I sold out my child for $30,000FRNs

[big country]

I've been feeling really guilty about this, so I thought I would come clean to you all. When our child was born she wasn't given a SSN (we declined at the hospital), well tax time rolls around and I find out I can't claim her as a dependent without her having a SSN (rat bastards!).

Well the difference is either we pay the IRS $500 (no SSN) or we get $1000 (SSN) returned to us. We don't really have the $500 so I took her to the SSA and got her a SSN for the money! I figure $1500/yr in returned taxes due to dependent status over 20 years is $30,000. I sold out my kid for FRNs. I'm a terrible person :( I rationalized it by saying she would just go get one in 16 years when she wants her first job so why miss out on having some of my $$ returned to me in the mean time....I still feel guilty about it. :baa :baa

[Cebu_4_2]

I believe they are phasing the child tax credit out by 2012 so you sold out for 1K

[willie pete]

can you claim a 20 year old child dependent? ...guess you can if they're a student huh? and not working?

[horseshoe3]

I feel you brother. Our kids do not have SSNs, but it is tempting. About the only thing that keeps me from getting them one is the thought that even by the time they are ready for a job, the system might be gone and then my efforts would have been worth something. Otherwise, they will sign up for them on their own and I missed out on $30000 per kid.

[po boy]

I've been feeling really guilty about this, so I thought I would come clean to you all. When our child was born she wasn't given a SSN (we declined at the hospital), well tax time rolls around and I find out I can't claim her as a dependent without her having a SSN (rat bastards!).

Well the difference is either we pay the IRS $500 (no SSN) or we get $1000 (SSN) returned to us. We don't really have the $500 so I took her to the SSA and got her a SSN for the money! I figure $1500/yr in returned taxes due to dependent status over 20 years is $30,000. I sold out my kid for FRNs. I'm a terrible person :( I rationalized it by saying she would just go get one in 16 years when she wants her first job so why miss out on having some of my $$ returned to me in the mean time....I still feel guilty about it. :baa :baa


Did you read the contract before you signed it?
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_7.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_7.html)

[Ponce]

Be as smart as my dad was and get her TWO Social Security numbers..........

[po boy]

igps.org/liveround/patriot/revokssn.html (http://igps.org/liveround/patriot/revokssn.html)


Why revoke your Social Security Number?

The Social Security Administration personally attaches to all persons with a SSN a regional jurisdiction by agreement and subjects the person to a foreign collection agent the Internal Revenue Service and a United States court of regional strict liability statutory power. Also, Social Security is administered by an unauthorized regional venue with districts, not de jure States, therefore there has been a false government created transition of persons from State sovereignty to a regional foreign territorialism under the unauthorized federal regional jurisdiction of the "United States"/District of Columbia.

The Social Security Administration does not inform applicants that they will be defined as an artificial person by agreement and statute (Title XI Sec. 1101 [a] [31 S.S. Act 1935); and thus they would become a "person" who only had privileges and immunities and no organic Constitutional secured rights to life, liberty and property, also see Section 1101.(a) When used in this Act--" (3) The term "person" means an individual, a trust or estate, a Partnership, or a corporation." Social Security Act, 49 Stat 620 at 647 (1935).

The Social Security Administration does not inform applicants that Social Security registration would reform the geographical area of the States into Regions and Districts within regions, not States, repealing all State boundaries and creating a fourth branch of government, not authorized, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. (Title XI Sec 1101 [a] [2] S.S. Act 1935) also pursuant to Title 42 State Agreement; the term State is defined as the District of Columbia and the term Governor is defined as the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Social Security Administration has no jurisdiction to involve any one of the several States Republics in this fraud.

The Social Security Administration does not inform applicants that they will become a subject of the District of Columbia (Title XI Sec. 1101 [a] [1] S.S. Act 1935) nor do they instruct applicants that as an child under the legal age of 18 they could not enter into such an agreement nor do they inform applicants that the Social Security Application was limited to United States citizens, which no one born in one of the several State Republics is at birth. Further the application had a perjury clause for those who are within the United States which anyone born in one of the several State Republics is not pursuant to Title 28, Sec. 1746 (2).

The Social Security Administration does not inform applicants that the definitions in the Social Security Act do not conform to definitions in standard dictionaries; and, they used a public office and place of trust and a superiority of knowledge to deceive applicants into joining. After careful examination of the Social Security Act, 74th Congress, Session I, Ch. 531, August 14, 1935, page 636, Section 702, Duties of Social Security Board, the term "Social Insurance" is used. "Social Insurance" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "a comprehensive welfare plan established by law, generally compulsory in nature, and based on a program which spreads the cost of benefits among the entire population rather than on individual recipients. The federal government began to use depreciating insurance programs to raise revenue for international operations in 1935, with the passage of the Social Security Act. The basic federal and state approaches to social insurance presently in use are: Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (i.e. Social Security); Medicare and Medicaid; unemployment insurance; and worker's compensation." Black's Law Dict. 5ED.2 724. Further, in 1938 in Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688, according to the Ashwander court, "anyone who partakes of the benefits or privileges of a given statute, or anyone who even places himself into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will, cannot reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts against the given statute."

The Social Security Administration does not inform applicants when people, as State Citizens, accepted Social Security they also accepted its definition of "person", and they too, then, are taxed for the privilege of Federal Employment and citizenship and state residence (Federal) through the personal income tax, state and federal. The people of the States were deceived by this act because the government violated the Preamble and law of The Creator. The government allowed the Constitution to be altered outside the bounds of the Preamble (Amendments 13-26) and thus the state Citizens fell victim to government over man instead of man over government.

Social Security (FICA) is a voluntary social insurance policy which, by submission, suborns this Affiant, an otherwise Free, Natural, Citizen of your state of birth into the Federal, corporate, jurisdiction same said as a Federal Employee or Employer, that has been created within regional concepts, under the authority of the United States Constitution, 14th Amendment, to divest the posterity of their birthright in the Statute of 1776 (The Declaration of Independence) and to reduce the posterity to mere subjects of the United States, in order to raise revenue for the cause of the New World Order, and, thereby, reduce the sovereignty of the several 50 States to no affect, as districts, in a scheme of centralized/international government through the national socialist scheme of the Social Security Act.

The Social Security (FICA) social insurance scheme is deployed to limit, by supersedeas quasi contract, my personam of de jure jus sanguinis "State Citizen", with intent, through misrepresentation, to impair, extort and divest me of my naturally-given Unalienable Rights, otherwise protected by the limitations and prohibitions set out in the Organic Law for the united States of America by requiring me through uninformed, implied and direct, consent (submission) to surrender or limit the affect of my personam of State Citizen, to accomplish ends wholly beyond the sphere marked out by the Declaration of Independence (1776), the original Constitution for the United States of America (1787), the Bill of Rights (1791) and the original Constitution for your state of birth.

The Social Security scheme (FICA) is a stealthy encroachment on, and an easy way, via government-controlled media blitz propaganda, to circumvent, the limitation(s) and guarantee(s), provided by "We the People", against singular centralized, international government, specifically, but not limited to, the limitations and guarantees against abridgment and subordination of my inalienable and Unalienable Rights granted by The Creator, as expressed and asserted in the original Constitution for your state of birth, the Declaration of independence (1776), as set out in the original Constitution for the United States of America (1787) and its Bill of Rights (1791), and, as earlier expressed and asserted in the Declaration and Resolves of The First Continental Congress (1774).

Participation in Social Security, a social insurance policy, and the agency (power of attorney) scheme thereunder, is an attempt by creatures of the government, or coparties, to compel one into a joint adventure, with regional (interstate and international) statutory implications, of an intragovernmental nature, in the unauthorized jurisdiction(s) that now exist by the United States, codified pursuant to declaratory Amendments not authorized for Citizens of the States, in the Constitution for the United States of America.

Only as an adult and not an child, and by informed consent, with full disclosure, can the government exercise an unauthorized intragovernmental authority over a Citizen, in the jurisdiction(s) of the "United States", outside the limitations of the original Constitution (1787) and the Bill of Rights (1791).

All power (right) belongs within the Citizen, to accept or deny control, in areas of law which are not within the jurisdiction of the organic Constitution for the United States of America (1787) and the Constitutions for the several States of the Union, that could pertain, or attempt to pertain, to a Citizen, as one of "We the People" of the several States, found in the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America (1787), which power (right) is protected by the limitations and prohibitions set out in the 9th and 10th Articles in Amendment to the Organic Constitution (Bill of Rights [1791]).
got to love those .gov benefits.

[undgrd]

I wouldn't worry yourself. It's not binding unless they consent. Hold on to the card, don't sign it, let them make their own decision when old enough.

[Heimdhal]

We are expecting child #2 in October and I have been mulling over this.

