<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_21_1353223</id>
	<title>Our Low-Tech Tax Code</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266767040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"After establishing that nothing can excuse Joe Stack's murderous intentional plane crash into an IRS office, a NY Times Op-Ed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21shulman.html">explains the reference in Stack's suicide note to an obscure federal tax law</a> &mdash; Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act &mdash; which the software engineer claimed declared him a 'criminal and non-citizen slave' and ruined his career. Interestingly, a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/27/business/how-a-tax-law-helps-insure-a-scarcity-of-programmers.html?pagewanted=all">decade-old NY Times article on Section 1706</a> pretty much agreed: 'The immediate effect of these [Section 1706] audits is to force individual programmers ... to abandon their dreams of getting rich off their high-technology skills.' Section 1706, the NYT Op-Ed concludes, 'is an example of how Congress enacted a discriminatory law that hurt thousands of technology consultants, their staffing firms and customers. And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law's repeal, it remains on the books.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " After establishing that nothing can excuse Joe Stack 's murderous intentional plane crash into an IRS office , a NY Times Op-Ed explains the reference in Stack 's suicide note to an obscure federal tax law    Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act    which the software engineer claimed declared him a 'criminal and non-citizen slave ' and ruined his career .
Interestingly , a decade-old NY Times article on Section 1706 pretty much agreed : 'The immediate effect of these [ Section 1706 ] audits is to force individual programmers ... to abandon their dreams of getting rich off their high-technology skills .
' Section 1706 , the NYT Op-Ed concludes , 'is an example of how Congress enacted a discriminatory law that hurt thousands of technology consultants , their staffing firms and customers .
And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law 's repeal , it remains on the books .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "After establishing that nothing can excuse Joe Stack's murderous intentional plane crash into an IRS office, a NY Times Op-Ed explains the reference in Stack's suicide note to an obscure federal tax law — Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act — which the software engineer claimed declared him a 'criminal and non-citizen slave' and ruined his career.
Interestingly, a decade-old NY Times article on Section 1706 pretty much agreed: 'The immediate effect of these [Section 1706] audits is to force individual programmers ... to abandon their dreams of getting rich off their high-technology skills.
' Section 1706, the NYT Op-Ed concludes, 'is an example of how Congress enacted a discriminatory law that hurt thousands of technology consultants, their staffing firms and customers.
And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law's repeal, it remains on the books.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226876</id>
	<title>Consultants pay ordinary income tax</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1266829200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax. Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government. The extra benefits for employees are nice too, but that isn't really the goal.</em></p><p>The only problem about that paragraph is that it is almost entirely wrong.  Unless a consultant sells his company he will never pay any capital gains tax on that enterprise.  All the income distributions that are not counted as salary (and hence subject to self employment tax) will be counted as ordinary taxable income and will be subject to ordinary income tax.</p><p>If a consultant with his own company abuses this distinction he can largely avoid paying any self employment tax (which is the equivalent of Social Security) so the IRS has rules to require such individuals to pay themselves some reasonable salary for the work they actually perform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax .
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax , which generates more revenue for the government .
The extra benefits for employees are nice too , but that is n't really the goal.The only problem about that paragraph is that it is almost entirely wrong .
Unless a consultant sells his company he will never pay any capital gains tax on that enterprise .
All the income distributions that are not counted as salary ( and hence subject to self employment tax ) will be counted as ordinary taxable income and will be subject to ordinary income tax.If a consultant with his own company abuses this distinction he can largely avoid paying any self employment tax ( which is the equivalent of Social Security ) so the IRS has rules to require such individuals to pay themselves some reasonable salary for the work they actually perform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax.
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government.
The extra benefits for employees are nice too, but that isn't really the goal.The only problem about that paragraph is that it is almost entirely wrong.
Unless a consultant sells his company he will never pay any capital gains tax on that enterprise.
All the income distributions that are not counted as salary (and hence subject to self employment tax) will be counted as ordinary taxable income and will be subject to ordinary income tax.If a consultant with his own company abuses this distinction he can largely avoid paying any self employment tax (which is the equivalent of Social Security) so the IRS has rules to require such individuals to pay themselves some reasonable salary for the work they actually perform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</id>
	<title>Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266772440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Substitue "Mohammed al-Mohammed" for "Joe Stack" and "Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act" with "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86" and you'll see what you folks are all doing - you're making up excuses for a terrorist because he happens to share your political views. This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Substitue " Mohammed al-Mohammed " for " Joe Stack " and " Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act " with " United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 " and you 'll see what you folks are all doing - you 're making up excuses for a terrorist because he happens to share your political views .
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Substitue "Mohammed al-Mohammed" for "Joe Stack" and "Section 1706 of the 1986 tax act" with "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86" and you'll see what you folks are all doing - you're making up excuses for a terrorist because he happens to share your political views.
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225358</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266769740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Glen Beck goes around quoting "progressives."</p></div><p>But not in a manner that reflects approval of their philosophy. This guy's quote of Marx seems to indicate he approved of Marx's philosophy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glen Beck goes around quoting " progressives .
" But not in a manner that reflects approval of their philosophy .
This guy 's quote of Marx seems to indicate he approved of Marx 's philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glen Beck goes around quoting "progressives.
"But not in a manner that reflects approval of their philosophy.
This guy's quote of Marx seems to indicate he approved of Marx's philosophy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219512</id>
	<title>Re:Boo hoo</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1266776280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all we know the guy may have so much debt, that his net worth is 0 (or in other words bankrupt).<br> <br>
Just the devils advocate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all we know the guy may have so much debt , that his net worth is 0 ( or in other words bankrupt ) .
Just the devils advocate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all we know the guy may have so much debt, that his net worth is 0 (or in other words bankrupt).
Just the devils advocate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219016</id>
	<title>Explanation here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy.. There's always been a difference between employee and independent contractor. ICs provide their own tools, workspace, set their own hours, etc., and typically have  a defined "product" that they are delivering, although the contract might be a "time and materials" one.  Employees are provided a place to work, told when to be there, and are paid for showing up (either by the hour or by the day/week).</p><p>there was concern that a lot of the contractors were essentially "de-facto" employees, but weren't necessarily paying their taxes as self employed people (essentially, you got paid cash, and the company didn't much care whether you filed Form SE or not)</p><p>Why so many contractors?  There was a lot of work for programmers in that time and a lot of tech companies in the 80s had a large number of toilers who sat at company provided desks, used company provided terminals connected to company provided mainframes, working company mandated hours.  The employees (paid salaries) sat next to contractors who were essentially being paid by the hour (straight time, no OT).  The hourly rates were high, because they typically came out of a "other direct cost" bucket and didn't have a lot of overhead applied when the job cost accounting was done (e.g. contractor fees didn't include anything for office space, heat light, etc. in addition to vacation and sick time.. obviously, a contractor doesn't consume the latter, but they sure consumed the former).   This made contractors, even at a high hourly rate, a very good deal to the project manager.</p><p>If you were young and single, who cared that you had to buy your own health insurance (or go bare)... it was lucrative.  ANd the temptation to not make those quarterly estimated tax deposits (or even file your return) was very great.  You get checks in the mail, you cash them, you spend the cash, you get your next job.</p><p>Remember, this is back before "telecommuting" existed in any meaningful sense (ah, the days of 300bps acoustic couplers!).  YOu pretty much had to be physically present at the place the computer existed to do the work.  SO there was some workplace friction too, someone making 30K/yr salary would be sitting next to someone doing pretty much the same work for $50/hr, and worse, when the schedule got tight, and everyone pulled all nighters, the contractor got paid, and the employee got bupkis.(except that they'd get an award plaque or certificate at the end of the year for "devotion to the company"..until they were laid off).</p><p>The companies also did worry about the Independent contractor audit thing, but ultimately, they solved that by requiring that contractors be incorporated (you had to have an EIN, not a SSN, to get the work, and to get paid).</p><p>SO you had a sort of confluence of factors: managers loved having no-burden toilers; employees didn't like seeing contractors making 5 times what they were; big staffing companies were losing out, because unlike low end clerical help, programmers and engineers were more than willing to fork out the $500 to incorporate;  So the solution was: Let's fix this horrible tax cheating problem (which didn't actually exist) and solve a bunch of other problems.</p><p>So 1706 came into being.. supposedly providing a brightline test for Independent Contractor and a safe haven for the big company (hire your contractors/temps from an agency, and you're golden).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy.. There 's always been a difference between employee and independent contractor .
ICs provide their own tools , workspace , set their own hours , etc. , and typically have a defined " product " that they are delivering , although the contract might be a " time and materials " one .
Employees are provided a place to work , told when to be there , and are paid for showing up ( either by the hour or by the day/week ) .there was concern that a lot of the contractors were essentially " de-facto " employees , but were n't necessarily paying their taxes as self employed people ( essentially , you got paid cash , and the company did n't much care whether you filed Form SE or not ) Why so many contractors ?
There was a lot of work for programmers in that time and a lot of tech companies in the 80s had a large number of toilers who sat at company provided desks , used company provided terminals connected to company provided mainframes , working company mandated hours .
The employees ( paid salaries ) sat next to contractors who were essentially being paid by the hour ( straight time , no OT ) .
The hourly rates were high , because they typically came out of a " other direct cost " bucket and did n't have a lot of overhead applied when the job cost accounting was done ( e.g .
contractor fees did n't include anything for office space , heat light , etc .
in addition to vacation and sick time.. obviously , a contractor does n't consume the latter , but they sure consumed the former ) .
This made contractors , even at a high hourly rate , a very good deal to the project manager.If you were young and single , who cared that you had to buy your own health insurance ( or go bare ) ... it was lucrative .
ANd the temptation to not make those quarterly estimated tax deposits ( or even file your return ) was very great .
You get checks in the mail , you cash them , you spend the cash , you get your next job.Remember , this is back before " telecommuting " existed in any meaningful sense ( ah , the days of 300bps acoustic couplers ! ) .
YOu pretty much had to be physically present at the place the computer existed to do the work .
SO there was some workplace friction too , someone making 30K/yr salary would be sitting next to someone doing pretty much the same work for $ 50/hr , and worse , when the schedule got tight , and everyone pulled all nighters , the contractor got paid , and the employee got bupkis .
( except that they 'd get an award plaque or certificate at the end of the year for " devotion to the company " ..until they were laid off ) .The companies also did worry about the Independent contractor audit thing , but ultimately , they solved that by requiring that contractors be incorporated ( you had to have an EIN , not a SSN , to get the work , and to get paid ) .SO you had a sort of confluence of factors : managers loved having no-burden toilers ; employees did n't like seeing contractors making 5 times what they were ; big staffing companies were losing out , because unlike low end clerical help , programmers and engineers were more than willing to fork out the $ 500 to incorporate ; So the solution was : Let 's fix this horrible tax cheating problem ( which did n't actually exist ) and solve a bunch of other problems.So 1706 came into being.. supposedly providing a brightline test for Independent Contractor and a safe haven for the big company ( hire your contractors/temps from an agency , and you 're golden ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy.. There's always been a difference between employee and independent contractor.
ICs provide their own tools, workspace, set their own hours, etc., and typically have  a defined "product" that they are delivering, although the contract might be a "time and materials" one.
Employees are provided a place to work, told when to be there, and are paid for showing up (either by the hour or by the day/week).there was concern that a lot of the contractors were essentially "de-facto" employees, but weren't necessarily paying their taxes as self employed people (essentially, you got paid cash, and the company didn't much care whether you filed Form SE or not)Why so many contractors?
There was a lot of work for programmers in that time and a lot of tech companies in the 80s had a large number of toilers who sat at company provided desks, used company provided terminals connected to company provided mainframes, working company mandated hours.
The employees (paid salaries) sat next to contractors who were essentially being paid by the hour (straight time, no OT).
The hourly rates were high, because they typically came out of a "other direct cost" bucket and didn't have a lot of overhead applied when the job cost accounting was done (e.g.
contractor fees didn't include anything for office space, heat light, etc.
in addition to vacation and sick time.. obviously, a contractor doesn't consume the latter, but they sure consumed the former).
This made contractors, even at a high hourly rate, a very good deal to the project manager.If you were young and single, who cared that you had to buy your own health insurance (or go bare)... it was lucrative.
ANd the temptation to not make those quarterly estimated tax deposits (or even file your return) was very great.
You get checks in the mail, you cash them, you spend the cash, you get your next job.Remember, this is back before "telecommuting" existed in any meaningful sense (ah, the days of 300bps acoustic couplers!).
YOu pretty much had to be physically present at the place the computer existed to do the work.
SO there was some workplace friction too, someone making 30K/yr salary would be sitting next to someone doing pretty much the same work for $50/hr, and worse, when the schedule got tight, and everyone pulled all nighters, the contractor got paid, and the employee got bupkis.
(except that they'd get an award plaque or certificate at the end of the year for "devotion to the company"..until they were laid off).The companies also did worry about the Independent contractor audit thing, but ultimately, they solved that by requiring that contractors be incorporated (you had to have an EIN, not a SSN, to get the work, and to get paid).SO you had a sort of confluence of factors: managers loved having no-burden toilers; employees didn't like seeing contractors making 5 times what they were; big staffing companies were losing out, because unlike low end clerical help, programmers and engineers were more than willing to fork out the $500 to incorporate;  So the solution was: Let's fix this horrible tax cheating problem (which didn't actually exist) and solve a bunch of other problems.So 1706 came into being.. supposedly providing a brightline test for Independent Contractor and a safe haven for the big company (hire your contractors/temps from an agency, and you're golden).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31231850</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266864000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the last couple of sentences in his suicide note posting you will see that he's anything BUT a libertarian!  He comes across as a hateful class basher.</p><p>http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/beyond/1047-joseph-andrew-stacks-suicide-i-have-just-had-enough</p><p>He's an extreme person, I doubt most other tax protesters condone his actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the last couple of sentences in his suicide note posting you will see that he 's anything BUT a libertarian !
He comes across as a hateful class basher.http : //www.cliffviewpilot.com/beyond/1047-joseph-andrew-stacks-suicide-i-have-just-had-enoughHe 's an extreme person , I doubt most other tax protesters condone his actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the last couple of sentences in his suicide note posting you will see that he's anything BUT a libertarian!
He comes across as a hateful class basher.http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/beyond/1047-joseph-andrew-stacks-suicide-i-have-just-had-enoughHe's an extreme person, I doubt most other tax protesters condone his actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221002</id>
	<title>Re:he was mentally ill</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1266784080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do they call it when you *are* the most amazing person in the world, and you *do* succeed at everything?  I'm asking for a friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they call it when you * are * the most amazing person in the world , and you * do * succeed at everything ?
I 'm asking for a friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they call it when you *are* the most amazing person in the world, and you *do* succeed at everything?
I'm asking for a friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1266773100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, it's a duck law. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck it is a duck.</p><p>If you work for one company long term, doing what is essentially a full time position, then you are an employee whether you want to be or not and are entitled to things like health care and you employer is required to pay payroll taxes. It doesn't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency, and more importantly it doesn't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.</p><p>In theory it's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that's what they are, however in reality it's to close a tax loophole. Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax. Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government. The extra benefits for employees are nice too, but that isn't really the goal.</p><p>Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant(you know, changing clients regularly, working for multiple clients, or doing work that isn't standard 9-5 work) none of this affects you, you're still a consultant and you still get the pluses and minuses of that arrangement. If you're not really a consultant(more than a year at the same place, no additional clients, doing what would normally be a salaried position) then your employer has to treat you as an employee. This means paying payroll tax, health benefits, 401k if applicable, which is of course expensive. Generally speaking if this happens a company decides to either get a real consultant or get a real employee. If they make you a real employee it generally means a pay cut(since they're paying all those benefits) and essentially the end of the little consulting business you had going.</p><p>Now none of this is in and of itself a problem, people who were being exploited got their proper benefits, the tax man got his money, and real consultants weren't affected. The problem is that some people are either stupid or lying to themselves.  They want all the stability and routine of a salaried position with the higher salary, lower taxes, and theoretical freedom of a consultant. Essentially they want to be consultants without incurring any risk. This, of course, doesn't work because the loser in this relationship is the government who gets fewer tax dollars, and everyone who does the right thing since they're paying extra tax to make up for you dodging yours.</p><p>There were a few problems because of people who really couldn't face doing either real consulting or real employment(which this guy seems to be one of with the whole slave thing) or who invested a lot of money and time into their business shell even though they weren't actually using it. All in all it's a fair law though, real consultants stay consultants, real employees stay employees, people who are in the wrong category get moved to the right one. Everyone pays the taxes they owe.</p><p>The moral of the story is that consultants get higher pay and lower taxes because they incur higher risk(a consultant/contractor may or may not have work at any given time and has pretty much zero protections) and you can't get rid of the risk and still retain the other benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , it 's a duck law .
