Social Security Administration “franchise” is the license number
Social Security is a form of old age insurance. It was established in 1935 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as an aftermath of the Great Depression. [1] It is a franchise in which you are rewarded with an entitlement if you sign up and meet the program requirements. However, this franchise may not be offered in states mentioned in the Constitution, which in fact are OMITTED from the definitions within the act.
In practice, Social Security it behaves more as a lotto ticket than actual insurance because it operates completely free of all legal or constitutional restraint:
“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5373695872604515216]
“… railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.”
[United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12776259632629956565]
So in reality, there is no legal obligation to actually insure anything or anyone. Social Security payroll taxes, in fact, go straight into the general revenues of the national government and are classified as “entitlements”, even though there is absolutely no legally enforceable entitlement to ANYTHING.
Further, Social Security premiums are not legally classified as a “tax” either, even though that is what they are commonly called:
“A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.”
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 61 (1936);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1427345954995665703]
The main purpose of the original Social Security Act was to introduce federal income taxes to the legislatively foreign states mentioned in the constitution.
Social Security Act of 1935
The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]
PREAMBLEAn act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Payroll withholding to fund the Social Security system is deducted from “wages”.
26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1 – Voluntary withholding agreements.
§ 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
(a) Employer-employee agreement.
An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(p)(3)(A) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of § 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p)(3)(A) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See § 31.3405(c)-1, Q&A-3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.
The tricky language in the above is the use of the word “includable” rather than “must be INCLUDED”. They aren’t saying you HAVE to include the entire amount paid for your labor, but only the amount which is “gross income” under I.R.C. Section 61. I.R.C. Section 61 is the statutory definition of “gross income” created by Congress, and to this day it means ONLY PROFIT DERIVED from “compensation for services” and not GROSS EARNINGS. But when “employers” under I.R.C. Subtitle C deduct Social Security and Medicare taxes from payroll, they calculate the amount of tax based on GROSS EARNINGS rather than only profit on YOUR part. They do this because they don’t know how much actual profit there will be for YOU, the recipient, so they deduct the MAXIMUM and let you the worker worry about getting a refund of the overpayment. That refund is accomplished using two forms:
- IRS Form 843: Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement
- SSA Form 7008: Request for Correction of Earnings Record
The vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of the use of the above forms. IRS publications are mysteriously silent about this subject as well, for quite understandable reasons: They WANT you to massively overpay on income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax.
More importantly, taxes paid by YOU on YOUR labor would constitute a form of involuntary servitude unless you consented to them. See:
Proof that Involuntary Income Taxes on Your Labor are Slavery, Form #05.055
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ProofIncomeTaxLaborSlavery.pdf
Filling out a W-4 is not an act of consent, because most companies will not hire you or will eventually fire you if you give them a more proper form W-8 for withholding or refuse to sign the W-4. And, payroll taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle C are not really taxes, but a CREDIT for taxes collected under Subtitle A. You can ask for them back at filing time by using the forms above.
Under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p) your earnings are then classified as a “federal payment”, meaning a government payment subject to federal regulation. Once the payment becomes federal, it then is subject to regulation and income taxation as well.
The Social Security Number, in turn, then functions in effect as a de facto license to represent a federal position or status or office in the national government. The authority for issuing the numbers is found in 20 C.F.R. §422.103.
20 CFR § 422.103 – Social security numbers.
(a) General.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains a record of the earnings reported for each individual assigned a social security number. The individual’s name and social security number identify the record so that the wages or self-employment income reported for or by the individual can be properly posted to the individual’s record. Additional procedures concerning social security numbers may be found in Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury regulation 26 CFR 31.6011(b)-2.
The above provision of law is under 20 CFR, which is entitled “Employees Benefits”. By using the number, you are creating the prima facie presumption that you are operating as a federal “employee”. This inference is also supported by the W-4 form itself, which is entitled “Employee’s Withholding Certificate”.
The Social Security Number also serves as a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) under 26 U.S.C. §6109. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the Social Security Number functions as a “franchise mark”:
“. . .a commercial business arrangement [e.g. a STATUTORY “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)] is a “franchise” if it satisfies three definitional elements. Specifically, the franchisor must:
(1) promise to provide a trademark or other commercial symbol [e.g. the STATUTORY Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number];
(2) promise to exercise significant control or provide significant assistance in the operation of the business [e.g. enforcement of the franchise “code” such as the Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A and C] and
(3) require a minimum payment of at least $500 during the first six months of operations [e.g. tax refunds annually, deductions most Americans DO NOT need because of EXCLUSIONS in 26 U.S.C. §872 because not from GEOGRAPHICAL “U.S.”, stimulus checks, etc]”.”
[FTC Franchise Rule Compliance Guide, May 2008, p. 1;
SOURCE: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus70-franchise-rule-compliance-guide]
Social Security Numbers behave as what we call a “de facto license” to represent the government as its agent:
“A franchise entails the right to operate a business that is “identified or associated with the franchisor’s trademark, or to offer, sell, or distribute goods, services, or commodities that are identified or associated with the franchisor’s trademark.” The term “trademark” is intended to be read broadly to cover not only trademarks, but any service mark, trade name, or other advertising or commercial symbol. This is generally referred to as the “trademark” or “mark” element.
The franchisor [the government] need not own the mark itself, but at the very least must have the right to license the use of the mark to others. Indeed, the right to use the franchisor’s mark in the operation of the business – either by selling goods or performing services identified with the mark or by using the mark, in whole or in part, in the business’ name – is an integral part of franchising. In fact, a supplier can avoid Rule coverage of a particular distribution arrangement by expressly prohibiting the distributor from using its mark.”
[FTC Franchise Rule Compliance Guide, May 2008;
SOURCE: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus70-franchise-rule-compliance-guide]
The nature of Social Security Numbers as a franchise mark is implemented as follows from a legal perspective:
1. Like all contracts or agreements, franchises, or what is sometimes called “privileges” or “quasi-contracts”[2] by the U.S. Supreme court, require:
- An offer as the “Merchant” under U.C.C. §2-104(1). Sometimes also called a Creditor or Seller.
- A voluntary acceptance as the “Buyer” under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a). Sometimes also called a Debtor or Borrower.
- Valuable consideration provided by the “Merchant” to the “Buyer” in the form of property or rights or services. Without consideration there can be no obligation or contract.
- Mutual assent or understanding.
- The absence of duress. This also implies a right to quit or to waive all or any portion of the “benefits” of the relationship and the corresponding obligation to pay for those future “benefits”.
2. The franchise mark may be a number and an associated civil status label such as an SSN or TIN, “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc. However, the NAME of the number, meaning “SSN” or “TIN” in this case, must DERIVE from the franchise contract DEFINED by the Merchant. Another way of stating this is that under the Uniform Commercial Code, the language of the offer and the language of the acceptance MUST be the same and the parties must agree on a SINGLE definition for all terms. Without a common definition, there can be no assent because the parties have a different understanding about what is being offered or accepted. See:
- This Form is Your Form, Mark DeAngelis
http://www.youtube.com/embed/b6-PRwhU7cg - Mirror Image Rule, Mark DeAngelis
http://www.youtube.com/embed/j8pgbZV757w
3. The right of the Merchant to prescribe the terms of the contract or agreement derives from the consideration, services, or valuable property he/she brings to the relationship that the BUYER wants.
3.1 In the case of the government, that authority derives from Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 3 (2).
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States [***]
3.2. In the case of the otherwise PRIVATE human being and BUYER, INCLUDING governments, the authority to make rules and definitions for the terms they use on any form, INCLUDING government forms, is the control over their own private property that they are lending or selling or renting to the government.
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 149 (1876);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]
4. Once consent or agreement is voluntarily procured, the parties VOLUNTARILY acquire a “civil status” (Form #13.008) under the terms of the franchise agreement or contract or parole agreement, such as “person”, “taxpayer”, “benefit recipient”, “participant”, etc. This right to volunteer is protected by your unalienable right to contract and your First Amendment right to politically and legally associate. Be careful HOW you exercise your right to contract and associate, because it’s the MOST DANGEROUS right you have! Why?: Because it can literally DESTROY all of your other rights! This label or civil status (Form #13.008) is the object to which ALL statutory civil obligations against the Buyer and corresponding Rights of the Merchant, legally attach. If the status was not voluntarily accepted, there can be no enforceable contract or agreement. The ONLY way to defeat such a contract or agreement is to do one of the following:
4.1. To claim that you were operating in a representative capacity and that your Principle expressly FORBIDS such consent in your delegation order.
4.2. To claim that the rights alienated by the franchise are UNALIENABLE per the Declaration of Independence, and thus cannot be given away to a REAL DE JURE GOVERNMENT even WITH consent. A real, de jure government established ONLY to protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights cannot be allowed to violate the purpose of its creation by establishing a profitable business called a franchise whose main purpose is to DESTROY such rights and convert all property into PUBLIC property or PUBLIC rights. That would violate the intent of the Constitution, in fact.
4.3. To identify yourself as being UNELIGIBLE at the time of making application. For proof of this in the case of Social Security, see:
| Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001 https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf |
5. The SOURCE of the definition of the LABEL on the license number or franchise mark establishes WHO the “Merchant” is.
5.1. If you accept the STATUTORY definition of “SSN”, then GOVERNMENT is the Merchant and YOU are the Buyer.
5.2. If you make your OWN definition for “SSN’ or “TIN” on the government form or application and reject the STATUTORY definition, even though it uses the same LABEL (e.g. “SSN” or “TIN”), then YOU are the Merchant and GOVERNMENT is the Buyer. In other words, changing the definitions replaces the original Merchant’s offer with a COUNTEROFFER by the Buyer. The Buyer then becomes the NEW Merchant and the roles switch.
5.3. If the original Merchant then responds to your definition of terms by saying that you have to accept THEIR definition to get the “benefit” of the franchise, you simply respond that you have a right NOT to receive a “benefit” and that the only thing you want is for the government to LEAVE YOU ALONE, which is what “justice” itself is defined as. For instance, having government ID that does not impute a civil statutory status to you such as “citizen”, “resident”, or “person” has the effect of allowing you to be LEFT ALONE and not attaching any enforcement authority or “benefit” to you. By doing this, you are preventing what we call “bundling”, where civil obligations are attached to the receipt of some government service by associating you with a civil statutory status that you don’t want.
The regulations under Title 26 identify the SSN as a number belonging to a CIVIL/DOMICILED U.S. citizen or resident alien individual:
(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons –
(1) General rule –
(i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual’s social security number.
[26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(g)(1)(i)]
The STATUS of the number can be changed by filing a 1040NR return and Form W-8 for withholding. STOP using the W-9 and the 1040!:
For more on the nature of SSNs and TINs as de facto franchise license numbers, see:
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012 (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/AboutSSNsAndTINs.pdf
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Social Security Act of 1935; https://www.ssa.gov/history/35acti.html
[2] Below is an example from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the “trade or business” excise taxable income tax franchise:
“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492, 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272] 262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn’s Digest (Title ‘Dett,’ A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “
[Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268, 271-272 (1935);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5901183028124997123]