Once More Into the Breach

[LPC]

But again Social Security isnt mandatory.

You are not required to accept Social Security benefits, but you *are* required to pay Social Security taxes, because the taxes are mandatory for those who earn "wages" as defined in section 3121.

[LPC]

Dan's question is much easier. He is asking for the VERY FIRST definition in the entire US Code. The Congress sure knows its priorities.

1 USC 1 The words "insane" and "insane person" and "lunatic" shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis.

Liar.

1 USC 1 begins as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

words importing the plural include the singular;

words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;

words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;

"Insane" is, at best, the fifth definition in section 1.

[LPC]

Nikki, Dr. C, and JG (in another thread) have all asked essentially the same question, which at great risk I will combine as: "Why do income and compensation not have their ordinary meaning?" [...] Unfortunately, the time it will take to retype the answers will require a commodity in short supply around here, known as "patience".

One of the many defects with most tax protester crap, and especially Bulten's crap, is that it is so complicated and convoluted that it takes enormous amounts of time to construct them.

Non-denial explanations are, by comparison, relatively simple and clear.

For example, the explanation of why work for pay is subject to income tax can be explained very simply:

1. Section 1 imposes a tax on "taxable income."

2. Section 63 defines "taxable income" as "gross income" less deductions."

3. Section 61 states that, unless otherwise provided elsewhere, "gross income" means "all income from whatever source derived" and specifically includes "compensation for services" as part of gross income.

4. There is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that excludes from gross income the pay received by Americans for their work.

5. Every judge in the history of the United States (including every justice of the United States Supreme Court) has agreed that payments for one's labor, whether called wages, salaries, compensation for services, or "work for pay" is income, and that it is included in gross income and is taxed to the extent it exceeds allowable deductions.

In other words, if the Internal Revenue Code means what it says, then pay for work is taxed.

Tax deniers construct elaborate explanations of why the IRC doesn't mean what it says and, if nothing else, their complicated and convoluted explanations violate "Occam's Razor." (See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#occam for details.)

[rachel]

But again Social Security isnt mandatory.

You are not required to accept Social Security benefits, but you *are* required to pay Social Security taxes, because the taxes are mandatory for those who earn "wages" as defined in section 3121.

Exactly Danny boy!, but show me where the law requires every employer to pay 3121 wages?
3121 is only for Social Security purposes and thats it?

[Quixote]

In addition, the particular crap Bulten is spreading here depends on the rule of tax denier logic that says that if an exception exists, then an exception of the sort the the tax denier's argument depends upon exists. Thus, Bulten, by demonstrating that Oklahoma is, in one highly esoteric context, not a "state", thinks he has proven that "work for pay" is, in a completely different, but unspecified, context, not compensation for services. He must then apply the rule again to conclude that, because some work for pay is not compensation for services, his work for pay is not compensation for services. He must, of course, apply in once more to conclude that, because some money received does not give rise to income, his does not.

Larken Rose uses similar "logic" to conclude that, because some income used to be constitutionally excluded from gross income, his income is constitutionally excluded from gross income.

[rachel]

Nikki, Dr. C, and JG (in another thread) have all asked essentially the same question, which at great risk I will combine as: "Why do income and compensation not have their ordinary meaning?" [...] Unfortunately, the time it will take to retype the answers will require a commodity in short supply around here, known as "patience".

One of the many defects with most tax protester crap, and especially Bulten's crap, is that it is so complicated and convoluted that it takes enormous amounts of time to construct them.

Non-denial explanations are, by comparison, relatively simple and clear.

For example, the explanation of why work for pay is subject to income tax can be explained very simply:

1. Section 1 imposes a tax on "taxable income."

2. Section 63 defines "taxable income" as "gross income" less deductions."

3. Section 61 states that, unless otherwise provided elsewhere, "gross income" means "all income from whatever source derived" and specifically includes "compensation for services" as part of gross income.

4. There is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that excludes from gross income the pay received by Americans for their work.

5. Every judge in the history of the United States (including every justice of the United States Supreme Court) has agreed that payments for one's labor, whether called wages, salaries, compensation for services, or "work for pay" is income, and that it is included in gross income and is taxed to the extent it exceeds allowable deductions.

In other words, if the Internal Revenue Code means what it says, then pay for work is taxed.

Tax deniers construct elaborate explanations of why the IRC doesn't mean what it says and, if nothing else, their complicated and convoluted explanations violate "Occam's Razor." (See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#occam for details.)

I agree totally, but only as far as being enrolled into Social Security.
"Of what ever nature" for Social Security purposes covers just about everything.

[Quixote]

But again Social Security isnt mandatory.

You are not required to accept Social Security benefits, but you *are* required to pay Social Security taxes, because the taxes are mandatory for those who earn "wages" as defined in section 3121.

Exactly Danny boy!, but show me where the law requires every employer to pay 3121 wages?
3121 is only for Social Security purposes and thats it?

It's the same law that requires all peanut vendors to sell legumes.

[jkeeb]

Quixote wrote:

It's the same law that requires all peanut vendors to sell legumes.
_________________

Awesome analogy, however, keyboard warning required, you get one demerit or have to read a paragraph written by Modelski.

[rachel]

You are not required to accept Social Security benefits, but you *are* required to pay Social Security taxes, because the taxes are mandatory for those who earn "wages" as defined in section 3121.

Exactly Danny boy!, but show me where the law requires every employer to pay 3121 wages?
3121 is only for Social Security purposes and thats it?

It's the same law that requires all peanut vendors to sell legumes.

Awwww!
Whats the matter Quixote?
Has "reasoning" mysteriously flowed into your cranium?

[LPC]

show me where the law requires every employer to pay 3121 wages?

It's the same law that requires all peanut vendors to sell legumes.

Awwww!
Whats the matter Quixote?
Has "reasoning" mysteriously flowed into your cranium?

Whoooosh!

You might want to look up "legumes" in the dictionary before you make a bigger ass of yourself (if that is possible).

And you might want to look up "wages" in section 3121 and try to explain how an employer could possibly have a choice as to whether to pay "3121 wages," any more than a peanut vendor could have a choice as to whether to sell legumes.

[Quixote]

Whats the matter Quixote?
Has "reasoning" mysteriously flowed into your cranium?

Reasoning has flowed within by cranium for decades, mysteriously at times, fairly transparently at others. I can only guess as to why you would consider that a problem.

[rachel]

It's the same law that requires all peanut vendors to sell legumes.

Awwww!
Whats the matter Quixote?
Has "reasoning" mysteriously flowed into your cranium?

Whoooosh!

You might want to look up "legumes" in the dictionary before you make a bigger ass of yourself (if that is possible).

And you might want to look up "wages" in section 3121 and try to explain how an employer could possibly have a choice as to whether to pay "3121 wages," any more than a peanut vendor could have a choice as to whether to sell legumes.

For the answer Danny as for what an employer can pay, go look up 3121(a) and 3401(a), they both tell you what is not considered wages.
If your not participating in Social Security then your not making "wages" as defined for purposes of Social Security now are you?
Whats left that the employer can pay you?
(Hint for your pee-brain Danny: what did employers pay before the enactment of Social Security?)
You'll fail this question miserably as you already demonstrated you arent capable of answering it, but the answer is written in black and white in the definitions.
I'm from the midwest. You know the farming belt of America. So yes, I already knew what a legume was. But Danny is a legume a peanut?

[Demosthenes]

pee-brain

and

I already knew what a legume was.

Damn, I love the unintentional humor of the illiterati!

[LPC]

If your not participating in Social Security then your not making "wages" as defined for purposes of Social Security now are you?

A claim you keep making without any support from any statute, and a claim that is completely contradicted by the plain language of section 3121.

[ASITStands]

pee-brain

and

I already knew what a legume was.

Damn, I love the unintentional humor of the illiterati!

<chuckle>

But that would be "pea-brain," would it not?

Another hallmark of the illiterati is their inability to spell correctly or put more than two words together coherently.

[John J. Bulten]

I see that I'll need to jump in to make it before the lock.

No, Rachel means "p-brane", as in a vast empty space of uncertain dimension.

Quixote, I will merely note your strawman charge, where you say I "think" the logical fallacy you suggest is valid. I don't.

Dan, your argument would be better if point 5 wasn't another of your nasty hasty generalizations, and a heavy one at that ("every justice" indeed).

Demo, I think Dan's charge of "liar" is over the line and needs a public response, especially considering the slander laws.

As to my response to JG's and others' questions, I'm very pleased with its progress and expect to post a draft today at Lost Horizons under the title "Income and Compensation Defined".

[rachel]

If your not participating in Social Security then your not making "wages" as defined for purposes of Social Security now are you?

A claim you keep making without any support from any statute, and a claim that is completely contradicted by the plain language of section 3121.

Heres a Social Security regulation in relation to "wages".
20CFR 422.112

[rachel]

If your not participating in Social Security then your not making "wages" as defined for purposes of Social Security now are you?

A claim you keep making without any support from any statute, and a claim that is completely contradicted by the plain language of section 3121.

I thought you'd avoid the question.
Your predictable!
So, why not answer the question Danny?
What did employers pay before the enactment of Social Security?

[rachel]

pee-brain

and

I already knew what a legume was.

Damn, I love the unintentional humor of the illiterati!

<chuckle>

But that would be "pea-brain," would it not?

Another hallmark of the illiterati is their inability to spell correctly or put more than two words together coherently.

Pee-brain is correctly spelled. He's full of the yellow liquid.
You get to far ahead of yourself dont you?
You assume to much for your own good, but thats par for the course for a complete moron!

[wserra]

Demo, I think Dan's charge of "liar" is over the line and needs a public response, especially considering the slander laws.

What about them?