<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_0114251</id>
	<title>IRS Now Wants To Repeal Cell Phone Tax</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245240420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.itworld.com/" rel="nofollow">narramissic</a> writes <i>"Last week the IRS caused an uproar when it requested public comments on ways to clarify a decades-old law, seldom enforced, that would tax personal usage of business cell phones. But IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said that the request for comments did not mean that the largely ignored rule would now be enforced. 'Some have incorrectly implied that the IRS is "cracking down" on employee use of employer-provided cell phones,' Shulman wrote. 'To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals.' And in fact, the IRS is <a href="http://www.itworld.com/government/69385/irs-now-wants-repeal-cell-phone-tax">now recommending that the law be repealed</a>, saying that 'the passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>narramissic writes " Last week the IRS caused an uproar when it requested public comments on ways to clarify a decades-old law , seldom enforced , that would tax personal usage of business cell phones .
But IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said that the request for comments did not mean that the largely ignored rule would now be enforced .
'Some have incorrectly implied that the IRS is " cracking down " on employee use of employer-provided cell phones, ' Shulman wrote .
'To the contrary , the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals .
' And in fact , the IRS is now recommending that the law be repealed , saying that 'the passage of time , advances in technology , and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>narramissic writes "Last week the IRS caused an uproar when it requested public comments on ways to clarify a decades-old law, seldom enforced, that would tax personal usage of business cell phones.
But IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said that the request for comments did not mean that the largely ignored rule would now be enforced.
'Some have incorrectly implied that the IRS is "cracking down" on employee use of employer-provided cell phones,' Shulman wrote.
'To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals.
' And in fact, the IRS is now recommending that the law be repealed, saying that 'the passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361587</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1245254040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman, not the person paying them</i>
<br> <br>
Actually, in most states, is IS up to the person buying the goods or services to pay the taxes if the service provider or vendor doesn't collect and remit those taxes. It's usually called a "use" tax, etc. So, if you're in California for example, and have a product shipped to you from South Dakota... you're supposed to write a check to your state government in the amount that the sales tax <i>would</i> have been if you'd made the same purchase from a retailer in California.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman , not the person paying them Actually , in most states , is IS up to the person buying the goods or services to pay the taxes if the service provider or vendor does n't collect and remit those taxes .
It 's usually called a " use " tax , etc .
So , if you 're in California for example , and have a product shipped to you from South Dakota... you 're supposed to write a check to your state government in the amount that the sales tax would have been if you 'd made the same purchase from a retailer in California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman, not the person paying them
 
Actually, in most states, is IS up to the person buying the goods or services to pay the taxes if the service provider or vendor doesn't collect and remit those taxes.
It's usually called a "use" tax, etc.
So, if you're in California for example, and have a product shipped to you from South Dakota... you're supposed to write a check to your state government in the amount that the sales tax would have been if you'd made the same purchase from a retailer in California.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361283</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, sure you are</title>
	<author>Sapphon</author>
	<datestamp>1245252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 2.5\% flat income tax? <b>2.5\%??</b> My dear friend, I don't even need the back of an envelope to tell you that you'll never take in enough tax with that to cover even the most basic of public services. Making up the shortfall with a tax on luxury goods won't work because, well, they're luxury goods! Per definition people are willing to forgo their purchase. And, even if they weren't, I highly doubt the turnover on luxury goods is high enough that even a 100\% tax would fill the Government's coffers much.</p><p>Further, your flat income tax suggestion ignores the ability-to-pay-principle: those who can afford to pay more, should (i.e. progressive taxation). Otherwise you are expecting the weak to carry the same burden as the strong, when the weak should be supported by the strong. Because the weak (poor) spend a greater proportion of their income on the necessities of life than their strong (rich), a flat tax hits them proportionally harder &ndash; though it seems counter-intuitive, a flat tax discriminates against low-income earners. Also supporting the ability-to-pay-principle is the decreasing marginal utility of income.</p><p>A possible ammendment to your suggestion would be to have a tax-free threshold that would allow everyone to purchase the necessities of life, then taxing flatly from then on -- the tax is then weakly progressive, as with each dollar you earn your average tax rate rises, though the marginal rate remains unchanged. This flat tax has been calculated to be (for Australia) around 40\% (I'm going from memory here, so +/- 10\%). In any case, an order of magnitude higher than your suggestion.</p><p>Another possibility, though less accepted in the anglo-saxon world (a little more so in Europe, where socialism isn't a dirty word), is to simply give everyone a basic income (say, US$11000 &ndash; the <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh08.html" title="census.gov">US Poverty Threshold in 2008</a> [census.gov]) and <i>then</i> tax every dollar of income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 2.5 \ % flat income tax ?
2.5 \ % ? ? My dear friend , I do n't even need the back of an envelope to tell you that you 'll never take in enough tax with that to cover even the most basic of public services .
Making up the shortfall with a tax on luxury goods wo n't work because , well , they 're luxury goods !
Per definition people are willing to forgo their purchase .
And , even if they were n't , I highly doubt the turnover on luxury goods is high enough that even a 100 \ % tax would fill the Government 's coffers much.Further , your flat income tax suggestion ignores the ability-to-pay-principle : those who can afford to pay more , should ( i.e .
progressive taxation ) .
Otherwise you are expecting the weak to carry the same burden as the strong , when the weak should be supported by the strong .
Because the weak ( poor ) spend a greater proportion of their income on the necessities of life than their strong ( rich ) , a flat tax hits them proportionally harder    though it seems counter-intuitive , a flat tax discriminates against low-income earners .
Also supporting the ability-to-pay-principle is the decreasing marginal utility of income.A possible ammendment to your suggestion would be to have a tax-free threshold that would allow everyone to purchase the necessities of life , then taxing flatly from then on -- the tax is then weakly progressive , as with each dollar you earn your average tax rate rises , though the marginal rate remains unchanged .
This flat tax has been calculated to be ( for Australia ) around 40 \ % ( I 'm going from memory here , so + /- 10 \ % ) .
In any case , an order of magnitude higher than your suggestion.Another possibility , though less accepted in the anglo-saxon world ( a little more so in Europe , where socialism is n't a dirty word ) , is to simply give everyone a basic income ( say , US $ 11000    the US Poverty Threshold in 2008 [ census.gov ] ) and then tax every dollar of income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 2.5\% flat income tax?
2.5\%?? My dear friend, I don't even need the back of an envelope to tell you that you'll never take in enough tax with that to cover even the most basic of public services.
Making up the shortfall with a tax on luxury goods won't work because, well, they're luxury goods!
Per definition people are willing to forgo their purchase.
And, even if they weren't, I highly doubt the turnover on luxury goods is high enough that even a 100\% tax would fill the Government's coffers much.Further, your flat income tax suggestion ignores the ability-to-pay-principle: those who can afford to pay more, should (i.e.
progressive taxation).
Otherwise you are expecting the weak to carry the same burden as the strong, when the weak should be supported by the strong.
Because the weak (poor) spend a greater proportion of their income on the necessities of life than their strong (rich), a flat tax hits them proportionally harder – though it seems counter-intuitive, a flat tax discriminates against low-income earners.
