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.'"

9 of 691 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain? by maxume · · 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).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  2. Double-Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Substitue "Mohammed al-Mohammed" for "Joe Stack" and "Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act" with "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86" and you'll see what you folks are all doing - you're making up excuses for a terrorist because he happens to share your political views. This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.

    1. Re:Double-Standard by h4rr4r · · 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.

  3. Re:The more interesting part by freeweed · · 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.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  4. Re:There's more to this story by jkgamer · · 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.

  5. Re:There's more to this story by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "America has the highest overall quality health care" also not true. 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.

    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.

  6. Re:There's more to this story by CodeArtisan · · 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

  7. Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble? by zippthorne · · 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.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  8. Re:That's far too glib. by fyngyrz · · 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!

    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.

    And somehow, the government wound up with $1 to spend on fixing the roads, hiring a policeman, or whatever.

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.