endorsing and SS.......a big question!

[jesse james]

Ah, but what kind of person argues with a delusional, but demented tard? Did you happen to notice I make plenty of $ but no longer participate in Social Security's "3121(b) "employment"? Banks use a Form W-9 or "Substitute W9" that requires a TAXpayer Identification Number (SSN) where the signer certifies: "I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person."

The beauty of Merrill's Old-Fashioned Lawful Money Remedy is its elegant simplicity. To reduce or eliminate taxation there's no need to hide income, put it in trust, or move it out of the country like some folks prescribe: http://www.taxhavens.us/articoli/the...ing-taxes.html I was just talking to a doctor about taxes - tax shelters, etc. I told him there's no need for all that, just learn about LAWFUL MONEY and use it, don't end up a DDC. I could tell he was having some trouble wrapping his head around it; I should show him my TY08 tax refund and SS Earnings Report, eh?

And you & I both know the govt knows ALL ABOUT BITCOIN. But the banksters are in a bit of a quandary about it. Bitcoins are holding their value (currently about $4.76 each) and they're very concerned about its rising popularity. It's network P2P so there's no headquarters to raid, it's bombproof. And as that article points out, the unintended consequence of outlawing bitcoin will just serve to officially recognize it as currency and drive it underground where it will flourish. Oh boo hoo jesse.

Thanks for confirming and varifying 3121(b) "employment" Johnny!

[JohnnyCash]

Thanks for confirming and varifying [sic] 3121(b) "employment" Johnny!

So that's it? I don't get any award for successfully opting out of SS "employment," no induction into the JJ Hall of Fame?

Wait a minute - that contradicts what you earlier said here:

jesse james commented - March 19, 2012 -

But you do participate.........you get 1099's.
They still are counted by the SSA even though its below the IRS's 600.00 radar to file.
Thats called self-"employment".

[jesse james]

So that's it? I don't get any award for successfully opting out of SS "employment," no induction into the JJ Hall of Fame?

Wait a minute - that contradicts what you earlier said here:

Hahahaha.....nice try Johnny.

You only report what you want them to know about Johnny.....only reporting upto the $600.00 threshold.
Other than that Johnny you havent proved a point except your snakish untrustworthy ways.
I'm a bit surprised Merrill hasnt told you to stop proving his premise is full of doubt!
You're definately solidifying doubt in the whole money thingy....where not you nor Merrill has yet provided any statutory evidence fiat imposes any tax....not to the likes of Social Security which you just varified once again.

[JohnnyCash]

heh. jesse, you're not making sense, you're not logical. I said "I make plenty of $ but no longer participate in Social Security's "3121(b) "employment." Then you thanked me for not participating, and then I point out where you thought I DID participate by virtue of receiving 1099s. So which is it oh great wise & all-knowing Famspear? Am I participating in "employment" or not?

You know, an inherent problem with being a liar, sociopathic or otherwise, is when you forget your previous lies and reality starts to co-mingle with the lies & the lies compound on one another and pretty soon you start looking like . . . . jesse james!

[David Merrill]

Hahahaha.....nice try Johnny.

You only report what you want them to know about Johnny.....only reporting upto the $600.00 threshold.
Other than that Johnny you havent proved a point except your snakish untrustworthy ways.
I'm a bit surprised Merrill hasnt told you to stop proving his premise is full of doubt!
You're definately solidifying doubt in the whole money thingy....where not you nor Merrill has yet provided any statutory evidence fiat imposes any tax....not to the likes of Social Security which you just varified once again.

I'm a bit surprised Merrill hasnt told you to stop proving his premise is full of doubt!


That is loaded, pregnant and misleading all in itself. Mostly for the attitude problem between you two, I have not been bothering to read all this bickering going on. It sounds as though you think me stupid enough to tell somebody to stop proving my premise is full of doubt?

I do appreciate what appears at a glance that you two are keeping to one thread with all this stuff between you! Thank you for that. You are keeping the both of you easy to ignore. Please do not boil over the hostilities to more than just this. There are people here to learn. This just in today from somebody who studies here on StSC:

David just today, a friend that I have been helping w/demanding lawful money got their refund check from the IRS. They did the process for the entire year of 2011. They got every dime they paid in federal w/holding back, to the penny. They mailed the return and supporting schedules first class on February 14, and got the check in the mail today. Demanding lawful money works. This is the second year that the person used the process. This is the second year that they have received a federal tax refund. They also got back all Arizona income taxes paid in 2011. This person has paid zero income tax for the entire year of 2011. Of course they will demand lawful money for the refund check and has already demanded lawful money for the state income tax refund check. Always get paid in the form of a check and you can avoid income taxes, lawfully. I just wish I would have know about this way back in 1979 when I started working for a living. Better late than never!!! Just thought I would share the great news. This is to your credit David, you figured this out and were kind enough to share it w/the rest of us. Thank you again David, have a super day.


Nickname,
Arizona

I can appreciate that two members don't get along though. Both of you came on line about the same time and started squabbling before I got to know either one of you and so I started tuning you both out. I recall some while ago trying to decide which one of you I liked but must have been distracted because I really don't know to this day who is who; Jesse James and Johnny Cash are both equal weight to me and since I don't enjoy reading even my own squabbling I am involved with, you guys have become boring.

Fortunately there are many much more interesting threads that people are enjoying. If you guys start getting out of this little portion of sandbox with your nasty and childish feud, I will bounce you both. If you have some interesting stuff and enjoy articulating it then I suggest you explore past this thread. But outside this thread, I strongly suggest that you two would avoid each other altogether.



Sincerely,

David Merrill.

[JohnnyCash]

Fair enough. Thank you David. Your insights are very helpful to me with regard to things I've heard, but didn't really believe possible, about internet rooms/forums. And thanks for sharing the Arizona success story!

Jesse, can you tell me what this is ?

[Sabo]

Now that the public infighting has stopped, can someone please answer Taxd2death's and my question?

Thank Sabo. That's what I was getting at. I think. I know that going forward, using this method can't really have any negative effects as all I am doing is making a demand and in a way changing the way I do business. But, for all of us who have given this beast it's power and presence, there is still the unfinished business of what we leave behind. Is it just best to leave it and go forward?

I don't really want to involve my boss anyway. I would like to find a way to put the ball in the SSA court to make them say "oops, sorry about that" (maybe a little unrealistic). That way it doesn't sound like hearsay to my boss and accountant who, of course, think I'm nuts.. I know that somewhere along the way, making my demand will change some things. I am just not sure what those changes will be yet. Thanks for your patience everyone.

Would 26 CFR 31.3402(P)-1(d) "...desires that the [voluntary withholding] agreement terminate on a specific date" be applicable here?

[jesse james]

Now that the public infighting has stopped, can someone please answer Taxd2death's and my question?




Would 26 CFR 31.3402(P)-1(d) "...desires that the [voluntary withholding] agreement terminate on a specific date" be applicable here?

No it doesnt work. What 3401(p) is about is terminating an agreement on earnings that dont constitute as 3401(a) "wages" because they dont qualify for Social Security credits.
There are exclusions to participating in Social Security which dont constitute 3401(a) "wages" that an agreement , if desired, can be withheld from.
This is about terminating a voluntary withholding agreement on earnings that are not mandatory to withhold from.
Follow the link to read for yourself.

[JohnnyCash]

He doesnt want to be DDC so now the doc is considering putting his lawful money demand on his checks and depositing to a Cayman Islands bank

Let us stipulate the following hypothetical:
For Tax Year 2011 I labored & traded in the private sector in exchange for $100,000 in checks.
Each check was then stamped "Redeemed Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" and signed.
I cashed half those checks (recvd US notes in the form of FRNs) and of the remaining, $25,000 was deposited into Bank A (regular interest bearing account) and $25,000 was deposited into Bank B (non-interest bearing account with a modified "Lawful Money demand" signature agreement).
I received one 1099-INT for the year from Bank A showing $50 in interest income. I received no other 1099s, W2s, nor any other IRS forms.

Can anyone answer:
1) By operation of what law, if any, did I engage in "employment" during 2011?
2) What was my statutory "gross income" for 2011?

Much obliged if you could answer without ridicule or resort to demeaning adjectives.

[Sabo]

No it doesnt work. What 3401(p) is about is terminating an agreement on earnings that dont constitute as 3401(a) "wages" because they dont qualify for Social Security credits.
There are exclusions to participating in Social Security which dont constitute 3401(a) "wages" that an agreement , if desired, can be withheld from.
This is about terminating a voluntary withholding agreement on earnings that are not mandatory to withhold from.
Follow the link to read for yourself.

Okay, I can accept that (but kind of sick of the "read for yourself" line in every single post; if we all effing understood it, we wouldn't be asking).

My question then becomes: Taxd2death (and pretty much everyone) has unknowingly - by constructive or accidental fraud via status quo - signed that he is earning 3401(a) "wages" (or at least, I'm guessing this is what the W4 is about).

We should be able to agree that private sector workers, for nearly all cases, do not earn 3401(a) "wages". What can be done to correct that assumption/misappropriation without having to deal with the IRS' automatic rejection of 0-income returns, as was the LH understanding?