"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
---------------------------------------
What was left out of the initial post was the fact that the State of
California had shut down at least two (2) of his businesses in the
90's for failure to pay state franchise taxes.
Maybe there was a pattern here.
Lew
On Feb 19, 9:34=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:06cba91b-aaa6-4a78-ba58-582cfbb6ee25@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 9:24 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > policy that would pay off in the case
>
> > >>> of suicide.
>
> > >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
> > >> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more t=
han
> > >> 2
> > >> years.
>
> > > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> > I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
>
> *Attempted* suicide is an illegal act, but I don't believe suicide
> is. =A0;-)
>
> It is part of the procees. =A0You have to attempt to accomplish. =A0LOL
But if you succeed they won't put you in jail. (If you don't, it's an
excuse to have you committed.)
On Feb 19, 9:24=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> policy that would pay off in the case
>
> >>> of suicide.
>
> >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
> >> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more tha=
n 2
> >> years.
>
> > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
*Attempted* suicide is an illegal act, but I don't believe suicide
is. ;-)
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Snip
>>> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
>>> morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect
>>> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>>>
>> Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. He was
>> pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
>>
>> And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
>
>I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
>family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
Life insurance usually doesn't cover suicide, nor does homeowner's
insurance cover arson by the owner.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
"Steve Turner" wrote:
> That happened about a mile away from where I work! It was pretty
> surreal watching NBC news devote the first 10 minutes of their
> broadcast to something that happened so close by. I'm just glad to
> hear there wasn't more loss of life; that building sustained
> significant damage!
------------------------------------
Back in the '60s, I flew over the U of Texas clock tower in Austin
seated in a split tailed Banana on a Sunday afternoon headed for San
Angelo from Houston.
On Monday another nut crawled up in that clock tower with his rifle
and started shooting up the place.
That was also the same month as the race riots in Cleveland.
Lew
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
>> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>>
>> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>>
>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>>
>> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>
>
> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
> morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect
> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>
Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. He was
pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
>>>family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
>>>
>>
>> I've never seen a life insurance policy that would pay off in the case
>> of suicide.
>>
>
> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide however
> the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than 2 years.
>
But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
On Feb 18, 11:25=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > =A0Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> > his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> > Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> > Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> > Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> > Lew
>
> =A0 Definitely one sick puppy. =A0Not only did he set his home on fire be=
fore
> doing this, from the reports, his wife and a young girl assumed to be his
> step-daughter were rescued from the blaze.
>
> =A0 He posted a manifesto on his web page, apparently he was mad at every=
body:
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html>
>
> =A0 Apparently some nutjobs in the lamestream media are already trying to=
make
> political hay out of this by claiming his actions are indicative of tea
> party ideals. =A0(Huffpo and Dkos sites as well as Washington Post and ot=
her
> papers intentionally leaving out some of his rant that show animosity tow=
ard
> capitalism as well as communism). =A0His closing statement:
>
> "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each accordi=
ng
> to his need.
> The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each
> according to his greed."
> =A0is hardly something in concert with either left or right wing ideals -=
- he
> was PO'd at everybody and trying to politicize this is silly.
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
On Feb 19, 10:26=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 9:17 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> > Sick absolutely. =A0But considering the current political climate in Au=
stin he
> > may only be the first to pull a stunt like this.
>
> Too damn bad the inhumanity of the act is already fueling an excuse for
> libtard's to fall all over themselves, self righteously salivating like
> Pavlov's hound.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I farkin' near hurled when I saw a headline that said: "Austin,
isolated case of rage or part of a bigger terrorist plan?"
On Feb 19, 12:30=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 12:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The underlying issue is that he didn't pay taxes that were owed and
> > got caught. =A0The rules didn't change in the middle of any game. =A0BT=
W,
> > those same rules *do* apply to large corporations. =A0They hire other
> > companies, at a *large* increase in cost, to insulate themselves from
> > these issues.
>
> Go back and read my original post and put it back in the proper context
> as written;
Ok... (tough to do via Google)
Swinger: It would probably help if you had some understanding of the
issue.
I do understand the issue, but perhaps not the nitwit's particular
problem.
Swinger: What he was pissed at, the way I read his swan song, was not
that he
"got caught", but the rules had been changed during the game,
and even
then the big corporations didn't have to play by the same
changes and
"get away with it".
They *do* have to play by the same rules.
Swinger: And they do ... much of Continental's current baggage
handling website
was written by an ex partner of mine who was 1099 contract
software
labor during this time period ... with an office, a desk, a
cell phone,
etc ... all the accouterments of an "employee".
They may get away with it, but the RULES ARE THE SAME. He got caught.
Swinger: Things may have changed recently, but at one time that was
SOP in many
industries.
"Changed recently?" You're the one who was ragging on me for
mistaking 26 years for >15 years.
Swinger: I'm not excusing his inhuman act, nor his reasons for
committing it, but
he is right about who has to play by which rules in the
United
Corporations of America, or Congress, today.
But the rules here ARE THE SAME. Because someone else didn't get
caught, or more likely followed the letter of the law, doesn't let him
off the hook.
> context which you've conveniently removed in a misguided
> attempt to justify your lack of understanding.
A lie. I haven't snipped anything in this thread. Google's interface
is terrible, but it looks like *you* are the one snipping.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Instead of wrecking his plane he could have just become a politician.
You are fast tracked if you don't pay the IRS.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
This is a test. Had it been an actual
attack, the warning system wouldn't
have worked.
On Feb 19, 8:13=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/19/2010 12:50 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Leon"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]..=
.
> >> On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> >>> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> >>> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes=
?
>
> >>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> >>> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> >>> Lew
>
> >> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>
> >> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down thi=
s
> >> morning prior to taking the plane trip. =A0He was up for audit, I susp=
ect
> >> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>
> > Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. =A0He wa=
s
> > pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
>
> > And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
>
> Hey, I resemble that remark! =A0He was also a small-time self-employed so=
ftware engineer,
> which isn't a road I'd want to be walking in this day and age.
AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
and paid on 1099s. The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
employees so he had to fork over back withholding and employment
taxes. He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because he
got caught.
On Feb 19, 10:19=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 8:38 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Leon"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> <[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, "Leon"<[email protected]>
>
> >>>> I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of=
his
> >>>> family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
>
> >>> I've never seen a life insurance policy that would pay off in the cas=
e
> >>> of suicide.
>
> >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide how=
ever
> >> the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than 2 year=
s.
>
> > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> I always thought that also, but in the past twenty years I've known two
> terminal cancer patients that unquestionably committed suicide with
> handguns and their wives were well taken care of by the insurance proceed=
s.
>
> Not that I'd recommend it.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Health insure companies are like that. They pay out a bonus if you
take a sick person off their payout list. <CG> (cynical grin)
.
.
Which is why the Canadian government wants the tobacco companies to
keep selling tobacco, because it shortens the life of the smoker
therefore saving untold bezillions in healthcare and social
security.... again..<CG>
On Feb 19, 10:24=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> policy that would pay off in the case
>
> >>> of suicide.
>
> >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
> >> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more tha=
n 2
> >> years.
>
> > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
You kill yourself, you go to jail. That has been THE deterrent for me.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:26:26 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 2/18/2010 9:17 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Sick absolutely. But considering the current political climate in Austin he
>> may only be the first to pull a stunt like this.
>
>Too damn bad the inhumanity of the act is already fueling an excuse for
>libtard's to fall all over themselves, self righteously salivating like
>Pavlov's hound.
I particularly liked this statement by the Gods of Our Security:
"The FBI launched an investigation and Rep. Michael McCaul, a
Republican from Austin on the Homeland Security Committee, said the
panel will take up the issue of how to better protect buildings from
attacks with planes."
Feh! There goes the price of buildings...
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Feb 19, 11:53=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 11:38 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > At the time? =A024 years ago? =A0The dufus was in tax trouble for his
> > recent screw-up.
>
> Once again, you're dead wrong on all counts. Here are his EXACT words:
>
> <quote>
>
> Return to the early '80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a
> 'wet-behind-the-ears' contract software engineer... and two years later,
> thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of
> Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and
> other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick
> Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 170=
6.
>
> For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section
> 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for
> tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report
> (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport)
> regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant
> parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws
> affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion
> here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
>
> SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
>
> (a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by
> adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
>
> (d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an
> individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and
> another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer,
> designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other
> similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
>
> (b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to
> remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
>
> Note:
>
> =B7 "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationsh=
ip.
