Fit for duty.

[Danke]

List those behaviors that a worker engages in when off the clock, that an employer should be able to find you unfit for duty. And ultimately terminate you.

Of course we will find many here that say any reason they can conjure up to get rid of a worker is ok. Just fire anyone at will. But let's limited it to companies that apply for and receive government sanction privileges, like a filed and registered corporation.

Buggery off the clock at home a justification to be fired?

How about union organization drive?

[William Tell]

I would fire you over your avatar.:mad:
And the title of 'Goldmember'

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

fire someone so I can take his job

[Danke]

I would fire you over your avatar.:mad:
And the title of 'Goldmember'



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e206/teacakes13/Myspace%20pix/goldmember.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ACf8n6CBJsE/maxresdefault.jpg

[Tod]

I think employers should be able to hire and fire at will, for no reason.

One of the side effects is that fewer people will want to be employees, and I think that is a GOOD thing. I wish I had made the switch from employee to being self-employed sooner.

Freedom of association, and no government special privileges like incorporation. The people running corporations need to be personally responsible for their decisions without being able to hide behind the corporate veil. You would suddenly see corporations behaving better (think GE dumping PCB's in the Hudson, etc).

[Danke]

I think employers should be able to hire and fire at will, for no reason.

One of the side effects is that fewer people will want to be employees, and I think that is a GOOD thing. I wish I had made the switch from employee to being self-employed sooner.

Freedom of association, and no government special privileges like incorporation. The people running corporations need to be personally responsible for their decisions without being able to hide behind the corporate veil. You would suddenly see corporations behaving better (think GE dumping PCB's in the Hudson, etc).

i agree in concept. but do you even know what legally the term "employer" means?






As I said in another thread that is relevant:

"... open borders are ok even though we don't have a free market and I am taxed to support aliens, etc...it is not just a philosophical argument...NAP ya know."

[Anti Federalist]

While I'd like to see more people become self employed as well, the fact is that a good economy requires that something be done, that value be added to raw materials to produce something.

And as much as we'd like to, you cannot build 787s or drop forged marine reduction gears in your garage.

[Anti Federalist]

While I'd like to see more people become self employed as well, the fact is that a good economy requires that something be done, that value be added to raw materials to produce something.

And as much as we'd like to, you cannot build 787s or drop forged marine reduction gears in your garage.

[acptulsa]

Let me put it this way. When these corporations 'offshore' our jobs, do you suppose they make their new third world employees piss in Dixie cups?

Why do you think they 'offshore' jobs in the first place? If not to escape this very sort of insanity, then why?

[Philhelm]

Posting on Facebook stating negative things about the employer. That's legit.

[jbauer]

Assuming there isn't any licenses involved. The employer should be able to set up a employee policy and as long as you agree to said policy thats it.

If the employer says you can't drink or smoke or go to church on sunday as long as you agree to it, it is what it is. Fire away.

[presence]

i agree in concept. but do you even know what legally the term "employer" means?

It means if an agent is driving a delivery truck for his principle and negligently rolls over a child in the street the principle is the respondeant superior responsible for damages. So if a employer, acting on intuition, does not want to take on the responsibility for the actions of an incompetent agent he should have every right to disavow himself from individual and annul their employment contract with or without reason. Similarly should an agent for any reason concurs that his employer places him at undue, unwarranted, unnecessary, or unacceptable risk or conflict of conscience; for any reason he sees fit, he too should have the freedom to disassociate and the immediate opportunity to annul their agreement and part paths. All relationships private and professional should arise from freedom of association and voluntary consent.

[bunklocoempire]

Liberty and property rights is always the answer.

Government has opposed that, and folks attempting mutually beneficial relationships are left trying to sort these artificial problems out while restricted in the box government has jammed us in to.

Are 787s or drop forged marine reduction gears even really the best way to do the task?

I can't say for sure because I'm stuck with all of you in a f****** box -and because we always try to make the best out of a bad situation our forced retardation is hardly ever noticeable. Was that thread drift? lol I think you all get my meaning.

