[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show 1963 Chrysler Turbine 3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report $200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis Fooling Us Badly With Psyops The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But.. Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’ Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Basis of income Tax
Source: Family Guardian
URL Source: http://famguardian.org/
Published: Jun 14, 2007
Author: Richard
Post Date: 2007-06-14 20:31:26 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 675
Comments: 44

Social Security Enabling Act of 1935

Some time ago, I posted a breakdown that covered why people pay the income tax. To say that some in 4um were upset with my information, well, that would be an understatement. But, and howsoever that maybe, no one rebuted the information. Please permit me to explain why there was no rebuttal;

I was correct. The following is the basic part of the info;

The Social Security Act of 1935

(See Section 8; Income Tax)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html

(Please note that the above site is an official government site.)

TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT

INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) ...

DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM WAGES

SEC. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. Every employer required so to deduct the tax is hereby made liable for the payment of such tax, and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.

Now, I admit to not being the best researcher in the world, but the way that I read this, the Social Security tax is an Income tax..... and I would submit that if you are subject to ANY Income tax, then you are subject to ALL income taxes.

What does this mean? If you have a social security number, you owe the income tax, and you can protest all that you want and it will not help you in the least. That means that when you argue about the there being no law authorizing the income tax, you are correct, and when the judge says not to bring that argument into this court, he is also correct, because he is setting in a hearing on a contractual matter, and you are out-of-order.

I have, meanwhile, been searching for other confirmation about what I know to be true. Just for you'all. I have found it!

I joined Family Guardian, and posed the question to them, asking if it was correct. This was their response;

Richard,

Nice work. You're absolutely correct. Exactly the same conclusions are reached in the Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee Document posted on this website:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em...stIndenture.pdf

See section 3 in the above document.

Admin

To view the above document, which is one of the most detailed documents that I have ever read! You need to register with Family Guardian; you can do that here: http://famguardian.org/

I have not spent much time, as yet, on this site, but it does look as detailed and full of information as anything that I have found.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

#5. To: Pinguinite, christine, BTP Holdings, robin, lodwick, max, Phant2000, JCHarris, diana, mirage, Jethro Tull, who knows what evil, farmfriend, kamala, ladybug, InsideJob, tom007, Former Lurker, Freepatriot32, Ferret Mike, Original_Intent, BlackSands, all (#0)

I was correct.

I am not doing this to beat a dead horse. There is a very simple moral object here. And, it applies to everyone, not just me.

Since I am correct in what I originally said, that the Social Security contract is a contract to pay Income Tax (the Social Security tax IS an income tax), then what this means is that the entire, THE ENTIRE tax protest movement is based on hot air.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can assume that this is an accident. Esp. since everything that I have pointed out comes from the public record. And this means that much of what has happened to people over the last 20-30 years was not only unneccesary, but it was probably planned as well.

Yet it continues today. And my point is that you -- ALL OF YOU (as well as myself) -- have a moral obligation to tell everyone that you happen to speak to, esp. about taxes, exactly what the basis is of the income tax that they VOLUNTEERED and CONTRACTED to pay.

I do not care if you tell them where you got the info; I do not need nor seek any credit. After all, I am not the only one who has figured this out! What I want to see is for people to stop getting injured with non-sense in the courts. Friends of yours, I wager, have been or will be injured using the lies of people like Irwin Shiff.

Let me see. Irwin Shiff... Oh, right, a Jew. Leading people astray for profit. Who would have thought it.

richard9151  posted on  2007-06-16   1:17:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#7. To: richard9151 (#5)

Irwin Shiff...

What is his schtick?

JCHarris  posted on  2007-06-16 01:33:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Since I am correct in what I originally said, that the Social Security contract is a contract to pay Income Tax

The Supreme Court has already decided that the Social Security tax is "just another tax" based on the 16th Amendment. They ruled that there is no "right" to benefits and that Congress can do as it pleases with the 'benefits' from the Social Security program.

FDR put it in this way so that nobody could remove it -- and there are quotes from him stating as such.

mirage  posted on  2007-06-16 01:48:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

THE ENTIRE tax protest movement is based on hot air.

I agree Richard, but I think the process of coming to the conclusion that the Income Tax is a contractual obligation begins when one discovers that there's no law requiring payment and that it also violates Constitutional requirements, so enforcement must be attached by some other means ...

The documentary of Russo and the rantings of the Bob Schultz Tax Movement / We The People group do awaken people to the fraud without actually providing the real fraud that it's either a contract or implied trust arrangement that traps people into the system.

Ya gotta start somewhere ...

noone222  posted on  2007-06-16 06:16:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Let me see. Irwin Shiff... Oh, right, a Jew. Leading people astray for profit. Who would have thought it.

One can never be certain but I don't think Schiff intentionally mislead anyone. At 78, I don't think he'd be in prison either if he were a govt. agent.

The courts contribute to the continuing fraud by not entering concise and clear opinions. People are allowed to prevail in court sometimes simply to muddy the waters and most often when this happens the court's ruling in their favor has nothing to do with their argument. Joe Bannister's case is a perfect example. The arguments provided in his briefs are moot, the jury simply decided against the IRS because they caught the IRS lying. [I'm not convinced of the integrity of We The People, but I am certain that their arguments are in error].

Ed and Elaine Brown are also in error, even though its understandable. People cannot be even a little bit in the (Babylonian) system and protest the requirements of that system.

Many people concluding that something was wrong with the tax system have been brutalized by the government because courts have continually hidden the truth related to the issue of taxation.

The Bible at Luke 22:25 makes mention of the way followers of Christ are to view their relationship with government:

And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. Be it not so with you:

Most Americans wouldn't admit they are socialists if you put a gun to their heads ... but might have to if you asked them if they had a SS Card in their wallet.

And, it's not just Social Security that subjects one to Income Tax liability. Any contract with legal fictions will suffice. One must completely extricate from their system or be subject to it. Most people create artificial entities to take their place when necessary. The artificial entity then becomes subject to the contract whether its for utilities, vehicles or taxes.

I'm not in the habit of telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't do because I'm not going to suffer the consequences should there be any. My hope has been that the SS system would implode or collapse and then I would recommend not getting involved in its replacement.

The one thing I would emphasize as imperative whenever someone decides to "opt out" ... and that is to formally (be able to prove it-keep records and be sure to have all documentation Notarized-Use Return Receipt Mail) rescind their signature on any and all documents that connected them with any legal fiction whatsoever. In addition I recorded a Declaration by affidavit of Copyright with the County Clerk and Secretary of State terminating the all capital letter name, and I formally expatriated from the federal U.S. Government by triple witnessed and notarized notice to both houses of Congress the President, and others (I can't recall offhand), and published in a competent newspaper the notice previously sent to the aforementioned parties.

Some people do a UCC 1 ... I don't recognize the authority of the UCC as I'm not involved in commerce.

The important thing for people to remember is that you may be called into account for your actions and you need to fully understand your position and the consequences. My committment stems from Biblical admonitions against the Mark of the Beast. Violating this warning against taking the Mark has eternal consequences that I'm unwilling to chance. Whether the SSN is the Mark is debatable ... if it's not the Mark it's the precursor of it ... I just ain't doing it, and jail doesn't worry me. I certainly understand people that are hesitant because they have children to raise.

Everyone has to make their own decision and sometimes things that were once taken for granted become challenges, but I have been able to overcome them for 15-20 years now.

noone222  posted on  2007-06-16 07:14:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And my point is that you -- ALL OF YOU (as well as myself) -- have a moral obligation to tell everyone that you happen to speak to, esp. about taxes, exactly what the basis is of the income tax that they VOLUNTEERED and CONTRACTED to pay.

I have a better idea on how to kill the beast. To anyone who has paid into the SS system, sue to collect after having injured yourself. My approach would provide income for those who qualify and, at the same time, overload the system causing its eventual death. If native born Americans won’t file to collect, illegal Mexicans surly will.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-06-16 09:47:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Since I am correct in what I originally said, that the Social Security contract is a contract to pay Income Tax (the Social Security tax IS an income tax), then what this means is that the entire, THE ENTIRE tax protest movement is based on hot air.

Over 20 years ago Irwin Schiff pointed out that social security is an income tax based on gross wages, and the other income tax is "income less deductions."

Now, just why you think this invalidates the entire tax education movement is unclear. But if you believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land then please explain what "equal protection under the law" means when applied to the income tax.

For instance, railroad workers don't pay the SS tax nor do LAPD officers.

"They have their own pensions" you say?

AH! As Irwin Schiff pointed out decades ago, "social security is not a pension, it's a tax!"

How then can railroad workers and LAPD employees be lawfully assessed for one tax (income {sic}) less deductions) and not the other? (social security)

Unlike railroad and LAPD pension plans which promise to pay regardless of a retiree's post-retirement wages and/or income, social security promises and is legally obligated to may nothing!

