Talk:Social Security number

Legal
What is the legality of giving a false SSN if the requester has no authority to request it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Full Decent (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fraud, if the attempt is to gain by deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Article issues
This article has a serious structural problem. This article was written as if it is an article on National Identification Number, yet the title is called "Social Security Number". Even though half of the article named many other national ID#s around the world, none of them actually called SSN. Why do they belong in this article? I would suggest that this article splits into two articles, one purely on SSN and the other on national IDs around the world.

Besides, almost all other national ID numbers are used for national security, which is quite different from the American "social security". If I am not mistaken, the "Security" part in SSN stands for the financial security for retire persons.

In my opinion, this article is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowloonese (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 August 2004‎

What does this mean?
"On November 24, 1936, after which 1,074 of the nation's 45,000 post offices were designated "typing centers" to type up Social Security cards that were then sent to Washington, D.C. On December 1, as part of the publicity campaign for the new program, Joseph L. Fay of the Social Security Administration selected a record from the top of the first stack of 1,000 records and announced that the first Social Security number in history was assigned to John David Sweeney, Jr., of New Rochelle, New York.[7]" What happened on Nov 24, 1936? Not clear to me...

SSN Structure
This section needs to be completely re-written. It actually contradicts itself. It starts out with: "The Area Number, the first three digits, is assigned by geographical region."

But then as you move down: "On June 25, 2011, the SSA changed the SSN assignment process [... ] It eliminates the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN"

So it is a mish-mash of history, out-of-date information, and at the very end the latest standard for generating SSNs.

The Valid SSN section is better, but why does it start out with the history BEFORE the current? Wouldn't someone reading expect to get the current information and then a little history?

Honestly we should just add a history section and be done with it. This entire article is a complete mess as it stands. Just give people the current information, and let them check the history section to see what was valid and in what year(s) it was valid for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.6.23.64 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The structure section on USA SSN's is confusing. First it says that before 1973, SSN's were issued out of local offices, and since 1973 they have been issued centrally. The section goes on to talk about "before 1972" and "after 1972" (with no reference to "during" 1972). So when did SSN's start being issued out of a central office? 1972 or 1973? According to this Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility webpage, it was 1972 that SSA began issuing numbers through a central office, in which case the section should use the terms "before 1972" and "since 1972". Does anyone know if that's correct? Walkiped 23:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Found an official source confirming March 1972 as the month that the change occured. Social Security Administration website - Walkiped 03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article fixes
I have tried to correct many of the problems inherent in the article. First, I separated out the "international" examples into a new national identification number. Second, I corrected some of the stylistic problems (incorrect use of headers, sloppy linking). Third, I removed the interwiki links to national ID numbers in other countries since this is an article about the US SSN. (Therefore it would be inappropriate and confusing to have an interwiki link to the German Wikipedia about their national ID number.) Darkcore 20:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I corrected the interwiki links in all three wikipedias, we should be left alone now from those same, ever-appearing interwiki links. I guess the mess is now cleaned. &mdash;kooo 12:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mark of the Beast
This article could use a discussion of the various oppositions to requiring US citizens to have a Social Security number. For example, there are a number of cases in which people have challenged the social security number requirement as a violation of their First Amendment right to free practice of religion (they believe that the social security number is the Mark of the Beast from Revelation).

See Number of the Beast.

So, wait.. are these non-Christians who believe SSNs are the mark of the beast, a Christian concept, and so do not want them? Isn't that a little round-about? Let's avoid this type of discussion, because they're stupid. 68.211.101.156 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

US Citizen designation on sample card
I have never seen a current social security card that identified whether someone was a US Citizen or not. My own card just has my name and number.

