The Voluntary Federal Programs
by FranG
"I love America, but I can't spend the whole year here. I can't afford the taxes."
-- Mick Jagger
I can certainly relate to the comment above. The land of the free imposes a cost on breathing to its free Citizens via its Income Tax laws. A tax on breathing simply means that you are being taxed without regard to any specific action taken on your part, you are simply taxed for the sake of being taxed. If you are a living soul that requires food for sustenance, you will be taxed on the production of that food. And in many cases, if no food production, then they have to tax something. The water you drink and the air you breath become the next best alternative. They have you on the upside down weight loss program via the shaking of coins out of your pockets. So a tax on living is wrong you say? Well, according to the statement below, you are not the only one who feels this way.
“Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers’ belief that the laws they follow apply to everyone and that the IRS will respect and protect their rights under the law.” (link)
Did you notice anything odd about that statement? Well, the above statement is from a Director of the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), on behalf of the Commissioner, in response to a Citizen’s letter inquiring about the legality of individual income taxes. The letter from the Director goes on to say “the law itself does not require individuals to file a Form 1040.” The letter then continues with empty rhetoric about how to compute your income tax, and the consequences if you fail to do so. The important points to be taken from this letter is 1) the tax laws do not apply to everyone, and in fact applies only to a minute amount of individuals who file their individual Form 1040 tax returns every year, and 2) there is no law that requires an individual to pay income tax.
The IRS will try to control you through your ignorance, but the bottom line is that the burden of proof is on them. For your individual specific case, a tax return was required to be filed. The IRS is a paper tiger, with its minions and the thousands of pages of rules not being worth the paper it’s printed on. The Tax Code is designed to get you lost in a mirage of details, and while staying silent on the key issue of liability, forces your mind to provide the information left intentionally obscure by Code. Thus people make assumptions where the law “appears” to be silent. It is a form of psychological conditioning facilitated by the appearance of legality via the actions of the IRS, accountants, attorneys, and a corporate media who know, or respectfully should know, that individual taxes are for the most part voluntary.
And why are they voluntary you ask? It is because the United States does not have jurisdiction inside the borders of a State. This means that the IRS has no jurisdiction over States' citizens unless they are interacting directly with the federal Government, or operating outside the boundaries of their respective State. This, and only this, is where the Government has jurisdiction. This is of course individual-specific and thus the burden of proof falls on the IRS, on a case by case basis, of showing you are required to file. The closest thing the IRS has that says an individual is required to file a return is Sections 6011 and 6012 of the Tax Code. Sec 6011 (a) states:
“[‘b]When required by regulations[/b] prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.”
Sec 6012 (a) (1) (A) states:
“Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by ….. Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount…..“
The gross income items are listed in Sec 61 and surprisingly do not include wages, the number one source of income for Americans. The Code conveniently does not define income, but in basic terms, income is all revenues acquired minus all expenses paid or incurred. Income is usually defined and classified as either Accounting Income or Economic Income. The definitions below will reveal which method is more appropriate for individuals when considering income tax liability. From Merriam-Webster Online:
Accounting – “the system of recording and summarizing business and financial transactions and analyzing, verifying, and reporting the results;”
Economic – “b: of, relating to, or based on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services c: of or relating to an economy.”
Notice any difference in the definitions? Well the system of accounting fails to take into account the economy as a whole.
Economy – “1 archaic : the management of household or private affairs and especially expenses 2a: thrifty and efficient use of material resources : frugality in expenditures.”
The difference between accounting and economic income is that one takes into account all relevant factors necessary for the generation of income, and one merely looks at the specific transaction. In particular, economics looks at hidden costs such as inflation and, more importantly for the purposes of determining economic income, opportunity cost. This concept is important because, although the IRS has no jurisdiction to tax income within a State’s borders, a State can tax its Citizens’ income.
Opportunity cost is
"the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone (and the benefits which could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable forgone alternative (or highest-valued option forgone), i.e. the second best alternative.” (link)
An example of opportunity cost in the work setting would be the consideration of two job offers for an individual by two would-be employers. One employer is offering to pay $100,000 and the other is offering $120,000. Economics assumes that a rational individual would contract with the employer offering the higher wage, thus the opportunity cost of working for the employer would be the $100,000 salary of the job not taken. All else equal, the individual’s economic income, or profit would be $20,000, the difference between his economic revenue and economic cost. Had the lower salaried job been selected, the individual would actually have an economic loss of $20,000, despite showing an accounting gain of $100,000 (since no "per se" record exists of a sale of goods and services). Opportunity cost is a hidden cost that is not directly realized, but will be experienced later. Inflation provides a good example of an opportunity cost and is factored into the price of loans offered by creditors. The loan price takes into account future loan opportunities foregone as the result of extending credit to individuals or businesses. The IRS knows very well the significance of opportunity cost on income, but chooses to remain conspicuously silent on the point.
