Our Low-Tech Tax Code 691
theodp writes "After establishing that nothing can excuse Joe Stack's murderous intentional plane crash into an IRS office, a NY Times Op-Ed explains the reference in Stack's suicide note to an obscure federal tax law — Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act — which the software engineer claimed declared him a 'criminal and non-citizen slave' and ruined his career. Interestingly, a decade-old NY Times article on Section 1706 pretty much agreed: 'The immediate effect of these [Section 1706] audits is to force individual programmers ... to abandon their dreams of getting rich off their high-technology skills.' Section 1706, the NYT Op-Ed concludes, 'is an example of how Congress enacted a discriminatory law that hurt thousands of technology consultants, their staffing firms and customers. And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law's repeal, it remains on the books.'"
There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when this law was passed. At the time, many large companies were switching to having huge numbers of contractors instead of regular employees. Uniformly, these companies denied any benefits, like health insurance. Job security was also lower. I personally did a lot of contract work at the time. After the law passed, the big companies were forced to hire most of those contractors, with benefits. I think this improved things generally all around. For some reason, full employment creates a bond of loyalty from the employee, and sometimes from the company, which is never there as a contractor. More programmers got health care. It was a good thing.
As a contractor, I was not personally effected, because I was an actual contractor, with multiple clients, self-employment taxes, and all. All you need to not be effected by the law is to be an actual contractor.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:1, Insightful)
What is to stop a contractor taking out their own health insurance?
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean 'criminal and non-citizen slave'?
Or 'is an example of how Congress enacted a discriminatory law that hurt thousands of technology consultants, their staffing firms and customers. And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law's repeal, it remains on the books.'?
The gist of it is that the 1986 law withdrew a special exemption for high tech workers, along with a whole bunch of other tax shelters (the law is most hostile to individuals that work full time using resources provided by a company and with supervision from an employee of the company, while claiming that they are a corporation doing contract work for the company).
Re:There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you on?
All this does is give the employee a false sense of security. The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.
Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.
Sounds familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: In an earlier interview, Tom Burger, the director of employment taxes for the I.R.S., said one of the agency's difficulties ''is that, and I need to pick my words carefully, Congress passes laws, often without asking us about them, and then tells us to enforce them.''
Translation: Politicians make laws without knowing jack about the consequences and not even bothering to ask those that could tell them what kind of can of worms they are about to open. And then they're too pussy to admit they blundered.
Sounds familiar? A law gets passed that should cure some problem with the economy and the only thing it accomplishes is to cause troubles where there were none before while the problem continues to exist.
If I get that right, the law aimed at eliminating the "fake freelancing", where companies pretty much forced programmers into freelancing instead of hiring them, resulting in cheaper labour for them and shifting the risk and insurance burden on their not-quite-really-employee. Now, that still exists, with programmers now being passed about like slaves by temp agencies where they enjoy little less risk or much more insurance while at the same time losing their freedom entirely, while those companies still get the cheap programming labour they wanted, and at the same time the whole deal also keeps those programmers that are good and sought after enough to actually be (really) self employed and successful at it from actually being this.
Sounds very familiar...
Re:There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time, many large companies were switching to having huge numbers of contractors instead of regular employees.
It's true, there were a lot of companies abusing the private contractor exemptions. Many were doing it blatantly.
But now it's a handicap. There have been many times I could have stayed on with companies as a sub-contractor but they were afraid of getting dinged by the IRS.
We need something in between the wild west days when everyone was a contractor and what we have today. There has to be a better solution.
Double-Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The more interesting part (Score:4, Insightful)
but it is rather apparent that to be noticed by government
Speaking of which, I notice an uncanny lack of reporting over this incident. It exploded across the internet, but not really through the formal news channels. CNN, which covered the plane crash of a fighter jet into a residential neighborhood for DAYS with live footage, etc, only mentioned the crash briefly in their reports and on their website had only one small link that took you to the story.
But oh God, Tiger Woods just farted so let's dedicate a good 25% of each hour to THAT.
It's hard to avoid thinking that the government somehow "asked" the press to downplay this, and the press is complying. Just like you never really hear about the WARS anymore... This is the New World Order. Hell if it wasn't for the internet, all the news we'd get would be about Angelina, Brad and Tiger.