Cards belonging to temporary non-immigrant workers such as H visa holders, as well as cards belonging to persons who have a temporary Employment Authorization Card (I-688B) while on some non-immigrant visa (F and K visas, for example) have the designation "not valid for work without INS authorization."
 * Yep, I'm on a J-2 visa and mine has "Valid for work only with DHS Authorization". It does not carry any other designation. vlad§inger  tlk  02:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But I have not seen anything else that indicated immigration or citizenship status on social security cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjairam (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that the sample card shown in this article is either a counterfeit designed to be used by illegal immigrants or it was of an obsolete format. Perhaps the card was like that years ago, but I doubt the SSA ever printed the word "US Citizen" on the card.  Searching the official www.ssa.gov website does not show this sample card.  On the front page of ssa.gov, the tiny iconic SSN card looks quite different from this sample.  Kowloonese 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea of proper formating for this, but this part: "The other reads "VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION." These cards are issued to people who have temporary work authorization in the U.S. They can satisfy the I-9 requirement, if they are accompanied by a work authorization card" is wrong - there are several classes of visa that specifically don't require DHS authorization, yet the cards still say 'valid blahblahblah'. L1 and L2 spouse holders, for example, do not need an EAD. From the SSA POMS manual - section C is the relevant part https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100203500!opendocument 99.50.109.185 (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably pointless to comment this many years later, but no, that doesn't make the paragraph wrong. The fact that a restricted social security card along with an employment authorization document is ONE valid set of documents does not preclude you from presenting others. L spouses are required to obtain an EAD. Others, such as CFA citizens, can work based on the stamp on their I-94. Students working on campus require a properly endorsed I-20. The I-9 guidelines allow for all of these other documents, all of which constitute "DHS authorization" as required by the notation on the social security card. Stian (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Numbers reissued/expire?
Are SS numbers ever reissued? If no, are they going to run out after a while? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.156.66.196 (talk * contribs).


 * No, Social Security numbers are not reissued. And no, they are far from running out of Social Security numbers. — Walloon 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above comment is incorrect (at least to my knowledge), for the record. SSNs are reissued, and there is a shortage.  Consider that there are ~ 300 million people in the United States and 1 billion SSNs to allocate.  Some of these are reserved, and a certain amount of sparseness in key spaces is always good (3/10 usage is way too high already; you want to have "room" in each classification to add more people), so the actually usable amount without the system breaking is more like 900 million.  We're already re-issuing dead people's SSNs, but it's good practice to let the dead person keep their number for at least 10 years or so to clean up any outstanding records.  As more people are born and the population transitions, we'll need to more aggressively step up the re-issuing of dead SSNs. SnowFire 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that 3/10 is way too high. If the SSN system were properly designed (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight :-), it would include a "check digit" to help immediately detect common, innocent errors. With 300 000 000 people in the US, that requires a minimum of 10 digits (9 digits for the unique number, and 1 check digit). Another digit to give growth room would probably be a good idea.
 * For example, a bank refused to give a friend of mine an account, because someone else with the same SSN but a completely different name already had an account at that bank. My friend was a little frightened at the "identity theft" implications, and a little upset at the implication that he was the identify thief.
 * As far as I can tell, that "someone else" had accidentally swapped 2 digits in his SSN when filling out the forms starting an account at that bank. That kind of minor, innocent accident is exactly the sort of thing a "check digit" would have immediately uncovered, when it could have easily been fixed, rather than later when it caused my friend far too much hassle.
 * --68.0.120.35 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually SSNs are never reissued. There is a chronological order and they never go backwards. If someone 25 years old is found using an SSN that was issued in 1965 for example that is one way to determine fraud. Illegal immigrants sometimes use deceased persons SSN’s with same or similar names (typical use would be an SSN not found in the SSA death index but originally issued to an individual who is deceased). BPS 04:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See question #20 at Social Security History: Frequently Asked Questions. They do not reissue numbers, have issued over 420 million numbers as of January 14, 2008, and the current number system will last for "several generations into the future". —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Valid SSNs
In a discussion at The Daily WTF, some of the comments say the section is incorrect (for instance, the 800 series being used for some purposes). --cesarb 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reference to the SSA's own website added. Looks like this one's correct to me. If you can find something reputable that says the opposite, feel free to add it, but I'm afraid that a comment on a website doesn't cut it, even though I'm a fan of that one as well.  -FunnyMan 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, now that we have a source there's no doubt anymore. A link which can be found at that reference is even better: seems to list all series ever issued (you can even notice the missing series number in the middle of the sequence). --cesarb 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This section can readily be misunderstood as is conflates "currently unallocated" ranges with ranges that are reserved to never be allocated. The reference material makes this clear - eg quoting from the reference "No SSN's with a 00 group number or 0000 serial number have been assigned" verses "No SSNs with an area number of "666" have been or will be assigned." The difference is significant between attempting to validate a presented number compared to creating an apparently valid number that will never represent a real person (the range reserved for advertising being very small). 193.32.3.83 (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I am reading the SSA's web page correctly, area numbers 000, 900-999, and 666 are now available for issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiks (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that my previous comment is incorrect; I was misreading the referenced page. The SSA has affirmed that they will not issue those area numbers.Poiks (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

