NCPs Demand "No Taxation by Misrepresentation"
January 28, 2003
Jim Untershine
John Snow is expected to be appointed by President Bush to fill the Secretary
of Treasury Cabinet post. Allegations of a misdemeanor traffic violation and a
frivolous family law proceeding may be the only thing standing in Snow's way. \1
More than 12 million noncustodial parents (NCP) across the nation are on the
edge of their seat in anticipation of the events that may follow.
"No taxation by misrepresentation" may be the credo of this new
family law tea party. Provoked by this new age of accountability, John Snow may
immediately take action to stop the extermination of taxpayers paying child
support and identify the various forms of fraud used against them. Snow is an
NCP and father of 2 children involving the state of Maryland. This family law
insight may motivate his attempt to snatch heterosexual taxpayers, who dare to
raise children, from the jaws of family law genocide. \2
John Snow may have the clarity to identify the ways and means by which
implements of our own creation are being used as a weapon of mass destruction
us. John Snow may identify the fraudulent reporting of the financial demands
forced on NCPs to the US House Ways and Means Committee and invoke a form of
legal dogma by demanding that our legislators "Make it accurate, or make it
law". John Snow may demand that states enforce federal laws that protect
taxpayers who pay child support from unscrupulous employers, thereby insuring
the president's new welfare reform package is a "saving grace" rather
than a "coup de grāce".
Every NCP, who is Secretary of the Treasury Department, controls the
following agencies * The Internal Revenue Service \3 provides American taxpayers
with top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax
responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.
* The U.S. Secret Service \4 protects our nation's leaders, visiting world
leaders, national special security events, and the integrity of the nation's
currency and financial systems. * The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
\5 supports law enforcement investigative efforts and fosters interagency and
global cooperation against domestic and international financial crimes; and to
provide U.S. policy makers with strategic analyses of domestic and worldwide
money laundering developments, trends and patterns.
Every NCP, who pays child support, is a victim of consumer fraud, \6 Every CP
who receives child support is guilty of tax evasion. NCPs must pay income tax on
the money they earn to pay child support. The children have no legal right to
the money paid for their support. The money that is paid to the CP for child
support, which is not used to support the children, becomes tax-free income to
the CP.
Every NCP, who pays child support, pays the same taxes as any other taxpayer.
These taxes are used to pay for families on welfare (TANF) and the operating
costs of Child Support Enforcement (CSE). NCPs are not only required to pay the
TANF benefit amount to keep the family off of the welfare roles, they are forced
to pay more. The amount of child support that exceeds the TANF benefits paid to
a family on welfare should be recognized as a new version of alimony. Alimony is
income received by the CP and must be tax deductible by the NCP. The following
alimony data is the result of subtracting the AllLaw.com interstate child
support guidelines from the interstate TANF benefits ($4,400/mo NCP net income).
\7 \8
* The average alimony across states is $240/mo for 1 child, $421/mo for 2,
and $529/mo for 3. * Georgia leads the nation demanding $776/mo alimony
regarding 1 child. * California leads the nation demanding $947/mo alimony
regarding 2 children. * California leads the nation demanding $1,212/mo alimony
regarding 3 children.
Every NCP, who doesn't pay child support, doesn't pay taxes. The taxpayers
must foot the bill for supporting this NCP's family. The financial demands that
are imposed on a NCP depend on that state's child support guideline. The data
provided above might lead one to believe that Georgia and California are leading
the nation in eliminating taxpayers by driving NCPs into financial insolvency.
Many taxpayers may agree that a state's child support guideline should equal the
TANF benefits to give the NCP every chance to continue to pay taxes as well as
keep their family off of the welfare roles. Believe it or not, that is exactly
what our lawmakers are being told by the Institute for Family and Social
Responsibility (FASR). \9 The following alimony data is the result of
subtracting the FASR interstate child support guidelines from the interstate
TANF benefits (regarding 2 children). \7 \10
* The average alimony across states is $-42/mo (negative alimony reflects
child support demanded is less than TANF benefits) * Indiana leads the nation
demanding $323/mo alimony (FASR is based out of the University of Indiana at
Bloomington). * California ranks 25th in the nation demanding $-43/mo alimony *
Alaska is last in the nation demanding $-555/mo alimony
Every NCP, who doesn't pay child support, is unemployed. Garnishing NCP
unemployment benefits will not keep the CP off of the welfare roles. Some states
may be guilty of eliminating taxpayers by denying the NCP federal protection
regarding employer discrimination due to the existence of child support
garnishments \11 that is padded with this new version of alimony. NCPs can have
as much as 65% of their gross income garnished by an employer regarding child
support obligations. \12 An NCP who suffers a 65% pay cut may not maintain the
same level of productivity. The employer may "see the writing on the
wall" regarding this unfortunate employee, who was thrown to the family law
wolves, and expedite this NCP's termination. Upon termination of employment, the
NCP's income now becomes imputed with regard to child support obligations, and
the arrearage plus interest continues to grow which exiles this NCP to
self-employment. NCPs take great comfort in the fact that the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) does not do the same.
Jim Untershine
_________________________________________________________________
Citations:
\1 "White House standing by Snow nomination for Treasury job despite
revelations of DUI arrest, child-support dispute", Martin Crutsinger, AP
Economics Writer, 01-22-03, >>>>
\2 USC 18 1091 - "Genocide"
(a) Basic Offense. - Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in
a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to
destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or
religious group as such -
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the
group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the
physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; or attempts to
do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
\3 >>>>
\4 >>>>
\5 >>>>
\6 USC 15 1666 b3 - "Correction of billing errors", "Billing
error" (3) A reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by
the obligor or his designee or not delivered to the obligor or his designee in
accordance with the agreement made at the time of a transaction.
\7 TANF benefits across all states was extracted from Table 7-9 of the US
House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2000 Greenbook, Section
7, entitled "Maximum Combined TANF And Food Stamp Benefit For Families Of
One To Six Persons, January 1, 2000", >>>> Food stamp
calculations assume that the family does not receive an excess shelter
deduction. In very low benefit States, combined benefits shown reflect the
maximum food stamp allotment for the family size, but in some States the excess
shelter deduction would increase food stamps (by up to $83 monthlymore in Alaska
and Hawaii). Calculations assume a single-parent family with no earned income
and use normal rounding rules. Table prepared by the Congressional Research
Service.
\8 Interstate child support guideline data was obtained from AllLaw.com and
assumes 0% custody, $4,400/mo NCP net income (Vermont and New Hampshire are not
included in the analysis since you must pay to find out how much you would owe
in these states), http://alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/
\9 The Institute for Family and Social Responsibility, Maurine Pirog-Good,
based at the University of Indiana at Bloomington, and is paid by the federal
government to operate as the clearinghouse for child support enforcement
statistics, http://www.spea.indiana.edu/fasr/
\10 Interstate child support guideline data was obtained from Table 8-2 of
the US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means 2000 Greenbook,
Section 8, entitled "Amount Of Child Support Awarded By State Guidelines In
Various Cases", >>>> Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers (1997) have
examined the differences in child support guidelines across States. Their
approach was to define five hypothetical cases of custodial mothers and
noncustodial fathers that capture a range of differences in income, expenses,
and other factors that influence the amount of child support payments computed
under the guidelines adopted by the various States. State 1997 guidelines were
then applied to each of the five cases to compute the amount of child support
that would be due. In each of the five cases, the mother and father are
divorced. The father lives alone while the mother lives with the couples' two
children, ages 7 and 13. The father pays union dues of $30 per month and health
insurance for the children of $25 per month. The mother incurs monthly
employment-related child care expenses of $150. The income of the father and
mother that is entitled "Case D" specifies a father = $4,400/mo and a
mother = $1,760/mo.
\11 USC 42 666 b6Di - "Requirement Of Statutorily Prescribed Procedures
To Improve Effectiveness Of Child Support Enforcement", "Withholding
from income of amounts payable as support"
(D) Provision must be made for the imposition of a fine against any employer
who -(i) discharges from employment, refuses to employ, or takes disciplinary
action against any noncustodial parent subject to income withholding required by
this subsection because of the existence of such withholding and the obligations
or additional obligations which it imposes upon the employer.
\12 USC 15 1673 b2B - "Restriction on garnishment" (B) where such
individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in
clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that
week; except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for
any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55
per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be
65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to
garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior
to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13
years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently
using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the teachings of Henry David
Thoreau (civil disobedience) to expose Family Law in California as the
exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual
taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country. Visit his website here.
http://www.geocities.com/gndzerosrv/