Good luck getting it repealed now (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism. Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
Way to go.
Lower than what?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when this law was passed. At the time, many large companies were switching to having huge numbers of contractors instead of regular employees. Uniformly, these companies denied any benefits, like health insurance. Job security was also lower. I personally did a lot of contract work at the time. After the law passed, the big companies were forced to hire most of those contractors, with benefits.
I remember that too. That was during The Bubble.
And then after the bubble? Why most of those people were laid off. Only instead of being able to get by with smaller amounts of work the way mot people do, they spent years unemployed because they couldn't contract anymore and they couldn't find permanent work either.
I don't know why on earth you would say "job security was lower" because contractors at least always had a defined term of work and only in the most extreme circumstances would you be able to get rid of them even if you as an employee thought they sucked. Meanwhile at any moment Hammer Of Rightsizing could come down on you as an employee.
As for healthcare, there are a lot of people with spouses also working that can cover the health angle or you can opt to go with the catastrophic coverage (still pretty cheap) along with the tactic of setting aside something more than the $2-$3k deductible in a medical savings plan. Then you are covered for the big things but also can do the small stuff too if you want.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
This AC needs modded up.
Just because the guy hated the same things as other libertarians that does not make him less of a terrorist nutbag.
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, it's a duck law. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck it is a duck.
If you work for one company long term, doing what is essentially a full time position, then you are an employee whether you want to be or not and are entitled to things like health care and you employer is required to pay payroll taxes. It doesn't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency, and more importantly it doesn't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.
In theory it's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that's what they are, however in reality it's to close a tax loophole. Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax. Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government. The extra benefits for employees are nice too, but that isn't really the goal.
Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant(you know, changing clients regularly, working for multiple clients, or doing work that isn't standard 9-5 work) none of this affects you, you're still a consultant and you still get the pluses and minuses of that arrangement. If you're not really a consultant(more than a year at the same place, no additional clients, doing what would normally be a salaried position) then your employer has to treat you as an employee. This means paying payroll tax, health benefits, 401k if applicable, which is of course expensive. Generally speaking if this happens a company decides to either get a real consultant or get a real employee. If they make you a real employee it generally means a pay cut(since they're paying all those benefits) and essentially the end of the little consulting business you had going.
Now none of this is in and of itself a problem, people who were being exploited got their proper benefits, the tax man got his money, and real consultants weren't affected. The problem is that some people are either stupid or lying to themselves. They want all the stability and routine of a salaried position with the higher salary, lower taxes, and theoretical freedom of a consultant. Essentially they want to be consultants without incurring any risk. This, of course, doesn't work because the loser in this relationship is the government who gets fewer tax dollars, and everyone who does the right thing since they're paying extra tax to make up for you dodging yours.
There were a few problems because of people who really couldn't face doing either real consulting or real employment(which this guy seems to be one of with the whole slave thing) or who invested a lot of money and time into their business shell even though they weren't actually using it. All in all it's a fair law though, real consultants stay consultants, real employees stay employees, people who are in the wrong category get moved to the right one. Everyone pays the taxes they owe.
The moral of the story is that consultants get higher pay and lower taxes because they incur higher risk(a consultant/contractor may or may not have work at any given time and has pretty much zero protections) and you can't get rid of the risk and still retain the other benefits.
I'm sure it was a HUGE difference. (Score:1, Insightful)
Those...few thousand of contractor filings vs. a few dozen business filings. Surely that was enough to drive this law, right? After all, when the IRS is handling 140 Million taxpayer submissions, those few thousand documents were breaking them.
I think you are trying too hard to make this about the big bad IRS. Seems that this special condition for contractors was repealed to prevent corporations from skating on health care and to foster company loyalty. After all, too much employment thrashing is bad for the economy's efficiency.
Re:Good luck getting it repealed now (Score:3, Insightful)
If he was so desperate and just wanted to end it, he could have eaten a bullet on the steps of the building. Same message, way less risk to others.
He wanted to be a terrorist, he just did not do a good job of it.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.
BZZZZTTTT! Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.
Sorry. Try again.