If it looks like a duck , quacks like a duck , and walks like a duck it is a duck.If you work for one company long term , doing what is essentially a full time position , then you are an employee whether you want to be or not and are entitled to things like health care and you employer is required to pay payroll taxes .
It does n't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency , and more importantly it does n't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.In theory it 's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that 's what they are , however in reality it 's to close a tax loophole .
Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax .
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax , which generates more revenue for the government .
The extra benefits for employees are nice too , but that is n't really the goal.Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant ( you know , changing clients regularly , working for multiple clients , or doing work that is n't standard 9-5 work ) none of this affects you , you 're still a consultant and you still get the pluses and minuses of that arrangement .
If you 're not really a consultant ( more than a year at the same place , no additional clients , doing what would normally be a salaried position ) then your employer has to treat you as an employee .
This means paying payroll tax , health benefits , 401k if applicable , which is of course expensive .
Generally speaking if this happens a company decides to either get a real consultant or get a real employee .
If they make you a real employee it generally means a pay cut ( since they 're paying all those benefits ) and essentially the end of the little consulting business you had going.Now none of this is in and of itself a problem , people who were being exploited got their proper benefits , the tax man got his money , and real consultants were n't affected .
The problem is that some people are either stupid or lying to themselves .
They want all the stability and routine of a salaried position with the higher salary , lower taxes , and theoretical freedom of a consultant .
Essentially they want to be consultants without incurring any risk .
This , of course , does n't work because the loser in this relationship is the government who gets fewer tax dollars , and everyone who does the right thing since they 're paying extra tax to make up for you dodging yours.There were a few problems because of people who really could n't face doing either real consulting or real employment ( which this guy seems to be one of with the whole slave thing ) or who invested a lot of money and time into their business shell even though they were n't actually using it .
All in all it 's a fair law though , real consultants stay consultants , real employees stay employees , people who are in the wrong category get moved to the right one .
Everyone pays the taxes they owe.The moral of the story is that consultants get higher pay and lower taxes because they incur higher risk ( a consultant/contractor may or may not have work at any given time and has pretty much zero protections ) and you ca n't get rid of the risk and still retain the other benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, it's a duck law.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck it is a duck.If you work for one company long term, doing what is essentially a full time position, then you are an employee whether you want to be or not and are entitled to things like health care and you employer is required to pay payroll taxes.
It doesn't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency, and more importantly it doesn't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.In theory it's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that's what they are, however in reality it's to close a tax loophole.
Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax.
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government.
The extra benefits for employees are nice too, but that isn't really the goal.Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant(you know, changing clients regularly, working for multiple clients, or doing work that isn't standard 9-5 work) none of this affects you, you're still a consultant and you still get the pluses and minuses of that arrangement.
If you're not really a consultant(more than a year at the same place, no additional clients, doing what would normally be a salaried position) then your employer has to treat you as an employee.
This means paying payroll tax, health benefits, 401k if applicable, which is of course expensive.
Generally speaking if this happens a company decides to either get a real consultant or get a real employee.
If they make you a real employee it generally means a pay cut(since they're paying all those benefits) and essentially the end of the little consulting business you had going.Now none of this is in and of itself a problem, people who were being exploited got their proper benefits, the tax man got his money, and real consultants weren't affected.
The problem is that some people are either stupid or lying to themselves.
They want all the stability and routine of a salaried position with the higher salary, lower taxes, and theoretical freedom of a consultant.
Essentially they want to be consultants without incurring any risk.
This, of course, doesn't work because the loser in this relationship is the government who gets fewer tax dollars, and everyone who does the right thing since they're paying extra tax to make up for you dodging yours.There were a few problems because of people who really couldn't face doing either real consulting or real employment(which this guy seems to be one of with the whole slave thing) or who invested a lot of money and time into their business shell even though they weren't actually using it.
All in all it's a fair law though, real consultants stay consultants, real employees stay employees, people who are in the wrong category get moved to the right one.
Everyone pays the taxes they owe.The moral of the story is that consultants get higher pay and lower taxes because they incur higher risk(a consultant/contractor may or may not have work at any given time and has pretty much zero protections) and you can't get rid of the risk and still retain the other benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219250</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>trout007</author>
	<datestamp>1266775080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is if you want to become a consultant. It is impossible.

To be hired as a consultant you need to be a consultant.
To be a consultant you need to have more than one client.
To have more than one client and you are starting out you need to start with one client.
If you only have one client you are an employee not a consultant.

It is similar to many cartels. The existing consultants want to prevent competition so they pass a law banning people from being considered consultants.

There are many states that have licensure laws where in order to get the licence you need to be approved by people already in the industry. So the people in the industry get to decide if you are allowed to compete with them. Complete BS.

The Institute for Justice routinely battles these laws.

<a href="http://www.ij.org/" title="ij.org">http://www.ij.org/</a> [ij.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is if you want to become a consultant .
It is impossible .
To be hired as a consultant you need to be a consultant .
To be a consultant you need to have more than one client .
To have more than one client and you are starting out you need to start with one client .
If you only have one client you are an employee not a consultant .
It is similar to many cartels .
The existing consultants want to prevent competition so they pass a law banning people from being considered consultants .
There are many states that have licensure laws where in order to get the licence you need to be approved by people already in the industry .
So the people in the industry get to decide if you are allowed to compete with them .
Complete BS .
The Institute for Justice routinely battles these laws .
http : //www.ij.org/ [ ij.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is if you want to become a consultant.
It is impossible.
To be hired as a consultant you need to be a consultant.
To be a consultant you need to have more than one client.
To have more than one client and you are starting out you need to start with one client.
If you only have one client you are an employee not a consultant.
It is similar to many cartels.
The existing consultants want to prevent competition so they pass a law banning people from being considered consultants.
There are many states that have licensure laws where in order to get the licence you need to be approved by people already in the industry.
So the people in the industry get to decide if you are allowed to compete with them.
Complete BS.
The Institute for Justice routinely battles these laws.
http://www.ij.org/ [ij.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219208</id>
	<title>things are different now than in the 80s?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not hard under the current legal regime to become an independent contractor. Hell, I was an independent contractor all through the 1990's. All it requires is that you basically provide your own tools (such as a computer, the compilers, and the like), you set your own hours, and you have a contract with your current employer specifying the work to be provided."</p><p>Not hard *today*.  Pretty challenging in 1984.  pretty tough to be slinging that Ada code on your PC or Apple II.  AutoCAD was a godsend in the 80s, because it made it feasible to be a self employed draftsperson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not hard under the current legal regime to become an independent contractor .
Hell , I was an independent contractor all through the 1990 's .
All it requires is that you basically provide your own tools ( such as a computer , the compilers , and the like ) , you set your own hours , and you have a contract with your current employer specifying the work to be provided .
" Not hard * today * .
Pretty challenging in 1984. pretty tough to be slinging that Ada code on your PC or Apple II .
AutoCAD was a godsend in the 80s , because it made it feasible to be a self employed draftsperson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not hard under the current legal regime to become an independent contractor.
Hell, I was an independent contractor all through the 1990's.
All it requires is that you basically provide your own tools (such as a computer, the compilers, and the like), you set your own hours, and you have a contract with your current employer specifying the work to be provided.
"Not hard *today*.
Pretty challenging in 1984.  pretty tough to be slinging that Ada code on your PC or Apple II.
AutoCAD was a godsend in the 80s, because it made it feasible to be a self employed draftsperson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219590</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1266776700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's accurate to label this guy a "wing nut" (in the sense that he was a right-wing fanatic). His manifesto contains several references to our "broken" health care system, and how the politicians are beholden to insurance companies and that's why we have the problems we do. That isn't exactly a right-wing talking point. He seems more like one of those disaffected loons that gravitate to any and all complaints about society, government, or other people; the kind of person who listens to Alex Jones and thinks he's right about anything. I bet it comes out he was both a Truther <b>and</b> a Birther.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's accurate to label this guy a " wing nut " ( in the sense that he was a right-wing fanatic ) .
His manifesto contains several references to our " broken " health care system , and how the politicians are beholden to insurance companies and that 's why we have the problems we do .
That is n't exactly a right-wing talking point .
He seems more like one of those disaffected loons that gravitate to any and all complaints about society , government , or other people ; the kind of person who listens to Alex Jones and thinks he 's right about anything .
I bet it comes out he was both a Truther and a Birther .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's accurate to label this guy a "wing nut" (in the sense that he was a right-wing fanatic).
His manifesto contains several references to our "broken" health care system, and how the politicians are beholden to insurance companies and that's why we have the problems we do.
That isn't exactly a right-wing talking point.
He seems more like one of those disaffected loons that gravitate to any and all complaints about society, government, or other people; the kind of person who listens to Alex Jones and thinks he's right about anything.
I bet it comes out he was both a Truther and a Birther.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266771900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you on?</p><p>All this does is give the employee a false sense of security. The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.</p><p>Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you on ? All this does is give the employee a false sense of security .
The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you on?All this does is give the employee a false sense of security.
The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221238</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Always has been, always will be. What's more, the only way that that question is settled is by who wins the war. If the revolutionaries win the war, the Freedom Fighters stay Freedom Fighters. If the government wins, the Terrorists stay Terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One man 's freedom fighter is another man 's terrorist .
Always has been , always will be .
What 's more , the only way that that question is settled is by who wins the war .
If the revolutionaries win the war , the Freedom Fighters stay Freedom Fighters .
If the government wins , the Terrorists stay Terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Always has been, always will be.
What's more, the only way that that question is settled is by who wins the war.
If the revolutionaries win the war, the Freedom Fighters stay Freedom Fighters.
If the government wins, the Terrorists stay Terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218910</id>
	<title>The IRS is not a *kind* organization...</title>
	<author>micklang</author>
	<datestamp>1266772560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A 'tax code' larger than the King James bible, certain rights in a courtroom that flaunt what the average Joe Citizen is allowed to have-- how can the common human ever hope to challenge and win?

The IRS has owed me over $2,000.00 for years now and even though I have filled out the required form and that the time to file a request for payment won't expire, I've received nothing.

I've lived outside the US since 1994 and STILL have to pay taxes (in both countries now).  It could be said that I officially pay for two separate governments.  I know what I'm paying; all IRS staffers, my brother's Earned Income Credit (since he's paid under the table), while countless companies and rich folks pay nothing for tax credits.

I think that most people would agree that our current tax system is hugely unfair, yet nothing will be done about it.  Mr. Stack apparently had enough and took it out on the organization that made his life most miserable.  I would not equate him with a terrorist, but as a man who chose to commit a criminal act.  Terrorists don't care who they kill, so long as the body count sensationalizes their cause.

If he truly was a gifted programmer, he would have tried to find a way to hack into IRS employee email addresses and send them to 'questionable' porn sites instead.

I hope at least this brings a spotlight on the IRS' activities and they get raked over the coals for how they treat people.  After all, more people have committed suicide over desperation (when dealing with the IRS) than have been killed by Mr. Stack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 'tax code ' larger than the King James bible , certain rights in a courtroom that flaunt what the average Joe Citizen is allowed to have-- how can the common human ever hope to challenge and win ?
The IRS has owed me over $ 2,000.00 for years now and even though I have filled out the required form and that the time to file a request for payment wo n't expire , I 've received nothing .
I 've lived outside the US since 1994 and STILL have to pay taxes ( in both countries now ) .
It could be said that I officially pay for two separate governments .
I know what I 'm paying ; all IRS staffers , my brother 's Earned Income Credit ( since he 's paid under the table ) , while countless companies and rich folks pay nothing for tax credits .
I think that most people would agree that our current tax system is hugely unfair , yet nothing will be done about it .
Mr. Stack apparently had enough and took it out on the organization that made his life most miserable .
I would not equate him with a terrorist , but as a man who chose to commit a criminal act .
Terrorists do n't care who they kill , so long as the body count sensationalizes their cause .
If he truly was a gifted programmer , he would have tried to find a way to hack into IRS employee email addresses and send them to 'questionable ' porn sites instead .
I hope at least this brings a spotlight on the IRS ' activities and they get raked over the coals for how they treat people .
After all , more people have committed suicide over desperation ( when dealing with the IRS ) than have been killed by Mr. Stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 'tax code' larger than the King James bible, certain rights in a courtroom that flaunt what the average Joe Citizen is allowed to have-- how can the common human ever hope to challenge and win?
The IRS has owed me over $2,000.00 for years now and even though I have filled out the required form and that the time to file a request for payment won't expire, I've received nothing.
I've lived outside the US since 1994 and STILL have to pay taxes (in both countries now).
It could be said that I officially pay for two separate governments.
I know what I'm paying; all IRS staffers, my brother's Earned Income Credit (since he's paid under the table), while countless companies and rich folks pay nothing for tax credits.
I think that most people would agree that our current tax system is hugely unfair, yet nothing will be done about it.
Mr. Stack apparently had enough and took it out on the organization that made his life most miserable.
I would not equate him with a terrorist, but as a man who chose to commit a criminal act.
Terrorists don't care who they kill, so long as the body count sensationalizes their cause.
If he truly was a gifted programmer, he would have tried to find a way to hack into IRS employee email addresses and send them to 'questionable' porn sites instead.
I hope at least this brings a spotlight on the IRS' activities and they get raked over the coals for how they treat people.
After all, more people have committed suicide over desperation (when dealing with the IRS) than have been killed by Mr. Stack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225520</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266770940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BZZZZTTTT!  Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.</p></div><p>You may want to call an exterminator.  It sounds like some kind of bug is buzzing around your argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BZZZZTTTT !
Libertarians do n't go around quoting Marx.You may want to call an exterminator .
It sounds like some kind of bug is buzzing around your argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BZZZZTTTT!
Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.You may want to call an exterminator.
It sounds like some kind of bug is buzzing around your argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219840</id>
	<title>Rich people--a long and glorious tradition</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1266777840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This country has a long and glorious tradition of rich, middle-and-merchant class citizens fighting the powers that attempt to dip into their productivity. The American Revolution was started in part by outrage over taxes which by today's standards are absolutely minuscule. Tiny! The American revolution wasn't a revolution of the lower classes or working peasants. It was fought by people who were rich enough to organize, supply and arm them. People who owned shipping companies and were rich enough to have private battleships. So this middle-class programmer guy with a house and airplane protesting The State's encroachments on his attempts at the American Dream is actually very typical of american strife. Your "to each according to his need" class-jealousy is a reinterpretation of it using the modern justifications of "when the government gives out money, it's ok as long is it's to me, an when it takes money, it's ok as long as it's not from me".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This country has a long and glorious tradition of rich , middle-and-merchant class citizens fighting the powers that attempt to dip into their productivity .
The American Revolution was started in part by outrage over taxes which by today 's standards are absolutely minuscule .
Tiny ! The American revolution was n't a revolution of the lower classes or working peasants .
It was fought by people who were rich enough to organize , supply and arm them .
People who owned shipping companies and were rich enough to have private battleships .
