Fuzzrabbit's thread (continued)

[rachel]

And show me where any law that compels Americans to participate in an excise activity such as Social Security to have 3402 deductions being withheld for the off-set of the IRC 1 liability?
You wont find any such law anywhere...period!

Your question (as well as all of your unintelligible posts) is premised on the assumption that participation in Social Security is the prerequisite to liability.
You have never proven that and just made it up out of thin air.

Oh.....are you asserting that I made up regulation 20CFR 422.112 out of thin air?
Care to explain what statutory "wages" this regulation relating to Social Security is refering too?
Are you trying to fit your hearsay interpretive square pegs into round statutory law?
Come on you idiot! Explain away that Social Security is not an excise activity when section 3111 clearly says it is. Tell that to any statutory "employer".
And tell everyone that the feds have a right to compel a person into an excise activity only to tax them!
Come on explain away moron!

(

a) General. Most employers are required by section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code and by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations at 26 CFR 31.6011(b)–1 to obtain an employer identification number (EIN) and to include it on wage reports filed with SSA. A sole proprietor who does not pay wages to one or more employees or who is not required to file any pension or excise tax return is not subject to this requirement. To apply for an EIN, employers file Form SS–4, “Application for Employer Identification Number,” with the IRS. For the convenience of employers, Form SS–4 is available at all SSA and IRS offices. Household employers, agricultural employers, and domestic corporations which elect social security coverage for employees of foreign subsidiaries who are citizens or residents of the U.S. may be assigned an EIN by IRS without filing an SS–4.

[.]

Say, rachel, have you met Van Pelt?

He has a random word generator just like yours. A perfect match.

[rachel]

Say, rachel, have you met Van Pelt?

He has a random word generator just like yours. A perfect match.

Its not my problem you dont like how the law is written or understand what it is you are talking about.
You are no different than Pete Hendrickson, just at equal distances of the opposite side of the tracks.
Whats funny is none of you so called experts understand why the judges rule the way they do....you just hide behind court rulings and throw rocks at those who at least take a stab at it. Some professionals? It is very obvious you do not understand Subtitle C at all!
Look at Dan Evens....he has no clue what 3401(a) "wages" are derived from....opps I just gave out a hint!
At least Pete tries...though very wrong, he's an egotistical idiot for not keeping an open mind on the subject to see what it is hes talking about.
And you followers of Dan Evens?...well I cant say that about you.... So keep doing what you do best and that is hide behind those rulings and keep stroking Danny boy!
Ohh ya...almost forgot to mention Brian Rookard. He likes to leech a few strokes from Danny boy Evans. So dont make him feel hes insignificant....you know what to do.
So, dont be a toad and bitch to me about it. Tell Congress you dont like the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and have it either thrown out or rewritten to support your communistic way of life.

Good luck!

[Nikki]

So, since Social Security is the magic key to determining income taxes, I have a couple additional questions.

Is the income tax only imposed on wages up to the Social Security threshhold and are wages beyond that exempt?

Why do corporations, partnerships, and other artificial people who can not receive Social Sceurity benefits have to pay income taxes?

Why don't employers have to pay some form of income tax on the wages which determine their matching contribution to the SS fund? Why, since employers can not collect SS benefits, do they make contributions to the SS fund?

[Quixote]

Its not my problem you dont like how the law is written or understand what it is you are talking about.

Rachel, you should concentrate on learning how English is read and written. Once you've mastered that, you can try to discuss the law.

[rachel]

Its not my problem you dont like how the law is written or understand what it is you are talking about.

Rachel, you should concentrate on learning how English is read and written. Once you've mastered that, you can try to discuss the law.

rolling my eyes
Thats all you have to bring to the table?
I really have to question your creditability!

[Nikki]

My error. This was intended to be addressed to Rachel.

Perhaps she'll answer these even though she has studiously ignored my earlier question.

So, since Social Security is the magic key to determining income taxes, I have a couple additional questions.

Is the income tax only imposed on wages up to the Social Security threshhold and are wages beyond that exempt?

Why do corporations, partnerships, and other artificial people who can not receive Social Sceurity benefits have to pay income taxes?

Why don't employers have to pay some form of income tax on the wages which determine their matching contribution to the SS fund? Why, since employers can not collect SS benefits, do they make contributions to the SS fund?

[Brian Rookard]

Thats all you have to bring to the table?

No, that's not all ... but with you, I feel like I'm watching a toddler sitting in a high chair ... you place the food on their table ... and in a fit of rage (or childish delight) they take both hands, swipe side to side, and scatter everything all over the place, and then look down at the wonderful mess they've created. At what point is it worth bringing anything to the table with you?

[Brian Rookard]

My error. This was intended to be addressed to Rachel.

Perhaps she'll answer these even though she has studiously ignored my earlier question.

Rachel is just a typical tax protestor ...she wants her questions answered ... but cannot take the time to answer yours.

Of course, we know that that's because to answer your questions (or mine, or Dan's or ____ (fill in the blank)) ... well, that would blow her silly notions to shreds ... and we can't have that.

[rachel]

Thats all you have to bring to the table?

No, that's not all ... but with you, I feel like I'm watching a toddler sitting in a high chair ... you place the food on their table ... and in a fit of rage (or childish delight) they take both hands, swipe side to side, and scatter everything all over the place, and then look down at the wonderful mess they've created. At what point is it worth bringing anything to the table with you?

Who's in a rage?
Really what mess?
I cant help you nor can I change your mind (I'm not here for that anyway) if you dont like seeing the way the law is written, which only proves your hearsay theory is negated.
This is like alcoholics Rookard. You and only you can change yourself.
Sorry if the law rubs against your hearsay...not my problem.
Stand within the law and you should be ok

[Nikki]

My error. This was intended to be addressed to Rachel.

Perhaps she'll answer these even though she has studiously ignored my earlier question.

Rachel is just a typical tax protestor ...she wants her questions answered ... but cannot take the time to answer yours.

Of course, we know that that's because to answer your questions (or mine, or Dan's or ____ (fill in the blank)) ... well, that would blow her silly notions to shreds ... and we can't have that.

Now, why did you have to go and spoil everthing? Now she'll NEVER even attempt an answer.

[Disilloosianed]

I know I am probably going to get blasted for this by both sides, but, let's accept for a moment that rachel is right. I'm still not sure what the practical effect of any of it is. Are you saying that income that is not subject to SS witholding, (say interest income for example) is not taxable? Or are you saying if you are subject to SS witholding at all, all your income is taxable? I'm lost.

[Imalawman]

I know I am probably going to get blasted for this by both sides, but, let's accept for a moment that rachel is right. I'm still not sure what the practical effect of any of it is. Are you saying that income that is not subject to SS witholding, (say interest income for example) is not taxable? Or are you saying if you are subject to SS witholding at all, all your income is taxable? I'm lost.

So is Rachel. And don't feel bad, not even Rachel fully understands her theory.

[Brian Rookard]

... if you dont like seeing the way the law is written ...

The problem is, you have not made a coherent argument as to what it is you are *actually* suggesting about the law.

All you keep saying is "you don't know what the law says ... you don't know what the law says ..."

Try actually stating an affirmative proposition about what the law says and we'll see if it supports your assertion.

But I don't think you *really* want to do that, because then everyone would be shooting down your theories. It's much easier to say nothing, and just try to say that nobody knows your argument than to actually make an argument.

[Brian Rookard]

...not even Rachel fully understands her theory.

I'm trying to figure out if Rachel has actually *stated* a theory ... or if she let's everyone say something, and then she just keeps saying "nope, that's not it ... nope, that's not it ... see, you just don't understand ... nope, that's not what I'm saying ..." (ad nauseum, ad infinitum). This way, she can keep saying everyone is wrong without actually have to state what it is that she believes.

I'm opting for ignoring her until she actually says *something* about what her theory actually is.

[grammarian44]

I know I am probably going to get blasted for this by both sides, but, let's accept for a moment that rachel is right. I'm still not sure what the practical effect of any of it is. Are you saying that income that is not subject to SS witholding, (say interest income for example) is not taxable? Or are you saying if you are subject to SS witholding at all, all your income is taxable? I'm lost.

I'm with you, Disilloosianed. I can't agree or disagree with rachel's position because I don't know what her position is.

The regulation she cites as if it somehow proves her thesis states--in the boldface portion--that sole proprietors without employees do not have to obtain a separate EIN. I really wish that, instead of berating everyone else for being so stupid, she would just spell out for us the conclusion she draws from this pretty simple regulation. That it might mean any person, proprietorship, or corporation is not liable for the income tax is beyond my powers to comprehend.