My first does have a ssn, because when we had her, I was unawares that it was even optional at all. Now my wife and I are discussing NOT getting one for the next kid.

The tax credit isnt being phased out just yet, its being cut down by half. Instead of 1k per kid, its now $500. I wont lie and say it doesnt help us, but at the same time its not THAT much money. So with the one kid with a SSN and one without, we arent really losing anything and we hope the kid is gaining something that the rest of us dont have.


I too have thought about the whole "well hes just gonna go get one when he wants a 'real' job" but my hope is at that point, hell either have listened to us and will have figured out the proper ways around that, or hell get one and its on him from then on.

I dunno, well see.

[Rebel Yarr]

at least it will be his/her CHOICE!!

[Twisted Titan]

500 bucks aint shit

Keep your Kid out the Beast system

JMHO

[mick silver]

just pay someone for a ssn like the taco crews do

[cthulu]

just curious, but what's to stop you from incorporating Business X and then hiring your child? If you own the business, isn't it up to you how to you pay out? When I worked in sales, they didn't pay me money but gave me free rent.

[still afloat]

Don't look at it as selling out , take the $ you are getting back and invest it in gold or silver boat anchors for "her" future.
Have that $30,000 be actually worth something when she is ready to take on the world on her own.

[7th trump]

I wouldn't worry yourself. It's not binding unless they consent. Hold on to the card, don't sign it, let them make their own decision when old enough.

Yep ungrd is correct, your daughter is innocent until she uses the number consentually. I wouldnt feel guilty. Your daughter has legal jurisdiction and right to use the number or not upon the age of 18. She can decide to impliment the number or not there after.

[7th trump]

500 bucks aint shit

Keep your Kid out the Beast system

JMHO

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!
Its consentual because nobody can force anyone to participate in a system that strips about 2/3's of the Bill of Rights out from underneith you. You have to surrender your Constitutional protections by consent, otherwise its illegal.

[cthulu]

500 bucks aint shit

Keep your Kid out the Beast system

JMHO

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!
Its consentual because nobody can force anyone to participate in a system that strips about 2/3's of the Bill of Rights out from underneith you. You have to surrender your Constitutional protections by consent, otherwise its illegal.


harry reid, that you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

[Twisted Titan]

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!


I will respect your line of thinking but I still strongly disagree with it.

But let says what you say is true ( get a number but dont use it till the age of consent)

Do you really think thats the end of it???

We live in the age of TIA ( total information awarness) and you believe that if you DONT use that information it somehow does not trade???

Your permission is not needed for them( the elite) to do what they do

But what IS needed is that you EXPOSE yourself to them.


You can shield your child from these Socipaths for 16-18 years if you dont alert them to their presence.

And that is exactly what I plan to do.

[beefsteak]

TT,
what you say makes a great deal of sense. I would like to add to your position the following info in my thoughtful response to big country:



I've been feeling really guilty about this, so I thought I would come clean to you all. When our child was born she wasn't given a SSN (we declined at the hospital), well tax time rolls around and I find out I can't claim her as a dependent without her having a SSN (rat bastards!).

Well the difference is either we pay the IRS $500 (no SSN) or we get $1000 (SSN) returned to us. We don't really have the $500 so I took her to the SSA and got her a SSN for the money! I figure $1500/yr in returned taxes due to dependent status over 20 years is $30,000. I sold out my kid for FRNs. I'm a terrible person :( I rationalized it by saying she would just go get one in 16 years when she wants her first job so why miss out on having some of my $$ returned to me in the mean time....I still feel guilty about it. :baa :baa


It is my belief that if you research this matter, there is a 30 day window at the age of 18 of your dependents where they can formally OPT OUT of the S/S registration system. Since I believe that to be the case, the adhesion contract--Social Security--which you signed her up for by getting a S/S number assigned to them for your tax purposes, can --at that point-- be nullified. I'm old enough to remember when the Corporation made parents getting a S/S in order to list children on 1040 taxes, mandatory. It was somewhere after 1970. We were allowed up until that time to claim as dependents for IRS purposes without S/S numbers being assigned.

That's the GOOD news.

The bad news is this:
The other primary adhesion contract which you've already unwittingly committed her future to the state, is your marriage license. All marriage application "fine print" gives "all product of this union belongs to the state." And if you did the 501-3C marriage ceremony, or the JotP ritual, makes no difference. You and your bride starry eyed consented in writing to this outcome.

