Gov Sanford caves on federal loan?

[Matt Collins]

South Carolina Governor Relents on Jobless Funds

By ADAM NOSSITER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/adam_nossiter/index.html?inline=nyt-per)


COLUMBIA, S.C. — Just hours before the unemployment benefits fund was to run out in South Carolina (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/southcarolina/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), the state with the nation’s third-highest jobless rate, Gov. Mark Sanford (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/mark_sanford/index.html?inline=nyt-per) relented Wednesday and agreed to apply for a $146 million federal loan to shore it up, after weeks of refusing to do so.


The governor’s position had drawn rebukes even from fellow Republicans in the Legislature, one of whom denounced Mr. Sanford as “heartless,” and from newspaper editorial pages. On Wednesday, The State, the daily newspaper here in Columbia, accused the governor of playing “chicken with the lives of the 77,000” who are unemployed in South Carolina.



ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/us/01sanford.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[orafi]

So, it's down to Gary Johnson and ROn Paul

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I thought there was some hope for him. . .

[Kotin]

god damnit..

[satchelmcqueen]

well, even at that, correct me if im wrong, but the unemployment money...isnt that what we already have deducted from our checks each week? if so, then that money belongs to the ones who are laid off and need it. it was their money to begin with so how could the government refuse to give it back when needed?
or am i wrong? if so, then what is it that we all pay each week from our paychecks? and our employers pay?

[satchelmcqueen]

and please keep in mind that sanford held out as long as possible, so i dont blame him, i blame our system. if a person loses their job and have paid in all these years, they do deserve their money back while trying to find new work. and being flat cut off isnt good for any family or anyone.
blame the system, not sanford. he tried i think. the government didnt offer any other options that im aware of to help the people who needed help. they were willing to let this one man take all the blame and all the fall for their corrupt system.

[Matt Collins]

The rest of the article....








For weeks, Mr. Sanford, newly elected as head of the Republican Governors Association and known for being a fierce free-market foe of government spending, stuck to his stand, questioning the probity of the South Carolina Employment Security Commission and demanding a new audit of the agency.

He has said in the past that he did not trust the commission’s calculation of the state’s unemployment rate, though a spokesman at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/bureau_of_labor_statistics/index.html?inline=nyt-org) said it was calculated the same way as in every other state.

Mr. Sanford is now demanding that South Carolina’s Commerce Department, whose director he appoints, be given access to the state unemployment agency’s numbers, including where applicants are from, their ages, genders and occupations.

The back-and-forth dueling between the conservative governor and the unemployment agency has gone on for weeks, and its executive director, Roosevelt T. Halley, warned that he would have to stop issuing benefit checks to the jobless beginning Jan. 1 if Mr. Sanford did not back down and ask the federal government for the loan.

“It’s absolutely unheard of, it’s insane, for a governor of any state not to request those funds,” State Senator Hugh K. Leatherman, a Republican who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week. “I can’t believe anybody would be this heartless, and create such a heartless act on these people.”

On Wednesday morning, at nearly the last minute, Mr. Sanford relented and said at a news conference in his office at the State House that he would request the money. South Carolina is one of three high-unemployment states, along with Michigan and Indiana, to ask for a loan from the federal government to ensure the unemployed continue to receive benefits.

“We will not punish the unemployed for this agency’s incompetence,” the governor said in a statement. But Mr. Sanford continued to insist that he would demand another, more stringent audit of the unemployment office, though Mr. Halley noted that the agency was audited every year by an accounting firm and had been given a clean bill of health.

Late Wednesday, Mr. Halley said he was not opposed to a further audit, and indeed the principal sticking point appears to have been whether state legislators — who have the authority, and many of whom have been sharply critical of the governor — would request it.

“We’ve been asking for over a year, could we get information as to where the unemployment is taking place?” Mr. Sanford said at the news conference. “Nothing’s been done.”

He said, however, that the Commerce Department was aware of where layoffs occurred in the state.

Mildly rebuking the news media here, he said that “you can find any number of people, particularly around the holiday season, who have the most unfortunate circumstances, they’ve lost their job, and those are compelling personal stories.”

Mr. Sanford, a wealthy real estate investor, is often mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2012, in part because he is seen as an exemplary adherent of the party’s low-government, antispending philosophy. He recently wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal saying he was opposed to a “bailout” for states.

His stand on unemployment benefits was consistent with his contentious six-year tenure as governor and his philosophy, which is described as “basically libertarian” by William V. Moore, a political scientist at the College of Charleston. He has continuously sparred with members of his own party in the Legislature over spending, limiting his record of accomplishment.

“His inability to work with the Legislature has made it difficult for him to achieve any sort of agenda,” Mr. Moore said. “His major proposals have gone nowhere and will go nowhere.”

Mr. Moore added that the governor was using the unemployment money to get an audit of a state agency, leaving the unemployed caught in the middle.

Mr. Sanford once carried two piglets onto the floor of the House chamber to symbolize his opposition to what he considered wasteful spending. One of the piglets promptly defecated; lawmakers were not amused. Indeed, though Republicans dominate both chambers, they have overriden hundreds of his vetoes on spending over the years, including, in one recent session, money to expand children’s health insurance, indigent defense, and to provide cost-of-living adjustments for retired state employees.

After one special session last year, the legislators overrode 228 out of 243 of the governor’s vetoes, restoring money Mr. Sanford had rejected for H.I.V. prevention and health programs, and for state parks and beach reconstruction.

Indeed, one leading Republican in the state, the Senate president pro tempore, Glenn F. McConnell, was sharply critical of Mr. Sanford’s stand on the unemployment benefits issue.

“Part of it has to do with how high the unemployment rate is, and that is not looking good for his administration,” Mr. McConnell said. “I criticize him on the timing of this right here at Christmastime.”

Up until now Mr. Sanford’s antispending stance has, if anything, appeared only to enhance his popularity in this conservative state. But recent letters to the editor have criticized him for holding up the unemployment benefits, and at a state jobless center here this week there was anger directed at the governor.

“He’s going to make the people of this state suffer for his agenda,” said Henry Wright, 53, a laid-off carpenter who said he was on the verge of being evicted from his home. “The only thing I got to live on” was his unemployment check of $207 a week, Mr. Wright said.

Cynthia Bruce, 52, an unemployed mobile-home saleswoman, was also critical. “He’s turned a deaf ear to the needs of the people of this state,” she said.

[Matt Collins]

Mr. Sanford once carried two piglets onto the floor of the House chamber to symbolize his opposition to what he considered wasteful spending. One of the piglets promptly defecated; lawmakers were not amused.For that move alone I ought to empty my bank account and donate it all to his election campaign :D

[nickcoons]

well, even at that, correct me if im wrong, but the unemployment money...isnt that what we already have deducted from our checks each week? if so, then that money belongs to the ones who are laid off and need it. it was their money to begin with so how could the government refuse to give it back when needed?
or am i wrong? if so, then what is it that we all pay each week from our paychecks? and our employers pay?

Presumably, it's different in each state. As an employer in Arizona, I can tell you how it works here.

The unemployment system is mandated by the state, but it is not taxpayer-supported, it is employer-supported. As an employer, I am required to send to the state every quarter a percentage of my entire payroll, which supposedly goes into an account that accrues as I pay into it each quarter. When someone leaves my employment and makes a successful unemployment claim, the funds they receive come from this account. If they amount they receive exceeds the funds I've put into the account, then the state sends me a bill for the difference. So in essence, I have to continue paying someone that I've fired, which gives me an incentive to dispute their claim that they should not be eligible for unemployment. If I regularly have unemployment claims, then the state will increase the percentage I pay each quarter in order to help insure that the account always has sufficient funds to pay against claims. Oh, and if there are never any unemployment claims against me, then I don't get this money back.

Presumably, the state does a risk assessment and spends money from the unemployment pool "hoping" that the amount they've budgeted will match the actual unemployment claims. If they underestimate unemployment claims (not unlikely given the current economic situation), then they would fall short of funds to fill claims. If South Carolina works the way Arizona does, then this is probably what happened.

I don't think South Carolina should be borrowing the money to fix this shortfall though (especially from the federal government, which means they're borrowing from me, not a South Carolina resident). They should be cutting expenditures.

[Danke]

Presumably, it's different in each state. As an employer in Arizona, I can tell you how it works here.

The unemployment system is mandated by the state, but it is not taxpayer-supported, it is employer-supported. As an employer, I am required to send to the state every quarter a percentage of my entire payroll, which supposedly goes into an account that accrues as I pay into it each quarter. When someone leaves my employment and makes a successful unemployment claim, the funds they receive come from this account. If they amount they receive exceeds the funds I've put into the account, then the state sends me a bill for the difference. So in essence, I have to continue paying someone that I've fired, which gives me an incentive to dispute their claim that they should not be eligible for unemployment. If I regularly have unemployment claims, then the state will increase the percentage I pay each quarter in order to help insure that the account always has sufficient funds to pay against claims. Oh, and if there are never any unemployment claims against me, then I don't get this money back.

Presumably, the state does a risk assessment and spends money from the unemployment pool "hoping" that the amount they've budgeted will match the actual unemployment claims. If they underestimate unemployment claims (not unlikely given the current economic situation), then they would fall short of funds to fill claims. If South Carolina works the way Arizona does, then this is probably what happened.

I don't think South Carolina should be borrowing the money to fix this shortfall though (especially from the federal government, which means they're borrowing from me, not a South Carolina resident). They should be cutting expenditures.

Another reason not to incorporate.

[Ex Post Facto]

I feel bad for this governor though...having to apply for something he just urged people not to do. I don't think he is a bad person for it...he didn't spend the nations money in foreign wars and corporations that are constantly laying people off to save their own butt, not realizing that all companies are doing that to make sure they keep making profits. they don't realize less people have money as the result of lay offs...

The business I work in had it's best month profit wise ever last month. Of course this is after it had laid off half it's management and reduced workers hours in half.

[Peace&Freedom]

Why am I absolutely not surprised that Sanford caved? Isn't the reason we appreciated Paul was that he walks his talk, and continues to after 10 terms in office? Paul doesn't merely keep everybody happy with holding out on principle 'until the last moment,' then caving anyway. Paul doesn't do symbolic pig stunts, or other things that mean nothing in terms of the final legislative record. Only a statesman who will actually stick to his guns, and act to concretely change the direction we are headed is worthy of support. Paul, Johnson, or Ventura in 2012.

[Matt Collins]

Why am I absolutely not surprised that Sanford caved? Isn't the reason we appreciated Paul was that he walks his talk, and continues to after 10 terms in office? Paul doesn't merely keep everybody happy with holding out on principle 'until the last moment,' then caving anyway. Very valid point. But I must remind you that in all honesty, Ron doesn't get sent back to the House on his own merit. He gets sent back to the House because he delivered 4000 babies in his district. That's an enormous amount of trust the voters place in him.... if you are an expectant mom and the Dr who helped you give birth was running for Congress, wouldn't you vote for him? If you were delivered by a Dr would you seriously consider voting for him? Remember most voters are not like us as they do not look at the issues or study the positions of the candidates.

In other words, Sanford does not have the built-in constituency and almost guaranteed electability that Ron has. This means he is a lot more susceptible to political pressure of this nature.

[nickcoons]

Another reason not to incorporate.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with incorporating. An employer is anyone that has employees, whether your a corporation, a sole-proprietor, or one of any other form of business entity.

A common misconception is that one can avoid being an employer by hiring everyone as sub-contractors. You can't. The IRS has a set of guidelines that they enforce arbitrarily to determine if someone is an employee or a sub-contractor.

For instance, I have several retail stores, and I have people that have to be present there during business hours. The fact that these people are paid to be at a certain place at a certain time on a regular basis disqualifies me from categorizing them as sub-contractors. If I try to categorize them this way (which means that I don't withhold anything from their checks, and I don't pay employer taxes on them), the IRS will re-categorize them and require that I pay not only the employer portion of the taxes, but also what I would have had to withhold from the employee had I withheld in the first place (which I wouldn't have done, which means this would come out of my pocket).

The IRS will use any method it can to re-categorize sub-contractors as employees, because they want their withholdings. And they have the courts in their favor. Once the IRS calls them employees, I'm now subject to all of the taxes and regulations that come with that, such as unemployment, minimum wage, equal opportunity, workman's compensation, and a whole slew of others.

The categorization of "employee" vs. "sub-contractor" is by function, not by organization. In general, someone is an employee if they meet any of the following:

- They have to perform their work at your location on a regular basis.
- The company provides tools and supplies for them to do their job.
- The company reimburses them for expenses.
- The company provides training.

There are actually about 20 guidelines, but the above four are the major. If a sub-contractor doesn't pay their taxes themselves (which many times they don't), the IRS will come back to you in an attempt to classify them as an employee and make you responsible for their taxes.

