| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2011 - 10:42 pm: | 
|
Doubled,
>>> That is an inaccurate statement.
My statement was 100% accurate as it expressed my understanding. My understanding may be lacking. Note also that I did not claim that they were exempt. The basis for my statement is my sister-in-law. She works for Dallas County Community Colleges. She doesn't pay social security. They have another, much better program in which she must participate.
Maybe those government employees who are not offered or do not elect an alternate program are left with having to participate in SS. |
Easy_rider
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2011 - 11:11 pm: |
|
I believe Jan '85 was a starting point for federal employees to be provided a contributory, (401k), plan along with a requirement to pay SS contributions. Some of my coworkers who had hired in the few years prior to '85 were offered a chance to quit the old system in order to take part in the 401k version. Those that were on the older plan do have a nicer plan if you remain with the gov't until retirement. Fortunately the more portable 401k version worked better for me. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2011 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Obama voters misinformed?
I just finished watching Media Malpractice, How Obama Got Elected.
Interesting documentary. It turns out that Fox News viewers are by far the better informed. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 12:07 am: |
|
Then why did you offer form 4029 as evidence for your statement?
Form 4029 is the form you fill out to claim the exemption under 1402(e).
Section 1402(e) is the code section that provides for the exemption.
1402(e) falls under Internal Revenue Code 1986.
IRC 1986 was passed under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which changed the name of Title 26 under United States Code ot IRC 1986.
USC Title 26 was passed in 1954. Hence the original statement about the 1950 line in the sand regarding religious organizations.
"(e) Ministers, members of religious orders, and Christian Science practitioners
(1) Exemption
Subject to paragraph (2), any individual who is
(A) a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church or a member of a religious order (other than a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a member of such order) or
(B) a Christian Science practitioner, upon filing an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations made under this chapter) together with a statement that either he is conscientiously opposed to, or because of religious principles he is opposed to, the acceptance (with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner) of any public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act) and, in the case of an individual described in subparagraph (A), that he has informed the ordaining, commissioning, or licensing body of the church or order that he is opposed to such insurance, shall receive an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an exemption may not be granted to an individual under this subsection if he had filed an effective waiver certificate under this section as it was in effect before its amendment in 1967. " |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 12:34 am: |
|
I don't get it, anyone who is a member of a religious order and who can explain to the IRS why they should be exempted is a valid candidate for exemption?
Seems like I might need to look into that! |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 12:40 am: |
|
I think it's something that you should be ready to defend if asked about it by the IRS. I agree, the qualification for the exemption is pretty loose.
I have always felt that the threshold for exemption was "ordination". That said, how a religious organization "ordains" people for ministry is very loosely and openly interpreted.
If you are a Decon or Elder, could you be considered "ordained". I don't know.
I'm not advocating it for everyone, but it is a legitimate exemption.
Food for thought. |
Oldog
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 08:19 am: |
|
Blake I can't answer on the constitutionality of the system for government employees.
I will say that my X inlaws are prudent and careful about spending, and other wise frugal
I dont think that the government retirement for the state of NC is all that grand.
personally I am glad that some one inspecting food, checking for harmful insects/animals being brought in to our country by careless lazy individuals
the destruction of the american chestnut tree is one example of carelessness
Gypsy Moths can destroy stands of timber in a few years, and have been brought in to the country by careless shipping companies. |
Swordsman
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 11:36 am: |
|
That said, how a religious organization "ordains" people for ministry is very loosely and openly interpreted.
Amen to that. Best I can tell, it's just a buddy system among Baptists, which leads to some pretty shifty preachers and/or totally wacked out zealots. Amazing what a lack of formal religious education can create.
~SM
(Message edited by Swordsman on August 10, 2011) |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Do you REALLY want the government dictating the inner workings of the church or any other organization of belief?
There are some wack jobs. They usually get found out in the end.
For every wack job, there are thousands of dedicated followers of Christ. Our church just ordained a friend of mine. He isn't formally trained, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone less "wacked out" than him. |
|
