Links on Social Security:
Social Security: Idolatry and Slavery A pastor speaks out! Wonderful sermon!
IS YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD THE MARK OF THE BEAST?
Social Security Inspector General Testifies Before Congress: "the time has come to put the SSN 'back into its box.'"
 

Copied from the Social Security website at:  http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html

---

"If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested." ...

"Giving your number is voluntary even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask:

        why your number is needed;
        how your number will be used;
        what happens if you refuse; and
        what law requires you to give your number. "

---

Below is a quote from the url above:

      Employment is a form of contractual agreement. Generally, the same points made in the previous answer
      regarding contractual agreements also apply here. If the terms of employment include a requirement that
      the employee must supply their social security number then there are basically four options available: 1)
      supply the requested SSN; 2) ask to work out another arrangement where the SSN isn't required; 3)
      don't work for that company; or, 4) sue the business in court.

      An employee or job applicant may be able to receive protection from coerced submission of a SSN for
      employment purposes by relying on federal anti-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
      Section 703(a)(1), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes it unlawful to discriminate against
      any employee or perspective employee on the bases of his or her religion. (This is in addition to the basic
      Constitutional First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion.)

      In 1992 a complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by a Mr.
      Hanson, wherein he claimed as a "Christian Fundamentalist" he could not obtain or use a SSN. The
      EEOC filed suit against the business that fired Mr. Hanson on his behalf. The suit claimed that firing Mr.
      Hanson due to his not having or getting a SSN constituted discrimination due to his religious belief. The
      business claimed that they were required to either force Mr. Hanson to get a SSN or fire him because
      they were required by certain IRS Code sections and regulations to report all employees' SSNs on
      certain IRS forms. The business also responded that it was required by federal law to report all
      employees' SSNs to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

      The EEOC countered that the only requirement imposed upon a  businesses by the various tax laws was
      that employers must "request" an employee's or potential employee's taxpayer identification number, and
      that there was be no penalty for a business not succeeding in obtaining one. The EEOC, itself a federal
      government agency, stated in its "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" that:

      "the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the code do not contain an
      absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee social security number to the IRS."

      The EEOC further argued that employers were permitted to use any one of several acceptable forms of
      identification and employment eligibility verification other than a SSN and still comply with the
      Immigration Reform Act requirements.

      The Court denied the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint. A settlement was later reached in
      which Mr. Hanson was awarded back-pay. The Court's final decree setting out the terms of the
      settlement stated that:

      "The [employer] shall be permanently enjoined from terminating an employee for failure to provide a
      social security number because of religious beliefs."

      A sincerely held religious belief may serve as a valid basis for objecting to requirements for a social
      security number for employment purposes. A business could be found guilty of discrimination for taking
      adverse action against an employee or applicant due to their refusal to use or obtain a SSN. 

"Charging Party alleges that he was denied reasonable accommodation and discharged because of his religion, Protestant.

The evidence reveals that the respondent could have accomodated the Charging Party without undue hardship.  All that was necessary was that it request a social security number and so notify the Internal Revenue Service by affidavit, that it had done so.

Based on the foregoing, it is concluded there is a reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as emended, by failing to provide Charging Party with a religious accommodation and discharing him from employment."

It appears the freedom fighters in the patriot movement are beginning to get their act together.  A few are no longer trying to charge people over $1000 to teach them why they are not legally required to pay taxes, and to teach the best ways of figuring out how to do that.

Social Security Number Not Required Policy Manuel for $80

Irwin Shiff charges only $38 for information on how to file a "zero" tax return which have actually caused the government to write and send out refund checks of past taxes that people have paid.
http://www.paynoincometax.com/

Otto Skinner charges only $80 for three books on why you don't need to file anything at all. Also known as "the reliance defense", so that you can't be legally prosecuted for "willful failure to file".
http://www.ottoskinner.com/

Irwin and Otto disagree with each other on the best ways to persue the goal of not paying any income taxes to the U.S. Government, but at least they are not charging an arm and a leg for the information.

I suppose one day, people will provide for free, the best information for how to proceed.  Unless pastors step up to the plate and teach people why they do not owe taxes and how they can go about that process, they will never free themselves from the constraints of the 501c3 laws which put a gag order on political speech in the Churches.   You see, rich people who pay taxes typically give the maximal allowable contribution to their favorite charities already; their own trust funds.  In order to claim tax exemption on donations beyond 15% of their income, which has already been donated to themselves, the organizations to which they donate need to be "legal non-profits" such as a 501c3 organization.  Therefore, Churches incorporated themselves under 501c3, and submitted to IRS rules on what they could say from the pulpit, in order that the wealthy members of their churches could claim a tax deduction for donations beyond the 15% limit.  In other words, 501c3 Churches have turned aside from accepting God as Lord, and agreed that the IRS must be their authority, specifically because they were greedy for the money of wealthy Church members.   The main issue is also that if pastors don't teach their parishoners how to be free, they will never be free themselves.