Thanks for the kind words. I understand that my mistake was assuming people here had heard the arguments before. Luckily, no one knows where I live.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
There is nothing evil or wrong with Civil Disobedience. As long as there are honest people out there who never recieved a SSN at birth, the government will have to continue to make exceptions for them.

I totally agree that there is nothing at all wrong with civil disobedience. I do think, though, that you'll find that the government isn't going to make many exceptions for people who don't have SSNs. When the government is not requiring a person's involvement in something, they generally do not have to make exceptions for people who opt out for religious, philosophical, etc. beliefs.

Quote:

I thought I was asking informed people about this; that was my mistake. There are millions of Americans who do not pay income taxes at all. Look it up.
I'm pretty informed on the Constitution. My reading on the websites of people who claim taxes are unconstitutional tells me that they generally are not. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Truly. It's not often that I get the opportunity to hear directly from a person who believes this, as I'm mostly surrounded by people who study the Constitution for a living and have yet to find a Constitutional scholar who holds this belief.

You're certainly not the only person here who was raised to think for yourself. You're just picking a different battle than some of us here do. That doesn't mean that your battle is any less important than ours or that, because we haven't chosen your battle, we are all sheep being led around by our noses.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Okay, just read the rest of the thread.

Isn't having a birth certificate being "hooked into the grid?"

Is it THIS government you don't want to be hooked into, or any government? I am anti-Big Brother, but not enough to move. My parents were anti-US enough to move to Canada when I was a baby.

I prefer it here (US). And I personally don't really care who is watching me. I figure SSN or not, they'll find out what they want to, so I might as well pick and choose what works for me. I'll get a SSN, but I'm not vaccinating. I'll pay my property taxes, but I most likely won't be enrolling my child in school.

My parents spent most of their lives avoiding government (for no reason other than principal), and I can say that it made my life pretty difficult, especially as a teenager. I hated all the lying and hiding and crapola. It kind of turned me into a real rules follower as a young adult, and I have spent the last 10 years trying to find a better balance.

But, unlike spanking, not getting a SSN doesn't hurt a child, so I can honeslty say, to each their own.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

I don't understand how people can get so upset when they hear someone else's honest opinions. We all have different backgrounds and different beliefs, and we all have reasons for our beliefs. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong. Prove it -- don't just get "madder than hell" because you dislike what I have to say.
But you're the one who seems upset and "madder than hell" - people are just asking questions, no one has attacked or even seemed anything other than curious.

Perhaps you've been burned on this before and are reading tone that isn't intended or even there?

I admit I'm still not clear on exactly why you don't want an SSN. Other than not being "plugged in" - but then I'm not sure why being "plugged in" is a bad thing.

Honest questions.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

carolynrosa---

We considered not getting our children a SS# but ended up doing so. I do not like the choices it removes from them (such as living off the grid). It is, IMO, much harder to remove yourself from the system than to get into the system given you keep good records.

Our reasons:

Tax deduction. When DD was born we were eligible for the EIC and chose the $.

Passport availability.

I really don't like that we are making this political/economic choice for our child that really only applies to them when they are an adult, but thats what we ended up doing.

A lot of places ask for social security numbers you do NOT need to give them to (even universities can give you a student ID # not associated w/your SS#). For example, my kids are going to camp in another week or so without the space for SS# filled in. The camp alleges that it is for in case of an emergency so they could get medical attention







They already have our insurance info, so I know that is untrue.

I do not believe taxes are illegal or unconstituational, but I realize that others feel differently. I really respect people who live off the grid and make less than they would need to be taxed. I do NOT respect people who simply commit tax evasion. That, IMO, does not qualify as civil disobediance since the majority of people who take that route do to save $ rather than for political principal. Additionally, the job my DH has would not allow him to not pay taxes and that is definately the job he wants (it would not matter as much for some people).

While Social Security was not originally fully a Ponzi Scheme, IMO, not only has it become one, it has become ripe for graft. Not only are the people at the top of the pyramid taking from the people on the bottom, with them having little to no hope of recouping but people "outside" the scheme altogether (other federal programs) are also helping themselves to the pot.

I would like to add one more thing and I hope it does not offend you. Your first post seemed to be asking for opinions in a *questioning* manner, but the tone of your other posts made the first seem like kind of a set up. If, in the future, you want only positive reactions you can increase your luck by putting something like ****SUPPORT ONLY**** in the title. You'll still get some negative opinions, but not as much. And while I knew all your terms I do not see how you could (and I am not saying you do) consider them *value neutral* terms which tends to be inciteful.


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

Huh







I was actually just troubleshooting/thinking out loud about the implications of not having a social security number. I thought you were sort of bouncing the idea off of the group as something you were considering. I agree that putting "support only" in your title would keep others with any input that didn't mesh with your opinion out of the thread...


----------



## kerc (May 9, 2002)

Can someone define Ponzi scheme for me? I'm trying to follow this arguement and want to be sure I have a precise definition.

To answer the original poster's question - no I never considered it. I knew that I believe in paying taxes because I use the services that those taxes pay for. I drive my car on federal highways, attend a state university, am an employee of the state of minnesota, etc. I guess I might feel differently if I lived totally off the grid, but overall even though my candidate isn't in the white house I think the representative democracy is doing ok. Sure there are things I don't agree with, but I think sometimes having an understanding of the history of the system/law helps to understand how it got to be that way. Is there all kinds of dumb politics and handshaking that goes on? yes, but I don't know of a country with a better system for me.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

For you, kerc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme


----------



## DesireeH (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:

I do not plan on indoctrinating my child into what I believe is a corrupt, evil system.
I dont think you are doing this if you do decide to get a ss#. We have one for our son. I am having a homebirth this time and we have to go apply for it within one year of her birth. I guess I shouldnt say "HAVE to" but in order to avoid problems, the midwife suggests doing it within a year.

I also do not want to be part of this corrupt government (or any of man's governments, not just US) but I think you can still avoid all the things you want while still having a SS# for jobs, taxes, insurance, credit, travelling, etc.

Example: we dont vax either but we also dont go to the doctor unless absolutely needed, we dont sign vaccine waivers from the office, and we would refuse to be part of the national vaccine registry. We also are well informed on vaccination laws and our rights to refuse so if we ever do run into a problem we can fight it and win.

We also would never take part in the military or anything of that sort but we have our ducks in a row for that too should a draft or anything ever come up (or if all else fails go to jail before we ever took any part!) My brothers were sent post cards telling them they had to register for selective service or whatnot at 18 y/o and it freaked my mom out (they also do not believe in military/war) but they just put their name in and if they ever got drafted they would just refuse (and try to use conscientous objector). We dont vote and you dont have to register for that either but I am still glad I have a SS# for jobs, taxes, etc. I do agree sometimes it would be nice to not have anyone track us but they still can.......for example.......here in California you can still get jury duty or whatever based on DMV records. There will be always be some way to track you unless you have no car, no insurance, no ownership of home, no anything..........ykwim?

I also agree to each their own but I am glad I have one.


----------



## Mackenzie (Sep 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
I have looked into the future, that's why I'm doing this.

If she wants a SSN in the future, it's a very simple process. The government makes it VERY easy to sign up for their slave numbers, believe me.

Is no one here aware of how our SSN are being used as a national ID these days? *It's even required for a driver's licence- even though that is illegal.*

When the Social Security Administration first introduced the SSN, they promised it would not even be used as an ID number.... now it's used specifically as an ID number everywhere!


Not in every state. But unfortunately that is about to change here as well. I am quite upset.


----------



## kerc (May 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
For you, kerc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

thanks.


----------



## GranoLLLy-girl (Mar 1, 2005)

In regards to SS#s and being issued a license to drive:
in Virginia, you can get what's called a T number on your license, and then you won't have to have your SS# on your license or ID, in case of theft or otherwise. When you write a check anywhere in Virginia and the clerk asks to see your license, they look at the date of expiration and the T number or SS#. I've never been hassled by anyone regarding this information.
I don't know if that helps or not.

Also, I didn't get a SS# until I was about nine or ten. I'll have to ask my mom (who is still alive) what she did until that time when it came to filling out taxes when claiming the kids as dependents. She didn't get me a number before that because it wasn't really necessary (I assume). Anyway, I am in my 40s--and I know things have changed since that time.


----------



## myhoneyswife (Apr 30, 2005)

Okay, this thread just got me a thinking... so I called the IRS and talked to ID # 8410686, and told him that we were not getting SS#s for our (fictitious) children, and how would we get the Child Tax Credit? He replied with a big "Huh?" and I told him that I looked up the requirements on the website (I actually did before calling) and the only requirement is that they be our dependents, there was nothing listed there about them having to have a social security number, and I had seen something about an IITN (individual income tax number) on the website. He then understood, told me that I would need to file a form W7 for each child and attach to the return. They would assign an IITN to the children and process the credit.

I looked up the form W7, and there is a box to check for 'other' so it does not look to me like they have to be an alien, etc.

Now, I don't have children yet, and I don't know if this IITN would put up more 'red flags' for the government (I'm not paranoid, I swear, just skeptical) as to this child, and am not sure yet what we'll do with our own children, but I thought I'd throw this out there...

Oh, and I did bookkeeping in CA for 2 Mexican restaurants, and I can bet that over 50% of them that were working there did not have SS#s (I know this from talking to the owner, not from assumptions) and they had no problem getting employment, sure, they made up SS#s (and got the 6.5% or whatever it was taken out of their checks) but they were not in the system.

Don't know if this is going to help anyone or stir up the pot more... but stirring up the pot was not my intention, okay?

Cara


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *myhoneyswife*
Okay, this thread just got me a thinking... so I called the IRS and talked to ID # 8410686, and told him that we were not getting SS#s for our (fictitious) children, and how would we get the Child Tax Credit? He replied with a big "Huh?" and I told him that I looked up the requirements on the website (I actually did before calling) and the only requirement is that they be our dependents, there was nothing listed there about them having to have a social security number, and I had seen something about an IITN (individual income tax number) on the website. He then understood, told me that I would need to file a form W7 for each child and attach to the return. They would assign an IITN to the children and process the credit.

I looked up the form W7, and there is a box to check for 'other' so it does not look to me like they have to be an alien, etc.

Now, I don't have children yet, and I don't know if this IITN would put up more 'red flags' for the government (I'm not paranoid, I swear, just skeptical) as to this child, and am not sure yet what we'll do with our own children, but I thought I'd throw this out there...

Oh, and I did bookkeeping in CA for 2 Mexican restaurants, and I can bet that over 50% of them that were working there did not have SS#s (I know this from talking to the owner, not from assumptions) and they had no problem getting employment, sure, they made up SS#s (and got the 6.5% or whatever it was taken out of their checks) but they were not in the system.

Don't know if this is going to help anyone or stir up the pot more... but stirring up the pot was not my intention, okay?

Cara

Kudos to you for going to source!!! The feeling I get from the OP, though is that they don't want the government to know they have a child... or that she/he exists as a consumer in the US. Any number issued to them would go against that. I'm assuming that they will not be part of the economy at all, so to be in any system would go against the goal.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

That's what I was thinking, too, velochic except that she wrote in the OP that she thought it was bull, er, pucky to require a SSN for the child tax credit. Made me think maybe they would want to claim the tax credit. I could be making unwarranted assumptions, though.

Thanks very much for your sleuthing and your post, myhoneyswife! Very informative!


----------



## maryliz75 (Aug 12, 2005)

To the OP....

If our government is an evil system...
and you don't want your child to have a SS#
you don't agree with your taxes, our government, in general everything this country is...
then why not just move??

No government is perfect, there are things that all of us disagree with, but in order to enjoy the freedoms of the USA, compared to the lack of in other countries, then you have to become a part of our system. You should not expect to live in the USA and enjoy the freedoms of our great country at no cost to you. We have become a part of the system and in turn enjoy our freedoms, what make you or anyone else that make the same choices as you so special?

And as another person said, shame on you for using your child to prove your point.
If you are that hell-bent on proving your point and standing up for your beliefs, take yourself and your husband out of the system, live off of an income that is too low to be taxed, go without the tax refunds, or anything else that keeps you "on the grid". Get rid of your licenses and anything else that requires use of your social security number. You do that, go down to living on the bare minimums without it, then you will have proved to people how strong your convictions are. But without doing that, you are using your child to prove your point and that is wrong, IMO.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Egads, I sure am glad that you know what my goals are in this. You're sure "they will not be part of the economy at all, so to be in any system would go against the goal."? Come on. My children (all children) must be part of the economy, it's impossible not to be. I not planning on raising hermits.

What I don't see as neccessary is signing my children up for a retirement fund they don't need and for what has increasingly become a survellaince program for Americans.

I have no problem with the gov. knowing I have children. I just don't want to be pressured into something that I don't think makes sense.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
Kudos to you for going to source!!! The feeling I get from the OP, though is that they don't want the government to know they have a child... or that she/he exists as a consumer in the US. Any number issued to them would go against that. I'm assuming that they will not be part of the economy at all, so to be in any system would go against the goal.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Gosh, that's a great idea. If everyone who disagreed with the government (and the mainstream population) just left.... imagine the possibilities!
Why, we wouldn't need a Democracy at all.... we could just skip ahead to Socialism and be done with the individual!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maryliz75*
To the OP....

If our government is an evil system...
and you don't want your child to have a SS#
you don't agree with your taxes, our government, in general everything this country is...
then why not just move??

No government is perfect, there are things that all of us disagree with, but in order to enjoy the freedoms of the USA, compared to the lack of in other countries, then you have to become a part of our system. You should not expect to live in the USA and enjoy the freedoms of our great country at no cost to you. We have become a part of the system and in turn enjoy our freedoms, what make you or anyone else that make the same choices as you so special?

And as another person said, shame on you for using your child to prove your point.
If you are that hell-bent on proving your point and standing up for your beliefs, take yourself and your husband out of the system, live off of an income that is too low to be taxed, go without the tax refunds, or anything else that keeps you "on the grid". Get rid of your licenses and anything else that requires use of your social security number. You do that, go down to living on the bare minimums without it, then you will have proved to people how strong your convictions are. But without doing that, you are using your child to prove your point and that is wrong, IMO.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I would like to add one more thing and I hope it does not offend you. Your first post seemed to be asking for opinions in a *questioning* manner, but the tone of your other posts made the first seem like kind of a set up. If, in the future, you want only positive reactions you can increase your luck by putting something like ****SUPPORT ONLY**** in the title.

When I wrote the original post, I was actually optimistic to find some stories of others who had gone this route. It was a shock when everyone seemed to think I was some sort or abusive radical for my beliefs. I don't even think of myself as very radical anyway.

My posts after that have seemed defensive because I AM defensive. I was really expecting some tips/advice, not all this criticism. I wasn't even asking SHOULD I do this. Anyway, I was just wrong in what I thought I could expect from this community. I think it's more liberal here than I thought. I by that I just mean, not libertarian at all.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Listen, I sure seem to have pissed everyone off with all this talk about my ideas and beliefs. I'll quit sharing, I guess.
This is the most confrontational I've gotten in my life, and I don't like it. I'm remembering why I hated highschool. It was this sort of atmosphere.

Nevermind. Enjoy your Social Security checks someday.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

I just wanted to point out that a SSN has nothing to do with citizenship - you don't even need to be a resident to get one, and it's not *that* hard to get one, you simply have to prove that you're eligible - a simple birth certificate should do that.

I thought the TIN was only available for those not eligible for a SSN.


----------



## richella (Nov 30, 2004)

I'm with you on not getting a SSN. I always thought that would be the way I would do it. I'm sure it is required for tax deduction -- I remember reading about that change in the papers about 10 yrs ago.

But, over the years I've made a lot of compromises for the sake of practicality. It's not that I think it's okay, I just don't want to spend all my life fighting to survive. When I was 20 I would have thought my current position unexcusably lame. I wasn't going to compromise for anyone. So, I waited to have a baby until I could get it all together and give her the life she deserves. Eventually I figured out that that just wasn't going to happen in this lifetime, unless I was willing to compromise. I waited until I was past 35 to have a baby, and it took us 18 mos. to conceive.

So there's no way we can pass up the tax deduction. We have practically no money. But, we have a home-based business so we can both be here most of the time, and we are near grandparents who see dd frequently. Lots of things in our life are really great, some things aren't the way I'd prefer.

You're totally right that it is a million times easier to get into the system than out. If I could raise dd without a SSN, I'd consider it a rare gift to her. But it turns out it's a gift we just can't afford right now. She'll be lucky to have a college fund.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maryliz75*
To the OP....

If our government is an evil system...
and you don't want your child to have a SS#
you don't agree with your taxes, our government, in general everything this country is...
then why not just move??

So if someone feels the government is not living up to the ideals of democracy and individual freedom that it should, they should leave the country? That makes no sense t'all.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
Is no one here aware of how our SSN are being used as a national ID these days? It's even required for a driver's licence- even though that is illegal.

When the Social Security Administration first introduced the SSN, they promised it would not even be used as an ID number.... now it's used specifically as an ID number everywhere!

Exactly.

Apparently having been in IT Security has made me more privy to the workings of our government than others.

Rest assured, a national id card will most likely be in place before our children have grown up. They are working intently on it now.

The only thing we have going for us is our government's general incompetence in getting things done, and a sparse population of privacy advocates who raise hell.


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

carolynrosa - Your original post got me thinking about this a lot. I never thought about this sort of thing when my first child was born. Seems like it should be as important of a decision as choosing to breastfeed or homeschool or such. Hmmmm....


----------



## numom499 (Jun 12, 2005)

this thread is fascinating...I am glad for the op AND all the replies...we have ss#, but I agree with ss fund being a big joke. We couldn't not pay into it at this point though becaus eof my husdnads employer.

I am glad for threads like this because they get me thinking. Thanks...


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
Rest assured, a national id card will most likely be in place before our children have grown up. They are working intently on it now.

The only thing we have going for us is our government's general incompetence in getting things done, and a sparse population of privacy advocates who raise hell.


Can you (or someone) explain to me what the problem is with a national ID card, or a SSN, or any other identifier, for that matter? I'm all for privacy, but I'm also not particularly fearful of the government using my information for ill purposes. I just tend to take it as a given that my information is accessible - if not to the government, then to private individuals. It's just part and parcel of living in the "information age." I truly don't understand this mindset and am wondering if I'm missing something big.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Can you (or someone) explain to me what the problem is with a national ID card, or a SSN, or any other identifier, for that matter? I'm all for privacy, but I'm also not particularly fearful of the government using my information for ill purposes. I just tend to take it as a given that my information is accessible - if not to the government, then to private individuals. It's just part and parcel of living in the "information age." I truly don't understand this mindset and am wondering if I'm missing something big.

Yep, I have the same question. I leave lots of blanks on forms I'm asked to fill out because I don't feel it is any of their business, but I'm not paranoid about "being tracked." I have friends who refuse to participate in those grocery discount card programs because they don't want the store tracking what they buy. I really couldn't care less if Safeway knows what brand of toilet paper I prefer. (Besides, I give them a fake phone number to make sure I don't get on another telemarketer's list!)


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to point out that without a social security number, your child may not be able to get health insurance.

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
a Nazi Police-State.

Just out of curiousity, have you traveled much outside the US?

I am the last person in the world who would be all rah-rah America, but to compare this country to Nazi police state is too over the top for me to take seriously.


----------



## matts_mamamama (Mar 19, 2004)

I guess I just don't get what the big deal is. I'm not afraid of the government knowing what I do, where I am or what I buy. Who cares! Life is full of enough complications without spending my time worrying about who sees what I'm doing. I'd rather spend my energy worrying about how to keep my kids healthy and happy than them being on or off "the grid". But that's just me. If someone feels it's their life's work to fight the goverment, then so be it.

By the way, as far as the if you don't like it, get out (paraphrase), I'm in that camp too. I'm not against people fighting for what they believe in, but if you really believe that America is comparable to a Nazi Police State, you should try someplace else.


----------



## Attila the Honey (Mar 15, 2003)

We strongly considered not getting a ssn for our child if we had a son, but we had a daughter. The most compelling reason we heard for not having a ssn is that you can't be drafted into war without one. I know, by the time our daughter is 18 they might be drafting our daughters too, but I didn't really think too much about that at the time. I regret getting her a SSN now, or at least I wish I had done alot mroe research and not just caved for the $.

We discussed it and we weren't sure it was *our* place to put our child into the system. SSNs aren't hard to get as an adult and we thought maybe it should be our child's decision. I couldn't help worrying that someday my child might be drafted and killed in an unjust war and I would be partially the reason for it, yk?

Most of the people I know that didn't get a ssn for their child did so for reasons that had to do with resisting war. Of course the child might grow up and decide to get a ssn (and fight in a war), but that would be THEIR decision and it's THEIR life.

So, I struggle with this still. If I have a son I am not sure what I will do, but I think I'd probably err on the side of caution and forgo a SSN for him. The most important aspect to this for me is that you can easily get one at any time, at any age, but once you have one you can't 'give it back' and leave the system.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *matts_mamamama*
I guess I just don't get what the big deal is. I'm not afraid of the government knowing what I do, where I am or what I buy. Who cares! Life is full of enough complications without spending my time worrying about who sees what I'm doing. I'd rather spend my energy worrying about how to keep my kids healthy and happy than them being on or off "the grid". But that's just me. If someone feels it's their life's work to fight the goverment, then so be it.

By the way, as far as the if you don't like it, get out (paraphrase), I'm in that camp too. I'm not against people fighting for what they believe in, but if you really believe that America is comparable to a Nazi Police State, you should try someplace else.


You summed up my feelings perfectly.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Wow, I am really surprised at some of the hostile reactions. CarolynRosa, sorry this has to be your experience with MDC so early on!

Anyway, to answer your questions (since I don't remember you asking for opinions on whether such a thing is right or wrong, I'll refrain from entering the debate):

Two of our children don't have SSNs. We have not claimed them for tax credit and to be honest I don't really know anything about ways to get around that. They do have health insurance, without SSNs, through BlueCross BlueShield.

I'm not particularly concerned about them getting SSNs eventually if they want to. It seems the process is fairly simple here -- a friend of mine's two grown children did it just recently, they had to get birth certificates as well, and had no trouble.


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
Nevermind. Enjoy your Social Security checks someday.

I'm sure many of us will considering it's the primary source of income for many retired people in this country.

Quote:

When Social Security was launched 70 years ago Sunday, it was meant to be a supplement for retirees, not a full pension. But today, 10.6 million people, or 22% of the 48 million who will receive Social Security benefits this year, live on that check alone, the Social Security Administration says.
USAToday article


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Well, maybe I'll just say _one_ thing... :LOL

_"if our government is an evil system... and you don't want your child to have a SS# you don't agree with your taxes, our government, in general everything this country is... then why not just move??_

Man. I can hardly believe I'm reading this at MDC.

Personally, I don't equate "everything this country is" with everything the government does. I can love the land, I can love the culture (well, some of it :LOL), I can love my family and friends, I can love the many freedoms. In short, I want to live here. That doesn't mean that I should just lay down and take whatever a select group of people wants to dish out. IMO, the government should serve this country, but the government _isn't_ this country. _I_ am this country. The people around me are this country. And if you don't like me and the other many political activists who live here calling into question things our government does, maybe _you_ can leave and go live in a totalitarian state that is more to your liking.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

_"I'm sure many of us will considering it's the primary source of income for many retired people in this country."_

Well, for the time being anyway...


----------



## Attila the Honey (Mar 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
Well, maybe I'll just say _one_ thing... :LOL

_"if our government is an evil system... and you don't want your child to have a SS# you don't agree with your taxes, our government, in general everything this country is... then why not just move??_

Man. I can hardly believe I'm reading this at MDC.

Personally, I don't equate "everything this country is" with everything the government does. I can love the land, I can love the culture (well, some of it :LOL), I can love my family and friends, I can love the many freedoms. In short, I want to live here. That doesn't mean that I should just lay down and take whatever a select group of people wants to dish out. IMO, the government should serve this country, but the government _isn't_ this country. _I_ am this country. The people around me are this country. And if you don't like me and the other many political activists who live here calling into question things our government does, maybe _you_ can leave and go live in a totalitarian state that is more to your liking.


Excellent post.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Except in a *real* Nazi state--like the Nazi Germany-- millions of people were tryng like crazy to get the hell out.

So I would say that if one felt at risk of being sent to the gas chambers, it would seem they might try and get to another oountry.

While I absolutely have thoughts on not getting SS #'s for my kids, I do know that anyone who thinks this is a Nazi state never lived in one.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
Egads, I sure am glad that you know what my goals are in this. You're sure "they will not be part of the economy at all, so to be in any system would go against the goal."? Come on. My children (all children) must be part of the economy, it's impossible not to be. I not planning on raising hermits.

What I don't see as neccessary is signing my children up for a retirement fund they don't need and for what has increasingly become a survellaince program for Americans.

I have no problem with the gov. knowing I have children. I just don't want to be pressured into something that I don't think makes sense.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

I said, "The feeling I get.." I didn't say that I KNOW what you want. I'd never say something like that.

As far as a retirement program your kids don't need, well... I don't agree with that at all. In fact, my mother, who is 64 years old LIVES off of her social security. She has no savings and this money is everything to her. I'm glad that you are wealthy enough to be able to thumb your nose at social security. We're not.

And I too have to wonder if you've ever traveled outside of the US at all. I am not patriotic, and this will be the last house you see waving the stars and stripes, but this issue seems to go beyond government paranoia (think you've watched way too much X-Files). I've lived in and traveled to more than 2 dozen countries, Muslim and Christian alike and although I don't like the current administration here in the US, life is NOT BAD in the US. Unike Swedes, I don't give up 60% of my earnings in taxes, unlike Germans, I don't have to tell the government if I moved from apartment A to apartment B, unlike Turks, I don't have to have a national identity card & number (which, for the record, also states your RELIGION!!!!) from my first moment of birth.

I pick my battles and SS isn't one of them. It does indeed personally irk me that people like my mother put in her dues for 50 years and because you have some issue with Big Brother, you don't. It's not just about you... you do, after all, live in a SOCIETY. As a consumer in this society, you have some things you don't like along with the benefits you do. All my opinion, and I rarely ever get into such online discussions, but this one just hit in the right place, I guess. I mean, my mother would be homeless without social security.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

We considered not getting dd a ss#. I do not blieve that ss will be there for dd (or even us) when the time comes so I see it as sort of pointless and just another way for the government to track us. BUT dh and I do have a ss# so we do pay in. And actually we would be paying MORE taxes if dd did not have a ss# so I do not get the people who are "ticked" that "we are not participating". Do not get that. I really feel that dd should have a choice of having one or not. But we caved and got her one. It was just one too many battles.....homebirth, vaxxing, CDing, veganism, unschooling, AP, etc..... But I applaud people that do stand up and try and change our country. That is the whole point of a democracy. And dd does have health insurance even though we applied for it before she got her number and we have never provided it. We also have been able to work around providing the number for life insurance and stuff. It is not a big deal.

I really do not get the anger. What difference does it make to anyone outside of the OP's family? Her child can get one any time her/his little heart desires. Why does not wanting to slap a number on your child mean you should move to a different country? And why should wanting to make things better in the US a bad thing? Sure we might have it "good" but there is always room for improvement.

Why do I feel a country song coming on here.......? Very uncharacteristic of MDC.

PS: I am not meaning to bash country fans....I have been known to closet listen myself......


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
But I applaud people that do stand up and try and change our country. That is the whole point of a democracy.

I know I'm being heated with my discussion of this, but this is exactly my point and why it matters to me what the OP does. If people feel this strongly about things, not participating in something like social security automatically means that this person can't VOTE. And our VOTE is the single most powerful item we have at our disposal to make changes (unless you're a millionaire and can afford your own lobbying company of lawyers). By not being "part" of the government, we can't be heard!!! Yes, it's a catch-22, but I'd rather see zealots use their real power to make changes, not make political statements that are only personal and private.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
Wow, I am really surprised at some of the hostile reactions. CarolynRosa, sorry this has to be your experience with MDC so early on!

Anyway, to answer your questions (since I don't remember you asking for opinions on whether such a thing is right or wrong, I'll refrain from entering the debate):

Two of our children don't have SSNs. We have not claimed them for tax credit and to be honest I don't really know anything about ways to get around that. They do have health insurance, without SSNs, through BlueCross BlueShield.

I'm not particularly concerned about them getting SSNs eventually if they want to. It seems the process is fairly simple here -- a friend of mine's two grown children did it just recently, they had to get birth certificates as well, and had no trouble.


Thanks. I have BCBS, too, and DH found out yesterday it should be no problem getting coverage w/o the SSN for DD.
Yes, many people just get a SSN when they are alder when they want to, I guess.
Anyway, thanks. This is the type of response I was originally looking for.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
And I too have to wonder if you've ever traveled outside of the US at all. I am not patriotic, and this will be the last house you see waving the stars and stripes, but this issue seems to go beyond government paranoia (think you've watched way too much X-Files). I've lived in and traveled to more than 2 dozen countries, Muslim and Christian alike and although I don't like the current administration here in the US, life is NOT BAD in the US. Unike Swedes, I don't give up 60% of my earnings in taxes, unlike Germans, I don't have to tell the government if I moved from apartment A to apartment B, unlike Turks, I don't have to have a national identity card & number (which, for the record, also states your RELIGION!!!!) from my first moment of birth.

FYI: I lived for 11 years overseas on three different continents. Many other countries are a lot more free than our in many ways. But of course, America is still the most free in many of the most important ways. But more and more, we are losing those freedoms, and I am not content to sit around and be satisfied with the status quo.

I am an American, and that means I expect to be able to fight the encroaching police state (yes, I said Police State). What the hell else do you call if when you are randomly searched in various places, asked for identification, presresumed to be a terrorist until you can prove otherwise? I mean, the airlines routinely strip search children and old people in airports now! (Oh, wait, that's 'Protecting' our freedom, right?)

I mean, they (the police) taser pregnant women and children in our country these days over minor infractions. Sometimes over nothing. How could that kind of use of force be justified? I mean, a TASER?!

Anyone who cannot see who we are BECOMING a much less free country is blind. When there is a better country to go live in, I will go, running gladly. But this is still the most free country on Earth, and I for one, plan to fight to keep it that way, and to not let the government become the BIG BROTHER it wants to be.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
I know I'm being heated with my discussion of this, but this is exactly my point and why it matters to me what the OP does. If people feel this strongly about things, not participating in something like social security automatically means that this person can't VOTE. And our VOTE is the single most powerful item we have at our disposal to make changes (unless you're a millionaire and can afford your own lobbying company of lawyers). By not being "part" of the government, we can't be heard!!! Yes, it's a catch-22, but I'd rather see zealots use their real power to make changes, not make political statements that are only personal and private.

You cannot vote without a ss#? In my state you can get a driver's licence with a birth certificate and another form of ID (ss card being one of several to choose from....I believe I used my high school photo ID). And I was able to register to vote with a driver's licence and birth certificate. I did not have to provide a ss# or card. This was 15 years ago though.....

And 50% of our country does not vote even though most have ss#'s. Why not get really mad at them? If the OP's dc wants to vote (and a ss# is indeed necessary) he/she can decide to get one at that time. There are many ways to change our country for the better that have nothing to do with voting. I would even argue that voting is one of the least effective means since most voters are mainstream media-informed about the candidates. The biggest democratic impact I can think of is teaching other people the real situation about the candidate choices. By doing something "radical" like stepping out of the ss# ring, people start to question you. And questioning often leads to enlightenment. Who can say which impact is greater? Voting or standing up for something you believe in even if it prevents you from voting?

This is starting to get off topic but voting is not the only way to impact a democracy. Very thought provoking I must say.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Interesting thread. I didn't consider not getting a SSN, I really want to travel with ds and I am not sure a passport can be obtained without one.
I would also wonder, if something happened to both dh and me, would there be a delay with ds (or his guardians) having access to our assets if he is does not have a SSN? I really don't know, but depending on your situation it might be something to consider? Just a thought.

If we are going to sing a country song, can it be Willie Nelson?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attila the Honey*
We strongly considered not getting a ssn for our child if we had a son, but we had a daughter. The most compelling reason we heard for not having a ssn is that you can't be drafted into war without one.

If this is your biggest concern, you can allow yourself to feel better. It's absolutely not true that you need a SSN to be drafted into war. You don't need one to register for selective service, and you definitely don't need one to be tracked down. I actually just read an article where two minor children were tracked down in the Selective Service's quest to register a person whose name they had made up to get a free ice cream cone.


----------



## Attila the Honey (Mar 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
If this is your biggest concern, you can allow yourself to feel better. It's absolutely not true that you need a SSN to be drafted into war. You don't need one to register for selective service, and you definitely don't need one to be tracked down. I actually just read an article where two minor children were tracked down in the Selective Service's quest to register a person whose name they had made up to get a free ice cream cone.

Wow, that is scary. But thanks for the heads up! I had never heard it debunked, and I had a hard time finding the exact connection between ssn and the draft but that is the reason I hear most frequently.

As for voting, my ssn never came into the equation when I registered to vote. I don't believe you need a ssn to vote, at least not in my state/district.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

The first place i was ever randomly searched was France. I've never been searched in the US. I have dark blond hair and green eyes. I am not black or arabic etc.

Most europeans nations have ID cards that one is supposed to carry at all times. In places like Singapore, there are cameras on every corner and you can get arrested for spitting out your gum.

On what continents have you lived?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Do the Amish register for Social Security Numbers? What about Mennonites, Quaker, and Hutterites?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Well I've partly answered my own question.

I ran a google search and the first article I found was at HSLDA (an organization I object too for many reasons, but as a homeschooler can appreciate some of their convictions).

I won't link to it but essentially it explains and supports the parents, who they number in the thousands, in our country who do not use SS#'s as a matter of faith and views on goverment interference with religious freedoms.

My point is that I think many more people in this country don't use SS#'s than you might assume. The Amish, Mennonite, Quaker and I think Hutterites do not believe in many government systems, and most of us aren't upset with them.

Why be so harsh towards the OP?


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

heartmama-

I looked that organization up and read a few of the articles. Thanks for the info. I hadn't found that site in my seaches, but it has some good info.


