What's new

Social Security Numbers...

Are social security numbers recycled? What do the numbers mean?

Dear Cecil:

Are Social Security numbers "recycled"? If not, then why is my number lower than my (older) boyfriend's? If you add the current population (now about 250,000,000) to the number of Americans who have died since 1935 (when Social Security began), wouldn't the resulting number exceed nine digits in an S.S. number, proving my little theory about recycling?

OK, Cecil, tell me I'm full of blarney, but what do the numbers represent? --Lisa W., New York

Dear Lisa:

You're full of blarney. We aims to please around here.

Cecil wishes he could tell you Social Security numbers were as fraught with meaning as the driver's license numbers issued by some states, which encode everything but your IQ. But no such luck.

Prior to 1973, the first three digits indicated the state of the issuing Social Security office. Since 1973, the first three digits "are determined by the ZIP Code of the mailing address shown on the application for a Social Security number," it says here. But it's still basically done by states.

The remaining digits are simply a serial number. To date recycling hasn't been necessary, but more on this in a moment.

So you can make sure they didn't screw up and give you a wrong number with God knows what ghastly consequences for your retirement, here's how the numbers are assigned:

001-003 NH
004-007 ME
008-009 VT
010-034 MA
035-039 RI
040-049 CT
050-134 NY
135-158 NJ
159-211 PA
212-220 MD
221-222 DE
223-231 VA
691-699 "
232-236 WV
232 NC
237-246 NC
681-690 "
247-251 SC
654-658 "
252-260 GA
667-675 "
261-267 FL
589-595 "
268-302 OH
303-317 IN
318-361 IL
362-386 MI
387-399 WI
400-407 KY
408-415 TN
756-753 TN
416-424 AL
425-428 MS
587-588 "
752-755 "
429-432 AR
676-679 "
433-439 LA
659-665 "
440-448 OK
449-467 TX
627-645 "
486-477 MN
478-485 IA
486-500 MO
501-502 ND
503-504 SD
505-508 NE
509-515 KS
516-517 MT
518-519 ID
520 WY
521-524 CO
650-653 "
525,585 NM
648-649 "
526-527 AZ
600-601 "
528-529 UT
646,647 "
530,680 NV
531-539 WA
540-544 OR
545-573 CA
602-626 "
574 AK
575-576 HI
750-751 "
577-579 DC
580 VI
580-584 PR
596-599 "
586 GU
586 AS

Some states were assigned additional numbers due to population growth. Numbers that show up for more than one state were reassigned or cover several small localities.

Until 1963, workers covered under the Railroad Retirement Act, which predated Social Security, were given numbers between 700 and 728. The Philippines prior to independence had 586. You're fascinated, I'm sure.

The question one might ask is: why should a Social Security number mean anything--why not just make it a straight serial number? No reason, from what I can gather. It's mainly a holdover from the old days.

Before 1973, social security numbers were issued by local field offices. To prevent duplication, states were allocated blocks of numbers.

In 1973, number issuance was centralized at Social Security Administration HQ in Baltimore. The feds could easily have switched to the straight serial method at this point but didn't, apparently out of a primordial bureaucratic instinct that once a system, always a system.

No big deal, I guess, except that the numbers will run out faster than they might have otherwise--that is, as soon as the last block of a million numbers is allocated and the first state begins to run dry.

Happily for us, this is yet another looming crisis we can fob off on our grandchildren.

About 360 million Social Security numbers have been issued to date, 211 million of which are "active," i.e., the holders are still breathing. Since there are about a billion possible numbers (actually 999 million, since nobody seems to want the 000 series), we'll be halfway into the next century before it's time to panic.

At the moment Social Security masterminds aren't sweating it. Their most pressing concern isn't running out of numbers, it's running out of money.

OUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED

Dear Cecil:

Cecil, you're a hopeless romantic. Sure, it makes sense that if only 360 million people have ever had nine-digit Social Security numbers, it'll take 639 million more before we run out. But when did logic ever have anything to do with the federal government?

One major use of Social Security numbers is for taxpayer and employer identification--and what with corporations, trusts, partnerships, not-for-profits, and various other obscure business enterprises, there are a lot more taxpayers and employers than Social Security registrants.

So what's the REAL straight dope? Is D(uplication)-Day right around the corner? --Harry Doakes, Portland, Oregon

Cecil replies:

Harry, I know you are a good soul. So even though I am now obliged to whup you upside the head, know that I do it with love.

Only people can get Social Security numbers, not corporations. When businesses file taxes they have to use what is variously known as a taxpayer or employer ID number. Like the SS number, it has nine digits, but it's grouped differently-- 00-0000000 versus 000-00-0000.

You may say a hyphen is a pretty frail bulwark against national chaos should a significant fraction of taxpayer ID numbers duplicate Social Security numbers (as indeed has probably occurred).

But the folks at the Social Security Administration basically say, hey, not our problem--we don't issue taxpayer ID numbers, the IRS does.

A pretty cavalier attitude, but look at the bright side. They might accidentally send you the tax refund check for IBM.

One more thing. It occurs to me I may have been too hasty in describing the last six digits of the Social Security number as "simply a serial number." Whatever may be said about Uncle Sam being logical, nothing involving the federal government is simple.