[LibertyEsq]

Nearly universal at-will employment is probably the most libertarian/free-market thing about this country's laws right now

[DamianTV]

List those behaviors that a worker engages in when off the clock, that an employer should be able to find you unfit for duty. And ultimately terminate you.

...

Im just curious how many would say SMOKING? Not smokin a bowl, I mean just ordinary Tobacco...

---

The "Rights" that are identified during the establishment of a Contract (which is basically what Employment is) start off as "not clearly defined", so it is up to both parties to define those "Reasonable Limits" to the scope of the Contract. When one side, or the other becomes desperate, things they would normally put "Limits" on are excluded in the establishment of that Contract of Employment, which enables abuse by both sides. Employers and Employees start off with NO RIGHTS on either side until that Contract has been established and agreed to by BOTH parties. Anything short of that is Enslavement.

The "Power" to terminate an Employee for ANY behavior outside the workplace is part of that Contract, and if anyone examines what is in those contracts, they are getting as riduculs as Credit Card Agreements. That Termination also fringes on the edge of what people would consider as Reasonable, or applying to ALL Contracts, but the thing is, what is Reasonable is NOT included in all Contracts. Can an Employer have a Legal Right to terminate an employee for what they do at home? Only if the Employee grants the Employer that power to begin with. Otherwise the Employer is told to go fuck themselves and no Agreement on the Terms of the Contract are established. Thus, no Contract, no expectation from either party.

[DevilsAdvocate]

They should be able to draw up any employment contract they wish. If that contract stipulates that they can fire you at any time, without cause, then that's what they should be able to do. If that contract mentions some protections that ensure your job security, then they must abide by the terms of their agreement.

[jbauer]

I've never allowed our employees to smoke inside the building. What they do on their own time is their own thing. Don't like that its raining, sit in your car. I don't like that my office equipment stinks of smoke.


Im just curious how many would say SMOKING? Not smokin a bowl, I mean just ordinary Tobacco...

[TheCount]

Im just curious how many would say SMOKING? Not smokin a bowl, I mean just ordinary Tobacco... If the employer provides health coverage of any kind, then they could certainly have an interest in whether or not their employees smoke or engage in any other activity which could cost the employer.

[69360]

Anything. Employment is at will.

[osan]

Let me put it this way. When these corporations 'offshore' our jobs, do you suppose they make their new third world employees piss in Dixie cups?

Why do you think they 'offshore' jobs in the first place? If not to escape this very sort of insanity, then why?

That is a pretty small part of it. Mostly, it is labor cost they are trying to save on, and here I mean the total tab including paying for BammyCare, SSI, and so forth. Typically, if you are making $50K/annum salaried, the cost to the employer to keep you is AT LEAST $100K, most likely more.

[Danke]

That is a pretty small part of it. Mostly, it is labor cost they are trying to save on, and here I mean the total tab including paying for BammyCare, SSI, and so forth. Typically, if you are making $50K/annum salaried, the cost to the employer to keep you is AT LEAST $100K, most likely more.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why I'd like to just receive a straight salary. No other benefits like health care, I'll get that on my own. The money the company saves could go towards my salary. I will no longer be subsidizing other more expensive employees' health benefits.

[Danke]

It means if an agent is driving a delivery truck for his principle and negligently rolls over a child in the street the principle is the respondeant superior responsible for damages. So if a employer, acting on intuition, does not want to take on the responsibility for the actions of an incompetent agent he should have every right to disavow himself from individual and annul their employment contract with or without reason. Similarly should an agent for any reason concurs that his employer places him at undue, unwarranted, unnecessary, or unacceptable risk or conflict of conscience; for any reason he sees fit, he too should have the freedom to disassociate and the immediate opportunity to annul their agreement and part paths. All relationships private and professional should arise from freedom of association and voluntary consent.

No legally, an "employer" is government. That is why the government can regulate them.

[TheCount]

No legally, an "employer" is government.

No.

[Danke]

No.

LOL. An employer in lRS code has employees, which work for the government.

