Fuzzrabbit's thread (continued)

[Dr. Caligari]

...and we're still waiting for an answer to the question of how these definitions get applied to section 1...

[notorial dissent]

and waiting, and waiting........................

[LPC]

Rachel is excellent at cut-and-paste, fair at invective,

Fair? What kind of invective is "hearsay theory"? Pathetic, I say.

I give her a D-, tops.

[natty]

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?

No, I am asserting that you are "reading" that reg through the veil of a false premise.

Care to explain what statutory "wages" this regulation relating to Social Security is refering too?

Only if you care to explain why you believe "wages" has a different meaning to someone participating in Social Security than to someone not participating in Social Security.
Prove your premise.

Are you trying to fit your hearsay interpretive square pegs into round statutory law?

Where did you get the idea that I am telling you what someone told me? I can read, and I can read without assuming conclusions.

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".

The section 3111 excise tax is on every employer "with respect to having individuals in his employ". How do you conclude that that tax has anything to do with participation in Social Security?

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!

You have now gone full circle and you still have not explained why participation in Social Security is a prerequisite to tax liability.

(

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.

That reg is about who gets an EIN. There is nothing about participating is Social Security.
Now who's the idiot moron?

[notorial dissent]

Gems from Rachel

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

Nice try, but still wrong, very wrong. Income from wages or service are subject to SS withholding, but the rest is still wrong. It is possible to have income that does not result from wages or services and still be 100% taxable for income tax purposes, and have NO SS withholding liability. So, very wrong again.

Interest is not a "wage".

I’m impressed, or in shock, I’m not sure which, she got something right.

When you are enrolled in Social Security "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation]

Wrong!!! Cute but backwards. "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation and as such are subject to Social Security.

They follow my lead very well and play a very good game of chess

Sweetey, you don’t even play a good game of checkers. Don't flatter yourself.

A good example is Rookard. He'll twist and turn the law around to where its almost beleivable.

Brian’s only problem is that he actually can read an English sentence and make sense of it, something you have yet to achieve.

Basically your entire theory is a crock, if only from the standpoint that the Income Tax existed a considerable amount of time before SS was even considered or created. In the real world, it is called starting from a false premise, and going down hill from there. Go waste someone else’s time.

[rachel]

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.

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

_x_ True

__ False

True if you pay statutory Social Security "wages" meaning confined for the PURPOSE thereof.
(you are not understanding what 3121(b) "employment" is or the purpose thereof. And further, you are not understanding the meaning of the associated 3121(a) "wages".)
Gross income includes "service of what ever nature" which taken directly from Social Security for Social Security "employment" purposes. There is only one taxable "wage" defined in Subtitle C and that is 3121(a).
A "sole proprietor" doesnt pay statutory "wages" legally. If he did, the sole proprietor would then be considered a statutory "employer" as defined. A statutory "employer" didnt include the common private employer until and after the enactment of the Social Security Act.

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

This question is based on Brians assertion that the sole proprietor doesnt have any employee's.
This question should be worded correctly to reflect what 422.112 is actually saying.

2. If I pay one or more employees zero "wages" (as defined for the purpose of Social Security benefits) as a sole proprietor, then I am *not* required to get an EIN under the regulation.

_x_ True

__ False

This next and last question is again based on Brian assertions that the sole proprietor has no employee's. For this question to be accurately reflecting 422.112 has to be rewritten.

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

It needs to be asked in an accurate manner such as this.

3. If the only way I can avoid having to get an EIN is to pay employees ZERO "wages", that means I can't pay employees ANY "wages" (as defined for Social Security purposes).

_x_ True
__ False

Your questions reflect that you do not understand Subtitle C "employment" where both 3121(a) and 3401(a) "wages" are found.
You are also forgeting the fact that the SSA says a ssn is not required to live or work in America. But without a ssn, you cannot get credited Social Securit benefits as a covered employee.
What the SSA and regulation 422.112 are saying is that a worker who wishes not to participate in Social Security will be working for cash and not statutorily defined Social Security "wages". If the worker who's working for cash (earnings not defined for Social Security purposes) then the employer is not required to obtain the EIN for reporting purposes.

[rachel]

Gems from Rachel

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

Nice try, but still wrong, very wrong. Income from wages or service are subject to SS withholding, but the rest is still wrong. It is possible to have income that does not result from wages or services and still be 100% taxable for income tax purposes, and have NO SS withholding liability. So, very wrong again.

Interest is not a "wage".

I’m impressed, or in shock, I’m not sure which, she got something right.

When you are enrolled in Social Security "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation]

Wrong!!! Cute but backwards. "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation and as such are subject to Social Security.

They follow my lead very well and play a very good game of chess

Sweetey, you don’t even play a good game of checkers. Don't flatter yourself.

A good example is Rookard. He'll twist and turn the law around to where its almost beleivable.

Brian’s only problem is that he actually can read an English sentence and make sense of it, something you have yet to achieve.

