• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC Article - All kinds of wrong.

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
It's probably a sub section of the law that requires payment of federal income tax.

I realize this is OT, but this has driven me mad for years. The clearest way I can see the system works is this:

1) The tax code requires employers to withhold taxes:

(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3402

2) Then the tax code requires the individual to rectify the accounting by requiring the filing of a 1040 return. Sorry but I'm not sure where this section is atm. ETA: this may be part of it, but this section applies to a "person" (not an employer or employee) whereas if one receives wages from an employer, one isn't then liable to pay the tax per the above language:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7203

3) The code also defines "employee". On an initial read it sounds like it only applies to employees of governments, but upon further inspection it applies to an agency or instrumentality of governments which I think they use to include any corporation, LLC, or other state-licensed businesses (yes, they have used the word itself in the definition):

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401

I'm less familiar with the language for self-employment taxes, but that's contained within Title 26 as well (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-2). Herein, the language states the tax will be "imposed", but doesn't say anything to the effect that the individual "must pay". Of course, one could look to Article I, Section 8 for the supposed authority to issue said tax, but this ignores the argument that such would constitute a "direct tax" not to mention the argument that the US Constitution doesn't currently have any authority over any living individuals anyway.

Anyway, it's all food for thought (discussion in the proper venues).
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"Police officials say it's safer to have a concealed pistol license."
...and yet they don't. does that make them dumb for not following their own advice?

Absolutely.
If police unions really, and I mean REALLY cared about their constituency, they'd insist that officers wore plain clothes and carried concealed so that
1) criminals wouldn't know who was really a cop, it could be the person next to them and so they'd be more hesitant to commit a crime
2) without an openly carried arm, there would be no reason for said criminal to target the person next to them
3) with a concealed arm, on the rare instance that an officer might be confused with a non-armed citizen, the cop could "get the drop" on the criminal who probably won't be already holding a loaded gun on anyone.

C'mon, it's not like shiny badges, openly carried lethal and non-lethal weapons, distinctive clothing with authoritarian styling cues, distinctively painted cars and bright flashy lights have any deterrent value is it? Everybody knows visible deterrence is just a tired old myth.
 
Last edited:
Top