4 ms·

On Stack and the IRS

39 points by thinkcomp 17y ago

hga 17y ago
Bleah. By Stack's own admission, the first of his beefs with the IRS was getting caught in an "organized religion" scam. I didn't read past that, but I understand his third beef is akin to that. (The second is legitimate, it too put me out of a job in 1987 and on a bad career path for a long while, but the problem was more with the Congress that removed the safe harbor just for us "technical professionals" than the IRS which then enforced that.)
- wjy 17y ago
  Can you summarize what safe harbor provisions were removed? It wasn't clear to me from Stack's writing what, exactly, technical folks were being exempt from.
  - hga 17y ago
    Another HN contributor did a much better job than I could: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1137930 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1137930 My only caveat is that as far as I remember this is something that Pat Moynihan in the middle of the night slipped into a COBRA bill (one of those last minute 1,000 page catch alls to continue funding the government) instead of something subjected to any debate in the Congress. Yep, it did happen in the same year as the tax changes, but not e.g. in the same bill or as I recall at the same time.
    - hga 17y ago
      My recollection seems to be wrong: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/the-austin-pilot-.html http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/the-austin-p... (HT the Instapundit.) Then again having lost my job I didn't care that much about the details, which weren't particularly available in that pre-real Internet period.
      - hga 17y ago
        Or maybe not, except for it being the big tax bill that year instead of a COBRA. This article: http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/fixing-independent-programmers-no-win-scenario-764 http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/fixing-independent-pr... and one of the comments matches my recollection that Moynihan slipped it into the bill in the dead of night and that it was never directly considered. Says also that Moynihan tried to get it repealed a year later, so it could be that he was also successful in spinning it as a considered part of the bill instead of a disastrous favor for a very narrow special interest.
thaumaturgy 17y ago
I'm just catching up to the news on this, but I'm kind of disappointed in the articles that I've read, like this one, which are so quick to backpedal and say, "not that his actions were justified". This is going to be a terribly unpopular point of view I'm sure, but all specific details of his particular case aside ... what is an individual or small business with limited resources going to do if they end up stuck in an IRS quagmire? Is the IRS really defensible at all here? What happened is exactly what can be expected to happen when the rules of the social contract are violated. For social contracts to work, there must be a way for parties to peacefully resolve arguments. In the case of the IRS (in particular), you have a complex, constantly changing system, with little recourse for resolving disagreements. I've been really poor, and it's easy in that situation to adopt an us versus them, self-defeating attitude towards government and bureaucracy. Resolving any disputes requires resources, and when you don't have those resources, you find yourself struggling on the losing end of deals over and over again. There are, at least, thousands of people that would imagine themselves doing what Stack did, and for much the same reasons. Doesn't that practically require that the tax system get reviewed, and fixed?
- thinkcomp 17y ago
  This is one of those very fine lines where on one side you have completely understandable outrage at an unjust and broken system--and on the other you have completely understandable outrage at an unjust and broken system, and killing people who are employed by the system but don't any have direct control over it. I think the former is entirely justified, but the latter is clearly not.
  - maurycy 17y ago
    The problem is that no one has any direct control over the system. It is like any other big company. The call centre people are never responsible for the mess the company made to you. However, if you do not want to devote significant resources, you are pretty much screwed up and yell at the call centre people. The difference is that, in the most cases, you can just forget about the corporation and live your life. There is no opt-out from the IRS, though.
invisible 17y ago
It is bizarre to me that the author is cutting down Stack and at the same exact time defending his message (but not his actions). So you really think you'd be writing this piece if he didn't take dire actions, Aaron Greenspan? I have said it before, but there is a certain point where things are not terrorism or insane but instead revolt and rebellion. I, for one, understand his actions (although I, myself, would not choose to die over money). Perhaps he understood that only making a dumb, cruel decision would give his message weight to appear on major news sites. We do not know. What exactly should a man that has tried to financially change things, politically change things, and fallen back on trying to avoid getting in trouble do? In any case, I do not like the IRS and it's veil of mystery. I use tax software because it takes me tons of time to do the paper form by hand and figure out what forms I even need to submit (it still took me around 2 hours to get everything in order to do my taxes and complete them with the software - just personal taxes and no state taxes). What does it say when the IRS Commissioner can't do his own taxes yet this guy was financially penalized for using an accountant to try and get his records right?
- thinkcomp 17y ago
  Yes. I've been writing about taxes for a long time, actually. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_142518.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_... What you're supposed to do is bring problems to light through the press and/or lobbying Congress (the lobbying process is not just reserved for corporations) and/or filing lawsuits. When and where appropriate, I've done all three. What you're not supposed to do is physically harm those you disagree with. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship ruled by thugs.
  - invisible 17y ago
    You briefly scuffed on the subject of the IRS having a bad system for a single form in that article. You're telling me that this recent article you wrote was being prepared prior to Stack's violent decision? I did not think so. He brought the topics to light by forcing them into the light in a crude manner. Harming government employees is probably as close as you can get to making a strong point without committing a huge atrocity (unless you consider picketing "strong"). Unfortunately, we have done tons of physical harm in the past to get our way, Mr. Greenspan. See the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. It sometimes requires ugly situations to fix ugly problems. So you're going to really claim that the entire history of our United States is based on a dictatorship ruled by thugs? Edit: I did not mean to imply you did not have an interest in tax reform, simply that you (among many others in the news industry) are touching on the subject when the interest has peaked due to Stack's actions. You may have wrote something similar in 5 months or 5 years, but it is easy to say that the message would not resonate as much.
wrinklz 17y ago
I believe that our legislative branch is nearly broken. But for the most part, people are tolerant of their situation. But how long can we go on without a functioning (i.e. serving the people) legislative branch? That's like driving down a winding mountain road without brakes. If the grade gets too steep, and the road too twisty, we'll fly into a ravine.
Daniel_Newby 17y ago
Stack was just a loony murderer. Planning to die in first field operation == teh crazy. Planning to survive for indefinitely many field operations == professional revolutionary. Let's just be glad he was not visited by what Charlie Stross calls the Plutonium Fairy.

