Government has the power to levy taxes, but...

[FA_Q2]

Your answer to the problem as you have defined it is what?

Make everyone write a check.

I would actually prefer this method but your argument is fallacious.

IF your OP is correct and making a business collect income tax is forced servitude, so is forcing me to write the check. TO claim that requiring payroll to be parsed out before it hits the employee through regulation is forced servitude is one hell of a stretch of logic. You are not performing anything for the government; you are paying the taxes that you owe on payroll.

The practice is dishonest and deceiving because the employee never sees what they actually cost the company but it is not slavery or unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your answer to the problem as you have defined it is what?

Make everyone write a check.

I would actually prefer this method but your argument is fallacious.
IF your OP is correct and making a business collect income tax is forced servitude, so is forcing me to write the check.

The government levies the tax on you, and so it is up to you to pay it. - that's not the same as forcing your employer to collect the revenue you owe and send it to the government.

TO claim that requiring payroll to be parsed out before it hits the employee through regulation is forced servitude is one hell of a stretch of logic. You are not performing anything for the government; you are paying the taxes that you owe on payroll.

The point under contention is that you -also- collect and and send the tax revenue that the eomplyees (and customers) owe - a service you perform for the government under threat of force.

The practice is dishonest and deceiving because the employee never sees what they actually cost the company but it is not slavery or unconstitutional.

It fully fits the legal definition of involuntary servitude, which is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Make everyone write a check.

I would actually prefer this method but your argument is fallacious.
IF your OP is correct and making a business collect income tax is forced servitude, so is forcing me to write the check.

The government levies the tax on you, and so it is up to you to pay it. - that's not the same as forcing your employer to collect the revenue you owe and send it to the government.

TO claim that requiring payroll to be parsed out before it hits the employee through regulation is forced servitude is one hell of a stretch of logic. You are not performing anything for the government; you are paying the taxes that you owe on payroll.

The point under contention is that you -also- collect and and send the tax revenue that the eomplyees (and customers) owe - a service you perform for the government under threat of force.

The practice is dishonest and deceiving because the employee never sees what they actually cost the company but it is not slavery or unconstitutional.

It fully fits the legal definition of involuntary servitude, which is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

Edited.

The government does NOT collect income taxes from individuals. It collects them from employers.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You will see here that they indeed have the Constitutional authority to collect, and in fact there is no restriction on how they do so. Theoretically they could just bill each employee directly. However, simple logic tells us that that system would be more complicated AND even more people would cheat the system than currently do.

For purposes of constitutional protections corporations have long been given rights as individuals, IE a corporation enjoys the same right to not be searched without a warrant as an idividual does.. Conversely they are also have many of the same responsibilities as individuals, IE pay taxes owed.

Oh, and as a further note, in the case of federal taxes, the employer pays an equal share into social security that the employee pays so therefor it's obviously just easier to collect it all from one source.

Also, only a truly retarded person couldn't keep track of how much they were paying the government each week in the form of taxes.

 

[Katzndogz]

I disagree. The Government issues licenses to conduct business and can require with in that frame work the demand that business collect taxes. A State can by virtue of the Federal Government compel State business to collect and deliver Federal tax as well as State Tax. It is simply a cost of doing business as authorized by the Government.

The point is that the compulsion itself creates the condition of involuntary servitude in that you are working for the government w/o compensation under the threat of legal consequences.

Using that argument, is the City of San Francisco is enslaving me when they tell me I have to put my sort my trash into compost and recycling?

That's forced labor!

That's right. And if you do not perform your labor correctly, you will be punished.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would actually prefer this method but your argument is fallacious.
IF your OP is correct and making a business collect income tax is forced servitude, so is forcing me to write the check.

The government levies the tax on you, and so it is up to you to pay it. - that's not the same as forcing your employer to collect the revenue you owe and send it to the government.


The point under contention is that you -also- collect and and send the tax revenue that the eomplyees (and customers) owe - a service you perform for the government under threat of force.

The practice is dishonest and deceiving because the employee never sees what they actually cost the company but it is not slavery or unconstitutional.

It fully fits the legal definition of involuntary servitude, which is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

Okay, time to end this whole thread.
The government does NOT collect income taxes from individuals. It collects them from employers.

Incorrect,
YOU pay the taxes; your employer collects the revenue and sends it to the government, under threat of force by the government.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
You will see here that they indeed have the Constitutional authority to collect, and in fact there is no restriction on how they do so.

All powers of covernment, enumerated or otherwise, are restricted by the various amendment, including the 13th, which, by their nature, modify those powers.

Theoretically they could just bill each employee directly. However, simple logic tells us that that system would be more complicated AND even more people would cheat the system than currently do.

Irrelevant. The practice creates a condition of invluntary servitude, which violates the 13th.

Oh, and as a further note, in the case of federal taxes, the employer pays an equal share into social security that the employee pays so therefor it's obviously just easier to collect it all from one source.

There's no question that the employer must pay HIS taxes.

 

[Al_Fundie]

The government levies the tax on you, and so it is up to you to pay it. - that's not the same as forcing your employer to collect the revenue you owe and send it to the government.


