Is there a way to legally opt out of paying Social Security on a standard Paycheck?

[aravoth]

Title says it all. It's not going to be there for anyone in my family anyway, and quite honestly, I wouldn't pull from it even if it was. I do not want to pay this anymore. It swiped two-hundred bucks from my paycheck last time, and for what?

Any lawyers or tax people on here know of a way to stop this extortion?

[Chester Copperpot]

I think "legally" there is a way to opt out.. But thats sort of like saying the feds need to show a law on the income tax..

I dont know of any way to get the federal govt to leave you alone if you do opt out.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Title says it all. It's not going to be there for anyone in my family anyway, and quite honestly, I wouldn't pull from it even if it was. I do not want to pay this anymore. It swiped two-hundred bucks from my paycheck last time, and for what?

Any lawyers or tax people on here know of a way to stop this extortion?

Get paid "under the table" ;)

[pacelli]

Yes, there is a way to opt-out, but it involves rescinding your social security number. You only get one shot at doing it, and if you screw that up, needless to say you are screwed. The only guy I know of that has done it with success is George Gordon. For more info check out: www.georgegordon.org. The phone number at his law school is 417-273-4967. Just FYI, they answer "hello?"

[amy31416]

I know that Yahoo Questions isn't the best source, but I think the following is true:


Dear Yahoo!:
Do the Amish pay taxes?
Dan
Reno, Nevada
Dear Dan:
Just like the rest of us, the Amish are not exempt from life's two certainties -- death and taxes. However, there is a reason behind the persistent myth that the Amish do not pay taxes.

The Amish live within self-sufficient communities and do not collect Social Security, unemployment, or welfare benefits. According to their religious beliefs, paying Social Security, an insurance premium for the elderly, is tantamount to not "taking care of their own." Amish people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay Social Security tax, but they do still pay all other taxes, including property, income, and sales tax. If an Amish person decides to work outside of the community, he or she must also pay Social Security tax like any other American.

In 1955, the IRS extended the Social Security Act of 1935 to include farm operators. At the time, some Amish people immediately complied with the tax, while others conscientiously objected to it. Many felt that it violated the separation of church and state, some did not want to accept monies for government programs, and still others believed that paying a commercial insurance for the elderly went against their trust in God to take care of them.

The IRS and the Amish played a convoluted shell game for close to a decade, until it all came to a head with the seizure of a struggling farmer's horses in 1961. The Amish elders stuck firmly by their principles, and the ensuing media and community outrage over the incident led the IRS to relent four years later. Tucked away in the 1965 Medicare Bill was a clause exempting the "Old Order Amish" and other religious groups that conscientiously objected to paying insurance premiums from Social Security tax. To be exempt, the group or sect must have been established prior to 1950 and maintain reasonable provisions for their elderly.

Booooo.

[Anti Federalist]

Move to Galveston TX.

Go to work for the county.

Bonus: move to the right area and Ron Paul will be your representative.

A model for Social Security reform
By Ray Holbrook with Alcestis "Cooky" Oberg
The current debate about reforming Social Security reminds me of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when our county workers were offered a different, and better, retirement alternative to Social Security: They reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

[Jordan]

Become Amish.

[puppetmaster]

Move to Galveston TX.

Go to work for the county.

Bonus: move to the right area and Ron Paul will be your representative.

A model for Social Security reform
By Ray Holbrook with Alcestis "Cooky" Oberg
The current debate about reforming Social Security reminds me of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when our county workers were offered a different, and better, retirement alternative to Social Security: They reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

yep

[haaaylee]

if you opt out by claiming religious reasons, however, you forfeit everything you've ever put into it thus far.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Incorporate non aggression principles and self ownership into a doctrine of ethics (aka religion)

Form a private ethics club (aka church).
Decide how your private ethics club will be responsible and care for members who become unable to care for themselves.

Enjoy the freedom and additional constitutional guarantees that have been upheld by SCOTUS associated with exercising your ethics (aka religion).

I have done a youtube video discussing some other benefits of organizing under a private club with regards to facilitating grass roots projects and more importantly one example of how money can be handled in the form of private club credit using a older book style account at a FRN bank that can serve as a trust account:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=238613

I have been and will continue to be a fan of market based solutions and decentralization versus centralization and the notion of "give me your money because I know best how to spend it."

Maybe one of these days people who believe in freedom will organize and implement market based solutions like you are suggesting in this thread, facilitating grass roots projects, and implementing a private market.

[Danke]

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/1ssn.jpg

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/BorelliSSAResponse.jpg

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Careful. Posting letters like that you are at risk of convincing non-believers that everything is in fact a voluntarily applied for privilege :)


http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/1ssn.jpg

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/BorelliSSAResponse.jpg

[Rael]

I'm thinking about taking up religion lol


THE WESLEYAN MINISTER AND SOCIAL SECURITY: CAN YOU OPT OUT?

Many have asked the question “Can I opt out of paying into the Social Security system” provided by the United States government? The following information is being provided to help you understand what is involved in making this decision.

There are those that have advised ministers to opt out of making social security payments and place the same amount of money each month instead into an annuity or insurance program, thus securing a more reliable retirement for the minister.

There are those in government circles as well as other financiers who have expressed their fear that the Social Security system is not safe and sound and thus there is a good chance that any money put into the system will be gone before the minister can receive any benefit. One needs to keep in mind that arguments such as these are speculative; history has shown that when government sponsored programs of this kind run into financial difficulty, the government will take steps to insure that the program continues.

The IRS does recognize that some denominations have established a denominational position against Social Security, and the ministers of these denominations are exempt from participation in the Social Security system as a result of their denominational affiliation. The Wesleyan Church is not one of these denominations, and encourages Wesleyan ministers to participate in the Social Security program for their own benefit.

Can a pastor opt out of paying Social Security? Is this legal? What requirements are there?

The Internal Revenue Code does allow a minister to exercise an option to not participate in the Social Security system. In order to opt out, the minister must sign an application for exemption, IRS form 4361. The regulations require that the ordaining denomination must be notified of the minister's decision to opt out, and the necessary form must be filed within a certain time frame after one begins to receive payment for ministerial services. The form contains several statements that the minister must certify to, including the following statement:

“I certify that I am conscientiously opposed to, or, because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I performed as a minister . . .) of any public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or that makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care.” (Public insurance includes insurance systems established by the Social Security Act.)

One of the key terms in this statement is the term "religious principles." This means that the personal decision to opt out is based upon religious convictions which are an integral part of the individual's theology. It is not enough to have the personal belief that the Social Security system is doomed to fail. The court decisions and tax regulations on this issue are quite clear: “the quest for exemption may not be based on economic grounds”. There have been ministers who have exercised to opt out based on the belief the Social Security system will fail and they would have a much better and safer investment in an annuity or insurance program. This is not a valid reason upon which to claim the exemption.

In reality, the effect of the statements the minister must sign in order to opt out of the Social Security system, are not well understood by many. To opt out of the system is to declare theologically or philosophically that no matter what happens, the minister is opposed to ever asking for the benefits of any public insurance plan. Even if the tax law would change in the future requiring all clergy persons to pay the taxes, the opposition would remain against filing for any benefits of any kind, because of religious principles and theology which will not allow it. This is a very difficult position to take.

Is it ‘possible’ there are Wesleyan ministers opposed to public insurance to the extent they can legitimately apply for exemption in good conscience? Yes, but these individuals will be the rare exception. When the nature of the exemption is understood there appears to be few who will take this position.

There have been ministers in the past that opted out of the Social Security system and later realized it was a mistake because they based their decision on information that was in error. Congress recognized that this was true, and opened a "window of opportunity" for ministers to "opt back into" the system without having to pay back taxes that would have normally been paid during this period of time. That happened back in 1988.

In January 1, 2000, yet another window of opportunity to “opt back into” the system was provided for a two year period requiring a minister to file a form with the IRS to revoke their previous decision. That window was closed December 31, 2002. Today it is not possible to reverse the decision to opt out once it has been officially filed with the IRS. It is highly unlikely that the chance to opt back into the system will be offered again.

The choice to "opt out" of the Social Security system still exists for ministers today; however, it is recommended that you seek council from your legal and/or tax advisor before making this decision.

[Anti Federalist]

Careful. Posting letters like that you are at risk of convincing non-believers that everything is in fact a voluntarily applied for privilege :)

I wish that was the case, but it isn't.

What you are seeing in these letters is bureaucratic plausible deniability.

"Oh, dear me, no, we don't require you to take a SSN. But those other guys do."

And so it goes, trapped in labyrinth web of overlapping rules, regulations and red tape.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I wish that was the case, but it isn't.

What you are seeing in these letters is bureaucratic plausible deniability.

"Oh, dear me, no, we don't require you to take a SSN. But those other guys do."

And so it goes, trapped in labyrinth web of overlapping rules, regulations and red tape.

It's not complicated.

IRS does not require a SSN. You can obtain a TIN if an SSN can not be obtained. Ethics (religion) is grounds for not obtaining an SSN.

Government always tries to pin jurisdiction on the activity of business, selling, or commerce (or whatever you want to label it).

Private business may discriminate against people who do not have an SSN. But that is a two way street. You can also discriminate against people who do have an SSN. There is just not much of the latter going on.

Religion (ethics) is the path to exemption.

[aravoth]

It's not complicated.

IRS does not require a SSN. You can obtain a TIN if an SSN can not be obtained. Ethics (religion) is grounds for not obtaining an SSN.

Government always tries to pin jurisdiction on the activity of business, selling, or commerce (or whatever you want to label it).

Private business may discriminate against people who do not have an SSN. But that is a two way street. You can also discriminate against people who do have an SSN. There is just not much of the latter going on.

Religion (ethics) is the path to exemption.

So I have to become an ordained minister?

[fuzzybekool]

work for cash is about the only way. stay off the grid.

[angelatc]

Title says it all. It's not going to be there for anyone in my family anyway, and quite honestly, I wouldn't pull from it even if it was. I do not want to pay this anymore. It swiped two-hundred bucks from my paycheck last time, and for what?

Any lawyers or tax people on here know of a way to stop this extortion?

No. If you work for yourself, I suppose you could take a stand, but your employer is required by law to withhold the money, as well as match the withholdings.

And if you do decide to take that stand, the government will come and take away everything that you own.

[Danke]

W-4 Qualifying Statement



The Form W-4 to which this statement is attached is executed in order to provide for appropriate withholding if and when, and only if and when, I am actually paid "wages", as defined in 26 USC 3401 and 3121, by the entity to which it is furnished-- the legal responsibility for the determination of which rests with that entity. The form is executed under the good-faith presumption that no law precludes its execution or provides for the impairment of any right or other legal infirmity of any kind as a consequence of its execution by one who is not an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing or an officer of a federally taxable corporation; or as subject to the qualifications specified in this statement. In the event that such preclusion, impairment or infirmity is provided for by law, the Form W-4, and my signature thereon, are hereby declared rescinded, null, and void.



My execution of the Form W-4 to which this statement is attached is not to be construed as authorizing the withholding of anything of or from what is owed to me which does not constitute "wages" as defined at 26 USC 3401 and 3121; nor as my accepting, acknowledging, declaring or establishing my status as an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing or as an officer of a federally taxable corporation; or that of the entity to which it is submitted as an "American employer" as relevantly defined at 26 USC 3121(h).



This statement constitutes formal notice that any assertions, explicit or implied, by the entity to which this form and statement are submitted that I have at any particular time acquired the status of an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing or of an officer of a federally taxable corporation; or that that entity has acquired the status of an "American employer" as relevantly defined at 26 USC 3121(h) will be subject to challenge as provided for by law.



__________________________________________________ __
(Signed and dated, and witnessed and notarized if you wish)

[ChaosControl]

Make your living through investment income, only way I know besides working for certain government agencies.

[angelatc]

W-4 Qualifying Statement






__________________________________________________ __
(Signed and dated, and witnessed and notarized if you wish)

That's kind of cute, but the IRS has repeatedly ruled, and the courts concur, that the employer has to withhold the money. If I were presented with this as an employer, I'd tell the employee that I had no interest in fighting his/her political battles at the expense of my livelihood. If said employee didn't like that, I'd invite that person to seek employment with an employer who had more time and resources to dedicate to said campaign.

In other words, leave me out of it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So I have to become an ordained minister?

Some cases that come to mind like:
United States v. Lee (1982)
Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1981)
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) & Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977)

Among others including this landmark incident:
Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools (1986)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=19860404&id=czkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7VEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6675,373846

Bottom line is what you are talking about has to be asserted. Government will persecute. I am of the opinion a viable strategy can be formulated based on analyzing history. Obviously most people do not share this belief evidenced by the greater interest in political change.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Here is an article that cites a few cases:



Churches are Tax Exempt as a Matter of Constitutional Right


The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 that non-taxation of churches is undergirded by “more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.” Here is why: There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government. The District of Columbia does not tax the property owned by foreign governments, and New York does not tax the property owned by the United Nations.

So, too, churches in America are not subservient to the government. The First Amendment to the Constitution requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Constitution prevents the government from wielding its authority to control churches. Churches in this way differ from all other businesses and organizations. They are a unique institution whose existence is not derived from government authority, nor even from governmental acknowledgment. Churches preceded the birth of our nation and will remain long after its death. They transcend geographic and ethnic boundaries.

While the church is not subservient to the government, neither is the government subservient to the church. Although government can aid or support virtually all types of social or educational institutions which have a public purpose with the use of tax money, the Supreme Court stated in 1948 that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.” Thomas Jefferson coined the highly referenced “wall of separation” between church and state (but not in the Constitution, as many people assume). The separation he referred to must be bilateral and reciprocal. Whatever the degree of separation required by the Constitution, it is surely this: the government may not make the church subservient by taxing its existence.

In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.

Historically, Tax Exempt Churches Have Benefited American Society


Even before the IRS ever existed, churches were tax exempt. In fact, as the U.S.Supreme Court acknowledged in 1970 in the Walz v. Tax Commission case, exempting churches from taxation is an “unbroken” history that “covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.” Because of this unbroken history, churches have been included and recognized as tax exempt in every income tax code passed by Congress since the very first attempt to pass an income tax code in 1894. In fact, the federal tax code recognizes this special exemption for churches because churches are the only organization not required to seek advance approval of tax exemption. They are considered automatically tax exempt simply because of their status as a church. This “unbroken history” of tax exemption for churches that predates our national existence is not something that is lightly cast aside. And, as history demonstrates, churches have thrived and have benefitted society in many ways as a result of the freedom that flows from tax exemption. It is a mythical caricature that most churches want to be tax exempt simply so they can unfairly hold on to more money than anyone else. This is a falsehood promoted by those who simply do not understand the facts.

Churches have been at the forefront of many of the beneficial social movements throughout American history. Historians agree that America owes its independence, in great degree, to churches and pastors who spoke freely and passionately from their pulpits in favor of independence. Pastors during the revolutionary time period became known as the “Black Regiment” due to their black clerical robes and the fervor with which they supported independence.

Churches also led the fight to end child labor, promote women’s suffrage, and were instrumental in ending slavery. Let’s not forget pastors like Henry Ward Beecher who spoke with great influence against slavery from his pulpit at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn. And, of course, it was a pastor, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., with the support of churches, who helped to end segregation. A concurring opinion handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as recently as February 25, 2009, cites such examples and concluded:

“An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy. So are unregulated, unregistered churches. Churches have played an important—no, an essential—part in the democratic life of the United States.... Is it necessary to evoke these historic struggles and the great constitutional benefits won for the country by its churches in order to decide this case of petty bureaucratic harassment? It is necessary. The memory of the memorable battles grows cold. The liberals who applaud their outcomes and live in their light forget the motivation that drove the champions of freedom. They approve religious intervention in the political process selectively: it’s great when it’s on their side. In a secular age, Freedom of Speech is more talismanic than Freedom of Religion. But the latter is the first freedom in our Bill of Rights” (Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena v. Unsworth).

Since our country was founded, churches not only led great social movements, but also freely preached directly on political candidates’ qualifications for office. That was no problem when the Constitution was signed, or when the first commissioner of internal revenue was appointed in 1862, or when the federal income tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment in 1913. Nor were churches transformed into political machines. Churches simply spoke when their moral voice needed to be heard—even during election season—and decided for themselves how they wanted their pastors to preach.

Tax exemption enabled churches to exist without unnecessary encumbrance by the government and to be the moral force in these great social movements in American history. This historical record of tax exemption is an important reason churches should continue to be tax exempt.

Tax Exemption Protects the Free Exercise of Religion


Churches are tax-exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the door is open for the government to censor and control churches and the free exercise of religion. But that’s not just an opinion. It’s the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Walz v. Tax Commission, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion. As the Massachusetts State Tax Commission put it in 1897, “The general exemption of houses of worship is a fit recognition by the State of the sanctity of religion.”

For those concerned about an appropriate separation between church and state, no better way exists to ensure it than to keep churches tax exempt. If the government were to begin to tax churches, it necessarily asserts sovereignty, power, and control over churches.

An example of how the government can abuse its power against churches in this area is in the passage of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other non-profits from directly or indirectly supporting or opposing political candidates for office. A church’s tax exemption has been conditioned on obedience to this mandate since 1954 when Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in adding this prohibition to the tax code. Scholars agree that the Johnson Amendment was a revenge piece of legislation directed at two non-profit foundations opposing Johnson for Senate. Johnson did not target churches, yet for 55 years, churches have been prohibited from preaching about candidates for office. The Johnson Amendment perpetuates a system requiring government agents to monitor and parse the words of a pastor’s sermon to determine whether that sermon violates the law and punishment should be meted out. That system is an excessive and unreasonable government entanglement with religion.

In 1943, the Supreme Court stated, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in…religion, or other matters of opinion.” The court didn’t add “...except when pastors address the subject of electoral candidates.” Since 1954, the IRS and its petty officials have been able to prescribe for churches what is orthodox in matters of religion. This is not religious freedom in any sense of that phrase. Rather, this is religious orthodoxy mandated by the government, and it falls heaviest on those churches who believe their faith compels them to do what churches have done for centuries: address the moral fitness of electoral candidates from the pulpit.

The Johnson Amendment provides a stark example of the power of the government to destroy the free exercise of religion. The surest way to protect the free exercise of religion is to continue the healthy separation between church and state fostered by tax exemptions for churches.

Taxing Churches Involves the Government as Church Speech Police


Since 1954, the government has prohibited churches from speaking about a certain area of life in order to maintain their tax exemption. Pastors are allowed to talk about anything they want to from the pulpit of their church except how Scripture applies to our electoral politics. Called the Johnson Amendment, because of its sponsor Lyndon Johnson, this prohibition has enabled IRS agents to monitor and censor sermons preached from the pulpit for almost 55 years. Allowing the government to condition tax exemption on a church refraining from preaching on a certain issue allows the IRS to act as speech police and monitor churches for compliance.

The Johnson Amendment allows government to determine when a pastor’s speech becomes too “political.” That is an absurdly ridiculous standard. A pastor’s speech from the pulpit that addresses candidates in light of Scripture is religious speech. That speech doesn’t become political any more than a pastor’s speech becomes commercial when he addresses from Scripture the current financial debacle on Wall Street. Allowing government agents to make that determination is as absurd as asking a first-grader to design and build NASA’s next space shuttle.

The Johnson Amendment also allows the government to parse the content of a pastor’s sermon to determine whether it violates the law. That is called a content-based restriction on speech, which the Free Speech Clause prohibits unless the government has a compelling reason to censor speech based on its content. And you would have to ignore reality to agree that any compelling reason existed for Johnson’s amendment.

Allowing the government to police speech is a bad idea that contains dangerous consequences for liberty—a principle that our nation’s founders understood most clearly. The best way to preserve liberty, and specifically religious liberty, is to get the government speech police out of the business of reviewing a pastor’s sermon. That is no place for the government in a free society. Tax exemption for churches protects freedom of speech and gets the government out of the role of policing a church’s speech.

Taxing Churches Makes No Practical Sense


Under simple logic, churches and other nonprofit organizations are exempted from income taxes. Though it’s very true that such organizations are beneficial to the public in many ways, that’s not what truly justifies their exemption, as is often argued; it is their existence as non-profit entities that does. Taxation naturally applies to profit-makers, the generators of revenue upon which government depends. As Professor Dean Kelley pointed out in his book, Why Churches Should Not Be Taxed, “Other entities would be pointless, since they are not in any meaningful sense producers of wealth.” It is the very nature of a nonprofit organization that makes it tax exempt in that it does not produce wealth like businesses or other taxed entities. So, it makes no practical sense to tax these organizations.

In fact, taxing such nonprofits discourages their existence and amounts to double taxation. First, all citizens, whether or not involved in a church or other nonprofit, are taxed on their individual incomes. As professor Kelley again pointed out, “To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be ‘double taxation’ indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy.” The only thing a tax exemption for a non-profit organization like a church does is to ensure that all the money an individual puts into a non-profit goes to the purposes he intends without being diverted by the government, which the individual already supports in his individual capacity.

Charles Eliot, former President of Harvard, said it best in testimony before the Committee on Taxation in 1906 when he stated, “The things that make it worthwhile to live…anywhere in the civilized world, are precisely the things which are not taxed.” Churches are one of the things that have made it worthwhile to live in the civilized world. Churches, throughout history, have improved American society and have acted as agents of positive societal change, in addition to their purpose of providing meaning for people’s lives and ministering to the local community. Even many federal court opinions, right up to the present day, have acknowledged this. To tax churches is to discourage the important work they do in society and to double-tax the individuals who support the church. This makes no practical sense.

http://www.answerbag.com/debates/churches-tax-exempt_1855555

[Danke]

That's kind of cute, but the IRS has repeatedly ruled, and the courts concur, that the employer has to withhold the money. If I were presented with this as an employer, I'd tell the employee that I had no interest in fighting his/her political battles at the expense of my livelihood. If said employee didn't like that, I'd invite that person to seek employment with an employer who had more time and resources to dedicate to said campaign.

In other words, leave me out of it.

And I agree with the court. How does that contradict the "W-4 Qualifying Statement?"

[TastyWheat]

I think you can make it work without a SSN, but I'm pretty sure you'd forgo voting privileges. I don't know if the Supreme Court has ever addressed this issue, but there may be a good argument that it's unconstitutional. The Constitution says the House shall be composed of Members chosen by the People of the several States. It may imply you are a Citizen of your State, but not a U.S. citizen. It says something similar for Senators, but it uses the term people (in lower-case) for whatever that's worth.

John Harris and Michael Badnarik have both touched on this general subject of submission to the state and giving up rights through voluntary servitude.

Michael Badnarik's Introduction to the Constitution 25/42 (http://tinyurl.com/yzf9zsu)
Michael Badnarik's Introduction to the Constitution 26/42 (http://tinyurl.com/yjxln6h)
John Harris "It's an Illusion" (http://www.documentarywire.com/john-harris-its-an-illusion)

[angelatc]

And I agree with the court. How does that contradict the "W-4 Qualifying Statement?"

I'm assuming that the statement is some assertion that wages aren't really wages, and therefore said employee shouldn't be taxed on his non-wages.

It doesn't matter. It is of no interest to the employer, and therefore won't result in any change in the SS withholding, which is the point of the thread.