39 points by thinkcomp 17y ago

hga 17y ago

Bleah. By Stack's own admission, the first of his beefs with the IRS was getting caught in an "organized religion" scam. I didn't read past that, but I understand his third beef is akin to that. (The second is legitimate, it too put me out of a job in 1987 and on a bad career path for a long while, but the problem was more with the Congress that removed the safe harbor just for us "technical professionals" than the IRS which then enforced that.)

wjy 17y ago
Can you summarize what safe harbor provisions were removed? It wasn't clear to me from Stack's writing what, exactly, technical folks were being exempt from.
- hga 17y ago
  Another HN contributor did a much better job than I could: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1137930 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1137930 My only caveat is that as far as I remember this is something that Pat Moynihan in the middle of the night slipped into a COBRA bill (one of those last minute 1,000 page catch alls to continue funding the government) instead of something subjected to any debate in the Congress. Yep, it did happen in the same year as the tax changes, but not e.g. in the same bill or as I recall at the same time.
  - hga 17y ago
    My recollection seems to be wrong: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/the-austin-pilot-.html http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/the-austin-p... (HT the Instapundit.) Then again having lost my job I didn't care that much about the details, which weren't particularly available in that pre-real Internet period.
    - hga 17y ago
      Or maybe not, except for it being the big tax bill that year instead of a COBRA. This article: http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/fixing-independent-programmers-no-win-scenario-764 http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/fixing-independent-pr... and one of the comments matches my recollection that Moynihan slipped it into the bill in the dead of night and that it was never directly considered. Says also that Moynihan tried to get it repealed a year later, so it could be that he was also successful in spinning it as a considered part of the bill instead of a disastrous favor for a very narrow special interest.

thaumaturgy 17y ago

I'm just catching up to the news on this, but I'm kind of disappointed in the articles that I've read, like this one, which are so quick to backpedal and say, "not that his actions were justified". This is going to be a terribly unpopular point of view I'm sure, but all specific details of his particular case aside ... what is an individual or small business with limited resources going to do if they end up stuck in an IRS quagmire? Is the IRS really defensible at all here? What happened is exactly what can be expected to happen when the rules of the social contract are violated. For social contracts to work, there must be a way for parties to peacefully resolve arguments. In the case of the IRS (in particular), you have a complex, constantly changing system, with little recourse for resolving disagreements. I've been really poor, and it's easy in that situation to adopt an us versus them, self-defeating attitude towards government and bureaucracy. Resolving any disputes requires resources, and when you don't have those resources, you find yourself struggling on the losing end of deals over and over again. There are, at least, thousands of people that would imagine themselves doing what Stack did, and for much the same reasons. Doesn't that practically require that the tax system get reviewed, and fixed?

thinkcomp 17y ago
This is one of those very fine lines where on one side you have completely understandable outrage at an unjust and broken system--and on the other you have completely understandable outrage at an unjust and broken system, and killing people who are employed by the system but don't any have direct control over it. I think the former is entirely justified, but the latter is clearly not.
- maurycy 17y ago
  The problem is that no one has any direct control over the system. It is like any other big company. The call centre people are never responsible for the mess the company made to you. However, if you do not want to devote significant resources, you are pretty much screwed up and yell at the call centre people. The difference is that, in the most cases, you can just forget about the corporation and live your life. There is no opt-out from the IRS, though.

invisible 17y ago

It is bizarre to me that the author is cutting down Stack and at the same exact time defending his message (but not his actions). So you really think you'd be writing this piece if he didn't take dire actions, Aaron Greenspan? I have said it before, but there is a certain point where things are not terrorism or insane but instead revolt and rebellion. I, for one, understand his actions (although I, myself, would not choose to die over money). Perhaps he understood that only making a dumb, cruel decision would give his message weight to appear on major news sites. We do not know. What exactly should a man that has tried to financially change things, politically change things, and fallen back on trying to avoid getting in trouble do? In any case, I do not like the IRS and it's veil of mystery. I use tax software because it takes me tons of time to do the paper form by hand and figure out what forms I even need to submit (it still took me around 2 hours to get everything in order to do my taxes and complete them with the software - just personal taxes and no state taxes). What does it say when the IRS Commissioner can't do his own taxes yet this guy was financially penalized for using an accountant to try and get his records right?

thinkcomp 17y ago
Yes. I've been writing about taxes for a long time, actually. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_142518.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/new-deal-20_b_... What you're supposed to do is bring problems to light through the press and/or lobbying Congress (the lobbying process is not just reserved for corporations) and/or filing lawsuits. When and where appropriate, I've done all three. What you're not supposed to do is physically harm those you disagree with. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship ruled by thugs.
- invisible 17y ago
  You briefly scuffed on the subject of the IRS having a bad system for a single form in that article. You're telling me that this recent article you wrote was being prepared prior to Stack's violent decision? I did not think so. He brought the topics to light by forcing them into the light in a crude manner. Harming government employees is probably as close as you can get to making a strong point without committing a huge atrocity (unless you consider picketing "strong"). Unfortunately, we have done tons of physical harm in the past to get our way, Mr. Greenspan. See the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. It sometimes requires ugly situations to fix ugly problems. So you're going to really claim that the entire history of our United States is based on a dictatorship ruled by thugs? Edit: I did not mean to imply you did not have an interest in tax reform, simply that you (among many others in the news industry) are touching on the subject when the interest has peaked due to Stack's actions. You may have wrote something similar in 5 months or 5 years, but it is easy to say that the message would not resonate as much.

wrinklz 17y ago

I believe that our legislative branch is nearly broken. But for the most part, people are tolerant of their situation. But how long can we go on without a functioning (i.e. serving the people) legislative branch? That's like driving down a winding mountain road without brakes. If the grade gets too steep, and the road too twisty, we'll fly into a ravine.

Daniel_Newby 17y ago

Stack was just a loony murderer. Planning to die in first field operation == teh crazy. Planning to survive for indefinitely many field operations == professional revolutionary. Let's just be glad he was not visited by what Charlie Stross calls the Plutonium Fairy.