----------



## myhoneyswife (Apr 30, 2005)

Now, I'm not sure if not getting my kiddos a SS# would help anything, but I would like to be as invisable to the government as possible. From what I have read, the numbers just do not add up correctly for me to be able to collect the social security $ I have put in (I'm 22) because the system will be bankrupt long before then, at this current rate. For this reason, I think that the SS# will become only a government identification number, a way for them to quickly pull up data on anyone.

For instance, I have gotten out of jury duty on a Drs note, we have had the cops called on our house 3 times for loud music, I will have all my children unassisted, will selectivly vax, homeschol, and I have a gun registered in my name. I am thinking that if all of these things are tied to my SS# in a data base some where (which they very well could be, except for the kid stuff, which hasn't happend yet), then it is quite likely that a "point system" or something else like that could be tied to these choices and coorilate with my degree of "risk to society" or something like that.

And for the record, I have been searched at an airport. I was patted down as a single 18-year-old white girl with brown eyes/hair, no tattoos, piercings, anything out of the ordinary, going from CA to AZ. We don't fly now. It is not appropriate for anyone to touch me that way that I did not invite. And if I had refused (now I would, but I didn't then) then I am willing to bet that I would have had some trouble with the law, or at least not permitted to board the flight. I didn't set off any metal detectory or anything, absolutely nothing suspicious.

I can just see the airport 'security' spreading, and potentially your SS#/Tracking# being used as a 'security measure. I'd like to just live my life as quietly and anonoymously (sp? lol) as possible, and wish for my kids to do the same.

For this reason, we've also moved from CA to MT, where being left alone is much more likely









Just my thoughts...


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Why be so harsh towards the OP?

There are relatively few people on this thread who are actually being harsh toward the OP. Why the focus on them and not the rest of us who are actually interested in discussion?


----------



## MindfulBirth (Mar 3, 2005)

This is such an interesting discussion. Certainly something I had never given a thought about really. I agree with the OP and others who have stated that we are loosing our freedoms in the US and that the SSN is being tied to more and more things. I signed my dd (3 yrs) up for dance classes last week and they wanted to know her and my SSN. I asked the registrar why and she couldn't really give me an answer other than they would report us to the credit bureaus if we failed to pay the tuition on time. I told her I was paying in full for the year that day and that I was going to leave those lines blank.

OP...even though I can't give you support in the way of "yes we do this too" that you were looking for, I just want to say that I do support your right to do this. Thanks for giving me something else to ponder today...and another excuse to stay at the computer rather than wash the dishes.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Do the Amish register for Social Security Numbers? What about Mennonites, Quaker, and Hutterites?

Amish and Hutterites live a similar life removed from "the world" and some of the more strict Mennonite orders do as well. They may not get ssns, but I don't know.

Quakers, on the other hand, although one of the three historic Peace Churches (along with the Mennonites and Brethren) are car-drivin, tv-watchin' (well, not me, but plenty others), fully engaged in the world folks. I have never heard of any of us not getting ssns. Although there may well be some.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *myhoneyswife*

And for the record, I have been searched at an airport. I was patted down as a single 18-year-old white girl with brown eyes/hair, no tattoos, piercings, anything out of the ordinary, going from CA to AZ. We don't fly now. It is not appropriate for anyone to touch me that way that I did not invite. And if I had refused (now I would, but I didn't then) then I am willing to bet that I would have had some trouble with the law, or at least not permitted to board the flight. I didn't set off any metal detectory or anything, absolutely nothing suspicious.

Hey, my 2.5 year old was searched. Multiple times. And me, and my husband. No, we don't look "suspicious," but I'd rather they search randomly rather than targeting specific ethnic people for profiling. It's safer, honestly - you can't just assume terrorists will look like X. Europe is far more invasive in their airport screenings, asking you multiple questions multiple times; and once you pass a certain security checkpoint you're basically in a holding pen with no chance of escape!







I would far rather give up some personal privacy in a physical way going through security than that pointless flight database, which is ridiculous and I doubt will prevent any terrorism whatsoever. I feel much safer departing from Europe than the US; they have - due to unfortunate history - the counterterrorism experience regarding flights.

But that's me - I love travelling. I would love to see the same level of professionalism employed at my local airport as in Amsterdam, but with outsourcing and budget cuts behind the facade, I don't think so. My airport security personnel look like they've been using some of the confiscated drug paraphenalia themselves before going to work. It is a boring job, but still...

I agree with the SS# being used in too many ways, too frivolously, with little recourse for those who've suffered ID theft from either governmental or private sources. But I think the answer may be in demanding open disclosure of records and consumer access to their own records, both of which the government and private industry (credit bureaus) oppose. Jerks! I know people in the security industry, and it is waaaay too easy for (in)accurate personal information to be bought, sold, and resold through governmental and private sources. When you combine the two (flight database) then it's a whole 'nother mess that is just ridiculous. All the credit companies think I'm two years older than I actually am, which is hilarious because I can't even fix it, if I wanted to. I think open government is really the answer.

Yes, I know pigs can't fly.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

We considered delaying getting dd's ssn# until she actually wanted to open a bank account or work. That's why I got one when I was a child to open a savings account. If we're going to have National ID cards, fine then have them and let's not use the numbers for other things making it easier for id's to be stolen.

OTOH I don't think I understand living off of the grid but that's the socialist in me. I live in a society so there are certain costs to living in a society. Taxes to me are a worthwhile cost. Social security is a worthwhile cost as well. But that's probably b/c I know lots of old ladies who were sahms who would not have any income after their spouses died without it, including my grandmother.

I also don't understand paranoia about the government. I don't trust the government. But I believe I have a greater chance of effecting change within the system than without.

And all the Quakers I know have ssn#'s. I don't think it's mandatory in order to get drafted. Especially since schools have to turn over lists of students as part of No Child Left Behind.


----------



## cyncyn (Nov 19, 2004)

This is a very interesting thread. I wish more people had personal experience to share with OP. I wish it were easier to opt out of the SSN; it just seems to affect so many aspects of modern life even though that perhaps wasn't the original intent.

Over 4 million babies are born in the US every year. What if 1 million of them didn't get a SS#? Or 2 million? Perhaps society's reliance on and use of it would have to change. Working together, but retaining our individuality, maybe that's how we can improve the lives of our children and our children's children.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Ds doesn't have a SS#, and we have insurance as of recently. I don't know about tax breaks, though, as that's not really something we even considered when we made the decision, honestly.
Our reasons for not getting him one are similar to religious reasons, I guess. Governments go bad sometimes, and if America gets goofy, it will be really goofy. Then again, if that happens, it your SS# probably won't be any huge key factor, anyway. Really, I'm just delaying getting ds a # till I figure out which way the wind is really blowing.
I guess, to be honest, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist at heart. I can see the possibility of keeping him under the radar possibly being beneficial, though I really don't know. I might decide in a year or 2 that I was just being paranoid. We might wait it out till he's 15, and then get him a #. We might move to Australia in 5 years. Who knows?
For the time being, though, I'm very happy that we're keeping ds relatively undocumented. If the SHTF, I feel like we have a few resources to help buy some time while we formulate a plan. I know that probably sounds paranoid, but hey...just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, as the saying goes.

BTW, to the OP...MDC isn't usually this hostile. Sometimes, but not usually. Stick around.







Don't let a few "you're harming your child!!!" posts get to you. It's not usually like this.


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Quakers, on the other hand, although one of the three historic Peace Churches (along with the Mennonites and Brethren) are car-drivin, tv-watchin' (well, not me, but plenty others), fully engaged in the world folks. I have never heard of any of us not getting ssns. Although there may well be some.

There is a certain "sect" of Friends, the Wilburites, who are still living a "plain" lifestyle. Scott Savage, who is Wilburite, wrote a book about his decision to live "plain," and in it he stated that he did not obtain a birth certificate (and thus no SSN) for at least one of his homebirthed children.

I can understand the SSN. It's an easy matter for a kid to get one later on in life; I did. It really is no big deal. But a birth certificate means that in the eyes of the government, that child doesn't even EXIST and that's a pretty radical decision to make for anyone else, even your own child. THose children will grow up and who knows what life decisions they're gonna want to make, and here he's taken the options away from them.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Amish and Hutterites live a similar life removed from "the world" and some of the more strict Mennonite orders do as well. They may not get ssns, but I don't know.

Quakers, on the other hand, although one of the three historic Peace Churches (along with the Mennonites and Brethren) are car-drivin, tv-watchin' (well, not me, but plenty others), fully engaged in the world folks. I have never heard of any of us not getting ssns. Although there may well be some.

Well, you've heard of it now. I'm Quaker.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
Well, you've heard of it now. I'm Quaker.

Which sect? There are a bunch of Quakers in my family as well.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

No, I want my kids to be able to, IF THEY WISH, work, drive, own property, get health insurance and get a bank account.

And it's NOT easy to get an SSN. Just ask my grandparents.


----------



## Attila the Honey (Mar 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sly Soprano*
No, I want my kids to be able to, IF THEY WISH, work, drive, own property, get health insurance and get a bank account.

And it's NOT easy to get an SSN. Just ask my grandparents.

I don't know the particulars of your gparent's situation, but I didn't get my ssn until I was 14 or 15 and it wasn't difficult. Just a matter of filling out a form and sending in my birth certificate.

After my dd was born my mother was surprised that she was given a SSN right away, she said people used to wait until they needed it for some reason. I am not sure why it has changed, maybe it only (fairly) recently become necessary to have a SSN to get the tax deductions for having children? (Because I am certain my mom wouldn't have passed those up for 14 years!)

In fact, I have a bunch of savings bonds in my name with my mother's SSN on them because they were gifts when I was a baby. As of yet I've had no trouble cashing them in at all with my ID, despite the fact they have my mother's # on them.

In my experience, getting a SSN later was no extra trouble at all. What were your grandparent's hurdles?


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

We got one for my dd but I don't see a problem with waiting until a child is working age before deciding to get one.
When I was growing up I don't think my siblings or myself got one until we were 10 or 12... I remember getting it. It wasn't hard at that time to get.

I know it has been stated in this thread once that participating in social security is voluntary but that is not what the social security administration says.

Quote:

Question
Am I required to participate in the Social Security program?

Answer
Participation in the Social Security program is mandatory with respect to the payment of Social Security taxes. Unless specifically exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes on earnings from employment. These earnings are subject to Social Security tax without regard to the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee.

The authority for the collection of taxes, including Social Security taxes, is found in the Internal Revenue Code, not the Social Security Act. (See sections 3101(a) and 3102(a) of the Code.) We suggest that you direct any questions you may have about tax liability to that Agency for consideration. The address is:

Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20224.
That makes it seem like the only way it is voluntary is if you do not work or have a special exemption. Does anyone know what the exemptions would be?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

It is mandatory to pay into ss. It is voluntary to collect. People that have no ss# do have to pay in (such as non-citzens working in the U.S.). They use their tax I.D. number just like businesses. While your child does need a ss# for you to get a deduction, legally your child does not need a number to work, get a licence, vote, etc.....


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

So, I guess it makes sense to not get a SSN as a worker if you're confident that SS will not be around. Otherwise, you'd pretty much be cheating yourself, as SS takes a pretty big chunk out of your paycheck.


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

I'm not sure what the deal is of not getting babies/kids ssn? We have sin # here, and I've never heard of ppl getting them for kids. The only reason I've ever heard is to get the resp thing since you need one for the gov't to give you interest. We don't need them for tax purposes ect. I remember when I got mine- when I was getting a job. I think it's icky (for me) to get one for my babe. Our ils want us to so we can get the resp thing, but it just feels too creepy to me









When dd is older, we'll get one then.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

They didn't have birth certificates, or at least not with their names. I know they finally found one that said "Baby" for my grandma with her birthday and ended up using that. I'm not sure about the rest.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

So, I guess it makes sense to not get a SSN as a worker if you're confident that SS will not be around. Otherwise, you'd pretty much be cheating yourself, as SS takes a pretty big chunk out of your paycheck.
As yooper says, it's compulsory to pay ss tax, citizen, holder of a ss number or not, if you work in the US for a certain period of time, you pay ss tax.


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

To the OP,
No advice here, as I'm one of those who (possibly naievely?) has no worries about being watched by the govt, but just wanted to encourage you to stay around here at MDC. I do think a few of the previous posters were being pretty hostile to you but not the majority. This is a great place.

Best of luck!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
As yooper says, it's compulsory to pay ss tax, citizen, holder of a ss number or not, if you work in the US for a certain period of time, you pay ss tax.









I understand that. That's why it seems to me that if you're mandatorily paying into a system, you may as well set yourself up so you can benefit from it (provided it's still around).

Here's a question: If your child does not have a SSN and turns out to have a serious health issue that would entitle him/her to disability under SS, could s/he be denied a SSN after the fact?


----------



## rubber_duckie (May 23, 2005)

I'm late to this, but I didn't have a SSN until I was 6 or 7. My parents wanted to apply for mine at the same time they applied for my younger brother's, in the hope that our numbers would be only one digit different. I believe that was before the days of the child tax credit, or at least before a SSN was needed for the child. As it turned out, our numbers are about 12 numbers apart, so my parents had to memorize two different numbers anyways!

Interestingly, we lived in a different state than the one in which I was born, so my SSN has always been different than my peers' numbers. It actually raised questions when I got a passport since my SSN indicated that it was issued in one state in 1987 when my birth cert indicated that I was born in another state in 1981.

I would not have been able to go to college, much less rent an apartment or get a driver's license, without having an SSN or a tax ID number. As a child, I didn't need an SSN, though. I think it would be reasonable to wait (so long as you're willing to forego tax benefits) as long as you're OK with your child getting an SSN when they're older and need one to get a part time job or a driver's license.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

I'd never even considered not getting DD a SS#, so she has one, but now my curiousity is piqued for future children. I certaintly have off-the-grid Libertarian leanings, although that is nowhere near my current reality.

As for the SS# being required to claim a child on taxes, that was put into place b/c people were claiming their pets as dependents. I'll have to ask my DH (masters in accounting) what the exact number was, but the first year the requirement was put into place, the number of dependent deductions plummeted.

ETA: I asked him, and he said he thinks it was a 30% drop in the dependent deductions.


----------



## Zamber (May 4, 2005)

:
Interesting thread!!!









We did end up getting a SS# for our son. I was so busy doing research on our unassisted birth, not vaxing, breastfeeding, homeschooling, etc. that I never got around to the reasons not to give him a number. I really wish I would of at least looked into it. The thought of my son being drafted scares the crap out of me to say the least (or that his identity can be so easily stolen....).

Good for you on looking into all of the options for your child!


----------



## mamaGjr (Jul 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
*sigh*
The Social Security program is a Ponzi scheme. Just because it's government run, does not make it a good idea. As a voluntary 'retirement' plan, I am choosing not to enroll my child. She can always join the bandwagon later, if she chooses.
At best, SS is a raw deal. At worst, it's the perfect way to track and control people in a Nazi Police-State. Either way, I don't plan to allow my child to be taken advantage of or branded with this ID number. Luckily, it's still my choice.

Thanks for all the 'advice.' I guess next time I'll remember not to post about things that aren't 'conventional' enough.

Funny, but if I had asked for advice about, say, breastfeeding past 18 months, I imgaine I would have had a lot more support, or at least less criticism. Or even non-vaxing. I've never seen 'open minds' respond so negatively to something they obviously don't know much about.


I see that you are a "new member" I am somewhat new although I have been off and on for a few years . People seem to feel passionately about many ideas on this board in general. I am surprised that many of the posts in reply to your OP were a bit imflammatory. I have had the same experience though by posting in the wrong place etc. People seem to get bent out of shape rather easily - which perhaps is a "good"thing...at least people care about their specific issues


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

SSI is a national insurance program, not a retirement account. It was designed to assist people who outlive their savings, become disabled and cannot work, or whose parents die/become disabled. Call it whatever you want, but it has worked wonderfully for the past 70 years and supports many of the families visiting MDC every day.

Good luck.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I do not deny the SSI is a good program. My mom needed it to take care of her two kids after my dad died. What I have a problem with is using the number for everything from tax deductions to student ID numbers. it is being used improperly and dangerously. I see nothing wrong with someone who feel strongly about this protesting the system. I do not feel that strongly since dd does have a ss#. But I see nothing wrong with people that do. So, you love the SSI program. Great. What difference does it make if someone elee choses to obstain fro themselves or children? I am glad someone has the balls to do it or else the number will continue to get abused forever. It is called passive protest and we support that sort of thing whole heartedly when it is a subject we are all familiar with.

Y


----------



## MaShroom (Jan 25, 2003)

I got four pages into this thread and, quite frankly, can't read anymore. Free flowin' snark. For a second there I thought I was on one of those "other" boards!







:

To the OP, I thought about this a lot, but did end up getting SSN's for all of my kids. On one hand I wish I hadn't, but on the other, I think it might have been a pita if I hadn't. I have known people who didn't though and the only thing that I saw as a problem was receiving government services.

I knew a woman who was living in her VW bus with her dd, just traveling all over. The dd didn't have a SSN and her mom was on welfare. Apparently, she couldn't get welfare for her daughter since she had no SSN. I don't know if this has changed since this was several years ago. Oh wait, it has, there's no more welfare as we knew it then.