legal code mismatch
''under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). '' Which section is it? Ojcit 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, guess I don't know my way around the legal system. Ojcit 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ojcit: Actually, you asked an excellent question! The answer in this particular case is that both section numbers are describing the same thing. For some background, see United States Statutes at Large, United States Code, and Codification.

The reference to section 205 is a reference to the way the law was enacted by Congress and published in the United States Statutes at Large, which is a set of bound volumes of all Federal statutes in the chronological order in which they were enacted, starting over 200 years ago and up to the present day. These prints are useful, but usually not as useful as a reorganized method of presentation called a Codification. Section 405 in this case refers to section 405 of title 42 of the United States Code.

In other words, we're talking about two different places the same law is published. All Federal statutes are published in the United States Statutes at Large. Many but not all of those statutes are also reorganized topically and published in the United States Code. For lawyers, judges and other people who study statutes quite a bit, it is just useful to have the laws published both ways.

I hope the above explanation makes sense. Yours, Famspear 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio in section on SSNs in advertising
The section talking about Mrs Hilda Whitcher and the Woolworths SSNs is taken verbatim from the SSA page at http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html - I'll grovel through the history and notify the "author". Eric TF Bat 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question? What's the code for on the back of a social security card? And why all CAPS on my name?
I can't find any reason.
 * Other than peoples' conspiratorial guesses, it seems like it's just a sequential ID number for the paper that the card is printed on, to keep track of blank cards. Oddly, my employer wants to get a scan of the back of mine; I have no idea why (maybe there's a way to fraud-check using the relationship between them?).  (I also don't know what you're talking about with 'CAPS'.) —AySz88\ ^ - ^  05:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The letters on the back of a Social Security card (A-L) each represent one of the Federal Reserve Banking districts, as follows:

LETTER   DISTRICT A        New York B        Boston C        Philadelphia D        Cleveland E        Richmond F        Atlanta G        Chicago H        St. Louis I        Minneapolis J        Kansas City K        Dallas L        San Francisco

The number after the letter is your personal bond number the Fed has control of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.106.53 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, ALL CAPS are used for your name because CAPS are more clear for a longer time than lower case letters are and because the printers that were used to prepare them only have CAPS (like teleprinters). They weren't always like that; cards up to the 1950's at least were often prepared on an ordinary typewriter so are in upper and lower case. Elvis Presley's card is one example. I'm not sure what the new SS cards are like and do not know what machines are used to print the cards today.Twistlethrop (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"invalid"
Why does the article claim that "SSNs used in advertising have rendered those numbers invalid." ?

Those numbers still refer to only one (living) person, right? Wouldn't the same logic say that other unique identifiers, once they become widely known -- such as "George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush" -- would also become "invalid" ?

My understanding is that it is incorrect for me to claim *any* SSN other than my own -- whether or not that number has been used in advertising is irrelevant.

Or am I missing some obscure point of U.S. law?