The fourth and fifth digits of the SS number are what's known as the "group number." In a system that's perverse even by government standards, SS numbers for a given state are issued in this order: first all those having odd group code numbers from 01 to 09, then even numbers from 10 to 98, then even from 02 to 08, and finally odd numbers from 11 to 99.

According to one of my less reputable sources, all numbers issued before 1965 are either odd numbers between 01 and 09 or even numbers between 10 and 98.

I'm told the purpose of this rigamarole is so some sharp-eyed sleuth at SS HQ can look at a Social Security number and say, "Ha! Group number 99 from the state of Maine! We haven't issued them yet--this number is a fake!"

Seems to me it would be just as easy to look the thing up in the Big Book of Issued Numbers. But I bet if I was a federal bureaucrat trying to justify my appropriation, I'd come up with stuff like this too.


I thought you guys and gals may find this interesting....

mark the shoeshine boy
 
Well, it checks out for me.... ie first three #s match my birth state. Interesting.

But what happens if you are born in Guam bec your dad is in the air force or something?

If only someone here knew...
 
ada8356 said:
Well, it checks out for me.... ie first three #s match my birth state. Interesting.

But what happens if you are born in Guam bec your dad is in the air force or something?

If only someone here knew...

Gee, maybe I can answer this question for you Aaron. :001_rolle

This checks out for me, too. As I was born in Guam, but the issuing state(as the article states) for my SSN is Washington.

I think on the list of numbers GU stands for Guam. Guam was/is a territory of the US.

However, my mother was born in Okinawa, and I'm not sure of her SSN, nor which state issued her SSN.

This all raises a different question, births overseas. Do parents have to apply for SSNs for the children through the military or something if they are living in a different country, on assignment?
 
I at first this was going to be something like: "I like learning about people's SS numbers, post yours! mine is 555-55-5555!" :tongue_sm

I don't quite understand my number according to that list. I was born in SC and at 2 moved to ID... My number matches the ID block, not the SC block.
 
fuerein said:
I at first this was going to be something like: "I like learning about people's SS numbers, post yours! mine is 555-55-5555!" :tongue_sm

I don't quite understand my number according to that list. I was born in SC and at 2 moved to ID... My number matches the ID block, not the SC block.

Your parents probably didn't apply for a SSN for you until you were living in ID. It isn't birth state, but issuing state. Some people don't get SSN for their children til later in life.

I was 1 or 2 when we left Guam.
 
mrs. chefchris said:
Your parents probably didn't apply for a SSN for you until you were living in ID. It isn't birth state, but issuing state. Some people don't get SSN for their children til later in life.

I was 1 or 2 when we left Guam.


Ah, seeing as how I have no children and have no plans in that direction I really didn't know how the whole applying thing worked. I always assumed it was one of those your kid is born and in the stack of medical release forms is a SS app. for the child or something. Yeah, like I said I know nothing about having kids!
 
I do know that if you are going to claim a child as a dependent for tax purposes, they now have to have a SS number. I'm not sure when that law was enacted.

Randy
 
mrs. chefchris said:
I believe you don't even have to have a SSN.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct, you don't! There's actually language in the Social Security Act that specificially precludes the SS# from being used as a national identifier, but all that's gone by the wayside in practice. There are some people out there without SS numbers, but as virtually all your important financial, career, legal, and educational matters are tied to it nowadays, I don't see how they can get along without one. Legally you can, practically you can't.
 
rtaylor61 said:
I do know that if you are going to claim a child as a dependent for tax purposes, they now have to have a SS number. I'm not sure when that law was enacted.

Randy

The language of the law is really confusing here... the IRS requires you to have it, but the SS act forbids it. It gets really complicated for new parents who wait to apply for their kids' SS numbers. I've heard that if you really push the issue with the IRS (usually requires the intervention of lawyers), you can get around the requirement, but its not easy, quick, or pleasant.
 
mrs. chefchris said:
I believe you don't even have to have a SSN.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think there is any legal requirement for a SSN, well unless you want a job. The IRS requires all US workers (at least US citizens, not sure the requirements for people on green cards) to have a SSN.
 
Does anyone have an older SS card? The ones that used to say something about the SSN not being a id number and such. I was looking for the exact wording, but I only have my SS card from post marriage. New cards don't have any type of similar statement.

edit: castlecraver beat me to the point I was planning on making.
 
I got a good SS story for you. I joined a tanning bed so I won't (still hope I won't) get all pasty white this winter. They wanted me to give them my SS #, as well as a finger print on a letter they sent me. They explained it would keep others from "wrongfully accessing my account information," however it also had a nice disclaimer on the back that they share their information with other affiliated companies.

Hmm... why put a SS# and a fingerprint on an application that states "We will share your information with affiliated companies," well that's beyond me. What disturbs me more is this is a Tanning Bed facility, and its not like you are accessing a Bank Deposit Vault. . . and I'm even more surprised that the young 18 year old working the desk was piffed at my questions regarding Privacy disclaimers and their company's guarantees to protect my Credit information in the situation that there might be a "stolen laptop/hard drive."

Oh well, I guess we are moving away from the point in time when SS#'s were only for employment verification, and verification of US citizenship.
 
:a14: Wow! Who would have thought that a Barber Shop thread with the phrase 'Social Security' in it wouldn't have resulted in a flame war by now!

Mark you are losing your touch!!:biggrin: :lol:
 
Top Bottom