It was tough for them to get along on the small amount that the mom got but they survived. I don't know what ever happened to them.

Yeah, it is a radical idea to some, but geez folks, take a deep breath, it isn't a personal affront!!! I think more and more people are not getting a SSN's for their children, at least the people I know. These are people who A. Hate the government and B. Realize that Social Security is not going to help them out when they get older because even if it is still there they haven't paid in squat. They are not off the grid but they aren't part of the machine either. They don't plan on running from this mess of a country/government, although I know that the idea of expatriating has crossed their minds often. Hopefully, these will be the people whose children run the country someday.


----------



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

((mamathistle))

I second that!










I AM NOT A number.....


----------



## FancyPants (Dec 25, 2004)

Quote:

And I too have to wonder if you've ever traveled outside of the US at all. I am not patriotic, and this will be the last house you see waving the stars and stripes, but this issue seems to go beyond government paranoia (think you've watched way too much X-Files). I've lived in and traveled to more than 2 dozen countries, Muslim and Christian alike and although I don't like the current administration here in the US, life is NOT BAD in the US. Unike Swedes, I don't give up 60% of my earnings in taxes, unlike Germans, I don't have to tell the government if I moved from apartment A to apartment B, unlike Turks, I don't have to have a national identity card & number (which, for the record, also states your RELIGION!!!!) from my first moment of birth.
This is true of SOME countries but.....

Canada: I did not get a SIN until I was 15 and wanted to work, like most of my friends. The lady at the counter didn't think this any big deal. I realize that times may have changed.
Australia: I never got a SSN that I know of. I showed them my passport (I have dual citizenship) and at 17 I was given a job. Oh, and this BIG company (amusement park) paid all its workers every week - IN CASH.
Ireland: A few years ago I worked with a lady recently from Ireland. She had never had a SSN. She worked in IT, high tech.

Though I know of Canadians who have lived in the USA for a long time (own their own businesses etc) but never became permanent residents (or have a SSN). In my experience though, here in the US, people ask for your SSN all the time. In fact they EXPECT it. From a id theft point of view I think it is a nightmare. The HASSLE I get when I ask them if I can give other information even when I explain why.







I never had this problem in Canada. People seemed to "get it".
As far as an ID tracker - honestly, I think that the US govt is going to start taking DNA samples at birth in another generation. :LOL

SSN will be required more and more because it CAN be tracked, via computers. There is good and bad in that but I think if you document your childs birth she can choose for herself whether or not she wants a SSN, right? In any case, if you both have SSN and she didn't have any proof, a simple paternity test ought to prove she is your kid. Ergo she has a right to US citizenship. I mean, where would they send her??


----------



## mamarhu (Sep 12, 2004)

ElderSon was born out of the US and was 5 when I got him a SS# (needed for him to collect an inheritance and pay taxes on it). It was no problem, but I wonder what would be different if I had side-stepped it by getting him a taxpayer ID# or something.

A few years ago I changed my and my kids names & SS#s due to a major domestic violence situation. For 10 months, we didn't exist. It was quite inconvenient in some ways. I bought a business, but couldn't get a business license without a SS#. Couldn't get a job at all, of course; no welfare either. No bank account or driver's license. But at the same time, it was freeing. I seriously considered never establishing the new identity at all, and remaining nonexistant. There are days I wish I had...

I never had needed to show my SS card itself before, but in the last 6 weeks, I have been asked (demanded) for it 3 times: apartment rental application, student loan application, and once more I can't remember right now. Wouldn't you know - I can't find it!


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

We are not planning on getting our dc one. I also was hoping for ideas from this thread from others who have done it already. Our reasons are that we don't mind paying extra taxes. We don't need a rebate for giving our kids a SSN. It's a big decision that I do not want to make for anyone. They can make that decision when they're older and meanwhile we will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. It's only paper for crying out loud :LOL I mean, some pps have talked about tax evasion, but isn't getting a number for your child going to mean that you pay less taxes? From all I know, you do have to have one for the child to get the tax credit. That's why my parents got me one at the age of five and not at birth. That's also why my number is a WA one and I was born in GA. Dh's is also a WA one and he was born in CA.

And it is not at all difficult to get one later in life - with proper documentation of course. In fact, in WA (where SSNs are required for a driver's license) you can get a driver's license without one as long as you sign an affidavit swearing that you've never had one. So as long as you've never had one, there's no problem. Obviously keeping good records as far as a birth certificate, etc. would be wise.

It's late, I'm tired, and I hope that all made sense









love and peace.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Interesting thread.

The issue of ability to get a passport without a SS# came up a few times and I can (as of two weeks ago) answer this. BF and I are travelling to Europe next week and neither he nor I have ever had pasports. BF needed to apply at the US Embassy because he was born in the States. He doesn't have a SS# and it was no problem. It even states in the instructions that if you don't have a SS# just fill in that section with 0000000...

So no problem with getting a passport.

OT, but after 9/11 there were so many reports here from US media that Canada was the weak link when it comes to allowing terrorists in and that it's too easy for terrorists to get Canadian passports. Man, BF (who has never lived in the States but was born there) just needed to walk into the Embassy and provide his birth certificate and driver's license and two photos and his passport was ready two days later. For my passport (Canadian) I had to have a guarantor (with a professional designation: lawyer, charted accountant engineer, dr., etc) sign that she has known me at least 4 years and how and also sign one of my 2 photos as a guarantee the photo is a true likeness of me. Then I had to have two references who they could call up who would also vouch for who I am. I also needed the proof of residence like my driver's licensejust as BF needed for his.

Crazy.


----------



## UmmBnB (Mar 28, 2005)

Both my kids got them right away. I just don't get what the big deal is. Sorry.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

The OP, who is long gone apparently, was not asking what people's opinions on SS#s were or whether you think it is a big deal. She was asking if anyone had gone without one and what their experience was. Some people don't see the "big deal" with breastfeeding, co-sleeping, GD, vaccines, etc..... None of us like to be dismissed about those things. Perhaps the OP is just as committed to her ideas about SS#s as some of us are about those other things.


----------



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

I personally know people who do not have or stopped using their ssn#'s....they work for themselves doing what they know, they dont bank or use credit...the way they live is different than the main stream, its harder but possible. What I see is these people have strong convictions, they strongly believe the system is wrong and they stand by that, its not an easy way to live these days and just looking at these people you can see they dont have it easy. I have a lot of respect for them and I understand where they are coming from and realize we all make that choice for ourselves. I would rather be aware of whats going on then to be blind to it.


----------



## beansavi (Jun 26, 2005)

My Mom did not apply for my ss # until I was seventeen. Then it came, and that was that.







I am now 38. I've had no probs. I also know she got tax deducations for me beforehand. But that was in the 60s and 70s.

I also agree that it is not our place to judge the OPs convictions. What kind of mutaully respectful community support is that? We don't have to agree to respect or show respect. In fact, showing respect when we disagree is such an enlightened thing to do!


----------



## MaShroom (Jan 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mystic~mama*
((mamathistle))

I second that!










I AM NOT A number.....

Hey, thanks mystic!


----------



## LauraN (May 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
BTW - I cannot even *IMAGINE* the kind of mess you might make for your child if he/she goes 18 years without a social security number, then wants to apply. 18 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she weren't just chucked into some military prison for that. To be 18 and just NOW applying for a SSN???? These are the kinds of things our paranoid government are just fishing for. Like I said, if you have a beef with the administration, with the establishment, with government... do your own fighting, don't make your kid an instrument. (P.S. I don't like big government, either.)

WHOA! There is no need to freak out. If the OP knows the real repercussions (no tax deduction) and is willing to live with them, then we don't need to invent ones to try to scare her. Military prison? Please. I didn't have a SSN until I applied to college. It was not difficult nor weird getting one at that point. People get SSNs at all different ages, believe it or not.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraN*
WHOA! There is no need to freak out. If the OP knows the real repercussions (no tax deduction) and is willing to live with them, then we don't need to invent ones to try to scare her. Military prison? Please. I didn't have a SSN until I applied to college. It was not difficult nor weird getting one at that point. People get SSNs at all different ages, believe it or not.

I'm not freaking out... I've been in political situations that can change in a fortnight. I worry that trying to live "under the line" but not "off the grid COMPLETELY" may cause problems in the future for a child. You either commit to a way of life that a child must follow, or you don't complicate things for them in the future.


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

I was thinking that to work in the US you needed a SS# to fill out the I-9 forms, but I just checked and it turns out you don't. And, as another poster pointed out, it's also not necessary for a passport. Doesn't seem like going without one would be all that bad- though I still think you should be sure to get a legal birth certificate.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

SSN are not required for anything (to my knowledge) except the child tax break. I don't care for taking a tax break for making a decision for my child that he/she could make without any problems later in life. If you don't have one then there is another tax form to fill out when getting a job and you just have to get a TIN. There's no shirking on taxes going on and no reason for anyone to get upset about this issue. It doesn't hurt anyone except the parent who chooses it because of less money back from the government.

At least that's what I've gotten from this thread and from my research a year or so ago when dh and I decided we wouldn't get our dc a SSN.

They can't require something that's not mandatory to get in the first place and it says nothing about one's patriotism or love of country if one does or does not have a SSN. I have one and wish I didn't. I love my country for the land and the people here. Not necessarily for the government though I won't get into that now. My retirement plan is my children and Creator (who has always taken care of me) and I never plan on taking advantage of my SSN. Things may change and I may be glad I have one someday, but that's a "what if" and I choose not to live my life expecting the worst.

I am very happy that we have freedoms in this country (what few we have left) and that one of those freedoms is the freedom to choose whether or not we get our dc a SSN. You can still check the box that says "no" and therefore it is a viable option.

I also am a bit confused at the furor this thread caused in the beginning. Live and let live and don't judge others for their personal decisions... if it makes their lives harder, how does that impact anyone else? With a proper birth certificate/documentation it is no trouble for anyone to get a SSN later in life.

love and peace.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
As far as a retirement program your kids don't need, well... I don't agree with that at all. In fact, my mother, who is 64 years old LIVES off of her social security. She has no savings and this money is everything to her. I'm glad that you are wealthy enough to be able to thumb your nose at social security. We're not.

I pick my battles and SS isn't one of them. It does indeed personally irk me that people like my mother put in her dues for 50 years and because you have some issue with Big Brother, you don't. It's not just about you... you do, after all, live in a SOCIETY. As a consumer in this society, you have some things you don't like along with the benefits you do. All my opinion, and I rarely ever get into such online discussions, but this one just hit in the right place, I guess. I mean, my mother would be homeless without social security.

Ok, this is a warning, I am going to drudge up an old and oviously very hot topic. I do not hold conventional beliefs so what I am about to say may very likely piss off a whole lot of you...

Velochic, I am very sorry that your mother only lives off of her paltry SS check. Her life choices made it that way. No one is to blame here other than your mother. She CHOSE not to save for her future. So please tell me, how is it MY responsibility to pay for your mother's mistakes? Right now I am paying into a system that will not be around when I retire. Social security will be gone and will I get back the 6.5% I have paid over my lifetime? Of course not! So I am being robbed of my hard earned income to pay for your mother's mistakes. That 6.5% that is being stolen from me could have been my retirement fund. If I had that money available to me to invest as I see fit, by the time I retire, I would have alot more saved up than what the SS check would ever be able to provide for me. I am being robbed of my future to pay for other's mistakes.

You say that you just aren't wealthy enough to afford not having social security. Do you know who benefits the most from social security? Well look at it this way, who lives longer men or women? Women of course. Who lives longer rich people or poor people? Well rich people do since they can generally afford better care and nutrition. So, who is living the longest and benefiting the most from social security? Rich women. All the money that is being robbed from the poor is mostly benefiting the rich. That doesn't sound like the kind of system you want now is it? Also, what does being wealthy have to do with saving money? No one in my family is particularly wealthy, all of my grandparents live well off of their own savings. They put away a little bit at a time and by the time they retired, they had a conciderable sum to live comfortably on for the rest of their years. My dad, when my sister and I were born, was working at a minimum wage job. He worked there for the first 1/2 of my life. Even though money was very tight back then, he was still saving for both my sister and I to go to college AND he was saving for his retirement.

Some people suffer hardships in their lives and mabye life just didn't turn out the way they planned. Would I want to turn a cold shoulder to them and say "well too bad for you, you made too many mistakes"? Of course not, I am not a cold hearted person. I genuinely care about people and I don't like to see others suffer. So if there were a private orginazation that provided care to people who had suffered hardships in life and needed assistance, I would donate all I could afford in a heartbeat. Many others would do the same. That is how people work, we are charatible and caring. Many of us libertarians are accused of being cold hearted. It is acutally the opposite. We believe in the good in people. We trust others to care for those that need help. We don't rely on the government forcing people to care about one another, we know that people will do that of their own free will.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

to those who said "well at least we don't have a national ID like some countries have"... Well guess what! We do now!!! It has just been passed through being called the "real ID act". It is expected to be implemented in May of 2008. They aren't clear yet what kind of information it will have on it, but some are concidering DNA samples among many other things. As it stands now, they can add whatever information they'd like to see on the card any time they like. So mabye it won't contain DNA data from the start. Well give it a year and it will. So it looks like the use of a SS number as an ID will finally be put to rest, no one will have to fight that battle again. Now we will have to fight something much more powerful. I am sure many of you were completly unaware that this happened. Seeing as many of you have stated that you don't mind being tracked by the government, I'm sure this is no big deal to you either. To people like me and the OP, this is a scary scary thing. I should not have to live every day of my life in fear of my government as I do now.

To the op, we still have not decided if we are going to get our daughter a SSN. We could really use the tax break, but to enroll our daughter in a failed system just for our benefit is cruel. For some reason people think it is hard to get a SSN. They must be delusional, the government WANTS you in their system! They will do anything they can to get you into the system. I applaud you for your strength in fighting for what you believe in. We need more people like you who will stand up and fight for our freedoms more than we need people who just say "get out if you don't like it".


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

One last thing, I promise!

Someone mentioned that most jobs won't pay cash. This has not been my experience, every job I've held except for one I was paid in cash with no taxes taken out. I can think of other people I know who only work in cash as well, tattoo artists, independant contractors for various jobs. As the owner of a small business I can choose to only let my clients pay in cash. I don't need a SSN to work. Sure, you may not be able to be a drone at a company without one, but I hope that my daugher wouldn't have to work at a place like that with or without a SSN.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

I don't know . . . I think about getting out of the U.S. system almost daily. To me, it's as simple as packing up and moving to a remote part of Africa where my people are from. SS# or not, it's possible and I know a few folks who have. My humble opinion, if you want to live off the grid, get off the grid. If you're still on the grid, living in the U.S., there's certain things you must swallow or just spend lots of energy fighting tooth and nail. I got my son a SS# because it was important to me that he have a passport so we can travel/leave whenever we get ready or whenever it becomes necessary. I didn't know you could get a passport without it. Eventually, I'm going to get off this grid/fall of the face of the earth. But that's me. Maybe my children want to be all up on the grid. I guess it's best to give them that option. This thread has got me thinking.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

We go to the food bank ect and a SS# is required for social services, so we have a SS# for both our kids.


----------



## hopeland (Oct 15, 2005)

In some states, maybe all a child has to have one before being allowed to attend public school. I know because my childs card waslsot and it was a big dealwith the school.


----------



## Stephanie6603 (Oct 14, 2005)

we already got our dd, we never would think not to...I think you need it for the parents taxes....someone may have mentioned , i don't have time to read all the posts.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
One last thing, I promise!

Someone mentioned that most jobs won't pay cash. This has not been my experience, every job I've held except for one I was paid in cash with no taxes taken out. I can think of other people I know who only work in cash as well, tattoo artists, independant contractors for various jobs. As the owner of a small business I can choose to only let my clients pay in cash. I don't need a SSN to work. Sure, you may not be able to be a drone at a company without one, but I hope that my daugher wouldn't have to work at a place like that with or without a SSN.

I, too, have mainly been paid in cash for my jobs. In fact, being asked to pay taxes usually turns me off a job. $12/hour is fine, but if I have to pay taxes on that, it's just not enough. Now, this may not be a feasible option for some people, but I have certainly never had a problem securing a decently paying job without paying taxes.

-on another note-

I might add that is certainly not that I don't want to help people out. After Hurricane Katrina, we had 12 people and 11 of their pets living with my husband and me in our new house, free of rent. We did this out of sympathy for these families. No one had to confiscate a portion of my income to give to these families. Every dollar and hour of assistance was offered volunarily, out of kindness.
Had they demanded that we help by seizing my income forcibly (like the IRS does), that would have been theft, not charity at all.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
I don't know . . . I think about getting out of the U.S. system almost daily. To me, it's as simple as packing up and moving to a remote part of Africa where my people are from. SS# or not, it's possible and I know a few folks who have. My humble opinion, if you want to live off the grid, get off the grid. If you're still on the grid, living in the U.S., there's certain things you must swallow or just spend lots of energy fighting tooth and nail. I got my son a SS# because it was important to me that he have a passport so we can travel/leave whenever we get ready or whenever it becomes necessary. I didn't know you could get a passport without it. Eventually, I'm going to get off this grid/fall of the face of the earth. But that's me. Maybe my children want to be all up on the grid. I guess it's best to give them that option. This thread has got me thinking.

This seems to be everyone's opinion. They either say "if you don't like it get out" or "I want to just live off the grid, it's the only way to be left alone". I would rather stand and fight for what I believe in, rather than just oblige to the government or run away from my problems. I want to live in society. Society is NOT the government!!! Everyone here seems to think that society=government, if you don't like the government, you shouldn't be living in "our" society. It used to be that you only had to deal with the government if you did something wrong, but now EVERYONE deals with the government EVERY DAY. The government has taken over our society. They have become a serpent slowly squeezing the life out of every one of it's citizens. It has reduced people to thoughts of either "I have to conform, it's too powerful to fight" or "I have to leave, it's too powerful to fight". I personally refuse to take either one of these options. And yes I will be raising my kids with the same beliefs, just as a christian parent would raise their kids with their beliefs. Many of you accused the OP of only thinking about herself and using her kids to fight her battle. NO, she is just raising her children with her beliefs. If she does not want her child automatically enrolled in the system, she should not only be able to do that, ALL of you should support her whether you agree with her position or not. You would expect her to support YOUR decision to raise your kids as you see fit as well. I am not saying that you have to support her choice, you have every right to disagree with her not wanting to get her children a SSN, but you should support her RIGHT to choose if you expect the same right. We here are all in the same position, we face criticisim and sometimes prosecution because we don't agree with what everyone else thinks about raising kids. Why are you doing the same thing that people do to you that you don't like? The thing about freedom is that if you want freedom for youself, you MUST be willing to respect the fact that others have the same freedoms even if you don't like what they are doing. We can not pick and choose who gets what freedoms. You can't say "well 59% of the population agrees with this, that means the other 41% must either comply or face prosection". What if they decided one day that you must give birth in a hospital and 59% of the population agreed? You would be outraged that your RIGHT to do as you wish with your body and your child was just robbed from you. Rights should not be taken away from the minority by the majority. And we as mostly minorities in the parenting world should support one another's right to choose whether or not we agree with that choice because one day, it may be your choice that they're comming after. Complying and running away are not options. If you want freedom for yourself, you must stand and fight for those freedoms.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

This seems to be everyone's opinion. They either say "if you don't like it get out" or "I want to just live off the grid, it's the only way to be left alone". I would rather stand and fight for what I believe in, rather than just oblige to the government or run away from my problems. I want to live in society. Society is NOT the government!!! Everyone here seems to think that society=government, if you don't like the government, you shouldn't be living in "our" society. It used to be that you only had to deal with the government if you did something wrong, but now EVERYONE deals with the government EVERY DAY. The government has taken over our society. They have become a serpent slowly squeezing the life out of every one of it's citizens. It has reduced people to thoughts of either "I have to conform, it's too powerful to fight" or "I have to leave, it's too powerful to fight". I personally refuse to take either one of these options. And yes I will be raising my kids with the same beliefs, just as a christian parent would raise their kids with their beliefs. Many of you accused the OP of only thinking about herself and using her kids to fight her battle. NO, she is just raising her children with her beliefs. If she does not want her child automatically enrolled in the system, she should not only be able to do that, ALL of you should support her whether you agree with her position or not. You would expect her to support YOUR decision to raise your kids as you see fit as well. I am not saying that you have to support her choice, you have every right to disagree with her not wanting to get her children a SSN, but you should support her RIGHT to choose if you expect the same right. We here are all in the same position, we face criticisim and sometimes prosecution because we don't agree with what everyone else thinks about raising kids. Why are you doing the same thing that people do to you that you don't like? The thing about freedom is that if you want freedom for youself, you MUST be willing to respect the fact that others have the same freedoms even if you don't like what they are doing. We can not pick and choose who gets what freedoms. You can't say "well 59% of the population agrees with this, that means the other 41% must either comply or face prosection". What if they decided one day that you must give birth in a hospital and 59% of the population agreed? You would be outraged that your RIGHT to do as you wish with your body and your child was just robbed from you. Rights should not be taken away from the minority by the majority. And we as mostly minorities in the parenting world should support one another's right to choose whether or not we agree with that choice because one day, it may be your choice that they're comming after. Complying and running away are not options. If you want freedom for yourself, you must stand and fight for those freedoms.
I competely agree.


----------



## Lisa P (Jun 15, 2005)

I have read this entire thread before responding. For those of you who have not, here is a wrap-up of the cans and can'ts without a SS#.
CAN:
Refuse to participate in the SS payout
Be a citizen
Get a Driver's License
Vote
Get a Passport
Get the Child Tax Credit (see top of pg. 3 for the "how to")
Work
Get an apartment
Get into college

CAN'T:
Refuse to pay the SS tax
take advantage of most welfare programs
PERHAPS CAN'T:
Get a credit card
Get a loan/mortgage, etc.
My dh and I chose not to get a SS# for our dd when she was born. Getting a SS# is the only contract you can legally force someone else into without their permission. It IS a contract. You cannot get out of it once you are in without renouncing citizenship and becoming an ex-pat. My dh and I both have one but we felt it was important for our dd to make her own choice someday. It's not living off the grid...we don't anyway. I'm in the legal profession and my dh holds a federal license for his business. It's simply agreeing with the following post:

In the words of one member:
"What I have a problem with is using the number for everything from tax deductions to student ID numbers. it is being used improperly and dangerously."

Most of my family was annihilated in Europe during WWII. They were identifiable and it was a police state. My ideal is to no longer be traceable. I am working toward that goal. Yes that goal means not being indebted to anyone (wouldn't that be great), not having my personal info of any kind floating around. In addition, I am a citizen of my state, my state is a member of a confederation. Our country was founded as, and still is, a republic...not a democracy (it is nowhere in our founding documents and it is not how we actually do things) and yet we are moving toward being a totally socialist society. I find it supremely sad that there are so many people who take such little personal responsibility for themselves that they rely on the government to take care of them in old age and, up until recently, our bankruptcy courts to discharge huge amounts of debt they were too irresponsible to not accumulate in many instances.

As a responsible member of society, I will be living off my own retirement fund, painstakingly saved over the course of my life. As a responsible member of society, I will be self insured so the government doesn't have to do it for me. As a responsible member of society, I will care for my elders rather than be annoyed that they can't care for themselves and foist them off on the government and its programs. As a responsible member of society, I will teach my children to do the same.

I will miss the 6.5% I pay into the system but I know it won't be there in 30 years. I will consider it a tax on our stupidity for thinking it will. However, I will be damned if I am going to allow my children to believe looking to the government is the answer. Personal responsibility is.
Side note: The reason the Amish don't have one, (aside from it being against their religion) is in part because they, as a community, have a commitment to caring for each other through their family and their church. No one in their community goes hungry or without medical care. Perhaps we should take them as an example and for those who need it, look to our smallest unit (the family) first, then to our churches/temples, neighborhoods, towns, state, etc. Not first to our federal government.


----------



## graciesma (Oct 16, 2005)

Right on ! We just had DD 2 months ago and im not getting her one. I will wait until she ie older to let her decide. I had my purse stolen and my ss card it was very easy to get a new one in fact eerily easy and to tell you the truth I wish I didnt have one the person racked up 12,000 dollars in debt that im trying to fix as we speak. As far as my babe we pay cash for doctor visits so no red tape with insurance. SS#s can be harmful if you examine it a little more.


----------



## ToniaStarr (Sep 27, 2005)

It is something I considered but right now the way we are living we really needed one more than not. (we fell into some rough times and needed state aid with food and cash for a little while so we needed to have them for our kids) DH and I do hope that at some point in the future we will be able to live self sufficient. His dream is a solar powered home and mine is a big ol veggie garden etc.... Even so , I would wanrt to be sure no problems come for my child. If mine needed to get one as an adult thjough, it is a fairly simple process. As far as the tax refund thing, I would forgo it and not give two hoots. I think you as the parent must make the choices YOU think are right as long as you are leaving an open door for your child as an adult. Isnt that the point of parenting alternativly? So we can raise children who are not little robots, who actually think for themselves. So if my child grows up not wanting a SS# or wanting one, I know he came to that choice through his own will power and thoughts.
Sorry you are being attacked about this. Seems silly to take it so personally. Its not liek you are taking away THEIr ss#.
I got the same slack doing a unassisted homebirth....people telling me I was risking the life of my child. Or unschooling. People telling me my kids would fall way behind and not get into college. Etc..... You do what is right for YOUR family and forget about the rest of the world. Isnt that the point? I find I am having to learn to shrug alot off recently the more off the beaten path I venture.
Tonia


----------



## Hells_Belle (Oct 16, 2005)

Well, since this topic has been bumped:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maryliz75*
To the OP....
No government is perfect, there are things that all of us disagree with, but in order to enjoy the freedoms of the USA, compared to the lack of in other countries, then you have to become a part of our system. You should not expect to live in the USA and enjoy the freedoms of our great country at no cost to you. We have become a part of the system and in turn enjoy our freedoms, what make you or anyone else that make the same choices as you so special?

This is seriously one of the most insular comments I've seen on MDC. I'm not sure you understood how that would read to someone outside the US when you wrote it. It's fine to be a flag waver, but seriously, have you ever read the constitution? Are you aware that the US Constitution is a set of rights given to the government by the people and not a set of freedoms people are allowed to have by the government?

And please don't compare the US to the rest of the world with smug superiority. The violation of civil liberties that takes places routinely every day in the US is nauseating. You have very little right to privacy any more, and your right to due process is seriously being eroded. I've lived in the UK and Ireland for a decade, and let me tell you, I've been way more free in both countries than I ever was in the US.


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

Oh, you said that well Hells_Bell.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
Velochic, I am very sorry that your mother only lives off of her paltry SS check. Her life choices made it that way. No one is to blame here other than your mother. She CHOSE not to save for her future.

Bailey228, this is an outrageous statement. You know nothing about Velochic's mother's situation. Has it ever ocurred to you that there are people who literally cannot afford to save money for their retirement? That there are people whose entire income go to rent, food and keeping their kids clothed? That there are people who are alone in old age, with no relatives to take them in?

Exactly how do you propose that such elderly people survive? Your arrogance is breathtaking.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa P*
My ideal is to no longer be traceable. I am working toward that goal. Yes that goal means not being indebted to anyone (wouldn't that be great), not having my personal info of any kind floating around.

I respect that you don't want to be part of any system. Perhaps you do or do not realize... every time you log on to MDC, make a connection on the internet, you are identifiying yourself and sending out your personal information. If you really don't want to be traceable, you shouldn't be using the internet. Each time you obtain and IP address to get on the internet, your provider knows that you are online. If you really want to be untraceable, you have to give up technology altogether. That's the tough part - it's all in, or all out, but there's no in between.

If you really live off the grid, you won't be here, right?


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Bailey228, this is an outrageous statement. You know nothing about Velochic's mother's situation. Has it ever ocurred to you that there are people who literally cannot afford to save money for their retirement? That there are people whose entire income go to rent, food and keeping their kids clothed? That there are people who are alone in old age, with no relatives to take them in?

Exactly how do you propose that such elderly people survive? Your arrogance is breathtaking.


Thank you, zinemama.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Hey, I'm about as anti-government as you can get.. but an ssn is one thing i agree with.


----------



## Hells_Belle (Oct 16, 2005)

*Bailey228*, you also pay into WIC and welfare, plus medicare/medicaid. Do you think these should be funded by private donation?


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
Velochic, I am very sorry that your mother only lives off of her paltry SS check. Her life choices made it that way. No one is to blame here other than your mother. She CHOSE not to save for her future. So please tell me, how is it MY responsibility to pay for your mother's mistakes?

Ummm.... no, I believe that in the 50 years that my mother worked to feed us she paid her own social security. You must be quite full of yourself to think that YOU personally are paying for my mother to eat in her last years on this earth.

And who, exactly are you to make such judgements, pray tell? Explain to me how she could save for her retirement when she has never even had health insurance. Life choices.... my mother is smart but nothing ever came her way to make a choice.


----------



## mamarhu (Sep 12, 2004)

I am back in the US these last 5 or 6 years for the primary purpose of caring for my elderly Mom. To do this well, I have needed to buy into the whole system, lock, stock, and barrel. I hate the sacrifices this is costing my kids. I have had to give up homeschooling, work away from my kids all day, and force them into a system I don't agree with. Sorry to be blunt, but when she dies, we're outta here. She knows this, and is helping us plan and prepare for our next home - perhaps Peru.

I don't mean it to sound like I think I am a martyr - I love every day I have with my Mom, and I know I have made the right decision.







But my Mom gets Social Security and VA benefits and still could not possibly live on that income. She did it all by the plan of the Great American Dream - worked all her life, lived reasonably frugally, tried to save. And, frankly, it just doesn't work.

I don't have more freedom here than I had in other countries I have lived in - in fact quite the opposite. My Dumplings and I are forced into a whole lifestyle I never planned. I have less privacy than I had in a tiny gossipy village in Mexico. There, if I paid my rent no one asked where my money came from. Here, to rent this apartment, I have to document income, provide references, act in certain ways, park in the right space, and on and on. For medical care here, insurance is essential because the prices are outrageous. In some other places I have lived, I could afford to simply go to a dentist if I had a toothache. Maybe $20 to have a cavity filled. I know that was beyond the reach of most of my neighbors, but it worked for me well enough that I could (and did) pay for my neighbor to get work on her teeth as well.

I don't mean to be ranting against America. It is a system that works for some people, not so well for others. But I am looking forward to checking out of this whole program when I can. The deeper I get entrenched in this system, the more complicated it will be to get out.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hells_Belle*
*Bailey228*, you also pay into WIC and welfare, plus medicare/medicaid. Do you think these should be funded by private donation?

I can't answer for Bailey228, but I certainly do think that those programs should be funder by private charities, rather than garnishing the wages of those citizens who don't care to donate.
I would continue to donate what I can to charity, even if it wasn't stolen from my paychecks... in fact, I would have more money available for charities if I wasn't forced to give up a portion of my income to government 'programs' I may not wish to support.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hells_Belle*
Well, since this topic has been bumped:

This is seriously one of the most insular comments I've seen on MDC. I'm not sure you understood how that would read to someone outside the US when you wrote it. It's fine to be a flag waver, but seriously, have you ever read the constitution? Are you aware that the US Constitution is a set of rights given to the government by the people and not a set of freedoms people are allowed to have by the government?

And please don't compare the US to the rest of the world with smug superiority. The violation of civil liberties that takes places routinely every day in the US is nauseating. You have very little right to privacy any more, and your right to due process is seriously being eroded. I've lived in the UK and Ireland for a decade, and let me tell you, I've been way more free in both countries than I ever was in the US.

Thanks so much for making this point. So many people seem to forget that our rights are not GIVEN to us by the government. The government cannot take them away without going contrary to the spirit of our Constitution and even the Declaration of Independence. That's the big difference, what makes our country special (or used to, at least).


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Bailey228, this is an outrageous statement. You know nothing about Velochic's mother's situation. Has it ever ocurred to you that there are people who literally cannot afford to save money for their retirement? That there are people whose entire income go to rent, food and keeping their kids clothed? That there are people who are alone in old age, with no relatives to take them in?

Exactly how do you propose that such elderly people survive? Your arrogance is breathtaking.

Again, I won't try to speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that the point here, as I see it, is not that people who have hard luck should not be given help.... The point is, that help they receive should be from family, friends, and people who WILLING wish to help. At the risk of repeating myself from a previous post, it is THEFT to forceably take from others what you need, regardless of how much you need it. (And yes, it is forceable theft- that's why the IRS guys come with guns when you don't 'willingly' pay taxes.)

I agree that there are many, many people who have bad luck, or are victims of circumstance... and I think it is a very, very wonderful thing to help those you wish to help. I consider myself a very generous person, and I help people when I can all the time. BUT, that has to be a personal choice made WILLINGLY in order for there to to be any virtue in it.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I really never expected to find the "if yeeou don't likes this countree, well then getcha outta here thens" arguement on MDC. Maybe I am naive. I agree with much of what CaorlynRosa has said in her posts, and frankly, I thought many replies were really snarky toward her opinions on ssn's.

There are people out there convicted of raping children who spend less time in jail than people who evade taxes. This government is very powerful, very corrupt, and very ugly.

Regardless of that, I am still a citizen of this country and the constitution still affords me the right (somewhat) to speak my mind about my opinion of the state of this country. What suprises me though, is finding so many people (on here) who are so terrified of doing something that the government says they shouldn't or vice versa, and will openly insult and condemn someone who goes against the grain a bit (I am speaking of some of the sentiments against the OP).


----------



## Hells_Belle (Oct 16, 2005)

Wow, I'm just really flabbergasted. I thought MDC was the last place I'd see people arguing against social welfare systems to support people living in poverty.

I can't even compose a reply because that's just so far outside my own thinking. I understand the POV, but I just can't get my head into that way of thinking.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
the point here, as I see it, is not that people who have hard luck should not be given help.... The point is, that help they receive should be from family, friends, and people who WILLING wish to help..

And if they have no family? Or if no one is "willing"? What happens then?

Surely you know that there are plenty of people in this world that no one is willing to help.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hells_Belle*
Wow, I'm just really flabbergasted. I thought MDC was the last place I'd see people arguing against social welfare systems to support people living in poverty.