So this middle-class programmer guy with a house and airplane protesting The State 's encroachments on his attempts at the American Dream is actually very typical of american strife .
Your " to each according to his need " class-jealousy is a reinterpretation of it using the modern justifications of " when the government gives out money , it 's ok as long is it 's to me , an when it takes money , it 's ok as long as it 's not from me " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This country has a long and glorious tradition of rich, middle-and-merchant class citizens fighting the powers that attempt to dip into their productivity.
The American Revolution was started in part by outrage over taxes which by today's standards are absolutely minuscule.
Tiny! The American revolution wasn't a revolution of the lower classes or working peasants.
It was fought by people who were rich enough to organize, supply and arm them.
People who owned shipping companies and were rich enough to have private battleships.
So this middle-class programmer guy with a house and airplane protesting The State's encroachments on his attempts at the American Dream is actually very typical of american strife.
Your "to each according to his need" class-jealousy is a reinterpretation of it using the modern justifications of "when the government gives out money, it's ok as long is it's to me, an when it takes money, it's ok as long as it's not from me".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31224996</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266767520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The market has categorically failed.</p></div><p>That is because insurance is a bad model for paying for healthcare.  Insurance is for things that I may or may not need. I may or may not have an accident in my car. That means that if I am one of those people who don't have an accident, the insurance company can use the money I pay in premiums to pay for the repairs needed by the guy who does have an accident.  This means that my premiums are low enough that they aren't a trial to pay. On the other hand, everybody is going to need healthcare sooner or later. At some point in your life you are almost guaranteed to need very expensive healthcare. Healthcare insurance isn't insurance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The market has categorically failed.That is because insurance is a bad model for paying for healthcare .
Insurance is for things that I may or may not need .
I may or may not have an accident in my car .
That means that if I am one of those people who do n't have an accident , the insurance company can use the money I pay in premiums to pay for the repairs needed by the guy who does have an accident .
This means that my premiums are low enough that they are n't a trial to pay .
On the other hand , everybody is going to need healthcare sooner or later .
At some point in your life you are almost guaranteed to need very expensive healthcare .
Healthcare insurance is n't insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market has categorically failed.That is because insurance is a bad model for paying for healthcare.
Insurance is for things that I may or may not need.
I may or may not have an accident in my car.
That means that if I am one of those people who don't have an accident, the insurance company can use the money I pay in premiums to pay for the repairs needed by the guy who does have an accident.
This means that my premiums are low enough that they aren't a trial to pay.
On the other hand, everybody is going to need healthcare sooner or later.
At some point in your life you are almost guaranteed to need very expensive healthcare.
Healthcare insurance isn't insurance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219864</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266778020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah he was a terrorist, the difference between him and "Mohammed al-Mohammed" was that this "Joe Stack" had a legitimate concern about a real problem.</p><p>I'm not saying his method was the most moral, there are probably much better ways of getting noticed that attempting to murder a bunch of people. However that's the path this guy took and you can't deny this law may well get corrected due to his maniacal actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah he was a terrorist , the difference between him and " Mohammed al-Mohammed " was that this " Joe Stack " had a legitimate concern about a real problem.I 'm not saying his method was the most moral , there are probably much better ways of getting noticed that attempting to murder a bunch of people .
However that 's the path this guy took and you ca n't deny this law may well get corrected due to his maniacal actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah he was a terrorist, the difference between him and "Mohammed al-Mohammed" was that this "Joe Stack" had a legitimate concern about a real problem.I'm not saying his method was the most moral, there are probably much better ways of getting noticed that attempting to murder a bunch of people.
However that's the path this guy took and you can't deny this law may well get corrected due to his maniacal actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220958</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>darth dickinson</author>
	<datestamp>1266783720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group. If you buy insurance on your own, you do so with after-tax dollars. If you buy through your employer, you do so with before-tax dollars, reducing your overall tax burden (and that of your employer, since their payroll taxes get a break). The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have, it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.</p></div><p>And if you itemize deductions, you can take a tax deduction on every dollar you pay in Health Insurance premiums.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group .
If you buy insurance on your own , you do so with after-tax dollars .
If you buy through your employer , you do so with before-tax dollars , reducing your overall tax burden ( and that of your employer , since their payroll taxes get a break ) .
The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have , it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.And if you itemize deductions , you can take a tax deduction on every dollar you pay in Health Insurance premiums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group.
If you buy insurance on your own, you do so with after-tax dollars.
If you buy through your employer, you do so with before-tax dollars, reducing your overall tax burden (and that of your employer, since their payroll taxes get a break).
The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have, it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.And if you itemize deductions, you can take a tax deduction on every dollar you pay in Health Insurance premiums.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218868</id>
	<title>Enjoy corporatism</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1266772020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is how it happens :</p><p>- you let individuals or groups to amass unlimited wealth</p><p>- eventually some reach the wealth level with which they can influence democratic processes or representatives</p><p>- the first individuals or groups to reach the above level start protecting their interests in lieu of everyone else</p><p>- laws do not work against this, because if you can influence democracy and its representatives, you can MAKE laws, as in the current example we are discussing (contract law)</p><p>- 'the people' get the shaft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is how it happens : - you let individuals or groups to amass unlimited wealth- eventually some reach the wealth level with which they can influence democratic processes or representatives- the first individuals or groups to reach the above level start protecting their interests in lieu of everyone else- laws do not work against this , because if you can influence democracy and its representatives , you can MAKE laws , as in the current example we are discussing ( contract law ) - 'the people ' get the shaft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is how it happens :- you let individuals or groups to amass unlimited wealth- eventually some reach the wealth level with which they can influence democratic processes or representatives- the first individuals or groups to reach the above level start protecting their interests in lieu of everyone else- laws do not work against this, because if you can influence democracy and its representatives, you can MAKE laws, as in the current example we are discussing (contract law)- 'the people' get the shaft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762</id>
	<title>There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266771180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when this law was passed.  At the time, many large companies were switching to having huge numbers of contractors instead of regular employees.  Uniformly, these companies denied any benefits, like health insurance.  Job security was also lower.  I personally did a lot of contract work at the time.  After the law passed, the big companies were forced to hire most of those contractors, with benefits.  I think this improved things generally all around.  For some reason, full employment creates a bond of loyalty from the employee, and sometimes from the company, which is never there as a contractor.  More programmers got health care.  It was a good thing.</p><p>As a contractor, I was not personally effected, because I was an actual contractor, with multiple clients, self-employment taxes, and all.  All you need to not be effected by the law is to be an actual contractor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when this law was passed .
At the time , many large companies were switching to having huge numbers of contractors instead of regular employees .
Uniformly , these companies denied any benefits , like health insurance .
Job security was also lower .
I personally did a lot of contract work at the time .
After the law passed , the big companies were forced to hire most of those contractors , with benefits .
I think this improved things generally all around .
For some reason , full employment creates a bond of loyalty from the employee , and sometimes from the company , which is never there as a contractor .
More programmers got health care .
It was a good thing.As a contractor , I was not personally effected , because I was an actual contractor , with multiple clients , self-employment taxes , and all .
All you need to not be effected by the law is to be an actual contractor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when this law was passed.
At the time, many large companies were switching to having huge numbers of contractors instead of regular employees.
Uniformly, these companies denied any benefits, like health insurance.
Job security was also lower.
I personally did a lot of contract work at the time.
After the law passed, the big companies were forced to hire most of those contractors, with benefits.
I think this improved things generally all around.
For some reason, full employment creates a bond of loyalty from the employee, and sometimes from the company, which is never there as a contractor.
More programmers got health care.
It was a good thing.As a contractor, I was not personally effected, because I was an actual contractor, with multiple clients, self-employment taxes, and all.
All you need to not be effected by the law is to be an actual contractor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220252</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck getting it repealed now</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1266780060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism. Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever. </i></p><p>I disagree.  Bin Ladin said the US must remove our troops in Saudi Arabia.  The troops were there to contain Saddam's regime.</p><p>So we complied with bin Ladin's request....  By invading Iraq....</p><p>Why would this be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was part of this nutjob 's manifesto , now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism .
Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way , this law will now have to remain on the books forever .
I disagree .
Bin Ladin said the US must remove our troops in Saudi Arabia .
The troops were there to contain Saddam 's regime.So we complied with bin Ladin 's request.... By invading Iraq....Why would this be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.
Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
I disagree.
Bin Ladin said the US must remove our troops in Saudi Arabia.
The troops were there to contain Saddam's regime.So we complied with bin Ladin's request....  By invading Iraq....Why would this be any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218878</id>
	<title>The more interesting part</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1266772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more interesting part of the tax provision was that it was introduced by Patrick Moynihan as a favor to IBM.  A $60m tax cut type of favor.  I'm not saying Joe was right in what he did, but it is rather apparent that to be noticed by government, you must either be insanely rich or insanely violent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more interesting part of the tax provision was that it was introduced by Patrick Moynihan as a favor to IBM .
A $ 60m tax cut type of favor .
I 'm not saying Joe was right in what he did , but it is rather apparent that to be noticed by government , you must either be insanely rich or insanely violent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more interesting part of the tax provision was that it was introduced by Patrick Moynihan as a favor to IBM.
A $60m tax cut type of favor.
I'm not saying Joe was right in what he did, but it is rather apparent that to be noticed by government, you must either be insanely rich or insanely violent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586</id>
	<title>he was mentally ill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266776640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He blamed 'politicians, the Catholic Church, the "unthinkable atrocities" committed by big business and the government bailouts' for his own failures to reach his goals. This is classic schizophrenic behavior, it is delusions of grandeur. With delusions of grandeur, you are convinced you are the most amazing person in the world and you should be able to succeed at anything. When you don't succeed, you start finding reasons as to why. And since you're convinced you are the best, you start at the top, because clearly it takes powerful forces to keep a great man like you down.</p><p>So you blame any powerful group. The government, big religion and big business.</p><p>My uncle had the same symptoms. He had all his genius ideas written down and the government was trying to steal them (physically!). He wrote to Kofi Annan (the head of the UN) to tell him that George Tenet (the head of the CIA) was in the building across the street spying on him. This is how these delusions work. Not only is the government out to get you, but the important people in the government are involved!</p><p>So what makes these guys? Well, primarily their own mental illness. The media has a role (previously lore did) in helping them choose the bad guys who they are going to list as out to get them. But the media doesn't create them, they'd just select other enemies if the media changed their tune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He blamed 'politicians , the Catholic Church , the " unthinkable atrocities " committed by big business and the government bailouts ' for his own failures to reach his goals .
This is classic schizophrenic behavior , it is delusions of grandeur .
With delusions of grandeur , you are convinced you are the most amazing person in the world and you should be able to succeed at anything .
When you do n't succeed , you start finding reasons as to why .
And since you 're convinced you are the best , you start at the top , because clearly it takes powerful forces to keep a great man like you down.So you blame any powerful group .
The government , big religion and big business.My uncle had the same symptoms .
He had all his genius ideas written down and the government was trying to steal them ( physically ! ) .
He wrote to Kofi Annan ( the head of the UN ) to tell him that George Tenet ( the head of the CIA ) was in the building across the street spying on him .
This is how these delusions work .
Not only is the government out to get you , but the important people in the government are involved ! So what makes these guys ?
Well , primarily their own mental illness .
The media has a role ( previously lore did ) in helping them choose the bad guys who they are going to list as out to get them .
But the media does n't create them , they 'd just select other enemies if the media changed their tune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He blamed 'politicians, the Catholic Church, the "unthinkable atrocities" committed by big business and the government bailouts' for his own failures to reach his goals.
This is classic schizophrenic behavior, it is delusions of grandeur.
With delusions of grandeur, you are convinced you are the most amazing person in the world and you should be able to succeed at anything.
When you don't succeed, you start finding reasons as to why.
And since you're convinced you are the best, you start at the top, because clearly it takes powerful forces to keep a great man like you down.So you blame any powerful group.
The government, big religion and big business.My uncle had the same symptoms.
He had all his genius ideas written down and the government was trying to steal them (physically!).
He wrote to Kofi Annan (the head of the UN) to tell him that George Tenet (the head of the CIA) was in the building across the street spying on him.
This is how these delusions work.
Not only is the government out to get you, but the important people in the government are involved!So what makes these guys?
Well, primarily their own mental illness.
The media has a role (previously lore did) in helping them choose the bad guys who they are going to list as out to get them.
But the media doesn't create them, they'd just select other enemies if the media changed their tune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219040</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck getting it repealed now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.  Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.</p><p>Way to go.</p></div><p>A law that enables employers to abuse employees as independent contractors is a bad law.  May I suggest if you want to be a real contractor you do it the right way instead of flying your plane into the IRS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was part of this nutjob 's manifesto , now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism .
Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way , this law will now have to remain on the books forever.Way to go.A law that enables employers to abuse employees as independent contractors is a bad law .
May I suggest if you want to be a real contractor you do it the right way instead of flying your plane into the IRS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.
Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.Way to go.A law that enables employers to abuse employees as independent contractors is a bad law.
May I suggest if you want to be a real contractor you do it the right way instead of flying your plane into the IRS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226422</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1266779400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.</p></div><p>They could start by either (a) dumping tax favored status for health insurance or (b) equalizing the tax treatment so that everyone, no matter how the insurance is purchased, receives a tax deduction up to a certain amount for the cost of their plan. The first step to real reform is modification of the present tax code, which unduly favors employer sponsored plans and creates a perverse incentive for health care to be purchased and consumed in wasteful and inefficient ways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.They could start by either ( a ) dumping tax favored status for health insurance or ( b ) equalizing the tax treatment so that everyone , no matter how the insurance is purchased , receives a tax deduction up to a certain amount for the cost of their plan .
The first step to real reform is modification of the present tax code , which unduly favors employer sponsored plans and creates a perverse incentive for health care to be purchased and consumed in wasteful and inefficient ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.They could start by either (a) dumping tax favored status for health insurance or (b) equalizing the tax treatment so that everyone, no matter how the insurance is purchased, receives a tax deduction up to a certain amount for the cost of their plan.
The first step to real reform is modification of the present tax code, which unduly favors employer sponsored plans and creates a perverse incentive for health care to be purchased and consumed in wasteful and inefficient ways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222286</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>wronskyMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266749400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do the same rules apply to government contractors? I know of several who fill full time positions (doing actual work in accordance with their salary btw) working out of govt offices, using govt office supplies, etc. and their only interaction with their parent companies is to collect the paycheck/update their health/benefits paperwork. This is usually done because it's a lot easier to get funding for a specific position under a certain project contract than to go through the personnel gyrations required to add another government civil service billet.</p><p>According to these rules, would the contractors be eligible for federal retirement/health/etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the same rules apply to government contractors ?
I know of several who fill full time positions ( doing actual work in accordance with their salary btw ) working out of govt offices , using govt office supplies , etc .
and their only interaction with their parent companies is to collect the paycheck/update their health/benefits paperwork .
This is usually done because it 's a lot easier to get funding for a specific position under a certain project contract than to go through the personnel gyrations required to add another government civil service billet.According to these rules , would the contractors be eligible for federal retirement/health/etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the same rules apply to government contractors?
I know of several who fill full time positions (doing actual work in accordance with their salary btw) working out of govt offices, using govt office supplies, etc.
and their only interaction with their parent companies is to collect the paycheck/update their health/benefits paperwork.
This is usually done because it's a lot easier to get funding for a specific position under a certain project contract than to go through the personnel gyrations required to add another government civil service billet.According to these rules, would the contractors be eligible for federal retirement/health/etc?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220146</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard - no not glen beck!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266779580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glen Beck is a clown; an entertainer for a gullible audience and himself privately likely is way different than his act on TV.</p><p>Beck isn't anything; either its an act or he is nuts. Having seen some of his early stuff, I would have to say its most likely an act.  He doesn't even have to put in a whole lot of effort either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glen Beck is a clown ; an entertainer for a gullible audience and himself privately likely is way different than his act on TV.Beck is n't anything ; either its an act or he is nuts .