If I have the sworn depositions from 12 respected oncologists stating that I am an unmarried terminal cancer patient with no dependents and will not live another year, but I am also ineligible for SS disability benefits because of my young age and my present ability to work, then SS will pay me nothing, now or later. But I still cannot opt out of SS payroll withholding.

It's not a pension, it's a tax. And,when the govt exempted federal employees (originally their civil service pensions made them exempt, but new federal employees for some years now are required to pay the SS tax) and railroad workers and LAPD, they failed to guarantee equal protection to all. If I'm as wealthy as Bill Gates I'm still required to pay the SS tax, and even if terminal and certain to expire before eligibility I'm still required to pay SS tax.

I can hardly wait to read your tortuous explanation of how having fat cat pensions thanks to savvy union negotiators relieves some segments of the workforce from a tax (in direct violation of the equal protection clause) and just where the govt derived this power to treat Americans differently based upon a yet-to-be-explained criteria.

Also, Why is it that rich individuals/corporate officers may opt out of auto insurance by setting up liability escrow accounts equal to or many times greater than the minimum liability required by law for the rest of us?

If a wealthy person is presumed to be responsible enough to live without buying auto or health insurance (when an insurers' solvency may be in question until the company declares bankruptcy, collecting premums until the bankruptcy is announced with no intention of providing coverage-all legal, mind you) why would the federal govt presume that these same individuals cannot responsibly plan for their own retirements?

There isn't any method including setting aside billions of dollars for retirement that will allow a rich person working in a non exempt profession and subject to payroll withholding to escape SS "contributions"

("Hey, why are you in jail?"

Failing to meet my moral obligation and make voluntary contributions! How about you?"

"Oh, I failed to volunteer to make the AIDS WALK in New York City!"

"You'e kidding, right?"

" Of course! I'm just underscoring how ridiculous you sound!"

So, please don't insult my intelligence by saying that a multi billion dollar escrow account is inadequate because the govt may still end up caring for a once wealthy individual and therefore the nannies are correct to force most us to pay "voluntary contributions" (an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one) even if the individual was terminal or willing to set aside a billion dollars for her or his golden years, or even if a terminally ill individual was willing to set up the account when it's an absolute certainty that she/he would never reach retirement age or require financial assistance if disabled.

"Hey I have a billion bux, can I opt out of SS?

"Well that depends, do you work for the railroad or LAPD?"

Of course if the entire banking system collapses then a billion dollar account could be wiped out, but so will the govt's ability to pay benefits to retirees, recent immigrants, methadone addicts, etc.

"The original 1935 SS statute paid retirement benefits only to the primary worker. Many types of people were excluded, mainly farm workers, the self-employed, and anyone employed by an employer of fewer than ten people. These limitations, intended to exclude those from whom it would be difficult to monitor compliance, covered approximately half of the civilian labor force in the United States.

In 1939, the 1937 Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax was amended in three important ways:

* The widowed, nonworking spouse of a someone entitled to an old-age benefit also became entitled to an old-age benefit. * Survivors (widows and orphans) became eligible for a benefit. (A contract to pay income tax, you say? HAH!_HD)

* Retirees who had never paid any FICA taxes became eligible for old-age benefits. This feature was very popular among the millions of elderly Americans hard hit by the Great Depression, and fatefully decoupled benefits eligibility from work history. (i.e. no contract to pay income tax!-HD)

During the Carter administration, immigrants who had never paid into the system became eligible for SSI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits when they reached age 65. SSI is not a Social Security benefit, but welfare, because the poor elderly are entitled to SSI regardless of work history. Likewise, SSI is not an entitlement, because there is no right to SSI payments."(wikipedia)

So, just how does one such as yourself reconcile the above quotes with your statement that "Since I am correct in what I originally said, that the Social Security contract is a contract to pay Income Tax" and "(the Social Security tax IS an income tax)" when immigrants, surviving spouses and congenitally handicapped from birth who may have never worked, and have never agreed to any contract or paid a dime into the system may receive benefits?

No, you're just trying to polish up the old socialism turd using meaningless phrases (that are popular and abundant in AARP propaganda, which is likely your source for this gibberish) and by deliberately misusing phrases with otherwise clearly defined legal definitions, such as "VOLUNTEERED and CONTRACTED to pay" Also under a lawful and enforceable civil contract there must be a stated benefit, and because SS is not an entitlement there is none and the term "contract" is as meaningless as "social security trust fund".