Another economic term that is of significance is that of perfect competition. Perfect competition can be defined as
"an economic model that describes a hypothetical market form in which no producer or consumer has the market power to influence prices. According to the standard economical definition of efficiency (Pareto efficiency), perfect competition would lead to a completely efficient outcome." (link)
Perfect competition is the opposite of a monopoly; it is the other extreme where all players within an industry share in the wealth equally. Perfect competition is another way of saying “free market system.” In a perfectly free market economy, economic costs are equal to economic revenues and thus economic profit (or income) is zero. The economic term for zero income is “normal profit,” which is another way of saying sustenance. In other words, in an ideal true free market economy, you merely have equal exchanges of property in trade and a gain is not realized by anyone. Of course this is theory but in the event of an economic gain, only then would an individual be liable for income taxes. The logic being that as the economy grows, the government grows with it. This is reasonable, but the inverse should be the case during times of economic stability or recession. When individuals, and the economy as a whole, are experiencing economic losses, “accounting” income taxes would be in effect an improper tax as nothing has been gained. It effectively becomes a confiscation of property.
What About FICA Taxes?
Nick Kypreos, Hockey player for the New York Rangers, when asked what he planned to do during his team's visit to the White House, stated the following:
"I want to find out who this FICA guy is and how come he's taking so much of my money."
Isn’t that a good question? I’ve seen this guy FICA on my W-2s and paycheck stubs as well. I've searched for FICA and am glad that I have found him. That was the first part, but learning his nature is what we are really interested in. In short, FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes are taxes paid for Social Security and Medicare benefits to be received after an individual reaches the “retirement age” and no longer has "to work" for a living. The amount of the tax (12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare) is shared equally by employees in the work force, and their employers (employers have to pay for each person employed). Although they refer to this withholding as a tax (See 26 USC 3601 (a)), it is nothing of the sort. The dictionary defines tax as follows:
Tax – to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Ed defines tax as;
Tax – A charge, usu. monetary, imposed by the government on persons, entities, transactions, or property to yield public revenue.[/i]
Despite its appearance, FICA taxes are merely contributions made to a retirement plan that is sponsored by the United States government. If one does not care to participate in the government’s retirement plan, he doesn’t have to make contributions, which are erroneously called taxes, towards it. This is evidenced in a response to a Citizen’s letter regarding Social Security Numbers for her children by the Assistant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) department. Specifically, the letter states;
“The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require a SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without a SSN, we cannot properly credit the earnings for the work performed.” (link)
The letter then goes on to say that certain laws, however, may require that a Citizen provide a SSN number, such as IRS tax forms required to be filed by the individual, or that a SSN may be required to furnish to private entities required to report on earnings paid to individual.
Talk about doublespeak! The Assistant Commissioner says that you do not have to participate in the Social Security program in one breath, and in another says that other entities (including governmental) may require that you must participate (by obtaining a SSN, you are enrolled in the program by default). Well let’s see what the Tax Code says about this point. Sections 3127, regarding employers and employees, and 1402 (g) (1) for self employed individuals, states that an exemption can be claimed from the FICA taxes for religious reasons. Specifically, one has to file an application (Form 4029) which meets the following criteria:
1) one is a member of a religious sect.,
2) the organization is opposed to the acceptance of such retirement, disability, etc. benefits from a public or private institution,
3) provide evidence of membership in said organization,
4) waiver of all benefits under the Social Security act
5) the Commissioner (IRS) verifies the factuality of established tenets of organization stating opposition to receiving retirement benefits
6) the Commissioner determines that the request is reasonable
The last part of those requirements seems pretty un-American to me. We actually have to get permission from some authority to practice our religious faiths. What a shame indeed. In any event, this is an option toward rescinding your SSN if you are (un)fortunate enough to have one. I think we all need to inform the Commissioner of the personal God that the Founding Fathers said we are all entitled to, and that our faith opposes our being forced to contribute to any retirement, disability, etc. plan, rather public or private, under the gross misconception that we are paying lawful (FICA) “taxes.” And that our faith also opposes any laws or rules by any government, or private entity, which require identification numbers of any retirement, disability, etc. plan to be used in obtaining a service totally unrelated to said plan. Examples of this would be the requiring of an SSN for income tax purposes (either federal or state), or the requiring of private entities such as banks to provide SSNs of its customers with established bank accounts. On a constitutional level, we would prefer the actions of individual States in this regard, such as my home state of Illinois which require an SSN to obtain a driver’s license ((625 ILCS 5/6 106), to be deemed a violation of Art I Sec 10 of the U.S. Constitution regarding the right to contract (or not contract). Each of the above outlined acts which require our obtaining of a SSN would by default enroll us into a program which violates our religious faith.
Lastly, and most importantly, we would like for our children’s right to a personal God to be recognized, and to also be given the same freedom of choice as we are seeking, in regards to engaging in contracts upon their own free will as opposed to force. This force is illustrated in Sec 405 (c) (2) (C) (ii) of the Social Security Act which states:
“In the administration of any law involving the issuance of a birth certificate, each State shall require each parent to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if the parent has more than one such number) issued to the parent unless the State (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Security) finds good cause for not requiring the furnishing of such number. The State shall make numbers furnished under this subclause available to the Commissioner of Social Security and the agency administering the State’s plan under part D of subchapter IV of this chapter in accordance with Federal or State law and regulation.”
The above does nothing more than establish a Social Security number for newly born children under the guise of providing the States with grant money for plans establishing and enforcing paternity and child support obligations. As it is not the case that all children will need the services of paternity establishment by the government, it is unfair that they be forced to contract with the Social Security Administration for retirement, disability, etc. benefits of any kind. It, as well as the Federal Income Tax laws are voluntary for most Americans and we would like to go back to the days of freely volunteering the hard earned fruits of our labor to our Government on our terms.
Disclaimer: Relying on the words of FranG can result in serious injury to mind and/or body. As FranG does not purport himself to be an expert in ANY field, please be advised to use caution when discerning ANY of his statements.
by FranG
"I love America, but I can't spend the whole year here. I can't afford the taxes."
-- Mick Jagger
I can certainly relate to the comment above. The land of the free imposes a cost on breathing to its free Citizens via its Income Tax laws. A tax on breathing simply means that you are being taxed without regard to any specific action taken on your part, you are simply taxed for the sake of being taxed. If you are a living soul that requires food for sustenance, you will be taxed on the production of that food. And in many cases, if no food production, then they have to tax something. The water you drink and the air you breath become the next best alternative. They have you on the upside down weight loss program via the shaking of coins out of your pockets. So a tax on living is wrong you say? Well, according to the statement below, you are not the only one who feels this way.
“Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers’ belief that the laws they follow apply to everyone and that the IRS will respect and protect their rights under the law.” (link)
Did you notice anything odd about that statement? Well, the above statement is from a Director of the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), on behalf of the Commissioner, in response to a Citizen’s letter inquiring about the legality of individual income taxes. The letter from the Director goes on to say “the law itself does not require individuals to file a Form 1040.” The letter then continues with empty rhetoric about how to compute your income tax, and the consequences if you fail to do so. The important points to be taken from this letter is 1) the tax laws do not apply to everyone, and in fact applies only to a minute amount of individuals who file their individual Form 1040 tax returns every year, and 2) there is no law that requires an individual to pay income tax.
The IRS will try to control you through your ignorance, but the bottom line is that the burden of proof is on them. For your individual specific case, a tax return was required to be filed. The IRS is a paper tiger, with its minions and the thousands of pages of rules not being worth the paper it’s printed on. The Tax Code is designed to get you lost in a mirage of details, and while staying silent on the key issue of liability, forces your mind to provide the information left intentionally obscure by Code. Thus people make assumptions where the law “appears” to be silent. It is a form of psychological conditioning facilitated by the appearance of legality via the actions of the IRS, accountants, attorneys, and a corporate media who know, or respectfully should know, that individual taxes are for the most part voluntary.
