Is a payroll deduction agreement mandatory?

[LPC]

I've seen ruminations in the SovSphere about people managing to convince their employers to stop deducting taxes from their payroll but I've never seen actual proof. And based on personal experience, (namely my neighbor being jailed for failing to withold in his business), there's no way in hell that your employer would risk jail time just to indulge your bullshit.

If you search for Walter "Al" Thompson, owner of Cencal Aviation, you'll find another clear case of a guy who decided to stop withholding from his employees, and went to jail as a result. (He was released 2/8/2010, and we missed it?)

He was apparently advised by Joseph Banister, who avoided going to jail, but lost his CPA license and was disbarred from practice before the IRS.

[Dr. Caligari]

where can I find the code for making a w4 mandatory of an employee?

Withholding is mandatory in the case of an employee:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

A W4 is not mandatory. However, if an employee does not provide one, the employer must withhold at the highest rate - single, no exemptions.

It's not that hard, except for people who try to make it hard.

Another swing by PD, and another miss.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, much as it pains me, Sovrunidjitjibber might, almost, but not quite, have something. Purely by accident mind you, but even the monkey gets it right once in a while.

If for some reason, an employee wants to have MORE than the standard deduction deducted from his check, they can enter in to a “payroll deduction agreement” with the employer to deduct MORE than the law allows, and it must be a signed agreement. It isn’t mandatory, but it must be signed. Whereas a W-4 is just a certificate of exemptions to be applied towards deductions, that really is mandatory and required by law.

[Duke2Earl]

The practical solution is quite simple. If any prospective employee had ever told me that they refused to sign a W-4 for whatever reason, I would have told them they needed to find another job... because they would obviously be more trouble than they could possibly be worth. Problem solved.

[Pottapaug1938]

The bottom line: there are three options open to us. First is the signing and delivering of a W-4 to a new employer; the second is to not fill out a W-4 and -- if the new employer still wants you around -- deal with the mandatory backup withholding; and the third -- but only if you are self-employed -- is to pay estimated taxes on a quarterly basis. The option which PD so fervently wishes to be true -- that of choosing not to have taxes withheld from your paychecks -- just isn't available.

I hope that this, plus the previous posts, are enough to settle the matter for PD. However, I have my doubts....

[arayder]

The practical solution is quite simple. If any prospective employee had ever told me that they refused to sign a W-4 for whatever reason, I would have told them they needed to find another job... because they would obviously be more trouble than they could possibly be worth. Problem solved.

I have often wondered if the poor employment status of many freemen/sovs is due, in part, to their unwillingness to follow a few simple rules upon their hire.

I wonder too how many freemen/sovs use their rebel status as a way of escaping life's responsibilities. I am struck by how many of them don't have jobs because the law requires payroll withholding, don't have a car or drive because of licensing and insurance requirements, can't pay the rent, much less a mortgage, the later being in their minds a trick of the evil bankesters.

It's one thing to carry God's rules around in your heart instead of a code book, live a simple life, maybe go off the grid. But coping out to adulthood is another thing altogether.

[Pottapaug1938]

The motto of freeman/sovruns is (delivered in the tones of a petulant child) "I doan' wanna DO that, an' you can't MAKE me!" A secondary mantra, delivered in the same tone, is "it's a free country!"

[JennyD]

The practical solution is quite simple. If any prospective employee had ever told me that they refused to sign a W-4 for whatever reason, I would have told them they needed to find another job... because they would obviously be more trouble than they could possibly be worth. Problem solved.

I have often wondered if the poor employment status of many freemen/sovs is due, in part, to their unwillingness to follow a few simple rules upon their hire.

I wonder too how many freemen/sovs use their rebel status as a way of escaping life's responsibilities. I am struck by how many of them don't have jobs because the law requires payroll withholding, don't have a car or drive because of licensing and insurance requirements, can't pay the rent, much less a mortgage, the later being in their minds a trick of the evil bankesters.

It's one thing to carry God's rules around in your heart instead of a code book, live a simple life, maybe go off the grid. But coping out to adulthood is another thing altogether.

We had discussed that very thought one day in the office when we really didn't have a lot to do, and came to the conclusion that most of the Sovvies are un/underemployed for that very reason, they do not like to have to give out SSN's (it's a contract ya know or some Sovvie woo about the secret bank account slavery strawman stuff) or sign any documents or file any documents that aren't expressly approved by whatever "high Sovvie" decided they were that day.

Some things are just what they appear to be PD, a W4 tells the employer how much money to withhold form your check, if you don't file one they are required by law to withhold the maximum amount as has been stated which in some instances, is the same as with the W4 but still, what HARM does it do to file a W4? Nothing... Seriously.. you are getting your signals mixed up somewhere, and I think that you took a wrong left turn at Albuquerque..