>
> =B7 "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
>
> =B7 "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
>
> Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is
> saying but it's not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may
> as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover,
> they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and
> directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years
> later, I still can't believe my eyes.
>
> During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my 'pocket change', and at least
> 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator,
> congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they
> universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless
> hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the
> disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign
> against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were
> being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just
> beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their
> "freedom". Oh, and don't forget, for all of the time I was spending on
> this, I was loosing income that I couldn't bill clients.
>
> After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile
> exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a
> pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren't going to enforce
> that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately
> proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to
> have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effe=
ct.
>
> </quote>
>
> As I said earlier, your grasp of the time frame, and underlying issues
> are both lacking in factual content.
The underlying issue is that he didn't pay taxes that were owed and
got caught. The rules didn't change in the middle of any game. BTW,
those same rules *do* apply to large corporations. They hire other
companies, at a *large* increase in cost, to insulate themselves from
these issues.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:04:38 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
>> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>>
>> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>>
>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>>
>> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>>
>> Lew
>
>Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
They can keep the plane.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Feb 19, 10:24=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
> > and paid on 1099s. =A0The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
> > employees so he had to fork over back =A0withholding and employment
> > taxes. =A0He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because he
> > got caught.
>
> It would probably help if you had some understanding of the issue.
>
> What he was pissed at, the way I read his swan song, was not that he
> "got caught", but the rules had been changed during the game, and even
> then the big corporations didn't have to play by the same changes and
> "get away with it".
Wrong. Those rules have been in place for at least a decade. Most
large "tech" corporations will no longer hire contractors directly but
only through contract employers, for *exactly* this reason. Those
employees are paid on a W2, for *exactly* this reason. This is
*nothing* new (it's been 15 years, at least).
> And they do ... much of Continental's current baggage handling website
> was written by an ex partner of mine who was 1099 contract software
> labor during this time period ... with an office, a desk, a cell phone,
> etc ... all the accouterments of an "employee".
He wasn't an engineer, or similar, either. Yes, it makes a
difference.
> Things may have changed recently, but at one time that was SOP in many
> industries.
These particular rules have been in place for a long time. He got
caught and lost everything, including his mind.
> I'm not excusing his inhuman act, nor his reasons for committing it, but
> he is right about who has to play by which rules in the United
> Corporations of America, or Congress, today.
Wrong, in every way. He didn't follow the rules and like a dummy got
strung up.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>
>>I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
>>family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
>>
>
> I've never seen a life insurance policy that would pay off in the case
> of suicide.
>
Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide however
the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than 2 years.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>>
>>
>> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
>> morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect
>> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>>
> Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. He was
> pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
>
> And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
On 2/18/2010 9:17 PM, Leon wrote:
> Sick absolutely. But considering the current political climate in Austin he
> may only be the first to pull a stunt like this.
Too damn bad the inhumanity of the act is already fueling an excuse for
libtard's to fall all over themselves, self righteously salivating like
Pavlov's hound.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
Definitely one sick puppy. Not only did he set his home on fire before
doing this, from the reports, his wife and a young girl assumed to be his
step-daughter were rescued from the blaze.
He posted a manifesto on his web page, apparently he was mad at everybody:
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html>
Apparently some nutjobs in the lamestream media are already trying to make
political hay out of this by claiming his actions are indicative of tea
party ideals. (Huffpo and Dkos sites as well as Washington Post and other
papers intentionally leaving out some of his rant that show animosity toward
capitalism as well as communism). His closing statement:
"The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according
to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each
according to his greed."
is hardly something in concert with either left or right wing ideals -- he
was PO'd at everybody and trying to politicize this is silly.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
policy that would pay off in the case
>>> of suicide.
>>>
>>
>> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
>> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than 2
>> years.
>>
> But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect the
government pretty much had it all to start with.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 19, 10:24 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> policy that would pay off in the case
>
> >>> of suicide.
>
> >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
> >> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than
> >> 2
> >> years.
>
> > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
You kill yourself, you go to jail. That has been THE deterrent for me.
Me too, I'd rather go to heaven... ;~)
On 2/19/2010 11:38 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> At the time? 24 years ago? The dufus was in tax trouble for his
> recent screw-up.
