Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

W-4 Form FRN Connection?

Any topic relate to Taxation, State, Federal etc.

W-4 Form FRN Connection?

Postby Jethro! » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:16 pm

mertensv16 wrote:
Jethro! wrote:"How do you know when you've whooped a lawyer? He goes silent."


He goes silent because he doesn't suffer fools gladly and gets tired of explaining tax law to idiots.

Nice cover story. At present, with 1,755 posts and counting on this forum, you're obviously not "tired" of anything here. Just selective with what you respond to, which speaks volumes.
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 227 time
Have thanks: 201 time

 

Re: W-4 Form

Postby Jethro! » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:38 am

mertensv16 wrote:
Jethro! wrote:"IRS" has no brain, eyes, or hands to affirm any purported debt.


It can affirm a debt just as well as any other organization to whom money is owed -- through its human agents.

And what makes this "human agent" and "agent" on relation to me?
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 227 time
Have thanks: 201 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby palani » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:23 am

BOBT12 wrote: Hear this, I don't fall under the IRC, or the imbeciles at the IRS

You use their MONEY. You DO fall under their rules.

Ostriches bury their heads in the sand and leave their butts out in clear view too.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:55 am

palani wrote:
BOBT12 wrote: Hear this, I don't fall under the IRC, or the imbeciles at the IRS

You use their MONEY. You DO fall under their rules.

Ostriches bury their heads in the sand and leave their butts out in clear view too.
Ah Geeze not that idiotic argument again.
Your mother has a (v)agina
Prostitutes have a (v)agina
Your mother is a prostitute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... pery_Slope
Last edited by Nunya_Bizness on Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 132 time
Have thanks: 58 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby palani » Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:12 am

Nunya_Bizness wrote: Geeze not that idiotic argument again

Reasons are not arguments. Facts are facts. Ignore them at your own peril.
Nunya_Bizness wrote: Your mother is a prostitute.

Just because YOUR mother is one doesn't make mine one.

But you do make one valid point. If coinage wasn't involved would it be prostitution?

Generally the mercantile system is established so that a USE can exist in an environment of a USUFRUCT. The merchant has the USUFRUCT and is entitled to enjoy the profits from his inventory as well as the USE of that inventory. Someone who deals in powerboats might have the USUFRUCT of 20 of them and might take any of them out on the ocean any time he likes. This is the USE portion. He might also sell any of them for either a profit (his enjoyment) or a loss (not so enjoyable). USUFRUCT is the sum total of USE + profit/potential loss.

The employee has a W-2 or W-4 on file because he only has the USUFRUCT of his labor. In this society there is no actual ownership. You voluntarily submit to slavery/servitude or you get to starve.

Reporting loss on a 1040 form is a benefit.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:27 pm

[quote="palani"][quote="Nunya_Bizness"] Geeze not that idiotic argument again

Reasons are not arguments. Facts are facts. Ignore them at your own peril.
[quote="Nunya_Bizness"] Your mother is a prostitute.

Just because YOUR mother is one doesn't make mine one.

But you do make one valid point. If coinage wasn't involved would it be prostitution?

Generally the mercantile system is established so that a USE can exist in an environment of a USUFRUCT. The merchant has the USUFRUCT and is entitled to enjoy the profits from his inventory as well as the USE of that inventory. Someone who deals in powerboats might have the USUFRUCT of 20 of them and might take any of them out on the ocean any time he likes. This is the USE portion. He might also sell any of them for either a profit (his enjoyment) or a loss (not so enjoyable). USUFRUCT is the sum total of USE + profit/potential loss.

The employee has a W-2 or W-4 on file because he only has the USUFRUCT of his labor. In this society there is no actual ownership. You voluntarily submit to slavery/servitude or you get to starve.

Reporting loss on a 1040 form is a benefit.

I should know better by now than to think that there are people on this forum that do not need to be hand held (BTW I thought you told Bobt12 to remove you and every post you've made from this forum)
I also see that the puritans of this forum seem to think there is something wrong with the word (v)agina and needed to sensor my above post.
:roll: And because of that you were willing to take the childish stance that I said that your mother is a prostitute, without recognizing that I was only showing another slippery slope fallacy like you are using.
Since you and many others on this forum are incapable of clicking on a hyperlink, it seems that one needs to spell out every last detail,,yeah yeah I know it's hard to think.
Your argument is what's known by the logical fallacy describes as

The slippery slope
(also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)

Definition: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

Logical Form:

If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!

Example #1:

We cannot unlock our child from the closet because if we do, she will want to roam the house. If we let her roam the house, she will want to roam the neighborhood. If she roams the neighborhood, she will get picked up by a stranger in a van, who will sell her in a *** slavery ring in some other country. Therefore, we should keep her locked up in the closet.

