Proof that income tax on wages does not exist

[sratiug]

A temporary employment agency does not pay income tax on compensation for labor (i.e. "wages). They pay tax on net profits. While corporations have been granted the rights of individuals, they cannot have more rights than an individual.

A temp agency recieves compensation for labor provided to their customer. They then pay a portion of that money to an individual to perform that labor. They do not pay income tax on their total compensation. They don't pay income tax on the difference between the two amounts. They pay tax on what is left after all their business expenses are paid.

Applying this same standard to a "natural person", said person would be able to deduct all living expenses from their wages to arrive at a net profit before taxes.

I believe this is absolute proof that the income tax does not apply to wages.

Comments or rebuttals invited.

[steve005]

if you called yourself a company, for example a painting company, then do all the work yourself on a job you found, you can do the same thing the temp agency does, which is pay taxes on the after expense profits

[Zippyjuan]

The agency gets a fee for providing laborers. It is a company- not an individual. The workers are charged income taxes on the money they get paid.

[sratiug]

The agency gets a fee for providing laborers. It is a company- not an individual. The workers are charged income taxes on the money they get paid.

The "fee" of the temp agencies I have worked for is an hourly rate. While the actual worker is subject to income taxes on the amount received from the temp agency, the agency is not subject to pay income tax on the difference. They only pay tax on net profits. Can you explain why the individual does not have the same right to deduct all expenses related to his wage, such as housing, for just one example, as the temp agency most surely deducts their rent?

[sratiug]

if you called yourself a company, for example a painting company, then do all the work yourself on a job you found, you can do the same thing the temp agency does, which is pay taxes on the after expense profits

But you cannot deduct your living expenses, like rent, as does the temporary employment agency.

[Danke]

I would change every occurrence where you use the term "wage" or "wages" to something like receipts. "Wages" is a legal term that has specific meaning with regard to taxation.

[sratiug]

I would change every occurrence where you use the term "wage" or "wages" to something like receipts. "Wages" is a legal term that has specific meaning with regard to taxation.

Change it however you wish if it lets you answer the basic question. Corporation, company, or person, getting an hourly rate for providing labor is the same thing regardless. How did companies and corporations get special priviledges above real people. It is a very simple question.

[sidster]

if you called yourself a company, for example a painting company, then do all the work yourself on a job you found, you can do the same thing the temp agency does, which is pay taxes on the after expense profits

As an employee of your own "painting company", you will be
earning (paying yourself) a salary, on which you'll have to pay
taxes on. So, no, not quite the same.


To OP, watch "Theft by Deception" on google video. It
is boring as hell, but it goes through tax laws to prove that an
American citizen is not subject to Federal Income Tax. I'm not
a lawyer, so I can't determine if the piece is entirely accurate;
nor have I researched the matter more.

[Danke]

To OP, watch "Theft by Deception" on google video. It
is boring as hell, but it goes through tax laws to prove that an
American citizen is not subject to Federal Income Tax. I'm not
a lawyer, so I can't determine if the piece is entirely accurate;
nor have I researched the matter more.

"Theft by Deception" is a good video to help one understand how laws come about. But Larken Rose is incorrect with his so-called 861 argument.

[Danke]

Change it however you wish if it lets you answer the basic question. Corporation, company, or person, getting an hourly rate for providing labor is the same thing regardless. How did companies and corporations get special priviledges above real people. It is a very simple question.

They incorporated.

But if you would have read what I have written before, you would realize it is the activity that is taxed, not the person. Private sector receipts for labor provided is not the subject of the income tax on "wages." Period.

[gerryb]

They incorporated.

But if you would have read what I have written before, you would realize it is the activity that is taxed, not the person. Private sector receipts for labor provided is not the subject of the income tax on "wages." Period.

Exactly. If corporations are not taxed on total revenue, i.e. wages, neither are real persons. Period.

[Danke]

Exactly. If corporations are not taxed on total revenue, i.e. wages, neither are real persons. Period.

Corporation revenue does not fall into the definition of "wages." "Real persons" are liable for the income tax if they have "wages."

[ghengis86]

Corporation revenue does not fall into the definition of "wages." "Real persons" are liable for the income tax if they have "wages."

where "wages" is the renumeration paid to federal employees and its subsidiaries, right?

[Danke]

where "wages" is the renumeration paid to federal employees and its subsidiaries, right?

I am not sure what you mean by "its subsidiaries."

You do not have to be a federal employee to receive "wages."

[sratiug]

Exactly. If corporations are not taxed on total revenue, i.e. wages, neither are real persons. Period.

That's the simple point of my example. I believe it is a very clear and unambiguous method of proof that there simply is no income tax on payment for services rendered (wages for you and me).

[Zippyjuan]

As a business, the temp agency is not exempt from paying taxes. Businesses pay corporate taxes and individuals pay income taxes. Neither is getting out of paying taxes (unless their income is too low with allowable deductions).

[sratiug]

As a business, the temp agency is not exempt from paying taxes. Businesses pay corporate taxes and individuals pay income taxes. Neither is getting out of paying taxes (unless their income is too low with allowable deductions).

Wrong. The temp agency does not pay tax on the entire amount of compensation for wages as an individual does. They deduct all costs to provide the labor, including all their operating expenses, off the top. For an individual that would include housing, food, utilities, etc.

We still have no logical rebuttal to my assertion. Until you can explain the difference between corporate/business liability for taxes and individual liability for providing the same services rendered you are not addressing the question. How did businesses get priviledges to claim these deductions when individuals cannot.

[Deborah K]

This might interest you: http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

[Danke]

This might interest you: http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

LOL, I have tried. He doesn't want to research. Just keeps repeating himself.

[Zippyjuan]

Wrong. The temp agency does not pay tax on the entire amount of compensation for wages as an individual does. They deduct all costs to provide the labor, including all their operating expenses, off the top. For an individual that would include housing, food, utilities, etc.

We still have no logical rebuttal to my assertion. Until you can explain the difference between corporate/business liability for taxes and individual liability for providing the same services rendered you are not addressing the question. How did businesses get priviledges to claim these deductions when individuals cannot.

I did say "after deductions." Both the individual and the company may have qualifying deductions. The company is not taxed on the full amount it pays its workers but on the profits it takes in.

The company charges the firm hiring it a fee to perform a service. They are taxed on the profits they take in for performing that service. They in turn pay workers to actually carry out the service and they (the workers) receive personal income which is subject to the income tax. The price of labor is one of their (the company's) costs. The worker can be paid in a lump sum as a private contractor or paid by the hour but both sources of income are taxable. As a private contractor, the employer is not withholding taxes for the worker nor are they paying their half of the Social Security taxes- those are the full responsibility of the worker who acts as a private contractor. Both are taxed on their gains in the venture (which you could call income for both)- again, subject to their allowable deductions. Food and shelter are not deductable for the worker since they are not considered a part of the expense of doing business. Special clothing requirements may be allowed for deductions such as safety shoes.

[sratiug]

LOL, I have tried. He doesn't want to research. Just keeps repeating himself.

I keep repeating myself hoping someone will actually address the issues in my posts. So far I believe only one person has agreed with my point in the other thread and no one else has even responded to my argument. I started this thread to see if anyone else would like to respond to my points. If you would like to respond with something relevent, please do so.

[Danke]

I keep repeating myself hoping someone will actually address the issues in my posts. So far I believe only one person has agreed with my point in the other thread and no one else has even responded to my argument. I started this thread to see if anyone else would like to respond to my points. If you would like to respond with something relevent, please do so.

This was brought up in another thread and of course, in this one.

Corporations are not paid "wages."

You may wish to look at it in this way, but that doesn't make it so. As I have said repeatedly, "wages" is a legally defined term.

You are correct that private sector work is not subject to the "wage" tax. No argument there.

But you are attacking the issues using how a corporation is paid, and that is not correct. It is apples and oranges. It will get you nowhere.

[sratiug]

This was brought up in another thread and of course, in this one.

Corporations are not paid "wages."

You may wish to look at it in this way, but that doesn't make it so. As I have said repeatedly, "wages" is a legally defined term.

You are correct that private sector work is not subject to the "wage" tax. No argument there.

But you are attacking the issues using how a corporation is paid, and that is not correct. It is apples and oranges. It will get you nowhere.

It does not matter what you or the law says. If a person or a corporation is paid for providing labor, they are paid for providing labor. It doesn't matter what you call it, it is still the same thing.

My example is offered as the easiest way to prove logicly to the average person(without delving into convoluted legal statutes and court cases) that an income tax on money acquired for services rendered (wage for an employed person) is not applied to everyone since a corporation is a person under the law. If it is not applied to everyone there is the problem of why some "persons" and not others have greater rights than others.

It is also offered as a means of avoiding income tax on wages through perfectly legal means. Anyone could set up an employment agency that competes for labor by paying all expenses (rent, utilities, car payments, food, etc) of the people that go through their agency get employment. If all the money was spent through the agency there would be zero tax liability.

[dannno]

I think sratiug is saying that corporations currently have benefits above and beyond that of a person, even though they are legally defined as a person.

If a corporation can deduct expenses, then why can't a person deduct expenses? I have a car to get to work, I have to eat to maintain myself so that I can work. There is absolutely no reason people should be taxed on their income while corporations are taxed on profits. Unless, of course, you are a corporatist and a statist.