Having seen some of his early stuff , I would have to say its most likely an act .
He does n't even have to put in a whole lot of effort either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glen Beck is a clown; an entertainer for a gullible audience and himself privately likely is way different than his act on TV.Beck isn't anything; either its an act or he is nuts.
Having seen some of his early stuff, I would have to say its most likely an act.
He doesn't even have to put in a whole lot of effort either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31224716</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1266765060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is unemployment and the rest of it going to create more of these guys?</p></div></blockquote><p>
It depends on how bad it gets. The stability of most Western countries rests on two pillars: bread, and circuses. Man cannot live on circuses alone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is unemployment and the rest of it going to create more of these guys ?
It depends on how bad it gets .
The stability of most Western countries rests on two pillars : bread , and circuses .
Man can not live on circuses alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is unemployment and the rest of it going to create more of these guys?
It depends on how bad it gets.
The stability of most Western countries rests on two pillars: bread, and circuses.
Man cannot live on circuses alone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219164</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was he a "fundamentalist libertarian"?  His manifesto laments the state of health care in this country.  He bashes organized religion, though I think that may be residue from his attempt at one time to start a religion as means of not paying taxes.  Lastly, he may have had libertarian leanings, but if so, I'd doubt he was a fundamentalist -- fundamentalists become republicans because of their desire to control people while Libertarians would rather leave people alone.  Somehow, I think you are having a knee jerk reaction and stringing together every term you find derogatory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was he a " fundamentalist libertarian " ?
His manifesto laments the state of health care in this country .
He bashes organized religion , though I think that may be residue from his attempt at one time to start a religion as means of not paying taxes .
Lastly , he may have had libertarian leanings , but if so , I 'd doubt he was a fundamentalist -- fundamentalists become republicans because of their desire to control people while Libertarians would rather leave people alone .
Somehow , I think you are having a knee jerk reaction and stringing together every term you find derogatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was he a "fundamentalist libertarian"?
His manifesto laments the state of health care in this country.
He bashes organized religion, though I think that may be residue from his attempt at one time to start a religion as means of not paying taxes.
Lastly, he may have had libertarian leanings, but if so, I'd doubt he was a fundamentalist -- fundamentalists become republicans because of their desire to control people while Libertarians would rather leave people alone.
Somehow, I think you are having a knee jerk reaction and stringing together every term you find derogatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220200</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266779820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um. On google images search for the term "lol preexisting condition". Review the picture. That pretty well summarizes the state of healthcare in this country to individual procurers of healthcare. When you are covered by a large company's health plan, there are not preexisting condition limits.</p><p>The only way this will ever fixed will be by fiat of law. The market has categorically failed.</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um .
On google images search for the term " lol preexisting condition " .
Review the picture .
That pretty well summarizes the state of healthcare in this country to individual procurers of healthcare .
When you are covered by a large company 's health plan , there are not preexisting condition limits.The only way this will ever fixed will be by fiat of law .
The market has categorically failed.C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.
On google images search for the term "lol preexisting condition".
Review the picture.
That pretty well summarizes the state of healthcare in this country to individual procurers of healthcare.
When you are covered by a large company's health plan, there are not preexisting condition limits.The only way this will ever fixed will be by fiat of law.
The market has categorically failed.C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219366</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>catfood</author>
	<datestamp>1266775740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's probably going to cost more because...</p></div></blockquote><p>
But also more importantly because the insurance only stays cheap if you don't need it much. If the transaction is strictly between you and the insurer, they have an incentive to cut you off when you start to cost too much. If you're in an employee group, at least they have to think about the downside of losing the whole group.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably going to cost more because.. . But also more importantly because the insurance only stays cheap if you do n't need it much .
If the transaction is strictly between you and the insurer , they have an incentive to cut you off when you start to cost too much .
If you 're in an employee group , at least they have to think about the downside of losing the whole group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably going to cost more because...
But also more importantly because the insurance only stays cheap if you don't need it much.
If the transaction is strictly between you and the insurer, they have an incentive to cut you off when you start to cost too much.
If you're in an employee group, at least they have to think about the downside of losing the whole group.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223874</id>
	<title>The guy was a complete tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266759240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Waa waa" he cried, the government only supports "rich"guys."  The IRS has it in for "little" guys like me, "Waaa waa."</p><p>Then what did he do?  He flew <b>his own plane</b> into a building.</p><p>Didja catch that?  <b>His own plane.</b></p><p>How many "little" guys have their own plane?  Can you afford your own plane?  Can I?</p><p>To most of the world, even the poorest Americans are rich.  To most Americans, this tool jerkoff was rich.</p><p>This was no libertarian, he was representative of nobody but himself.  He should have been counting his blessings.  Insead, he was just a spoiled 'nuther rich guy himself with a misgided sense of entitlement.  Good riddance to bad garbage.  Rest in hell, rich whiner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Waa waa " he cried , the government only supports " rich " guys .
" The IRS has it in for " little " guys like me , " Waaa waa .
" Then what did he do ?
He flew his own plane into a building.Didja catch that ?
His own plane.How many " little " guys have their own plane ?
Can you afford your own plane ?
Can I ? To most of the world , even the poorest Americans are rich .
To most Americans , this tool jerkoff was rich.This was no libertarian , he was representative of nobody but himself .
He should have been counting his blessings .
Insead , he was just a spoiled 'nuther rich guy himself with a misgided sense of entitlement .
Good riddance to bad garbage .
Rest in hell , rich whiner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Waa waa" he cried, the government only supports "rich"guys.
"  The IRS has it in for "little" guys like me, "Waaa waa.
"Then what did he do?
He flew his own plane into a building.Didja catch that?
His own plane.How many "little" guys have their own plane?
Can you afford your own plane?
Can I?To most of the world, even the poorest Americans are rich.
To most Americans, this tool jerkoff was rich.This was no libertarian, he was representative of nobody but himself.
He should have been counting his blessings.
Insead, he was just a spoiled 'nuther rich guy himself with a misgided sense of entitlement.
Good riddance to bad garbage.
Rest in hell, rich whiner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221638</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266745140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mohammed al-Mohammed</p></div></blockquote><p>"Mohammed the Mohammed"?  That is a deeply implausible name.  You probably meant "Mohammed bin Mohammed", or some epithet like "Mohammed al-Mujahid".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mohammed al-Mohammed " Mohammed the Mohammed " ?
That is a deeply implausible name .
You probably meant " Mohammed bin Mohammed " , or some epithet like " Mohammed al-Mujahid " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mohammed al-Mohammed"Mohammed the Mohammed"?
That is a deeply implausible name.
You probably meant "Mohammed bin Mohammed", or some epithet like "Mohammed al-Mujahid".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219468</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266776100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't even think the law was the main reason why he did this. Why would he have waited so long to do it?</p><p>The reality is that this are tough times for everybody in this country. To make matters even worse, we are seeing our hard earned tax dollars being used to bail out large corporations and to finance huge bonuses for incompetent executives. This is not what America. I think people in general are frustrated. We are all fed up. I think this is the reason why this guy went postal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even think the law was the main reason why he did this .
Why would he have waited so long to do it ? The reality is that this are tough times for everybody in this country .
To make matters even worse , we are seeing our hard earned tax dollars being used to bail out large corporations and to finance huge bonuses for incompetent executives .
This is not what America .
I think people in general are frustrated .
We are all fed up .
I think this is the reason why this guy went postal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even think the law was the main reason why he did this.
Why would he have waited so long to do it?The reality is that this are tough times for everybody in this country.
To make matters even worse, we are seeing our hard earned tax dollars being used to bail out large corporations and to finance huge bonuses for incompetent executives.
This is not what America.
I think people in general are frustrated.
We are all fed up.
I think this is the reason why this guy went postal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219442</id>
	<title>Re:Boo hoo</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1266776040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane. Just imagine, without that terrible law, he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house!</p></div><p>Since when does the amount someone makes define their entitlement to legal protections? Whether he makes $100 a year, or $100 million a year, the same laws and treatment should occur -- that is one of the cornerstones of democracy. "All men are created equal."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane .
Just imagine , without that terrible law , he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house ! Since when does the amount someone makes define their entitlement to legal protections ?
Whether he makes $ 100 a year , or $ 100 million a year , the same laws and treatment should occur -- that is one of the cornerstones of democracy .
" All men are created equal .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane.
Just imagine, without that terrible law, he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house!Since when does the amount someone makes define their entitlement to legal protections?
Whether he makes $100 a year, or $100 million a year, the same laws and treatment should occur -- that is one of the cornerstones of democracy.
"All men are created equal.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219128</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>w3woody</author>
	<datestamp>1266774180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Section 530 does (which the 1706 amendment exempted programmers, drafter and other similar technical people) is to make it easier for employers who hire independent contractors to protect themselves of the "contractor" fails to pay his taxes. Someone who works for another can easily file a form with the IRS claiming that in fact they were an employee, not a contractor--and that could cause an employer to be subject to an audit and owe employment taxes.</p><p>By exempting programers and drafters and other technical people from section 530's 3 point test [irs.gov] to determine if you are a contractor, it simply means programmers must satisfy an older pre-section 530 20 point test [tmc.edu] to determine if a programmer is in fact a contractor.</p><p>It's not hard under the current legal regime to become an independent contractor. Hell, I was an independent contractor all through the 1990's. All it requires is that you basically provide your own tools (such as a computer, the compilers, and the like), you set your own hours, and you have a contract with your current employer specifying the work to be provided. You don't even need to satisfy all 20 points--you simply need to show that certain things (such as being paid hourly) is common in the software development industry. (And in my case I also did a few fixed-priced contracts as well, which established a history that I was an actual contractor.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Section 530 does ( which the 1706 amendment exempted programmers , drafter and other similar technical people ) is to make it easier for employers who hire independent contractors to protect themselves of the " contractor " fails to pay his taxes .
Someone who works for another can easily file a form with the IRS claiming that in fact they were an employee , not a contractor--and that could cause an employer to be subject to an audit and owe employment taxes.By exempting programers and drafters and other technical people from section 530 's 3 point test [ irs.gov ] to determine if you are a contractor , it simply means programmers must satisfy an older pre-section 530 20 point test [ tmc.edu ] to determine if a programmer is in fact a contractor.It 's not hard under the current legal regime to become an independent contractor .
Hell , I was an independent contractor all through the 1990 's .
All it requires is that you basically provide your own tools ( such as a computer , the compilers , and the like ) , you set your own hours , and you have a contract with your current employer specifying the work to be provided .
You do n't even need to satisfy all 20 points--you simply need to show that certain things ( such as being paid hourly ) is common in the software development industry .
( And in my case I also did a few fixed-priced contracts as well , which established a history that I was an actual contractor .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Section 530 does (which the 1706 amendment exempted programmers, drafter and other similar technical people) is to make it easier for employers who hire independent contractors to protect themselves of the "contractor" fails to pay his taxes.
Someone who works for another can easily file a form with the IRS claiming that in fact they were an employee, not a contractor--and that could cause an employer to be subject to an audit and owe employment taxes.By exempting programers and drafters and other technical people from section 530's 3 point test [irs.gov] to determine if you are a contractor, it simply means programmers must satisfy an older pre-section 530 20 point test [tmc.edu] to determine if a programmer is in fact a contractor.It's not hard under the current legal regime to become an independent contractor.
Hell, I was an independent contractor all through the 1990's.
All it requires is that you basically provide your own tools (such as a computer, the compilers, and the like), you set your own hours, and you have a contract with your current employer specifying the work to be provided.
You don't even need to satisfy all 20 points--you simply need to show that certain things (such as being paid hourly) is common in the software development industry.
(And in my case I also did a few fixed-priced contracts as well, which established a history that I was an actual contractor.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219214</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>jkgamer</author>
	<datestamp>1266774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction.  It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction. There is no law that says you have to let them.</p></div><p>Um!  Have you ever tried to purchase insurance for just you and your family?  Cost aside, many insurance companies will NOT insure you.  Why?  Because the risk is there that you will use those benefits.  Insurance companies expect that a certain number of employees will NOT use their benefits and generate enough profit to outweigh the expenses of those that do.  And if you have ANY pre-exsisting conditions or you've ever smoked a cigarette in your lifetime, they will just flat out deny you any coverage no matter what the cost, as a matter of policy.  If you do find some obscure insurance company that will cover you, you can bet your life (not just figuratively speaking) that it will cost you an amount much much more than an employee and his/her employer's contribution for that policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , programmers , or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction .
It 's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are " part of the transaction " , that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction .
There is no law that says you have to let them.Um !
Have you ever tried to purchase insurance for just you and your family ?
Cost aside , many insurance companies will NOT insure you .
Why ? Because the risk is there that you will use those benefits .
Insurance companies expect that a certain number of employees will NOT use their benefits and generate enough profit to outweigh the expenses of those that do .
And if you have ANY pre-exsisting conditions or you 've ever smoked a cigarette in your lifetime , they will just flat out deny you any coverage no matter what the cost , as a matter of policy .
If you do find some obscure insurance company that will cover you , you can bet your life ( not just figuratively speaking ) that it will cost you an amount much much more than an employee and his/her employer 's contribution for that policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction.
It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction.
There is no law that says you have to let them.Um!
Have you ever tried to purchase insurance for just you and your family?
Cost aside, many insurance companies will NOT insure you.
Why?  Because the risk is there that you will use those benefits.
Insurance companies expect that a certain number of employees will NOT use their benefits and generate enough profit to outweigh the expenses of those that do.
And if you have ANY pre-exsisting conditions or you've ever smoked a cigarette in your lifetime, they will just flat out deny you any coverage no matter what the cost, as a matter of policy.
If you do find some obscure insurance company that will cover you, you can bet your life (not just figuratively speaking) that it will cost you an amount much much more than an employee and his/her employer's contribution for that policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223030</id>
	<title>a difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266753660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Joe flies a plane into the local office of the organization that has the unilateral and absolute power to CONTINUE ruining his life.</p><p>Terrorists walk to whereever there are the maximum  number of uninvolved civilians.</p><p>The foreign policy of the US that upset Bin Laden was not directed from the World Trade Center.</p><p>I'd be willing to concede that the pentagon attack was... "appropriate", as crazy as that is to say.  If your beef is with the US military projection abroad, attack the US government, not the janitors and secretaries and a zillion other people that work in an office building in NYC.</p><p>Stack wasn't trying to make all Americans everywhere afraid.  He was telling the IRS to sod off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joe flies a plane into the local office of the organization that has the unilateral and absolute power to CONTINUE ruining his life.Terrorists walk to whereever there are the maximum number of uninvolved civilians.The foreign policy of the US that upset Bin Laden was not directed from the World Trade Center.I 'd be willing to concede that the pentagon attack was... " appropriate " , as crazy as that is to say .
If your beef is with the US military projection abroad , attack the US government , not the janitors and secretaries and a zillion other people that work in an office building in NYC.Stack was n't trying to make all Americans everywhere afraid .
He was telling the IRS to sod off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joe flies a plane into the local office of the organization that has the unilateral and absolute power to CONTINUE ruining his life.Terrorists walk to whereever there are the maximum  number of uninvolved civilians.The foreign policy of the US that upset Bin Laden was not directed from the World Trade Center.I'd be willing to concede that the pentagon attack was... "appropriate", as crazy as that is to say.
If your beef is with the US military projection abroad, attack the US government, not the janitors and secretaries and a zillion other people that work in an office building in NYC.Stack wasn't trying to make all Americans everywhere afraid.
He was telling the IRS to sod off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226652</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1266868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention the fact that many libertarians find violence initiated against others who have not first done violence against them to be utterly repugnant and without excuse. There is probably no group more misunderstood here on Slashdot than the libertarians. People should take the time to actually read and understand what it means to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism" title="wikipedia.org">libertarian</a> [wikipedia.org] before they completely mischaracterize their positions and beliefs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the fact that many libertarians find violence initiated against others who have not first done violence against them to be utterly repugnant and without excuse .