--68.0.120.35 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It means that due to its use in advertising, the SSA officially "retired" the SSN in question to prevent it from being used in any capacity. Its invalidation was not the result of a natural process but rather a preventative measure by the SSA. -216.138.38.86 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view needed
Which seems best? Either rename this article to something like "US Social Security number" and create a stub for "Social Security number" with a general blah-blah and a link to this one, or else discuss all countries' social security numbers on this article (this might imply rephrasing many statements). Question zero: which countries have social security numbers? (I know France and Canada have them, but I have no idea whether it's the exception or the rule.) --Gro-Tsen 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I started to internationalize this article, but have undone my changes because I no longer agree that it is necessary. The "See also" section includes links to equivalent numbers in other systems, which all seem to go by different names than this one.  I don't think there's any actual conflict, unless another country also calls its identifiers "Social Security numbers" --Sapphic 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The official name for the French number may be "numéro INSEE", but I've always heard of them referred to as "numéro de sécurité sociale" (even on forms they are called that way), and I very much doubt that not a single country has a national identifier which goes by a direct translation of "social security number". Besides, both of us found it unclear that there were other articles talking about other countries: this suggests that at least something should be done (just having a "See Also" section at the end is not enough).  I think the simplest thing to do is rename the present page to add "(United States)" at the end of the title and create a "Social Security number" disambiguification page pointing to the various articles for various countries.  Alternatively, mention at the beginning of the article that it deals with the US Social Security Number and link to the other pages or to a disambiguification page. --Gro-Tsen 01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Icelandic ssn is called "kennitala" but would be referred to as an social security number via English speaking countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.203.71 (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

SSN purpose
Wiki mentions taxation purposes within the first paragraph. A better description might be for benefits and record keeping.

The Social Security number (SSN) was originally devised to keep an accurate record of each individual’s earnings, and to subsequently monitor benefits paid under the Social Security program. However, use of the SSN as a general identifier has grown to the point where it is the most commonly used and convenient identifier for all types of record-keeping systems in the United States.

examples:
 * Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans,
 * Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes,
 * States for the school lunch program,
 * Banks for monetary transactions,
 * Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number,
 * Department of Labor for workers’ compensation,
 * Department of Education for Student Loans,
 * States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction,
 * States for child support enforcement,
 * States for commercial driver’s licenses,
 * States for Food Stamps,
 * States for Medicaid,
 * States for Unemployment Compensation,
 * States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,
 * U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds,

If you would like to see the full description go to the social security website http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

search: When am I legally required to provide my Social Security number?

patm1975~

You are legally required to provide a social security number under the Internal Revenue Code, in various circumstances. Citations added to the article. Famspear (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not legally required but...
I spoke to Social Security over the phone. Even though it is not legally required to have a SSN a US Citizen can not work without having a SSN. What is interesting is that you can own a business without having a SSN. The SSN is for a person only not a business. The IRS will provide you with a Tax ID for your business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patm1975 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Don't be fooled by answers from the SSA. It is not against the law to work without a SSN. It is only required if both the employer and the employee agree to deduct SS payments for the employee's SS account. No employer is required to collect for the SS but they are made to believe they must. No one is required to participate in SS so it would be discriminatory to require the number for employment.Deu4:2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deu4:2 (talk • contribs) on 26 May 2008.

SSN is not optional: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=435&p_created=974129735 any counter sources? Will Entriken (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The information given at that link is, I suppose, sort of correct within a limited context. The statement, "Social Security coverage is mandatory," is, however, a little misleading.  Certain ministers (and possibly others with religious objections) may opt out.  Railroad workers have tier 1 retirement benefits, and state and local government employees often have their own alternate retirement programs (I've seen plenty of government employees' W-2s with no SS withholding).


 * As for the numbers assigned by the IRS (EIN and the W-7 numbers: ITIN, ATIN, and PTIN), these are used for specific and limited purposes. Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) are used by businesses, farms, and household employers when employing or contracting labor (W-2, 1099-Misc, Schedule H); for reporting of various other taxable distributions (1099-INT, 1099-DIV, etc.); and also serve to identify corporations, partnerships, trusts, government entities, and other virtual persons for tax purposes (see IRS form SS-4).  ITINs are only for aliens who have business with the IRS, PTINs are for professional tax preparers, and ATINs serve to identify pending adoptees when an SSN can't be obtained in time to file a return.  ALL individual returns require an SSN or ITIN, including Schedule C/F businesses/farms, and that includes the returns of corporation "owners" (actually, the owners of corporate equity).