Because of the above guidelines, it's basically impossible to run a retail business without employees, unless you run it yourself (which isn't really possible with multiple locations). If you want to avoid being an employer and subject to the conditions thereof, then you need a business model that doesn't require having anyone work for you that meet any of the above guidelines. An example might be an online shopping site. You could pay someone on a commission per-order basis to log into the site from home every few days, then send the orders to you vendor to be drop-shipped to the customer. You can hire a web-design firm to maintain the site, a marketing firm to promote it, etc.

But if you don't want employees, forget anything retail.

[Bro.Butch]

Has anyone really looked closely at this guy ? His Nolan Chart is boarderline dangerous, much closer to authoritarian than libertarian...


Mark Sanford's Vote Match Nolan Chart: http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=5&a2=1&a3=5&a4=1&a5=1&a6=4&a7=5&a8=4&a9=2&a10=1&a11=5&a12=1&a13=2&a14=4&a15=3&a16=2&a17=2&a18=1&a19=3&a20=3&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=25&e=58&t=8

Mark Sanford On the Issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

I won't be supporting him for POTUS and all Ron Paul followers shouldn't either...

[Danke]

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with incorporating. An employer is anyone that has employees, whether your a corporation, a sole-proprietor, or one of any other form of business entity.



If you apply to be recognized by their legal status categorizes, you have to play by their rules, that is true.

[akihabro]

Not looking too good for the states. What if he would have said "Sorry we're broke so F you get a job."

[akihabro]

Has anyone really looked closely at this guy ? His Nolan Chart is boarderline dangerous, much closer to authoritarian than libertarian...


Mark Sanford's Vote Match Nolan Chart: http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=5&a2=1&a3=5&a4=1&a5=1&a6=4&a7=5&a8=4&a9=2&a10=1&a11=5&a12=1&a13=2&a14=4&a15=3&a16=2&a17=2&a18=1&a19=3&a20=3&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=25&e=58&t=8

Mark Sanford On the Issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

I won't be supporting him for POTUS and all Ron Paul followers shouldn't either...

Would being authoritarian mean the persons described in Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians? I looked on the first ontheissues link you provided. According to what it shows hard-core authoritarians is very popular beliefs in the U.S...according to my perception.

[nickcoons]

If you apply to be recognized by their legal status categorizes, you have to play by their rules, that is true.

Like I said, even sole-proprietors (where you don't register as anything, but are just an individual engaging in business) are considered and bound by the rules of being employers if you hire employees.

[Danke]

Like I said, even sole-proprietors (where you don't register as anything, but are just an individual engaging in business) are considered and bound by the rules of being employers if you hire employees.

Look up the terms "employee" and "employer"

[inibo]

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with incorporating. An employer is anyone that has employees, whether your a corporation, a sole-proprietor, or one of any other form of business entity.

A common misconception is that one can avoid being an employer by hiring everyone as sub-contractors. You can't. The IRS has a set of guidelines that they enforce arbitrarily to determine if someone is an employee or a sub-contractor.

For instance, I have several retail stores, and I have people that have to be present there during business hours. The fact that these people are paid to be at a certain place at a certain time on a regular basis disqualifies me from categorizing them as sub-contractors. If I try to categorize them this way (which means that I don't withhold anything from their checks, and I don't pay employer taxes on them), the IRS will re-categorize them and require that I pay not only the employer portion of the taxes, but also what I would have had to withhold from the employee had I withheld in the first place (which I wouldn't have done, which means this would come out of my pocket).

The IRS will use any method it can to re-categorize sub-contractors as employees, because they want their withholdings. And they have the courts in their favor. Once the IRS calls them employees, I'm now subject to all of the taxes and regulations that come with that, such as unemployment, minimum wage, equal opportunity, workman's compensation, and a whole slew of others.

The categorization of "employee" vs. "sub-contractor" is by function, not by organization. In general, someone is an employee if they meet any of the following:

- They have to perform their work at your location on a regular basis.
- The company provides tools and supplies for them to do their job.
- The company reimburses them for expenses.
- The company provides training.

There are actually about 20 guidelines, but the above four are the major. If a sub-contractor doesn't pay their taxes themselves (which many times they don't), the IRS will come back to you in an attempt to classify them as an employee and make you responsible for their taxes.

Because of the above guidelines, it's basically impossible to run a retail business without employees, unless you run it yourself (which isn't really possible with multiple locations). If you want to avoid being an employer and subject to the conditions thereof, then you need a business model that doesn't require having anyone work for you that meet any of the above guidelines. An example might be an online shopping site. You could pay someone on a commission per-order basis to log into the site from home every few days, then send the orders to you vendor to be drop-shipped to the customer. You can hire a web-design firm to maintain the site, a marketing firm to promote it, etc.

But if you don't want employees, forget anything retail.

That you manage to put up with all that crap and are still able to pay yourself and your employees amazes me. I could never do it. I wish you every success.

[Cowlesy]

Sanford should go on an in-state campaign letting his constituents know that if the legislator would stop overriding his spending vetoes, maybe there would be enough stew left in the pot to help the unemployed instead of having to go the federal route.

After all they elected him, so perhaps he should work on getting more people who share his view in the state house and some of the spenders out.

[nickcoons]

Look up the terms "employee" and "employer"

employee (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+employee&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=) - a worker who is hired to perform a job
employer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+employer&btnG=Search) - a person or firm that employs workers

I'm not sure what you're driving at. No matter what the dictionary definitions are (or legal definitions, for that matter), the IRS has their definitions, which they will successfully enforce in court.

[Danke]

employee (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+employee&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=) - a worker who is hired to perform a job
employer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+employer&btnG=Search) - a person or firm that employs workers

I'm not sure what you're driving at. No matter what the dictionary definitions are (or legal definitions, for that matter), the IRS has their definitions, which they will successfully enforce in court.

When dealing with tax matters, use the IRS (IRC) definitions.

“Employment”, “employee”, and "trade or business", insofar as those words or phrases are used in connection with any tax statute, form, document, regulation, IRS instruction or publication, etc., are also narrow legal terms, referring chiefly to government work and workers, and explicitly NOT to private work and workers." PH

See: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/tax_connections.htm

[gaazn]

Expect another loan soon. Unemployment is expected to almost double in SC by the summer of this year. And those would be the reported numbers, not the actual whisper numbers.

[Brian4Liberty]

How many times will we hear this quote?



Mr. Halley noted that the agency was audited every year by an accounting firm and had been given a clean bill of health.

Clean bill of health? Right...

Like I have said many times, Insurance is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. That also applies to Unemployment Insurance. When the time comes to pay out, the pyramid collapses. Just like AIG.

[Cowlesy]

How many times will we hear this quote?



Clean bill of health? Right...

Like I have said many times, Insurance is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. That also applies to Unemployment Insurance. When the time comes to pay out, the pyramid collapses. Just like AIG.

Yep, just like AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, IndyMac and on and on.

[kirkblitz]

He caved but he got the audit guarntee in writing.

Heres something funny for yall, he was trying to get the state income tax cut in half and the corporate tax removed COMPLETELY. But our wonderful legislature keeps fucking us and him at each turn preventing it because he wont scratch their backs. The legislature wouldnt fix the unemployment problem when they were notified in september and when the money runs out in march we will be in the same boat.

This state is showing itself as corrupt as fuck, I emailed my local reps and US rep about different things and i got NO repsonse. I emailed sanford and the next day is special assistant called me personally to talk with me.

That shows you what kind of person he is and who he has to deal with.

[nickcoons]

When dealing with tax matters, use the IRS (IRC) definitions.

“Employment”, “employee”, and "trade or business", insofar as those words or phrases are used in connection with any tax statute, form, document, regulation, IRS instruction or publication, etc., are also narrow legal terms, referring chiefly to government work and workers, and explicitly NOT to private work and workers." PH

See: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/tax_connections.htm

Understood. But if you deviate from the what the IRS tells you (even if it differs from the wording of the IRC), they will take your money/property anyway.

I think people are under the impression that, because there are certain legal definitions, even those in the IRC (such as "income" not applying to the earnings of private individuals, etc) that you can follow these rules and be victorious. You can't. The IRS will enforce rules that they create arbitrarily, and the courts will side with them. You do what they tell you to do, or you lose. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, it doesn't matter.

[Danke]

Understood. But if you deviate from the what the IRS tells you (even if it differs from the wording of the IRC), they will take your money/property anyway... The IRS will enforce rules that they create arbitrarily, and the courts will side with them. You do what they tell you to do, or you lose. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, it doesn't matter.

That is a common response.

Everyone has to make up their mind whether a particular fight is worth their time, resources, etc.

Same can be said about the RP campaign, after all, he had no chance anyway, right?

But I am hopeful, as our numbers are growing, and that includes in the Tax Honesty movement.

[Danke]

I think people are under the impression that, because there are certain legal definitions, even those in the IRC (such as "income" not applying to the earnings of private individuals, etc) that you can follow these rules and be victorious. You can't.

Oh really? http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories.htm

[RSLudlum]

This state is showing itself as corrupt as fuck, I emailed my local reps and US rep about different things and i got NO repsonse. I emailed sanford and the next day is special assistant called me personally to talk with me.

That shows you what kind of person he is and who he has to deal with.


I get the same treatment from the reps and I can vouch for the governor's responses. I've recieved a return phone call from the governor's office 4 out of 6 times i've emailed them in the past 6mos, and the other 2 times I got emails replies.

[nickcoons]

That is a common response.

Everyone has to make up their mind weather a particular fight is worth their time, resources, etc.

Same can be said about the RP campaign, after all, he had no chance anyway, right?

But I am hopeful, as our numbers are growing, and that includes in the Tax Honesty movement.

Of course, everyone must not only pick their battles, but how to fight them. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I would most likely turn my wallet over to an armed mugger if I believed that I had no other alternative to save my life. Not because I believe the mugger has any legitimate claim over my wallet, but as a self-survival mechanism.

Also, if I decided to practice civil disobedience by not following the IRS directions, I would be standing alone and would be very likely to fail. This is the importance of choosing the method of fighting. I prefer to run for office and educate. If the movement grows, the chances of success increase.

I've also asked you point-blank twice about your personal tax situation, and you've ignored answering me both times. So I'm skeptical as to your resolve in regards to practicing what you preach.

[nickcoons]

Oh really? http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories.htm

I admit it was an over-generalized statement. I should have said that victory is rare.

In any case, if this process is practical, then why do you disappear whenever I pose practical questions to you about it?

[Danke]

Of course, everyone must not only pick their battles, but how to fight them. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I would most likely turn my wallet over to an armed mugger if I believed that I had no other alternative to save my life. Not because I believe the mugger has any legitimate claim over my wallet, but as a self-survival mechanism.

Also, if I decided to practice civil disobedience by not following the IRS directions, I would be standing alone and would be very likely to fail. This is the importance of choosing the method of fighting. I prefer to run for office and educate. If the movement grows, the chances of success increase.

I've also asked you point-blank twice about your personal tax situation, and you've ignored answering me both times. So I'm skeptical as to your resolve in regards to practicing what you preach.

I've given you more than enough resources. You choose to ignore it, fine. But stop the misinformation then later admit it is not factual but because you are afraid to deviate from what is common business practices.

Good luck in your political career.

[satchelmcqueen]

He caved but he got the audit guarntee in writing.

Heres something funny for yall, he was trying to get the state income tax cut in half and the corporate tax removed COMPLETELY. But our wonderful legislature keeps fucking us and him at each turn preventing it because he wont scratch their backs. The legislature wouldnt fix the unemployment problem when they were notified in september and when the money runs out in march we will be in the same boat.

This state is showing itself as corrupt as fuck, I emailed my local reps and US rep about different things and i got NO repsonse. I emailed sanford and the next day is special assistant called me personally to talk with me.

That shows you what kind of person he is and who he has to deal with.

thats sort of what im getting at. i dont know to awful much about the guy, but he was trying to get something done, but was put upon the hot seat by our own government and blamed as the bad guy. at the last moment he had to give in in order to keep people from starving. sometimes you have to lose a small battle to win the war.

[nickcoons]

I've given you more than enough resources. You choose to ignore it, fine.

I've referenced the resources you've provided and I appreciate those. What I'm referring to are the questions I've posed about your personal choices. I've asked you if you've used the information that you provided to me in order to not pay into the Social Security system, and if so, how has that worked out for you. In fact, I asked you twice. Both times you did not answer.

Now if you want to say that your personal finances are none of my business, then that's fine, say that. But I would expect someone as adamant as you are about this issue to be practicing what you preach, and to be more than forthcoming about your successes in order to aid the rest of us to achieve the same.

I want to stop paying Social Security (and other taxes if possible). You appear to have so much information that you wholeheartedly believe in that you must have some personal experiences to share that would benefit the rest of us.


But stop the misinformation then later admit it is not factual but because you are afraid to deviate from what is common business practices.

My only mistake was in using an absolute without a qualifier (I should have said "rarely" instead of "can't"), which I quickly corrected. This is not misinformation, as the information I have presented is factual. As a self-employed person for over a decade, I have dealt with the IRS many times. I have many CPAs as clients. Never have I heard a first-hand account of a victory over the IRS. Presumably it happens, but it's rare. They are a "do what we say or we'll take your money and property whether the law says we can or not" organization, and in almost every case, they win.

[Peace&Freedom]

Of course, everyone must not only pick their battles, but how to fight them. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I would most likely turn my wallet over to an armed mugger if I believed that I had no other alternative to save my life. Not because I believe the mugger has any legitimate claim over my wallet, but as a self-survival mechanism.

Also, if I decided to practice civil disobedience by not following the IRS directions, I would be standing alone and would be very likely to fail. This is the importance of choosing the method of fighting. I prefer to run for office and educate. If the movement grows, the chances of success increase.

I've also asked you point-blank twice about your personal tax situation, and you've ignored answering me both times. So I'm skeptical as to your resolve in regards to practicing what you preach.

Danke is correct as confirmed by the 'more victories' page cited. Tax protesting is the act of disobeying, disagreeing with or protesting the tax law. Tax HONESTY is not about 'civil disobedience' as the supporters are not violating laws, they are EMPHASIZING what the law says, while resisting the IRS's misapplication of the law or code. If you got an intimidating letter from Russia saying you owed taxes to the Moscow municipal authority or whatever, and you objected, you would not be practicing 'civil disobedience' or denying the legitimacy of their taxing system. You would be objecting to the misapplication of their tax sytem to you, and their illegal enforcement of those laws against someone outside their jurisdiction.

This is what tax honesty supporters say about the current system, the designations employee and employer legally apply to federal public officers engaged in a trade or business in the US, and not to private workers or businesses, according to the tax code. The key to how IRS circumvents this into illegal enforcement, is to gather information reports submitted on IRS forms (w2s, 1099s etc) that are prejudicialy worded to make private entities concede they are 'employers and employees' who received 'income' as legally defined. This creates a (constructive fraud) paper trail to establish an equitable case for tax liability, unless rebutted, and it is this unrebutted paper trial that gets upheld in courts.

So the key to 'more victories' by the tax honesty side has been to rebut the prejudicial reports or prevent their generation in the first place by administrative means, such that it never goes to the courts. This short-circuits the IRS system of intimidation and word games, and has led to the return of stolen funds to law-abiding, anti-fraud Americans. Since you asked for real world, I have used this approach (imperfectly) since 1999, and fully successfully since 2003, using materials from the SEDM/family guardian sites. The IRS may send its intimidating form letters, but if answered with the appropriate affidavit restating one's legal status as a private worker/entity (or better, an offer conditionally accepting liability upon their providing verified proof of claim for the year being asked about), they have backed off. So in terms of picking battles, I accept taxation is legalized theft and surrender when 'legally' mugged, but I draw the line in the sand at complying with illegal theft. More on correcting erroneous information returns at:

http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/InformationReturnScam.htm

[nickcoons]

Since you asked for real world, I have used this approach (imperfectly) since 1999, and fully successfully since 2003, using materials from the SEDM/family guardian sites. The IRS may send its intimidating form letters, but if answered with the appropriate affidavit restating the legal status as a private worker (or better, an offer conditionally accepting liability upon their providing verified proof of claim for the year being asked about), they have backed off. So in terms of picking battles, I accept taxation is legalized theft and surrender when 'legally' mugged, but I draw the line in the sand at complying with illegal theft. More on correcting erroneous information returns at:

http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf

Thank you so much for the information. I have quite a few follow-up questions for you, if you don't mind. I've probably hijacked this thread too much already, so I'll send my follow-ups via PM. Thanks again!

[Danke]

My only mistake was in using an absolute without a qualifier (I should have said "rarely" instead of "can't"), which I quickly corrected.

That is not what I was referring to.



This is not misinformation, as the information I have presented is factual.

I disagree.

[LibertyEagle]

This is an article by the Southern Avenger.


http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A58026