We should treat this as an act of war. All tea bag organizations are now on notice as enemy combatants.
Quote from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586581,00.html
Officials are investigating whether a small plane that crashed into an office building in Austin, Texas, Thursday morning was an intentional act, an NTSB official told Fox News.
An NTSB spokesman, however, told FoxNews.com that "we can't confirm any of that."
Authorities said they have identified the pilot as Joseph Andrew Stack, a 53-year-old software engineer who lived in Texas.
The small single-engine plane crashed into a seven-story office building in Austin around 10 a.m. local time Thursday.
The FAA said a Piper Cherokee took off from an airport in Georgetown, Texas, at 9:40 a.m. and crashed into the building in Austin shortly thereafter. Officials are investigating whether Stack owned the plane.
The Department of Homeland Security said Thursday it does not believe the crash was an act of terrorism.
"This is an isolated incident, there is no cause for alarm," a spokesman for the Austin Police Department said during a news conference.
The office fire is contained and police said the situation is "totally contained."
President Obama was briefed on the incident.
SLIDESHOW: Small Plane Crashes Into Austin Office Building
Stuart Newberg, who was in the area right before the crash, said the plane was flying low and fast, according to The Statesman.com.
"It was flying low and fast and I did a double take," Newberg said, according to the Web site.
"I thought it was a play remote control plane. Then I saw the smoke."
He told the paper he thought the plane seemed "very controlled."
Harry Evans, an assistant chief with the Austin Fire Department, said one person from the building was unaccounted for. He said two have been taken to a hospital.
"There may be other injuries, we are unsure at this time," Evans said during a news conference Thursday.
An Internal Revenue Service office is located inside the building.
IRS Agent William Winnie said he was on the third floor of the building when he saw a light-colored, single engine plane coming towards the building, TheStatesman.com reported.
"It looked like it was coming right in my window," Winnie said, according to the Web site.
Winnie said the plane veered down and smashed into the lower floors. "I didn't lose my footing, but it was enough to knock people who were sitting to the floor."
The Austin American-Statesman newspaper reported several "walking wounded" at the scene of the crash. Paramedics have set up a triage center at the scene.
Heavy smoke could be seen coming from the building at 9420 Research Boulevard. Several local witnesses on Twitter reported seeing flames coming out of the building and lots of broken glass.
Dozens of fire trucks were on scene and the building was evacuated.
Early reports that the building housed the FBI field office in Austin later turned out not to be true. An FBI spokesman told Fox News that the FBI office in Austin is near where the plane crashed, but not in the same building. There are some federal offices in the building, though authorities couldn't identify which ones.
The NTSB is sending staff out of Dallas and DC to the scene.
MyFoxAustin.com reported earlier Thursday that Austin firefighters responded to a house fire at a home believed to be Stack's. Firefighters reported that the entire house was engulfed in flames, including the fence, when they arrived on the scene.
An Internet user with the name "Joe Stack" posted a suicide note to a social media Web site, ranting against the IRS, according to TheStatesman.com.
"If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?'" the note reportedly read. "The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time."
I used to work in the same building with the FBI in Austin. It was sorta cool when you would be riding the elevator with a few agents and they would have some dude in custody. Pity none of them looked anything like Yvonne Stahovski but I suppose that is the CIA.
I was always a bit worried that building would eventually be the target of some nut. Fortunately he attacked the IRS instead.
The building is on my route home...sucks to be me this afternoon.
:( We are all Texans now.
I had Texas chili with crackers for lunch today. Coincidence? :shifty:
Quote from: jamesww on February 18, 2010, 02:46:46 PM
Why does the State get to define what is and isn't terrorism ?
What are you talking about? The Republican party, FOX NEWS, and the Drudge Report define what is and isn't terrorism.
In this case it's a white dude, so clearly it's a criminal matter.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2010, 02:14:04 PM
I used to work in the same building with the FBI in Austin. It was sorta cool when you would be riding the elevator with a few agents and they would have some dude in custody. Pity none of them looked anything like Yvonne Stahovski but I suppose that is the CIA.
I was always a bit worried that building would eventually be the target of some nut. Fortunately he attacked the IRS instead.
The building is on my route home...sucks to be me this afternoon.
Well, I'm glad it wasn't you flying the plane.
Quote from: jamesww on February 18, 2010, 02:46:46 PM
Why does the State get to define what is and isn't terrorism ?
WTFAY?
The tea bagger terrorist's ISP took down his website and his manifesto, but the smoking gun has preserved it for posterity.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: jamesww on February 18, 2010, 02:46:46 PM
Why does the State get to define what is and isn't terrorism ?
WTFAY?
Leave that discussion to Fate. www.james and Fate can have their own thread, or even board, to discuss whatever they like.
Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not themselves. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2010, 03:10:08 PM
Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not themselves. :P
:hmm:
"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw the tea in themselves," or
"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw themselves in the harbor"?
The first is what is actually written, but the second is the only one that makes much sense.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 03:14:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2010, 03:10:08 PM
Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not themselves. :P
:hmm:
"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw the tea in themselves," or
"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw themselves in the harbor"?
The first is what is actually written, but the second is the only one that makes much sense.
Do you suffer from some sort of low level autism?
Quote from: Fate on February 18, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
The tea bagger terrorist's ISP took down his website and his manifesto, but the smoking gun has preserved it for posterity.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
Interesting. If the manifesto gets wide circulation I think a fair number of people are going to relate to it. I doubt it will have any meaningful impact or anything, but it's the least insane terrorist manifesto I've seen that I can recall.
Also, if his entire website looked like the first page, it's no wonder he had trouble finding work. It's impossible to tell what the dude could actually do or what he'd done in the past from the nebulous fluff he had up there.
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 18, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
The tea bagger terrorist's ISP took down his website and his manifesto, but the smoking gun has preserved it for posterity.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
Interesting. If the manifesto gets wide circulation I think a fair number of people are going to relate to it. I doubt it will have any meaningful impact or anything, but it's the least insane terrorist manifesto I've seen that I can recall.
Also, if his entire website looked like the first page, it's no wonder he had trouble finding work. It's impossible to tell what the dude could actually do or what he'd done in the past from the nebulous fluff he had up there.
No, that's pretty loony. Anyone who can relate to it is criminally insane and should be fired. From a cannon. Into the sun.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2010, 03:21:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 18, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
The tea bagger terrorist's ISP took down his website and his manifesto, but the smoking gun has preserved it for posterity.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
Interesting. If the manifesto gets wide circulation I think a fair number of people are going to relate to it. I doubt it will have any meaningful impact or anything, but it's the least insane terrorist manifesto I've seen that I can recall.
Also, if his entire website looked like the first page, it's no wonder he had trouble finding work. It's impossible to tell what the dude could actually do or what he'd done in the past from the nebulous fluff he had up there.
No, that's pretty loony. Anyone who can relate to it is criminally insane and should be fired. From a cannon. Into the sun.
Says the craziest one here.
I agree with Cal, it wasn't nearly as off the deep end as I expected.
I know crazy.
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 02:43:17 PM
I had Texas chili with crackers for lunch today. Coincidence? :shifty:
And I saw that Texas redneck at the supermarket. :o
Raz, I never said it was sane, but rather that it was less insane than other maifestoes I can recall, which include the Unabomber's, the creepy couldn't-get-laid gym guy in Pittsburgh, the Virginia Tech shooter's, Timothy McVeigh's, various Al-Q writings, and so on.
The author sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic to me, but he uses alot of themes that the Tea Party crowd will indeed relate to, or at least the more extreme members of that movement.
You know, now that I think about it, I interviewed an old guy once who had his own "consulting business", owned a plane, and told me he'd fly anywhere for a contract gig. I can't remember where he'd lived in the past but he had definitely not lived in Kentucky his whole life. I can't remember his name, but he was annoying and weird and I bet I'd remember his face. :ph34r:
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 03:14:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2010, 03:10:08 PM
Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not themselves. :P
:hmm:
"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw the tea in themselves," or
"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw themselves in the harbor"?
The first is what is actually written, but the second is the only one that makes much sense.
And in all cases should be "into the harbor" rather than "in", assuming they are not already standing in the water.
Unless this is another case of American rather than British English?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
And in all cases should be "into the harbor" rather than "in", assuming they are not already standing in the water.
Unless this is another case of American rather than British English?
Quote from: Merriam Webster, www.m-w.comMain Entry: 1in
Pronunciation: \ˈin, ən, ən\
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German in in, Latin in, Greek en
Date: before 12th century
1 a —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits <in the lake> <wounded in the leg> <in the summer> b : into 1 <went in the house>
2 —used as a function word to indicate means, medium, or instrumentality <written in pencil> <bound in leather>
3 a —used as a function word to indicate limitation, qualification, or circumstance <alike in some respects> <left in a hurry> b : into 2a <broke in pieces>
4 —used as a function word to indicate purpose <said in reply>
5 —used as a function word to indicate the larger member of a ratio <one in six is eligible>
Note that 1b and 3b for "in" are defined as "into."
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 03:19:17 PM
Also, if his entire website looked like the first page, it's no wonder he had trouble finding work. It's impossible to tell what the dude could actually do or what he'd done in the past from the nebulous fluff he had up there.
The big turn off to me was the 6 page rant he had leading into the website.
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2010, 03:47:46 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
And in all cases should be "into the harbor" rather than "in", assuming they are not already standing in the water.
Unless this is another case of American rather than British English?
Quote from: Merriam Webster, www.m-w.comMain Entry: 1in
Pronunciation: \ˈin, ən, ən\
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German in in, Latin in, Greek en
Date: before 12th century
1 a —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits <in the lake> <wounded in the leg> <in the summer> b : into 1 <went in the house>
2 —used as a function word to indicate means, medium, or instrumentality <written in pencil> <bound in leather>
3 a —used as a function word to indicate limitation, qualification, or circumstance <alike in some respects> <left in a hurry> b : into 2a <broke in pieces>
4 —used as a function word to indicate purpose <said in reply>
5 —used as a function word to indicate the larger member of a ratio <one in six is eligible>
Note that 1b and 3b for "in" are defined as "into."
"Into" still has the advantage of only being readable in one way when used in this form of sentence, rather than the two ways it is possible to read the sentence as written. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on February 18, 2010, 03:58:52 PM
The big turn off to me was the 6 page rant he had leading into the website.
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 03:27:36 PM
The author sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic to me, but he uses alot of themes that the Tea Party crowd will indeed relate to, or at least the more extreme members of that movement.
Yeah, the rant is full of paranoid conspiracies. It seems he has been wrecking his life for decades over obscure lines in tax laws. He probably was reasonably intelligent, its too bad he never got help.
I wonder if he would write all this on his CV.
Fucking de-taxers. <_<
And Cal - the rant is crazy. Full stop.
QuoteI filed no return that year thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need.
:bleeding:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 04:17:00 PM
QuoteI filed no return that year thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need.
:bleeding:
By that little bleeding face are you suggesting that some of his problems are his own fault and not fault of some wide range conspiracy against computer consultants?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 04:17:00 PM
QuoteI filed no return that year thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need.
:bleeding:
Yes, that's what I thought when I read that bit.
He chose the right target at least.
Sad for those peoples families but...who doesn't hate the taxman.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2010, 04:16:08 PM
Fucking de-taxers. <_<
And Cal - the rant is crazy. Full stop.
Much like Raz, you failed to understand the point I was making. The problem is as likely to lie with my articulation of that point as it is with either of you. :)
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2010, 04:31:04 PM
He chose the right target at least.
Sad for those peoples families but...who doesn't hate the taxman.
The "taxman" is in fact a series of hard-working people earning a middle-class wage who all have families to go home to. And Razgovory.
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2010, 04:31:04 PM
He chose the right target at least.
Sad for those peoples families but...who doesn't hate the taxman.
Me. I worked for the Department of Revenue. I take that shit personally. I want to see predator drones over Texas.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2010, 04:33:49 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2010, 04:31:04 PM
He chose the right target at least.
Sad for those peoples families but...who doesn't hate the taxman.
The "taxman" is in fact a series of hard-working people earning a middle-class wage who all have families to go home to.
Well to be fair, when I worked for a tax agency I didn't really work that hard.
My apologies, and I will amend my post.
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 03:19:17 PM
Interesting. If the manifesto gets wide circulation I think a fair number of people are going to relate to it.
This is a guy who contends that a law that made it difficult from him to obtain independent contractor as opposed to employee status for federal tax purposes made him a "non-citizen slave" and thus justified his slamming in airplane into an office building.
If there are significant number of people who "relate" to that, it's time to panic.
Not really, since most people rant but never take any action. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2010, 04:16:08 PM
Fucking de-taxers. <_<
No shit. All fucking anti-gubbmint anti-taxtards must fucking hang. Or at least get bagged by ATF snipers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2010, 09:01:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2010, 04:16:08 PM
Fucking de-taxers. <_<
No shit. All fucking anti-gubbmint anti-taxtards must fucking hang. Or at least get bagged by ATF snipers.
Total agreement. We need another Waco. Or at least a Ruby Ridge.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
And in all cases should be "into the harbor" rather than "in", assuming they are not already standing in the water.
Unless this is another case of American rather than British English?
Nope, "into" is how US English would have it. Whether into the harbor or into the tea baggers is the question.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 06:48:48 PM
If there are significant number of people who "relate" to that, it's time to panic.
+1
After scanning it, he seems to be saying that the tax code is too complex. That could be fixed. On the other hand, there are enormous forces with huge incentives to block any such simplification: The IRS, the tax preparation industry, lawyers and pretty much anybody clever enough to take the current system for a ride.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2010, 08:05:27 AM
After scanning it, he seems to be saying that the tax code is too complex. That could be fixed. On the other hand, there are enormous forces with huge incentives to block any such simplification: The IRS, the tax preparation industry, lawyers and pretty much anybody clever enough to take the current system for a ride.
OMG YOU MUST BE CRAZY OR STUPID YOU ARE AGREEING WITH SOMETHING HE SAID!!!!1111111111
Since when is Texas the Heartland? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:12:58 AM
OMG YOU MUST BE CRAZY OR STUPID YOU ARE AGREEING WITH SOMETHING HE SAID!!!!1111111111
To be fair, what Neil's saying is a little different than blaming his own misfortune (actually due to carelessness) on the complex tax code.
I'm not sure the IRS or the tax preparers would be the actual enemy, in any case. Most of the complexity is due to bizarre pet tax cuts and the like, so I'd assume the bulk of the struggle would come from Treasury and Congress.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
I'm not sure the IRS or the tax preparers would be the actual enemy, in any case. Most of the complexity is due to bizarre pet tax cuts and the like, so I'd assume the bulk of the struggle would come from Treasury and Congress.
Well I read this thing yesterday afternoon and now I don't remember all of the details, and don't care to read it again. He did rail against Congress as I recall--he pretty much railed against "the Man" in general. But he directed alot of his anger toward the IRS for what I think were specific issues related to his own failings.
There is a narcissistic/paranoid thread throughout his diatribe: I am a failure in life, but it's not due to my own shortcomings but due to the IRS/Congress who are all out to get me. He probably also thought he was hard working, brilliant, and way better than most other people.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
I'm not sure the IRS or the tax preparers would be the actual enemy, in any case. Most of the complexity is due to bizarre pet tax cuts and the like, so I'd assume the bulk of the struggle would come from Treasury and Congress.
Well I read this thing yesterday afternoon and now I don't remember all of the details, and don't care to read it again. He did rail against Congress as I recall--he pretty much railed against "the Man" in general. But he directed alot of his anger toward the IRS for what I think were specific issues related to his own failings.
There is a narcissistic/paranoid thread throughout his diatribe: I am a failure in life, but it's not due to my own shortcomings but due to the IRS/Congress who are all out to get me. He probably also thought he was hard working, brilliant, and way better than most other people.
I was also amused by his thinking that it would spark a revolution.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 19, 2010, 09:29:30 AM
I was also amused by his thinking that it would spark a revolution.
McVeigh thought the same thing... which is amusing, because historically this is never how revolutions have started. I guess it's how many of them end though. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 18, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
The tea bagger terrorist's ISP took down his website and his manifesto, but the smoking gun has preserved it for posterity.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
Interesting. If the manifesto gets wide circulation I think a fair number of people are going to relate to it. I doubt it will have any meaningful impact or anything, but it's the least insane terrorist manifesto I've seen that I can recall.
Also, if his entire website looked like the first page, it's no wonder he had trouble finding work. It's impossible to tell what the dude could actually do or what he'd done in the past from the nebulous fluff he had up there.
Seriously. This guy's tax problems were fucking MINOR. If you have tax issues, the IRS is easy to work with. This guy was a fucking nutter.
I think it's likely that he was a charlatan and was angry that the government wouldn't let him con them as well. I'd need to see the rest of his website to get a better idea, but the front page looks very questionable. From that alone I would avoid working with the guy.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
There is a narcissistic/paranoid thread throughout his diatribe: I am a failure in life, but it's not due to my own shortcomings but due to the IRS/Congress who are all out to get me. He probably also thought he was hard working, brilliant, and way better than most other people.
In other words, the type of person who reads Ayn Rand and says, "Yes, that's why I'm not wealthy and respected."
Learn to quote, Raz. -_-
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2010, 10:02:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
There is a narcissistic/paranoid thread throughout his diatribe: I am a failure in life, but it's not due to my own shortcomings but due to the IRS/Congress who are all out to get me. He probably also thought he was hard working, brilliant, and way better than most other people.
In other words, the type of person who reads Ayn Rand and says, "Yes, that's why I'm not wealthy and respected."
Easy for you to say.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2010, 08:05:27 AM
After scanning it, he seems to be saying that the tax code is too complex.
He does talk about that, but his actual gripe is the code section that supposedly prevented him from reporting as an independent contractor. But reporting as an independent contractor is a much bigger hassle for the taxpayer - the taxpayer has to take on the paperwork burden that would ordinarily be handled by an employer and make quarterly estimated tax payments. So clearly complexity is not his problem.
Being treated as an independent contractor does not lower one's tax burden and it certainly doesn't make things easier. What it does do is make it a little easier to cheat on your taxes if one is so inclined (b/c there is employer sending forms to the IRS).
Thus, reading through the lines of this guy's whiny BS, what he is really complaining about is that Congress made it harder for him to cheat on his taxes, and the IRS caught him when he tried to do it anyway.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 19, 2010, 10:31:52 AM
He does talk about that, but his actual gripe is the code section that supposedly prevented him from reporting as an independent contractor. But reporting as an independent contractor is a much bigger hassle for the taxpayer - the taxpayer has to take on the paperwork burden that would ordinarily be handled by an employer and make quarterly estimated tax payments.
This is one of the items I was referring to when I said people could relate. Specifically, I meant me :bleeding:
Is it really fair to call this guy a teabagger?
Quote from: Faeelin on February 19, 2010, 11:16:13 AM
Is it really fair to call this guy a teabagger?
Yes. His nickname was Teabag Balzac.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 19, 2010, 11:16:13 AM
Is it really fair to call this guy a teabagger?
Sure. That is if you think Bush-hating, marxist, support of universal health care is symptomatic of what the Tea Party movement advocates. In that case he is the perfect representative of the Tea Party movement as the msm is trying to paint.
However, don't ever consider fanatic Obama supporter Amy Bishop representative of typical Democrats, oh no. The msm is only in the business of painting with a broad brush when smearing groups they hate.
Uh Hans, most tea baggers hate Bush for spending too much and for Bush's corporate bailouts of the automotive and banking industries. Conservative small business guys (like the one who drove his plane into the Austin IRS) also want universal health care because it'll lower the cost of each employee. :lmfao:
Quote from: Faeelin on February 19, 2010, 11:16:13 AM
Is it really fair to call this guy a teabagger?
Yes. Anti-tax, anti-government folks are the bread and butter of Hans' Tea Bagging Friends of America.
Bush bailed out the auto companies? :hmm:
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 19, 2010, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 19, 2010, 11:16:13 AM
Is it really fair to call this guy a teabagger?
Sure. That is if you think Bush-hating, marxist, support of universal health care is symptomatic of what the Tea Party movement advocates. In that case he is the perfect representative of the Tea Party movement as the msm is trying to paint.
However, don't ever consider fanatic Obama supporter Amy Bishop representative of typical Democrats, oh no. The msm is only in the business of painting with a broad brush when smearing groups they hate.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2010, 06:47:32 PM
:lmfao:
Don't underestimate the power of the microsoft metwork!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2010, 06:33:06 PM
Bush bailed out the auto companies? :hmm:
Sort of:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7791999.stm
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2010, 06:47:32 PM
:lmfao:
Don't underestimate the power of the microsoft metwork!
Ahem, don't underestimate the power of men seeking men.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
To be fair, what Neil's saying is a little different than blaming his own misfortune (actually due to carelessness) on the complex tax code.
Carelessness and stupidity.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2010, 08:10:56 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 19, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
To be fair, what Neil's saying is a little different than blaming his own misfortune (actually due to carelessness) on the complex tax code.
Carelessness and stupidity.
The guy should have left someone to fear and someone to fear him by buzzing the building. The fact that he screwed it up and hit the building speaks volumes about his stupidity all by itself. :contract:
Did you guys who are seriously calling this nut a teabagger actually read his manifesto? He pretty much called himself a communist at the end of it and certainly denounced capitalism. That's basically the opposite of what most teabaggers would say/do.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Did you guys who are seriously calling this nut a teabagger actually read his manifesto? He pretty much called himself a communist at the end of it and certainly denounced capitalism. That's basically the opposite of what most teabaggers would say/do.
All part of his plot to implicate the fithy commies...and their designs on our pure water supplies.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Did you guys who are seriously calling this nut a teabagger actually read his manifesto? He pretty much called himself a communist at the end of it and certainly denounced capitalism. That's basically the opposite of what most teabaggers would say/do.
FALSE FLAG
:menace:
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Did you guys who are seriously calling this nut a teabagger actually read his manifesto? He pretty much called himself a communist at the end of it and certainly denounced capitalism. That's basically the opposite of what most teabaggers would say/do.
Look at the thread-starter and all your confusion wlil be lifted.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Did you guys who are seriously calling this nut a teabagger actually read his manifesto? He pretty much called himself a communist at the end of it and certainly denounced capitalism. That's basically the opposite of what most teabaggers would say/do.
I read his manifesto. At the end, he lists a communist creed followed by a "capitalist" creed. I see a lot of anti-government hate, and not a lot of pro-communist side. What are you looking at, again?
Tea baggers are more dangerous than communists, Muslims and global warming combined.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 19, 2010, 11:14:05 PM
Tea baggers are more dangerous than communists, Muslims and global warming combined.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2006%2F01%2Fwaters.gif&hash=93d1171fb0f20358fe45f62e02688df1b61fdeca)
Agreed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2010, 06:33:06 PM
Bush bailed out the auto companies? :hmm:
Yeah. Bush gave them money so that they'd stay afloat just long enough until it became Obama's problem.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Did you guys who are seriously calling this nut a teabagger actually read his manifesto? He pretty much called himself a communist at the end of it and certainly denounced capitalism. That's basically the opposite of what most teabaggers would say/do.
He was angry with the current crony capitalism, but never says he was a communist. The Teabag types don't often have much of a grasp of capitalism either.
Quote from: NY Times, 1998
How a Tax Law Helps Insure a Scarcity of Programmers
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 27, 1998
The Senate holds hearings this week on complaints of taxpayer abuse by the Internal Revenue Service, but the agenda does not include the role of Congress itself in creating taxpayer woes, particularly for tens of thousands of computer programmers.
But just ask Midge Johnson, a would-be programming entrepreneur, about a long-standing tax law that is pointed specifically at software professionals and prevents many of them from setting up freelance businesses. Lately, the I.R.S. has been aggressively enforcing that law -- even as computer programmers are in such short supply that the Clinton Administration is pouring millions of dollars into Federal initiatives to train more of them.
It appears to be public policy in conflict with itself and it is making work life difficult for a category of citizens crucial to the digital economy.
''Why does Congress say that I can't go out and pursue the American dream and give my kids and grandkids things I couldn't have?'' asked Mrs. Johnson, who did not find out about the law until two years ago, after quitting her job with the consulting firm of Booz Allen & Hamilton in hopes of starting her own software programming business. ''And why,'' she asked, ''is the I.R.S. so busy enforcing this law that keeps me from being an independent contractor?''
Mrs. Johnson, of Lanham, Md., knows that programmers are in such short supply that they can earn up to several hundred dollars an hour writing code for hire, and many in Congress want to let tens of thousands of foreign programmers migrate to the United States. She calculated that if she were in business for herself she could double her income.
Everywhere Mrs. Johnson went in the suburbs of the nation's capital, she said, she was offered work fixing and customizing software -- but only if she would close her business and become an employee.
''They were afraid to do business with my company,'' Mrs. Johnson said. Two months ago, her bank account empty and creditors at the door, Mrs. Johnson gave up and took a job as a programmer, paying $69,000.
Mrs. Johnson and thousands of other computer programmers who want to work for themselves instead of being employees have run afoul of a 1986 law in which Congress decreed that most individual programmers cannot be entrepreneurs.
The law generally excludes programmers from statutes giving employers some flexibility to use independent contractors. Critics say that the I.R.S. has recently stepped up its enforcement of the law in a way that effectively kills start-up programming businesses if their only employee is the founder.
The law, which was introduced by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, was estimated to raise $60 million over five years, a figure based on a belief by a staff member of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation that employees cheat less on their taxes than independent contractors do. That was enough money to pay for a tax break, approved with Mr. Moynihan's support, that was sought by I.B.M. for its overseas operations. Under the Gramm-Rudman deficit control act of the previous year, Congress was required to pay for any tax cuts with comparable revenue increases or spending cuts.
A year after the law regarding contractors was enacted, the Senator tried to repeal it, but his bill died. In 1994, Senator William V. Roth, Republican of Delaware, the sponsor of this week's hearings, wrote Mr. Moynihan saying the programmers should get relief. More than 60 other senators have written similar letters since 1994, but they have not voted to change the law.
Ginny Flynn, a spokeswoman for Mr. Roth, said that while the Senator believed that the law was unfair, he was not currently moving to change it because ''despite the fact the programmers are treated differently from other people, this opens a Pandora's box of other independent contractor issues.''
Programmers and their lawyers say that as a result of inaction by Congress, many corporations have revised their policies to explicitly forbid the hiring of programmers who are independent contractors.
In response, some people, like Mrs. Johnson, incorporated. They reasoned that if they were employees of their own corporations they would be treated by the I.R.S. the way that many doctors and others are and could expand their enterprises.
But internal I.R.S. documents show that in Alaska, California, Ohio, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, I.R.S. auditors as recently as last year hunted for corporations created by computer programmers. They found scores of such companies and then disallowed them for tax purposes. The papers show that they were disallowed because they were less than a year old and had only one employee, the programmer who created the corporation.
Across the country, officials of high-technology temporary-help companies said the I.R.S. audit tactic had caused many corporations to refuse to hire programmers unless they become employees, like Mrs. Johnson, or were employees of such temporary-help agencies.
Mary E. Oppenheimer, an I.R.S. assistant chief counsel, said there was no national directive for auditors to hunt for incorporated programmers. However, she noted, Congress has directed the I.R.S. to look at the economic substance of tax matters, not just their legal form.
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.''
The immediate effect of these audits is to force individual programmers like Mrs. Johnson to abandon their dreams of getting rich off their high-technology skills. But the broader impact is that small businesses started by one entrepreneur do not have a chance to grow into mighty enterprises that can create jobs and generate more taxes. ''Who do you know who would hire someone who will bring with them trouble from the I.R.S.?'' asked Harvey J. Shulman, the Washington lawyer for the National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses, who made the audit documents available.
Mr. Shulman has challenged 52 such audits. ''I prevailed in 50 cases and partially in another, but at a cost to clients of $50,000 or more, and that is just ridiculous,'' he said.
The association's 400 members, who had more than $5 billion of revenues last year, are mostly high-technology temporary-help agencies that hire programmers as employees and send them to companies on short-term assignments. They want the same flexibility to use contractors and individuals who have incorporated as other businesses do.
Don McLaurin, president of the Computer Consulting Group in Columbia, S.C., which hires programmers as employees and farms them out to companies for short-term projects, said the law and its enforcement ''are having a devastating impact on the computer industry.''
He said his business and his clients would benefit if he could use some independent contractors and some incorporated programmers.
''This is Catch-22,'' he said. ''If you are not legitimate because you start out as a one-person corporation and you haven't been in business for a year, then how do you ever start your business? It is nonsensical.''
Ed Myers, president of a company in El Segundo, Calif., that provides programmers to corporations, said that when his company was audited he and Mr. Shulman were able to defend the status of all but 3 of 50 workers as independent contractors.
''The auditor then said I had to give him two more people and I said, 'what do you mean?' and he said he had to have five people he could reclassify as employees because that was what his boss demanded and that if I would give him two more names he would close the audit.
''My first reaction was 'hell no,' because they are not truly employees,'' Mr. Myers said. ''But my second reaction was that it makes no economic sense for me to fight this because it would cost another $50,000 or more, so I gave him two names.''
The two programmers, he said, no longer speak to him.
Mr. Shulman said the association ''is not asking for a special privilege in repealing this law; we are just asking that programmers and other technical-services workers be treated the same as every other worker in America instead of being singled out for discriminatory treatment.''
Donna Steele Flynn, a former member of the House Ways and Means Committee staff who is now a tax specialist with Ernst & Young, said, ''The only reason this hasn't gotten fixed is because the official Joint Tax Committee estimate in the past was that repeal of Section 1706 would cost a billion dollars in tax revenue over five years.
''There is a political will on both sides of the aisle, but in terms of importance and number of people, a billion dollars is a lot of money for a relatively small number of people.''
However, Ms. Flynn added, the official estimate seems wildly inflated. She noted that when legislation was considered last year that would allow employers broad discretion over whether to treat workers in any industry as employees or independent contractors, the tax revenue loss for the entire economy was estimated at the same $1 billion over five years.
The I.R.S. estimates that it collects 99.5 percent of taxes due from employees, but far less from those who work as independent contractors.
''Whether people cheat is a separate issue,'' Mr. Shulman said. He pointed to a Treasury Department study that found that programmers were more compliant taxpayers than other independent contractors.
''The I.R.S. wants people to be employees because it is easier to collect revenue, but the revenue they are collecting from employees is less than the revenue they would collect from independent contractors -- even if they cheat a little -- because they can make so much more,'' he said. ''Basically the I.R.S. is saying it would rather collect less revenue with less cheating than collect more revenue with more cheating. Does that make economic sense?''
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/27/business/how-a-tax-law-helps-insure-a-scarcity-of-programmers.html?pagewanted=all
The article kind of papers over the issues involved.
If person X sets up a one-person corporation and then provides services on a contract basis directly to a client with no intermediation, there isn't going to be much of an issue. But what was happening in the 80s is that the programmers and computer engineers who were ostensibly independent were getting much of their work through brokers. It started to look a lot like these "brokers" were really businesses providing specialized temp labor for hire, and the putative "independent" programmers were de facto employees of these brokers. Some of the companies that operated on the traditional employer-employee model were struggling because the programmers wanted to be independent and wouldn't take jobs as employees. It is not clear whether this was because they wanted to have some subjective feeling of "independence" or because they thought it would it easier to play around with their tax liability. In any case Congress decided that the latter was enough of a risk that they acted to close what looked to them like a loophole.
The part I didn't get when I read that article was the connection between independent contractor status and the ability to work for other clients/employers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2010, 06:58:43 PM
The part I didn't get when I read that article was the connection between independent contractor status and the ability to work for other clients/employers.
Because of the tax law no one would hire them as outside contractors so they had to hire on in-house for much, much less money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2010, 06:58:43 PM
The part I didn't get when I read that article was the connection between independent contractor status and the ability to work for other clients/employers.
Not sure what you are questioning. An employee of company X couldn't take on an equivelent job in corporation Y without Corp X's permission, in general (because of the fear of corporation Y taking advantage of the programming done for X). For an independent employee, that wouldn't be an issue - Corp X wouldn't even know Corp Y's work existed. I suppose one could negotiate part-time work at X that allowed for another part-time job at Y, but that would be more cumbersome than a simple X-hours-a-month contractor gig.
Quote from: sbr on February 22, 2010, 08:46:29 PM
Because of the tax law no one would hire them as outside contractors so they had to hire on in-house for much, much less money.
Of course, that's the other thing the story got wrong - independents get paid less overall than in-house help. My brother has been both. Contractor status looks great in terms of the dollars per hour, but once you factor in the fewer hours per month worked, the employer's share of federal taxes and fees, plus the cost of health care, the contractor is generally well behind where they were as employees.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 07:28:55 AM
Of course, that's the other thing the story got wrong - independents get paid less overall than in-house help.
Now. Back then, that wasn't the case. Also, a number of jobs in IT never made that flip. A contractor working on JCL for mainframes still makes double what an employee does, for example.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2010, 12:14:02 PM
Now. Back then, that wasn't the case. Also, a number of jobs in IT never made that flip.
Well, I wouldn't know about the situation before the mid-1990s, because my brother wasn't in the business before then.
QuoteA contractor working on JCL for mainframes still makes double what an employee does, for example.
Don't believe it. Any company that would be paying twice as much to have a contractor do the job as they would be paying to have an an employee to do it will have an employee doing it. That's Business 101.
A contractor may be making twice as much per hour, but that isn't the same as making twice the compensation. You bring in contractors when they have expertise that makes their higher hourly comp worth it, or when they are actually cheaper to hire than employees and you can avoid the IRS restrictions on contractors.
MiM is right. Sometimes there is only a need for a short term programming gig, and then there'd be no need for that person (or someone else with their skillset) for another three years. You're not going to keep someone around for years in case there's an issue, and if there is an issue unexpectedly you bring a contractor back in to apply the bandaid. This is more common with older skillsets like COBOL, and part of what's driving the very high contracting rate is the scarcity of the skills required.
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2010, 12:46:09 PM
MiM is right. Sometimes there is only a need for a short term programming gig, and then there'd be no need for that person (or someone else with their skillset) for another three years. You're not going to keep someone around for years in case there's an issue, and if there is an issue unexpectedly you bring a contractor back in to apply the bandaid. This is more common with older skillsets like COBOL, and part of what's driving the very high contracting rate is the scarcity of the skills required.
That's the opposite of what MiM is saying. He is saying that a contractor makes "double what an employee does" for a given job. Of course contractors make higher wages for what they do when they have a scarce skill that one doesn't want to pay to have around full time, but that has always and forever been the case. See: dowsers.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 12:51:50 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2010, 12:46:09 PM
MiM is right. Sometimes there is only a need for a short term programming gig, and then there'd be no need for that person (or someone else with their skillset) for another three years. You're not going to keep someone around for years in case there's an issue, and if there is an issue unexpectedly you bring a contractor back in to apply the bandaid. This is more common with older skillsets like COBOL, and part of what's driving the very high contracting rate is the scarcity of the skills required.
That's the opposite of what MiM is saying. He is saying that a contractor makes "double what an employee does" for a given job. Of course contractors make higher wages for what they do when they have a scarce skill that one doesn't want to pay to have around full time, but that has always and forever been the case. See: dowsers.
Perhaps I communicated it badly, but that was indeed what I'm saying. If a company needs them for a long-term or permanent basis, then of course they don't pay contractor rates. They just hire them at half the cost. There was a time when contractors could get quasi-permanent contracting gigs paying the contracting rate, but those times are long gone.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2010, 01:30:35 PM
Perhaps I communicated it badly, but that was indeed what I'm saying. If a company needs them for a long-term or permanent basis, then of course they don't pay contractor rates. They just hire them at half the cost. There was a time when contractors could get quasi-permanent contracting gigs paying the contracting rate, but those times are long gone.
And my point was simply that, "those days being long gone," the actuality is that a given computer programmer, like my brother, will probably discover that one makes more as an employee than as a contractor, once taxes, billable hours, and benefits are accounted for. In other words, that Mr. I'll-fly-an-airplane-into-a-building was utterly mistaken about how rich he would have been had the Evil IRS not kept him from being a software contractor.
Mart should have tackled him.
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2010, 11:04:06 AM
And my point was simply that, "those days being long gone," the actuality is that a given computer programmer, like my brother, will probably discover that one makes more as an employee than as a contractor, once taxes, billable hours, and benefits are accounted for. In other words, that Mr. I'll-fly-an-airplane-into-a-building was utterly mistaken about how rich he would have been had the Evil IRS not kept him from being a software contractor.
Ok, I get what you are saying now and that is correct. It also explains why independent consultants also generally bill in the range of hundreds of dollars an hour: they need to charge that much once you account for taxes/benefits.
Quote from: Caliga on February 24, 2010, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2010, 11:04:06 AM
And my point was simply that, "those days being long gone," the actuality is that a given computer programmer, like my brother, will probably discover that one makes more as an employee than as a contractor, once taxes, billable hours, and benefits are accounted for. In other words, that Mr. I'll-fly-an-airplane-into-a-building was utterly mistaken about how rich he would have been had the Evil IRS not kept him from being a software contractor.
Ok, I get what you are saying now and that is correct. It also explains why independent consultants also generally bill in the range of hundreds of dollars an hour: they need to charge that much once you account for taxes/benefits.
It also explains why that guy is a complete fucking retard. :P