I can't even compose a reply because that's just so far outside my own thinking. I understand the POV, but I just can't get my head into that way of thinking.









:

I'm disappointed too







To me, this attitude smacks of someone who's had a pretty good life with lots of good fortune (good fortune not meaning $$, but opportunity, love and security) It's sad, but I think there is a lot of bias that comes with a fortunate life ~ you overemphasize your own role in where you've gotten to, underemphasize the role that luck plays, and perceive that those with less fortune somehow worked less or deserve it less.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Um, just to clarify , I'm NOT referring to the attitude of Hells_Belle, but rather the attitude of those who feel that people living in poverty should have somehow prepared for their future themselves or looked to family members.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hells_Belle*
Wow, I'm just really flabbergasted. I thought MDC was the last place I'd see people arguing against social welfare systems to support people living in poverty.

I'm not surprised at all. That attitude is a very Libertarian one, and there are lots of Libertarian types here. It's not an attitude I agree with, but it doesn't surprise me at all.

Namaste!


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

i have only made it to page 3, but has anyone checked the archives? i know we've discussed this here, but can't remember if it was pre- or post- crash.

ps carolyn, i get what you are saying, but i choose to fight the ss system without throwing up too many other obstacles in my path. it is easier to concentrate on being an activist while being a parent (for me) from the inside. if you choose the long road of civil disobedience more power to you, but i just wanted to point out that even if one doesn't opt out there are ways to still fight.

(good luck though, it's always fun to be treated as someone who wants old people to be exposed on a mountain because i acknowledge that ponzi scheme for what it is & want it privatized.)

susan


----------



## laralou (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hells_Belle*
Wow, I'm just really flabbergasted. I thought MDC was the last place I'd see people arguing against social welfare systems to support people living in poverty.

I can't even compose a reply because that's just so far outside my own thinking. I understand the POV, but I just can't get my head into that way of thinking.


Me too. With so many injustices fueled by our tax dollars, people are arguing that ss dollars/welfare shouldn't be offered???!!! I am flabbergasted. Sad.


----------



## Hells_Belle (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I'm not surprised at all. That attitude is a very Libertarian one, and there are lots of Libertarian types here. It's not an attitude I agree with, but it doesn't surprise me at all.

Namaste!

Yeah, I thought about that aspect, since it is pretty clear that's where the ideaology of some of this is coming from. In practice, it looks like economic Darwinism in tie dye to me. There's no way I can get on board with that.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laralou*
people are arguing that ss dollars/welfare shouldn't be offered???!!!


'offered'? ss is not supposed to be the government's noblesse oblige; it is supposed to be the return of investments that were paid into it. no more, no less. it is not their/your money to 'offer'. you are attempting to turn the argument that money (forcibly & ostensibly) 'invested' for people's retirement ought to be given back to them, into 'you want old people to die!' there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere...

it has little or nothing to do with welfare (or should.). one argument at a time, por favor.

privatizing ss makes pols nervous, not because they are worried about old people, but because they would have to stop 'borrowing' from a corrupt system. (if you consider the monies are being borrowed to finance things like our nasty little war, does it click yet?)

is disparaging & mischaracterizing the political beliefs of a minority consistant with the UA? ad hominem arguments ('well, she's a libertarian- you know how THEY are') seem to be permissible, if you pick your target well. i wouldn't say rude things about democrats or republicans in general here, knowing & respecting many irl even if we disagree about a particular issue. i request the same respect.

susan


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *suseyblue*
('well, she's a libertarian- you know how THEY are')

Since I am the only one who has used the word Libertarian, I'm wondering if this is directed at me. I never said anything disparaging about Libertarians. It's a set of political beliefs to which I don't subscribe, but all I said is that I am not surprised to hear a Libertarian view expressed on MDC.

Namaste!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I agree susey...people like to put people into little boxes where they define who they are with only little information about what they truly believe. I am neither republican, democrat, libertarian, etc... I am an AMERICAN, and as an American, I can subscribe to whatever belief system I choose, even if it doesn't fit into someone's pre-defined label of who I should be based on the things I believe.

I think the issue (well from where I stand anyway) is not that people mind paying taxes so much, it is that they have absolutely no control over where those taxes go. It is a modern "taxation without representation" situation, where people are paying taxes that fund things they are adamantly against -- all the while, the government restricts their rights as citizens, doesn't help them when they are in trouble (Katrina anyone?) and forces them to fund illegal wars in countries they don't belong in among many other things.


----------



## carolynrosa (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
And if they have no family? Or if no one is "willing"? What happens then?

Surely you know that there are plenty of people in this world that no one is willing to help.

So, if you 'need' food, and your neighbor in not 'willing' to share with you, am I to suppose you think you have a 'right' to that food? Would you break into her home with a gun and take it, because you 'need' it?
Or are you saying that is different? Because when the government acts on your behalf and takes some of this person's income by force, that is the same thing, theft. And yes, it is you who who are initiating force, by asking the government to steal for you.

-and another thing-

People here seem to think I must be a rather negative person or something, like I'm against charity somehow or something. But what's really sad, is all of you who seem to believe that if people were not forced to 'help' through threats of violence and jail, that no one would help. That's a really sad veiw of the world.
And yes, look at Katrina. Who got in there and gave and helped the most, and with the least bureaucratic bullshit? Was it FEMA (who deliberately turned away people bringing food and water, and cut the local police communications lines so that they could have power over everything and everyone) or was is the generous average citizen, who helped not under threat, but out of compassion?
When I took in 12 people from the storm (and their many, many pets), I did not do that because it was my obligation or duty. I did that because they needed help and I WANTED to help. We were donated an extra apartment in town (free of rent) from a local man to 'wanted' to help. We were given meals from neighbors who 'wanted' to help. THAT is charity, and THAT is VIRTUOUS. I would not have accepted that help if there had been a metaphorical gun to their skulls.

It is in people's nature to help. It benifits us all to help one another when we can. (it the game of non-zero sumness) To assume that without the threat of violence, we would all sit around waiting for everyone else to die out is contrary to evolution. Yes, there is the theory of survival of the fittest, but you have to also take into account that we all have a biological drive to continue the species. If we did not help each other willingly, as we always have in the past, our species would have already died out.

Anyway. I realise that many people get very emotional when it comes to getting assistance for those who need it. But that is not an excuse for blurring the distinctions of 'right and wrong' to suit your needs. If you believe that is it ever okay to take something that does not belong to you, then please don't claim to be morally superior to those of us who don't.

-edited to add-
Yes, I have changed topics a bit. I am arguing about welfare programs. (Just for clarification to those who like to differentiate between the social security scheme and the welfare programs.)


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
People here seem to think I must be a rather negative person or something, like I'm against charity somehow or something. But what's really sad, is all of you who seem to believe that if people were not forced to 'help' through threats of violence and jail, that no one would help. That's a really sad veiw of the world.
And yes, look at Katrina. Who got in there and gave and helped the most, and with the least bureaucratic bullshit? Was it FEMA (who deliberately turned away people bringing food and water, and cut the local police communications lines so that they could have power over everything and everyone) or was is the generous average citizen, who helped not under threat, but out of compassion?

People are a lot more motivated to help out when there is some disaster that's "out of the ordinary" and whose victims are "innocent." Most people are not so inclined to help with the more omnipresent and intractible social issues that plague our country. You don't see millions of people rushing to send food, clothes, and money to the poorest of the poor in Mott Haven, NYC.

I don't necessarily believe that government programs funded by tax monies are very efficient. However, before we had taxes and government-funded social programs, things were not better. People were not rushing to help the poor then, either. The haves continually and egregiously abused the have-nots. I can't think of any time in history when the haves have really worked hard on behalf of the have-nots just because they have a social conscience. Our government started enacting social programs in the early part of the last century BECAUSE things like the problems described in Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ were happening. People were being worked 60 to 80 hours a week and were not paid anything even approaching a wage they could survive on. It continues today with our $5.25 minimum wage. You don't see big corporations running out to give the working poor a leg up just because it's the right thing to do.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not "let's just hope that those in need have people to help them out." Generally, the people who are in need are there in large part because they DON'T have those people.

Namaste!


----------



## Hells_Belle (Oct 16, 2005)

Considering the government the US elected last time (or didn't elect, or whatever) I have to say my faith in the bountiless goodness of the American people _as a body_ has pretty much been shattered. I also don't believe that if social welfare programs ceased to be federally funded, the luncheon crowd in Beverly Hills would be organising Meals on Wheels for their neighbours in Watts.

*carolynrosa*, if you wouldn't mind having your brain picked for a minute? Just as a practical matter, since I have no idea about this, if there were no federal taxes, how would things like the FDA and the Army Crops of Engineers get funded? Or would they just not need to exist?

[crossposted with *dharmamama*, who said what I was trying to say, but better!]


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Carolynrosa, that was very eloquent about the generosity of the American people during times of disaster. But as pp pointed out, people are much more inclined to assist hapless, innocent victims in a dramatic, out-of-the ordinary situation.

I'm still interested in the answer to my question: in your scenario, what happens to the needy folks who people are unwilling to help? To those who have no relatives to take them in?


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
I'm still interested in the answer to my question: in your scenario, what happens to the needy folks who people are unwilling to help? To those who have no relatives to take them in?

I think carolynrosa and I have very similar beliefs on this issue, but I am not trying to speak for her here. Is that person a member of a church? Gee I seem to remeber as a kid helping my mom make meals for people who were sick or injured or out of a job. This was a program that our church had created. The red cross and the salvation army are both private charities and they do way more good than the government will ever be able to do. If regular people wern't taxed and they had more money to donate, people would donate more. Some people are saying that the rich won't help out their poor neighbors. Umm actually THEY DO! Have you ever heard of a philanthropist? There are plenty of rich people who donate money to charities. Big businesses do it too. Why? because they get more than the "warm fuzzy feeling" by doing it, they get to put out commercials telling their consumers "Look how good of a company we are, look how much we care, we donate millions of dollars to charities every year". Do you donate to charites? How about the people you know? I sure do and I know everyone else in my family does. Why do you think so poorly of people that you seem to think we don't care enough to find a way to help people. Some were saying "we only donate in times of disasters". No we don't. People are donating money every single day. People donate food to homeless shelters. People donate clothes and warm coats so the poor don't have to worry about keeping warm in the cold. Schools regularly hold can food drives for the local people who need help feeding their families. Don't try to tell me that people are so horrible they only help if forced to (by taxation). Mabye I'm the only optomistic one here who likes to see the good in people and trust that people in general will do the right thing.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Bailey228, this is an outrageous statement. You know nothing about Velochic's mother's situation. Has it ever ocurred to you that there are people who literally cannot afford to save money for their retirement? That there are people whose entire income go to rent, food and keeping their kids clothed? That there are people who are alone in old age, with no relatives to take them in?

Exactly how do you propose that such elderly people survive? Your arrogance is breathtaking.

Haha apparently you never finished reading that particular post, because the very next paragraph I stated that some people do have hard times and that No i don't think they should be punished for it. There are private charities that will help people like that. Yes HER CHOICES put her in this situation! I stand by that no matter what anyone thinks of my opinion. You seem to think that I'm some spoiled rich b*tch. No, my family has had to WORK for everything they have. It would be arrogant for me to say that my dad is just smarter than her mother and so he managed to get himself out of poverty because he knew how to. It's not that he was any smarter than the average person, he just realized that if he wanted a real future he had to work for it. All of his money was going to food, housing and clothing, but somehow he managed to just not spend so much on that stuff so he could save for himself going to college to get a real job, for his retirement, for both mine and my sister's college. He saved for all of this while we was working for minimum wage at an auto parts store. You can not try to tell me that he was just lucky or had an opportunity. PEOPLE CREATE THEIR OWN OPPORTUNITIES! No one can HAND you an opportunity. Sorry life just doesn't work that way. You get back what you put in. No one handed my dad the desire to stop drinking and go back to college to become an engineer. Today, I have learned from my dad how to save even if you don't have a lot. The entirety of my husband's and my income goes to pay for food and housing. We still save. How? well we don't spend money on frivilous things, we don't eat out, we don't go to the movies. Our entire month's food bill is 100 dollars. I understand what it's like to not have much money at all. We are in that position right now. And no matter how bad it gets, I personally have enough respect for my fellow citizens to learn how to support myself rather than use the government to steal your money. How dare you call me arrogant. I only speak from experience. So yes, her mother CHOSE not to save.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

If some churches, some regular folks and some philanthropists are doing all these great things you mention, why are there still people in need? Why are there families faced with the choice of food or electricity? Why are there elderly people who must choose between food and medicines?

Do you honestly believe that if we take away the minimal safety net now in place (Social Security) more people and institutions will just naturally step into the breach? And help everyone? For the first time in our nation's history? I just don't buy that.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

And yes I am a libertarian and I am damn proud of it. A libertarians belief is that no one can use force apon another person for ANY reason. Other people seem to think that using force is ok as long as it's helping other people. Robin hood was a criminal!!!


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
If some churches, some regular folks and some philanthropists are doing all these great things you mention, why are there still people in need? Why are there families faced with the choice of food or electricity? Why are there elderly people who must choose between food and medicines?

Do you honestly believe that if we take away the minimal safety net now in place (Social Security) more people and institutions will just naturally step into the breach? And help everyone? For the first time in our nation's history? I just don't buy that.

We do not live in a utopia. I'm sorry it will never happen. There will always be people in need. Yes if people wern't taxed so much, they would give more money. The ammount of money that people donate is directly connected to the ammount that they have. My husband and I pay hundreds of dollars a month in taxes. Including sales taxes and the price increase of goods that companies must charge to cover THEIR taxes, among many many other taxes well over 70% of our income is going to the government. If we had that money back, you better believe that we would be donating a heck of a lot more to charities that actually HELP people. A private charity is always more effective than a government program. Private charities help many more people than the government. Also another thing to think about, government does not create change. They didn't just decide to start welfare programs. No people demaded them because they cared and wanted to help but didn't know how so they made the government help. People are the ones that cared enough to get welfare programs in place. On a side note, who here knows that social security was A. NOT meant as a retirement program, and B was only supposed to be temporary?? That's not something they want to teach you in schools.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Income tax was supposed to be temporary too...and is still technically *voluntary*...try telling that to the IRS.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Income tax was supposed to be temporary too...and is still technically *voluntary*...try telling that to the IRS.























yeah and watch and see how quickly they come and arrest you. Poor larkin rose, he lost, now his wife is on trial...


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
There will always be people in need.

You say that as though that is just a fact we have to throw up our hands about. "Oh well, there will always be people in need, too bad." That's not a good enough answer to me. Even with a framework of government AND private charities, we are not reaching everyone. Not even close. Ditching the government part and saying, "Well, at least no one is robbing me to help other people" is not a solution to me. In Thomas More's Utopia, he writes about how there is no glory in ruling a nation of beggars. The glory comes from a nation's prosperity. In my mind, a nation cannot be prosperous if its government gives the bird to anyone who doesn't succeed in a capitalist environment, which is INHERENTLY, by it's VERY NATURE, shaped like a pyramid. And the rich are NOT at that wide bottom. I wholeheartedly believe that any government worth the title of "civilized" has a responsibility to the welfare of its people, and especially the most vulnerable. I am not ok with a country saying, "Too bad for you, pull yourself up by your d*mn bootstraps." I have worked for a number of private charities, and to they are completely, utterly, undeniably swamped by the demand for their services is a vast understatement. Putting more money in people's pockets and saying, "Here, donate this to offset the huge sucking sound that is the government removing all social funds" will result in one thing: fewer people getting help. If you put more money in people's pockets, they are more likely to spend it on themselves than on others. Indeed, Bush based his entire "tax rebate" of several years ago on that premise. He didn't give families $600 so the could donate it to charity. He gave it to them because he knew they would buy stuff with it.

Quote:

No one can HAND you an opportunity.
Not true. People absolutely can be handed opportunties. The non-poor benefit from the opportunities they have never had to work for every day.

Namaste!


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Not true. People absolutely can be handed opportunties. The non-poor benefit from the opportunities they have never had to work for every day.

Acutally yes it is. Even people born into rich families have to recognize the opportunities they have. There are opportunities surrounding every person, it's just a matter if they are willing to recognize them or not. I promise no one will walk up to you and say "here have an opportunity". And opportunity does not just mean money. The greatest opportunity I've gotten in my life is having incredible parents that taught me how to work hard for what I have.

And no I don't say that there will always be needy people as if we shoud give up, right after I said it I stated how to help more people. It's just a fact of life. It is something you have to realize while you try your best to help those that you can help.

I'm so sorry that I can't justify theft like the rest of you can. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I stole from someone else to get what I wanted in life. Theft in ANY form is wrong.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Phew. I can't believe I read the whole thread, but I did! Really interesting.

I understand the concern about the misuse of ssn's, yet not enough to ever think of going without one. Just as one can trust one's neighbor, we have to be able to trust our gov't to some extent as well. I remember watching an interview of some ex-FBI guy and he was laughing at the notion that people felt watched by the gov't. He said that their surveillance equipment was so few and cost-prohibitive that they're probably not going to tap your phone or whatever. But I don't want to diminish people's experiences with true run-ins with gov't which I know mdc'ers have experienced. I also don't believe in blind loyalty either.

I wanted to chime in about the libertarian view v. pro-social services view. I flirted with libertarianism for like 2 seconds in high school, but came to my senses. There are a lot of reasons why I don't think the libertarian view works. I think most libertarians misunderstand liberty. It's not something that's given by some natural right. Our earliest societies were ALL built on master/slave relationships. Liberty has been hard-earned by the slow progress of democracies that have become progressively socialized.

Look at early America when there were NO social programs, no minimum wages, no nothing to protect the poor of this country. Carnegie owned 70% of America and Morgan owned the rest (the figures are made up, but are probably not too far off). They paid workers a few dollars a day, 16 hour days, 6,7 day weeks, back-breaking labor. Children were often forced to work to help make ends meet. And on top of it, the workers were often forced to live in shelters provided by the company, and were charged exorbitant rents and prices at the company store. You could work your a** off all your life and live a short, brutal existence. When the union tried to organize, the corporations actually had the right to use force to stop them - actually killed workers with impunity. Without government intervention, the greed of a few would dominate the misfortune of the many. I guess to libertarians, that sounds like skepticism of human nature, but I say that it's a valid, well-supported skepticism. There's a place for that and another place for genuine compassion and optimism.

It's not like I need big brother to watch over my personal life. But I do want/need a watch dog to protect my interests as a citizen. Another quick example. The days of "patents". In the early 1900's companies started making these cure-alls that were often 50% morphine. Kids were often "dosed" with these patents. There was no law that forced companies to list ingredients on these patents. Now I can be a good-hearted person all I want to be, but there's no way that I could know what the heck was in these bottles. Same with the FDA. Aren't you glad that there's an agency that monitors what goes in our food? They're not perfect, but at least we know if there's heroine in the cough drops. If the gov't doesn't do it, who will? Does some individual wake up one morning and say I'll do that. And then what sort of power does he/she have to enforce what companies put in food?

I also support social service programs. I wish my mom had gone on welfare when we were growing up. She thought she had to do it all. A year after we came to the US my dad was in an accident that left him paraplegic, and she had to step up to the role of provider without ever having worked. Without any english, she worked, raised 3 kids, took care of my dad, and helped us all through college. We all graduated. All her jobs were crap jobs too, as she is not educated. The whole experience really broke her. She's in an assisted living program now because she had a break down a few years ago. I feel that if she could have allowed herself help in the early years, her life would have been much different. And yes, we kids did try to "do it ourselves" too. She lived with me for a while, but what do I know how to treat psychosis, etc.? She was starving herself to death among other very destructive things, so I had to get her help.

I usually don't try to judge people, and I hope I haven't. But I gotta tell you, the smug libertarian attitude really gets to me.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay*
I think most libertarians misunderstand liberty. It's not something that's given by some natural right. Our earliest societies were ALL built on master/slave relationships. Liberty has been hard-earned by the slow progress of democracies that have become progressively socialized.

It's not like I need big brother to watch over my personal life. But I do want/need a watch dog to protect my interests as a citizen. Another quick example. The days of "patents". In the early 1900's companies started making these cure-alls that were often 50% morphine. Kids were often "dosed" with these patents. There was no law that forced companies to list ingredients on these patents. Now I can be a good-hearted person all I want to be, but there's no way that I could know what the heck was in these bottles. Same with the FDA. Aren't you glad that there's an agency that monitors what goes in our food? They're not perfect, but at least we know if there's heroine in the cough drops. If the gov't doesn't do it, who will? Does some individual wake up one morning and say I'll do that. And then what sort of power does he/she have to enforce what companies put in food?

I usually don't try to judge people, and I hope I haven't. But I gotta tell you, the smug libertarian attitude really gets to me.

This first paragraph has gotta be the funniest thing I've seen all day! Do you think that governments just decided to give people rights???







Think again hun. You are the one that doesn't understand how rights work. PEOPLE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THEIR RIGHTS! They demanded that government recognize their rights. The government didn't just one day say "well we're gonna be a democracy and give people some rights". People are not GIVEN rights, not by a government and not just by being born human. People get rights by fighting for them! They know what they deserve and they will give their lives rather than let someone take away what they feel is precious to them. THAT is the ONLY way that people have ever gotten rights, by fighting for them.

You don't need government to have regulations for companies. A private company can inspect quality and safety of foods and Drugs to make sure no one is putting in anything dangerous. Then that company that is selling the product can advertise to it's consumers that they have certified their product through XYZ company and it is proven safe by XYZ's company standards. If you are scared of ingesting something dangerous, don't buy from someone that didn't certify their product. This actually happens today belive it or not. In web design/programming, there is an organization called W3C. They set standards for code that all designers/programmers should use and that all internet browsers should use to display pages. No one forces anyone to follow these standards, but many many people do because they recognize that if they do, they will produce a quality product. Many companies advertise their browsers as being standards compliant (the W3C set standards) so that people will know that pages on the internet will dispaly correctly in their browser.

This last line that you wrote WAS intended to judge and you know it. Please explain to me how I am smug. And if you can, please explain to me how you are NOT smug for thinking that what YOU think is right. Go ahead, I'm listening.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
This last line that you wrote WAS intended to judge and you know it. Please explain to me how I am smug. And if you can, please explain to me how you are NOT smug for thinking that what YOU think is right. Go ahead, I'm listening.











love and peace.


----------



## Hells_Belle (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
I'm so sorry that I can't justify theft like the rest of you can. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I stole from someone else to get what I wanted in life. Theft in ANY form is wrong.

Did someone say "smug"?

I don't think accusing the non-Libertarians of "theft" is really progressing your arguments much, but that's just me.

My POV: The Fedaral government requires payment of taxes as they're entitled to under under the Sixteenth Amendment:

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If I pay taxes because I am legally required to, that is not theft. If the government throws me in jail for not paying taxes, that is not theft. If the government divvies up tax money for social welfare programmes, that's not theft, and if I recieve those monies, that is not theft, either.

There's an amendment to the constitution right there that says they can do that. Now, if you don't think that amendment is constitutional, you can lobby against it and mount a legal battle to get it repealed. Or, you know, go take over the state of Montana or whatever the Free State plan currently is.

As a case in point, I don't think regular citizens should be able to carry guns of any kind. However, the 2nd Amendment says otherwise:

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, even though I think they're harmful, I strongly believe that people have this right and that to protect the integrity of the constitution, this right must be defended. It is both my right and my responsibility (if I care enough) to lobby for a change to that amendment, not to just ignore the amendment because I don't like it.

And I gotta say, the 2nd is a _lot_ less clear than the 16th. But I prefer to err on the side of strict constitutional interpretation.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Bailey, are you willing to explain to us why you think that things would be different without government taxation/assistance now than they were in years past?

Namaste!


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hells_Belle*
I don't think accusing the non-Libertarians of "theft" is really progressing your arguments much, but that's just me.

First of all, thanks but I don't need an education on what's in the constitution, I've already done that for myself. I don't know if you realize this, but the constitution means absolute crap today. There are sooo many laws that are an infringement on our basic rights that are stated in the constitution that really it is worthless. Constitutions don't give people rights, only their willingness to defend their rights does. People today hand over their rights left and right to the governement. So no, if they gave them up, they don't have any rights, a piece of paper can not protect you.

I am not accusing non-libertarians of theft. No one in my family is a libertarian and they do not steal. The only people who I accuse of stealing are those who justify getting what they want out of life by using the government to take money out of the pockets of others. If you don't like someone and you hire a few thugs to go out and kill that person, are you guilty of murder even though you didn't personally go out and commit that crime? Of course you are, you can not use force apon someone else by any means, whether that is actually commiting the act of force yourself or hiring someone else to do it for you. The people who support government welfare are using the government to go out and steal from others the exact same as if they had hired someone to go kill someone else.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Bailey, are you willing to explain to us why you think that things would be different without government taxation/assistance now than they were in years past?

Sure! Why do you think that we have welfare today? Did the government just decide one day to start caring about people and give them money? The government doesn't change people, people change the government. Back during the depression is when many of the welfare programs we have today were started. The depression was a terrible time in history and there were lots of people suffering. Those people looked around for someone to blame and spotted the government and they cried "YOU! YOU DIDN'T PROTECT US!" People's mindsets changed and then they expected the government to take on the extra duty of providing a standard of living to it's citizens. That is not a government's intended job. The government is supposed to be there to protect it's citizens from others using force apon them whether from outside invaders or from each other commiting crimes apon each other. That's it. But people were so insistant that the government do something to help so they did. Over the years this "help" has only made the government more corrupt and bigger and stronger to the point where people no longer rule the government like they are supposed to, the government rules the people. So how do I know that people are kind and generous enough to provide voluntarily help to those that need it? Because first of all, we wouldn't have welfare today if people didn't care enough about others to want to do something. Welfare is something citizens created, not the government. Also I see the proof right here. There are so many of you who care enough about others that you're concerned that if the government stopped providing welfare to people that need it, that they would suffer. All of you care enough about helping other people that I know there are enough good people out there who will donate time, money, food, and clothing to people that have fallen on hard times. I may disagree with a lot of you on how exactly to help people, but you are my proof that we don't need to use the government to FORCE people to help.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carolynrosa*
Well, my DH decided that if that's the case, we simply will not get the tax refund. Bummer, but oh, well.
And you can work in the US without a SSN; the difficult thing is to find an employer who will hire you. Some employers don't pay taxes anyway (since they're unconstititional), but that's a whole other pickle....
Egads, I bet I just opened a whole other can of worms.... If anyone is so inclined, you can find plenty on info on the subject on income taxes neing unconstitutional by doing a search. Or renting "The Truth About the Income Tax."

Yikes. No one likes taxes - but, are there not some public works that you benefit from? Roads maybe? I recall my BIL had this same opinion and burned his SS card - but was pretty happy that medical care was available for his kids when they were sick? I love my BIL - but remember thinking - its a good thing that I am paying taxes otherwise my nephews would have no medical care?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
And if they have no family? Or if no one is "willing"? What happens then?

Surely you know that there are plenty of people in this world that no one is willing to help.









:


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

When did I say government granted us those rights? I'm thinking more in terms of the French and American Revolution when people died for freedoms. Those were democratic movements; not libertarian. You make a distinction between the gov't granting us rights and giving us the right to defend them. Actually, it is the law that gives us rights, and the government's role to enforce them. It is the law that grants us rights; no person grants them to me. That would be a monarchy. To shift the grantor to the law makes it impersonal and equal to everyone. But we leave it up to the gov't to enforce those laws, lest vigilantes run amock. Tell me you don't believe that citizens should take to the streets and hang those whom they think have wronged them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
You don't need government to have regulations for companies. A private company can inspect quality and safety of foods and Drugs to make sure no one is putting in anything dangerous. Then that company that is selling the product can advertise to it's consumers that they have certified their product through XYZ company and it is proven safe by XYZ's company standards. If you are scared of ingesting something dangerous, don't buy from someone that didn't certify their product. This actually happens today belive it or not. In web design/programming, there is an organization called W3C. They set standards for code that all designers/programmers should use and that all internet browsers should use to display pages. No one forces anyone to follow these standards, but many many people do because they recognize that if they do, they will produce a quality product. Many companies advertise their browsers as being standards compliant (the W3C set standards) so that people will know that pages on the internet will dispaly correctly in their browser.

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that corporations should regulate themselves? You want to show that corporations can actually do this by giving a small, esoteric example. But I think we both know that leaving corporations to regulate themselves would be a disaster. Look at Enron. I think the way you feel about corporations is how I feel about government. They may not always or even mostly get it right, but are necessary and are usually trustworthy if they have a good track record. The way you feel about goverment is how I feel about corporations. They are never going to look out after my interest. When money is on the line, they are never going to look after consumer interest unless their forced to.

But I'd like you to also address the times before there were regulatory laws. Why did no regulation not work in the 20's and 30's? Why has our way of life expotentially become better once minimum wages and social programs were put into effect? The American economy boomed even after these programs were put into place.

The last line was egregious, I admit, but I am not the winner of the 'who can judge the most' contest.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Putting more money in people's pockets and saying, "Here, donate this to offset the huge sucking sound that is the government removing all social funds" will result in one thing: fewer people getting help. If you put more money in people's pockets, they are more likely to spend it on themselves than on others. Indeed, Bush based his entire "tax rebate" of several years ago on that premise. He didn't give families $600 so the could donate it to charity. He gave it to them because he knew they would buy stuff with it.

Ok, so not everyone will donate money directly to help people who need it, I know that. But whenever you spend money on anything, you are helping people who need help. The more money that is being spent in the economy means a stronger economy. A stronger economy means that there are more jobs for people available. Meaning someone who didn't have a job before now has a way to work and support their family because someone used that $600 to buy a new tv. Also a stonger economy means that employers can pay higher wages to it's workers. In a poor economy, people just can't get paid as well because the people employing them can't afford to pay them more. What makes an employer willingly pay people more without government force (like raising minimum wages)? There is a saying that many of us go by and that is "you get what you pay for". If they aren't willing to pay fair wages, they will either have very bad workers who aren't productive for their company, or they won't get anyone to work at all. They will all go work for the person willing to pay them what they're worth. We do that today. If you are working somewhere that isn't paying you what you are worth, you will go work for someone else. Even if a bad company does get people to work for them for less than what they should be paid, it is those worker's choice to stay working there. Obviously it isn't that bad or they wouldn't keep doing it. For some people, just being able to work for less money is better than having no job at all.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
Back during the depression is when many of the welfare programs we have today were started. The depression was a terrible time in history and there were lots of people suffering. Those people looked around for someone to blame and spotted the government and they cried "YOU! YOU DIDN'T PROTECT US!" People's mindsets changed and then they expected the government to take on the extra duty of providing a standard of living to it's citizens.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, but I see that as quite a misrepresentation of what actually happened. You also didn't actually answer me as to how things would actually be better for poor people now than they were from day one of this country (and maybe from day one of civilization), when poor people lived in squalor and were basically treated as untouchables. I'm looking for what, specifically, has changed in people to make it such that the things that went in in the past, before government social programs, wouldn't happen again if government programs no longer existed. I don't buy the idea that suddenly, for the first time in human history, people are going to go running out and provide for the needs of your average poor person, a person who is not the unfortunate victim of some sort of major catastrophe such as the stock market crash or Hurricane Katrina. People in general tend mainly to villify those who are merely poor while sainting those whose misfortune is seen as something outside their immediate control. I have seen it in your posts, and I disagree with you that simply because people at MDC, which, as we know is not a representative sampling of the population, express kindness and good will toward others, we would be able to meet all this nation's social needs privately. We never have, and if you could show me why we would now rather than simply stating that it will happen because people will donate money, I'd be interested to read that.

Do you believe that people of today have changed so much that they would be willing to do, privately, what the people of 100 years ago weren't?

Namaste!


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay*
When did I say government granted us those rights? I'm thinking more in terms of the French and American Revolution when people died for freedoms. Those were democratic movements; not libertarian. You make a distinction between the gov't granting us rights and giving us the right to defend them. Actually, it is the law that gives us rights, and the government's role to enforce them. It is the law that grants us rights; no person grants them to me. That would be a monarchy. To shift the grantor to the law makes it impersonal and equal to everyone. But we leave it up to the gov't to enforce those laws, lest vigilantes run amock. Tell me you don't believe that citizens should take to the streets and hang those whom they think have wronged them.

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that corporations should regulate themselves? You want to show that corporations can actually do this by giving a small, esoteric example. But I think we both know that leaving corporations to regulate themselves would be a disaster.

Your first paragraph is really rather confusing. First you agree with me on saying that people got rights by figting for them, then you say that people get rights from the law (which is government by the way, the government makes the laws). So which one do you beleive? And this really isn't about political parties, it is about beliefs. The government when it was first created is definatly one I would have wanted to live in. The government today bears no resemblance to that. And FYI, this is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy.

And really? I gave a small esoteric example like the entire internet world wide? Wow I didn't realize that the internet that almost every person uses every day was small and esotaric. Oh and Microsoft, yup, they're real small and esoteric as well. it's not like they have a huge monolopy over pretty much anything to do with software. Yet this small esoteric company is willingly trying to make their small esotaric broswer (ya know, that one called internet explorer) standards compliant because that is what people are demanding from them? And please, do not try to tell me what I know. I completly DISAGREE with you when you said "But I think we both know that leaving corporations to regulate themselves would be a disaster." I don't allow people to speak for me, I can do that just fine on my own thanks.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
People's mindsets changed and then they expected the government to take on the extra duty of providing a standard of living to it's citizens. *That is not a government's intended job*. The government is supposed to be there to protect it's citizens from others using force apon them whether from outside invaders or from each other commiting crimes apon each other. That's it. But people were so insistant that the government do something to help so they did. Over the years this "help" has only made the government more corrupt and bigger and stronger to the point where people no longer rule the government like they are supposed to, the government rules the people. So how do I know that people are kind and generous enough to provide voluntarily help to those that need it? Because first of all, we wouldn't have welfare today if people didn't care enough about others to want to do something. Welfare is something citizens created, not the government. Also I see the proof right here. There are so many of you who care enough about others that you're concerned that if the government stopped providing welfare to people that need it, that they would suffer. All of you care enough about helping other people that I know there are enough good people out there who will donate time, money, food, and clothing to people that have fallen on hard times. I may disagree with a lot of you on how exactly to help people, but you are my proof that we don't need to use the government to FORCE people to help.


I'm sorry dharma, this is your issue, but couldn't resist responding.

Who are you to say what is and is not the gov't's intended job? That's what's under debate here, isn't it? In the scenario you give, who is to blame then? Or is no one to blame? It sounds to me that either 1. no one is to blame or 2. the people are. But too often I think people blame the poor for their plight or owe it to bad luck, even the poor themselves, without looking at the big picture. If wall street treats trading like gambling and the gov't turns a blind eye, and then if the citizens who are led to believe that there is easy money to be had on wall street buys into it and loses all their money, I say that it is wall street and the gov't that needs to reevaulate their roles. I'm not sure blame is the right word, but it was a kick in the butt that we needed to expose the corruption that was ripe in wall street. Now how does that become about people not taking responsibility for themselves. If you're told that Enron is a solid company and put money into it, yet if Enron is corrupt and has mishandled your money, then how is it the people's fault? Of course it is Enron's fault. And that gov't needs to regulate such industries is also clear. What is the alternative? A reversion into big monopolies and $2 a day wages for 16 hours work?

Secondly, and I think someone else made the same point, how are we to fund the defense of our country? Wouldn't they have to "steal" it from us through taxes. And if in principle, you don't have a problem with giving money for defense, then why not money for other necessary protective and social services?

I won't even get into the welfare except to say that it is a drop in the ocean of money going to defense and other things. Before welfare, people just died if it got that bad. In North Korea today, for example, starving kids are regularly shooed away by vendors when the kids try to pick grains from the ground beneath. Then when the kids become too hungry, they lie somewhere in the open public and start dying without anyone blinking an eye. It's that desperate in North Korea. Volunteering is wonderful, but too inconsistent to be a protection for the extremely unfortunate.

Getting off the soap box now...


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
And really? I gave a small esoteric example like the entire internet world wide? Wow I didn't realize that the internet that almost every person uses every day was small and esotaric. Oh and Microsoft, yup, they're real small and esoteric as well. it's not like they have a huge monolopy over pretty much anything to do with software. Yet this small esoteric company is willingly trying to make their small esotaric broswer (ya know, that one called internet explorer) standards compliant because that is what people are demanding from them?

The internet and Microsoft is not esoteric, but your example was. How about another to clarify? Also, can you make your point without the sarcasm? Or maybe you need the sarcasm to cover up the fact that you have no point.

I guess you really do believe corporations can regulate themselves. I stand corrected. Wow.

Got to run, but thanks for a stimulating debate.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Thanks for taking the time to answer, but I see that as quite a misrepresentation of what actually happened. You also didn't actually answer me as to how things would actually be better for poor people now than they were from day one of this country (and maybe from day one of civilization), when poor people lived in squalor and were basically treated as untouchables. I'm looking for what, specifically, has changed in people to make it such that the things that went in in the past, before government social programs, wouldn't happen again if government programs no longer existed. I don't buy the idea that suddenly, for the first time in human history, people are going to go running out and provide for the needs of your average poor person, a person who is not the unfortunate victim of some sort of major catastrophe such as the stock market crash or Hurricane Katrina. People in general tend mainly to villify those who are merely poor while sainting those whose misfortune is seen as something outside their immediate control. I have seen it in your posts, and I disagree with you that simply because people at MDC, which, as we know is not a representative sampling of the population, express kindness and good will toward others, we would be able to meet all this nation's social needs privately. We never have, and if you could show me why we would now rather than simply stating that it will happen because people will donate money, I'd be interested to read that.

Do you believe that people of today have changed so much that they would be willing to do, privately, what the people of 100 years ago weren't?

Namaste!

Actually I do feel like I answered you, but you just didn't understand it. The very fact that we have welfare today is the proof that people have changed and want to help the less fortunate. Like I said, PEOPLE created welfare, not the government. People started caring and wanting to help others. People's mindsets have changed and they want to help people every day not just those in disasters. We have people donating blood every single day, not just in times of disaster. It is such a common thing though that it goes unnoticed. People donate money and clothes to organizations like the red cross and salvation army every day, not just in times of disaster. I also wasn't just refering to people on MDC, I'm talking about all people with that mindset which is a majority of the country. Everyone I have come across in my life has proven to me that people care. My parents have offered my dad's old high school friend a room in their house because he lost his job as a school bus driver due to severe narcolepsy. He has refused and is living in a homeless shelter, but my parents still insist on him comming over every weekend to get decent food and rest. My parents also donate to the homeless shelter where he is staying to help make sure that he and everyone else there is getting decent food. This isn't something that happened in time of a natural disaster, this is someone helping out someone else just because they need it. And I know that my parents aren't the only people in this country who care about people enough to try to help as much as they can. I know many of you have the argument that some people just don't have friends or family to help them. There are private organizations set up by concerned citizens that want to help that do help out complete strangers who need it. My church growing up had it's members cook meals for people that needed it. This is a service they provided to the community just like many other churches and synagouges do. (and any other religous houses of worship, I gotta be politically correct here). My proof that people have changed their minds about helping the poor is that the poor are getting help today.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
The more money that is being spent in the economy means a stronger economy.

So we should all buy crap we don't need as our way of insuring that poor people have jobs?














:

Quote:

If they aren't willing to pay fair wages, they will either have very bad workers who aren't productive for their company, or they won't get anyone to work at all. They will all go work for the person willing to pay them what they're worth. We do that today. If you are working somewhere that isn't paying you what you are worth, you will go work for someone else. Even if a bad company does get people to work for them for less than what they should be paid, it is those worker's choice to stay working there.
Or, in the case of Tyson Chicken, they will just bus in people from Mexico and South America and house them in locked warehouses and pay them illegally so that they can get away with the lowest, most rock-bottom labor costs that they can. If they won't even follow the labor laws that are in place, how can we expect that they will act ethically if those laws are removed?

Quote:

Even if a bad company does get people to work for them for less than what they should be paid, it is those worker's choice to stay working there. Obviously it isn't that bad or they wouldn't keep doing it. For some people, just being able to work for less money is better than having no job at all.
You are assuming that all people have the types of choices you do, and perhaps you fail to understand that the poorest of the poor simply do not have these choices. And I find you last comment highly offensive. Those with the poorest quality, most poorly-paid jobs, who are often outrightly abused by their employers, should just quit complaining and go somewhere else? If you are a non-educated, non-English-speaking person with no job skills, there is no place to go! (Except maybe to another equally crappy job.)

Namaste!


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Thought I got away, but had to address your admiration for our founding democracy. I wanted to say that though those revolutionary times are crucial to the times of peace that follow, they are not models for the times of peace. Just as the way treating sick people should not be models for the way we treat healthy, pregnant women.









Bailey, I didn't mean to cop out. I just have a lot to do while ds sleeps. But let me have it. I'll get back to the thread later...


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay*
The internet and Microsoft is not esoteric, but your example was. How about another to clarify? Also, can you make your point without the sarcasm? Or maybe you need the sarcasm to cover up the fact that you have no point.

Sorry about the sarcasam, I'm just highly amused by what is going on here and I do tend to be sarcastic at times. I would rather be sarcastic than mean and yelling at people. I am confused though, the internet and microsoft WAS my example. So if they are not small and esoteric, how then is my example that is based on Microsoft small and esoteric?

How do I propose that a government get money for defense without taxes? People dontate. I know I'm gonna get the "omg, you are gonna base the defense of this country on donations??" and yup, I would. Why? because would you donate to a military that is promising to defend you against foreign invaders? Sure you would, most people would. Enough people to keep a sufficient military in place. And should we ever be attacked, you better beleive that more people would all of a sudden donate much more money to ensure that the military has the funding to properly protect us. This isn't really an issue I want to get into though, it's has nothing to do with welfare.

We have monopolies today because they are protected by the government. Just to start up a business, you have to first bribe the government to allow you to do so. Many people can't afford those bribes so they get stuck working for someone else at a crappy job (I gave an example of this a few pages back of when this happened to a poor woman trying to open a shop for hair braiding).


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
So we should all buy crap we don't need as our way of insuring that poor people have jobs?














:

Haha, except that yeah, people do that no matter what. It's amazing what people "need" the more money they have. Just one benefit of it is that more jobs are created.

Quote:

Or, in the case of Tyson Chicken, they will just bus in people from Mexico and South America and house them in locked warehouses and pay them illegally so that they can get away with the lowest, most rock-bottom labor costs that they can. If they won't even follow the labor laws that are in place, how can we expect that they will act ethically if those laws are removed?
Because the consumers (people like you) when they find out about this will refuse to buy their products. I haven't actually heard about this, but from what it sounds like when you say that they locked them in warehouses, it sounds like they were holding the workers against their will. Which then, yes the people in charge should be arrested for using force apon someone else. I'm not sure though if you mean that they were actually held against their will. A company's image means alot to them. When people find out that they are corrupt they fail. (or at least they would if we didn't have corporate welfare either. I'm not discriminatory, I don't want to give my money to rich people either







)

Quote:

You are assuming that all people have the types of choices you do, and perhaps you fail to understand that the poorest of the poor simply do not have these choices. And I find you last comment highly offensive. Those with the poorest quality, most poorly-paid jobs, who are often outrightly abused by their employers, should just quit complaining and go somewhere else? If you are a non-educated, non-English-speaking person with no job skills, there is no place to go! (Except maybe to another equally crappy job.)
Sorry you're not gonna like my answer. If they want a better job, the have to learn english and learn some job skills. If they refuse to grow and try to become better, then yes the only jobs they get will be crappy jobs. And let me tell ya, as a 19 year old mom, with no college degree, I sure got a lot of choices.. McDonalds, Burger King, Taco bell....







Actually the one thing that is stopping me from having to work in one of those places is that I have one skill that I have learned how to market. I know horses, so I am opening my own business boarding horses on my property. I do not believe that someone can not have ANY job skills at all. If you have the capacity to learn, you have job skills. You don't have to know how to do something, as long as you know how to LEARN to do something. There are many jobs out there that state that no training is nessicary, they will train you. And not all of those jobs are bad, I've worked at a few and did quite well at them.


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

: This back and forth is the most interesting I've read in a while!!! Please continue







:


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
We have monopolies today because they are protected by the government.

We seem to have such different interpretations of history. Do you remember learning about trustbusting and the Sherman Anti-Trust Law? About the Standard Oil, railroad, beef, and tobacco trusts? The more recent example of the Bell Telephone trust? It took government intervention to break those monopolies.

Btw, this morning I went to a site called Libertarianism.com and did some reading. I took their (very short) political test called "Are you a Libertarian?" I agreed with all their personal issues questions but disagreed with most of their economic issues. My scores were

PERSONAL issues Score is 100%
ECONOMIC issues Score is 30%

I'm also planning to look at the Free State Project website. I just want you to know that I am not just dismissing your ideas out of hand. I am looking into these things.

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
Because the consumers (people like you) when they find out about this will refuse to buy their products.

Hey! Don't implicate me in this! I do not consume the flesh of other sentient creatures!









Actually, Tyson Chicken has been publicly castigated for their abuses of workers (including holding them against their will) for many years and they continue to be one of the largest, if not the largest, chicken company in the USA. Why? Because they offer cheap prices. People can absolutely be bought. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "I know Walmart doesn't treat their employees well, but their prices are SO LOW" I would be able to provide private welfare for everyone in this country! (I just Googled "tyson chicken labor abuses" and came up with myriad websites about it. Check it out, if you're so inclined.)

Anyway, I have a lot to do and my kids are awake now, so ...

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
If they want a better job, the have to learn english and learn some job skills. If they refuse to grow and try to become better, then yes the only jobs they get will be crappy jobs.

Sorry, forgot to address this. If these people are being illegally trucked in and locked up, or even if that is not the case and they are just working 60 or so hours a week trying to provide for their families on sub-poverty-level wages, when will they find the time for job training?

Namaste!


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

remember history is written by the victor







there are different intrepretations of history everywhere. And thank you for actually take the time to reasearch my beleifs a little. From your scores I'd say it sounds like you're a liberal (not trying to label you or anything). Liberals tend to belive in social freedom but economic control while conservatives believe in economic freedom but social control. Libertarains beleive in both economic AND social freedom. The reason why we feel we need both is because any ammount of power you give to the governement, they will take that plus another 10 yards. Plus I really feel like they go hand in hand, how can you be socially free if someone tells you what you can and can't do with your money? And how can your economy be free if socially you must abide by "moral" laws that people set. I'm really not for complete anarchy. I feel that SOME governement regulation is nessicary to protect people. I am truly scared of what I see the governement turning into. People no longer have control of the governement, the government is controlling people. The second that happens corruption and tyrannay immeaditly follow. The government slowly over history has pushed and pushed to see what kind of power the people are willing to give them. It is like a horse that is still learning what a new rider will let them get away with. They will slowly speed up and if the rider doesn't pull them back in the horse will just continue to get faster and stronger til the rider no longer has control and they are just clinging to the horse's neck for dear life. (sorry for the horse reference, it's what I know







) If people had control of the governement again and this time they didn't give that control up, I'd be satisfied. And remember there is much much more to the government than just the federal governement, we also have state and local governments as well. If people need help they should first look closer to home than immeaditly going to the federal level. That way if you lived in a state that you didn't agree with, you can just move to one that's more in line with how you want to live.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Sorry, forgot to address this. If these people are being illegally trucked in and locked up, or even if that is not the case and they are just working 60 or so hours a week trying to provide for their families on sub-poverty-level wages, when will they find the time for job training?

Like I said, if those people were being locked up as slaves, then yes the people in charge deserve to be in jail. And if they are spending all that time working, surely then they have aquired job skills from working. You don't just get job skills by going to a school. Mabye someone is working in a bad job but they have dreams of becomming a mechanic. They should go work in a garage at an entry level job, gain skills, get promoted, gain more skills, have enough income to be able to not work 60 hour weeks and be able to go to college to get certified to become a mechanic, get promoted to mechanic at the garage where he started out mopping floors. I know this can be done, I watched my dad do it. He didn't work his way up though, he worked and saved util he had enough saved for tuition and to be able to live without working while he finished 2 years at a university. (first 2 spent at a community college while working) He went from selling parts in a auto parts store to being the top engineer at his company.

Also, the reason why people NEED to shop at walmart is because the governement steals over 70% of their income from them







I know my husband and I wouldn't be shopping there if we had all of our income available to us.


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

So I did go and look to see what the whole tyson chicken thing was about. What I found wasn't that there were any reports of them holding immigrants hostage, the governemnt was bringing charges against them for smuggling in illegal immigrants to work. Once here the immigrants could leave at any time. I don't see how this is actually hurting the immigrants. They are helped out in escaping into a country they want to be in and they are given a job. They were not being abused at all.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Perhaps since this discussion has veered off so far into political-land, someone might like to redirect to a new thread in News & Current Events to continue the conversation...


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
So I did go and look to see what the whole tyson chicken thing was about. What I found wasn't that there were any reports of them holding immigrants hostage, the governemnt was bringing charges against them for smuggling in illegal immigrants to work. Once here the immigrants could leave at any time. I don't see how this is actually hurting the immigrants. They are helped out in escaping into a country they want to be in and they are given a job. They were not being abused at all.

I know that NOW (on PBS) did a show on Tyson in the not-so-distant past. Perhaps I remembered it incorrectly and the issue was that Tyson was buying from suppliers who were locking up their workers, even after thay had been notified that this was going on. Honestly, I don't remember the exact details, and maybe I am mixing scenarios. But it's been well-documented that other companies have enslaved their workers in sweatshops.

My point, however, even if my details were fuzzy, was that if companies aren't even following the laws that we have, why should we expect them to turn all ethical on us if the laws were removed? I don't believe that companies flouting employment laws by smuggling in illegal workers who can be paid a pittance with no recourse is a justifiable use of civil disobedience.

Btw, I agree that people should be able to immigrate anywhere they want.

Namaste!


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bailey228*
Also, the reason why people NEED to shop at walmart is because the governement steals over 70% of their income from them







I know my husband and I wouldn't be shopping there if we had all of our income available to us.

Why is the government taxing (ok, "stealing" in your parlance) over 70% of your income? I don't know anyone for whom this holds true. Or are you exaggerating to make a point?


----------



## Godiva (Sep 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Why is the government taxing (ok, "stealing" in your parlance) over 70% of your income? I don't know anyone for whom this holds true. Or are you exaggerating to make a point?

because there are many many more taxes than just the income tax. There are property taxes (my husband and I pay just as much per month for our property taxes as we do for our mortgage, and we live in a small town!), there is sales tax, the increase in prices from companies having to cover THEIR taxes.... the list goes on and on. Over all, yes the average american pays over 70% of their income to taxes of all forms.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Income tax was supposed to be temporary too...and is still technically *voluntary*...try telling that to the IRS.

How do you figure it's voluntary?


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

I will repeat myself: Perhaps since this discussion has veered off so far into political-land, someone might like to redirect to a new thread in News & Current Events to continue the conversation...


----------

