Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3896 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
Please don't waste your time on this topic.
I know the reasoning. I understand the arguments.
Even if it sounds good. Even if it starts to make sense.
You are not a lawyer.
It doesn't work.
Don't try it.
You will lose. _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
Cloud9 wrote:
Wesley Snipes led a tax revolt. He got three years.
That doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. It just means that the judge (You'll notice Snipes was denied the right to a jury) chose to uphold the status quo. The fact that Snipes sounds like a raving lunatic didn't help his case, either.
The Snipes trial was predetermined. Not because this or that law says something, but because if he were found not guilty, it would set precident and the entire tax system would collapse. Look at an excerpt from this article:
Quote:
Prosecutors said Snipes' case was important to send a message to would-be tax protesters not to test the government.
"Don't test us" isn't a very compelling legal argument, but it sums up the situation nicely. Translation: "We will do what we want, whether it's legal or not." _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
madpaddler wrote:
Most Americans today feel that the IRC applies to everyone. No matter how many Americans believe it to be true it is still factually and legally inaccurate. The IRC only applies to "taxpayers".
That is factually incorrect. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" (There are separate tables for surviving spouses, heads of household, and married individuals that use the same language)
Every individual who has income is liable for the tax, and every individual who is liable for the tax is required to file forms as required by the secretary of the treasury.
Quote:
So…how do you know if you're "subject to" an internal revenue tax? Ordinarily the first step would be to ask an expert, but as we've already covered, today's "experts" are little more than mouthpieces for the IRS. Asking them would not be terribly useful if you're looking for factual and objective answers. The second way would be to read the law for yourself; but where to start?
Not hard at all. If you have a copy of the Internal Revenue Code, start at the front. The first paragraph of chapter 1 tells you that if you are an individual, and you have income, you are liable for the tax.
The only way that the Code doesn't govern is if it's ruled unconstitutional. That, of course, has never happened. Anything else is just people talking smack and trying to mislead the gullible.
Quote:
Requiring and demanding are virtually the same. You think you must do or else, correct? The actual wording is "request" the number. You have the ability to deny the request as your salary for labor is not "income" Interest, dividends and money made via corp activity is a "taxable" item. A salary is earned from labor and does not include any gains as the term income requires.
You realize that you are talking out your anus right? Those things are clearly defined, and I've posted the definitions. Income is explicitly defined to include payment for services (i.e. labor). You are REQUIRED by the statute to file whatever form the IRS decides. It's there in very plain language and the only reason to have any confusion about this is some obtuse denial process. _________________ "I was born in a deep forest
I wish I could live here all my life
I am made from stones and roots
My home, these woods and roads
All my life I loved this sound
Of the woods all around
Eagles fly where the winds blow free" -Korpiklaani
Joined: Aug 30, 2005 Posts: 16 Location: South of the Mason Dixon Line
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
BigTex wrote:
Please don't waste your time on this topic.
I know the reasoning. I understand the arguments.
Even if it sounds good. Even if it starts to make sense.
You are not a lawyer.
It doesn't work.
Don't try it.
You will lose.
So, if I was a lawyer, it would work? I'm starting to think you may be a tax attorney with, say... ? I am not an attorney, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
The waste of time is happening every day we sit back and sip our Corona's, am yes I am ok with paying the tax on them. We are ALL losing right now and against very big odds, why not try?
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3896 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
madpaddler wrote:
BigTex wrote:
Please don't waste your time on this topic.
I know the reasoning. I understand the arguments.
Even if it sounds good. Even if it starts to make sense.
You are not a lawyer.
It doesn't work.
Don't try it.
You will lose.
So, if I was a lawyer, it would work?
No. If you were a lawyer you would realize how dumb it is.
Sorry, I don't like saying things like that to fellow members here, but you are talking about taking risks with very heavy penalties when there is virtually no benefit associated with the risk.
I want to be helpful here. Trust me. If there was a way to make these arguments work, I would be out there making them.
I'm not going to post any more to this thread, but in almost 10 years of law practice I have seen these arguments trotted out in one form or another many times, and they always lose. Always. Every single time. It's not even close. _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
BigTex wrote:
Trust me. If there was a way to make these arguments work, I would be out there making them.
I'm not going to post any more to this thread, but in almost 10 years of law practice I have seen these arguments trotted out in one form or another many times, and they always lose. Always. Every single time. It's not even close.
If you want to make these arguments work, you have to convince your state's legislature to stand up for it's citizens. AFAIK, "Mack/Printz v USA" is still the controlling precident when it comes to states' rights. Of course, that will mean convincing them to give up all of those big, fat federal subsidies. Difficult, but not necessarily insurmountable. Get out there and lobby. _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
Tex, SPG, heres a brain twister for ya. How can they tax someone without a social security number? TIN right? Only you can't get a TIN if you are eligible for a SSN. So if you are a natural born US citizen who has CHOSEN not to get a SSN they have no way of withholding and no way for you to file a return other than to tell you "get an SSN" - which is not mandatory. Note - if you have an SSN you cannot get rid of it.
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3896 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
gnm wrote:
Tex, SPG, heres a brain twister for ya. How can they tax someone without a social security number? TIN right? Only you can't get a TIN if you are eligible for a SSN. So if you are a natural born US citizen who has CHOSEN not to get a SSN they have no way of withholding and no way for you to file a return other than to tell you "get an SSN" - which is not mandatory. Note - if you have an SSN you cannot get rid of it.
-G
The withholding obligation is on the employer. You would have to apply for a refund without a SS# or a TIN and that wouldn't work.
Red flag. _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
Only you cannot file a W2 so the withholding is not on the employer as the potential employee is exempt from withholding/filing. You could also work self employed. I should add that I didn't have an SSN until I was 18. And I worked before that. Stupid me went and got one because some numbnutz told me it was _required_.
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3896 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
gnm wrote:
Only you cannot file a W2 so the withholding is not on the employer as the potential employee is exempt from withholding/filing. You could also work self employed. I should add that I didn't have an SSN until I was 18. And I worked before that. Stupid me went and got one because some numbnutz told me it was _required_.
-G
I don't understand your first sentence. Employers are required to withhold on wages, regardless of who they are paid to (so long as they meet the definition of wages--it's defined in two places in the Code for this purpose).
As for an independent contractor not making quarterly estimated payments based upon the theory that they are somehow not liable for income taxes if they don't have a SS# or a TIN, that gets us back to the issue of whether an income tax evasion scheme makes sense, and I'm saying it doesn't. _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
It only applies if you have an SSN. Thats what I am saying - Its impossible to file a return without an SSN. Nor does the IRS have any method of withholding in the absence of an SSN. And there is no requirement to get an SSN - but there is also no way to get rid of an SSN....
By getting an SSN you are essentially entering into a permanent contract with the "corporate" US and agreeing to be subject to all tax law.
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3896 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
gnm wrote:
It only applies if you have an SSN. Thats what I am saying - Its impossible to file a return without an SSN. Nor does the IRS have any method of withholding in the absence of an SSN. And there is no requirement to get an SSN - but there is also no way to get rid of an SSN....
-G
And if you don't get caught everything will be fine.
But don't mistake not getting caught for an approach that works within the existing rules.
It's not impossible to file a return without a SSN. The filing requirement is not only applicable to people with SSNs.
The IRS does have a method of withholding in the absence of a SSN--it's the TIN.
I'm not arguing any of this is right or the best approach, I'm just trying to tell you what the IRS says when they catch people doing this kind of thing. _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3896 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
gnm wrote:
Catch them doing what? Not having an SSN?
Please tell me how to file without an SSN. The IRS says you can't. I called them. Its SSN or TIN.
You can't get a TIN if you are eligible for an SSN. So still no withholding.
-G
The withholding requirement is applicable to the employer.
The requirement to report income and pay tax on it is the obligation of the individual.
As for whether not having a TIN or a SSN could give you a better tax outcome, think about that for a second. All the IRS would say is that when you have U.S. income you have an obligation to either apply for a SSN or a TIN.
But the liability for tax on income is unrelated to whether you have a SSN or a TIN. The decision not to pay tax on income because you do not have a SSN or a TIN is not a good strategy. _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: Very Disturbing
gnm wrote:
Only you cannot file a W2 so the withholding is not on the employer as the potential employee is exempt from withholding/filing.
Exempt from filing, only if you are below certain income limits. Exempt from withholding, no. The only way to be exempt from withholding is to file a W-2 and mark the box indicating you are exempt. The employer is responsible for collecting the W-2 from you, ensuring that the SSN is correct, and withholding correctly. As an employer, you can be fined for not reporting employee income using the right SSN, even if the employee gave you an incorrect number. (Social security has a system employers can use to ensure the number is correct.) see publication 15, Employers Tax Guide.
As far as I am aware, it is not possible to legally hire someone without a completed W-2 including either an SSN or an alien ITIN. _________________ "I was born in a deep forest
I wish I could live here all my life
I am made from stones and roots
My home, these woods and roads
All my life I loved this sound
Of the woods all around
Eagles fly where the winds blow free" -Korpiklaani
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I am not an attorney, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
