Slashdot Mirror
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
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.'"
Some of us could not. The reality is the healthcare problems in this country lead to these issues. Yet, if you dare mention another method the teabaggers go nuts.
Wow you seem to have bought the government takeover of 1/6th of the economy hook line and sinker huh.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
OK, I'll bite. How is this post Flamebait? Fundamentally, Conservatives pursue an agenda of "Less Government Regulation". the Conservatives do not allow for "moderation",(pun intended), so that when Businesses begin to dominate the economy, as appose to share benefits,(in the form of Taxes), an economy's wealth is severely drained to the point of very slow wealth generation. An economy can rebuild itself, but only after the dominate business has changed its business method(s).
I have no idea, but these assholes seems to keep fed.
just like the fact that my dick is in your mouth
Funnily, I could have sworn it was the Democrats whose sole driving engine was the desire to control and reshape through carrot, stick and mindtricks.
- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'justice'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?
- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'freedom'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?
- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'fair'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?
- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'social'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?
My feeling is that one of the revolting methods the Dems seek to use is to adopt old terms with old connotations, and inject a new meaning into them, so that they can piggyback on the preexisting positive of the word whenever they use it. "We support this fairness tax" says the Dems - "We oppose it" says the Repubs - "Oh, so you oppose fairness." responds the Dems. Cue the cancer of the political system. A bit like creating a Newspeech aka 1984 that makes it impossible to oppose you, because all words contain the meaning you have injected into them.
This ignores, of course, that _all words_ have connotations, which may be friendly to one side or the other. The difference is that the Democrats actively seek to do this to the maximum extent possible, whereas the Republicans really don't.
And I come from a European nation where 'people who relocate to inside the country' has been rebranded over the last decade following the chain: Aliens -> Foreigners -> Immigrants -> Asylum Seekers -> Refugees -> Pluriculturals, justified by prejudices being attached to the previous terms creating the need for a new one. "Gypsies" were rebranded "The Roma People" last year. Rebranding happens in all major state and private media according to government and press-organisation issued guidelines.
What is your view on that? I am curious.