I'm not a lawyer, just a reader on subjects that appeal to me. And I hope the above information assists you. So, forgive yourself, and see what you can do to undo the de facto marriage if you've had a licensed legal rep, be they minister or judge, and re-marry under common law, like our ancestors did. Joined Privately, with a witness or two, signing the family Bible for example, and from that time forward, represented themselves to society as husband and wife.. Great gma and Great gpa didn't do the "licensed minister" thing when they got hitched.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that there is an Ecclesiastical Law Practice that STILL grants married status by making public formal statements two regularly scheduled weekly services to give the Ecclesiastical Body "time to object" if there is any, and also do so publicly. If at the end of those 2 "announcements" of being joined together in holy matrimony and there are no also public objects, the marriage is recognized as done in the eyes of the community. One may need to research one's "preferred denomination" to learn the nuances of employing this Ecclesiastical "benefit." I've known of a few people who have employed this technique successfully in the last 20 years. I'm sure not going to argue they aren't married.

Hope this widens thinking, and reduces parental guilt. There's enough guilt already as parents, we don't need the state piling it on too, especially the IRS code.

[7th trump]

500 bucks aint shit

Keep your Kid out the Beast system

JMHO

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!
Its consentual because nobody can force anyone to participate in a system that strips about 2/3's of the Bill of Rights out from underneith you. You have to surrender your Constitutional protections by consent, otherwise its illegal.


harry reid, that you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Its quite obvious you dont understand how and what the income tax is based on do you?
You first must agree to earning a "wage"........a statutory wage called 26USC 3121(a) "wages" to be exact which is used to measure the amount credits you've earn towards Social Security benefits.
If you dont earn 3121(a) "wages" the person you work for CANNOT report a W3 to the SSA listing what you've earned. Its the SSA who inputs the W3 transmittal info (how much you've earned in the form of 3121(a) "wages") into the system.
When you go to file your taxes the SSA has already, before you ever get your W2, inputed the amount of "income" (aka Social Security 3121(a) "wages") you've earned for the year via the W3.
The IRS uses the W3 transmittal info that the SSA inputs into the system (same filing system) to compare your 1040 with attached W2 for accuracy.
Get it now?
Or atleast a little bit of it!

[7th trump]

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!


I will respect your line of thinking but I still strongly disagree with it.

But let says what you say is true ( get a number but dont use it till the age of consent)

Do you really think thats the end of it???

We live in the age of TIA ( total information awarness) and you believe that if you DONT use that information it somehow does not trade???

Your permission is not needed for them( the elite) to do what they do

But what IS needed is that you EXPOSE yourself to them.


You can shield your child from these Socipaths for 16-18 years if you dont alert them to their presence.

And that is exactly what I plan to do.



Your permission is everything.
They cannot apply for a ssn for you. And they cannot sign the SS% form for you either.
And nobody has pointed a gun at you to make you sign any forms either.
You are ignorant of the facts TT.

Heres an administration regulation that says volumes.


(d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number(1) Social security number.

Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

No number means no statutory "wages" ("income" wages) earned.
No number means no 1040 can be filed (no requirement anyway because nothing could be reported).

Heres a website of a friend http://kylehuwer.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/the-sixteenth-amendment-did-not-allow-the-government-to-tax-you/ showing just how many 1040 were filed in 1940, one year after the 1939 revised IRC code, that for the first time included people earning 3121(a) "wages" had to pay taxes.
The 1040 filing requirement jumped by the millions in one year (1940)

[cthulu]

yeah, I get yo







500 bucks aint shit

Keep your Kid out the Beast system

JMHO

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!
Its consentual because nobody can force anyone to participate in a system that strips about 2/3's of the Bill of Rights out from underneith you. You have to surrender your Constitutional protections by consent, otherwise its illegal.


harry reid, that you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Its quite obvious you dont understand how and what the income tax is based on do you?
You first must agree to earning a "wage"........a statutory wage called 26USC 3121(a) "wages" to be exact which is used to measure the amount credits you've earn towards Social Security benefits.
If you dont earn 3121(a) "wages" the person you work for CANNOT report a W3 to the SSA listing what you've earned. Its the SSA who inputs the W3 transmittal info (how much you've earned in the form of 3121(a) "wages") into the system.
When you go to file your taxes the SSA has already, before you ever get your W2, inputed the amount of "income" (aka Social Security 3121(a) "wages") you've earned for the year via the W3.
The IRS uses the W3 transmittal info that the SSA inputs into the system (same filing system) to compare your 1040 with attached W2 for accuracy.
Get it now?
Or atleast a little bit of it!