And why are they voluntary you ask? It is because the United States does not have jurisdiction inside the borders of a State. This means that the IRS has no jurisdiction over States' citizens unless they are interacting directly with the federal Government, or operating outside the boundaries of their respective State. This, and only this, is where the Government has jurisdiction. This is of course individual-specific and thus the burden of proof falls on the IRS, on a case by case basis, of showing you are required to file. The closest thing the IRS has that says an individual is required to file a return is Sections 6011 and 6012 of the Tax Code. Sec 6011 (a) states:
“[‘b]When required by regulations[/b] prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.”
Sec 6012 (a) (1) (A) states:
“Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by ….. Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount…..“
The gross income items are listed in Sec 61 and surprisingly do not include wages, the number one source of income for Americans. The Code conveniently does not define income, but in basic terms, income is all revenues acquired minus all expenses paid or incurred. Income is usually defined and classified as either Accounting Income or Economic Income. The definitions below will reveal which method is more appropriate for individuals when considering income tax liability. From Merriam-Webster Online:
Accounting – “the system of recording and summarizing business and financial transactions and analyzing, verifying, and reporting the results;”
Economic – “b: of, relating to, or based on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
Notice any difference in the definitions? Well the system of accounting fails to take into account the economy as a whole.
Economy – “1 archaic : the management of household or private affairs and especially expenses 2a: thrifty and efficient use of material resources : frugality in expenditures.”
The difference between accounting and economic income is that one takes into account all relevant factors necessary for the generation of income, and one merely looks at the specific transaction. In particular, economics looks at hidden costs such as inflation and, more importantly for the purposes of determining economic income, opportunity cost. This concept is important because, although the IRS has no jurisdiction to tax income within a State’s borders, a State can tax its Citizens’ income.
Opportunity cost is
"the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone (and the benefits which could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable forgone alternative (or highest-valued option forgone), i.e. the second best alternative.” (link)
An example of opportunity cost in the work setting would be the consideration of two job offers for an individual by two would-be employers. One employer is offering to pay $100,000 and the other is offering $120,000. Economics assumes that a rational individual would contract with the employer offering the higher wage, thus the opportunity cost of working for the employer would be the $100,000 salary of the job not taken. All else equal, the individual’s economic income, or profit would be $20,000, the difference between his economic revenue and economic cost. Had the lower salaried job been selected, the individual would actually have an economic loss of $20,000, despite showing an accounting gain of $100,000 (since no "per se" record exists of a sale of goods and services). Opportunity cost is a hidden cost that is not directly realized, but will be experienced later. Inflation provides a good example of an opportunity cost and is factored into the price of loans offered by creditors. The loan price takes into account future loan opportunities foregone as the result of extending credit to individuals or businesses. The IRS knows very well the significance of opportunity cost on income, but chooses to remain conspicuously silent on the point.
Another economic term that is of significance is that of perfect competition. Perfect competition can be defined as
"an economic model that describes a hypothetical market form in which no producer or consumer has the market power to influence prices. According to the standard economical definition of efficiency (Pareto efficiency), perfect competition would lead to a completely efficient outcome." (link)
Perfect competition is the opposite of a monopoly; it is the other extreme where all players within an industry share in the wealth equally. Perfect competition is another way of saying “free market system.” In a perfectly free market economy, economic costs are equal to economic revenues and thus economic profit (or income) is zero. The economic term for zero income is “normal profit,” which is another way of saying sustenance. In other words, in an ideal true free market economy, you merely have equal exchanges of property in trade and a gain is not realized by anyone. Of course this is theory but in the event of an economic gain, only then would an individual be liable for income taxes. The logic being that as the economy grows, the government grows with it. This is reasonable, but the inverse should be the case during times of economic stability or recession. When individuals, and the economy as a whole, are experiencing economic losses, “accounting” income taxes would be in effect an improper tax as nothing has been gained. It effectively becomes a confiscation of property.
What About FICA Taxes?
Nick Kypreos, Hockey player for the New York Rangers, when asked what he planned to do during his team's visit to the White House, stated the following:
"I want to find out who this FICA guy is and how come he's taking so much of my money."
