PDA

View Full Version : Legal Prescident for Paying Employees in PM's



argonath
2nd August 2008, 22:35
Since Im new to the board, I didnt know if there was a previous post on this.

But, A Supreme Court ruling earlier this year validated businesses paying their employees in gold and silver, and performing a dbl standard.

1. Paying their salary in the METAL value of coins, while accounting their paychecks on the Face Value of the coins, ie... $1 Silver, $20 Gold

(This limited the amount of employer and employee SSN, MEDICARE, and Income Tax BOTH sides had to pay)

2. Doing this process also puts MORE gold and silver into the hands of people.

(Many of the employees would cash in their gold and some silver to pay their bills, while keeping the rest for later as prices rise)

3. A way for an employer to offer a retirement plan, where their employees are NOT bound by IRA laws, and over time, will simply pay Capital Gains tax on it)

Imagine this:

Company coordinates with a coin shop or dealer to provide BOTH the coins, and easy means of payment for them for employees. Company gives (example) 5 employees their paychecks in PM.

1. $3000.00 a month, in 3 gold eagles, and 15 silver eagles. Per the Supreme Court, since the Mint designates a monatary value to coins minted, the total W-2 form would show payment to employee of $75.00 per month.

The company would eat the spot+premium for getting the coins for doing payroll, since they would EASILY save that and more by paying far less SSN and Medicare liabilities.

2. Employees would pay far less income taxes (see accountant for how they would be taxed when they cashed in the coins at spot value).

3. Employees could feasibly hold onto their coins (paycheck) and choose to cash them in WHEN they wanted to, even making extra money if the price of gold and silver goes up after receiving them. Of course, they could lose money as well, but it is an option. Point would be to make sure to pay employees in PM's AFTER NY closes, and give them the chance BEFORE World Markets open 2 hours later, thus, prices are locked in for that period of time.

LOTS of possibilities, and thank you Supreme Court for holding Congress accountable for ONCE for something they are Constitutionally liable for.

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/blog/node/100

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25135

balou2
3rd August 2008, 01:06
There was a fairly recent (30 days or so) post on this, but thanks for the links. Interesting concept with regards to the income reporting piece with respect to the monetary value of coinage. Welcome aboard!

skijake
3rd August 2008, 11:25
Glad you posted this article. Looks like the Little Guy won for once, until you look at his legal bill. I'm sure the IRS agents and lawyers declined to accept payment for all their time since they lost. Or maybe they accepted their paychecks and donated them to the defense fund. When the Goverment comes after you time and money is no object. Accountability is a one way street with them. Welcome!

amadeus
3rd August 2008, 12:02
Only big problem with this is minimum wage, as discussed in the older thread. the only way to overcome it would be to pay part cash the rest PM's with just enough cash in the mix to bring your wage up to the legal minimum.

Otherwise, you would have to be an independent contractor.

Trvlr45
3rd August 2008, 14:07
Only big problem with this is minimum wage, as discussed in the older thread. the only way to overcome it would be to pay part cash the rest PM's with just enough cash in the mix to bring your wage up to the legal minimum.

Otherwise, you would have to be an independent contractor.

You're absolutely right, Amadeus I went to my employer about this and that was the first thing they said. "What about minimum wage? I really am a contractor except for the fact I'm forced to be an employee because of the IRS harrassing my employer years ago for not witholding resulting in the firing of a couple of employes before I ever worked here.

I'm going to them again with this and tell them just to pay me minimum wage and the rest in PM. The problem is they are so terrifired of the Gestapo that even if I prove it is legal they would probably still say no.

The funny thing is I have claimed exempt on my W-4 for 10 years and never have had any problem. As long as you pay for protection by April 15th there is nothing anyone including the IRS can do. There is no law stating that you have to pay quarterly statements. The problem is that if you make a lot of money every year the interest and penalties they would charge would start to add up.

I was just audited and when I called to discuss the balance the IRS said I wasn't making quarterly payments. My response? "It is obvious you people think everyone out here is rich and has nothing better to do than send you their money. I travel 340 days a year and my food bill is about $900 a month. I'm not sending you my food money." Their answer? Nothing.

Any employer that won't hire you because you will not fill out a W-4 the way they want you to can be sued and you will win unless you get a Communist/Fascist/Activist judge which is the only way the IRS ever wins in court. A high schooler could beat the IRS in court with the right information.

The problem is that the judges rig the proceedings in the favor of the Gestapo by witholding evidence from the jury and not allowing eveidence into the proceedings such as the Costitution, The Bill of Rights, the 3 previous Supreme Court Rulings stating that an employee is NOT liable for Income Tax and that the 16th Ammendment gave NO new powers to tax your wages to the IRS. They also won't allow the tax code into the proceedings. Investments create income and profit, not labor.

One of the reasons is that income is derived from profit not labor. Your paycheck is private property and cannot be taxed because you have the right to labor for compensation so you can live. Unfortunately, we live in a dictatorship and the law doeas not matter anymore and they know you can't afford to outspend them in court.

When you fill out a W-4 GIVING YOUR PERMISSION to your employer to take your private property (a portion of your paycheck) and send it to the IRS you are waiving your 5th Ammendment rights. NO ONE can force you to do that in this country. Technically, if you file exempt on a W-4 your employer cannot send ANY of your personal information to ANYONE including the government. That is violation of your 4th AND 5th ammendment rights. Try fighting it though. You'll starve.

Child support is the same way. If your employer tells OCSE to go jump in the lake and that they are not liable to collect anything you owe there is really nothing OCSE can do. Your employer is NOT a collection agency for rogue government agencies like the IRS or OCSE. OCSE is just another IRS in disguise. A ot of the money someone pays in child support NEVER goes to the kids it goes into the states coffers depending on the situation.

Unfortunately, your employer will either steal your money and send it off anyway or fire you because if they don't the IRS goes to THEIR bank and steals the money. Which of course, is also illegal. Their bank or yours can also be sued for stealing money from an account without a court order and there never is a court order.

Even if there was since there are NO LAWS allowing them to take your money to pay income tax they "cherry pick" them form places like Title 27 which happens to be for the BATF and taxes have nothing to do with alcohol, tobacco or firearms anymore than your paycheck has anything to do with Title 26.

The reason I think there is no public outcry over this is because of decades of lies and propoganda. Most of the people in this country actually believe that the illegal income tax they pay is spent on infrastructure. Unfortuntely, it goes straight into the private, tax free foundations and endowments of the Rockefellers, the Carnegie's and others who illegally loan our government our own money printed out of thin air through the illegal Federal Reserve because Congress lets them do it. It pays interest only payments on the national debt although I am sure some of it is spent on "other" scams that they can turn a profit on through the World Bank and the IMF.

As my employer told me, "It's easier to fight you than the IRS."

Scrap Metal
3rd August 2008, 15:26
While I do not agree with everything Trvlr45 said above...I agree that employers are intimidated by the IRS and the financial cost of fighting them. Also, many employers may not be interested in dual bookkeeping involved in paying minimum wage in a check and the balance in PM's. Most employers want less bookkeeping, not more. Then they have to send somebody to purchase PM's from a coin shop, or pay to have them delivered.

If word gets around that so-and-so pays in gold...that may attract the wrong kind of attention. Employees could be set up for robbery on payday. We had a group of people at a local factory that paid one employee to go to the bank every week and cash all the paychecks. They paid the fellow a dollar for the service. Of course, a former employee robbed the check casher when he came out of the bank. I am not sure that everybody wants to come out of a second shift job (into the dark parking lot) with a pocket full of PM's!

Trvlr45
3rd August 2008, 23:51
While I do not agree with everything Trvlr45 said above...I agree that employers are intimidated by the IRS and the financial cost of fighting them. Also, many employers may not be interested in dual bookkeeping involved in paying minimum wage in a check and the balance in PM's. Most employers want less bookkeeping, not more. Then they have to send somebody to purchase PM's from a coin shop, or pay to have them delivered.

If word gets around that so-and-so pays in gold...that may attract the wrong kind of attention. Employees could be set up for robbery on payday. We had a group of people at a local factory that paid one employee to go to the bank every week and cash all the paychecks. They paid the fellow a dollar for the service. Of course, a former employee robbed the check casher when he came out of the bank. I am not sure that everybody wants to come out of a second shift job (into the dark parking lot) with a pocket full of PM's!

They could just set up an account with the local PM dealer electronically and then you just show up at your leisure and receive your PM's.

Employers simply just don't want any of the hassle especially if it involves fighting with the IRS.

hiyosilver
4th August 2008, 00:35
Repost from an old thread:


"An easy solution to that would be to take minimum wage for the hours worked in check or FRN, then take the balance in 90% silver coinage. Just for the sake of easy figures, let's say one makes $10 dollars an hour for 40 hours, usually grossing $400 dollars per week. Then let's say minimum wage was $5 per hour. Let us also say (again for the sake of simplicity) that a 90% half dollar had a silver value of $5. Then the employee could get the gross minimum wage of $200 plus $20 in 90% silver halves. In this way both the employer and the employee would only be paying taxes on $220, also to the benefit of both."

Electronically as Trvlr45 suggested, or the employer could lock in at a particular rate with a bullion dealer on payroll calculation day, and pay the employee on Friday with a voucher. Then the individual employee could collect his PM himself.

I too think employers are too afraid of the government to do something like this, but if they were smart, it would pay off for them to get their attorney involved to work out the details.

If this did become popular though, I would look for substantial increases in capital gains taxes where PMs were involved.

balou2
4th August 2008, 01:04
As much as I wish this could be a possibility, it'll never happen. I work in Finance, and the bookkeeping would be incredibly more difficult. Besides the assumed risk of actual PM shortage, there is risk of lawsuits from employees to employers if they cannot collect their pay-in-full. I have gone down the list in my head, and the number of risks and/or liabilities that a company would take on, would far outweigh the benefit, especially for a large company. That said, I wish it were possible.