I get you're a pharisee.

[Twisted Titan]

TT,
what you say makes a great deal of sense. I would like to add to your position the following info in my thoughtful response to big country:



I've been feeling really guilty about this, so I thought I would come clean to you all. When our child was born she wasn't given a SSN (we declined at the hospital), well tax time rolls around and I find out I can't claim her as a dependent without her having a SSN (rat bastards!).

Well the difference is either we pay the IRS $500 (no SSN) or we get $1000 (SSN) returned to us. We don't really have the $500 so I took her to the SSA and got her a SSN for the money! I figure $1500/yr in returned taxes due to dependent status over 20 years is $30,000. I sold out my kid for FRNs. I'm a terrible person :( I rationalized it by saying she would just go get one in 16 years when she wants her first job so why miss out on having some of my $$ returned to me in the mean time....I still feel guilty about it. :baa :baa


It is my belief that if you research this matter, there is a 30 day window at the age of 18 of your dependents where they can formally OPT OUT of the S/S registration system. Since I believe that to be the case, the adhesion contract--Social Security--which you signed her up for by getting a S/S number assigned to them for your tax purposes, can --at that point-- be nullified. I'm old enough to remember when the Corporation made parents getting a S/S in order to list children on 1040 taxes, mandatory. It was somewhere after 1970. We were allowed up until that time to claim as dependents for IRS purposes without S/S numbers being assigned.

That's the GOOD news.

The bad news is this:
The other primary adhesion contract which you've already unwittingly committed her future to the state, is your marriage license. All marriage application "fine print" gives "all product of this union belongs to the state." And if you did the 501-3C marriage ceremony, or the JotP ritual, makes no difference. You and your bride starry eyed consented in writing to this outcome.

I'm not a lawyer, just a reader on subjects that appeal to me. And I hope the above information assists you. So, forgive yourself, and see what you can do to undo the de facto marriage if you've had a licensed legal rep, be they minister or judge, and re-marry under common law, like our ancestors did. Joined Privately, with a witness or two, signing the family Bible for example, and from that time forward, represented themselves to society as husband and wife.. Great gma and Great gpa didn't do the "licensed minister" thing when they got hitched.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that there is an Ecclesiastical Law Practice that STILL grants married status by making public formal statements two regularly scheduled weekly services to give the Ecclesiastical Body "time to object" if there is any, and also do so publicly. If at the end of those 2 "announcements" of being joined together in holy matrimony and there are no also public objects, the marriage is recognized as done in the eyes of the community. One may need to research one's "preferred denomination" to learn the nuances of employing this Ecclesiastical "benefit." I've known of a few people who have employed this technique successfully in the last 20 years. I'm sure not going to argue they aren't married.

Hope this widens thinking, and reduces parental guilt. There's enough guilt already as parents, we don't need the state piling it on too, especially the IRS code.



I got smart the second time around I didnt get "married"

[7th trump]

yeah, I get yo







500 bucks aint shit

Keep your Kid out the Beast system

JMHO

The daughter is out of the system until she consentually uses the number at the age of consent. There is no law anywhere stating that just because she has a number she must use it.
The ssn is primarily used to earn credits towards federal government benefits. She, like anyone, can refuse to earn 3121(a) "wages" towards benefits.
Read the law!
Its consentual because nobody can force anyone to participate in a system that strips about 2/3's of the Bill of Rights out from underneith you. You have to surrender your Constitutional protections by consent, otherwise its illegal.


harry reid, that you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Its quite obvious you dont understand how and what the income tax is based on do you?
You first must agree to earning a "wage"........a statutory wage called 26USC 3121(a) "wages" to be exact which is used to measure the amount credits you've earn towards Social Security benefits.
If you dont earn 3121(a) "wages" the person you work for CANNOT report a W3 to the SSA listing what you've earned. Its the SSA who inputs the W3 transmittal info (how much you've earned in the form of 3121(a) "wages") into the system.
When you go to file your taxes the SSA has already, before you ever get your W2, inputed the amount of "income" (aka Social Security 3121(a) "wages") you've earned for the year via the W3.
The IRS uses the W3 transmittal info that the SSA inputs into the system (same filing system) to compare your 1040 with attached W2 for accuracy.
Get it now?
Or atleast a little bit of it!



I get you're a pharisee.