Explanation: In this example, it starts out with reasonable effects to the causes. For example, yes, if the child is allowed to go free in her room, she would most likely want to roam the house -- 95% probability estimate[1]. Sure, if she roams the house, she will probably want the freedom of going outside, but not necessarily “roaming the neighborhood”, but let’s give that a probability of say 10%. Now we start to get very improbable. The chances of her getting picked up by a stranger (.05%) in a van (35%) to sell her into *** slavery (.07%) in another country (40%) is next to nothing when you do all the math:

.95 x .10 x .0005 x .35 x .0007 x .4 = about 1 in 25,000,000.

Morality and legality aside, is it really worth it to keep a child locked in a closet based on those odds?

Example #2:

If you accept that the story of Adam and Eve was figurative, then you will do the same for most of the Old Testament stories of similar literary styles. Once you are there, the New Testament and the story of Jesus does not make sense, which will lead you to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a “spiritual” one. Once you accept that, you won’t be a Christian anymore; you will be a dirty atheist, then you will have no morals and start having *** with animals of a barnyard nature. So you better take the story of Adam and Eve literally, before the phrase, “that chicken looks delicious”, takes on a whole new meaning.

Explanation: Accepting the story of Adam and Eve as figurative rarely (it is sad that I cannot confidently say “never”) leads to bestiality.

Exception: When a chain of events has an inevitable cause and effect relationship, as in a mathematical, logical, or physical certainty, it is not a fallacy.

Tip: The concept of a “bad day” is part of this fallacy. You wake up in the morning, and you discover that you are out of coffee. From there, you fallaciously reason that this means you will be grumpy, late for work, then behind all day in work, then have to stay late, then miss dinner with the family, then cause more friction at home, etc. This is only true if you act it out as if it is true. Of course, with an already bad attitude, you look back on the day, block out the good and wallow in the bad, just so you can tell yourself, that you were right all along about having a “bad day”.

Don’t let that happen.

References:

Walton, D. N. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Clarendon Press.

[1] I am basing these estimates on my best guess... this is not meant to be an accurate study on child abduction, just an illustration of how odds work in the fallacy.
Just because one uses the acceptable currency used by most merchants and most of the people of a culture or geographical area does not make one "fall under their rules." :nono: :roll:

If one were to use your line of logical fallacy.
If I and someone else decided to use rupies as a medium of exchange, then that would make me and the someone else under the rules of Shigeru Miyamoto and the legend of Zelda. :roll:
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 132 time
Have thanks: 58 time
Top

Re: W-4 Form

Postby palani » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:30 am

Nunya_Bizness wrote:Your argument is what's known by the logical fallacy describes as[/color][/b]
The slippery slope
(also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)

Definition: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

Logical Form:

If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!


Rudimentary logic based upon fallacies is not the entire universe of all logic. I suggest you look to root cause analysis instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis
For example, imagine a fictional segment of students who received poor testing scores. After initial investigation, it was verified that students taking tests in the final period of the school day got lower scores. Further investigation revealed that late in the day, the students lacked ability to focus. Even further investigation revealed that the reason for the lack of focus was hunger. So, the root cause of the poor testing scores was hunger, remedied by moving the testing time to soon after lunch.


Ask yourself if you would have a tax problem in the present society if you had no money. Then understand that Roosevelt denied the existence of money to fix the problem of a society that had none to begin with. Now understand that nothing much has changed since Roosevelt's time. And now in the present day you get to certify under penalty of perjury that you actually have made money and am willing to part with a portion of that money.

Now ask yourself who is on that slippery slope. You or me.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby palani » Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:59 pm

Nunya_Bizness wrote: (BTW I thought you told Bobt12 to remove you and every post you've made from this forum)

Just because an offer is made doesn't mean acceptance automatically follows.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby BOBT12 » Mon May 01, 2017 2:40 pm

palani wrote:
Nunya_Bizness wrote: (BTW I thought you told Bobt12 to remove you and every post you've made from this forum)

Just because an offer is made doesn't mean acceptance automatically follows.
I am not interested in taking up this offer. However, I am making a new thread for this discussion.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com
User avatar
BOBT12
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 472 time
Have thanks: 170 time

Re: W-4 Form FRN Connection?

Postby imo » Sat May 06, 2017 12:28 pm

Palani wrote: You use their MONEY. You DO fall under their rules.


But do you use their money voluntarily? I think the underlying the presumption is that you use their money voluntarily. If you do not use their money voluntary then everything that follows it is wrong/ null / void ab initio. It's wrong to force people to do something against their will. In fact, one of the elements of contract law is that it must be entered into voluntarily else null / void ab initio. So the presumption is that you accepted FRNS as good money and where there is good money, the laws are also presumed to be good. The law cannot be good if the money is bad, so the presumption is that the money is good and the laws are good- because you voluntarily use it.

There is lots of evidence out there that the money is bad. It's not hard to prove.
Last edited by imo on Sat May 06, 2017 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
imo
Freeman
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 time
Have thanks: 12 time

Next

Return to Taxation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred