Wapsi Square Forum

What makes it even worse is that SS Numbers are not supposed to be mandatory - which, I believe, was to help with that pool of numbers. (They may not have thought of it that way, however).

Also, at the time that they created SS, corporations were not, and could not be, treated as individuals. They were 'owned' by one or more people. Most of the time, they were created as joint ventures between multiple individuals' companies, and were dissolved after some action. (Thus incorporation papers asking how long the corporation would last, or what would close it out).

So, original companies were based on the _owner_ of the company, which would make the SS number as ID work just fine. Everyone was just an employee of his/hers.

Warrl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:26 pmFrankly, they need to revise the system to use longer SSNs. Which need not be strictly numeric, but must be designed to be easily remembered.

... but must not contain any sequence of letters which any person or group in the country considers to be obscene, insulting, or otherwise objectionable. That's a hard problem to solve, as many states have found out the hard way when issuing license plates.

I'd suggest using nontraditional characters, or even glyphs, but I suppose that would just get the Social Security Administration into serious trouble with the ɮɔ̃ʢ∅ɣ Antidefamation League.

Right, number 6.

Anyway - the simplest way to work with SS#'s would just to be to pad them out. Add another set of three to the end. If someone puts in 666-66-6666, then it'll be translated as 666-66-6666-000 (or 000-666-66-6666) That's how two of my bank accounts have worked.