Isn’t that a good question? I’ve seen this guy FICA on my W-2s and paycheck stubs as well. I've searched for FICA and am glad that I have found him. That was the first part, but learning his nature is what we are really interested in. In short, FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes are taxes paid for Social Security and Medicare benefits to be received after an individual reaches the “retirement age” and no longer has "to work" for a living. The amount of the tax (12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare) is shared equally by employees in the work force, and their employers (employers have to pay for each person employed). Although they refer to this withholding as a tax (See 26 USC 3601 (a)), it is nothing of the sort. The dictionary defines tax as follows:
Tax – to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Ed defines tax as;
Tax – A charge, usu. monetary, imposed by the government on persons, entities, transactions, or property to yield public revenue.[/i]
Despite its appearance, FICA taxes are merely contributions made to a retirement plan that is sponsored by the United States government. If one does not care to participate in the government’s retirement plan, he doesn’t have to make contributions, which are erroneously called taxes, towards it. This is evidenced in a response to a Citizen’s letter regarding Social Security Numbers for her children by the Assistant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) department. Specifically, the letter states;
“The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require a SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without a SSN, we cannot properly credit the earnings for the work performed.” (link)
The letter then goes on to say that certain laws, however, may require that a Citizen provide a SSN number, such as IRS tax forms required to be filed by the individual, or that a SSN may be required to furnish to private entities required to report on earnings paid to individual.
Talk about doublespeak! The Assistant Commissioner says that you do not have to participate in the Social Security program in one breath, and in another says that other entities (including governmental) may require that you must participate (by obtaining a SSN, you are enrolled in the program by default). Well let’s see what the Tax Code says about this point. Sections 3127, regarding employers and employees, and 1402 (g) (1) for self employed individuals, states that an exemption can be claimed from the FICA taxes for religious reasons. Specifically, one has to file an application (Form 4029) which meets the following criteria:
1) one is a member of a religious sect.,
2) the organization is opposed to the acceptance of such retirement, disability, etc. benefits from a public or private institution,
3) provide evidence of membership in said organization,
4) waiver of all benefits under the Social Security act
5) the Commissioner (IRS) verifies the factuality of established tenets of organization stating opposition to receiving retirement benefits
6) the Commissioner determines that the request is reasonable
The last part of those requirements seems pretty un-American to me. We actually have to get permission from some authority to practice our religious faiths. What a shame indeed. In any event, this is an option toward rescinding your SSN if you are (un)fortunate enough to have one. I think we all need to inform the Commissioner of the personal God that the Founding Fathers said we are all entitled to, and that our faith opposes our being forced to contribute to any retirement, disability, etc. plan, rather public or private, under the gross misconception that we are paying lawful (FICA) “taxes.” And that our faith also opposes any laws or rules by any government, or private entity, which require identification numbers of any retirement, disability, etc. plan to be used in obtaining a service totally unrelated to said plan. Examples of this would be the requiring of an SSN for income tax purposes (either federal or state), or the requiring of private entities such as banks to provide SSNs of its customers with established bank accounts. On a constitutional level, we would prefer the actions of individual States in this regard, such as my home state of Illinois which require an SSN to obtain a driver’s license ((625 ILCS 5/6 106), to be deemed a violation of Art I Sec 10 of the U.S. Constitution regarding the right to contract (or not contract). Each of the above outlined acts which require our obtaining of a SSN would by default enroll us into a program which violates our religious faith.
Lastly, and most importantly, we would like for our children’s right to a personal God to be recognized, and to also be given the same freedom of choice as we are seeking, in regards to engaging in contracts upon their own free will as opposed to force. This force is illustrated in Sec 405 (c) (2) (C) (ii) of the Social Security Act which states:
“In the administration of any law involving the issuance of a birth certificate, each State shall require each parent to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if the parent has more than one such number) issued to the parent unless the State (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Security) finds good cause for not requiring the furnishing of such number. The State shall make numbers furnished under this subclause available to the Commissioner of Social Security and the agency administering the State’s plan under part D of subchapter IV of this chapter in accordance with Federal or State law and regulation.”
The above does nothing more than establish a Social Security number for newly born children under the guise of providing the States with grant money for plans establishing and enforcing paternity and child support obligations. As it is not the case that all children will need the services of paternity establishment by the government, it is unfair that they be forced to contract with the Social Security Administration for retirement, disability, etc. benefits of any kind. It, as well as the Federal Income Tax laws are voluntary for most Americans and we would like to go back to the days of freely volunteering the hard earned fruits of our labor to our Government on our terms.
Disclaimer: Relying on the words of FranG can result in serious injury to mind and/or body. As FranG does not purport himself to be an expert in ANY field, please be advised to use caution when discerning ANY of his statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment