Someone who thinks w/holding is legit....

Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: Re: Re:WSJ editorial of Thursday, May 24, 2007 To: "Bob, thanks so much for your clear and thotful response to my WSJ letter. I hardly meet another conservative in a month, so it's nice to get it in writing that I'm not going completely off the track, on top of getting lots of stuff I never knew.. I blind copied in about a dozen hard core righty friends to that note, and also the TownHall Meetup Yahoo groups, a sort of blog here in Chicago, which probably has a dozen regular responders. From all of those recips, I got one note from someone objecting to my Social Security/withholdoing tax opinions: "I'm having a problem following your logic on 'No wage earner has ever paid a penny in Social Security Taxes.' I personally pay about $x,xxx per year in Social Security taxes. Yes, my company sends the money in, but they are sending money they withheld from me. The company does add a corresponding amount on top of what they have withheld from me. But make no mistake, I do pay Social Security taxes." and "As for income taxes, I pay well over $Xk per year. Again, the company writes the check that goes to the government, but it's money they have withheld from me. And in this case there is no matching amount on top; it's just my money. The alternative is for me to underwithhold (claim exemptions to which I am not entitled, for instance) to the point where nothing is withheld on my behalf and then the company would send in no $ with my name on them. It would then be up to me to make this up by April 15." The person that wrote that has considerably more credentials than I have in this area, but that point about 'underreporting' and paying up at the end of the year has not been true since at least 1985. If you're a wage earner, and you try to not have any taxes deducted, they're gonna do it anyway, and if at the end of the year, that refund gets too big, they'll penalize you (the wage earner) for underdeducting.Claiming "exemptions which you are not entitled" will get you a stiff penalty from the IRS, I'm sure. Bob, I was about ten years old when my Mother told me "Social Security is just a tax." It's only the last dozen years or so that I caught on to exactly what she was saying. But I lose friends when I explain this. A woman living in my building, recently retired, went just short of berserk: "That's my money, I paid in!" This is not even getting into the facts that as soon as the Feds started getting those checks from the employers in 1935, they immediately spent it on some hare-brained scheme or other (religiously depositing a 'bond' in some fund somehwere, whcih said "The citizens of the US will pay, in 20xx, the sum of....") And a local talk show hostess, Teri O'Brien (recovering attorney) has said more than once that there were two USSC decisions in the late 1930s that said no one has any clain at all on any of that money. So I know you're real busy, but I sure would appreciate your thots on this - I just find it hard to believe that only one person out of 20 who got that note does not accept my points. (Obviously, I didn't expect anything from the Journal, but that blog has more than its share of crabs, who pile on me all over the place on other items.) If that "it's my money" argument meant anything to them, they would have sent me similar notes. Arnie Nelson, on the Democrat-occupied west bank of Lake Michigan (Illinois 9th CD, repped by Nancy Pelosi's evil twin, Jan Schakowsky) PS Do you know Father Sirico (sp?) at the Acton Institute? I heard him w/ Walter Williams on Rush fillin last year and sent him (Fr) an email - I got a gracious response and a free sub to all their stuff. I stopped in their offices in Grand Rapids on March 27 (very nice)but was told (quite warmly) that they're lucky if he shows up once a month.

Illegal immigrnt/wholding exchange w/ big time lawyer

Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: Re: THConservatives - "I don't see why employees.... To: You're always worth reading, K, but this was just great! I do think the basic problem is the withholding tax system. The biggest single group of voters is wage earners (certainly not including the self-enployed) and most of them have never written a check for income taxes in their life. In fact, they are encouraged to make the employer pay more than necessary, and surprise! The wage earner gets the difference, in a nice little 'refund' check! As a result, most voters could care less about what our legslators do, especially if it looks like they're trying to throw a freebie to the public. If every taxpayer was forced to write a check directly to the federal government weekly, monthly, yearly, whatever, we'd see government shrink like a snowdrift in July. It couldn't be done overnite, but phased in (or out, as is this case) over 5-10 years it would change the country as much as this immigration baloney, but in the opposite direction! Who knows we might even see a strong movement for the repeal of the 16th amendment.

Another illegal immigration nasty to WSJ

Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:42:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: WSJ editorial of Thursday, May 24, 2007 To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>
Forty years of reading The Wall Street Journal has convinced me that you have the finest newspaper in the United States. The philosophies behind virtually all your editorials are a big reason for this opinion. So it is really depressing to see you go editorially berserk on illegal immigration, as these items from your Thursday, May 24, 2007 editorial: "Immigration and Welfare ".... In most cases immigrants will pay at least as much in lifetime federal taxes as they receive in benefits. "... most immigrants contribute payroll taxes for decades before they collect Social Security or Medicare benefits...." No wage earner (obviously not including the self-employed) has ever paid a penny in Social Security taxes. That monthly check representing his 'contribution' has been written on the employer bank account since inception in 1935 - that is, a tax on employers for each person they employ. Starting in 1943, the same is true to considerable extent to withheld employee income taxes. The employer is the one who writes the check every month to the Feds. If that check's not in the mail, it's the employer who could get jail, never the employee. Maybe in the beginning, the employee needed to cough up a little out of his own pocket at tax day, but that is more than made up for by the trick finally taught to the great majority of wage earners: deduct more than is due, so they get a 'refund' at the end of the year. So the employer must send in a bigger check (higher tax) but the employee gets the difference. "... immigrants who receive paychecks have their income taxes withheld...." Is there an echo in here? "Perhaps most important, immigrant earnings and tax payments rise the longer they are here.... Those earnings wouldn't be increasing if most immigrants were going on the dole. They are instead assimilating into the work force, growing their incomes as their skills increase." Hej, WSJ: Ever hear of welfare queens? Two more howlers: "Many of the Congressional proposals to legalize this population would not allow these workers to collect welfare until waiting up to eight years for a green card and five years after that." 'Many' of the proposals...? That means plenty of them WOULD allow illegals to collect welfare.... Waiting 'up to' eight years? Heck, waiting five minutes is 'up to' eight years. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com