[rachel]

I know I am probably going to get blasted for this by both sides, but, let's accept for a moment that rachel is right. I'm still not sure what the practical effect of any of it is. Are you saying that income that is not subject to SS witholding, (say interest income for example) is not taxable? Or are you saying if you are subject to SS witholding at all, all your income is taxable? I'm lost.

Or are you saying if you are subject to SS witholding at all, all your income is taxable?

You hit it right perfectly right on the nail. But the income is in respect to "wages". Interest is not a "wage". That is why the Social Security regulation 422.112 references "wage" and nothing else.
When you are enrolled in Social Security "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation. Its called "employment" located at 3121(b) of the IRC (see title 42 also) and is identified as "A service of what ever nature".
Dont think one second that these goons on this site dont know what I'm talking about. They know quite well and understand. They like to play little games as if they are professional experts!
They follow my lead very well and play a very good game of chess because they know exactly what precision questions to ask to try and trip me up.
A good example is Rookard. He'll twist and turn the law around to where its almost beleivable. But if you look at how the law is written you'll see quite easily what he's doing.
They put more effort into heckling and throwing rocks than it would to look up the law itself.
I'll give you a good example of Rookards cheap little minnion tricks.
Here Rookard tries to assert the law means something totally different.

Second, the part you highlighted deals with (1) sole proprietors who (2) do not pay wages to ANY employees, or (3) who is not required to file some other pension and excise tax returns

First the regulation that Rookard is commenting on is 20CFR 422.112. Nowhere in this regulation does it suggest the employer doesnt have employee's as Rookard wants you to believe.
As a matter of fact the regulation explicidely states "one or more employee's".
Secondly, the regulation doesnt say the employer is to file some other pension or excise tax return as Rookard also wants you to believe. The regulation says "ANY" as in ALL pension and excise tax returns.

Title 20: Employees' Benefits
PART 422—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
Subpart B—General Procedures


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 422.112 Employer identification numbers.
(a) General. Most employers are required by section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code and by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations at 26 CFR 31.6011(b)–1 to obtain an employer identification number (EIN) and to include it on wage reports filed with SSA. A sole proprietor who does not pay wages to one or more employees or who is not required to file any pension or excise tax return is not subject to this requirement. To apply for an EIN, employers file Form SS–4, “Application for Employer Identification Number,” with the IRS. For the convenience of employers, Form SS–4 is available at all SSA and IRS offices. Household employers, agricultural employers, and domestic corporations which elect social security coverage for employees of foreign subsidiaries who are citizens or residents of the U.S. may be assigned an EIN by IRS without filing an SS–4.

Pretty sneaky isnt he. He knows quite well what an excise tax return is and who and why that person is required to file one. Dont beleive one second this goon Rookard is actually creditable.

[Nikki]

Rachel is excellent at cut-and-paste, fair at invective, poor at grammar and spelling, and at a total loss with respect to stating any kind of intelligible thesis or argument.

Rachel, you've been asked a number of simple questions, all of which you've refused to address. Do you not understand the questions or are you totally unaware of the answers?

But, most simply of all, what the hell is your point? Are you claiming some kind of cause-effect relationship between SS wage taxes and income taxes?

Please tell us what it is that you are trying, most ineptly, to say.

[Brian Rookard]

First the regulation that Rookard is commenting on is 20CFR 422.112. Nowhere in this regulation does it suggest the employer doesnt have employee's as Rookard wants you to believe.
As a matter of fact the regulation explicidely states "one or more employee's".

Now you're just being an idiot.

If I have just ONE employee, that I pay wages too, then you've satisfied the "one or more" part and you would be forced to admit that you have to get an EIN.

That means (for those who can read) that you must pay ZERO employees in order to not have to get an EIN ... because all you need to do is pay just one and you're stuck.

Meaning ... you cannot pay ANY employee wages.

For chrissakes ... learn to read ... MORON.

Here's a couple of questions for you, and let's see if you can answer:

1. If I pay just one employee wages as a sole proprietor, then I have to get an EIN under the regulation.

__ True

__ False

2. If I pay zero employees wages as a sole proprietor, then I am *not* required to get an EIN under the regulation.

__ True

__ False

3. If the only way I can avoid having to get an EIN is to pay ZERO employees wages, that means I can't pay ANY employees wages.

__ True

__ False

I'll wait for your sterling answers.

[notorial dissent]

Careful, she can probably handle the concepts of one, two, and many, but zero may just fry her synapses.

And since reading simple English seems to elude her, wouldn't want to really confuse her with higher mathematics.