Also supporting the ability-to-pay-principle is the decreasing marginal utility of income.A possible ammendment to your suggestion would be to have a tax-free threshold that would allow everyone to purchase the necessities of life, then taxing flatly from then on -- the tax is then weakly progressive, as with each dollar you earn your average tax rate rises, though the marginal rate remains unchanged.
This flat tax has been calculated to be (for Australia) around 40\% (I'm going from memory here, so +/- 10\%).
In any case, an order of magnitude higher than your suggestion.Another possibility, though less accepted in the anglo-saxon world (a little more so in Europe, where socialism isn't a dirty word), is to simply give everyone a basic income (say, US$11000 – the US Poverty Threshold in 2008 [census.gov]) and then tax every dollar of income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360021</id>
	<title>Sorry, What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry. What? The IRS is being logical? They want to repeal an outdated law? Who is this new IRS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
What ? The IRS is being logical ?
They want to repeal an outdated law ?
Who is this new IRS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
What? The IRS is being logical?
They want to repeal an outdated law?
Who is this new IRS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361749</id>
	<title>Um ... yeah...</title>
	<author>HellYeahAutomaton</author>
	<datestamp>1245254820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it a little late for April Fool's?</p><p>And, in true IRS-like demanding fashion...</p><p>I'll expect all of my paid-in cell tax for the past 15 years to be paid back <b>with interest compounded at \%12 per annum.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it a little late for April Fool 's ? And , in true IRS-like demanding fashion...I 'll expect all of my paid-in cell tax for the past 15 years to be paid back with interest compounded at \ % 12 per annum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it a little late for April Fool's?And, in true IRS-like demanding fashion...I'll expect all of my paid-in cell tax for the past 15 years to be paid back with interest compounded at \%12 per annum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361099</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right wing nutties? More like left wing dumb bats....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right wing nutties ?
More like left wing dumb bats... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right wing nutties?
More like left wing dumb bats....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360101</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They wouldn't be asking for comments for purpose of clarification if there was any intent of repealing the law.  They are looking to see if it will be easier to enforce the law and nab a smidgen more tax from working Americans that happen to follow the law.  Lawbreakers (illegals, those who don't file or cheat on their filings etc...) will be exempt of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would n't be asking for comments for purpose of clarification if there was any intent of repealing the law .
They are looking to see if it will be easier to enforce the law and nab a smidgen more tax from working Americans that happen to follow the law .
Lawbreakers ( illegals , those who do n't file or cheat on their filings etc... ) will be exempt of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They wouldn't be asking for comments for purpose of clarification if there was any intent of repealing the law.
They are looking to see if it will be easier to enforce the law and nab a smidgen more tax from working Americans that happen to follow the law.
Lawbreakers (illegals, those who don't file or cheat on their filings etc...) will be exempt of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360983</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1245250740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cool down buddy. Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side. Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10\%? Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately? How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man? That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal. Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC? Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws? If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades. </p><p>Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy? Today, in USA, 1$ in cash is worth 1$ in bank. But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank. Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money. That is not the case in Mexico, Phillipines, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in. We are paying pittance for our judges, police chiefs,<br>auditors and law enforcers in general. Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.<br>The source of cash economy is tax evasion. Purely on that account, we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.</p></div><p>All of Europe lives with a VAT, which is a consumption tax.  The rates are usually around 20\%.  Citizens aren't ever asked to show they paid tax - that's put on the businesses.  I've seen more under the table money in the US than in Europe, perhaps because the VAT is so much simpler to enforce across the board.  Prices in Europe always include tax - no one shakes their fists at the tax markup, and those who have a problem with it don't seem as upset as the typical American who is upset with the income tax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool down buddy .
Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side .
Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10 \ % ?
Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on , and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately ?
How many people you know who evade the simple 5 \ % or 6 \ % local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man ?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal .
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17 \ % or 22 \ % tax to distant Washington DC ?
Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws ?
If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip , wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades .
Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy ?
Today , in USA , 1 $ in cash is worth 1 $ in bank .
But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank .
Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money .
That is not the case in Mexico , Phillipines , Pakistan , Bangladesh etc .
Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power , then corruption sets in .
We are paying pittance for our judges , police chiefs,auditors and law enforcers in general .
Once cash economy takes root , corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.The source of cash economy is tax evasion .
Purely on that account , we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.All of Europe lives with a VAT , which is a consumption tax .
The rates are usually around 20 \ % .
Citizens are n't ever asked to show they paid tax - that 's put on the businesses .
I 've seen more under the table money in the US than in Europe , perhaps because the VAT is so much simpler to enforce across the board .
Prices in Europe always include tax - no one shakes their fists at the tax markup , and those who have a problem with it do n't seem as upset as the typical American who is upset with the income tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool down buddy.
Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side.
Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10\%?
Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately?
How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal.
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC?
Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws?
If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.
Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy?
Today, in USA, 1$ in cash is worth 1$ in bank.
But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank.
Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money.
That is not the case in Mexico, Phillipines, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in.
We are paying pittance for our judges, police chiefs,auditors and law enforcers in general.
Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.The source of cash economy is tax evasion.
Purely on that account, we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.All of Europe lives with a VAT, which is a consumption tax.
The rates are usually around 20\%.
Citizens aren't ever asked to show they paid tax - that's put on the businesses.
I've seen more under the table money in the US than in Europe, perhaps because the VAT is so much simpler to enforce across the board.
Prices in Europe always include tax - no one shakes their fists at the tax markup, and those who have a problem with it don't seem as upset as the typical American who is upset with the income tax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360615</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245248700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This tax is probably getting evaded constantly (intentionally or not), and brings in comparatively little revenue... It probably costs more to police it than it actually brings in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This tax is probably getting evaded constantly ( intentionally or not ) , and brings in comparatively little revenue... It probably costs more to police it than it actually brings in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This tax is probably getting evaded constantly (intentionally or not), and brings in comparatively little revenue... It probably costs more to police it than it actually brings in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360451</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245247560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are your Imaginary Rescue Squad.</p><p>The "Internal Revenue Service" Is in the cinema. Watching Hanna Montana, the movie. We tried to send him to hell, but God told us we should not be that cruel on the devil. (Who already had installed his first break-in protection system, when he heard about it. He also was the one, who recommended the movie. It's nice to see Satan still being able to be that cruel, after all those years and the broken marriage with Saddam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are your Imaginary Rescue Squad.The " Internal Revenue Service " Is in the cinema .
Watching Hanna Montana , the movie .
We tried to send him to hell , but God told us we should not be that cruel on the devil .
( Who already had installed his first break-in protection system , when he heard about it .
He also was the one , who recommended the movie .
It 's nice to see Satan still being able to be that cruel , after all those years and the broken marriage with Saddam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are your Imaginary Rescue Squad.The "Internal Revenue Service" Is in the cinema.
Watching Hanna Montana, the movie.
We tried to send him to hell, but God told us we should not be that cruel on the devil.
(Who already had installed his first break-in protection system, when he heard about it.
He also was the one, who recommended the movie.
It's nice to see Satan still being able to be that cruel, after all those years and the broken marriage with Saddam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360781</id>
	<title>Norway already has this</title>
	<author>audunr</author>
	<datestamp>1245249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My employer pays for my broadband at home and have provided me with a cell phone that I can use for personal calls as well as business calls. For this I must pay an extra 2-3000 NOK (3-400 USD) in taxes per year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer pays for my broadband at home and have provided me with a cell phone that I can use for personal calls as well as business calls .