[presence]

No legally, an "employer" is government. That is why the government can regulate them.

Can you expound on that or cite?

[Danke]

Can you expound on that or cite?


Read the whole book, but start at page 75 for discussion on "employee."

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf

[heavenlyboy34]

n/m, danke beat me to it. ~hugs danke~

[Massachusetts]

LOL. An employer in lRS code has employees, which work for the government.

Yeah....no. There is a major flaw in your argument.

The IRS is not responsible, nor do they have the authority to regulate an employer's hiring/firing practices. Their sole purpose is to ensure they get a percentage of each employee's paycheck each month. By your logic, because the government collects a portion of an employee's check each month, the employee also works for the health insurance company who covers them. Yeah...no.

[presence]

Read the whole book, but start at page 75 for discussion on "employee."

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf

It seems you were referencing the term employee while I was expouding on the meaning of the word employee ;)

[Danke]

Yeah....no. There is a major flaw in your argument.

The IRS is not responsible, nor do they have the authority to regulate an employer's hiring/firing practices. Their sole purpose is to ensure they get a percentage of each employee's paycheck each month. By your logic, because the government collects a portion of an employee's check each month, the employee also works for the health insurance company who covers them. Yeah...no.

Apples and oranges.

I'm talking statutory (legal) definitions, as codified. You are talking common law definitions.

Health insurance is a private agreement.

[Danke]

It seems you were referencing the term employee while I was expouding on the meaning of the word employee ;)

I need more than that to know what you are saying the difference is.

[Massachusetts]

Apples and oranges.

I'm talking statutory (legal) definitions, as codified. You are talking common law definitions.

Health insurance is a private agreement.

So is employment. Nobody is holding a gun to either party's head to force them to enter into an agreement.

[Danke]

So is employment. Nobody is holding a gun to either party's head to force them to enter into an agreement.

Yes...so?

[phill4paul]

I've never allowed our employees to smoke inside the building. What they do on their own time is their own thing. Don't like that its raining, sit in your car. I don't like that my office equipment stinks of smoke.

As a smoker I don't see anything wrong with the way you run your shop.

[Massachusetts]

Yes...so?

You just made the claim that employers are government. So are you going to stand by that claim or back down because you realize it was BS?

[phill4paul]

Yeah....no. There is a major flaw in your argument.

The IRS is not responsible, nor do they have the authority to regulate an employer's hiring/firing practices. Their sole purpose is to ensure they get a percentage of each employee's paycheck each month. By your logic, because the government collects a portion of an employee's check each month, the employee also works for the health insurance company who covers them. Yeah...no.

They may not regulate it, which they do, but they certainly influence it. From the IRS to the insurance policy which is regulation driven. You're fooling yourself if you don't see the connects.

[Danke]

As a smoker I don't see anything wrong with the way you run your shop.

I don't either. But if I had workers, I'd try to accommodate them. Separate vented room or at least covered awning outside.

I'm not sure about sex addicts. A room with a cot?

[Danke]

You just made the claim that employers are government. So are you going to stand by that claim or back down because you realize it was BS?

Again, I'm not talking about the common use of the word. But the Legal one. An employer has employees. "Employee" is defined in the statutory code, a legal term.

[VIDEODROME]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fvpyo2WuVY

[bunklocoempire]

They may not regulate it, which they do, but they certainly influence it. From the IRS to the insurance policy which is regulation driven. You're fooling yourself if you don't see the connects.

Yes indeed.

Try employing an employee without your silent partners (government's) wishes demands met. Your silent partner and your employee will both come looking for your head.

It's pretty telling how this silent partner that you never asked for or even approved of just shows up, starts calling the shots, and funnels $'s to their friends outside the business. Only someone with muscle and willing to use it can do that.

"Oh come on! I budgeted for this enterprises needs -not your wants! I need that money for Danke's sex cot! What exactly do you do around here anyway? Okay, okay, put the gun down, we'll do it your way."

[TheCount]

LOL. An employer in lRS code has employees, which work for the government.

No. Haphazardly combining cherrypicked definitions from multiple chapters of the IRS code does not a sound legal argument make, especially when each definition includes the clause 'for the purposes of this chapter.'

[Danke]

No. Haphazardly

I'll tell that to the courts. It is just "Haphazardly." It has no legal ramifications. LOL

[TheCount]

I'll tell that to the courts. It is just "Haphazardly." It has no legal ramifications. LOL

You could tell it to the courts, but someone already did:



Arthur D. Ward was convicted of three counts of tax evasion ( 26 U.S.C. § 7201), and two counts of making false statements or claims to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Ward makes three arguments on this appeal. First, he suggests that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States. Secondly, he interprets the term "individual" within the Internal Revenue Code to apply only to those individuals located within this jurisdiction of the United States. Ward reaches this twisted conclusion by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words "state" or "United States" to "include" United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word "include" as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. Finally, Ward maintains that the only persons expressly and statutorily liable for income tax are the withholding agents of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

We find each of appellant's contentions to be utterly without merit.



https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-ward-27

[LibertyEsq]

I just want to point out that Danke's definition of "employee" has absolutely no basis, even in the source he cites.

The IRS defines "Employee" in a certain way for the purposes of its code. How that translates to meaning everyone listed within that definition works for the government is beyond me...

I don't even want to get into the incredibly long list of different treatment of public and private employees in the law, and if I'm reading Danke's post right he seems to suggest every employee is a public employee

[Danke]

You could tell it to the courts, but someone already did:

setext.com/case/united-states-v-ward-27[/URL]


First off, that is from the United States Court of Appeals, not the SCOTUS. And I fail to see how that addressed what I wrote.

[Danke]

I just want to point out that Danke's definition of "employee" has absolutely no basis, even in the source he cites.

The IRS defines "Employee" in a certain way for the purposes of its code. How that translates to meaning everyone listed within that definition works for the government is beyond me...

I don't even want to get into the incredibly long list of different treatment of public and private employees in the law, and if I'm reading Danke's post right he seems to suggest every employee is a public employee

It is a legal definition. That is what gets people in trouble.


Lets say you are an employee of a company in Germany, are you liable for the income tax?

So guess what, they have to define what an employee is WRT the income tax, and they have.


The common word usage is what confuses one as to their tax liability.

[LibertyEsq]

It is a legal definition. That is what gets people in trouble.

The common word usage is what confuses one as to their tax liability.

Let's just really quick look back at what you said:

Beginning with the incredibly smug:

i agree in concept. but do you even know what legally the term "employer" means?

And then the facepalm-worthy:

No legally, an "employer" is government. That is why the government can regulate them.

To the laugh-at-those-who-disagree:

LOL. An employer in lRS code has employees, which work for the government.

And then to back everything up and prove your point...you point a defined term in the IRS tax code which in no way states any variation to the effect of "All Employees (as that term has been defined) are government entities for the purposes of this title"

If I was drafting a contract, I too could define "Employee" for purposes of the contract to include "an officer, official, or elected official of the United States, a State, etc. The term "employee" also includes an officer of the corporation."

However, nothing in that definition says everyone within that definition has to be a public employee as opposed to a private employee. You can have public Employees within that definition (government officials) and private employees (officers of a corporation).

Unless you show me the clause in the tax code that says "All Employees (or Employers) (as defined) are employed by the government/are government entities," then what you said has no basis...

[Danke]

Let's just really quick look back at what you said:

Beginning with the incredibly smug:


And then the facepalm-worthy:


To the laugh-at-those-who-disagree:


And then to back everything up and prove your point...you point a defined term in the IRS tax code which in no way states any variation to the effect of "All Employees (as that term has been defined) are government entities for the purposes of this title"

If I was drafting a contract, I too could define "Employee" for purposes of the contract to include "an officer, official, or elected official of the United States, a State, etc. The term "employee" also includes an officer of the corporation."

However, nothing in that definition says everyone within that definition has to be a public employee as opposed to a private employee. You can have public Employees within that definition (government officials) and private employees (officers of a corporation).

Unless you show me the clause in the tax code that says "All Employees (or Employers) (as defined) are employed by the government/are government entities," then what you said has no basis...
Do a little research, I provided the link to back up what I posted.

[LibertyEsq]

Do a little research, I provided the link to back up what I posted.

I copied the definition straight out of the link you posted. Which was apparently written by an apartment complex manager who was convicted twice on tax charges.

My sincere advice to you would be to never represent yourself pro se.

[Danke]

I copied the definition straight out of the link you posted. Which was apparently written by an apartment complex manager who was convicted twice on tax charges.

My sincere advice to you would be to never represent yourself pro se.

Ah yes attack the job one held. Good argument. Why not refute the SCOTUS citations?

Most of us are aware the corruption in the system we live under. If you want to make that argument, no disagreement.

[Tod]

Read the whole book, but start at page 75 for discussion on "employee."

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf


http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee


Determining Whether the Individuals Providing Services are Employees or Independent Contractors Before you can determine how to treat payments you make for services, you must first know the business relationship that exists between you and the person performing the services. The person performing the services may be -


An independent contractor (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Defined)

An employee (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Employee-Common-Law-Employee) (common-law employee)

A statutory employee (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Statutory-Employees)

A statutory nonemployee (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Statutory-Nonemployees)

In determining whether the person providing service is an employee or an independent contractor, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and independence must be considered.
Common Law Rules Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:


Behavioral (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Behavioral-Control): Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

Financial (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Financial-Control): Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

Type of Relationship (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Type-of-Relationship): Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.
The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.

[Danke]

Another discussion on what "includes" means legally.

All terms, as defined.

See page around 55, but read the whole book to get an understanding.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf

[LibertyEsq]

Ah yes attack the job one held. Good argument. Why not refute the SCOTUS citations?

Most of us are aware the corruption in the system we live under. If you want to make that argument, no disagreement.

I'm not attacking the job or the idea of an apartment complex manager. However, an apartment complex manager who has been convicted of tax charges isn't my idea of an authority on tax law. I hope you didn't buy this book - seems like a good way for this guy to make money.

I don't see any Supreme Court cases in his "book" or anywhere else that would even insinuate that All "Employers" as defined in the IRC are federal gov't entities...and therefore see no need to "refute" said nonexistent cases

[Danke]

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee

So a Chinaman owes US income taxes, you can do better that this.

[Danke]

I don't see any Supreme Court cases in his "book" or anywhere else that would even insinuate that All "Employers" as defined in the IRC are federal gov't entities...and therefore see no need to "refute" said nonexistent cases

You did not read the book, obviously.

[LibertyEsq]

You did not read the book, obviously.

I have read everything you've cited and fail to see how it supports your original inference that all "employers" are federal government entities for IRC purposes, which is really just a ridiculous statement, and while I could write you a full memo on why that is, I'd prefer to get some sleep soon.

Not to mention there's plenty of material out there to read, and that I have read, on tax law, and works by this guy are at the bottom of my "to read" list.

How about we actually try to change the law instead of trying to manufacture loopholes that don't exist...

[Danke]

I have read everything you've cited and fail to see how it supports your original inference that all "employers" are federal government entities for IRC purposes, which is really just a ridiculous statement, and while I could write you a full memo on why that is, I'd prefer to get some sleep soon.

Not to mention there's plenty of material out there to read, and that I have read, on tax law, and works by this guy are at the bottom of my "to read" list.

How about we actually try to change the law instead of trying to manufacture loopholes that don't exist...

So in other words words you can't , you need your sleep.

[LibertyEsq]

So another words you can't , you need your sleep.

Well I already have, read my second post in response to you over and over again if you want to understand what a legal definition is.

[Danke]

Well I already have, read my second post in response to you over and over again if you want to understand what a legal definition is.

Oh so you are not asleep yet. OK show how the legal definition is wrong. With Supreme Court cases.

[LibertyEsq]

Oh so you are not asleep yet. OK show how the legal definition is wrong. With Supreme Court cases.

Work on your reading comprehension - I never said the definition in the IRC is "wrong," that doesn't even make sense. There's simply nothing in the IRC that says all Employees work for the government, regardless of the definition of Employee. And yet you so arrogantly claimed - "do you even know what the definition of Employee is?" - that "Employee" means "the government." Lol, Okay.

From your own source:

(c) Employee - For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes any 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. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

Emphasis added.

The fact that the general definition of Employee includes "employee...of the United States" makes your argument that ALL Employees are "employees...of the United States" just farcical. Think about it, logically, for a while. That would be superfluous. There is a canon of interpretation (established by SCOTUS for hundreds of years) against interpreting statutes to be superfluous. See e.g. Corley v. U.S., 129 S. Ct. 1558 (2009) ("[a] statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant"). That is just one argument among many that I could use against your claim.

From the actually relevant section of the IRC:

Subtitle C - [I]Employment Taxes

(d) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” means—
(1) any officer of a corporation; or
(2) any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee; or
(3) any individual (other than an individual who is an employee under paragraph (1) or (2)) who performs services for remuneration for any person—
(A) as an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in distributing meat products, vegetable products, fruit products, bakery products, beverages (other than milk), or laundry or dry-cleaning services, for his principal;
(B) as a full-time life insurance salesman;
(C) as a home worker performing work, according to specifications furnished by the person for whom the services are performed, on materials or goods furnished by such person which are required to be returned to such person or a person designated by him; or
(D) as a traveling or city salesman, other than as an agent-driver or commission-driver, engaged upon a full-time basis in the solicitation on behalf of, and the transmission to, his principal (except for side-line sales activities on behalf of some other person) of orders from wholesalers, retailers, contractors, or operators of hotels, restaurants, or other similar establishments for merchandise for resale or supplies for use in their business operations;

Citation: 26 U.S.C. sec. 3121

I guess these are all employees of the federal government, too...


but do you even know what legally the term "employer" means?

[LibertyEsq]

Look, I just found the definition of "Employer" in the IRC, which weighs even more heavily against the federal government being the universal employer of all employees:

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—
(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and
(2) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.

I guess "the person" referenced here, in the section immediately following the definition of employee, always has to be the federal government as well?

Look at section 2 for a minute - you're saying the federal government is the employer of every employee not engaged in trade or business within the United States? Like, what? That would make the federal government the employer of every foreign employee everywhere.



but do you even know what legally the term "employer" means?


No legally, an "employer" is government. That is why the government can regulate them.

[TheCount]

First off, that is from the United States Court of Appeals, not the SCOTUS. And I fail to see how that addressed what I wrote. It addresses one of three claims made on pages 59 and 60 from the CTC link you provided covering employee, employer, and United States. What the court found in reference to CTC's tortured logic surrounding the meaning of 3121(e)(2) also applies to 3401(c) and (d), which cover employer and employee.

[PaulConventionWV]

So another words you can't , you need your sleep.

Do you mean "in other words"?

[TheCount]

Do you mean "in other words"? Based on specific, ridiculously selected definitions of 'another' and 'words' I think he means a person other than himself had an argument.

[phill4paul]

This is why I work as a trade partner with other individuals. ;)

[ClydeCoulter]

While I'd like to see more people become self employed as well, the fact is that a good economy requires that something be done, that value be added to raw materials to produce something.

And as much as we'd like to, you cannot build 787s or drop forged marine reduction gears in your garage.

Building a "bigger garage" is how small things turn to large things. Like Dixie Chopper, or the guy I worked for right out of college in CA that started the largest cable billing firm from his garage.

Maybe I can't build many 787's from my garage, but I can build a bigger one, once I have it worked out, and hire people to help me. And, then maybe they will build a 9787 from their garage and put me out of business (and I'll retire happy).

Get government out of my life (your life, your kids life) and see what happens.

edit: We don't need a new iPod every week, we need new ideas.