Boo hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane. Just imagine, without that terrible law, he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house!
Re:Good luck getting it repealed now (Score:4, Insightful)
Call it what you will. You push people hard enough and eventually they start pushing back. I see an interesting future for the US - the "land of the free" where 12 year olds are arrested for writing on school desks. Very interesting indeed. Will they still be terrorists when they are fighting and dying for your rights?
Re:Good luck getting it repealed now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's more to this story (Score:2, Insightful)
The interests of the company and its investors always trumps any concern for employees.
You're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Double-Standard (Score:1, Insightful)
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.
BZZZZTTTT! Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.
Sorry. Try again.
Read his essay. He had a lot of propaganda in there, but the biggest message was one of anti-government. Libertarians are all about the minimization or even removal of the state to maximize personal freedoms.
Re:The more interesting part (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's face it - Stack was a white American, so you can't drum up the "damn Islamic foreigners" angle.
Plus, he's demonstrated quite nicely just how pointless most airport security is these days. I'm pretty sure he didn't have to go through a full-body scanner, and yet once again a terrorist has managed to crash a plane into an office building.
Some random Arab kid screws up even *trying* to crash a plane, and it's news for weeks, with subsequent major overhauls of government practices and even the President getting involved. Some random white American SUCCESSFULLY crashes a plane, into a civilian target, and we get a brief mention one night. Double standards, what are those?
I was also disappointed that Slashdot didn't post anything at the time (at least, this is the first story I've seen). Guy was a computer programmer, so there's the nerd angle. Plus, this site has been obsessed with any story hinting of this since 9/11.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:1, Insightful)
"After the law passed, the big companies were forced to hire most of those contractors, with benefits. I think this improved things generally all around"
Then 10 years later all those jobs... were in Mumbai.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet Stack didn't even have his water bottle confiscated at security. No wonder he was able to crash a plane!
Re:There's more to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
The downside to buying your own health care (insurance) is that it's easy for the insurer to drop you as an individual if you start to cost too much. At least if you're on an employer group plan, they have to weigh the cost of losing the whole group.
Re:The IRS is not a *kind* organization... (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesome, we can basically make sure rich people pay practically no taxes at all.
Are you super rich or dumb?
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC, I avoided the law by forming a two person corporation with multiple billing streams.
After reading the idiot pilot's letter several times as well as the links provided, the solution to this tax situation is exactly what you did: create a partnership/hire another person, and have multiple concurrent projects.
For all the tax-avoiding mental gymnastics many of the antitax crowd employ, and with how smart they think they are, you'd think a simple, straightforward solution such as what you did would be obvious. Some people just don't want to pay taxes.
As the son of the IRS employee who was killed in this incident said, "if he [Stack] has a house and a plane he can pay his taxes." (Austin American-Statesman, 2/21/2010).
Re:There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
The insurance company. They won't even sell you a policy if you've ever so much as skinned your knee.
Re:The IRS is not a *kind* organization... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the organization that makes sure _every_ _single_ _retail_ _item_ has had its tax paid, necessitating intrusive monitoring ... won't have the name "IRS"?
Re:Boo hoo (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane. Just imagine, without that terrible law, he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house!
Since when does the amount someone makes define their entitlement to legal protections? Whether he makes $100 a year, or $100 million a year, the same laws and treatment should occur -- that is one of the cornerstones of democracy. "All men are created equal."
Re:There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need "sound bites" or political mumbo jumbo or statistics pulled out of my arse to make my decisions. The fact of the matter is that I experienced this exact situation in 1996/1997 when I became and independant contractor and tried to buy insurance for my wife, newly adopted daughter, and myself. Because my wife was a smoker and my sister was an epelectic, I was denied time after time. I couldn't even find a solo policy to cover my daughter. In the end, I paid for all of my daughters required doctor visits out of my own pocket without the assistance of insurance and went to work for "the man" immediately after completing the contract. NOTHING in my statement was a political view on the current health care system, it was simply stating the facts in response to the assumption that health care CAN be purchased by anyone.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:4, Insightful)
You're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group. If you buy insurance on your own, you do so with after-tax dollars. If you buy through your employer, you do so with before-tax dollars, reducing your overall tax burden (and that of your employer, since their payroll taxes get a break). The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have, it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.
Re:Boo hoo (Score:3, Insightful)
Just the devils advocate.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any reason to pay taxes - they already TAKE TAX out of my check before I ever get it. Fuck paying them anything extra.
You are aware exactly how all that works, right? The amount taken from your paycheck has absolutely no effect on the total you have to pay for the year.
he was mentally ill (Score:4, Insightful)
He blamed 'politicians, the Catholic Church, the "unthinkable atrocities" committed by big business and the government bailouts' for his own failures to reach his goals. This is classic schizophrenic behavior, it is delusions of grandeur. With delusions of grandeur, you are convinced you are the most amazing person in the world and you should be able to succeed at anything. When you don't succeed, you start finding reasons as to why. And since you're convinced you are the best, you start at the top, because clearly it takes powerful forces to keep a great man like you down.
So you blame any powerful group. The government, big religion and big business.
My uncle had the same symptoms. He had all his genius ideas written down and the government was trying to steal them (physically!). He wrote to Kofi Annan (the head of the UN) to tell him that George Tenet (the head of the CIA) was in the building across the street spying on him. This is how these delusions work. Not only is the government out to get you, but the important people in the government are involved!
So what makes these guys? Well, primarily their own mental illness. The media has a role (previously lore did) in helping them choose the bad guys who they are going to list as out to get them. But the media doesn't create them, they'd just select other enemies if the media changed their tune.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
But I was referring to the inherent shit of the setup not particularly the care you get when you are there. Most places in the world the system is this: you have healthcare. In the US it is incredibly complex, can result in huge legal troubles, shit tons of bureaucracy and changing jobs could result in you permenantly losing healthcare. (Rates can multiply by 10 when you change jobs due to conditions you get while working.) This type of setup can force people to essentially be slaves for their company since it is death if they switch. And that is just ONE possible example of complications. There are many more.
If i cut my hand badly I go: oh fuck I have to go to the hospital. In the states I go, oh fuck, is this covered? How much will my premiums rise? Is it worth the cost? I could probably be ok if i just kept it under pressure. Fuck, I shouldn't have quit my job last month. Do I think we'll come out of the recession fast enough or could I lose my house over this, maybe I can risk a thumb.
Things you shouldn't be thinking as your blood drains out of you and you risk your fingers going necrotic.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine then progressive leftist terrorist. Either way and asshole and a terrorist.
Hopefully anything of value he had can be sold and given to the victims, then his corpse can be left out for the animals.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you're referring to the cost... In every other aspect, America has the highest overall quality health care and is always at the bleeding edge of medical technology - electronic, methodic, and pharmaceutical. This is a statistically proven fact.
Really? And yet the World Health Organization has it ranked at a lowly 37. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html [photius.com]
Re:Boo hoo (Score:3, Insightful)
This asshole was a tax cheat. You want us to feel sorry for a tax cheat? Someone that costs me money as an honest tax payer. If I thought there was a hell I would wish that this asshole rot in it.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
No this was not terrorism, here is why.
It was a lone act by one person and there is no expectation of repeated acts by his group or him. Terrorism implies pushing a goal for a group through repeated violent actions....hence the terror part. If he were to say blow up that building and then send in a letter saying he will continue this until he gets what he wants then yeah that would be terrorism. Repeated acts of violence to push an agenda is terrorism. A lone act by one person that can not or will never commit the act again, is not. He wanted to make a point, not terrorize people to convert or change laws. He made his point and it was a stupid dumb ass way to do it but he did. I just have an issue with people comparing real terrorists to some of our native born idiots. There is a difference.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, until you start costing the insurer a hell of a lot of money. They go back through your app and find out that you didn't disclose that hangnail that you had in 8th grade. From there they drop you for filing a fraudulent application and no other insurer will pay for your pre-existing condition (except Medicaid). So you get to declare bankruptcy for your mounting bills and the taxpayer is on the hook for your care.
You're covered by your insurer until you start costing them too much money, then they'll drop you when they find a reason to do so.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the tax-avoiding mental gymnastics many of the antitax crowd employ, and with how smart they think they are, you'd think a simple, straightforward solution such as what you did would be obvious. Some people just don't want to pay taxes.
You've made a mistake here. The anti-tax crowd aren't against paying their taxes. They don't want to have to go through any kind of "straightforward" gymnastics to avoid taxes. They just want the taxes to not be in the way to avoid.
Because of the complexity of the tax laws, we now have a new activity which somehow is frowned upon by everyone (and committed by nearly as many.). An activity which is not only perfectly legal, but also presumably encouraged. You've even advocated that activity right here, but for some reason there are people decrying "Tax Avoision."
Why not just not have that complexity. Have a tax code that's short enough for a single person to read completely through in less than 2000 hours of reading (leaving two weeks for actual work). Every section you can't read is a section you can't be sure doesn't apply to you. If you're on the hook for criminal liability for failing to adhere to "must" sections, then you must be able to read them. And that's not even counting the money you lose by not having time to find "may" sections.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:1, Insightful)
If you cut your hand badly, just go to the hospital and pay for them to fix your hand.
You're all worried about playing the game. Stop paying insurance, put the money in a medical savings account, and stop playing the game.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The IRS is not a *kind* organization... (Score:5, Insightful)
But they don't. See the thing is once you have so much money you basically can't spend it all. Add to that they will be paying less tax as a percentage of income and it gets really unfair. Heck, they also tend to spend lots of money on things that are not property so more money they spend without paying taxes on.
The only real fair tax would be, no tax on first X dollars made and Y% on every dollar made after. With no difference between money made via honest labor or capital gains, or dividends.
Re:The more interesting part (Score:5, Insightful)
Civilian means non-military.
And I can't blame him for his choice.
I can. Because I'm not a sociopath.
Re:That's far too glib. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, let us carry your argument to its logical conclusion: your original dollar passes through your hands, your plumber's hands, the local hardware store's hands, etc, getting taxed at 25% at each point. Eventually, all the money goes back to the government in taxes. Wow, we have a 100% tax rate!
Maybe you want to reexamine your model?
The horror! Obviously, the economy is broken. Oh, except you got your pipes fixed, the plumber made a profit and bought more stuff, the hardware store owner got to buy food for dinner, etc. And somehow, the government wound up with $1 to spend on fixing the roads, hiring a policeman, or whatever.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point isn't about economic security. (Although there's really very little more as an employee than as a contractor.)
The point is that the IRS has singled out - for persecution, one might argue - small (both one-man and slightly larger) technology companies to investigate this issue.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people who don't are those who want to avoid paying their proper share.
And people who understand the time value of money, which you obviously don't.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:2, Insightful)
You have the best healthcare for the richest people in the world BUT that doesn't speak for overall healthcare. For overall healthcare you place just below costa rica, just above cuba.
Wow, I have no idea what measurement you came up with for this, but those measurements do not relate to reality. In America, for example, I can be sure that the hospital will have air conditioning.
Most places in the world the system is this: you have healthcare.
But you might have to wake up at 4 in the morning and go stand in line for hours in order to actually get care. Depending on where in the world.
Most of the rest of your points I agree with.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're living below poverty then you don't have the perspective of those of us living well above it. They aren't taking what they want. They're taking what you told them to take.
My only income isn't my job. It's the lion's share, but I have investments, too.
My withholding is set - by me - so that the monies that come out of my paycheck cover my expected investment income too.
Just how do you expect to the IRS to manage that trick?
By the way, why wouldn't you file taxes for every tax year you can if they owe you? A 1040-EZ is, well, easy. Back when I owned a business I helped a number of my employees do them rather than pay the H&R Block bastards. If you can do basic math it takes about 20 minutes.
If you're living on that little money, I'd think an extra few hundred or thousand would be most welcome.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:3, Insightful)
This amounts to you giving the government an interest free loan. Keep the money and make interest on it yourself. (of course you get taxed on that interest too. grr)
Re:That's far too glib. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it'll never be 100%, because (for one thing) you actually get the work and service you requested as part of the transaction. For another, every time that dollar changes hands, it provides more goods and services, although less and less as it works its way downstream.