[LPC]

I have often wondered if the poor employment status of many freemen/sovs is due, in part, to their unwillingness to follow a few simple rules upon their hire.

Not sure why you've "wondered".

Face it, what they lack in intelligence, they make up for in arrogance and asocial behavior. Not exactly "employee of the year" material.

[notorial dissent]

My feeling is that it probably goes a bit deeper than that to them not being able, or willing, to follow even the simplest direction or instruction which severely limits their ultimate employability.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I have often wondered if the poor employment status of many freemen/sovs is due, in part, to their unwillingness to follow a few simple rules upon their hire.

Not sure why you've "wondered".

Face it, what they lack in intelligence, they make up for in arrogance and asocial behavior. Not exactly "employee of the year" material.

First, thanks to everyone who answered my question.

Next, Dan you imply these people, maybe even me lack intelligence.

How exactly would you know this? 10 different experts will give you 10 different definitions of intelligence. How exactly do you define it and what area of expertise allows you to claim to be able to identify it in a person?

[JamesVincent]

Vulgate

1 In principio creavit Deus cælum et terram. 2 Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi: et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. 3 Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. 4 Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona: et divisit lucem a tenebris. 5 Appellavitque lucem Diem, et tenebras Noctem: factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus. 6 Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum: et dividat aquas ab aquis. 7 Et fecit Deus firmamentum, divisitque aquas, quæ erant sub firmamento, ab his, quæ erant super firmamentum. Et factum est ita. 8 Vocavitque Deus firmamentum, Cælum: et factum est vespere et mane, dies secundus. 9 Dixit vero Deus: Congregentur aquæ, quæ sub cælo sunt, in locum unum: et appareat arida. Et factum est ita. 10 Et vocavit Deus aridam Terram, congregationesque aquarum appellavit Maria. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. 11 Et ait: Germinet terra herbam virentem, et facientem semen, et lignum pomiferum faciens fructum juxta genus suum, cujus semen in semetipso sit super terram. Et factum est ita. 12 Et protulit terra herbam virentem, et facientem semen juxta genus suum, lignumque faciens fructum, et habens unumquodque sementem secundum speciem suam. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. 13 Et factum est vespere et mane, dies tertius.

[Pottapaug1938]

First, thanks to everyone who answered my question.

Next, Dan you imply these people, maybe even me lack intelligence.

How exactly would you know this? 10 different experts will give you 10 different definitions of intelligence. How exactly do you define it and what area of expertise allows you to claim to be able to identify it in a person?

Etna Green is a town in Etna Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana, United States. The population was 586 at the 2010 census.

[Famspear]

Next, Dan you imply these people, maybe even me lack intelligence.

How exactly would you know this? 10 different experts will give you 10 different definitions of intelligence. How exactly do you define it and what area of expertise allows you to claim to be able to identify it in a person?

I don't see that Dan is claiming to have expertise in the subject of intelligence. And I don't know that expertise in the subject is required in this case.

James Vincent responded with:

1 In principio creavit Deus cælum et terram. 2 Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi: et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. 3 Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. 4 Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona: et divisit lucem a tenebris. 5 Appellavitque lucem Diem, et tenebras Noctem: factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus. 6 Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum: et dividat aquas ab aquis. 7 Et fecit Deus firmamentum, divisitque aquas, quæ erant sub firmamento, ab his, quæ erant super firmamentum. Et factum est ita. 8 Vocavitque Deus firmamentum, Cælum: et factum est vespere et mane, dies secundus. 9 Dixit vero Deus: Congregentur aquæ, quæ sub cælo sunt, in locum unum: et appareat arida. Et factum est ita. 10 Et vocavit Deus aridam Terram, congregationesque aquarum appellavit Maria. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. 11 Et ait: Germinet terra herbam virentem, et facientem semen, et lignum pomiferum faciens fructum juxta genus suum, cujus semen in semetipso sit super terram. Et factum est ita. 12 Et protulit terra herbam virentem, et facientem semen juxta genus suum, lignumque faciens fructum, et habens unumquodque sementem secundum speciem suam. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. 13 Et factum est vespere et mane, dies tertius.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Patriotdiscussions]

First, thanks to everyone who answered my question.

Next, Dan you imply these people, maybe even me lack intelligence.

How exactly would you know this? 10 different experts will give you 10 different definitions of intelligence. How exactly do you define it and what area of expertise allows you to claim to be able to identify it in a person?

Etna Green is a town in Etna Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana, United States. The population was 586 at the 2010 census.

I have been thru there, since I lived in Indiana for 15 years.

Thanks for travel update.

[JamesVincent]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I hope so.

[Famspear]

Earlier, I wrote:

I don't see that Dan is claiming to have expertise in the subject of intelligence. And I don't know that expertise in the subject is required in this case.

I would like to elaborate on that, actually.