Trvlr45
4th August 2008, 02:47
As much as I wish this could be a possibility, it'll never happen. I work in Finance, and the bookkeeping would be incredibly more difficult. Besides the assumed risk of actual PM shortage, there is risk of lawsuits from employees to employers if they cannot collect their pay-in-full. I have gone down the list in my head, and the number of risks and/or liabilities that a company would take on, would far outweigh the benefit, especially for a large company. That said, I wish it were possible.

I have no doubt that what you're saying is absolutely true. I suppose that even if there was an agreement signed betwee the employee and employer SOMEONE would still find a way to sue.

I've always been a BIG supporter of TORT reform but I suppose that will never happen either. As Hyosilver pointed out the government would just pass legislation to raise capital gains on PM's defeating the benefit of it all.

pkrebaum
4th August 2008, 07:54
What would happen if you arranged to have a huge proportion of your pay (say 50%) put into a PM IRA ??? Any accountants out there know the answer to this ?

JaySpizzy
4th August 2008, 10:03
Original Poster, please provide links and sources for your statements. I have a close friend who is very involved in a very similar case as what you described, and the case is not yet decided. The case has been going on for years, and has negatively affected many lives. I have doubts that what you report is exactly as you report it, so for the benefit of all who are reading, could you provide backup?

argonath
4th August 2008, 10:45
Jay -

There ARE links on the original post, to the story and court decisions.

http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.php

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-09-30.htm

pkrebaum
4th August 2008, 14:08
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/5.08/reversal.html


and one of my thoughts:
Since the IRS has lost cases on the face value/market value issue, getting wages in gold or silver coin may soon become quite popular. If it does, expect two new rules from the IRS:

1) When gold or silver legal tender coins are paid as wages the employer will be required to report the type and quantity of coin paid to each employee (a W-2 for gold & silver wages).

2) At tax time you will be required to bring your little hoard of coins into the IRS office, where they will be counted. Any missing coins will be assumed to have been disposed of. If you've got receipts of the disposition, have reported it as income, and paid the tax ..... you're off the hook. If not .... you're off to prison. And don't expect them to accept "lost or stolen" as an excuse more than once.

argonath
4th August 2008, 14:40
IRS cant make rules.

In fact, IRS isnt even a government agency. ONLY Congress can make tax code laws, and it would take a constitutional ammendment to remove gold and silver as viable money.

IRS:

http://www.nontaxpayer.net/irsnara0.html

http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/irsnara.html

Second, Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that SINCE the IRS is not a government agency, they have NO power for illegal searches, seizures, or arrests. They must have a court order.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1331861/posts

THIS is why MOST seizures NOW take place by the DEA, ATF, or psedo Homeland Security agency... because the Executive Branch GAVE them this authority, and so far, the Judicial Branch hasnt stopped it.

skijake
4th August 2008, 16:09
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/5.08/reversal.html


and one of my thoughts:
Since the IRS has lost cases on the face value/market value issue, getting wages in gold or silver coin may soon become quite popular. If it does, expect two new rules from the IRS:

1) When gold or silver legal tender coins are paid as wages the employer will be required to report the type and quantity of coin paid to each employee (a W-2 for gold & silver wages).

2) At tax time you will be required to bring your little hoard of coins into the IRS office, where they will be counted. Any missing coins will be assumed to have been disposed of. If you've got receipts of the disposition, have reported it as income, and paid the tax ..... you're off the hook. If not .... you're off to prison. And don't expect them to accept "lost or stolen" as an excuse more than once.

Finally, a use for those feared Chinese knockoffs. Take those into the IRS office and if you owe the IRS anything let them have those.:p

balou2
4th August 2008, 22:31
What would happen if you arranged to have a huge proportion of your pay (say 50%) put into a PM IRA ??? Any accountants out there know the answer to this ?

There's no issues with this, since wages are withheld, pre-tax, for IRAs. It wouldn't have a negative tax, in fact, it would have a positive affect on your total tax base. If you have (in your example) 50% of your pre-taxable income withheld, your end of year tax liability would decrease dramatically. A couple other notes, however:

~ I don't know anybody who could afford to withhold 50% of their check. I know you're just making an example, but I would bet the majority of employed persons in the U.S. would have difficulty at more than 20%, and that's taking in to account the upper-middle class, considering that nowadays most folks (maybe not on this board) have a means of living that is proportional to their yearly salary.

~ Some IRA's have limits with how much you can contribute to in a tax year. Depending on the base salary, there could be issues, but again...I doubt many people would run in to this issue.

~ Remember, IRA withholdings are pre-tax income, so they are not taxed at the initial withholding. BUT...when you draw from them, you must take capital gains. Whether the investment is a standard IRA or a PM IRA, my understanding is that capital gains is calculated the same way. What I don't know is how the PM CG is calculated. For instance, if you contribute $xx.xx per year in to a PM IRA for 35 years, I don't know whether you're taxed on the value that it was worth based the personal contribution, or the value of the PM at the time of investment. What I do know is that you'd pay capital gains on the appreciation of the PM.

Don't take my word for it. I'm a Finance guy, but not a Tax or Investment Accountant.