Once again, you're dead wrong on all counts. Here are his EXACT words:
<quote>
Return to the early '80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a
'wet-behind-the-ears' contract software engineer... and two years later,
thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of
Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and
other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick
Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section
1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for
tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report
(http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport)
regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant
parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws
affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion
here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an
individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and
another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer,
designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other
similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to
remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
· "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
· "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
· "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is
saying but it's not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may
as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover,
they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and
directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years
later, I still can't believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my 'pocket change', and at least
1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator,
congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they
universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless
hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the
disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign
against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were
being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just
beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their
"freedom". Oh, and don't forget, for all of the time I was spending on
this, I was loosing income that I couldn't bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile
exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a
pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren't going to enforce
that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately
proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to
have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
</quote>
As I said earlier, your grasp of the time frame, and underlying issues
are both lacking in factual content.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2/19/2010 12:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> The underlying issue is that he didn't pay taxes that were owed and
> got caught. The rules didn't change in the middle of any game. BTW,
> those same rules *do* apply to large corporations. They hire other
> companies, at a *large* increase in cost, to insulate themselves from
> these issues.
Go back and read my original post and put it back in the proper context
as written; context which you've conveniently removed in a misguided
attempt to justify your lack of understanding.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2/19/2010 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:24 am, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
>>> and paid on 1099s. The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
>>> employees so he had to fork over back withholding and employment
>>> taxes. He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because he
>>> got caught.
>>
>> It would probably help if you had some understanding of the issue.
>>
>> What he was pissed at, the way I read his swan song, was not that he
>> "got caught", but the rules had been changed during the game, and even
>> then the big corporations didn't have to play by the same changes and
>> "get away with it".
>
> Wrong. Those rules have been in place for at least a decade. Most
> large "tech" corporations will no longer hire contractors directly but
> only through contract employers, for *exactly* this reason. Those
> employees are paid on a W2, for *exactly* this reason. This is
> *nothing* new (it's been 15 years, at least).
Wrong, more like 24 years ... like I said, you just proved have no
factual grasp of the time frame, or the issues.
>> And they do ... much of Continental's current baggage handling website
>> was written by an ex partner of mine who was 1099 contract software
>> labor during this time period ... with an office, a desk, a cell phone,
>> etc ... all the accouterments of an "employee".
>
> He wasn't an engineer, or similar, either. Yes, it makes a
> difference.
Not at the time it didn't ... wrong again.
>> Things may have changed recently, but at one time that was SOP in many
>> industries.
>
> These particular rules have been in place for a long time. He got
> caught and lost everything, including his mind.
>
>> I'm not excusing his inhuman act, nor his reasons for committing it, but
>> he is right about who has to play by which rules in the United
>> Corporations of America, or Congress, today.
>
> Wrong, in every way. He didn't follow the rules and like a dummy got
> strung up.
"got strung up"??
Hard time understanding what you think you read, eh? Take the blinders off.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2/19/2010 9:26 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 9:17 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Sick absolutely. But considering the current political climate in
>> Austin he
>> may only be the first to pull a stunt like this.
>
> Too damn bad the inhumanity of the act is already fueling an excuse for
> libtard's to fall all over themselves, self righteously salivating like
> Pavlov's hound.
"self-lefteously", not being in the dictionary.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
> and paid on 1099s. The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
> employees so he had to fork over back withholding and employment
> taxes. He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because he
> got caught.
It would probably help if you had some understanding of the issue.
What he was pissed at, the way I read his swan song, was not that he
"got caught", but the rules had been changed during the game, and even
then the big corporations didn't have to play by the same changes and
"get away with it".
And they do ... much of Continental's current baggage handling website
was written by an ex partner of mine who was 1099 contract software
labor during this time period ... with an office, a desk, a cell phone,
etc ... all the accouterments of an "employee".
Things may have changed recently, but at one time that was SOP in many
industries.
I'm not excusing his inhuman act, nor his reasons for committing it, but
he is right about who has to play by which rules in the United
Corporations of America, or Congress, today.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy
>> crashing his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>>
>> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and
>> taxes?
>>
>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>>
>> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>>
>> Lew
>
>
> Sick absolutely. But considering the current political climate
> in Austin he may only be the first to pull a stunt like this.
>
> BTY Austin, how is that metro rail coming along these days, any
> riders yet? LOL
>
It was just a couple miles from where my son lives and he drove by
the place at Noon. He said that it stunk like oil/chemicals.