 * Eastcheap (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In various situations, the use of the social security number is not legally "optional." Not only are you legally required to apply for the number, you are also required to use it for federal tax purposes. You are also legally required by the Internal Revenue Code (or regulations issued thereunder) to provide your social security number to other persons, in various circumstances. Example: You are, in general, legally required to provide your social security number to your employer on the day you enter employment, for any employment after October 31, 1962. Citations have been added to the article. Famspear (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding these statements above:


 * It [use of the social security number] is only required if both the employer and the employee agree to deduct SS payments for the employee's SS account. No employer is required to collect for the SS but they are made to believe they must.

From a legal standpoint, those statements are false. A few of the relevant citations have been added to the article. By the way, willful failure to collect, account for, and "pay over" (i.e., turn the money over to the government) Social Security tax withholding from an employee's pay is a felony, and is punishable by up to five years in prison under. Many people have gone to prison for that. Famspear (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: As editor Eastcheap notes above, there are many exceptions to the general rules about use of social security numbers, and exceptions on who is or is not required to "participate" in the Social Security system. My comments and citations relate only to the general rules, and do not cover the exceptions. Famspear (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What the fields mean
the social security fields are: the first three numbers are area numbers which is based on the area you were born the next two numbers are group numbers which are based on the area in which the state you were born and the last four numbers are serial numbers which are the only four numbers that nobody else has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.170.199.100 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
 * No, this is wrong, the current description of the format in the article is correct. The group numbers are based on when the SSN was issued, not where. See http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=87 Callum 09:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but I think I'm wrong. I don't understand Callum -- the link he or she gave supports the notion that the numbers are based on where the SSN was issued, not when.Pschwiesow 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The format of an SSN is: AAAGGSSSS
 * AAA is the 3 digit area code -- this is purely geographic, which area of which state
 * GG is the 2 digit group number -- although not issued consecutively they're used in a specific sequence. Effectively, roughly, "when" can be infered from the group number (since they are issued in a sequence), but "where" cannot be.
 * SSSS is the 4 digit serial number
 * The link I gave above is quite clear -- could you clarify why you think that the group numbers are based on where the SSN is issued? As a (very) hypothetical example -- in two different areas (101, 202) having SSNs issued at the same rate it would be reasonable to expect that SSNs 10144xxxx and 20244xxxx would be issued at roughly the same time, but no information can be infered about the areas simply from xxx44xxxx.
 * Callum 08:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An agent just told me the other day that the year and location coding are a thing of the past, and that all numbers now issued are totally randomized and mean nothing. It helps protect you. So people cannot determine where you are from, nor your age, if they get a hold of your number. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior to 1973, the first 3 digits of social security cards were established by which office in that state had issued the card. During and after 1973, the first 3 number of social security cards was determined by the location of the mailing address that was listed on the initial application.

Since June 25, 2011 the process of assigning numbers was changed again. What is referred to as "randomization" was put into action. This system helps protect identity and no longer correlates location with the actual SSN. The previous method of assignment was extremely limited and only had so many different variants. Randomization presents a solution to the previous dilemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB00:3AB0:BC78:718E:1708:CD0 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Scalability
A discussion on the scalability of SSNs would be nice. How many can the system support? What percentage of the numberspace is in use? Are old numbers reused after someone dies? etc. Afabbro 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See question #20 at Social Security History: Frequently Asked Questions. They do not reissue numbers, have issued over 420 million numbers as of January 14, 2008, and the current number system will last for "several generations into the future". —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SSDI
If Social security numbers were issued beginning in 1937, how come the "Social Security Death Index" has numbers for people who died as early as 1899?--71.194.116.228 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot my social security number...
How do I find out what mine is without usinng credit cards? 216.165.236.141 04:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard a story that...
...the SSN was, initially and very briefly, a serial number. The storyteller said he knew a guy who was a child of a higher-up at the Social Security office at the time numbers stared to be handed out, and that his SSN was 7. Not 000-00-0007, but just the number 7, meaning the seventh person in the system. Anyone know if there's any truth to that? A2Kafir 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You answered your own question in "storyteller". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.132.165 (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean he was 007? :) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 08:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SSN Area Code 957?
What does Area Code 957 mean? I (German) received a document with the title "Virginia Nonresident Income Tax Return" which says: Your Social Security Number: 957 - 70 - ####  (replaced last digits with ####) I never lived in the US - I just did an investment there. 79.210.30.138 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If it begins with a 9 then it's not an SSN.  It's a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) which is for non-residents and others who aren't eligible for an SSN but need to pay taxes on US income.  See the IRS website TimBuchheim (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How can they not run out?
I've been doing a lot of work on my pilot article Service number (United States) and have this very simply question - how long can the SSA give new numbers? When you get right down to it, there are 999,999,999 possible numbers to issue. How many people have lived and died in the US since the 1930s? I think it would something like half to two thirds of a billion. Will the SSA ever run out of numbers? -OberRanks (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See the earlier section, and Questions 19 and 20 in the provided link http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html. As of January 2008, there have been 420 million numbers assigned and around 5.5 million new numbers are assigned each year.  While this isn't infinite, there are plenty of numbers for future use (roughly another century). Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Gogulski example
According to Mike Gogulski, a former US citizen who deliberately gave up his citizenship, he uploaded an image of his former card and resolved any privacy issues with administrators. However, that image has been defaced (it can be accessed here as well as being on that page). Can it be restored and further defacement prevented? PMLawrence (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Structure.2
Unless I'm not getting something:

''The last four digits are serial numbers. They represent a straight numerical sequence of digits from 0001-9999 within the group. Those who have worked in government offices or other industries involving a Social Security search engine will notice that the last four digits of every Social Security Number signifies the first initial of the first name of the person to whom the number is issued. For instance, every person with 1182 as the last four digits of their Social Security number has a first name that begins with the letter "J".''

That doesn't add up at all. My first name starts with J and the first 2 digits (of the last 4) are 48.Batvette (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a myth.
 * A little while ago I analyzed a sample of the freely accessible SSDI [Social Security Death Index] records. I've checked the data and can verify that, for persons whose SSNs have the same last 4 digits, there is no correlation between their first initials, their last initials, their dates and places of birth or the states of issue. If there is a connection, this is it: their SSN's have the same last 4 digits.... which is where this came in.
 * The possibility that there are some people who work in government and industry who believe the myth goes a long way toward proof that, whether or not they cause problems for the rest of us, some of them are truly incapable of basic analysis.--Twistlethrop (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The youngest person to receive a social security number was 4 months old, who was this?
The youngest person to receive a social security number was 4 months old, who was this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.55.68 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the question is pointless and misled. Parents can apply for a child's social security number while the child is still in hospital after birth. Notwithstanding any delays or other factors, the lead times for delivery of a social security card to the parents of a child vary from one state to another. The shortest lead times are in Minnesota, Arizona, Kansas, at two weeks. Of course, your mileage may vary. Twistlethrop (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All my kids got theirs as soon as they were born. I think they all, or most, beat the 4 months record. Where did that ever come from anyway? Presidentbalut (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Social Security Number is a license to engage in interstate commerce
When the social security number was introduced in 1936, it was a federal license to engage in interstate commerce. This license scheme began in November 1936 in order to give Congress free-reign under the umbrella of "regulating interstate commerce." By virtue of the number the account holder is presumed to be a "person" who is engaged in congressionally controlled and regulated commerce.

After the Supreme Court derailed the Railroad Retirement Act and “Schechtered” the National Industrial Recovery Act in May 1935 and fearing the same fate for the Social Security bill and other New Deal legislation pending in Congress, Roosevelt summoned Attorney General Homer Cummings to the White House and demanded Cummings find a solution for achieving the purpose of the New Deal; namely, bringing all industries under control of a central government. Roosevelt’s New Deal had taken a severe beating by the Court and he expected the attorney general to stop the bleeding. To help stop the New Deal bleeding, Cummings organized a group consisting of six men and one woman, all loyal to the president and all dedicated to Roosevelt’s New Deal ideology. The seven member group included Homer S. Cummings, Attorney General; Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; Harry L. Hopkins, Federal Emergency Relief Administrator; Harold L. Ickes, United States Secretary of the Interior; Robert F. Wagner, United States Senator; Joseph Taylor Robinson, United States Senator and John G. Winant,  Republican governor from New Hampshire. They called their secret group the “Committee of Seven.”

