Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: Social Security Number

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I think you are an incompetent reader and a fully experienced foul-mouthed troll.

    Maybe you would like to think of Social Security as insurance because SSI is for Social Security Insurance?

    But I doubt that will raise anything from you but more requests to be banished.



    P.S.

    Looking at the edit timestamps, Jesse went on a rant and was rethinking that just before I quoted him. So I quoted his post and made comment just as he edited out the temper tantrum. Good enough! That is what editing is for.
    P.P.S.

    The post that I was responding to above was a really crappy thing to say. I am sorry that I did not catch it in time to show you all. It strikes me that Jesse James is basically in pain or just surfs to ventilate a lot of hatred. I took a look for the first time at his posts around here and he is persistently antagonistic and mean to others, especially to me and what I have discovered through careful research and an astounding brain trust of suitors. I have banished him and I apologize for being too busy with other entertaining items in life to have noticed this problem before Jesse annoyed a lot of good people. I noticed by the others who had been visiting his User page that they had likely been assuming I was paying more attention; I was not. Sorry! Please forgive me.

  2. #22
    I am starting to get it now...

    Jesse James is actually JJ MacNAB of Demosthenes, now Famspear fame on Quatloos. Take a look.

  3. #23
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Possibly. The odds over at LostHorizons.com was that Famspear was actually the Texas persona attorney Jay Adkisson created to use at quatloos.com. See there on the right side:
    About Me

    Partner of the Newport Beach, California, law firm of Riser Adkisson LLP, who practices in the areas of creditor-debtor law, including creditors collections and debtor asset protection, and business planning including captive insurance company planning and litigation involving captive insurance arrangements. Current Chairman of the American Bar Association's Committee on Captive Insurance. Author of business books on asset protection, captive insurance, and equity-indexed annuities. Twice an expert witness to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee regarding tax scams and frauds. Creator of the anti-scam website Quatloos.com
    The creator gives his handle as sooltauq, but you'll see very few sooltauq posts. Why create a website and then hardly use it?

    I think Jesse James is Jay Adkisson. That is just opinion though.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Possibly. The odds over at LostHorizons.com was that Famspear was actually the Texas persona attorney Jay Adkisson created to use at quatloos.com. See there on the right side: The creator gives his handle as sooltauq, but you'll see very few sooltauq posts. Why create a website and then hardly use it?

    I think Jesse James is Jay Adkisson. That is just opinion though.

    Yep. You could have a better theory.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-18-12 at 10:53 AM.

  5. #25

    Has anyone ever heard of the Taco Bell case??

    This one was given to me by the informer. enjoy!


  6. #26
    David, thanks for all this great info. I have a question with regard to social security taxes, please.

    At the employer/W-2 level if one is properly redeeming lawful money, is there a way to claim a refund of social secuirty taxes that have been paid? For federal income tax withholdings, one deducts lawful money redeemed on line 21 - other income but what about social security taxes - is one able to have these monies returned as well? If so, how would one place this on the form 1040? This is a question of interest - I bascially agree why bother once you already put in the 40 quarters.

    Also on subcontractors - if one gets a 1099 MISC at the end of the year from a company and has properly redeemed lawful money on the total gross amount that is being reported on that 1099 MISC, is one tax EMPEMPT for the social security taxes as well as the income taxes? And if exempt from social security taxes, how would one go about placing this on the 1040 form? Would it be shown as a misc deduction on Schedule C?

    I did try to look in the posts and see if I could find the answer to this - I am sorry if this info has been posted and I missed it. Tony

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    My suggestion is to treat the Social Security like an insurance policy. If you have already paid in for 40+ quarters then your premiums are paid. If you employer wants to deduct for SSI though, I would not quibble and I would not try to get the premiums back like with your withholdings.

    I am familiar with that definition of the State and state districts formed in 1789. The real rubber meets the road if you are in contract, or not. If you endorse private credit from the Fed then you are contracting with this state. Therefore you get to be obligated to the State whatever the definition for it is.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Employers register as federal employers?
    The application for an (IRS) employer ID # seems to the means by which they register. The SS-4.

    Name:  ss4.jpg
Views: 522
Size:  59.5 KB
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #28
    By by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

    (2) The Social Security Act provides a striking modern parallel for such an application of a statutory "reserved-power" clause.

    Although that act provides for payment of benefits, Fleming v. Nestor denied that such benefits constitute "accrued property rights"222 "The Social Security system", the Supreme Court explained,

    may be accurately described as a form of social insurance * * * whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the present productive work force will in turn become beneficiaries rather than supporters of the program. But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the [610] national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. * * * [T]he noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of a holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.

    * * * [The Social-Security] program was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate, and on judgments and preferences as to the proper allocation of the Nation's resources which evolving economic and social conditions will of necessity in some degree modify.


    To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjusting to ever-changing conditions which it demands.***

    It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

    * * * That provision makes explicit what is implicit in the institutional needs of the program. * * *

    We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    The Constitution, the court held, does not preclude Congress from withdrawing "noncontractual" Social-Security benefits unless its action is "utterly lacking in rational justification"224 Dissenting, Justice Black correctly observed that the court had told "the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing and can stop doing so when it pleases.

    NOT By by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

    Social Security Act Cases. -- Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to ``purchase compliance'' with regulations ``of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.'' [545]

    Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, [546] which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State.

    To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ``weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autono of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ``general welfare'' clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation "to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,'' [547] since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury.

    The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax ``if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.'' [548]

    NOTES:
    [545] Justice Stone, speaking for himself and two other Justices, dissented on the ground that Congress was entitled when spending the national revenues for the ``general welfare'' to see to it that the country got its money's worth thereof, and that the condemned provisions were ``necessary and proper'' to that end. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 84-86 (1936).

    Remember United States (v. Butler) not the country but the Federal corporation.
    28 USC § 3002 - DEFINITIONS
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
    Last edited by Chex; 02-12-13 at 05:06 PM. Reason: Addition resources

  9. #29
    Can we get down to brass tacks what FICA is?

    It is an excise tax, plain and simple.
    It was a way to raise additional revenue for government without having everyone going Toussaint L'Overture on government.
    Couple a benefit with a tax, that's how you slide it in.

    We are all aware that payment of FICA tax goes into the general fund of government without any earmarking in any manner?

  10. #30
    It might be that FICA was really meant to be paid by the employers but they figured out a way to dump it on employees. Nonetheless, from an accounting and economic standpoint FICA is very important to keep the SSA solvent (afaik about $578B in 2007). AFIK the SSA is highly solvent. If you get that the person named on the SS card is a legal entity and if you get what SSA is really in the business of doing (yeah insurance isnt the right word because insurance is technically commercial--SSA provides the something like insurance but technically non-commercially).

    Its worth noting that from what I've gathered, the SSA invests all of its money in U.S. treasury securities.
    Last edited by allodial; 02-12-13 at 11:22 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •