High weirdness on Losthorizons2

[Quixote]

quatloossux=losers at Losthorizon2 explains why CTC doesn't work. Unencumbered by gross reality or even a need for internal consistency, his theories fly free.

To those CtCers who are wondering why Pete is losing each and every time must understand that Pete has short changed himself. Pete has an ego and has completely missed the boat by taking Social Security out of the picture and catagorizing it as a "pet" theory.
(Ignore any and all the quatloosers have to say. They will never admit to the truth or muchless understand it. They have an agenda which is not of your best interests)
Theres nothing "pet" about Social Security. Its the root cause of having to pay taxes from your labor and the only reason behind signing a W4.
The general population in the private sector didnt pay income taxes from "wages" until after the 1939 code which by then was 4 years for the population to apply for ssn's. Pete has not connected the dots that Social Security was not in title 26 prior the 1939 code.
Pete doesnt understand that section 3401(a) "wages" has exclusions to the rule of "wages". These exclusions (99.5% of them) come from chapter 21's 3121(b) "employment" and 3121(a) "wages" from chapter 21.
Starting at 3401(a)(1) down to 3401(a)(22) (I beleive theres 22 exclusions) are the exclusions you must understand that determines what are not 3401(a) "wages".
These 22 3401(a) exclusions mean the pay you receive from these excluded occupations do not constitute income and are not subject to the social security tax nor the income tax.
Three things you must understand.
1. Signing the W4 is voluntary (see procedure and administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d) on the dissclosure of the ssn on government forms). By signing you give the employer permission to withhold from your pay for the purpose of Social Security. Without the W4 in place nothing is permitted to be deducted and the earnings would not be considered taxable "wages". (This W4 is what brought forth the evidence (w2) the government used against Pete to prove Pete had income and why he lost.)
2. Social Security uses the defined term"employment" which converts pay that normally is not taxable into a defined term called "wages" that is taxable and which the government has a very big interest in.
3. "Employment" that Social Security uses comes Title 5's Government Organization and Employees. You will see that title 5 permits on the government side that which is considered on the private side as exclusions. In other words what are exclusions to "employment" for the purpose of Social Security for the general public are not exclusions for the purpose of employment of government workers.

[Famspear]

What a mess.

In particular, look at this statement from "quatloossux=losers":

The general population in the private sector didnt pay income taxes from "wages" until after the 1939 code......

Yeah, right. Big orange bridge in San Francisco for sale, buddy.

Clue to "quatloossux=losers": I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but compensation for service rendered in the private sector was indeed taxable under the federal income tax laws in the 1920s and 1930s -- and apparently no one ever even thought to bring up the doofus argument that the tax could apply "only" where the private sector compensation involved an "activity" in connection with a "federal privilege." And that's really the argument that you're trying to make, if you're following Cracking the Code. (And of course, "wage" has never meant what Peter Hendrickson says the term means.)

Indeed, taxpayers in the cases brought before the Board of Tax Appeals in this period -- taxpayers who had received substantial amounts of income in private sector "activity" -- seemed to have been interested in arguing over the TIMING of the income recognition. If they had thought for a second that the very receipt of the income was not taxable, don't you think they would have raised that issue?

You would think that tax protester-deniers would be smart enough to figure out that the people paying the federal income tax in the 1920s and 1930s were making lots of money, and that those same people were able to afford to hire heavy-duty tax lawyers who, in turn, would have been smart enough to "figure out" the magical, mystical "Cracking the Code" theory of taxation if any such rule ever existed.

You would think that. Unless you've dealt with tax protesters as everyone here has done -- and you've found out how challenged tax protesters tend to be, in terms of the ability to use logic and common sense.

[grixit]

And when are they going to realize that the purpose of a W4 is to *reduce* your withholding?

[Pottapaug1938]

And when are they going to realize that the purpose of a W4 is to *reduce* your withholding?

They won't. That concept is politically unpleasant to them; besides, they lack the mental resources to comprehend it (otherwise, they wouldn't be on Loser Horizons).

[wserra]

It's now all spam, all the time.

That didn't take long.

[Imalawman]

What a mess.

In particular, look at this statement from "quatloossux=losers":

The general population in the private sector didnt pay income taxes from "wages" until after the 1939 code......

Yeah, right. Big orange bridge in San Francisco for sale, buddy.

Clue to "quatloossux=losers": I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but compensation for service rendered in the private sector was indeed taxable under the federal income tax laws in the 1920s and 1930s -- and apparently no one ever even thought to bring up the doofus argument that the tax could apply "only" where the private sector compensation involved an "activity" in connection with a "federal privilege." And that's really the argument that you're trying to make, if you're following Cracking the Code. (And of course, "wage" has never meant what Peter Hendrickson says the term means.)

Indeed, taxpayers in the cases brought before the Board of Tax Appeals in this period -- taxpayers who had received substantial amounts of income in private sector "activity" -- seemed to have been interested in arguing over the TIMING of the income recognition. If they had thought for a second that the very receipt of the income was not taxable, don't you think they would have raised that issue?

You would think that tax protester-deniers would be smart enough to figure out that the people paying the federal income tax in the 1920s and 1930s were making lots of money, and that those same people were able to afford to hire heavy-duty tax lawyers who, in turn, would have been smart enough to "figure out" the magical, mystical "Cracking the Code" theory of taxation if any such rule ever existed.

You would think that. Unless you've dealt with tax protesters as everyone here has done -- and you've found out how challenged tax protesters tend to be, in terms of the ability to use logic and common sense.

Well...that's not quite true Famspear. It wasn't until during WWII that more than 8-10% of the population actually paid income taxes. The personal exemption was so high in relation to the median income during the 30's that only a elite few paid taxes. And, it was not possible to administrate a tax scheme in which the common person had to come up with 20% of their income at the end of the year. But during WWII the IRS was able to institute the withholding system. This worked so well that they stuck with in and the income tax as we know and love it today was essentially born. There are some interesting vids on you tube showing even the likes of Donald Duck pitching the new expanded income tax.

The issue that the TPs get confused is that it wasn't as if the income tax wasn't levied on the GP, it was, it was just that the exemptions rendered most of them exempt from filing and paying tax. The basic structure and items being taxed were still basically the same as it is today. It does not help their interpretational arguments. Can looking back at the history support an argument that the income tax was extended into the GP more than it was intended at first? Perhaps, and I think the income tax has far exceeded what it was originally thought, but not legally, just in application. So what? Laws grow and change over years, deal with it and change the law if you don't like it.

[Famspear]

Well...that's not quite true Famspear. It wasn't until during WWII that more than 8-10% of the population actually paid income taxes. The personal exemption was so high in relation to the median income during the 30's that only a elite few paid taxes.

So, which statement of mine are you disagreeing with?

[Imalawman]

Well...that's not quite true Famspear. It wasn't until during WWII that more than 8-10% of the population actually paid income taxes. The personal exemption was so high in relation to the median income during the 30's that only a elite few paid taxes.

So, which statement of mine are you disagreeing with?

Well, the statement that you put down as being false and ludicrous to support the notion that they would buy a rather large bridge in the western US was actually kinda true. The general population really didn't pay any taxes on their wages until after 1939. The law levied a tax, that's true, but the general population did not pay any tax because of exemptions. Your post implied that the statement was false, but really it was true - as quoted by you. Maybe the context would make seem like they said that wages weren't subject to tax. That I would agree is a false statement. But merely pointing out that the general population did not pay tax on wages is true - as I interpret the term "general population". I don't think that 8-10% of the workforce constitutes the general population. Reasonable minds could differ on the interpretation, I suppose.

[Famspear]

Well, the statement that you put down as being false and ludicrous to support the notion that they would buy a rather large bridge in the western US was actually kinda true. The general population really didn't pay any taxes on their wages until after 1939. The law levied a tax, that's true, but the general population did not pay any tax because of exemptions. Your post implied that the statement was false, but really it was true - as quoted by you. Maybe the context would make seem like they said that wages weren't subject to tax. That I would agree is a false statement. But merely pointing out that the general population did not pay tax on wages is true - as I interpret the term "general population". I don't think that 8-10% of the workforce constitutes the general population. Reasonable minds could differ on the interpretation, I suppose.

OK, I see.

I had taken the term "general population" to mean people laboring in an activity not connected with a federal privilege -- i.e., the majority of people, getting back to the thrust of Hendrickson's scam theory that the majority of people (both today and in the 1920s and 1930s) are not subject to the tax, since they aren't connected to a federal privilege. I interpreted (or misinterpreted) the "general population" comment to refer to that.

In that sense, Hendrickson is wrong; the general population WAS being taxed from 1913 on -- although as you and I both pointed out, the actual percentage of that population actually owing the tax was small.

I once prepared an inflation adjustment chart on the individual exemption amount for the year 1913. Adjusted up to about 2007 or 2008 dollars, I think the exemption amount came to over $60,000 if I recall correctly.

[Imalawman]

Well, the statement that you put down as being false and ludicrous to support the notion that they would buy a rather large bridge in the western US was actually kinda true. The general population really didn't pay any taxes on their wages until after 1939. The law levied a tax, that's true, but the general population did not pay any tax because of exemptions. Your post implied that the statement was false, but really it was true - as quoted by you. Maybe the context would make seem like they said that wages weren't subject to tax. That I would agree is a false statement. But merely pointing out that the general population did not pay tax on wages is true - as I interpret the term "general population". I don't think that 8-10% of the workforce constitutes the general population. Reasonable minds could differ on the interpretation, I suppose.

OK, I see.

I had taken the term "general population" to mean people laboring in an activity not connected with a federal privilege -- i.e., the majority of people, getting back to the thrust of Hendrickson's scam theory that the majority of people (both today and in the 1920s and 1930s) are not subject to the tax, since they aren't connected to a federal privilege. I interpreted (or misinterpreted) the "general population" comment to refer to that.

In that sense, Hendrickson is wrong; the general population WAS being taxed from 1913 on -- although as you and I both pointed out, the actual percentage of that population actually owing the tax was small.

I once prepared an inflation adjustment chart on the individual exemption amount for the year 1913. Adjusted up to about 2007 or 2008 dollars, I think the exemption amount came to over $60,000 if I recall correctly.

And just to go with that it wasn't until around that time that federal employees were subject to tax...or was it a lot earlier? I can't remember. But there certainly was a time when ONLY private sector employees were subject to taxes.

[Cpt Banjo]

Adjusted up to about 2007 or 2008 dollars, I think the exemption amount came to over $60,000 if I recall correctly.

You recall well. The $3,000 and $4,000 exemptions offered in 1913 translate to $64,500 and $86,000 in 2008 dollars.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[Famspear]

And just to go with that it wasn't until around that time that federal employees were subject to tax...or was it a lot earlier? I can't remember. But there certainly was a time when ONLY private sector employees were subject to taxes.

Was it the old intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine? The federal government could not tax the state government employees, and the state governments could not tax the federal employees? If I'm remembering, the doctrine was overruled in cases like Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938) (ruling that the federal government could impose a tax on state employees?), and Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 486-487 (1939) (ruling that a state could impose a tax on federal government employees?)

[Quixote]

I had taken the term "general population" to mean people laboring in an activity not connected with a federal privilege -- i.e., the majority of people, getting back to the thrust of Hendrickson's scam theory that the majority of people (both today and in the 1920s and 1930s) are not subject to the tax, since they aren't connected to a federal privilege.

Wrong delusion. quatloossux=losers knows that PH is wrong about that silly federal privilege stuff. His schtick is SSNs. The only way to stay tax free is never to reveal your SSN to your employer or anyone else. The purpose of Form W-4 is to opt into the income tax by providing your SSN. No SSN, no tax liability. His proof? Average Americans paid no income tax before the Social Security Act was passed. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy to Loser boy; it's the foundation of his belief system.