With the blessing of Roosevelt, the Committee of Seven immediately set out in secret to work on different scenarios to implement Roosevelt’s agenda. One proposed scenario called for amending the Constitution to empower Congress to regulate hours and conditions of labor and to establish minimum wages in any employment and to regulate all industry and business in commerce whether interstate or intrastate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.53.160 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious Error
The article states "Social Security was originally a universal tax..." which is patently false. Historically, there were many kinds of employment exempt from social security tax (state and local employment, for example), and the number of exemptions has been reduced dramatically over time since social security was first instituted in the 1930s. This needs to be fixed, but I am not a contributor to Wikipedia, so I'm not in a position to edit the entry. But I thought it worthwhile to post this warning. 128.206.97.222 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Card required
While the article suggests that the SSN is a de facto national identification number, there is a problem with this. From what I understand, most state's social service agencies will require more than the SSN to provide access to social services. They require the physical card. (Whether this is legal or not is another matter.) Unfortunately, I don't know any sources that discuss this thoroughly to add to the article. Does anyone else?

A similar example would be I-9 forms, where knowing a social security number is not identification, but providing the card is. Thelema418 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"United States" heading
SSNs are a US-specific creation; there's no need to put "United States" as a h1 in the article. If the term was used in multiple countries, then changing the title would be reasonable. However, since it isn't, MOS:TITLES says we shouldn't be needlessly specific. L Faraone  16:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "If the term was used in multiple countries...However, since it isn't"  Apokrif (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit comment: this article is about social security numbers, not about the English phrase "Social Security number". Apokrif (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As edited, the article now has no lead, and only one top-level section heading. Making the article more comprehensive would be great, but your changes just make it look inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. L Faraone  16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a renaming to Social Security number (United States) or Social Security number in the United States would be better. Anyway, it should be explicitly stated somewhere that an article is about the situation in one country only. Apokrif (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead pretty clearly stated that this article covered SSNs "In the United States". Moving to a new name would be fine, but we'd need to have something substantive to put in for "social security number", plus have a bot fix the 200+ links to this article.  L Faraone  17:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The lead pretty clearly stated that this article covered SSNs "In the United States"" Rather, the former version implied that SSNs were something specific to the US. Apokrif (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Legality of Use of Multiple/Made-Up SS Numbers?
There should be a section that discusses the legalities of using multiple, made-up, purchased, and other people's SS numbers. There has been new Federal ruling that using other SS numbers for work and credit is legal and not considered fraud. So long as you use your real name, and intend to pay your bills. Generally associated with illegal migrants, but not limited to them. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Biggest thefts of SSN's
2013-09-26 - Hackers were able to steal nearly 3.1 million date-of-birth records and over a million social security numbers, widely considered a weak point in online security.  —  Ark25  (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Social Security Area Numbers
List of Social Security Area Numbers was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of Social Security Area Numbers. In the AfD, editors have proposed merging the list and other sourced content to this article. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete / incorrect Social Security Area Numbers list
The table shows number range 587–665 as issued in "California (Southern California, presumably)", but this cannot be correct. My SSN starts with 595, issued in 1986, and my daughter's starts with 593, issued right after she was born in 1997, both from Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbigdawg1 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've made an edit showing that series 237-246 were originally North Carolina area numbers. While I'm aware that the SSA has periodically handed out documents listing this series as "not issued," there are an awful lot of folks from NC who would beg to differ, including me, my family and 90% of my friends. I can also attest to this as a primary source simply because I've worked in HR in North Carolina and thus have handled a lot of SSNs issued in that state. 2601:C8:4101:A1E:2C5C:11E6:6F16:EFB5 (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the same error but was not willing to edit each line and it would not let me replace the table. There is alot of misleading info on the web, and adding what looks to be a reference that would come from government database makes it that much more misleading. I too was born in FL and their table says CA. This is more accurate I believe:

Number Prefix	State Issued 001-003	New Hampshire 004-007	Maine 008-009	Vermont 010-034	Massachusetts 035-039	Rhode Island 040-049	Connecticut 050-134	New York 135-158	New Jersey 159-211	Pennsylvania 212-220	Maryland 221-222	Delaware 223-231 & 691-699	Virginia 232	West Virginia - North Carolina 233-236	West Virginia 237-246 & 681-690	North Carolina 247-251 & 654-658	South Carolina 252-260 & 667-675	Georgia 261-267 & 589-595 & 765-772	Florida 268-302	Ohio 303-317	Indiana 318-361	Illinois 362-386	Michigan 387-399	Wisconsin 400-407	Kentucky 408-415 & 756-763	Tennessee 416-424	Alabama 425-428 & 587-588 & 752-755	Mississippi 429-432 & 676-679	Arkansas 700-728	Railroad 729-733	Enumeration of Entery 433-439 & 659-665	Louisiana 440-448	Oklahoma 449-467 & 627-647	Texas 468-477	Minnesota 478-485	Iowa 486-500	Missouri 501-502	North Dakota 503-504	South Dakota 505-508	Nebraska 508-515	Kansas 516-517	Montana 518-519	Idaho 520	Wyoming 521-524 & 650-653	Colorado 525 & 585 & 648-649	New Mexico 526-527 & 600-601 & 764-765	Arizona 528-529	Utah 530 & 680	Nevada 531-539	Washington 540-544	Oregon 545-573 & 602-626	California 574	Alaska 575-576 & 750-751	Hawaii 577-579	District of Columbia 580	Virgin Islands 586	Guam, American Samoa & Philippines 596-599	Puerto Rico Deadmessager (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Reuse of numbers
An old UPI article marked as from Provo, Utah, found on microfilm, states that a 19 year old Brigham Young student requested the lowest SS number after the original woman given it had died a few years earlier. James Cardswell, chief of the Social Security Department told him that department policy against reuse was being re-evaluated. A card with that number was reissued to Randy Jenkins from Glendale, Arizona. There may be typos in the Septemner 28, 1975 article which lists July 1976 as when he recieved number 000-00-001. Hope these details may help track down if this was a one-off incident. Colonial Computer 07:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)

Here is a followup article to back up the previously mentioned microfilm story about Randy Jenkins obtaining the previously used lowest SS number in 1976. http://www.modernmormonmen.com/2012/11/mormon-world-records-3.html Colonial Computer 17:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The first link in the section on reuse states under the current numbering system numbers are not reused but the above case shows that was not the case in 1976. Colonial Computer 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Several thoughts:
 * This story is implausible.
 * I don't have high confidence in some human-interest news article, or a blog post, or a book of world records.
 * Both reports here claim the number was 000-00-001, but that's not how SSNs work; as detailed in the article page, no SSNs with an all-0 block is ever valid, and the first block represents area, not order in which the number was issued.
 * The blog post cites The Skousen Book of Mormon World Records and Other Amazing Firsts, Facts, and Feats, which could be looked into.
 * Ah, interesting: if you "look inside" on Amazon, you can see the blogpost is exactly the same text as the full section of this book about this topic, with only two omissions: 1. A picture of Randy Jenkins holding a card that is clearly this student ID card (due to bearing a picture of his face and the name of his university) and not the social security card 2. The citation (LDS 7/16/82), which means, according to the sources key at the front, it's from the Latter Day Sentinel 7/16/82.
 * It also mentions 'he climbed over the federal bureaucracy and, with the help of his Arizona congressmen and senators, sparked the passage of a bill authorizing the reissue of the first 10 social security numbers. Congress agreed to reissue the numbers in 1976 "in the spirit of the Bicentennial celebration."' which implies there's a public law from Congress one could find.
 * I guess it would be helpful to have a link to an online copy of this alleged microfilm article. Check archive.org?
 * It's funny that the Commissioner of Social Security, in a matter regarding their cards, was named James B. Cardwell, but that part, at least, is true. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources cited by Colonial Computer aren't credible. The Social Security Administration itself says that the first number officially issued was 055-09-0001 and that the lowest number ever issued was 001-01-0001. 001 was an area number for SSNs from New Hampshire, and the number was issued to a resident of Concord (the state's capital). There is no area number 000. This article itself says that numbers with only zeroes in any of its three parts are never issued. Largoplazo (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)