For this I must pay an extra 2-3000 NOK ( 3-400 USD ) in taxes per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer pays for my broadband at home and have provided me with a cell phone that I can use for personal calls as well as business calls.
For this I must pay an extra 2-3000 NOK (3-400 USD) in taxes per year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360703</id>
	<title>Re:mod up</title>
	<author>Savior\_on\_a\_Stick</author>
	<datestamp>1245249240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. It's stupid and trite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It 's stupid and trite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It's stupid and trite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362339</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245257760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          You can bet that both state and federal tax authorities will be intruding more than ever trying to find funds during these economic hard times.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As for remarks about public employees being paid low wages I suggest to you that in fact they are vastly over paid compared to non government workers in many areas of the US. For example many jobs have no benefits at all in the private sector. No retirement, no vacations, no medical care may be standard in many areas in the private sector.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And this private sector freedom has very serious regional impacts. I could show you an area in Georgia were almost every one gets a minimal Social Security check of about $700 per month or a few dollars less. In these small town areas jobs always paid really tiny wages and when folks reach retirement their checks reflect what they were earning decades ago. It is more than telling that states that have the worst poverty issues are conservative in nature. It is really hard to be more conservative than Mississippi and take a peek at the poverty in that state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can bet that both state and federal tax authorities will be intruding more than ever trying to find funds during these economic hard times .
                    As for remarks about public employees being paid low wages I suggest to you that in fact they are vastly over paid compared to non government workers in many areas of the US .
For example many jobs have no benefits at all in the private sector .
No retirement , no vacations , no medical care may be standard in many areas in the private sector .
                  And this private sector freedom has very serious regional impacts .
I could show you an area in Georgia were almost every one gets a minimal Social Security check of about $ 700 per month or a few dollars less .
In these small town areas jobs always paid really tiny wages and when folks reach retirement their checks reflect what they were earning decades ago .
It is more than telling that states that have the worst poverty issues are conservative in nature .
It is really hard to be more conservative than Mississippi and take a peek at the poverty in that state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          You can bet that both state and federal tax authorities will be intruding more than ever trying to find funds during these economic hard times.
                    As for remarks about public employees being paid low wages I suggest to you that in fact they are vastly over paid compared to non government workers in many areas of the US.
For example many jobs have no benefits at all in the private sector.
No retirement, no vacations, no medical care may be standard in many areas in the private sector.
                  And this private sector freedom has very serious regional impacts.
I could show you an area in Georgia were almost every one gets a minimal Social Security check of about $700 per month or a few dollars less.
In these small town areas jobs always paid really tiny wages and when folks reach retirement their checks reflect what they were earning decades ago.
It is more than telling that states that have the worst poverty issues are conservative in nature.
It is really hard to be more conservative than Mississippi and take a peek at the poverty in that state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360231</id>
	<title>thank the gods</title>
	<author>IlluminatedOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245246180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our controller was already having sugarplum dreams about how he could 'navigate us through this'. I am pretty sure our CEO was fitting a noose for himself as the conversation took place. I'll let him find out about this one on his own though. If I tell him, I'll wind up backing out of the office slowly like Constanza exiting Steinbrenner's office. <br> <br>Seriously though, when I was told of this, my mind was a jumble of the bureaucracy and heartache this would cause. My hope is that gov't agencies like the IRS and Treasury are give the task of auditing the FRB, but that's OT here....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our controller was already having sugarplum dreams about how he could 'navigate us through this' .
I am pretty sure our CEO was fitting a noose for himself as the conversation took place .
I 'll let him find out about this one on his own though .
If I tell him , I 'll wind up backing out of the office slowly like Constanza exiting Steinbrenner 's office .
Seriously though , when I was told of this , my mind was a jumble of the bureaucracy and heartache this would cause .
My hope is that gov't agencies like the IRS and Treasury are give the task of auditing the FRB , but that 's OT here... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our controller was already having sugarplum dreams about how he could 'navigate us through this'.
I am pretty sure our CEO was fitting a noose for himself as the conversation took place.
I'll let him find out about this one on his own though.
If I tell him, I'll wind up backing out of the office slowly like Constanza exiting Steinbrenner's office.
Seriously though, when I was told of this, my mind was a jumble of the bureaucracy and heartache this would cause.
My hope is that gov't agencies like the IRS and Treasury are give the task of auditing the FRB, but that's OT here....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959</id>
	<title>Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1245244020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you blow away the <a href="http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16" title="usconstitution.net" rel="nofollow">16th Amendment</a> [usconstitution.net], you can repeal the entire IRS, and the cell phone tax <i>en piss-ant</i>.<br>
Rock on, <a href="http://federalismamendment.com/" title="federalismamendment.com" rel="nofollow">Leahy: you're a true patriot.</a> [federalismamendment.com]<br>
Save the other barrel for the <a href="http://endthefed.us/" title="endthefed.us" rel="nofollow">Federal Reserve</a> [endthefed.us].<br>
Amputating moral hazard is a bipartisan concern.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you blow away the 16th Amendment [ usconstitution.net ] , you can repeal the entire IRS , and the cell phone tax en piss-ant .
Rock on , Leahy : you 're a true patriot .
[ federalismamendment.com ] Save the other barrel for the Federal Reserve [ endthefed.us ] .
Amputating moral hazard is a bipartisan concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you blow away the 16th Amendment [usconstitution.net], you can repeal the entire IRS, and the cell phone tax en piss-ant.
Rock on, Leahy: you're a true patriot.
[federalismamendment.com]
Save the other barrel for the Federal Reserve [endthefed.us].
Amputating moral hazard is a bipartisan concern.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364227</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>goldspider</author>
	<datestamp>1245266580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?  Why am I deeply suspicious of this?  What's really going on here? What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead?</i></p><p>Step 1:  Repeal tax that has produced nearly zero revenue since its inception.<br>Step 2:  "Hey look!  I'm cutting taxes!!"<br>Step 3:  Get re-elected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax ?
Why am I deeply suspicious of this ?
What 's really going on here ?
What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead ? Step 1 : Repeal tax that has produced nearly zero revenue since its inception.Step 2 : " Hey look !
I 'm cutting taxes ! !
" Step 3 : Get re-elected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?
Why am I deeply suspicious of this?
What's really going on here?
What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead?Step 1:  Repeal tax that has produced nearly zero revenue since its inception.Step 2:  "Hey look!
I'm cutting taxes!!
"Step 3:  Get re-elected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362381</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal."</p><p>In many states, this is paid for by property tax; sales tax usually goes into a "general" fund at the state level.</p><p>There are, however, many municipalities that collect sales tax.  Bad luck to them for picking a tax that is simultaneously easily avoided and regressive.</p><p>It is probably better for local municipalities to tax income instead of property and sales since it is inherently a "fairer" tax and more importantly, it reduces the ability of government to take property through unconscionable taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal .
" In many states , this is paid for by property tax ; sales tax usually goes into a " general " fund at the state level.There are , however , many municipalities that collect sales tax .
