Social Security is Voluntary - Priceless!

[iplawyer]

Skankbeat (what a handle) at LH claims:

I want to make clear that i am not promoting the idea that one has to "get out" of the Social Security program. The law allows one to voluntarily participate when they feel like it. For tax purposes, this would be done on a per year basis. Simply having a SSN does not cause a person to be "locked in" to the program. Having a SSN is merely one criteria of contract. It is up to a person to choose whether they will make payments into the program and consent to taxation as condition of payment.

As pointed out in the last forum, simply putting $0.00 wages down on a 1040 and nothing else is all that is required. For a given tax year it establishes zero participation in social security and zero participation in withholding. Any other record correction is extra. When the government refuses to accept the 1040 or 1040X it is taking a position. One can exercise their 1st amendment right to address grievances to compel the government to substantiate its position. Your rights, including due process, are being adversely affected. You are being wronged.

Now as far as W-9/1099 contractors are concerned, my research did not focus on this scenario. I am sure there is similar tricks in the law, but someone else will be doing that research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

[Judge Roy Bean]

Skankbeat (what a handle) at LH claims:

...The law allows one to voluntarily participate when they feel like it....
As pointed out in the last forum, simply putting $0.00 wages down on a 1040 and nothing else is all that is required. For a given tax year it establishes zero participation in social security and zero participation in withholding. ...

Yep. If you don't get paid you don't have to worry.

[Brandybuck]

I like how he refers to his "research".

[Doktor Avalanche]

I already shot down his "research" skills. When someone who isn't a lawyer by profession or education can see through your crap, you have a problem.

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4265&p=70308#p70308

[silversopp]

It is voluntary. Any retiree can voluntarily not cash their SS checks each month.

[Number Six]

In his TAX PROTESTER FAQ, Dan Evans responds to this idea: "The income tax is only binding on people who have entered into contracts with the government, such as by applying for a Social Security number, driver’s license, or other governmental benefit or privilege.
Similar to the idea that the income tax is “voluntary” is the claim that a federal income tax return is a form of contract and is therefore voluntary, or invalid if entered into under duress. This claim is also uniformly rejected:

“The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin’s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.”
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).

“Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is ‘immune’ from the Internal Revenue Service’s jurisdiction as a ‘nontaxpayer.’

“This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit. 26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes upon ‘every’ individual a certain rate of income tax depending on their amount of taxable income. 26 U.S.C. § 6012 states that unmarried individuals having a gross income in excess of $4,300, and married individuals entitled to make joint returns having a gross income in excess of $5,400 ‘shall’ file tax returns for the taxable year. Considering Drefke’s gross income for 1979 and 1980, he was clearly required to file tax returns for those years.

“26 U.S.C. § 6151 states that when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the appropriate rate of income tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.”
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. den., sub nom., Jameson v. United States, 464 U.S. 942 (1983).

“Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax ... by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has ... has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.”
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).

“All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.”
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

See also, United States v. Keys, 1993 WL 101442, No. 923729 (6th Cir. 4/6/1993) (rejecting the argument that IRS may only gain jurisdiction over a “sovereign human being” by means of a signed contract or agreement to which the “human being” would be a party).

The claim that “Only persons who have contracted with the government by applying for a governmental privilege or benefit, such as holding a Social Security number, are subject to tax, and those who have contracted with the government may choose to revoke the contract at will,” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883."

Nonetheless there are a lot of ways around what they characterize as "the" or "a" mark of the beast system. Kids never get a "number", they can still legally get a passport or driver's license--not easy but possible. Adults who try to opt out for whatever reason are still subject to taxation, but the government has to prove income above the statutory level--in the case of self-employment, I think it's still less than $1000, both state and federal governments require self-employed people to submit to their filing requirements. Whether they enforce it, that is an entirely different matter, there probably will have to be a lot of complaints from people who were ripped off by the non--SS, non-filing individual. The government could make an example of some of the alpha wolves, but they are probably afraid of an armed standoff. Plus we have a president who vowed that no family making less than $250K will pay more in income taxes.

[Arthur Rubin]

Plus we have a president who vowed that no family making less than $250K will pay more in income taxes.

I don't think he's standing by that in regard health care legislation, any more than his transparancy or 72 hour claims.