The point under contention is that you -also- collect and and send the tax revenue that the eomplyees (and customers) owe - a service you perform for the government under threat of force.


It fully fits the legal definition of involuntary servitude, which is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

The government does NOT collect income taxes from individuals. It collects them from employers.

Incorrect,
YOU pay the taxes; your employer collects the revenue and sends it to the government, under threat of force by the government.


All powers of covernment, enumerated or otherwise, are restricted by the various amendment, including the 13th, which, by their nature, modify those powers.

Theoretically they could just bill each employee directly. However, simple logic tells us that that system would be more complicated AND even more people would cheat the system than currently do.

Irrelevant. The practice creates a condition of invluntary servitude, which violates the 13th.

Oh, and as a further note, in the case of federal taxes, the employer pays an equal share into social security that the employee pays so therefor it's obviously just easier to collect it all from one source.

There's no question that the employer must pay HIS taxes.

Show me where in the 16th the government is limited to collecting taxes from the wage earner only........


Without such evidence your argument is dead in the water.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, time to end this whole thread.
The government does NOT collect income taxes from individuals. It collects them from employers.

Incorrect,
YOU pay the taxes; your employer collects the revenue and sends it to the government, under threat of force by the government.


All powers of covernment, enumerated or otherwise, are restricted by the various amendment, including the 13th, which, by their nature, modify those powers.


Irrelevant. The practice creates a condition of invluntary servitude, which violates the 13th.

Oh, and as a further note, in the case of federal taxes, the employer pays an equal share into social security that the employee pays so therefor it's obviously just easier to collect it all from one source.

There's no question that the employer must pay HIS taxes.

So much for closing down the thread.

Show me where in the 16th the government is limited to collecting taxes from the wage earner only.

No one questions that the government can lay taxes on both the employee and the employer - the issue under contention is the government forcing the employer to collect the taxes paid by the employee and sending that revenue to said government.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Incorrect,
YOU pay the taxes; your employer collects the revenue and sends it to the government, under threat of force by the government.


All powers of covernment, enumerated or otherwise, are restricted by the various amendment, including the 13th, which, by their nature, modify those powers.


Irrelevant. The practice creates a condition of invluntary servitude, which violates the 13th.


There's no question that the employer must pay HIS taxes.

So much for closing down the thread.

Show me where in the 16th the government is limited to collecting taxes from the wage earner only.

No one questions that the government can lay taxes on both the employee and the employer - the issue under contention is the government forcing the employer to collect the taxes paid by the employee and sending that revenue to said government.

I'll ask again. Where in the 16th Amendment does it specify that the government must collect it directly from the employee?

My suggestion to you is to sue, see how far that gets you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Show me where in the 16th the government is limited to collecting taxes from the wage earner only.

No one questions that the government can lay taxes on both the employee and the employer - the issue under contention is the government forcing the employer to collect the taxes paid by the employee and sending that revenue to said government.

I'll ask again. Where in the 16th Amendment does it specify that the government must collect it directly from the employee?

Your question, as explained above, is meaningless in regard to the topic at hand.

My suggestion to you is to sue, see how far that gets you.

Translation: You cannot show how my argument is usnound.

Rather than thinking I am wrong and hoping someone else will show how, why don't you, for a moment, consider the possibility that I am right?

 

[Al_Fundie]

No one questions that the government can lay taxes on both the employee and the employer - the issue under contention is the government forcing the employer to collect the taxes paid by the employee and sending that revenue to said government.

I'll ask again. Where in the 16th Amendment does it specify that the government must collect it directly from the employee?

Your question, as explained above, is meaningless in regard to the topic at hand.

My suggestion to you is to sue, see how far that gets you.

Translation: You cannot show how my argument is usnound.

At this point it has became glaringly obvious that you just wish to argue like a child, not even recognizing valid questions that disagree with your contentions.

I will offer you a glass of juice and bow out of this thread at this point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll ask again. Where in the 16th Amendment does it specify that the government must collect it directly from the employee?

Your question, as explained above, is meaningless in regard to the topic at hand.

My suggestion to you is to sue, see how far that gets you.

Translation: You cannot show how my argument is usnound.

At this point it has became glaringly obvious that you just wish to argue like a child...

Says he who, through his unrelated examples and irrelevant questions, clearly does not understand the issue at hand.

I will offer you a glass of juice and bow out of this thread at this point.

As you run away, be sure to tuck that tail nice and tight.

 

[FA_Q2]

You keep repeating that no one understands the topic yet no one seems to agree with your outrageous claims. You, as the employer are taxed and have to pay those taxes. The employee pays taxes as well but you are required to submit those moneys before they reach the employee as a matter of payroll. There is nothing inherently different from have the employee sent it in rather than the employer. It is all part of the collection process. Simple as that. You can’t show that as paramount to slavery. The concept makes no sense whatsoever. There is a collection process and because YOU are part of the pay process you are also part of the collection process.

No one has tucked tail and run. They have presented arguments only to be dismisses and the OP repeated. If I responded to each of your posts with:

That does not apply. My point stands.

You would cease to respond as well.

 

[Peach]

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the government's right to collect a tax.

The government -isn't- collecting the taxes -- the business owner collects the revenue, and then sends it to the government.
He does so under threat of legal consequence, should he fail to comply, which falls under the legal defintion of involuntary servitude.

I disagree. The Government issues licenses to conduct business and can require with in that frame work the demand that business collect taxes. A State can by virtue of the Federal Government compel State business to collect and deliver Federal tax as well as State Tax. It is simply a cost of doing business as authorized by the Government.

True, and I have to have license to drive, occupational license to work, and pay money to park at many government buildings. Such is life, of course all Constitutional provisions are self executing. Does Congress have the authority to allocate funds for military actions? DUH, yes.

 

[Intense]

The government does NOT collect income taxes from individuals. It collects them from employers.

Incorrect,
YOU pay the taxes; your employer collects the revenue and sends it to the government, under threat of force by the government.


All powers of covernment, enumerated or otherwise, are restricted by the various amendment, including the 13th, which, by their nature, modify those powers.


Irrelevant. The practice creates a condition of invluntary servitude, which violates the 13th.

Oh, and as a further note, in the case of federal taxes, the employer pays an equal share into social security that the employee pays so therefor it's obviously just easier to collect it all from one source.

There's no question that the employer must pay HIS taxes.

Show me where in the 16th the government is limited to collecting taxes from the wage earner only........


Without such evidence your argument is dead in the water.

You obviously don't know much about the Self Employed. We pay our Taxes, directly, and Quarterly, with few exceptions. Employers pay Taxes, Employee's pay Taxes. Most productive People pay Taxes.

 

[Vidi]

Incorrect,
YOU pay the taxes; your employer collects the revenue and sends it to the government, under threat of force by the government.


All powers of covernment, enumerated or otherwise, are restricted by the various amendment, including the 13th, which, by their nature, modify those powers.


Irrelevant. The practice creates a condition of invluntary servitude, which violates the 13th.


There's no question that the employer must pay HIS taxes.

Show me where in the 16th the government is limited to collecting taxes from the wage earner only........


Without such evidence your argument is dead in the water.

You obviously don't know much about the Self Employed. We pay our Taxes, directly, and Quarterly, with few exceptions. Employers pay Taxes, Employee's pay Taxes. Most productive People pay Taxes.

Except Exxon, GE, Verizon, Boeing, ConEd...except for those productive "people" right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You keep repeating that no one understands the topic yet no one seems to agree with your outrageous claims.

I rest my case.

You, as the employer are taxed and have to pay those taxes

Yep.

The employee pays taxes as well but you are required to submit those moneys before they reach the employee as a matter of payroll.

Yep. The employer is forced to collect taxes for the government, and thus provides an unpaid service to that government, under threat of legal action should he not do so.
This is unquestionably involuntary servitude.

There is nothing inherently different from have the employee sent it in rather than the employer.

There is. See above.
When you send your tax revenue, -you- are paying -your- taxxes.
When your employer collects and sends your tax revenue, he provides an unpaid service to the government, under threat of force. Involuntary servitude.

You can’t show that as paramount to slavery.

Involuntary servitude. It fits the federal legal defintion, perfectly.

No one has tucked tail and run.

He did, unquestionably.

They have presented arguments only to be dismissed...

As meanningless examples, because they do not address the issue presented.

 

[saveliberty]

Your off base M14. Do you have to do separate reporting or send a separate check in for the employee on your 941? Nope, one check and one form.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your off base M14. Do you have to do separate reporting or send a separate check in for the employee on your 941? Nope, one check and one form.

How does that negate anythng I said?
Facts:
-The employer collects income/payroll/sales tax revenue for the government.
-The employer is not compensated for this service
-The employer is under threat of legal action if he does not perform this service.

If you think can show how what I listed above does not fall into the defintion below, please do.

Involuntary servitude
Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[saveliberty]

Your off base M14. Do you have to do separate reporting or send a separate check in for the employee on your 941? Nope, one check and one form.

How does that negate anythng I said?
Facts:
-The employer collects income/payroll/sales tax revenue for the government.
-The employer is not compensated for this service
-The employer is under threat of legal action if he does not perform this service.

If you think can show how what I listed above does not fall into the defintion below, please do.

Involuntary servitude
Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It breaks down in that the employer would be stealing from the employee if they kept the funds. The payroll deductions are the employee's. It only becomes government funds when it reaches the government. Also, as I stated, the reporting is already required on the employer due portion. Its all one check and one form. While it takes a little time, it is hardly a burden or overly time consuming. The service is basically performed for the employee.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your off base M14. Do you have to do separate reporting or send a separate check in for the employee on your 941? Nope, one check and one form.

How does that negate anythng I said?
Facts:
-The employer collects income/payroll/sales tax revenue for the government.
-The employer is not compensated for this service
-The employer is under threat of legal action if he does not perform this service.

If you think can show how what I listed above does not fall into the defintion below, please do.

Involuntary servitude
Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It breaks down in that the employer would be stealing from the employee if they kept the funds.

The fact that he collects the funds in the first place is part of the involuntary servitude.