Why do you even bother posting on a subject you havent an understanding clue?
If you want to debate this we can pull out a W2 to reverse engineer it to see why you earn 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" so you can see just what taxes are based on.
But I doubtfully think it would do your attitude any good because you couldnt cite the statute that authorizes the employer to mail you a W2 in the first place!

And no, I'm not a Kenite jew to call me a pharisee.
Very much German/Dutch with a smidgen of Fench..............three tribes of ten that went over the Caucasus mountain range to settle Europe after leaving Egypt.
Thats why being of white desent I'm labeled a caucasian.

[Heimdhal]

If you want to debate this we can pull out a W2 to reverse engineer it to see why you earn 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" so you can see just what taxes are based on.

7th, I would legitimately be interested in seeing that if you'd be kind enough to post it and run through it; either in this thread or a new one.

This stuff goes right over my head, but Im very interested in learning it.

[7th trump]

If you want to debate this we can pull out a W2 to reverse engineer it to see why you earn 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" so you can see just what taxes are based on.

7th, I would legitimately be interested in seeing that if you'd be kind enough to post it and run through it; either in this thread or a new one.

This stuff goes right over my head, but Im very interested in learning it.

I havent a problem in showing you at all except for time and I plan on showing you when I can find some time maybe perhaps tommorrow late morning.
Its not at all that hard to understand. Problem is theres been so many tax guru's out there (all in jail now) that they have all obscured it from reality

[Heimdhal]

If you want to debate this we can pull out a W2 to reverse engineer it to see why you earn 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" so you can see just what taxes are based on.

7th, I would legitimately be interested in seeing that if you'd be kind enough to post it and run through it; either in this thread or a new one.

This stuff goes right over my head, but Im very interested in learning it.

I havent a problem in showing you at all except for time and I plan on showing you when I can find some time maybe perhaps tommorrow late morning.
Its not at all that hard to understand. Problem is theres been so many tax guru's out there (all in jail now) that they have all obscured it from reality


Cool man, I look forward to it.

[Gangsta99]

Bottom line is SS or not if she is in the USA she is in the system. At least get the tax benefits for your kids while you still can.

Do any of us see a newborn actually becoming a slave in the current system 18 years from now when they reach adulthood? If you answer yes than you must think the current system will still be going strong 18 years from now and we know their isn't a chance in hell of them keeping the shell game going 18 more years.

Again claim every tax credit you can right now, hell photoshop some documents saying you adopted her and get your pets SS#s too.

[7th trump]

Bottom line is SS or not if she is in the USA she is in the system. At least get the tax benefits for your kids while you still can.

Do any of us see a newborn actually becoming a slave in the current system 18 years from now when they reach adulthood? If you answer yes than you must think the current system will still be going strong 18 years from now and we know their isn't a chance in hell of them keeping the shell game going 18 more years.

Again claim every tax credit you can right now, hell photoshop some documents saying you adopted her and get your pets SS#s too.

In all reality whats the difference if the system fails now than say before what life was like pre 1935?
Only thing I can see is you are still in the system and part of it even if it does fail and you will still be on the milking hook. Being out of the system when it fails you wont be milked.

[undgrd]

Bottom line is SS or not if she is in the USA she is in the system. At least get the tax benefits for your kids while you still can.

Do any of us see a newborn actually becoming a slave in the current system 18 years from now when they reach adulthood? If you answer yes than you must think the current system will still be going strong 18 years from now and we know their isn't a chance in hell of them keeping the shell game going 18 more years.


Exactly why I'm not concerned. Don't really believe this system will be in tact in 18 years. When the new one comes along, I'll decline and my kid will have to make his own decision if he's old enough.

[osokusmc]

Mine were born in hospitals, so they have been reported to the respective states by the hospitals. I did choose to not enroll them in social insecurity, however. I believe a day will come when I have to do mortal combat (is there any other combat?) to keep them out of government hands. This may come when I refuse to send them to government school and refuse to go along with the government run home school schemes. When this time comes I don't care how others judge me, but I do want my conscience clear throughout the battle. I can't pimp them to the government to be used as collateral for foreign debt, then turn around and fight to the death to keep the government out of their lives. I realize I can't keep them completely virgin to the intrusions of the government, but I'll try hard enough so that I can enter the last fight with a clear conscience.
I believe ptsd runs deep in people who do battle when their heart isn't in it, but not so much in people who fight for rightousness. If you expose your kids to the government for financial gain, what does that make you?