6.5 million active Social Security numbers belong to 'people' over 112 years old

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://national.suntimes.com/us-news/7/72/764666/social-security-audit

There are over 6.5 million “people” with Social Security numbers over the age of 112, according to an audit by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general.

Findings by the Gerontology Research Group hold that there have been only 35 people known to reach the age of 112 in the world.

The audit report found that death dates had not been entered for these individuals into their electronic file, called Numident. The study found that the SSA was not properly equipped to “annotate death information on the Numident records of numberholders who exceeded maximum reasonable life expectancies and were likely deceased.”

The report says, ”We obtained Numident data that identified approximately 6.5 million numberholders born before June 16, 1901 who did not have a date of death on their record.”

A relatively small number of Social Security numbers were used in attempt to apply for work.

“During Calendar Years 2008 through 2011, SSA received 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using the SSNs of 3,873 numberholders born before June 16, 1901,” the report says. “These inquiries indicate individuals’ attempts to use the SSNs to apply for work.”

According to CNS News, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, a ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said:
“It is simply unacceptable that our nation’s database of Social Security numbers of supposedly living people includes more than six and a half million people who are older than 112 years of age, with a few thousand having birth dates from before the Civil War. Preventing agency errors by keeping track of who has died is a relatively simple problem that the government should pursue as a high priority.”

**Orlanth**

Yay claim backdated benefits for random names.

Easy, ,lucrative and we'll never be caught.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

I'd much rather governements keep 'live' numbers rather than automatically assuming people are dead over a certain age

making assumptions of death is much more likely to result in old folk who need benefits and similar being declared dead and suffering extensively trying to get a government agency to admit they are still alive

if they are really worried about these numbers actually spend the time/effort and money to track down what's happened to the people involved

**streamdragon**

Orlanth wrote:
Yay claim backdated benefits for random names.

Easy, ,lucrative and we'll never be caught.

Of course not, that would require enough inspectors to go after these requests.

I am curious, though, what percentage of total requests that is. The article says "a relatively small number", without saying exactly what that relatively small number is.

**d-usa**

Sounds like a problem for the individual states ".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Yay claim backdated benefits for random names.

Easy, ,lucrative and we'll never be caught.

Of course not, that would require enough inspectors to go after these requests.

I am curious, though, what percentage of total requests that is. The article says "a relatively small number", without saying exactly what that relatively small number is.

“During Calendar Years 2008 through 2011, SSA received 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using the SSNs of 3,873 numberholders born before June 16, 1901,” the report says. “These inquiries indicate individuals’ attempts to use the SSNs to apply for work.”

**easysauce**

sounds like something they should crowdsource out to the internet for auditing...

**streamdragon**

d-usa wrote:
Sounds like a problem for the individual states ".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Yay claim backdated benefits for random names.

Easy, ,lucrative and we'll never be caught.

Of course not, that would require enough inspectors to go after these requests.

I am curious, though, what percentage of total requests that is. The article says "a relatively small number", without saying exactly what that relatively small number is.

“During Calendar Years 2008 through 2011, SSA received 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using the SSNs of 3,873 numberholders born before June 16, 1901,” the report says. “These inquiries indicate individuals’ attempts to use the SSNs to apply for work.”

I saw that, I just read it as 4,024 total fraudulent requests using 3,873 SSNs (i.e., some numbers were tried multiple times). It doesn't tell me how many total requests, fraudulent and not, were made though, so I don't know if this is <1%? <5%? <10%? I mean "relatively few" isn't very specific is all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
sounds like something they should crowdsource out to the internet for auditing...

Wait, you're suggesting putting possibly active SSNs out on the internet for anyone to pick up?

**easysauce**

Well it was a bit of a tongue in cheek statement as should be obvious.

But if they lack the #'s to clean this up, yes they should hire more people (and vet them OBS)... I hear the internet has a lot of people with time on their hands.

**d-usa**

easysauce wrote:
Well it was a bit of a tongue in cheek statement as should be obvious.

But if they lack the #'s to clean this up, yes they should hire more people (and vet them OBS)... I hear the internet has a lot of people with time on their hands.

My guess is that it's less of a #'s problem and more of a "the states keep crappy information about deaths and/or are crappy about sharing that information".

**hotsauceman1**

Why are we so callous to the living impaired. Just because they are dead doesn't mean they don't have needs.

**d-usa**

Another problem with dead folks SSN's (but probably not with the 112 year olds) is that even though the person holding the SSN is dead, the SSN itself may very well still be active and used for legitimate reasons such as survivor benefits.

**Orlanth**

On thinking through this its a form of 'millenium bug', the only type of 'millenium bug' that had any real effect. As most ages are in two digit reference a 112 year old can be very similar to a 12 year old for benefits purposes, both were born in '03.

We also have to take account that centenarians might be more common than at first thought, the trouble with lists of centenarians is formal verification. Though super-centenarians (over 110) are a tiny fraction of the whole.

**easysauce**

d-usa wrote:
Another problem with dead folks SSN's (but probably not with the 112 year olds) is that even though the person holding the SSN is dead, the SSN itself may very well still be active and used for legitimate reasons such as survivor benefits.

yeah, had the computer systems/programs already been in place and working right, we wouldnt be in this situation.

I used to work with all the canucks SS, might be a bit different then the states, but its a total mess... more tote boxes full of paper files then a working software system IMO.

At this point though there are a lot of individual cases to be looked at in detail, and a lot of out of work Americans that could do with some government jobs (even if temporary)

**Ouze**

I feel like whatever percentage of that number who are receiving some sort of benefits, which is probably - with 6.5 million - not a small number; represents a government effort that would probably pay for itself quickly if they set up a detail to investigate said percentage.

**Jihadin**

Federal Government do not close out SSN though. It collects interest and all that stuff. Its where the benefits (money) comes from to those who come here on Refugee status. A few other classifications of individuals are also covered besides those in Refugee status

**sebster**

I’d expect there isn’t that much of a fraud threat to social security out of this. Claiming direct from government with a number that’s for a 125 year old will raise red flags. The bigger issue in that sense is using the numbers for other fraudulent activity – one story on this mentions a bank opened by a person who was apparently 145 years old at the time. And of course fraudulent SSNs are used by illegal immigrants to bypass government controls.

In terms of government, I think the scale of failure on such a simple issue as using death records to close SSNs is indicative that there is a whole lot more problems in the system.

**LordofHats**

sebster wrote:
I’d expect there isn’t that much of a fraud threat to social security out of this. Claiming direct from government with a number that’s for a 125 year old will raise red flags. The bigger issue in that sense is using the numbers for other fraudulent activity – one story on this mentions a bank opened by a person who was apparently 145 years old at the time. And of course fraudulent SSNs are used by illegal immigrants to bypass government controls.

In terms of government, I think the scale of failure on such a simple issue as using death records to close SSNs is indicative that there is a whole lot more problems in the system.

You want SS to be functional? Damn communist

**sebster**

LordofHats wrote:
You want SS to be functional? Damn communist

Me? A communist? Absolutely not, I promise you I am no such thing, comrade. gak, I mean buddy. I promise you I am not a communist, buddy.

Umm... SSN is evil! Something, something, mark of the beast!

**Grey Templar**

The SS system is definitely broken, although people over 100 years of age will only become more common so this is something we'll see more of. Some studies predict that people born today could live as long as 140.

Social Security was built on a completely flawed premise(a pyramid of age distribution as opposed to the reality of a modern society which is a more even distribution) so the entire system really needs to be torn down and completely rebuilt. As things stand, I'll never get money out of it.

**Steve steveson**

Grey Templar wrote:
The SS system is definitely broken, although people over 100 years of age will only become more common so this is something we'll see more of. Some studies predict that people born today could live as long as 140.

Social Security was built on a completely flawed premise(a pyramid of age distribution as opposed to the reality of a modern society which is a more even distribution) so the entire system really needs to be torn down and completely rebuilt. As things stand, I'll never get money out of it.

That will only happen once the pensioners around today have miked the system for everything they can, claiming more than they put in, whilst shouting "I am getting what I paid for", whilst we will pay in far more than we get out at the end. Same as with final salary pensions, but much worse (I'm a little bitter today as I got something in the post today telling me my pension contributions will go up to cover a shortfall in the current fund, something I have been in for 3 years, but its all ok as people currently in receipt will still get their pension!!! So they lose nothing and I pay for a shortfall created before I joined...)

**AlmightyWalrus**

LordofHats wrote:
sebster wrote:
I’d expect there isn’t that much of a fraud threat to social security out of this. Claiming direct from government with a number that’s for a 125 year old will raise red flags. The bigger issue in that sense is using the numbers for other fraudulent activity – one story on this mentions a bank opened by a person who was apparently 145 years old at the time. And of course fraudulent SSNs are used by illegal immigrants to bypass government controls.

In terms of government, I think the scale of failure on such a simple issue as using death records to close SSNs is indicative that there is a whole lot more problems in the system.

You want SS to be functional? Damn communist

I don't know, wanting the SS to be functional sounds a lot more nazi than commie to me...

I'll show myself out.

**Alpharius**

Dear OP,

Why so many "Swoop-n-Poop" threads?

Why so many "Open door, throw grenade, close door" threads?

Sincerely,

Alpharius

**Dreadclaw69**

Alpharius wrote:
Dear OP,

Why so many "Swoop-n-Poop" threads?

Why so many "Open door, throw grenade, close door" threads?

Sincerely,

Alpharius

I'm not certain what you mean by "Open door, throw grenade, close door". I do not believe that I had posted anything that was designed to cause mischief. None of the sources used were inflammatory, nor was there any remark on my part to rile up any section of the community. Two of the three threads I have posted recently were on topics I felt were vaguely humorous enough to share with the community (Ireland's legalizing certain substances for 24 hours, and the surgeon's arguably ill advised remarks about how to further a career). The third I thought was interesting in a much less frivolous way, but other posters had answered many questions that I had before I had a chance to ask them.