Basically your entire theory is a crock, if only from the standpoint that the Income Tax existed a considerable amount of time before SS was even considered or created. In the real world, it is called starting from a false premise, and going down hill from there. Go waste someone else’s time.

When you are enrolled in Social Security "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation]

Wrong!!! Cute but backwards. "ALL" payments from laboring are subject to taxation and as such are subject to Social Security.

[/quote]

Go reread what 3121(b) says and while you are at it reread 3121(a), 3101 and 3111.
Just go read Subtitle C period!
Your pay is not taxable until you are enrolled into Social Security for benefit purposes.
Title 26 nowhere says common pay is taxable. Its only taxable for the purposes of Social Security and that is it.
Before Social Security was enacted most Americans were never taxed "Social Security" or "federal" taxes.
Give me a break! Go pick up any history book you moron and start reading.
The constitution outlaws direct taxes on labor. They can only tax "income" as defined per the 16th amendment.
And how is "income" defined?
One way listed in gross income is as a "service of what ever nature", which is taken directly from Social Security 3121(b) "employment" definition for what purposes?
Its for the purposes of getting benefits.
Regulation 422.112 clearly coexists with the 16th amendment and well as what the SSA say about not having to get a ssn for living and working here in America.
3121(a) "wages" as defined, for the purpose of benefits, is the way the SSA calculates the tax imposed at 3101.
It is also the way 3401 wages are defined for the 3402 deductions for chapter 1 liability. Like I've always been stating. 3401(a) wages is only 3121(a) participants and federal and state employee's combined for the 3402 deductions.
Get a life and quit relying on these so called goons who call themselves experts!
Read the freaken law for yourself, so you quit looking like an asshole spewing garbage banter!

[.]

A career in comedy awaits you. They may not pay cash, though.

[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.

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

_x_ True

__ False

True if you pay statutory Social Security "wages" meaning confined for the PURPOSE thereof.
(you are not understanding what 3121(b) "employment" is or the purpose thereof. And further, you are not understanding the meaning of the associated 3121(a) "wages".)
Gross income includes "service of what ever nature" which taken directly from Social Security for Social Security "employment" purposes. There is only one taxable "wage" defined in Subtitle C and that is 3121(a).
A "sole proprietor" doesnt pay statutory "wages" legally. If he did, the sole proprietor would then be considered a statutory "employer" as defined. A statutory "employer" didnt include the common private employer until and after the enactment of the Social Security Act.

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

This question is based on Brians assertion that the sole proprietor doesnt have any employee's.
This question should be worded correctly to reflect what 422.112 is actually saying.

Hahahahaha ... and there you have it, proving that tax protestors will NEVER just answer the question as written. Your questions must be "worded correctly" so that they can then give the answer they want.

Here's the situation Rachel ... I am a sole proprietor ... I am a plumber ... I have no employees because I work on my own, and do all the work myself. I am self employed, and I don't yet have enough business that would justify hiring any helpers yet.

Thus, I am a sole proprietor, and I have no employees.

Is this situation possible?

__ Yes

__ No.

If you answer anything but "yes" then you are just being moronic and denying reality.

Since I am a sole proprietor, without employees, then I would satisfy your regulation (because I don't have "one or more" employees.)

That means I don't have "any" employees ... and as soon as I hire just one employee to help me ... I will now have "one or more" employees, and I will have to get an EIN.

Thus, what I said is absolutely true ... in order to not have to get an EIN I can't have ANY employees, because all I need is JUST ONE, and now the regulation says I have to get an EIN.

__ True

__ False.

And now you have shown yourself to be utterly disingenuous, and incapable of answering simple questions without trying to squirm out of having to answer.

[Brian Rookard]

A "sole proprietor" doesnt pay statutory "wages" legally. If he did, the sole proprietor would then be considered a statutory "employer" as defined. A statutory "employer" didnt include the common private employer until and after the enactment of the Social Security Act.

Ok, so if we're in the time period "after the enactment of the Social Security Act", then according to you, a statutory "employer' includes the common private employer.

That is what you're saying ... that the definition did not include the "common private employer" UNTIL AND AFTER enactment of the Social Security Act.

Meaning, that "common private employer[s]" today are statutory "employers" since we are now in that time frame AFTER enactment of the Social Security Act.

So what is it that you're arguing about then?

[natty]

The constitution outlaws direct taxes on labor. They can only tax "income" as defined per the 16th amendment.
And how is "income" defined?

This is why rachel is no different than PH, stevie, larken, becraft, cryer or any other tax protest nutjob.

They all believe a tax on their income would be a direct tax. The argument has just not been properly argued before the courts.

[Brian Rookard]

The constitution outlaws direct taxes on labor. They can only tax "income" as defined per the 16th amendment.
And how is "income" defined?

This is why rachel is no different than PH, stevie, larken, becraft, cryer or any other tax protest nutjob.

They all believe a tax on their income would be a direct tax. The argument has just not been properly argued before the courts.

Furthermore, it is just wrong.

The constitution does not "outlaw" direct taxes ... it only requires that direct taxes be apportioned.

That does not mean that the government can't levy direct taxes ... it means that when they do levy a direct tax, it must be apportioned ... not that they *cannot* levy it.

Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that a tax on labor is a direct tax ... the government *can* lay it ... but, if it is a direct tax, it must be apportioned.

So, the day Rachel wins in court and taxes on labor are declared to be direct taxes, all that Congress has to do is figure out how to apportion such taxes, rewrite the law to provide for apportionment ... et voila ... her wages are being taxed.

Of course, she might actually learn that apportionment is not a good thing (as she pays a different rate of tax on her wages in her state, while a similarly situated person in another state pays a lower rate) ... at which point, Rachel will yearn for the day that those darn wage taxes were required to be uniform (and not apportioned).

[rachel]

A "sole proprietor" doesnt pay statutory "wages" legally. If he did, the sole proprietor would then be considered a statutory "employer" as defined. A statutory "employer" didnt include the common private employer until and after the enactment of the Social Security Act.

Ok, so if we're in the time period "after the enactment of the Social Security Act", then according to you, a statutory "employer' includes the common private employer.

That is what you're saying ... that the definition did not include the "common private employer" UNTIL AND AFTER enactment of the Social Security Act.

Meaning, that "common private employer[s]" today are statutory "employers" since we are now in that time frame AFTER enactment of the Social Security Act.

So what is it that you're arguing about then?

My point is and the reason for 20CFR 422.112 is this.
If the employee doesnt wish to make statutory "wages", those 3121(a) wages defined for Social Security purposes, then the employer is not required by law to obtain the EIN because the employer is not paying 3121(a) wages nor is the employer required to pay the 3111 excise tax for the employee who wishes not to earn 3121(a) "wages". No reporting requirements for purposes of Social Security!
The employee is earning "cash" and not statutory defined "wages" labeled as a "service of whatever nature" which is not included in gross income.
Which is no different of a situation than before the enactment of the Social Security Act for most Americans.
The 3402 deductions drop for the chapter 1 liability because "cash" is not included in 3401(a)

§ 3401. Definitions
How Current is This?
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

[Imalawman]

My point is...[t]he employee is earning "cash" and not statutory defined "wages" labeled as a "service of whatever nature" which is not included in gross income.
...
The 3402 deductions drop for the chapter 1 liability because "cash" is not included in 3401(a)

§ 3401. Definitions
How Current is This?
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

I don't care who you are, that right there is funny.

[Nikki]

Amazing -- the "out of context, reverse-includes, redefine wages and ignore income" ploy.

Who would have thought she was bright enough to have come up with it?

Unless you are enjoying banging your heads against a brick wall, let's stop feeding the troll -- she seems to have completed her koolade transfusion.

[jg]

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

It says "wages" means all renumeration (other than fees paid to a public official).
All renumeration includes cash payments.
All renumeration also includes the cash value of that paid in other than cash, including benefits.

[natty]

The 3402 deductions drop for the chapter 1 liability because "cash" is not included in 3401(a)

The depth of your ignorance is surpassed only by the height of your arrogance. Too funny.

[.]

“wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;

OK, rachel, lets assume that:

1) you're not a public official, and,

2) you're an employee working for an employer, and,

3) you have no benefits, and.

4) you are paid only in kumquats.

The effect is:

“wages” means the cash value of all remuneration paid in kumquats;

Which means you are delusional. Where's Van Pelt when you need him?

[Disilloosianed]

All week and that's where we get? That wages equal a service?

*trying to stave off the aneurysm*

I was trying to explain to another attorney one time what dealing with TP arguments was like....the best I could come up with was this:

It's not as if they look out the window onto a lovely spring day and say "The sky is orange." It's more like they look out the window onto a lovely spring day and say "The sky is a water buffalo." And there's just not much you can do with that.

[rachel]

“wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;

OK, rachel, lets assume that:

1) you're not a public official, and,

2) you're an employee working for an employer, and,

3) you have no benefits, and.

4) you are paid only in kumquats.

The effect is:

“wages” means the cash value of all remuneration paid in kumquats;

Which means you are delusional. Where's Van Pelt when you need him?

“wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

Problem with you goons is that none of you can read LAW correctly. "Renumeration" for statutory defined "employment" is aa "service" paid in the form of statutorily defined "wages".............not cash!

You goons who call yourselves "legal experts" have a problem!
How can

"“wages” means all remuneration"

mean what you presume it is "as everything" if

"paid in any medium other than cash"

Woow!..."other than cash"! Why would they put that in there? It doesnt make sense.........What is Congress thinking?
Looks as if we have an exclusion to "all renumeration"!!!
"Cash" appears to be excluded from renumeration for "service".
You dumbasses actually hooked yourselves...hahahaha!