You didn't understand what I wrote. I suggest you go back and read it again, as many times as necessary, until you do. You are correct in that taxation further downstream detrimentally affects how much you pay for things; you are very much incorrect to assume it reaches 100%. As it goes downstream, the effect diminishes considerably. First order effects are the main load. The fact is, your real tax rate specifically determines what goods and services you get for your dollar. That means taxes applied to your purchases - no matter what they are called - reduce the ability of your dollar to function on your behalf.
No. I earned $133; I was enabled to apply $75 to engage services or purchase goods; the government got $58 with which it then generally spends servicing a huge debt it should never, ever have gotten into, with the remainder mostly paying for services I do not consider useful, much less necessary, notable exceptions being roads, education, and the like.
My hope for you is that someday you actually understand what is being done to you.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:1, Insightful)
"As the son of the IRS employee who was killed in this incident said, "if he [Stack] has a house and a plane he can pay his taxes." (Austin American-Statesman, 2/21/2010)."
This may well be true, but it is not a given. There are millions of people in this country living in houses who have not paid their mortgage in months, but the bank has not foreclosed on them for a variety of reasons. Living in a nice house these days doesn't tell you anything about the occupier's finances.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no such thing as financial security short of having a trust fund in your name. The main difference between self employment and general employment is how many tax forms you fill out.
Otherwise freedom is an illusion. In a job your boss tells you when to wake up and what to work on. If you're self-employed, your customers do.
Re:Double-Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling an anarchist a radical communist is like when Rush or beck says that the Nazis were really leftists because they had the word socialist in their name. The more you resort to that kind of double-think, the more I start wondering if this nut just maybe really was a Libertarian.
Re:That's far too glib. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, you get stuff, pay the provider, and pay some tax.
But, you claim we must also include the tax the plumber pays as part of your effective tax rate. What is your reason for claiming that? The plumber is a tax-free entity? The plumber is the final consumer of dollars? Dollars are backed by plumbing supplies? Plumbers are tax-exempt?
Your argument makes very little sense, unless:
Ah, the "I was born, raised, and educated in the USA, now I'm paying taxes, I have the moral right to decide what I should be paying for. Oh, and I repudiate the national debt: sure it helped pay for my education, provided roads, sanitation, a safe place to grow up in, but I didn't vote for it, so no obligation here."
But we need more to your groundless story (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you think you are a god whose word should be blindly taken by the bowing and scraping masses, but I it's not true.
Some evidence is required to back up your otherwise-specious claim.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? (Score:3, Insightful)
and why are consultants not even easier to outsource overseas?
Actually a fair number of my customers are overseas, so it cuts both ways.
Re:The more interesting part (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be idiotic.
However much I despise the politics involved in the UK's rough equivalent, "IR35", that would not grant me one iota of dispensation to kill and maim civil servants just carrying out their jobs, however annoyingly (and I have some top annoying-tax-inspector stories of my own I can assure you). These are average Jo(e)s with families and what have you, not snarling special army corps with their bodies and minds pumped full of evil setting out to eat babies every morning.
I've just tonight sent another angry letter to our Prime Minister (responsible for IR35 when he was Chancellor) and the head of the opposition (who is quite likely to be PM in a very few weeks) with the link to the NYT item pointing out that IR35 remains oppressive *and* ineffective at raising more taxes, hoping that there is a chance that they'll think again. Do you think that maiming innocent third parties would be more effective in *any* way?
Rgds
Damon
Re:That's far too glib. (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, paper money was wealth. Actually, I just used some "paper money" to buy a bottle of nice scotch and a few beers. Amazing how convenient that stuff is when you want to buy something. I could even use the $300 left to "buy" something like lunch and dinner. Gosh, it really sucks to have 4 billion people agree that an easy-to-carry bit of paper is a commodity that can be exchanged for stuff without the need for weighing scales or barter.
Your second paragraph sounds like my 7 year old when she is told to go to bed: lots of complainty noise, little coherence.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:0, Insightful)
*sigh*
The market has categorically succeeded.
At what?
At dealing with the constraints it faces. Specifically, the constraints of regulation.
For everyone trying to be an amateur economist, here's a quick lesson: no market exists, anywhere, ever, that is not defined by the regime which supports it. The regime can be as informal as tribal bonds of friendship and expectations of honour, or as bureaucratically fixed as the US tax code, but there is a regime which effectively defines things like contractual obligations, terms of dispute resolution, and acceptable forms of payment. The not-too-radical wing of the libertarians want the regime to be minimal, the hard-core anarchocapitalists get very confused about how little they want, and socialists know perfectly well that they want a complex and detailed regime.
But looking at the real world, right here and right now, the market for health insurance (which is VERY heavily regulated, in case you're wondering) is doing just fine at dealing with the regime which is controlling it. The problems which people complain about are problems which emerge from the unintended consequences of the regime's stipulations.
It's like complaining about the power companies in CA after the deregulation. It was't a deregulation. It was a partial removal of certain obstacles - a reshaping of existing (and draconian) regulation, with unintended consequences, like rolling blackouts. Market failure, screamed the chattering classes. No. The market did precisely what the regulations told it to do. The regulations just didn't do what people expected.
One day, in my fantasy, an actual practical foundation class in economics will be part of high school civics ...
Re:The IRS is not a *kind* organization... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich people spend a way, way smaller percentage of their income on retail goods than the poor.
So? They still spend more, meaning they will be taxed more. Can you show me where in The Constitution where it says that those who have more, must pay a higher percentage in taxes?
They also have the means at their disposal to easily avoid such a tax, assuming the government doesn't try to tax goods purchased overseas and never brought in to the 'States.
Huh? If you buy a house, you pay taxes. Rich people buy houses. If you buy furniture for that house, it is taxed. Rich people buy furniture. If you buy a boat, car, ceiling fan, computer, whatever... it is taxed. Rich people buy such things. Those items will be taxed. If a rich person bought a surfboard in Haiti... why do you care? When they bring it stateside, it will be taxed.
Now, think about how much money "rich" people make. If I gave you $20,000,000, you would pay pretty hefty taxes on it this year because it's all counted as income. Now, how much money would you make NEXT year? I assume you invest the money somehow, but let's say your investments don't do so well. Let's say you broke even. How much money would you pay in taxes? That's right! $0.00, no matter how well you lived or how much money you spent, you would owe $0.00 to the government because you made $0.00 for the year. Hell, you might even get money back!
Let me tell you "rich" people spend money. I have a cousin that owns his own custom home building business. His company built a house for demo purposes. My cousin lives there. It's a very nice home that they may show to potential customers about once or twice a year. My cousin, of course didn't have to pay taxes on the house. He didn't have to pay any income taxes on the money that bought the house. The business called it an investment and used it as a deduction, meaning that it LOWERED THE TAXES THE COMPANY OWED, and does so every year as the house "depreciates". Of course, the company also has to furnish the house and provide work vehicles for my cousin and his wife. Yard upkeep, home maintenance, vehicle maintenance and all living expenses that are not food or clothing, are paid by the company because the company owns all the stuff.
In years that the business does well, my cousin does well salary wise and pays good taxes on it. In years that the business does not do well, my cousin doesn't do as well and may not pay any taxes at all, even though he is still living like a king.
Now, if you look at various CEO's around the country, they are living well beyond their income levels because many of the things they'd normally have to purchase are provided by the company and counted as expenses when tax time comes. Private planes, nice cars, limo service, even homes are all company owned so that the person using them usually doesn't have to claim them on their taxes. Of course, the company writes it off and doesn't pay taxes on it either.
This is what a sales tax will prevent.
Further, this has the effect of dampening consumer spending, which, despite what the trickle-down dumbasses say, drives the economy. This recession has given proof enough of that, for anyone who couldn't figure it out on their own.
This recession didn't start until Democrats took over Congress. If you read the Constitution, you will find out that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY because CONGRESS WRITES THE BUDGET! It has nothing to do with "trickle-down" economics. But since you brought it up, who do you work for? Is he a wealthy or poor. If he were poor, would he be able to hire you?
You don't have to look too hard to find stories about business owners complaining that loans and tax cuts won't help them much, since they can't hire more people unless they've got the orders to justify it.