Irwin Schiff pointed out that to say someone "volunteers under threat of seizure and/or garnishment" and that someone "contracts to pay" (I was 12 years old when I received my SS card-could I lawfully form a lifelong contract with the govt without understanding any of the ramifications of the "contract"?) is nothing more than the intentional obfuscation of legal definitions by govt hacks and state worshipers to hide the truth and promote moral confusion, a smokescreen to cover the unconstitutional nature of SS and the other god-cursed income tax.

Roosevelt had no good answers for the very valid challenges to the NRA, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and most of the NEW DEAL, so his response was a blatant attempt to pack the SCOTUS, who then decided to ignore valid lower courts findings and to "stress the need" for social security and other Marxist schemes.

Also, the govt admitted that the actuaries on which benefits were originally calculated were wrong and that error meant the system that was sold as a "solvent trust fund" was never anything ,ore than a swindle, paying out benefits from current payroll withholding taxes.

The first recipient of a SS bennie check, Ida M. Fuller of Vermont paid about $100 into SS and collected more than $10,000 before her death.

"The govt was supposed to invest it!" we hear...

"Well, the govt didn't!" is the honest reply.

And that reason coupled with the fact that the baby is long over means that my generation and younger have no hope of collecting even modest benefits that they do not themselves pay for many times over in payroll holding. (Can you say Ponzi scheme? How about a chain letter that's run out of chain?)

And if I and others are paying our own welfare retirement benefits plus the cost of the non productive bureaucrats/administrators (like you I suspect) who mails my own money back to me (after they deduct for their own generous salaries and health care of course) then wouldn't it simply make more sense for me to arrange for my own retirement and for you and welfare chiselers, immigrants and others to get honest jobs and support yourselves?

If we have some moral obligation to support each other, then why doesn't LAPD pay it, and why would the IRS seize my property so they can mail benefit checks to millionaires?

How does it benefit America to tax Citizen A for the benefit of Citizen B, particularly if A works at McDonalds and will never own a home while B is a millionaire like Ronald Reagan who insisted on receiving his SS check?

And, how does it benefit America if A is barred from making over a certain amount of chump change to remain eligible for benefits when Citizen B may collect millions in stock dividends each year and never become ineligible?

Why would the working poor be penalized for productivity while wealthy persons are not and have never been presented with similar obstacles to collecting SS bennies?

(Let's assume that B's dividends are from tax free municipal bonds and are not taxed, shall we?)

No, the govt and its lickspittles who dare use phrases like "moral obligation" are dishonest or self deluding, and even their spouses are socialist queens or drones...

"We pay taxes too", govt employees cry! No, you don't. You pay back other people's tax dollars because the 100 million tons of paperwork the IRS and H&R Blockheads create annually that no one ever reads has an actual value of less than zero! If you create no wealth, i.e. bread, milk or steel then payroll withholding is merely a scheme to salve your otherwise guilty consciences, and to hide that fact that you're mostly parasites who would starve if productive people weren't "forced to volunteer" and to adopt the lop sided "morality" of people who have no moral obligation to create anything beneficial to us! (CLUE: Heartaches and paperwork don't benefit us producers)

There can never be a moral basis for taxing a poor or lower middle class single parent with children at gunpoint in order to keep the irresponsible promises of long dead politicians to favored special interests.

And if any private insurance company said that they erred on their actuaries and cannot meet its obligations to people who were forced to buy their product under threat of seizure, garnishment or visits from trigger happy govt gun goons, then those insurance company executives would go to jail.

How does it benefit us to have a govt that has all of the authority but none of the responsibility? Is there a better definition of tyranny?

The former Soviet Union employed similar Orwellian rhetoric when forcing their subjects into collectivist schemes, but the reality was not much different than here-95% stood in line for stale bread and ill fitting shoes while 5% ate Volga river sturgeon caviar and rode in limosines while piously preaching of the Marxist "moral obligation to support each other".

This is why the most eloquent and passionate proponents of socialism are often wealthy folks, like Hillary Rodham, Armand Hammer, Jay Rockefeller, the trustees of the Ford Foundation (with endowments and personal fortunes that are immune to taxation).

The simple truth is only the working poor and middle class pay the two federal income taxes, and the poor and rich alike derive the greatest proportion of the benefits.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-06-16 10:14:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]