Bad luck to them for picking a tax that is simultaneously easily avoided and regressive.It is probably better for local municipalities to tax income instead of property and sales since it is inherently a " fairer " tax and more importantly , it reduces the ability of government to take property through unconscionable taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal.
"In many states, this is paid for by property tax; sales tax usually goes into a "general" fund at the state level.There are, however, many municipalities that collect sales tax.
Bad luck to them for picking a tax that is simultaneously easily avoided and regressive.It is probably better for local municipalities to tax income instead of property and sales since it is inherently a "fairer" tax and more importantly, it reduces the ability of government to take property through unconscionable taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364197</id>
	<title>You gotta love the IRS going after UC first</title>
	<author>mrchanman</author>
	<datestamp>1245266400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After countless resources wasted by the IRS and the University of California system, it looks like some sanity has finally set in.</p><p>Besides the fact that the IRS should not have enforced this law (much less choose another mostly governmental agency as its first (and only?) target), the sad thing is that there was some Congressional movement last year when the settlement between the two parties was first reached:</p><p><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008078765\_celltaxes29.html" title="nwsource.com" rel="nofollow">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008078765\_celltaxes29.html</a> [nwsource.com]</p><p>I guess elections, eroding economy and the wars were all higher priority.</p><p>Of course, the victim in this case is the citizens of the United States (and the state of CA gets the double whammy) as we have all contributed to the IRS's audit process as well as the settlement/change in policy (which is looking like it is going to get changed back) by the UC system.</p><p><a href="http://controller.berkeley.edu/policies/cellphone.htm" title="berkeley.edu" rel="nofollow">http://controller.berkeley.edu/policies/cellphone.htm</a> [berkeley.edu]</p><p>I wonder how many hours were wasted in auditing, lawyering, administrating and...IT professional hours changing the systems for the new policy implementation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After countless resources wasted by the IRS and the University of California system , it looks like some sanity has finally set in.Besides the fact that the IRS should not have enforced this law ( much less choose another mostly governmental agency as its first ( and only ?
) target ) , the sad thing is that there was some Congressional movement last year when the settlement between the two parties was first reached : http : //seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008078765 \ _celltaxes29.html [ nwsource.com ] I guess elections , eroding economy and the wars were all higher priority.Of course , the victim in this case is the citizens of the United States ( and the state of CA gets the double whammy ) as we have all contributed to the IRS 's audit process as well as the settlement/change in policy ( which is looking like it is going to get changed back ) by the UC system.http : //controller.berkeley.edu/policies/cellphone.htm [ berkeley.edu ] I wonder how many hours were wasted in auditing , lawyering , administrating and...IT professional hours changing the systems for the new policy implementation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After countless resources wasted by the IRS and the University of California system, it looks like some sanity has finally set in.Besides the fact that the IRS should not have enforced this law (much less choose another mostly governmental agency as its first (and only?
) target), the sad thing is that there was some Congressional movement last year when the settlement between the two parties was first reached:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008078765\_celltaxes29.html [nwsource.com]I guess elections, eroding economy and the wars were all higher priority.Of course, the victim in this case is the citizens of the United States (and the state of CA gets the double whammy) as we have all contributed to the IRS's audit process as well as the settlement/change in policy (which is looking like it is going to get changed back) by the UC system.http://controller.berkeley.edu/policies/cellphone.htm [berkeley.edu]I wonder how many hours were wasted in auditing, lawyering, administrating and...IT professional hours changing the systems for the new policy implementation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362081</id>
	<title>Yet another corporate tax break...</title>
	<author>hackel</author>
	<datestamp>1245256440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, it sure is swell that we have found yet another way to reduce the amount taxes corporations have to pay (since they can claim all of this personal usage as a business expense), not to mention giving these individuals a tax break the rest of us are NOT entitled to.  What a great country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , it sure is swell that we have found yet another way to reduce the amount taxes corporations have to pay ( since they can claim all of this personal usage as a business expense ) , not to mention giving these individuals a tax break the rest of us are NOT entitled to .
What a great country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, it sure is swell that we have found yet another way to reduce the amount taxes corporations have to pay (since they can claim all of this personal usage as a business expense), not to mention giving these individuals a tax break the rest of us are NOT entitled to.
What a great country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362547</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they'll probably drop off "business" use of personal cell phones as well.. no more of the "60\% usage" business. (that will nick the part-time "contractors" pretty good.)  If it's paid for by a company, it's their expense, if it's paid for by you it's not. With things like SOX in place businesses aren't really "supposed" to be sending business communication to personal phones of anybody... so most buy each employee a company-owned phone and lock it down tight, so the problem's mostly fixed itself now, even if you make personal calls there's pretty strict company policy about your minutes now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'll probably drop off " business " use of personal cell phones as well.. no more of the " 60 \ % usage " business .
( that will nick the part-time " contractors " pretty good .
) If it 's paid for by a company , it 's their expense , if it 's paid for by you it 's not .
With things like SOX in place businesses are n't really " supposed " to be sending business communication to personal phones of anybody... so most buy each employee a company-owned phone and lock it down tight , so the problem 's mostly fixed itself now , even if you make personal calls there 's pretty strict company policy about your minutes now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'll probably drop off "business" use of personal cell phones as well.. no more of the "60\% usage" business.
(that will nick the part-time "contractors" pretty good.
)  If it's paid for by a company, it's their expense, if it's paid for by you it's not.
With things like SOX in place businesses aren't really "supposed" to be sending business communication to personal phones of anybody... so most buy each employee a company-owned phone and lock it down tight, so the problem's mostly fixed itself now, even if you make personal calls there's pretty strict company policy about your minutes now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360253</id>
	<title>Uh huh, sure you are</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1245246360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals.'</p></div></blockquote><p>If that were the case, then the IRS would be lobbying Congress for a flat corporate tax, and either a flat income tax for individuals that applies to all income or replacing the income tax with excise taxes. The income tax is now useful to the feds mainly as a form of social control. If you become too much of a thorn in the President's side, he can just have the IRS audit you and those associated with you. The IRS doesn't even fully understand the income tax laws because they are so convoluted, which makes them a perfect mechanism for railroading someone.</p><p>If you want to lightly tax the working and middle classes, while "soaking the rich," here is how you do it. You establish a 2.5\% flat income tax. Everyone pays, even if it's $0.025 on a dollar bill because everyone benefits from the system. Even the poorest Americans should pay at least $1 that they'll never get back to support the military. After that, you impose a luxury tax of some sort. It can be stand alone or a "progressive sales tax" where you would charge 2\% on a car that costs $100k or less, but then jump to 10\%. The feds could also levy a 20\% luxury tax on any house that costs more than $1.5M.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'To the contrary , the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals .
'If that were the case , then the IRS would be lobbying Congress for a flat corporate tax , and either a flat income tax for individuals that applies to all income or replacing the income tax with excise taxes .
The income tax is now useful to the feds mainly as a form of social control .
If you become too much of a thorn in the President 's side , he can just have the IRS audit you and those associated with you .
The IRS does n't even fully understand the income tax laws because they are so convoluted , which makes them a perfect mechanism for railroading someone.If you want to lightly tax the working and middle classes , while " soaking the rich , " here is how you do it .
You establish a 2.5 \ % flat income tax .
Everyone pays , even if it 's $ 0.025 on a dollar bill because everyone benefits from the system .
Even the poorest Americans should pay at least $ 1 that they 'll never get back to support the military .
After that , you impose a luxury tax of some sort .
It can be stand alone or a " progressive sales tax " where you would charge 2 \ % on a car that costs $ 100k or less , but then jump to 10 \ % .
The feds could also levy a 20 \ % luxury tax on any house that costs more than $ 1.5M .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals.
'If that were the case, then the IRS would be lobbying Congress for a flat corporate tax, and either a flat income tax for individuals that applies to all income or replacing the income tax with excise taxes.
The income tax is now useful to the feds mainly as a form of social control.
If you become too much of a thorn in the President's side, he can just have the IRS audit you and those associated with you.
The IRS doesn't even fully understand the income tax laws because they are so convoluted, which makes them a perfect mechanism for railroading someone.If you want to lightly tax the working and middle classes, while "soaking the rich," here is how you do it.
You establish a 2.5\% flat income tax.
Everyone pays, even if it's $0.025 on a dollar bill because everyone benefits from the system.
Even the poorest Americans should pay at least $1 that they'll never get back to support the military.
After that, you impose a luxury tax of some sort.
It can be stand alone or a "progressive sales tax" where you would charge 2\% on a car that costs $100k or less, but then jump to 10\%.
The feds could also levy a 20\% luxury tax on any house that costs more than $1.5M.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363173</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245261660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax? Why am I deeply suspicious of this?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>&lt;a few months later&gt; Now that we eliminated that confusing tax, we need to create a new tax for business cell phone users, one that is simpler and brings in more money than the old one. Ummm, ignore that last part; I didn't mean to verbalize it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax ?
Why am I deeply suspicious of this ?
Now that we eliminated that confusing tax , we need to create a new tax for business cell phone users , one that is simpler and brings in more money than the old one .
Ummm , ignore that last part ; I did n't mean to verbalize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?
Why am I deeply suspicious of this?
Now that we eliminated that confusing tax, we need to create a new tax for business cell phone users, one that is simpler and brings in more money than the old one.
Ummm, ignore that last part; I didn't mean to verbalize it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360609</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1245248640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a truly strange day.</p><p>The IRS wants to simplify a code?  The Obama administration is looking at reducing taxation?  </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me turns around and looks up, and sees a number of strange people in wet suits, with a wheel on a stick.  They keep saying "Bizzaro!  Bizzaro!  BIZZARO!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a truly strange day.The IRS wants to simplify a code ?
The Obama administration is looking at reducing taxation ?
/me turns around and looks up , and sees a number of strange people in wet suits , with a wheel on a stick .
They keep saying " Bizzaro !
Bizzaro ! BIZZARO !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a truly strange day.The IRS wants to simplify a code?
The Obama administration is looking at reducing taxation?
/me turns around and looks up, and sees a number of strange people in wet suits, with a wheel on a stick.
They keep saying "Bizzaro!
Bizzaro!  BIZZARO!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360177</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1245245700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see that Blackberry the Prez carries... found out he was calling the wife.</p><p>well, one thing led to another and...</p><p>Most likely, the IRS seriously fumbled the handling of the issue and instead of getting ahead of it they got caught with their pants down.   Since about everyone likes to hate to the IRS and it makes great talk radio ratings they really didn't have much of a choice.  Best of all its not a loss either, they were not collecting it so they can't lose money they didn't collect.  Everyone wins, the pundits can claim their bringing to the people got it resolved and the IRS can look magnanimous for removing a stupid tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see that Blackberry the Prez carries... found out he was calling the wife.well , one thing led to another and...Most likely , the IRS seriously fumbled the handling of the issue and instead of getting ahead of it they got caught with their pants down .
Since about everyone likes to hate to the IRS and it makes great talk radio ratings they really did n't have much of a choice .
Best of all its not a loss either , they were not collecting it so they ca n't lose money they did n't collect .
Everyone wins , the pundits can claim their bringing to the people got it resolved and the IRS can look magnanimous for removing a stupid tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see that Blackberry the Prez carries... found out he was calling the wife.well, one thing led to another and...Most likely, the IRS seriously fumbled the handling of the issue and instead of getting ahead of it they got caught with their pants down.
Since about everyone likes to hate to the IRS and it makes great talk radio ratings they really didn't have much of a choice.
Best of all its not a loss either, they were not collecting it so they can't lose money they didn't collect.
Everyone wins, the pundits can claim their bringing to the people got it resolved and the IRS can look magnanimous for removing a stupid tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28367763</id>
	<title>No New Power to Tax (no not Hax you ijit). :)</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1245241980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong, the SUPREME COURT JESTERS have RULED that the 16th amendment "gives no new power to tax"</p><p><i>Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment gives no new power to tax incomes, because that power always existed, but it relieves the pre-existing power from the requirement of apportionment. Income taxes are now constitutional because they are no longer subject to the apportionment requirement.</i></p><p><a href="http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm" title="gwu.edu">http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm</a> [gwu.edu]<br>They myght be lying YmmV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , the SUPREME COURT JESTERS have RULED that the 16th amendment " gives no new power to tax " Thus , the Sixteenth Amendment gives no new power to tax incomes , because that power always existed , but it relieves the pre-existing power from the requirement of apportionment .
Income taxes are now constitutional because they are no longer subject to the apportionment requirement.http : //docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm [ gwu.edu ] They myght be lying YmmV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, the SUPREME COURT JESTERS have RULED that the 16th amendment "gives no new power to tax"Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment gives no new power to tax incomes, because that power always existed, but it relieves the pre-existing power from the requirement of apportionment.
Income taxes are now constitutional because they are no longer subject to the apportionment requirement.http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm [gwu.edu]They myght be lying YmmV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360303</id>
	<title>Less intrusive link</title>
	<author>forand</author>
	<datestamp>1245246720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The link posted by the submitter is too annoying to read (who uses over content ads?) Here is a link to a much less ad encumbered article on the same subject:
<a href="http://www.physorg.com/news164424219.html" title="physorg.com">http://www.physorg.com/news164424219.html</a> [physorg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The link posted by the submitter is too annoying to read ( who uses over content ads ?
) Here is a link to a much less ad encumbered article on the same subject : http : //www.physorg.com/news164424219.html [ physorg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link posted by the submitter is too annoying to read (who uses over content ads?
) Here is a link to a much less ad encumbered article on the same subject:
http://www.physorg.com/news164424219.html [physorg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364239</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>EtherMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately?</p></div><p>Is this so much worse than the current situation, where many just charge and pay 15\% or higher interest to those wonderful financial institutions responsible for our current economic crisis?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man? That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal</p></div><p>Not in my state.  School budgets, county and local services come out of property taxes.  State Sales Tax and State Income Tax goes to big feeding troth in Trenton.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC?</p></div><p>I already pay that amount.  If it comes out as a sales tax then I'm better off because a) I don't have to deal with filing returns and the associated costs, and b) my savings and investments aren't taxed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.</p></div><p>Once again, I live in NJ.  We already have corrupt people in every crevice of power.  Taking power away from the corrupt banks would be an improvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on , and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately ? Is this so much worse than the current situation , where many just charge and pay 15 \ % or higher interest to those wonderful financial institutions responsible for our current economic crisis ? How many people you know who evade the simple 5 \ % or 6 \ % local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man ?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removalNot in my state .
School budgets , county and local services come out of property taxes .
State Sales Tax and State Income Tax goes to big feeding troth in Trenton.Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17 \ % or 22 \ % tax to distant Washington DC ? I already pay that amount .
If it comes out as a sales tax then I 'm better off because a ) I do n't have to deal with filing returns and the associated costs , and b ) my savings and investments are n't taxed.Once cash economy takes root , corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.Once again , I live in NJ .
We already have corrupt people in every crevice of power .
Taking power away from the corrupt banks would be an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately?Is this so much worse than the current situation, where many just charge and pay 15\% or higher interest to those wonderful financial institutions responsible for our current economic crisis?How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removalNot in my state.
School budgets, county and local services come out of property taxes.
State Sales Tax and State Income Tax goes to big feeding troth in Trenton.Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC?I already pay that amount.
If it comes out as a sales tax then I'm better off because a) I don't have to deal with filing returns and the associated costs, and b) my savings and investments aren't taxed.Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.Once again, I live in NJ.
We already have corrupt people in every crevice of power.
Taking power away from the corrupt banks would be an improvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360657</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>PeeAitchPee</author>
	<datestamp>1245249000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i> Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in</i> </p><p>Yeah, because there's no corruption in Obama's government now (cough <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_Geithner#Tax\_problems" title="wikipedia.org">Geithner</a> [wikipedia.org]) (cough <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daschle#Withdrawal" title="wikipedia.org">Daschle</a> [wikipedia.org]) (cough <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html" title="wsj.com">brewing AmeriCorps scandal</a> [wsj.com]).  Thanks for figuring it all out for the rest of us dummies, liberal elite!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power , then corruption sets in Yeah , because there 's no corruption in Obama 's government now ( cough Geithner [ wikipedia.org ] ) ( cough Daschle [ wikipedia.org ] ) ( cough brewing AmeriCorps scandal [ wsj.com ] ) .
Thanks for figuring it all out for the rest of us dummies , liberal elite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in Yeah, because there's no corruption in Obama's government now (cough Geithner [wikipedia.org]) (cough Daschle [wikipedia.org]) (cough brewing AmeriCorps scandal [wsj.com]).
Thanks for figuring it all out for the rest of us dummies, liberal elite!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363413</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245262860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the Internal Revenue Service is doing fine. It's the <i>Infernal</i> Revenue Service I'm wondering about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the Internal Revenue Service is doing fine .
It 's the Infernal Revenue Service I 'm wondering about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the Internal Revenue Service is doing fine.
It's the Infernal Revenue Service I'm wondering about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360803</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10\%?</p></div></blockquote><p>Doesn't that cover most of Europe and Canada?</p><blockquote><div><p>How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man? That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal.</p></div></blockquote><p>First of all, the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman, not the person paying them, at least in my state.  Second, that tax goes to the state and not to the local schools (except indirectly).</p><blockquote><div><p> Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC?</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a feature, not a bug.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10 \ % ? Does n't that cover most of Europe and Canada ? How many people you know who evade the simple 5 \ % or 6 \ % local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man ?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal.First of all , the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman , not the person paying them , at least in my state .
Second , that tax goes to the state and not to the local schools ( except indirectly ) .
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17 \ % or 22 \ % tax to distant Washington DC ? That 's a feature , not a bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10\%?Doesn't that cover most of Europe and Canada?How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal.First of all, the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman, not the person paying them, at least in my state.
Second, that tax goes to the state and not to the local schools (except indirectly).
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC?That's a feature, not a bug.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361571</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had me right up until you said right wing nutties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me right up until you said right wing nutties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me right up until you said right wing nutties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360053</id>
	<title>mod up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Goddammit, would somebody mod this guy's great post the hell up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddammit , would somebody mod this guy 's great post the hell up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddammit, would somebody mod this guy's great post the hell up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360175</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245245640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about while were at it we repeal any tax that the government didn't deserve in the first place (that they did nothing more than basic safety/defense). Perhaps then we can see lower taxes, more sane taxes, and a general economic boom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about while were at it we repeal any tax that the government did n't deserve in the first place ( that they did nothing more than basic safety/defense ) .
Perhaps then we can see lower taxes , more sane taxes , and a general economic boom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about while were at it we repeal any tax that the government didn't deserve in the first place (that they did nothing more than basic safety/defense).
Perhaps then we can see lower taxes, more sane taxes, and a general economic boom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360651</id>
	<title>No taxation without telecommunication!</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1245249000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuff said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360525</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They (apparently) want to get rid of <em>this</em> tax.

</p><p>So far, so good, but what if "simplifying" the tax regime means "Oh, but we'd like a flat tax on all cell sales / contracts / minutes / SMSs, since that's <em>simpler</em> than trying to identify and tax personal use of business phones."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ( apparently ) want to get rid of this tax .
So far , so good , but what if " simplifying " the tax regime means " Oh , but we 'd like a flat tax on all cell sales / contracts / minutes / SMSs , since that 's simpler than trying to identify and tax personal use of business phones .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They (apparently) want to get rid of this tax.
So far, so good, but what if "simplifying" the tax regime means "Oh, but we'd like a flat tax on all cell sales / contracts / minutes / SMSs, since that's simpler than trying to identify and tax personal use of business phones.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360457</id>
	<title>When did Emliy Latella get hired by the IRS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh, that's different.  Never mind!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , that 's different .
Never mind !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, that's different.
Never mind!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</id>
	<title>Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Manuka</author>
	<datestamp>1245244320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?</p><p>Why am I deeply suspicious of this?</p><p>What's really going on here? What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax ? Why am I deeply suspicious of this ? What 's really going on here ?
What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?Why am I deeply suspicious of this?What's really going on here?
What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360049</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Y2KDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand your suspicion.  But now, more than ever, people are getting lawyers to force the IRS to accept less than what they claim is owed.  It's actually cheaper for the IRS to simplify matters, and even collect less in taxes, than to try to force tax laws that do not properly reflect current technology.  Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but perhaps this is part of the change the IRS is trying to show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand your suspicion .
But now , more than ever , people are getting lawyers to force the IRS to accept less than what they claim is owed .
It 's actually cheaper for the IRS to simplify matters , and even collect less in taxes , than to try to force tax laws that do not properly reflect current technology .
Maybe I 'm being too optimistic , but perhaps this is part of the change the IRS is trying to show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand your suspicion.
But now, more than ever, people are getting lawyers to force the IRS to accept less than what they claim is owed.
It's actually cheaper for the IRS to simplify matters, and even collect less in taxes, than to try to force tax laws that do not properly reflect current technology.
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but perhaps this is part of the change the IRS is trying to show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360039</id>
	<title>Don't worry . . .</title>
	<author>PeeAitchPee</author>
	<datestamp>1245244560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . it is sure to be replaced by a new tax which generates more revenue than the never-used cell phone tax.  In fact, that's how they'll justify the new tax ("well, we did get rid of this obsolete tax no one ever paid, so this is more than fair").  At the current rate of spend of this administration, we'll soon be taxed by the breath.</p><p>It's time to be patriotic, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
it is sure to be replaced by a new tax which generates more revenue than the never-used cell phone tax .
In fact , that 's how they 'll justify the new tax ( " well , we did get rid of this obsolete tax no one ever paid , so this is more than fair " ) .
At the current rate of spend of this administration , we 'll soon be taxed by the breath.It 's time to be patriotic , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
it is sure to be replaced by a new tax which generates more revenue than the never-used cell phone tax.
In fact, that's how they'll justify the new tax ("well, we did get rid of this obsolete tax no one ever paid, so this is more than fair").
At the current rate of spend of this administration, we'll soon be taxed by the breath.It's time to be patriotic, after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362955</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why you make the seller responsible rather than the buyer and you exempt personal sales based on volume such that you can sell your car house without paying, but if you sell enough cars or houses to make a living, the tax is due. Exempt food and the tax becomes progressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you make the seller responsible rather than the buyer and you exempt personal sales based on volume such that you can sell your car house without paying , but if you sell enough cars or houses to make a living , the tax is due .
Exempt food and the tax becomes progressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you make the seller responsible rather than the buyer and you exempt personal sales based on volume such that you can sell your car house without paying, but if you sell enough cars or houses to make a living, the tax is due.
Exempt food and the tax becomes progressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359987</id>
	<title>ISPs as internet cops</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1245244260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's worked <i>so well</i> in other countries who tried to have service providers enforce copyright laws at their own expense, just so the RIAA can make more money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's worked so well in other countries who tried to have service providers enforce copyright laws at their own expense , just so the RIAA can make more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's worked so well in other countries who tried to have service providers enforce copyright laws at their own expense, just so the RIAA can make more money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360015</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1245244440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IRS wants to <em>repeal</em> a tax law?</p><p>Who <em>are</em> you people, and what have you done with our Internal Revenue Service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS wants to repeal a tax law ? Who are you people , and what have you done with our Internal Revenue Service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS wants to repeal a tax law?Who are you people, and what have you done with our Internal Revenue Service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360795</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, What?</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it outdated, just because it has never been enforced?</p><p>It makes sense that employee perks are taxed the same as income, otherwise incoming is just replaced with perks. How many really need a phone paid for by the company or are you just evading taxes? If you use it many for personal purposes I would count it tax-evasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it outdated , just because it has never been enforced ? It makes sense that employee perks are taxed the same as income , otherwise incoming is just replaced with perks .
How many really need a phone paid for by the company or are you just evading taxes ?
If you use it many for personal purposes I would count it tax-evasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it outdated, just because it has never been enforced?It makes sense that employee perks are taxed the same as income, otherwise incoming is just replaced with perks.
How many really need a phone paid for by the company or are you just evading taxes?
If you use it many for personal purposes I would count it tax-evasion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360627</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't smell right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's unclear what it means and how to apply it in current-day situations, they sure might want to get rid of it.</p><p>Difficult to understand is one thing with tax code...if it's actually unclear or ambiguous (practically and legally), it's probably a nightmare to administer (extra review time, more complicated audits...all in all, fewer returns on the money collected and difficult to "claw up" the money *not* collected).</p><p>If the law is bad, they'll do away with it.  If at the same time their assessment shows that there's a taxable value in this area to be had that can be properly nailed down and collected at a lower cost, we may well eventually see a new law aiming to clarify the issue and get that money collected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's unclear what it means and how to apply it in current-day situations , they sure might want to get rid of it.Difficult to understand is one thing with tax code...if it 's actually unclear or ambiguous ( practically and legally ) , it 's probably a nightmare to administer ( extra review time , more complicated audits...all in all , fewer returns on the money collected and difficult to " claw up " the money * not * collected ) .If the law is bad , they 'll do away with it .
If at the same time their assessment shows that there 's a taxable value in this area to be had that can be properly nailed down and collected at a lower cost , we may well eventually see a new law aiming to clarify the issue and get that money collected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's unclear what it means and how to apply it in current-day situations, they sure might want to get rid of it.Difficult to understand is one thing with tax code...if it's actually unclear or ambiguous (practically and legally), it's probably a nightmare to administer (extra review time, more complicated audits...all in all, fewer returns on the money collected and difficult to "claw up" the money *not* collected).If the law is bad, they'll do away with it.
If at the same time their assessment shows that there's a taxable value in this area to be had that can be properly nailed down and collected at a lower cost, we may well eventually see a new law aiming to clarify the issue and get that money collected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361499</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245253560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.</p></div><p>I'm going to be nice and not insult you, but you really shouldn't have a +5 Insightful with such an ignorant comment.  The point of a consumption tax is to keep the IRS from ever coming after an individual.  Only people with a business license would be paying taxes.  So the IRS would never go after the individual for a watch he bought.  Instead when the landscaper applied for his business license and filed the taxes for his business that is where the IRS would come in.  The consumers have no legal responsibilty to pay the consumption tax, it is purely the responsibility of the business owner.  If you want to keep your business you'll pay your taxes.</p><p><a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" title="fairtax.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a> [fairtax.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip , wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.I 'm going to be nice and not insult you , but you really should n't have a + 5 Insightful with such an ignorant comment .
The point of a consumption tax is to keep the IRS from ever coming after an individual .
Only people with a business license would be paying taxes .
So the IRS would never go after the individual for a watch he bought .
Instead when the landscaper applied for his business license and filed the taxes for his business that is where the IRS would come in .
The consumers have no legal responsibilty to pay the consumption tax , it is purely the responsibility of the business owner .
If you want to keep your business you 'll pay your taxes.http : //www.fairtax.org/ [ fairtax.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.I'm going to be nice and not insult you, but you really shouldn't have a +5 Insightful with such an ignorant comment.
The point of a consumption tax is to keep the IRS from ever coming after an individual.
Only people with a business license would be paying taxes.
So the IRS would never go after the individual for a watch he bought.
Instead when the landscaper applied for his business license and filed the taxes for his business that is where the IRS would come in.
The consumers have no legal responsibilty to pay the consumption tax, it is purely the responsibility of the business owner.
If you want to keep your business you'll pay your taxes.http://www.fairtax.org/ [fairtax.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361467</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1245253440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in a country with 18\% VAT (which for consumers is pretty much equivalent to "sales tax").</p><p>There's not that much VAT tax evasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a country with 18 \ % VAT ( which for consumers is pretty much equivalent to " sales tax " ) .There 's not that much VAT tax evasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a country with 18\% VAT (which for consumers is pretty much equivalent to "sales tax").There's not that much VAT tax evasion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1245246060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool down buddy. Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side. Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10\%? Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately? How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man? That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal. Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC? Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws? If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades. <p>


Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy? Today, in USA, 1$ in cash is worth 1$ in bank. But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank. Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money. That is not the case in Mexico, Phillipines, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in. We are paying pittance for our judges, police chiefs,
auditors and law enforcers in general. Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.
The source of cash economy is tax evasion. Purely on that account, we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool down buddy .
Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side .
Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10 \ % ?
Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on , and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately ?
How many people you know who evade the simple 5 \ % or 6 \ % local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man ?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal .
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17 \ % or 22 \ % tax to distant Washington DC ?
Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws ?
If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip , wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades .
Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy ?
Today , in USA , 1 $ in cash is worth 1 $ in bank .
But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank .
Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money .
That is not the case in Mexico , Phillipines , Pakistan , Bangladesh etc .
Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power , then corruption sets in .
We are paying pittance for our judges , police chiefs , auditors and law enforcers in general .
Once cash economy takes root , corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them .
The source of cash economy is tax evasion .
Purely on that account , we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool down buddy.
Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side.
Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10\%?
Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately?
How many people you know who evade the simple 5\% or 6\% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man?
That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal.
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17\% or 22\% tax to distant Washington DC?
Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws?
If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.
Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy?
Today, in USA, 1$ in cash is worth 1$ in bank.
But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank.
Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money.
That is not the case in Mexico, Phillipines, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in.
We are paying pittance for our judges, police chiefs,
auditors and law enforcers in general.
Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.
The source of cash economy is tax evasion.
Purely on that account, we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363521</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, sure you are</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245263400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would prefer combining a steeply progressive income tax (say, 6\% up to 100k, 18\% beyond it) with taxes based on what services you use (with the exception of those that everyone benefits from or those that are too hard to calculate, which the income tax pays for). Own a car? You pay for the roads, not the person who only rides a bicycle and therefore might as well not be on the road with the insignificant damage he is causing. Smoke, drink, drive without a seatbelt? Pay for your own health care then. Leave appliances on during your six-week vacation? No subsidized electricity so you pay the bill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer combining a steeply progressive income tax ( say , 6 \ % up to 100k , 18 \ % beyond it ) with taxes based on what services you use ( with the exception of those that everyone benefits from or those that are too hard to calculate , which the income tax pays for ) .
Own a car ?
You pay for the roads , not the person who only rides a bicycle and therefore might as well not be on the road with the insignificant damage he is causing .
Smoke , drink , drive without a seatbelt ?
Pay for your own health care then .
Leave appliances on during your six-week vacation ?
No subsidized electricity so you pay the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer combining a steeply progressive income tax (say, 6\% up to 100k, 18\% beyond it) with taxes based on what services you use (with the exception of those that everyone benefits from or those that are too hard to calculate, which the income tax pays for).
Own a car?
You pay for the roads, not the person who only rides a bicycle and therefore might as well not be on the road with the insignificant damage he is causing.
Smoke, drink, drive without a seatbelt?
Pay for your own health care then.
Leave appliances on during your six-week vacation?
No subsidized electricity so you pay the bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28366185</id>
	<title>A little clarification is needed here</title>
	<author>bhmit1</author>
	<datestamp>1245232800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't some "cell phone tax" that companies are charged for owning cell phones.  When you buy any equipment to run a business, and that equipment is expected to last more than a year, you have to depreciate it.  There's a particular part of the depreciation schedule that you have to fill in for various pieces of technology, like cell phones, where you have to provide a percentage of usage that is personal rather than business.  And you're only able to depreciate business use of the phone over a 5 year period.</p><p>What the IRS is saying is that the effort to calculate this percentage with itemized statements, and identifying every person called, is usually greater than the extra few dollars of tax they may collect.  Contrary to popular belief, the IRS doesn't want your money, Congress does.  The IRS is just making sure you've paid the right amount.  If you want to be upset at someone for taking your money, be upset at your representatives in the Capital.</p><p>Food for thought, if the phone is destroyed or trashed before 5 years are up, I've yet to find a place in the tax code where you can write off the remaining value, and you're no longer allowed to depreciate a destroyed item.   Another thought, if you start a company that earns $500k in its first year, but requires $400k in equipment, if depreciation lets you write off $100k, you'll be taxed on $300k of income that first year, or about $100k, the entire amount of profit for that year.  The depreciation portion of the tax code is pretty messed up.  And what the IRS gives back in business write offs, local governments take away in business taxes based on how much equipment your business has.  For everyone that's against business people and their write offs, try running a business yourself before knocking it next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't some " cell phone tax " that companies are charged for owning cell phones .
When you buy any equipment to run a business , and that equipment is expected to last more than a year , you have to depreciate it .
There 's a particular part of the depreciation schedule that you have to fill in for various pieces of technology , like cell phones , where you have to provide a percentage of usage that is personal rather than business .
And you 're only able to depreciate business use of the phone over a 5 year period.What the IRS is saying is that the effort to calculate this percentage with itemized statements , and identifying every person called , is usually greater than the extra few dollars of tax they may collect .
Contrary to popular belief , the IRS does n't want your money , Congress does .
The IRS is just making sure you 've paid the right amount .
If you want to be upset at someone for taking your money , be upset at your representatives in the Capital.Food for thought , if the phone is destroyed or trashed before 5 years are up , I 've yet to find a place in the tax code where you can write off the remaining value , and you 're no longer allowed to depreciate a destroyed item .
Another thought , if you start a company that earns $ 500k in its first year , but requires $ 400k in equipment , if depreciation lets you write off $ 100k , you 'll be taxed on $ 300k of income that first year , or about $ 100k , the entire amount of profit for that year .
The depreciation portion of the tax code is pretty messed up .
And what the IRS gives back in business write offs , local governments take away in business taxes based on how much equipment your business has .
For everyone that 's against business people and their write offs , try running a business yourself before knocking it next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't some "cell phone tax" that companies are charged for owning cell phones.
When you buy any equipment to run a business, and that equipment is expected to last more than a year, you have to depreciate it.
There's a particular part of the depreciation schedule that you have to fill in for various pieces of technology, like cell phones, where you have to provide a percentage of usage that is personal rather than business.
And you're only able to depreciate business use of the phone over a 5 year period.What the IRS is saying is that the effort to calculate this percentage with itemized statements, and identifying every person called, is usually greater than the extra few dollars of tax they may collect.
Contrary to popular belief, the IRS doesn't want your money, Congress does.
The IRS is just making sure you've paid the right amount.
If you want to be upset at someone for taking your money, be upset at your representatives in the Capital.Food for thought, if the phone is destroyed or trashed before 5 years are up, I've yet to find a place in the tax code where you can write off the remaining value, and you're no longer allowed to depreciate a destroyed item.
Another thought, if you start a company that earns $500k in its first year, but requires $400k in equipment, if depreciation lets you write off $100k, you'll be taxed on $300k of income that first year, or about $100k, the entire amount of profit for that year.
The depreciation portion of the tax code is pretty messed up.
And what the IRS gives back in business write offs, local governments take away in business taxes based on how much equipment your business has.
For everyone that's against business people and their write offs, try running a business yourself before knocking it next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360159</id>
	<title>Just earlier...</title>
	<author>pHus10n</author>
	<datestamp>1245245460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was reading an article on Slashdot, not even two hours ago, where a poster begged for someone to post an example of a tax being repealed.
<br>
<br>
Your move<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was reading an article on Slashdot , not even two hours ago , where a poster begged for someone to post an example of a tax being repealed .
Your move : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was reading an article on Slashdot, not even two hours ago, where a poster begged for someone to post an example of a tax being repealed.
Your move :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28367763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_0114251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28359959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28367763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360803
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28361283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28364227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28362547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28363413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_0114251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_0114251.28360795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