Maybe if people like me were not paying so much in taxes, I'd be able to buy more stuff meaning
Re:he was mentally ill (Score:3, Insightful)
He blamed 'politicians, the Catholic Church
He didn't blame the Catholic Church, he merely cited them as an example of a large organization that is able to successfully avoid paying taxes while the middle class gets the screws tightened on them. RTFM next time (i.e. Read The Fucking Manifesto).
But prices are not determined by taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, your real tax rate specifically determines what goods and services you get for your dollar. That means taxes applied to your purchases - no matter what they are called - reduce the ability of your dollar to function on your behalf.
You are implying that if that tax rate was lessened, I would somehow have had "more money" to spend on plumbing. But that is not necessarily true because prices are set by the market not by the tax rate. Even if the plumber had to pay $0 in taxes, he would still charge me the same $100 if the market would bear it. The taxes that businesses pay are simply a cost of doing business, which is only one input into price.
My hope for you is that someday you actually understand what is being done to you.
This seems really melodramatic. You said that maybe Stack could not have afforded his house if he had paid his taxes, but I pay my taxes every year and presumably so do most of the businesses where I spend my money. And yet, I have little problem affording my house and many businesses turn profits. Taxes are simply a cost to be managed. It's a very good idea to minimize them--yes--but IMO it's ridiculous the degree to which some people get emotionally involved in the concept of taxation.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia has a nice discussion of the infant mortality rate that you're apparently fond of. Apparently in the USA, any infant with even a slight sign of life is reported as a live birth.
noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.
The report that Wikipedia notes here states specifically that this, by itself, doesn't explain the relatively low ranking for the USA, but then goes on to provide other examples to explain the difference.
As to cancer, the USA subsidizes sugar, grains and tobacco. Tobacco use clearly causes cancer, while sugar-caused obesity may contribute. Life expectancy, I think, gets a significant contribution from roads and miles driven, as well as from the rate of obesity.
Health care costs, by some estimates, are high because of liability. I also think that there are too many MRI's and too many cesarian sections, both of which derive from concerns about liability, and may contribute little to the quality of health care for the patient. (Sorry for not citing much above, but I'm guessing, for at least some of it.)
Re:There's more to this story (Score:2, Insightful)
Not true because you say so? Even a typically-Republican-voting conservative such as myself has seen and experienced enough of how well the current system works to be persuaded that maybe the "socialists" have a point.
As one example, I've looked at starting a software company, maybe hire a few folks. I've done it before fifteen years ago, I kind of know what I"m doing, and I've got the money to bootstrap a new company. Well, maybe; providing insurance is one of the things (maybe *the* thing) holding me back. Costs having gone insane since the last time I did this. Take that, free-market capitalists, the thing holding back a new business is the allegedly unbroken system. Even just opening a one-man shop gives me pause with the current state of private insurance.
What really annoys me here in Redmond, WA are the Microsofties (of which I used to be one; co-pay? What co-pay?) telling me how nothing needs to be fixed. Look, if you work for MSFT or any other large company offering good benefits, feel free to expand your thinking to include those that don't work where you do. Or STFU, which ever works best for you.
Re:That's far too glib. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's more to this story (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are Cherokee or whatever. American isn't a label of originating from the Americas. It's a label that someone is United States of America-an. I've found only one person not from the US that claimed to be an American. He was an Argentinian that knew it was a term that would make people think he was a US citizen. I considered it lying to say things knowingly to deceive, but he thought it was great fun.
It's simple, there exists no other term to uniquely identify Americans. And someone from the Americas is not American. Only one person (who was a self-professed asshole) and some people you run across on the Internet claim otherwise, and in contradiction to what you see in everyone else. It would have been nice to not have that problem, but with the way things worked out, there is nothing else unique. There is no other country in the world with "america" in the name. But there are others that have the words "united" or "states" in them. And since there is no one else in the Americas that identifies themselves by their continent, it wasn't taken from anyone, confusable with anyone, and doesn't cause any problems.
The only problem is people like yourself that assert that using the clear, concise, and unique title "American" for those from the USA somehow detracts from others who would not use that title. Most respond to it like Canadians abroad. "Are you American?" "NO! I'm CANADIAN." They don't sound like they want to be identified as American and are sad those from the USA stole it.
Re:There's more to this story (Score:2, Insightful)