If an employee doesn't pay taxes, then does...?

the company pick up the slack?


SBaur...but the emplyee doesnt fall under the definition for income tax, the company does.

*Taxed income would indicate taxes are taken from employees income.

*Income tax indicates the tax *is* income for who collects it.

Income is profit. then the employees "income tax" sounds like irs is collecting profit from employees pay.

Employee is not a business who has "value coming in" profit) because the employee is *creating* value for the currency they are paid with. The currency does not have pre-existing value like the currency a business receives for profit.

Update 2:

SBAUR, I understand not paying taxes can lead to trouble, I'm trying to understand the difference between paying the right taxes compared to paying taxes just because someone thinks they owe that type of tax.

As I mentioned already, "income" tax appears to be a "profit" tax for the F.Reserve collected by the irs. Not an actual tax on an empoyees "income"(as in Taxed income) because what defines "income" (value coming in) doesn't define the average working employees pay, because they must work or labor *first* before receiving any currency for their pay. They are not just randomly receiving pay as a business or company recieves(income/profit).

Could there be a misunderstanding concerning the use of the word *income* and who it applies to... a company recieiving value (income) compared to the employee who must *create* value for the currency he is paid with?

Update 3:

NG, share with me the meaning of income tax and also who the revenue is for, the irs collects? You may have before, but I don't remember.

Update 4:

NG, "not how the words are actually used"...are you indicating the use of the words may be different than the true meaning of the words?

Update 5:

NG, I guess what I am trying to understand concerning the word 'income'...what exactly is it that is coming in for the employee? What exactly is the tax charge attached to?

Update 6:

NG, Even though this is your profession, I respectfully disagree with you. I believe your answers are correct according to what you have been taught, but they are not truthful.

You wrote "income tax is a tax on income", I disagree because if it was a tax on income, it would be called *taxed income*, not income tax.

You wrote "income is generally defined as the amount of money recieved ....in exchange for labor or services" I disagree because it cannot be an amount of *money* because money has been removed from circulation around 1960. I understand the country has been in bankruptcy.

Update 7:

NG cont....you wrote "in exchange for compensation" refering to labor or services....Since money is not in circulation,there is no *real value* for an exchange. Someones labor is not an exchange for currency either, because currency is negative value (cost to make). We use the currency as the "medium" of exchange, it is *not* the actual exchange. The actual exchange would be the product we exchange our labor for, through the use of the medium (the currency).

Printed paper dollars are not *silver* dollars.

Value needs to be given to the paper dollars (currency), value from workers energy/labor. Unfortunately, our energy and labor is invisible, you cannot "see" the value within a paper dollar like you could *see* value within a silver dollar, therefore it is easier to dismiss energy and labor being the value.

If you disagree with me, please explain...

Update 8:

also..."taxing salaries to those who earned them", once again is describing 'value coming in'. There is no money, so there is no value to earn, the value must be *created*.

If someone is "earning money", then they are receiving digits or fiat currency already backed with someones energy and labor....and this decscribes what a business receives--> profits (income).

Update 9:

NG, Ok, I think I understand where the confusion comes in...... Since you would be the one collecting from the employee's pay, you would be recieiving, or you would have 'value coming in", so to you, it can be considered an 'income tax', but....to the employee, it cannot be income, because he is not receiving, he is "transmitting". His tax payment is the value 'coming in' from what you collect. This indicates you are collecting income.... tax, what you are collecting is coming in, or it is incoming, but it is the emplyees tax payment that is the income (or profit/revenue)

Update 10:

firefly, look in a legal dictionary Income defines profit

Update 11:

NG, You wrote "money has value because people want it and there is a limited supply". This sounds like you are teaching prior to 1933 when people wanted Gold because it has *self contained* value, and there was a limited supply. I'm not trying to sound rude but what you are writing doesn't match with today.You were taught what used to exist, but no longer exists.You were taught like schools are teaching...They want people to believe the country is not in bankruptcy.

Is the country bankrupt or not? If it is, please don't try to convince me "money" is being received as pay.

What limits the supply of the currency...ink? What limits the *value* of the currency--> labor.

Do people want labor, or do they need to labor? Do people want the fiat currency, or must they use the fiat currency?

Update 12:

NG You wrote "Income tax refers to the tax"....My response: The tax being collected is income for either the one collecting it, or the one it is being collected for.

Update 13:

NG You wrote... Since an "employees basis in whatever they do is $0"" The problem here is you are mixing leagl with lawful. Paper and numbers fall in the legal category, while living or human beings fall in the lawful category. The value of a living being's energy and labor is being measured in printed paper and numbers. And because of this, you cannot "see" the value of the live or human beings labor. The examples you gave in the court cases, gears more towards what is legal not lawful, meaning more attention is given to what is written on legal paper rather than the live being, the reason the legal paper exists in the first place, is the live being, not the other way around.

Remember, it is a ....*Criminal* Justice system.

Update 14:

NG, Fiat currency is NOT money according to Congress. If the value for the currency did not come friom labor, then why would the agency called the F.Reserve, sell us the use of the currrency if they could not receive it back with value?

I have come to the conclusion, because you are a professional in the field, you automatically assume you will be correct no matter what, but your profession is based on what is "legal", not what is lawful.Yo have plaed the value of digits/numbers and 'bookkeeping notes" over the value that comes from life (energy/labor), the reason why these numbers and notes exist in the first place.

Update 15:

NG...Concerning United States Notes being lawful money and legal tender...This looks to be prior when gold/silver could be redeemed with then notes, making them 'lawful money".

Take a look at the name on the notes, what name do you see? United States note or....Federal Reserve note?

Show me where Federal Reserve notes are lawful money...because it was removed from the notes.

Update 16:

A note is a reminder, not money. It reminds the individual they are owed (real) money. I understand the note was allowed to be considered for payment UNTIL the one being paid could redeem the notes for the gold or silver.

If someone is an expert, it may be more difficult to understand other than what they have been programmed to understand.

Update 17:

My apology to experts, I used words with unintentional sarcasm...Ill try to reword what I meant:

We are taught programs. Just like in school we are taught certain programs., so in a way, to me, as I understand, a program is "programming" our minds to "see" and think within that program, depending on the program. I try to learn without falling into any program .

Update 18:

That didn't sound right either, ill try again....I try to learn/understand outside of the program.

6 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Re: If an employee doesn't pay taxes, then does the company pick up the slack?

    No. individual income taxes are the responsibility of the employee or individual. While the business is required to withhold or deduct taxes from an employee's pay, it is still the responsibility of the individual. If the business doesn't withhold enough, then the employee is responsible for paying the difference.

    Re: ...the employee doesn't fall under the definition for income tax...


    Income does not equal profit. The IRS does not collect for the Federal Reserve. Once again, you are using words in the way that you want to use them or the way that you want to define them and not by how they are actually used.

    EDIT: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Anh1k...

    The income tax is a tax on income. Income is generally defined as the amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments. The taxes are revenue for the government. The IRS collects the taxes for the U.S. Treasury and they go into the general fund which is used by the Treasury to pay for government services.

    And, no, I am not indicating the use of the words may be different than the true meaning of the words. I am indicating that you do not know the true meaning of the words.

    In regards to an employee, an employee provides labor or services for an employer in exchange for compensation for that labor or services. The compensation, in whatever form it is paid, is income for the employee. The income tax is a tax on that compensation.

    “There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”

    Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).

    EDIT: NO, NO, NO. INCOME TAX describes the TAX. TAXED INCOME describes the portion of the person's or business' INCOME that is subject to the tax. In other words, income tax refers to the tax and taxed income refers to the income. This was explained to you in the link to one of your other questions. As one of those answers stated, you have a reading comprehension problem.

    An employee does receive money when they get paid. Since an employee's basis in whatever they do is $0, whatever they receive as compensation is income. Money has value simply because people want it and there is a limited supply. Your inane beliefs do not change that. You are wrong.

    BTW, the quote I provided earlier is from the Supreme Court. Here are more...

    “Wages usually are income ....” - Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).

    "...wages properly due them—wages that, if paid in the ordinary course, would have been fully taxable." - United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992).

    Then there are the decisions of the Circuit Courts:

    "Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

    United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).

    "In our view, petitioner’s wages are taxable as gross income..."

    Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff’g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);

    "Wages are taxable income,” and arguments to the contrary are ‘“patently frivolous.’"

    Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984)

    "Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional."

    Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)

    EDIT: Once again, you are conflating words, mixing up definitions and you won't accept that you are simply wrong. Federal reserve notes circulating in the economy are both legal and lawful. 'Money' is not limited to just gold and silver.

    This is not a forum for a back and forth discussion. You asked a question and I answered it. My answer is correct and accurate. If you cannot accept that, that only means you are delusional.

    EDIT: No, I don't assume I will be automatically correct. I know that you are INCORRECT since everyone who are EXPERTS in the field wouldn't agree with you. Like tax protesters with tax law, you think that you have somehow discovered some deep dark secret about economics and taxes that every intelligent person before you has overlooked. That is a narcissistic and delusional way of thinking.

    BTW, if think fiat money is not money according to Congress, then explain the legal tender acts enacted by Congress which created United States Notes which are fiat money and were also declared to be lawful money and legal tender. See 12 Stat 345. See, once again, you are wrong. Of course, that doesn't come as any surprise to anyone except you.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    I'm a CPA, and here's my thoughts -

    Nope. The company is supposed to withhold the employee's taxes to make sure that the employee actually pays the taxes, yes. This was put into effect because, before the system was set up like this, many people did not actually send their taxes in to the government. Now, the employer just collects the taxes up front and send them in. The employee is responsible for 7.65% of their income going to the govt. for FICA costs, and then an additional percentage for income tax when applicable. The business then matches (provides the same amount AGAIN) the employee FICA tax amount and pays that in. The government basically earns 15.3% off that one employee's income. But your business is only responsible for your half, or 7.65% of it.

    As far as the income tax goes (different than FICA), the employee can tell you what amount they want withheld from each paycheck. Sometimes it will be too high, other times it will be too low. If the person is off by too much (on the low end), they will actually get penalized for it. That is their responsibility. Not yours. Let's say they told you they were exempt, so you held none of their income taxes. But they lied! They actually owe the government $2,000 on average each year, based on their income level and tax form situation. The person could have made quarterly installments for estimated taxes, but you didn't need to know that. Or they might not have, and you didn't need to know that either. Either way, you are not responsible for their portion.

    You will get in trouble if you hold the taxes for your employees and then don't send them on. You basically have them on escrow, you could say, and you are the one is responsible for whatever amounts you withhold from their checks for them. So no redirecting those funds elsewhere!

    Source(s): CPAness.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • tro
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    of course not

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    No, the employee's tax debt is always theirs and no one else's.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    Of course not. You are responsible for paying your taxes.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    NGC is correct and you are wrong. Not because he assumes you are wrong, but because NOBODY THAT MATTERS would agree with your ridiculous beliefs.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.