One of the hallmarks of tax protesters and so-called "sovereign citizens" is that they do expressly or impliedly and falsely claim to know the law better than the experts on those subjects. Almost uniformly, these crackpots believe or claim to believe that 99% of all the experts on Federal income tax or law in general are wrong, and that they, the tax protesters, etc., know better. This is not only arrogance of the highest order but is also an exhibition of lack of intelligence in some very practical sense.

By contrast, Dan (and others) who opine that tax protesters, etc., lack a certain level of intelligence are not claiming something that contradicts the great weight of opinion of those who are experts in the field of the study of intelligence. Granted, there may not be any studies of the intelligence levels of tax protesters, etc., as a group. To my knowledge, such a study has not been undertaken -- by experts or by anyone else. But, neither Dan nor the rest of the regulars here are claiming that we "know" something about "intelligence" that contradicts the knowledge of any real experts on that subject. Dan is being neither (A) being arrogant nor (B) claiming expertise the field of "intelligence" by rendering his personal opinion in this case.

Further, I don't think it takes an expert in the study of intelligence to point out that virtually all tax protesters, etc., are exhibiting monumental stupidity when they pontificate so foolishly and cluelessly about the subject of taxes or law in general.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Earlier, I wrote:

I don't see that Dan is claiming to have expertise in the subject of intelligence. And I don't know that expertise in the subject is required in this case.

I would like to elaborate on that, actually.

One of the hallmarks of tax protesters and so-called "sovereign citizens" is that they do expressly or impliedly and falsely claim to know the law better than the experts on those subjects. Almost uniformly, these crackpots believe or claim to believe that 99% of all the experts on Federal income tax or law in general are wrong, and that they, the tax protesters, etc., know better. This is not only arrogance of the highest order but is also an exhibition of lack of intelligence in some very practical sense.

By contrast, Dan (and others) who opine that tax protesters, etc., lack a certain level of intelligence are not claiming something that contradicts the great weight of opinion of those who are experts in the field of the study of intelligence. Granted, there may not be any studies of the intelligence levels of tax protesters, etc., as a group. To my knowledge, such a study has not been undertaken -- by experts or by anyone else. But, neither Dan nor the rest of the regulars here are claiming that we "know" something about "intelligence" that contradicts the knowledge of any real experts on that subject. Dan is being neither (A) being arrogant nor (B) claiming expertise the field of "intelligence" by rendering his personal opinion in this case.

Further, I don't think it takes an expert in the study of intelligence to point out that virtually all tax protesters, etc., are exhibiting monumental stupidity when they pontificate so foolishly and cluelessly about the subject of taxes or law in general.

I see, so if not an expert in everything then they must lack intelligence. Next your going to tell me that the experts at Sony say lady gaga is the next big thing, I guess since they are the experts I better buy her new album.

What would be wrong about becoming your own expert? I know I know, you can't just read and understand the law like old Lincoln did, why he was super intelligent.

Nope you have to pay to have the books read to you, that's what the experts say.

[Famspear]

I see, so if not an expert in everything then they must lack intelligence.

No, that's wrong. And that's not what I said.

Next your [sic] going to tell me that the experts at Sony say lady gaga is the next big thing, I guess since they are the experts I better buy her new album.

OK, that's it? That's your answer?

What would be wrong about becoming your own expert? I know I know, you can't just read and understand the law like old Lincoln did, why he was super intelligent.

There is no such thing as "your own expert" -- not in the sense that you are thinking.

Nope you have to pay to have the books read to you, that's what the experts say.

Yes, that's right. If you're not an expert, you should give a lot of weight to the advice of experts. You still have to make your own decisions, but when 99% of the experts tell you that you are wrong and you still insist that you are right but you have nothing to show for it and you have not done the actual study yourself, that says something about your lack of intelligence and your psychological state. And I don't have to be an "expert" on intelligence or psychology to make that determination about you.

Reading lots of garbage from writers of garbage on garbage web sites on the internet does not make you an "expert", no matter how many years you read the garbage and no matter how strongly you believe what you have read. You lack all the hallmarks of expertise in the fields in which you have expressed an interest in this forum. You lack the training, you lack the experience, and you lack the special skill or knowledge of the subjects.

Reading all the garbage that you obviously read, PD, does not make you knowledgeable.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
What would be wrong about becoming your own expert? I know I know, you can't just read and understand the law like old Lincoln did, why he was super intelligent.

Nope you have to pay to have the books read to you, that's what the experts say.

No, you don't pay to have the books read to you.

You pay to have interactions with genuine authorities who are capable of posing and then answering questions from a myriad of people bent on finding their way through a maze of intellectual challenges.

I've often suggested this to people like yourself who are so determined to aspire to self-styled expertise: Try a do-it-yourself vasectomy and see how that works out for you.