I hope this clarifies, and my sincere apologies if this has caused the moderation team any issues. If anything else occurs I would be happy to discuss it via PM to respect the rule regarding deviating from a thread''s topic.

**sebster**

Grey Templar wrote:
Social Security was built on a completely flawed premise(a pyramid of age distribution as opposed to the reality of a modern society which is a more even distribution) so the entire system really needs to be torn down and completely rebuilt. As things stand, I'll never get money out of it.

Sort of. Given current life expectations there are long term issues with the money raised covering benefits, but that hardly needs massive re-working of the system, a simple change in the amount put in will resolve the issue. It isn't even that vast a change, I think 1% extra will cover the issue in to the next century, iirc.

**Alpharius**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Alpharius wrote:
Dear OP,

Why so many "Swoop-n-Poop" threads?

Why so many "Open door, throw grenade, close door" threads?

Sincerely,

Alpharius

I'm not certain what you mean by "Open door, throw grenade, close door". I do not believe that I had posted anything that was designed to cause mischief. None of the sources used were inflammatory, nor was there any remark on my part to rile up any section of the community. Two of the three threads I have posted recently were on topics I felt were vaguely humorous enough to share with the community (Ireland's legalizing certain substances for 24 hours, and the surgeon's arguably ill advised remarks about how to further a career). The third I thought was interesting in a much less frivolous way, but other posters had answered many questions that I had before I had a chance to ask them.

I hope this clarifies, and my sincere apologies if this has caused the moderation team any issues. If anything else occurs I would be happy to discuss it via PM to respect the rule regarding deviating from a thread''s topic.

The 'problem' is when you'll post a link and a quote, and that's it.

What do YOU think?

Otherwise it just looks like an "OPEN DOOR, THROW GRENADE, CLOSE DOOR" attempt.

Is it against the rules? No?

But what are you trying to accomplish?

Shouldn't we read what YOU think about the matter?

**d-usa**

At the risk of going OT:

I know that I usually do the same thing. I prefer to post a "pure" non-opinion opening post with just a headline and the story, and then I post my thoughts after someone else posts (to keep it from appending). I certainly don't mean to swoop-n-poop, I just always felt it looked better to separate the news from the editorial, so to speak. And I also felt that the thread usually flows better if it starts out "news first, opinions later".

But if I need to stop swooping and/or pooping I shall!

**Ouze**

Yeah, I do exactly the same thing. If it's perceived as a bad posting style, I'll refrain from doing it. My rationale was that in political stories especially I don't want to be perceived as trying to put a spin on the story in the OP, I prefer to wait a few posts.

Truthfully this tangent might be a fruitful nuts & bolts thread if this is something that bothers people because - at least speaking for myself - I was oblivious that this annoyed people. On the other hand, if these behaviors mostly happen in the OT, that might be better here.

**Dreadclaw69**

Alpharius wrote:
The 'problem' is when you'll post a link and a quote, and that's it.

What do YOU think?

Otherwise it just looks like an "OPEN DOOR, THROW GRENADE, CLOSE DOOR" attempt.

Is it against the rules? No?

But what are you trying to accomplish?

Shouldn't we read what YOU think about the matter?

Again I am unsure as to what you mean by "Open door, throw grenade, close door".

To echo what d-usa and Ouze* has posted the reason that i typically do not post my thoughts on the subject in the opening post is to avoid constricting the discussion, or dissuading people from taking part because they think that an agenda is being pursued. For this same reason I attempt to avoid sources that I know will cause outright accusations of bias (Breitbart, Fox News, Mother Jones, Huff Po, etc.) All I am trying to accomplish is to aid discussion in the Off-Topic board. Sometimes it is a topic that I am unfamiliar with and am interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the subject.

In the above case had I framed the OP with either the ineffectiveness of the IRS allowing people to submit tax returns with these nunmbers, or the possibility of illegal immigrants using these Social Security Numbers I don't think that it is hard to imagine that the discussion here may have taken a very different, and possibly more heated turn, than what it has.

* edited to include Ouze, who posted as I was composing my reply

**Alpharius**

The LAST thing the OT FOURM needs is a facilitator for a conveyor belt of 'controversial topics'.

If you're not going to add something, if you're just going to post a link and a quote from the link, I ask again, what is the point?

**Dreadclaw69**

Alpharius wrote:
The LAST thing the OT FOURM needs is a facilitator for a conveyor belt of 'controversial topics'.

My thoughts exactly. Which is why I have attempted to avoid starting these topics.

Alpharius wrote:
If you're not going to add something, if you're just going to post a link and a quote from the link, I ask again, what is the point?

As I have said above the reason that I typically do not post my thoughts on the subject in the opening post is to avoid constricting the discussion, or dissuading people from taking part because they think that an agenda is being pursued. All I am trying to accomplish is to aid discussion in the Off-Topic board. Sometimes it is a topic that I am unfamiliar with and am interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the subject.