--
Nonny
ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Definitely one sick puppy. Not only did he set his home on fire before
> doing this, from the reports, his wife and a young girl assumed to be his
> step-daughter were rescued from the blaze.
Nope, his wife and daughter drove up to the burning house. They were not in
the house at all. No one was in need of rescued except those at the IRS
building.
On 2/19/2010 8:38 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, "Leon"<[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
>>>> family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've never seen a life insurance policy that would pay off in the case
>>> of suicide.
>>>
>>
>> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide however
>> the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than 2 years.
>>
> But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
I always thought that also, but in the past twenty years I've known two
terminal cancer patients that unquestionably committed suicide with
handguns and their wives were well taken care of by the insurance proceeds.
Not that I'd recommend it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Feb 18, 9:17=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
On Feb 19, 11:32=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 10:24 am, Swingman<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
> >>> and paid on 1099s. =A0The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
> >>> employees so he had to fork over back =A0withholding and employment
> >>> taxes. =A0He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because =
he
> >>> got caught.
>
> >> It would probably help if you had some understanding of the issue.
>
> >> What he was pissed at, the way I read his swan song, was not that he
> >> "got caught", but the rules had been changed during the game, and even
> >> then the big corporations didn't have to play by the same changes and
> >> "get away with it".
>
> > Wrong. =A0Those rules have been in place for at least a decade. =A0Most
> > large "tech" corporations will no longer hire contractors directly but
> > only through contract employers, for *exactly* this reason. =A0Those
> > employees are paid on a W2, for *exactly* this reason. =A0This is
> > *nothing* new (it's been 15 years, at least).
>
> Wrong, more like 24 years ... like I said, you just proved have no
> factual grasp of the time frame, or the issues.
Wrong, obviously; 24 years > 15 years.
> >> And they do ... much of Continental's current baggage handling website
> >> was written by an ex partner of mine who was 1099 contract software
> >> labor during this time period ... with an office, a desk, a cell phone=
,
> >> etc ... all the accouterments of an "employee".
>
> > He wasn't an engineer, or similar, either. =A0Yes, it makes a
> > difference.
>
> Not at the time it didn't ... wrong again.
At the time? 24 years ago? The dufus was in tax trouble for his
recent screw-up.
> >> Things may have changed recently, but at one time that was SOP in many
> >> industries.
>
> > These particular rules have been in place for a long time. =A0He got
> > caught and lost everything, including his mind.
>
> >> I'm not excusing his inhuman act, nor his reasons for committing it, b=
ut
> >> he is right about who has to play by which rules in the United
> >> Corporations of America, or Congress, today.
>
> > Wrong, in every way. =A0He didn't follow the rules and like a dummy got
> > strung up.
>
> "got strung up"??
The tax man was in the process of taking everything, yes.
> Hard time understanding what you think you read, eh? Take the blinders of=
f.
Wrong.
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> But it's one terrorist attack with an actual reason behind it. He's
> trying to kickstart the Rev, guys. He realized that he couldn't fix
> the broken gov't via the ballot box so he took the next step. Hold
> on, boys and girls. TAR II is on the way.
>
> [TAR II is my own (solo) pet name for "The American Revolution #2",
> which is, with little doubt, coming to a USA near you soon(?)]
We already had a Second American Revolution (1861-65), sometimes called "The
Recent Unplesantness".
We lost.
On Feb 18, 9:31=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>
> As well it should.
>
> Lew
Yeah, but what a way to thoroughly screw your family! I kinda wonder
if he expected them to die too.
As of yesterday evening the government seemed reluctant to classify
this as a terrorist attack. I'm not so sure. McVeigh was a
terrorist. Granted, sick and perverted but a terrorist nonetheless.
As one journalist said last evening "If this happened in downtown
Baghdad it would have been classified as a terrorist suicide bombing."
Good point. As Leon pointed out, I hope this doesn't catch on.
RonB
On Feb 19, 10:34=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 19, 10:24 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > policy that would pay off in the case
>
> > >>> of suicide.
>
> > >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
> > >> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more t=
han
> > >> 2
> > >> years.
>
> > > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> > I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
>
> You kill yourself, you go to jail. That has been THE deterrent for me.
>
> Me too, I'd rather go to heaven... ;~)
You already made that deal and there is no way back.
On Feb 18, 11:40=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:25=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > =A0Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> > > his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> > > Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes=
?
>
> > > Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> > > Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> > > Lew
>
> > =A0 Definitely one sick puppy. =A0Not only did he set his home on fire =
before
> > doing this, from the reports, his wife and a young girl assumed to be h=
is
> > step-daughter were rescued from the blaze.
>
> > =A0 He posted a manifesto on his web page, apparently he was mad at eve=
rybody:
> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html>
>
> > =A0 Apparently some nutjobs in the lamestream media are already trying =
to make
> > political hay out of this by claiming his actions are indicative of tea
> > party ideals. =A0(Huffpo and Dkos sites as well as Washington Post and =
other
> > papers intentionally leaving out some of his rant that show animosity t=
oward
> > capitalism as well as communism). =A0His closing statement:
>
> > "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each accor=
ding
> > to his need.
> > The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each
> > according to his greed."
> > =A0is hardly something in concert with either left or right wing ideals=
-- he
> > was PO'd at everybody and trying to politicize this is silly.
>
> > --
>
> > There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> > Rob Leatham
The dog ate my comment. Which was:
Nobody likes taxes and there are lunatics on both side of the fence.
Why is there a fence? Who benefits from us not being able to find
common ground?
"Nonny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> BTY Austin, how is that metro rail coming along these days, any riders
>> yet? LOL
>>
>
> It was just a couple miles from where my son lives and he drove by the
> place at Noon. He said that it stunk like oil/chemicals.
Swingman pointed it out to me this past summer and pointed out that it was
running, but they could not quite figure out how to make it stop. It
reminded me of an electric train display you used to see in store fronts 50
years ago. ;~)
On 2/18/2010 8:17 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
That happened about a mile away from where I work! It was pretty surreal
watching NBC news devote the first 10 minutes of their broadcast to something
that happened so close by. I'm just glad to hear there wasn't more loss of
life; that building sustained significant damage!
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 02/19/2010 12:50 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
>>> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>>>
>>> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>>>
>>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>>>
>>> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>>
>>
>> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
>> morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect
>> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>>
> Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. He was
> pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
>
> And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
Hey, I resemble that remark! He was also a small-time self-employed software engineer,
which isn't a road I'd want to be walking in this day and age.
--
So will there ever be a day, throughout the rest of my life, that I
won't encounter in the written word a case of somebody not understanding
the difference between the meanings of the words "to" and "too"?
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 02/19/2010 09:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:13 am, Steve Turner<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 02/19/2010 12:50 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Feb 18, 9:17 pm, "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
>>>>> his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>>
>>>>> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>>
>>>>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>>
>>>>> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>>
>>>>> Lew
>>
>>>> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>>
>>>> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
>>>> morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect
>>>> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>>
>>> Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. He was
>>> pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
>>
>>> And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
>>
>> Hey, I resemble that remark! He was also a small-time self-employed software engineer,
>> which isn't a road I'd want to be walking in this day and age.
>
> AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
> and paid on 1099s. The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
> employees so he had to fork over back withholding and employment
> taxes. He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because he
> got caught.
Yes. I hope I didn't come across as being sympathetic to the guy...
--
"Once upon a time, The END."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> AIUI, he owned a small software company who hired only "contractors"
> and paid on 1099s.
Just out of curiosity, is it your opinion that this is improper? If so,
on what do you base that opinion?
> The IRS ruled (or was about to) that they were
> employees so he had to fork over back withholding and employment
> taxes.
My understanding is that this is SOP when the IRS has difficulty
collecting taxes from the 1099 contractors.
I recall that the IRS received a fair amount of media attention for
responding to taxpayer inquiries with misinterpretations of its own
rules, and later applying stiff penalties when people acted in
conformance with the interpretations provided. IIRC, the IRS' error rate
on taxpayer inquiries was in excess of 30%.
The IRS has a history of terminating (seizing all assets and records for
long enough to prevent recovery) legitimate businesses who owed no taxes
because someone at the IRS thought _incorrectly_ that the business had a
tax delinquency.
> He played the game, badly, and lost and was pissed because he
> got caught.
That's certainly a possibility - but it's not the only one. I'm not in
any great rush to accept any IRS version as complete or truthful, so
long as "getting caught" isn't necessarily equivalent to "broke the law".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steve Turner" wrote:
>
>> That happened about a mile away from where I work! It was pretty surreal
>> watching NBC news devote the first 10 minutes of their broadcast to
>> something that happened so close by. I'm just glad to hear there wasn't
>> more loss of life; that building sustained significant damage!
> ------------------------------------
> Back in the '60s, I flew over the U of Texas clock tower in Austin seated
> in a split tailed Banana on a Sunday afternoon headed for San Angelo from
> Houston.
>
> On Monday another nut crawled up in that clock tower with his rifle and
> started shooting up the place.
>
> That was also the same month as the race riots in Cleveland.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Nope. Hough riots were July. Clock tower was August.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:19:00 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 2/19/2010 8:38 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, "Leon"<[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
>>>>> family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen a life insurance policy that would pay off in the case
>>>> of suicide.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide however
>>> the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than 2 years.
>>>
>> But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
>I always thought that also, but in the past twenty years I've known two
>terminal cancer patients that unquestionably committed suicide with
>handguns and their wives were well taken care of by the insurance proceeds.
>
>Not that I'd recommend it.
The insurance companies probably thought it was a good idea. It was
cheaper for the company if they offed themselves rather than keep
running the exhorbitant horsepistol and doktor bills for the duration.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:55:13 -0500, the infamous Phisherman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:17:32 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
>>his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>>
>>Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>>
>>Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>>
>>Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>>
>>Lew
>
>We don't need to fight terrorism on the other side of the earth when
>it exists within the United States.
Are you saying that we should ignore terrorism everywhere but here?
What pisses me off is that the Army didn't authorize, for 3 years, the
extra pay for the National Guard units which were sent over to Iraq
for extreme extended duty in 2007. One local couple is owed $8k while
the gov't has been paying the Blackwater, etc. troopers betweeen $68k
and $200k per year.
>Am I supposed to fear folks that hate the IRS?
Only if you're -in- the particular IRS office at the time they decided
to "get even", Fishy.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:56:04 -0800, the infamous Zz Yzx
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
>But death doesn't get worser and worser each year.
>
>I agree, a sick puppy with a screw loose. Same mentality as Tim
>McVeigh: "I'm pissed so I'll kill some innocent and unrelated people
>and babies".
You just had to mention killing babies, didn't you?
"It's for the children!" <sigh>
But it's one terrorist attack with an actual reason behind it. He's
trying to kickstart the Rev, guys. He realized that he couldn't fix
the broken gov't via the ballot box so he took the next step. Hold
on, boys and girls. TAR II is on the way.
[TAR II is my own (solo) pet name for "The American Revolution #2",
which is, with little doubt, coming to a USA near you soon(?)]
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On 2/19/2010 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
>> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> What was left out of the initial post was the fact that the State of
> California had shut down at least two (2) of his businesses in the
> 90's for failure to pay state franchise taxes.
Probably because it has no importance except to a libtard looking for
something to salivate over.
> Maybe there was a pattern here.
Yeah ... too many government entities with their hands out.
And you know better, or you ought to.
SOC doesn't "shut down" business for failing to pay franchise tax, they
revoke the corporate charter of the business, which in most cases of
failure to pay franchise taxes simply means the business has already
closed, or moved out of state.
And, since Californicator's entitlement minded government is literally
bankrupt from too much government and taxes, that is not an uncommon
occurrence.
Shame on you for your obfuscation ... it's what those who want this
country divided count on the sheeple to do.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:17:32 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing
>his plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
>Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
>Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
>Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
>Lew
>
>
We don't need to fight terrorism on the other side of the earth when
it exists within the United States. Am I supposed to fear folks that
hate the IRS?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:06cba91b-aaa6-4a78-ba58-582cfbb6ee25@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 9:24 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> policy that would pay off in the case
>
> >>> of suicide.
>
> >> Strange that I would know this but most "do" pay off for a suicide
> >> however the stipulation is that the policy has to be held for more than
> >> 2
> >> years.
>
> > But many do not pay out for any kind of illegal act or crime.
>
> I can't testify to that but suicide is and illegal act... ;~)
*Attempted* suicide is an illegal act, but I don't believe suicide
is. ;-)
It is part of the procees. You have to attempt to accomplish. LOL
Leon wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Definitely one sick puppy. Not only did he set his home on fire before
>> doing this, from the reports, his wife and a young girl assumed to be his
>> step-daughter were rescued from the blaze.
>
>
> Nope, his wife and daughter drove up to the burning house. They were not
> in
> the house at all. No one was in need of rescued except those at the IRS
> building.
I stand corrected. I should know better than to trust mainstream media
reports (AP).
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Snip
>>> Now Stack's estate gets to pay the IRS?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think he probably burned up his estate, he burned his house down this
>>> morning prior to taking the plane trip. He was up for audit, I suspect
>>> the government pretty much had it all to start with.
>>>
>> Thereby depriving his wife and daughter of a house to live in. He was
>> pissed off at the world. He wanted to hurt as many people as possible.
>>
>> And get this, HE WAS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER!!! That explains a lot. ;)
>
>I suspect that he had a life insurance policy that will take care of his
>family, IIRC that can not be touched by the IRS.
>
I've never seen a life insurance policy that would pay off in the case
of suicide.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing his
> plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
Apparently the lunatic worked in a field that has a legitimate beef with the
tax code. Many years ago I worked for a guy who took a very loose attitude
towards his business taxes, workers comp payments etc., they slapped him
down repeatedly and finally took control of his payroll to make sure all
payments were made properly. Fortunately he didn't have a pilot's license.
http://www.salon.com/news/joe_stack/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/02/19/joe_stack_tax_problem_2
Joe Stack wasn't wrong about the tax code
Even the sponsor of the 1986 amendment that punished thousands of software
programmers realized it was a mistake
That 1986 change in the tax code that Joe Stack, the suicidal pilot who
crashed his plane into an IRS building on Thursday, cited as a primal
grievance in his online manifesto? According to David Cay Johnston, writing
in the New York Times, Stack's beef was legit: the law "made it extremely
difficult for information technology professionals to work as self-employed
individuals, forcing most to become company employees."
And the original reason for the law, well, one can understand why some
people would find it a little crazy-making.
The law was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New
York, as a favor to I.B.M., which wanted a $60 million tax break on its
overseas business.
Under budget rules in effect at the time, any tax breaks had to be paid for
with new revenues. By requiring software engineers to be employees, a
Congressional report estimated, income and payroll taxes would rise by $60
million a year because employees had few opportunities to cheat on their
taxes.
Within a year, however, Moynihan changed his mind, and unsuccessfully sought
for the law's repeal.
The Times inexplicably does not link back to Johnston's much longer article
exposing the law in 1998. In that piece, Johnston extensively documented
the devastating effect the law had on software programmers who wanted to set
up their own shop.
As for the accusation, cited yesterday in my post, that the law was
originally designed to crack down on illegal tax shelters? Harvey Shulman, a
Washington lawyer who Johnston describes as specializing in representing
"companies that supported the desires of software engineers to be
independent contractors," sent an e-mail to Salon contesting the rationale.
To the contrary, there was no such evidence (and there are Department of
Treasury documents, obtained in 1987-88 under FOIA, which show the true
genesis of this law); indeed a Congressionally-mandated study of Section
1706 resulted in an unbiased government report of about 100 pages (1988)
which, along with other studies, found that tax compliance by these
self-employed workers was actually higher than most other types of
workers -- and that the enactment of Section 1706 probably did not generate
any additional tax revenue and may, in fact, have led to revenue losses (due
to the favorable tax treatment accorded many employee benefits which was not
accorded to self-employed workers).
It doesn't need belaboring that 99 percent of the software engineers
negatively affected by Moynihan's amendment to the tax code did not end up
as tax protesting kamikaze pilots. But the final kicker to Johnston's update
of the story nevertheless provokes a chill.
On Wednesday, the day before Andrew Joseph Stack III left his suicide note
and crashed the plane into the building in Austin, the Obama administration
proposed a widespread crackdown on all types of independent contractors in
an effort to raise $7 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Joseph Stack III, 53 was definitely one sick puppy crashing his
> plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
>
> Wasn't it Ben Franklin that once said something about death and taxes?
>
> Mr Stack didn't feel he was obligated to pay his taxes.
>
> Hell of a way to take out his frustrations.
>
> Lew
Sick absolutely. But considering the current political climate in Austin he
may only be the first to pull a stunt like this.
BTY Austin, how is that metro rail coming along these days, any riders yet?
LOL