O/T: One Sick Puppy

Page 2 of 3  


But if you succeed they won't put you in jail. (If you don't, it's an excuse to have you committed.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Attempted suicide -- That means you failed at that too!
Wouldn't that piss you off?
It might just make you want to go out and blow your brains out.
RonB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You kill yourself, you go to jail. That has been THE deterrent for me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 9:28 AM, Robatoy wrote:

"tip 'o the hat"
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You kill yourself, you go to jail. That has been THE deterrent for me.
Me too, I'd rather go to heaven... ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You already made that deal and there is no way back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:11:46 -0600, the infamous "Leon"

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/19/2010 12:50 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/19/2010 09:14 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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).

He wasn't an engineer, or similar, either. Yes, it makes a difference.

These particular rules have been in place for a long time. He got caught and lost everything, including his mind.

Wrong, in every way. He didn't follow the rules and like a dummy got strung up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 11:15 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Wrong, more like 24 years ... like I said, you just proved have no factual grasp of the time frame, or the issues.

Not at the time it didn't ... wrong again.

"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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong, obviously; 24 years > 15 years.

At the time? 24 years ago? The dufus was in tax trouble for his recent screw-up.

The tax man was in the process of taking everything, yes.

Wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 11:38 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 12:02 PM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

A lie. I haven't snipped anything in this thread. Google's interface is terrible, but it looks like *you* are the one snipping.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 9:14 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Just out of curiosity, is it your opinion that this is improper? If so, on what do you base that opinion?

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.

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

As well it should.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.