There is probably no group more misunderstood here on Slashdot than the libertarians .
People should take the time to actually read and understand what it means to be libertarian [ wikipedia.org ] before they completely mischaracterize their positions and beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the fact that many libertarians find violence initiated against others who have not first done violence against them to be utterly repugnant and without excuse.
There is probably no group more misunderstood here on Slashdot than the libertarians.
People should take the time to actually read and understand what it means to be libertarian [wikipedia.org] before they completely mischaracterize their positions and beliefs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220868</id>
	<title>Targetted at Silicon Valley</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1266783120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember this way back then.  There was a big brouhaha about Silicon Valley companies hiring programmers as contractors in order to get around various employment rules (overtime pay, etc), and programmers essentially being employees because their so-called contracting work was basically full-time with a single employer for an extended period.</p><p>But it seems Congress went overboard in their zeal to reign-in the practice.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember this way back then .
There was a big brouhaha about Silicon Valley companies hiring programmers as contractors in order to get around various employment rules ( overtime pay , etc ) , and programmers essentially being employees because their so-called contracting work was basically full-time with a single employer for an extended period.But it seems Congress went overboard in their zeal to reign-in the practice.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember this way back then.
There was a big brouhaha about Silicon Valley companies hiring programmers as contractors in order to get around various employment rules (overtime pay, etc), and programmers essentially being employees because their so-called contracting work was basically full-time with a single employer for an extended period.But it seems Congress went overboard in their zeal to reign-in the practice.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220346</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tip of the iceberg.  Where have you been living the last 10 years?</p><p>The government is way beyond anything authorized in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. We derailed with FDR and it's been expanding ever since.</p><p>They have precipitated the (inevitable given their meddling with the money suppy) Second Great Depression and violated every aspect of the Bill of Rights.</p><p>I'm surprised more Americans haven't already begun to take out government targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tip of the iceberg .
Where have you been living the last 10 years ? The government is way beyond anything authorized in the enumerated powers of the Constitution .
We derailed with FDR and it 's been expanding ever since.They have precipitated the ( inevitable given their meddling with the money suppy ) Second Great Depression and violated every aspect of the Bill of Rights.I 'm surprised more Americans have n't already begun to take out government targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tip of the iceberg.
Where have you been living the last 10 years?The government is way beyond anything authorized in the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
We derailed with FDR and it's been expanding ever since.They have precipitated the (inevitable given their meddling with the money suppy) Second Great Depression and violated every aspect of the Bill of Rights.I'm surprised more Americans haven't already begun to take out government targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219146</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, consultants pay *more* tax, not less. They have to pay income tax, plus the full 12\% Medicare tax, not the usual 6\% paid by employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , consultants pay * more * tax , not less .
They have to pay income tax , plus the full 12 \ % Medicare tax , not the usual 6 \ % paid by employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, consultants pay *more* tax, not less.
They have to pay income tax, plus the full 12\% Medicare tax, not the usual 6\% paid by employees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221240</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1266785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax. Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay <b>payroll tax</b>, which generates more revenue for the government.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Agreed with the rest of your post, but you're wrong about payroll taxes.  Payroll taxes (the employer's portion) are simply matching amounts of what the employee pays for social security and medicare (and a small amount of unemployment).  If you're an employee and pay $x in SS and Medicare taxes, your employer also pays an additional $x in SS and Medicare on behalf of you.
<br> <br>
Self-employed people pay a <a href="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html" title="irs.gov">self employment tax</a> [irs.gov] to match lost payroll tax revenue.  Essentially, they pay $2x in SS and Medicare taxes, to match what they and their employer would've paid if they had been employed by the company instead of hired as a freelancer.  So the IRS isn't losing any payroll taxes from someone being self-employed.
<br> <br>
I believe the crux of the "lost IRS revenue" argument is that capital gains tax is generally less than income tax, and self-employed people are pretty anal about deducting business-related expenses whereas employees aren't (they're supposed to get their company to reimburse them, and the company "deducts" those expenses since they generally only pay taxes on net income: revenue minus expenses).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax .
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax , which generates more revenue for the government .
Agreed with the rest of your post , but you 're wrong about payroll taxes .
Payroll taxes ( the employer 's portion ) are simply matching amounts of what the employee pays for social security and medicare ( and a small amount of unemployment ) .
If you 're an employee and pay $ x in SS and Medicare taxes , your employer also pays an additional $ x in SS and Medicare on behalf of you .
Self-employed people pay a self employment tax [ irs.gov ] to match lost payroll tax revenue .
Essentially , they pay $ 2x in SS and Medicare taxes , to match what they and their employer would 've paid if they had been employed by the company instead of hired as a freelancer .
So the IRS is n't losing any payroll taxes from someone being self-employed .
I believe the crux of the " lost IRS revenue " argument is that capital gains tax is generally less than income tax , and self-employed people are pretty anal about deducting business-related expenses whereas employees are n't ( they 're supposed to get their company to reimburse them , and the company " deducts " those expenses since they generally only pay taxes on net income : revenue minus expenses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax.
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government.
Agreed with the rest of your post, but you're wrong about payroll taxes.
Payroll taxes (the employer's portion) are simply matching amounts of what the employee pays for social security and medicare (and a small amount of unemployment).
If you're an employee and pay $x in SS and Medicare taxes, your employer also pays an additional $x in SS and Medicare on behalf of you.
Self-employed people pay a self employment tax [irs.gov] to match lost payroll tax revenue.
Essentially, they pay $2x in SS and Medicare taxes, to match what they and their employer would've paid if they had been employed by the company instead of hired as a freelancer.
So the IRS isn't losing any payroll taxes from someone being self-employed.
I believe the crux of the "lost IRS revenue" argument is that capital gains tax is generally less than income tax, and self-employed people are pretty anal about deducting business-related expenses whereas employees aren't (they're supposed to get their company to reimburse them, and the company "deducts" those expenses since they generally only pay taxes on net income: revenue minus expenses).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220954</id>
	<title>Why all afraid to call him a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266783660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Hero or a Terrorist?</p><p>
&nbsp; If a person dies for his believes, do we not admire his courage? Did not all of our countries founding fathers died because they fought against someone and something in charge to create what we have now?</p><p>
&nbsp; I ask you, what will you die for? Or that freedom has been taken away as well by the gov't, and only govt dictates on how you should live your life, and for what you should die for, from war to punishment?</p><p>
&nbsp; What will you give up your life for?<br>
&nbsp; You all are, the armchair cowards - you all scared to agree with him - just out of fear, and know for a fact, all these conversations are monitored by the gov't. You talk about freedom, but you are so afraid to lose your status quo - as slaves who talk about how bad the slave owner is, but then retire back to your shackles by the end of the day.</p><p>
&nbsp; You all know the truth - that there is no freedom of thought, expression, and speech - because ALL of you have given it all up because of FEAR.</p><p>
&nbsp; Cowards - the person stood up for what he believed in. Agree or disagree with his view, is the matter on how you think, but he is no coward.</p><p>
&nbsp; It is through blood of others change can only be achieved.  We are so happy so spill the blood of others, in other countries, so we can seat tacitly and ignore the same problems here, because our poisonous bottle has a label of "Democracy" on it.</p><p>
&nbsp; Cowards - masturbating, intellectually bankrupt,  echo chambers of cowards.</p><p>
&nbsp; What will you die for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Hero or a Terrorist ?
  If a person dies for his believes , do we not admire his courage ?
Did not all of our countries founding fathers died because they fought against someone and something in charge to create what we have now ?
  I ask you , what will you die for ?
Or that freedom has been taken away as well by the gov't , and only govt dictates on how you should live your life , and for what you should die for , from war to punishment ?
  What will you give up your life for ?
  You all are , the armchair cowards - you all scared to agree with him - just out of fear , and know for a fact , all these conversations are monitored by the gov't .
You talk about freedom , but you are so afraid to lose your status quo - as slaves who talk about how bad the slave owner is , but then retire back to your shackles by the end of the day .
  You all know the truth - that there is no freedom of thought , expression , and speech - because ALL of you have given it all up because of FEAR .
  Cowards - the person stood up for what he believed in .
Agree or disagree with his view , is the matter on how you think , but he is no coward .
  It is through blood of others change can only be achieved .
We are so happy so spill the blood of others , in other countries , so we can seat tacitly and ignore the same problems here , because our poisonous bottle has a label of " Democracy " on it .
  Cowards - masturbating , intellectually bankrupt , echo chambers of cowards .
  What will you die for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Hero or a Terrorist?
  If a person dies for his believes, do we not admire his courage?
Did not all of our countries founding fathers died because they fought against someone and something in charge to create what we have now?
  I ask you, what will you die for?
Or that freedom has been taken away as well by the gov't, and only govt dictates on how you should live your life, and for what you should die for, from war to punishment?
  What will you give up your life for?
  You all are, the armchair cowards - you all scared to agree with him - just out of fear, and know for a fact, all these conversations are monitored by the gov't.
You talk about freedom, but you are so afraid to lose your status quo - as slaves who talk about how bad the slave owner is, but then retire back to your shackles by the end of the day.
  You all know the truth - that there is no freedom of thought, expression, and speech - because ALL of you have given it all up because of FEAR.
  Cowards - the person stood up for what he believed in.
Agree or disagree with his view, is the matter on how you think, but he is no coward.
  It is through blood of others change can only be achieved.
We are so happy so spill the blood of others, in other countries, so we can seat tacitly and ignore the same problems here, because our poisonous bottle has a label of "Democracy" on it.
  Cowards - masturbating, intellectually bankrupt,  echo chambers of cowards.
  What will you die for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218864</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266772020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a half-dozen guys that work as independent programmers and have generally only heard good things about their experience, excluding times of no work and shitty projects.  I've never heard of this law or anyone impacted by it.</p><p>What's the deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a half-dozen guys that work as independent programmers and have generally only heard good things about their experience , excluding times of no work and shitty projects .
I 've never heard of this law or anyone impacted by it.What 's the deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a half-dozen guys that work as independent programmers and have generally only heard good things about their experience, excluding times of no work and shitty projects.
I've never heard of this law or anyone impacted by it.What's the deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219404</id>
	<title>Re:Boo hoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266775920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.  But a lot of people can relate to being a 100 hour/week techno-slave.  The guy apparently didn't have a \_life\_, which is not the same as being poor.  As I wrote on one of the liberal blogs, the guy was \_too\_ American.  If he had worked 40-50 hours/week, taken 4-5 weeks of vacation, and spent more time in a smaller house with his family and with less expensive toys maybe he wouldn't have snapped.  In other words, if he'd been more socialist and European instead of American and libertarian, he might have been a \_lot\_ happier with a \_lot\_ longer life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
But a lot of people can relate to being a 100 hour/week techno-slave .
The guy apparently did n't have a \ _life \ _ , which is not the same as being poor .
As I wrote on one of the liberal blogs , the guy was \ _too \ _ American .
If he had worked 40-50 hours/week , taken 4-5 weeks of vacation , and spent more time in a smaller house with his family and with less expensive toys maybe he would n't have snapped .
In other words , if he 'd been more socialist and European instead of American and libertarian , he might have been a \ _lot \ _ happier with a \ _lot \ _ longer life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
But a lot of people can relate to being a 100 hour/week techno-slave.
The guy apparently didn't have a \_life\_, which is not the same as being poor.
As I wrote on one of the liberal blogs, the guy was \_too\_ American.
If he had worked 40-50 hours/week, taken 4-5 weeks of vacation, and spent more time in a smaller house with his family and with less expensive toys maybe he wouldn't have snapped.
In other words, if he'd been more socialist and European instead of American and libertarian, he might have been a \_lot\_ happier with a \_lot\_ longer life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219334</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1266775620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glen Beck is little more than a political comedian.  It's not his fault that progressives seem to say the funniest (in a scarry way) things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glen Beck is little more than a political comedian .
It 's not his fault that progressives seem to say the funniest ( in a scarry way ) things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glen Beck is little more than a political comedian.
It's not his fault that progressives seem to say the funniest (in a scarry way) things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219482</id>
	<title>Can't get it passed? WTF?</title>
	<author>Posting=!Working</author>
	<datestamp>1266776160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they want to, congress can sneak in small changes of law and pork projects into a bill, then claim not to notice it happening. All it takes is one person on a committee to get this inserted into a bill that's likely to pass, and it's done.
At the same time, they claim their hands are tied to fix even simple problems.

The tax code is over 15,000 pages long.  There are hundreds of changes each year.

Also, the Feds don't have to prosecute these cases.  There's thousands of laws on the books that are violated openly and never prosecuted.  In this particular case this "crime" lacks any criminal intent and represents no financial loss to the IRS, as they still get taxes paid to them.  There's no victim, no damage, no loss of money.  There has to be more important cases to prosecute that these.

If they haven't changed it already, it's because they don't want to.  They could have tacked this onto a hundred different bills and no one in Washington DC other than programmers and accountants would have noticed or cared.  This is an easy fix, not something that needs it's own legislative event.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they want to , congress can sneak in small changes of law and pork projects into a bill , then claim not to notice it happening .
All it takes is one person on a committee to get this inserted into a bill that 's likely to pass , and it 's done .
At the same time , they claim their hands are tied to fix even simple problems .
The tax code is over 15,000 pages long .
There are hundreds of changes each year .
Also , the Feds do n't have to prosecute these cases .
There 's thousands of laws on the books that are violated openly and never prosecuted .
In this particular case this " crime " lacks any criminal intent and represents no financial loss to the IRS , as they still get taxes paid to them .
There 's no victim , no damage , no loss of money .
There has to be more important cases to prosecute that these .
If they have n't changed it already , it 's because they do n't want to .
They could have tacked this onto a hundred different bills and no one in Washington DC other than programmers and accountants would have noticed or cared .
This is an easy fix , not something that needs it 's own legislative event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they want to, congress can sneak in small changes of law and pork projects into a bill, then claim not to notice it happening.
All it takes is one person on a committee to get this inserted into a bill that's likely to pass, and it's done.
At the same time, they claim their hands are tied to fix even simple problems.
The tax code is over 15,000 pages long.
There are hundreds of changes each year.
Also, the Feds don't have to prosecute these cases.
There's thousands of laws on the books that are violated openly and never prosecuted.
In this particular case this "crime" lacks any criminal intent and represents no financial loss to the IRS, as they still get taxes paid to them.
There's no victim, no damage, no loss of money.
There has to be more important cases to prosecute that these.
If they haven't changed it already, it's because they don't want to.
They could have tacked this onto a hundred different bills and no one in Washington DC other than programmers and accountants would have noticed or cared.
This is an easy fix, not something that needs it's own legislative event.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220802</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This mainly affects people who want to work 40 hours a week for a single company providing routine IT-related services. They, or the company, think that if they write "THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, OK" across the top of what is clearly a contract of employment that they can avoid paying FICA and instead can use various other tax benefits meant for small businesses. For some reason, technical folk in particular seem to have the attitude that you can find the equivalent of 'buffer overflows' in the legal system in the same way that you can in a poorly written API.</p><p>It's not really different from any of the other inadequate tax evasion schemes, such as "I don't think the 16th amendment was ratified because Ohio's not a state because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... " or "I have instigated this complicated series of transactions between companies and trusts I own that let me claim a huge loss for tax purposes even though I haven't lost anything from an economic/commercial perspective". Some people get so caught up in the detail of the arguments they are making that they don't step back and look at how the overall scheme looks to an outsider - such as a tax court judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This mainly affects people who want to work 40 hours a week for a single company providing routine IT-related services .
They , or the company , think that if they write " THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT , OK " across the top of what is clearly a contract of employment that they can avoid paying FICA and instead can use various other tax benefits meant for small businesses .
For some reason , technical folk in particular seem to have the attitude that you can find the equivalent of 'buffer overflows ' in the legal system in the same way that you can in a poorly written API.It 's not really different from any of the other inadequate tax evasion schemes , such as " I do n't think the 16th amendment was ratified because Ohio 's not a state because ... " or " I have instigated this complicated series of transactions between companies and trusts I own that let me claim a huge loss for tax purposes even though I have n't lost anything from an economic/commercial perspective " .
Some people get so caught up in the detail of the arguments they are making that they do n't step back and look at how the overall scheme looks to an outsider - such as a tax court judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This mainly affects people who want to work 40 hours a week for a single company providing routine IT-related services.
They, or the company, think that if they write "THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, OK" across the top of what is clearly a contract of employment that they can avoid paying FICA and instead can use various other tax benefits meant for small businesses.
For some reason, technical folk in particular seem to have the attitude that you can find the equivalent of 'buffer overflows' in the legal system in the same way that you can in a poorly written API.It's not really different from any of the other inadequate tax evasion schemes, such as "I don't think the 16th amendment was ratified because Ohio's not a state because ... " or "I have instigated this complicated series of transactions between companies and trusts I own that let me claim a huge loss for tax purposes even though I haven't lost anything from an economic/commercial perspective".
Some people get so caught up in the detail of the arguments they are making that they don't step back and look at how the overall scheme looks to an outsider - such as a tax court judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220532</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1266781320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In theory it's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that's what they are, however in reality it's to close a tax loophole. Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax. Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government.</i></p><p>I like your post, not being argumentative.</p><p>The solution to the above, I propose, is to actually close the tax loophole. Eliminate the distinction between capital gains and labor income. It would put labor on an equal footing with capital provision. As a side benefit, it would help to stem the explosion of the American aristocracy.</p><p>To those who cry double taxation I would then add; eliminate the tax on corporate profit. If you tax only people, then you don't get these complexity problems. For those who play RPGs, you can compare these to class and race balance issues.</p><p>Not enough tax revenue? Simple -- check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal\_Revenue\_Code\_of\_1986" title="wikipedia.org">the PPC adjusted 1954 tax code</a> [wikipedia.org]. Getting paid more always means taking home more, so there is motivation to excel. The more our system benefits your wealth concentration, the more you pay to support the system from which you benefit.</p><p>And if we still decide we want some benefit for long-term investment, I could acquiesce -- if we make it truly long term. Hold a stock for more than 5 years, we give you 10\% off the taxes. Hold it for more than 10 years, 20\% off. Or something like that. This would have a limiting effect on the quarterly-report oriented book-cooking and gutting of product quality and customer service.</p><p>Uneasy with taxing people based on inflation? Fine, adjust the taxable stock value according to the CPI. This would also motivate us to start being honest about the CPI, instead of using "CPI(*)" (* = not counting things that increase in price).</p><p>In truth, it is not the solutions that are hard. Being a well balanced capitalist economy is entirely possible. It is only the lack of honor and fortitude in D.C., and the lack of engaged citizenship by the public, that allows our system to continue to degrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory it 's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that 's what they are , however in reality it 's to close a tax loophole .
Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax .
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax , which generates more revenue for the government.I like your post , not being argumentative.The solution to the above , I propose , is to actually close the tax loophole .
Eliminate the distinction between capital gains and labor income .
It would put labor on an equal footing with capital provision .
As a side benefit , it would help to stem the explosion of the American aristocracy.To those who cry double taxation I would then add ; eliminate the tax on corporate profit .
If you tax only people , then you do n't get these complexity problems .
For those who play RPGs , you can compare these to class and race balance issues.Not enough tax revenue ?
Simple -- check out the PPC adjusted 1954 tax code [ wikipedia.org ] .
Getting paid more always means taking home more , so there is motivation to excel .
The more our system benefits your wealth concentration , the more you pay to support the system from which you benefit.And if we still decide we want some benefit for long-term investment , I could acquiesce -- if we make it truly long term .
Hold a stock for more than 5 years , we give you 10 \ % off the taxes .
Hold it for more than 10 years , 20 \ % off .
Or something like that .
This would have a limiting effect on the quarterly-report oriented book-cooking and gutting of product quality and customer service.Uneasy with taxing people based on inflation ?
Fine , adjust the taxable stock value according to the CPI .
This would also motivate us to start being honest about the CPI , instead of using " CPI ( * ) " ( * = not counting things that increase in price ) .In truth , it is not the solutions that are hard .
Being a well balanced capitalist economy is entirely possible .
It is only the lack of honor and fortitude in D.C. , and the lack of engaged citizenship by the public , that allows our system to continue to degrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory it's to protect the rights of workers so they get all the benefits of full time employees if that's what they are, however in reality it's to close a tax loophole.
Ya see the thing is generally speaking capital gains tax is less than income and payroll tax.
Consultants running their own companies generally pay capital gains on most of their income whereas employees pay income tax and their employers pay payroll tax, which generates more revenue for the government.I like your post, not being argumentative.The solution to the above, I propose, is to actually close the tax loophole.
Eliminate the distinction between capital gains and labor income.
It would put labor on an equal footing with capital provision.
As a side benefit, it would help to stem the explosion of the American aristocracy.To those who cry double taxation I would then add; eliminate the tax on corporate profit.
If you tax only people, then you don't get these complexity problems.
For those who play RPGs, you can compare these to class and race balance issues.Not enough tax revenue?
Simple -- check out the PPC adjusted 1954 tax code [wikipedia.org].
Getting paid more always means taking home more, so there is motivation to excel.
The more our system benefits your wealth concentration, the more you pay to support the system from which you benefit.And if we still decide we want some benefit for long-term investment, I could acquiesce -- if we make it truly long term.
Hold a stock for more than 5 years, we give you 10\% off the taxes.
Hold it for more than 10 years, 20\% off.
Or something like that.
This would have a limiting effect on the quarterly-report oriented book-cooking and gutting of product quality and customer service.Uneasy with taxing people based on inflation?
Fine, adjust the taxable stock value according to the CPI.
This would also motivate us to start being honest about the CPI, instead of using "CPI(*)" (* = not counting things that increase in price).In truth, it is not the solutions that are hard.
Being a well balanced capitalist economy is entirely possible.
It is only the lack of honor and fortitude in D.C., and the lack of engaged citizenship by the public, that allows our system to continue to degrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219514</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266776280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes when you corner an animal it bites</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes when you corner an animal it bites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes when you corner an animal it bites</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31230374</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But he's not a terrorist. There was no intention of creating or dispersing terror.</p><p>I'm not saying what he did was right, I'm just pointing out the fact that he did it to make a point, not to inspire terror.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But he 's not a terrorist .
There was no intention of creating or dispersing terror.I 'm not saying what he did was right , I 'm just pointing out the fact that he did it to make a point , not to inspire terror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he's not a terrorist.
There was no intention of creating or dispersing terror.I'm not saying what he did was right, I'm just pointing out the fact that he did it to make a point, not to inspire terror.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219768</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1266777540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was Mohammed al-Mohammed a United States citizen? If he was, then you are right, this is a double standard. If not, then no, they are not the same. United States citizens have a peculiar duty to The Nation, documented in the Declaration of Independence. One I hope I never have to fulfill.</p><p>Joe Stack may have been wrong, and he may be guilty of homicide or manslaughter (possibly murder, but I think it would be hard to prove premeditated homicide if he didn't know who was going to die or even if anyone would die). But a terrorist? Given he is a citizen, I think that is a stretch.</p><p>Dissident? Yes. Violent? Yes. Extremist? Probably. Terrorist? Only if you brand The Founders the same.</p><p>Tim McVeigh? Evil fucker. Unabomber? Same. But terrorists? I think you paint with too broad a brush. When non-citizens use civilian-targeted violence to try to change the policies of a sovereign nation, that is terrorism. In the United States, when a citizen does so, it may be many things which deserve punishment, up to and including execution (if you believe, as I do, in the death penalty). But branding it terrorism does a disservice to those who fight real terrorism and shows an extreme lack of respect for the violent extremists who founded this nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was Mohammed al-Mohammed a United States citizen ?
If he was , then you are right , this is a double standard .
If not , then no , they are not the same .
United States citizens have a peculiar duty to The Nation , documented in the Declaration of Independence .
One I hope I never have to fulfill.Joe Stack may have been wrong , and he may be guilty of homicide or manslaughter ( possibly murder , but I think it would be hard to prove premeditated homicide if he did n't know who was going to die or even if anyone would die ) .
But a terrorist ?
Given he is a citizen , I think that is a stretch.Dissident ?
Yes. Violent ?
Yes. Extremist ?
Probably. Terrorist ?
Only if you brand The Founders the same.Tim McVeigh ?
Evil fucker .
Unabomber ? Same .
But terrorists ?
I think you paint with too broad a brush .
When non-citizens use civilian-targeted violence to try to change the policies of a sovereign nation , that is terrorism .
In the United States , when a citizen does so , it may be many things which deserve punishment , up to and including execution ( if you believe , as I do , in the death penalty ) .
But branding it terrorism does a disservice to those who fight real terrorism and shows an extreme lack of respect for the violent extremists who founded this nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was Mohammed al-Mohammed a United States citizen?
If he was, then you are right, this is a double standard.
If not, then no, they are not the same.
United States citizens have a peculiar duty to The Nation, documented in the Declaration of Independence.
One I hope I never have to fulfill.Joe Stack may have been wrong, and he may be guilty of homicide or manslaughter (possibly murder, but I think it would be hard to prove premeditated homicide if he didn't know who was going to die or even if anyone would die).
But a terrorist?
Given he is a citizen, I think that is a stretch.Dissident?
Yes. Violent?
Yes. Extremist?
Probably. Terrorist?
Only if you brand The Founders the same.Tim McVeigh?
Evil fucker.
Unabomber? Same.
But terrorists?
I think you paint with too broad a brush.
When non-citizens use civilian-targeted violence to try to change the policies of a sovereign nation, that is terrorism.
In the United States, when a citizen does so, it may be many things which deserve punishment, up to and including execution (if you believe, as I do, in the death penalty).
But branding it terrorism does a disservice to those who fight real terrorism and shows an extreme lack of respect for the violent extremists who founded this nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219672</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1266777180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.</p></div><p>BZZZZTTTT!  Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.</p><p>Sorry.  Try again.</p></div><p>Sure they do.  Makes them sound well-read.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.BZZZZTTTT !
Libertarians do n't go around quoting Marx.Sorry .
Try again.Sure they do .
Makes them sound well-read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.BZZZZTTTT!
Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.Sorry.
Try again.Sure they do.
Makes them sound well-read.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.</p></div><p>BZZZZTTTT!  Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.</p><p>Sorry.  Try again.</p></div><p>Glen Beck goes around quoting "progressives." Does that make him a progressive?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.BZZZZTTTT !
Libertarians do n't go around quoting Marx.Sorry .
Try again.Glen Beck goes around quoting " progressives .
" Does that make him a progressive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.BZZZZTTTT!
Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.Sorry.
Try again.Glen Beck goes around quoting "progressives.
" Does that make him a progressive?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220460</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266781020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up the term "health insurance pariah". There is a long list of "pre-existing conditions" that will make the cost of an individual policy prohibitive except to those rich enough to not need to work at all. The only way these people can hope to get health insurance (or health care) is as part of an employer's group plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up the term " health insurance pariah " .
There is a long list of " pre-existing conditions " that will make the cost of an individual policy prohibitive except to those rich enough to not need to work at all .
The only way these people can hope to get health insurance ( or health care ) is as part of an employer 's group plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up the term "health insurance pariah".
There is a long list of "pre-existing conditions" that will make the cost of an individual policy prohibitive except to those rich enough to not need to work at all.
The only way these people can hope to get health insurance (or health care) is as part of an employer's group plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.</p></div><p>BZZZZTTTT!  Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.</p><p>Sorry.  Try again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.BZZZZTTTT !
Libertarians do n't go around quoting Marx.Sorry .
Try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.BZZZZTTTT!
Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.Sorry.
Try again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219774</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1266777600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you sound like you know what you're talking about, and then you claim that contractors pay capital gains tax?   How does that work?   When I did contract work, everything was done on a 1099, and I had to pay *more* tax, not less, because I had to pay self-employment tax, which at the time was 17\%,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you sound like you know what you 're talking about , and then you claim that contractors pay capital gains tax ?
How does that work ?
When I did contract work , everything was done on a 1099 , and I had to pay * more * tax , not less , because I had to pay self-employment tax , which at the time was 17 \ % ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you sound like you know what you're talking about, and then you claim that contractors pay capital gains tax?
How does that work?
When I did contract work, everything was done on a 1099, and I had to pay *more* tax, not less, because I had to pay self-employment tax, which at the time was 17\%,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225102</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266768120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.</p><p>The headline and NYT story made me mad that a Senator had screwed over a small politically weak portion of the population so he could do a corrupt favor for IBM; your explanation clarified the legitimate reasons for this change in the law (odd that the liberal NYT didn't explain the pro-IRS side all that well in either of its articles).</p><p>Now I'm kind of mad that real contractors are able to pay capital gains rates on their income while the rest of us have to pay income tax rates.  I understand that real contractors take larger risks than employees, but they're being compensated for that already by their higher income ceiling.  Why should I have to subsidize them via an income tax break?</p><p>This reinforces my support for a flat tax, with income from all sources taxed at the same rate (and a largish personal deduction to avoid hammering the working poor).   It would make it harder to game the tax laws, and it would prevent people from voting for spending paid for by taxes raised on somebody else ("Universal pre-school is important! Make the smokers pay for it!").  The only thing I'm less sure of is corporate taxes; I think they should probably be eliminated as double taxation, but I suspect if we did that then executives and entrepreneurs would all be leasing mansions and yachts from their companies for $1/month or something.  Not sure how to solve that other than vigorous enforcement, which has problems of its own if there are a lot of ambiguous cases and defendants can be financially ruined by legal fees.  So make the laws as unambiguous as possible.  I guess there's no law you can make which people won't game; it's human nature, all you can do is design the law and supporting systems to minimize the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you.The headline and NYT story made me mad that a Senator had screwed over a small politically weak portion of the population so he could do a corrupt favor for IBM ; your explanation clarified the legitimate reasons for this change in the law ( odd that the liberal NYT did n't explain the pro-IRS side all that well in either of its articles ) .Now I 'm kind of mad that real contractors are able to pay capital gains rates on their income while the rest of us have to pay income tax rates .
I understand that real contractors take larger risks than employees , but they 're being compensated for that already by their higher income ceiling .
Why should I have to subsidize them via an income tax break ? This reinforces my support for a flat tax , with income from all sources taxed at the same rate ( and a largish personal deduction to avoid hammering the working poor ) .
It would make it harder to game the tax laws , and it would prevent people from voting for spending paid for by taxes raised on somebody else ( " Universal pre-school is important !
Make the smokers pay for it ! " ) .
The only thing I 'm less sure of is corporate taxes ; I think they should probably be eliminated as double taxation , but I suspect if we did that then executives and entrepreneurs would all be leasing mansions and yachts from their companies for $ 1/month or something .
Not sure how to solve that other than vigorous enforcement , which has problems of its own if there are a lot of ambiguous cases and defendants can be financially ruined by legal fees .
So make the laws as unambiguous as possible .
I guess there 's no law you can make which people wo n't game ; it 's human nature , all you can do is design the law and supporting systems to minimize the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.The headline and NYT story made me mad that a Senator had screwed over a small politically weak portion of the population so he could do a corrupt favor for IBM; your explanation clarified the legitimate reasons for this change in the law (odd that the liberal NYT didn't explain the pro-IRS side all that well in either of its articles).Now I'm kind of mad that real contractors are able to pay capital gains rates on their income while the rest of us have to pay income tax rates.
I understand that real contractors take larger risks than employees, but they're being compensated for that already by their higher income ceiling.
Why should I have to subsidize them via an income tax break?This reinforces my support for a flat tax, with income from all sources taxed at the same rate (and a largish personal deduction to avoid hammering the working poor).
It would make it harder to game the tax laws, and it would prevent people from voting for spending paid for by taxes raised on somebody else ("Universal pre-school is important!
Make the smokers pay for it!").
The only thing I'm less sure of is corporate taxes; I think they should probably be eliminated as double taxation, but I suspect if we did that then executives and entrepreneurs would all be leasing mansions and yachts from their companies for $1/month or something.
Not sure how to solve that other than vigorous enforcement, which has problems of its own if there are a lot of ambiguous cases and defendants can be financially ruined by legal fees.
So make the laws as unambiguous as possible.
I guess there's no law you can make which people won't game; it's human nature, all you can do is design the law and supporting systems to minimize the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222108</id>
	<title>Re:he was mentally ill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266748440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we know he had these delusions though? Could his accusations not be generalizations from his own personal experiences in life? Things he went through. For instance he may have gone to catholic school where he was held back, etc. for whatever reason. Maybe it was his lack of faith or something similar. Point is there is a difference between someone generalizing something online posting and writing a letters to heads of state about other political groups spying on them without any logical reason behind it. And lets not forget that the government does spy on us all....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally ill. Somehow I doubt he could possibly have known about any kind of NSA communications eavesdropping that was going then or now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we know he had these delusions though ?
Could his accusations not be generalizations from his own personal experiences in life ?
Things he went through .
For instance he may have gone to catholic school where he was held back , etc .
for whatever reason .
Maybe it was his lack of faith or something similar .
Point is there is a difference between someone generalizing something online posting and writing a letters to heads of state about other political groups spying on them without any logical reason behind it .
And lets not forget that the government does spy on us all.... : ) but that does n't mean he is n't mentally ill. Somehow I doubt he could possibly have known about any kind of NSA communications eavesdropping that was going then or now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we know he had these delusions though?
Could his accusations not be generalizations from his own personal experiences in life?
Things he went through.
For instance he may have gone to catholic school where he was held back, etc.
for whatever reason.
Maybe it was his lack of faith or something similar.
Point is there is a difference between someone generalizing something online posting and writing a letters to heads of state about other political groups spying on them without any logical reason behind it.
And lets not forget that the government does spy on us all.... :) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally ill. Somehow I doubt he could possibly have known about any kind of NSA communications eavesdropping that was going then or now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31231826</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1266863940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It doesn't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency, and more importantly it doesn't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.</i></p><p>You're forgetting an important angle: how this affects staffing agencies.  I've had plenty of experience with employee/staffing agency relationships that can best be described as indentured servitude.  The agencies only pay for health care after working for a year (or more) through them.  The companies that hire through staffing agencies wind up paying what it would cost to hire a competent private contractor, except the agency gets 25\% of that trimmed off the top.</p><p>They rope contractors in with promises of "temp-to-hire," but try not to bring attention to the fact that <b>you have to be bought out</b> of your <i>"contract"</i> with the agency before you can be employed by the company.</p><p>So, talented programmer Mr. C goes to work with Agency A, Inc.  Agency A gets Mr. C a part-time gig paying $40/hr. working for Company Co.  Company Co. is actually paying $60/hr. to the agency for this privilege.  Company Co. decides they <i>love</i> Mr. C and want to hire him full-time.  They now have to buy out Mr. C's contract from Agency A.  The price?  Approximately a year's salary.  The better the contractor, the more they'll charge (obviously, since they're losing such a <i>great employee</i>).</p><p>Because there is <i>enormous</i> financial <i>dis</i>-incentive for Company Co. to hire Mr. C, they opt to find someone else to fill the full-time position when Mr. C's contract is up.  And what happens to Mr. C?  Back into joblessness, at least until the Agency can find them another gig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency , and more importantly it does n't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.You 're forgetting an important angle : how this affects staffing agencies .
I 've had plenty of experience with employee/staffing agency relationships that can best be described as indentured servitude .
The agencies only pay for health care after working for a year ( or more ) through them .
The companies that hire through staffing agencies wind up paying what it would cost to hire a competent private contractor , except the agency gets 25 \ % of that trimmed off the top.They rope contractors in with promises of " temp-to-hire , " but try not to bring attention to the fact that you have to be bought out of your " contract " with the agency before you can be employed by the company.So , talented programmer Mr. C goes to work with Agency A , Inc. Agency A gets Mr. C a part-time gig paying $ 40/hr .
working for Company Co. Company Co. is actually paying $ 60/hr .
to the agency for this privilege .
Company Co. decides they love Mr. C and want to hire him full-time .
They now have to buy out Mr. C 's contract from Agency A. The price ?
Approximately a year 's salary .
The better the contractor , the more they 'll charge ( obviously , since they 're losing such a great employee ) .Because there is enormous financial dis-incentive for Company Co. to hire Mr. C , they opt to find someone else to fill the full-time position when Mr. C 's contract is up .
And what happens to Mr. C ? Back into joblessness , at least until the Agency can find them another gig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if you call yourself a consultant or work out of some sort of shonky staffing agency, and more importantly it doesn't matter if your employer calls you a consultant and hires you through some shonky staffing agency.You're forgetting an important angle: how this affects staffing agencies.
I've had plenty of experience with employee/staffing agency relationships that can best be described as indentured servitude.
The agencies only pay for health care after working for a year (or more) through them.
The companies that hire through staffing agencies wind up paying what it would cost to hire a competent private contractor, except the agency gets 25\% of that trimmed off the top.They rope contractors in with promises of "temp-to-hire," but try not to bring attention to the fact that you have to be bought out of your "contract" with the agency before you can be employed by the company.So, talented programmer Mr. C goes to work with Agency A, Inc.  Agency A gets Mr. C a part-time gig paying $40/hr.
working for Company Co.  Company Co. is actually paying $60/hr.
to the agency for this privilege.
Company Co. decides they love Mr. C and want to hire him full-time.
They now have to buy out Mr. C's contract from Agency A.  The price?
Approximately a year's salary.
The better the contractor, the more they'll charge (obviously, since they're losing such a great employee).Because there is enormous financial dis-incentive for Company Co. to hire Mr. C, they opt to find someone else to fill the full-time position when Mr. C's contract is up.
And what happens to Mr. C?  Back into joblessness, at least until the Agency can find them another gig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219170</id>
	<title>Re:US Programmer wages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How far do you think 51,000 Euros would go in, let's sat, Berne?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How far do you think 51,000 Euros would go in , let 's sat , Berne ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How far do you think 51,000 Euros would go in, let's sat, Berne?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220176</id>
	<title>Wrong target?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1266779700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law's repeal, it remains on the books.'"</p></div></blockquote><p>It sounds like regardless of the moral issues involved, he chose the wrong building.  The chambers of the house and senate would have been more in line with his goals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law 's repeal , it remains on the books .
' " It sounds like regardless of the moral issues involved , he chose the wrong building .
The chambers of the house and senate would have been more in line with his goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And despite strong bipartisan efforts and unbiased studies supporting that law's repeal, it remains on the books.
'"It sounds like regardless of the moral issues involved, he chose the wrong building.
The chambers of the house and senate would have been more in line with his goals.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220766</id>
	<title>Personal Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266782580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1994 I left a major corporation to start my own business doing stuff with the web.  In 2000, after the bubble burst and I lost a year's contracts from several customers, I went to work as an independent contractor for a large hotel company, being hired through a staffing agency.  While I was working the contract, news of a major settlement of a dispute involving Microsoft and its use of independent contractors made the rounds.  It seems that Microsoft had a large number of contractors who worked for them for years.  These programmers had offices at Microsoft, kept hours like Microsoft employees, and were indistinguishable from regular employees except for their badges and their financial arrangement.  The IRS considered this to be a sham arrangement and forced Microsoft to settle, with a multi-million dollar payment.  Microsoft reportedly hired a number of the programmers as full-time employees as part of the deal.  The IRS then went after the "independent" contractors' claims of deductions for home offices, computers and the like since Microsoft had given them what was needed to do their jobs.</p><p>This hit home at the hotel company where I had a 1-year contract because they had quite a few people in a similar condition, folk who had worked for them for years as contractors and who had to buy their own benefits, etc.  Most were offered jobs within the company which some accepted and some declined.  The company set a new policy that contractors could not be used for more than 6 months out of any 2 year period.</p><p>Long before this, the "major corporation" where I started my career had strict rules on limiting the duration a contract programmer could work for them and the number of contract programmers that could be hired.  Their position was that if more full-time workers are needed, hire them.  Don't staff with temporary people for long periods because they become dependent on the continuing contract and this is bad for the contractor.  And don't use too many because this distorts the local economy and causes uncertainty for all involved.  Of course, that was a long time ago and before this company laid off tens of thousands.  Their current policy is not so altruistic.</p><p>As someone who has worked on both sides, I understand the need to protect people from exploitation by corporations, whether this exploitation is deliberate or not.  A contractor should bid on work in a competitive environment and be be paid according to risk and skill.  Putting a 6-month limit on contract duration is bad for all since it pretty well limits the sort of project and/or work a contract programmer can be assigned.</p><p>The problem remains as to how the IRS is to objectively differentiate sham contracting arrangements from real ones.  The test of one person working for one firm for a long time seems reasonable but 6 months or even 1 year is too short a time frame.  One project of up to two years seems more reasonable if more difficult for the IRS to police.</p><p>Another sham practice that the IRS should address is the "contract to hire" charade currently used to screen employees.  Companies hire people as "contractors" for up to 6 months and if they don't like you, they don't offer a permanent position.  I understand how this is good for the company but is this good for the employee too?  How much leverage does one have to turn down such arrangements?  In my current job, I took the 6 month "try before you buy" deal while my office-mate did not.  He explained that since he had a family, he would not deal with uncertain employment for so long nor with the problem of benefits.  Since I took the deal, even though I was "hired" first, he has sonority over me and I have lost 6 months for accumulating additional vacation time, retirement and other benefits that are dependent on length of employment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1994 I left a major corporation to start my own business doing stuff with the web .
In 2000 , after the bubble burst and I lost a year 's contracts from several customers , I went to work as an independent contractor for a large hotel company , being hired through a staffing agency .
While I was working the contract , news of a major settlement of a dispute involving Microsoft and its use of independent contractors made the rounds .
It seems that Microsoft had a large number of contractors who worked for them for years .
These programmers had offices at Microsoft , kept hours like Microsoft employees , and were indistinguishable from regular employees except for their badges and their financial arrangement .
The IRS considered this to be a sham arrangement and forced Microsoft to settle , with a multi-million dollar payment .
Microsoft reportedly hired a number of the programmers as full-time employees as part of the deal .
The IRS then went after the " independent " contractors ' claims of deductions for home offices , computers and the like since Microsoft had given them what was needed to do their jobs.This hit home at the hotel company where I had a 1-year contract because they had quite a few people in a similar condition , folk who had worked for them for years as contractors and who had to buy their own benefits , etc .
Most were offered jobs within the company which some accepted and some declined .
The company set a new policy that contractors could not be used for more than 6 months out of any 2 year period.Long before this , the " major corporation " where I started my career had strict rules on limiting the duration a contract programmer could work for them and the number of contract programmers that could be hired .
Their position was that if more full-time workers are needed , hire them .
Do n't staff with temporary people for long periods because they become dependent on the continuing contract and this is bad for the contractor .
And do n't use too many because this distorts the local economy and causes uncertainty for all involved .
Of course , that was a long time ago and before this company laid off tens of thousands .
Their current policy is not so altruistic.As someone who has worked on both sides , I understand the need to protect people from exploitation by corporations , whether this exploitation is deliberate or not .
A contractor should bid on work in a competitive environment and be be paid according to risk and skill .
Putting a 6-month limit on contract duration is bad for all since it pretty well limits the sort of project and/or work a contract programmer can be assigned.The problem remains as to how the IRS is to objectively differentiate sham contracting arrangements from real ones .
The test of one person working for one firm for a long time seems reasonable but 6 months or even 1 year is too short a time frame .
One project of up to two years seems more reasonable if more difficult for the IRS to police.Another sham practice that the IRS should address is the " contract to hire " charade currently used to screen employees .
Companies hire people as " contractors " for up to 6 months and if they do n't like you , they do n't offer a permanent position .
I understand how this is good for the company but is this good for the employee too ?
How much leverage does one have to turn down such arrangements ?
In my current job , I took the 6 month " try before you buy " deal while my office-mate did not .
He explained that since he had a family , he would not deal with uncertain employment for so long nor with the problem of benefits .
Since I took the deal , even though I was " hired " first , he has sonority over me and I have lost 6 months for accumulating additional vacation time , retirement and other benefits that are dependent on length of employment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1994 I left a major corporation to start my own business doing stuff with the web.
In 2000, after the bubble burst and I lost a year's contracts from several customers, I went to work as an independent contractor for a large hotel company, being hired through a staffing agency.
While I was working the contract, news of a major settlement of a dispute involving Microsoft and its use of independent contractors made the rounds.
It seems that Microsoft had a large number of contractors who worked for them for years.
These programmers had offices at Microsoft, kept hours like Microsoft employees, and were indistinguishable from regular employees except for their badges and their financial arrangement.
The IRS considered this to be a sham arrangement and forced Microsoft to settle, with a multi-million dollar payment.
Microsoft reportedly hired a number of the programmers as full-time employees as part of the deal.
The IRS then went after the "independent" contractors' claims of deductions for home offices, computers and the like since Microsoft had given them what was needed to do their jobs.This hit home at the hotel company where I had a 1-year contract because they had quite a few people in a similar condition, folk who had worked for them for years as contractors and who had to buy their own benefits, etc.
Most were offered jobs within the company which some accepted and some declined.
The company set a new policy that contractors could not be used for more than 6 months out of any 2 year period.Long before this, the "major corporation" where I started my career had strict rules on limiting the duration a contract programmer could work for them and the number of contract programmers that could be hired.
Their position was that if more full-time workers are needed, hire them.
Don't staff with temporary people for long periods because they become dependent on the continuing contract and this is bad for the contractor.
And don't use too many because this distorts the local economy and causes uncertainty for all involved.
Of course, that was a long time ago and before this company laid off tens of thousands.
Their current policy is not so altruistic.As someone who has worked on both sides, I understand the need to protect people from exploitation by corporations, whether this exploitation is deliberate or not.
A contractor should bid on work in a competitive environment and be be paid according to risk and skill.
Putting a 6-month limit on contract duration is bad for all since it pretty well limits the sort of project and/or work a contract programmer can be assigned.The problem remains as to how the IRS is to objectively differentiate sham contracting arrangements from real ones.
The test of one person working for one firm for a long time seems reasonable but 6 months or even 1 year is too short a time frame.
One project of up to two years seems more reasonable if more difficult for the IRS to police.Another sham practice that the IRS should address is the "contract to hire" charade currently used to screen employees.
Companies hire people as "contractors" for up to 6 months and if they don't like you, they don't offer a permanent position.
I understand how this is good for the company but is this good for the employee too?
How much leverage does one have to turn down such arrangements?
In my current job, I took the 6 month "try before you buy" deal while my office-mate did not.
He explained that since he had a family, he would not deal with uncertain employment for so long nor with the problem of benefits.
Since I took the deal, even though I was "hired" first, he has sonority over me and I have lost 6 months for accumulating additional vacation time, retirement and other benefits that are dependent on length of employment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221418</id>
	<title>FairTax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266743640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's yet another of thousands (millions?) of examples why we should scrap the entire US Income Tax.  It's time to refactor.  I like the FairTax (http://FairTax.org), but there's other proposals out there that will work too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's yet another of thousands ( millions ?
) of examples why we should scrap the entire US Income Tax .
It 's time to refactor .
I like the FairTax ( http : //FairTax.org ) , but there 's other proposals out there that will work too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's yet another of thousands (millions?
) of examples why we should scrap the entire US Income Tax.
It's time to refactor.
I like the FairTax (http://FairTax.org), but there's other proposals out there that will work too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219372</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266775800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>his guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.</p></div><p>We would do well to eliminate that word -- terrorist -- from the English language for reasons your post so neatly illustrates.  There is no suggestion that Joe Stack was anything other than a disconsolate lunatic committing a criminal act.  He never claimed to be part of the "1706 liberation front."</p><p>And if you face people with contrary views, send in the cruise missile: the American way!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>his guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.We would do well to eliminate that word -- terrorist -- from the English language for reasons your post so neatly illustrates .
There is no suggestion that Joe Stack was anything other than a disconsolate lunatic committing a criminal act .
He never claimed to be part of the " 1706 liberation front .
" And if you face people with contrary views , send in the cruise missile : the American way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>his guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.We would do well to eliminate that word -- terrorist -- from the English language for reasons your post so neatly illustrates.
There is no suggestion that Joe Stack was anything other than a disconsolate lunatic committing a criminal act.
He never claimed to be part of the "1706 liberation front.
"And if you face people with contrary views, send in the cruise missile: the American way!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110</id>
	<title>Boo hoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane. Just imagine, without that terrible law, he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane .
Just imagine , without that terrible law , he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah this poor guy could only afford a nice house and a plane.
Just imagine, without that terrible law, he could have been able to afford a two engine plane and a slightly nicer house!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225212</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266768720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they got a good tax accountant who understood the law and got them to set things up properly for their taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they got a good tax accountant who understood the law and got them to set things up properly for their taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they got a good tax accountant who understood the law and got them to set things up properly for their taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219634</id>
	<title>you're just full of shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266776940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just full of shit. This guy wasn't trying to terrorize the country. He was attacking an organization that bankrupted him. There's a huge difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just full of shit .
This guy was n't trying to terrorize the country .
He was attacking an organization that bankrupted him .
There 's a huge difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just full of shit.
This guy wasn't trying to terrorize the country.
He was attacking an organization that bankrupted him.
There's a huge difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266776160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group. If you buy insurance on your own, you do so with after-tax dollars. If you buy through your employer, you do so with before-tax dollars, reducing your overall tax burden (and that of your employer, since their payroll taxes get a break). The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have, it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group .
If you buy insurance on your own , you do so with after-tax dollars .
If you buy through your employer , you do so with before-tax dollars , reducing your overall tax burden ( and that of your employer , since their payroll taxes get a break ) .
The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have , it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting the tax advantages of being part of an employer group.
If you buy insurance on your own, you do so with after-tax dollars.
If you buy through your employer, you do so with before-tax dollars, reducing your overall tax burden (and that of your employer, since their payroll taxes get a break).
The Federal government caused the mess of a health care system we have, it strikes me as absurd to expect them to be able to fix it in any meaningful way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221518</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1266744480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a communist Californian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a communist Californian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a communist Californian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221608</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1266744960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, is he not?
<br> <br>
We don't fight al-Qaeda because of some grand notion of good and evil. We fight them because they fight us. When one of our soldier makes a kill, it's heroic. When one of them does it, it's cowardly and heinous. When a government authorises a plane to be flown into a ship, it's an admirably patriotic act. When a person or non-state group does it, it's terrorism.
<br> <br>
One more thing: don't use words without appreciating their full import. This guy was not a fundamentalist - he was not against taxes in general, but a very specific tax that he had reason to believe was unfair and exploitative, to the extent that it made him feel like a slave in his own country. That is not fundamentalism; it's frustration and desperation.
<br> <br>
I feel sorry for the individuals who lost their lives, and for their families. As for the IRS and American taxation in general, no tears. Either don't tax (the Emirates), or tax and make it worth it (the Netherlands).
<br> <br>
Taxation as it stands now is a cruel impediment to the American dream for common Americans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One man 's terrorist is another man 's freedom fighter , is he not ?
We do n't fight al-Qaeda because of some grand notion of good and evil .
We fight them because they fight us .
When one of our soldier makes a kill , it 's heroic .
When one of them does it , it 's cowardly and heinous .
When a government authorises a plane to be flown into a ship , it 's an admirably patriotic act .
When a person or non-state group does it , it 's terrorism .
One more thing : do n't use words without appreciating their full import .
This guy was not a fundamentalist - he was not against taxes in general , but a very specific tax that he had reason to believe was unfair and exploitative , to the extent that it made him feel like a slave in his own country .
That is not fundamentalism ; it 's frustration and desperation .
I feel sorry for the individuals who lost their lives , and for their families .
As for the IRS and American taxation in general , no tears .
Either do n't tax ( the Emirates ) , or tax and make it worth it ( the Netherlands ) .
Taxation as it stands now is a cruel impediment to the American dream for common Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, is he not?
We don't fight al-Qaeda because of some grand notion of good and evil.
We fight them because they fight us.
When one of our soldier makes a kill, it's heroic.
When one of them does it, it's cowardly and heinous.
When a government authorises a plane to be flown into a ship, it's an admirably patriotic act.
When a person or non-state group does it, it's terrorism.
One more thing: don't use words without appreciating their full import.
This guy was not a fundamentalist - he was not against taxes in general, but a very specific tax that he had reason to believe was unfair and exploitative, to the extent that it made him feel like a slave in his own country.
That is not fundamentalism; it's frustration and desperation.
I feel sorry for the individuals who lost their lives, and for their families.
As for the IRS and American taxation in general, no tears.
Either don't tax (the Emirates), or tax and make it worth it (the Netherlands).
Taxation as it stands now is a cruel impediment to the American dream for common Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221134</id>
	<title>IR35 in the UK</title>
	<author>DamonHD</author>
	<datestamp>1266784980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rough equivalent in the UK is known as "IR35" and essentially starts from the premise that if you are running a small business in this area then you may not be allowed many of the expenses/deductions that a larger employer of yours would be.</p><p>I actually wrote to and visited the ministers concerned, but due to the feuding between the Treasury as then run by Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister of the day Tony Blair, reason wasn't allowed in.</p><p>The effect on me has been to have to reduce the hours I work, fire almost all my staff as I could have become liable to over 100\% tax on the money I paid them, earn less revenue from foreign companies, pay less tax, etc, etc, even though I do not evade tax and indeed understand its utility.</p><p>I was annoyed enough again by this to write this evening to both Gordon Brown and the Leader of the Opposition urging them to actually prevent evasion rather than tormenting real consultants/freelancers and indeed fairly smart people bringing in good (tax) revenue.</p><p>The official view from the US and the UK does not seem to be that these measures have increased revenue at all.</p><p>I know that I was some measurable fraction of 1\% of the entire target for IR35, and I know that it drove me away from paying work entirely for a while, made all the more ironic by the fact that I survived by borrowing money from someone very publicly associated with the Inland Revenue.  That made my tax inspector choke, I think!</p><p>The fact still remains that any time up to about 7 years after you've filed returns that the Revenue has agreed with, it can change its mind, disallow entirely reasonable expenses, and bankrupt you, even if you've acted entirely in good faith and in accordance with the law.</p><p>I think an entire class of politicians and Treasury/Revenue civil servants fail to understand that there is an entirely legitimate world other than 9-5 with guaranteed pension.</p><p>Rgds</p><p>Damon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rough equivalent in the UK is known as " IR35 " and essentially starts from the premise that if you are running a small business in this area then you may not be allowed many of the expenses/deductions that a larger employer of yours would be.I actually wrote to and visited the ministers concerned , but due to the feuding between the Treasury as then run by Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister of the day Tony Blair , reason was n't allowed in.The effect on me has been to have to reduce the hours I work , fire almost all my staff as I could have become liable to over 100 \ % tax on the money I paid them , earn less revenue from foreign companies , pay less tax , etc , etc , even though I do not evade tax and indeed understand its utility.I was annoyed enough again by this to write this evening to both Gordon Brown and the Leader of the Opposition urging them to actually prevent evasion rather than tormenting real consultants/freelancers and indeed fairly smart people bringing in good ( tax ) revenue.The official view from the US and the UK does not seem to be that these measures have increased revenue at all.I know that I was some measurable fraction of 1 \ % of the entire target for IR35 , and I know that it drove me away from paying work entirely for a while , made all the more ironic by the fact that I survived by borrowing money from someone very publicly associated with the Inland Revenue .
That made my tax inspector choke , I think ! The fact still remains that any time up to about 7 years after you 've filed returns that the Revenue has agreed with , it can change its mind , disallow entirely reasonable expenses , and bankrupt you , even if you 've acted entirely in good faith and in accordance with the law.I think an entire class of politicians and Treasury/Revenue civil servants fail to understand that there is an entirely legitimate world other than 9-5 with guaranteed pension.RgdsDamon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rough equivalent in the UK is known as "IR35" and essentially starts from the premise that if you are running a small business in this area then you may not be allowed many of the expenses/deductions that a larger employer of yours would be.I actually wrote to and visited the ministers concerned, but due to the feuding between the Treasury as then run by Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister of the day Tony Blair, reason wasn't allowed in.The effect on me has been to have to reduce the hours I work, fire almost all my staff as I could have become liable to over 100\% tax on the money I paid them, earn less revenue from foreign companies, pay less tax, etc, etc, even though I do not evade tax and indeed understand its utility.I was annoyed enough again by this to write this evening to both Gordon Brown and the Leader of the Opposition urging them to actually prevent evasion rather than tormenting real consultants/freelancers and indeed fairly smart people bringing in good (tax) revenue.The official view from the US and the UK does not seem to be that these measures have increased revenue at all.I know that I was some measurable fraction of 1\% of the entire target for IR35, and I know that it drove me away from paying work entirely for a while, made all the more ironic by the fact that I survived by borrowing money from someone very publicly associated with the Inland Revenue.
That made my tax inspector choke, I think!The fact still remains that any time up to about 7 years after you've filed returns that the Revenue has agreed with, it can change its mind, disallow entirely reasonable expenses, and bankrupt you, even if you've acted entirely in good faith and in accordance with the law.I think an entire class of politicians and Treasury/Revenue civil servants fail to understand that there is an entirely legitimate world other than 9-5 with guaranteed pension.RgdsDamon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219258</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>cduffy</author>
	<datestamp>1266775080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction.</p></div></blockquote><p>A few items:</p><ul> <li>Individuals cannot be turned down (in the US) for membership in an employer-sponsored group. They <i>can</i> be turned down for individual insurance, and between 20 and 40\% are.</li><li>See "risk pooling", and its impact on pricing; for "high-risk" individuals (like me, for having a 100\% benign growth removed five years ago), this has <i>far</i> more impact than the presence or lack of an employer's partial payment into a plan.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are " part of the transaction " , that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction.A few items : Individuals can not be turned down ( in the US ) for membership in an employer-sponsored group .
They can be turned down for individual insurance , and between 20 and 40 \ % are.See " risk pooling " , and its impact on pricing ; for " high-risk " individuals ( like me , for having a 100 \ % benign growth removed five years ago ) , this has far more impact than the presence or lack of an employer 's partial payment into a plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction.A few items: Individuals cannot be turned down (in the US) for membership in an employer-sponsored group.
They can be turned down for individual insurance, and between 20 and 40\% are.See "risk pooling", and its impact on pricing; for "high-risk" individuals (like me, for having a 100\% benign growth removed five years ago), this has far more impact than the presence or lack of an employer's partial payment into a plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31241880</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And just like other terrorists, he has a good point. Just expressed in a rather unproductive way. Just as 9/11 should make people think about US policy on Israel, Mr. Stack should be making people think about section 1706. Honestly. Who knew about this law beforehand? I sure didn't, and I was kind of planning on being an independent developer someday. So, thank you Mr. Stack for bringing my attention to it.</p><p>In the end, terrorism is a sad reflection on the extremes needed to gain the attention of a lumbering, stagnant giant that we call the American nation. Take copyright reform as another example. There are people out there whose life savings are being threatened over $20 worth of illegal downloads -- and this is supported by statutory guidelines. Does anyone here believe that it won't eventually come to bloodshed?</p><p>The real shame in terrorism is that it's unfocused. Nobody in that IRS building had any power to change the law to help people like Mr. Stack. Nobody in the twin towers had any power to change US foreign policy in the mideast. The people who do have the power are legislators and executives, and they're never the ones targeted. They're the ones who should be held accountable, but since they aren't, they simply go on selling the people's interests to the highest bidder, while at the same time denouncing the terrorists created by that policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just like other terrorists , he has a good point .
Just expressed in a rather unproductive way .
Just as 9/11 should make people think about US policy on Israel , Mr. Stack should be making people think about section 1706 .
Honestly. Who knew about this law beforehand ?
I sure did n't , and I was kind of planning on being an independent developer someday .
So , thank you Mr. Stack for bringing my attention to it.In the end , terrorism is a sad reflection on the extremes needed to gain the attention of a lumbering , stagnant giant that we call the American nation .
Take copyright reform as another example .
There are people out there whose life savings are being threatened over $ 20 worth of illegal downloads -- and this is supported by statutory guidelines .
Does anyone here believe that it wo n't eventually come to bloodshed ? The real shame in terrorism is that it 's unfocused .
Nobody in that IRS building had any power to change the law to help people like Mr. Stack. Nobody in the twin towers had any power to change US foreign policy in the mideast .
The people who do have the power are legislators and executives , and they 're never the ones targeted .
They 're the ones who should be held accountable , but since they are n't , they simply go on selling the people 's interests to the highest bidder , while at the same time denouncing the terrorists created by that policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just like other terrorists, he has a good point.
Just expressed in a rather unproductive way.
Just as 9/11 should make people think about US policy on Israel, Mr. Stack should be making people think about section 1706.
Honestly. Who knew about this law beforehand?
I sure didn't, and I was kind of planning on being an independent developer someday.
So, thank you Mr. Stack for bringing my attention to it.In the end, terrorism is a sad reflection on the extremes needed to gain the attention of a lumbering, stagnant giant that we call the American nation.
Take copyright reform as another example.
There are people out there whose life savings are being threatened over $20 worth of illegal downloads -- and this is supported by statutory guidelines.
Does anyone here believe that it won't eventually come to bloodshed?The real shame in terrorism is that it's unfocused.
Nobody in that IRS building had any power to change the law to help people like Mr. Stack. Nobody in the twin towers had any power to change US foreign policy in the mideast.
The people who do have the power are legislators and executives, and they're never the ones targeted.
They're the ones who should be held accountable, but since they aren't, they simply go on selling the people's interests to the highest bidder, while at the same time denouncing the terrorists created by that policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220296</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>networkBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1266780240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you had obvious foreknowledge you are a conspirator.<br>We'll be sending guys with guns shortly.<br>Yours,<br>-The government</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you had obvious foreknowledge you are a conspirator.We 'll be sending guys with guns shortly.Yours,-The government</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you had obvious foreknowledge you are a conspirator.We'll be sending guys with guns shortly.Yours,-The government</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222650</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266751320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you say. What do people do when there is no recourse for them? I see the guy as an individual that couldn't take the high level of corruption from our "leaders" any more. Some may see him as a martyr. He's not of course, but he may open up the eyes of Congress, health insurance mega-corporations, et at, that they've crushed down the individual a bit too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you say .
What do people do when there is no recourse for them ?
I see the guy as an individual that could n't take the high level of corruption from our " leaders " any more .
Some may see him as a martyr .
He 's not of course , but he may open up the eyes of Congress , health insurance mega-corporations , et at , that they 've crushed down the individual a bit too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you say.
What do people do when there is no recourse for them?
I see the guy as an individual that couldn't take the high level of corruption from our "leaders" any more.
Some may see him as a martyr.
He's not of course, but he may open up the eyes of Congress, health insurance mega-corporations, et at, that they've crushed down the individual a bit too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218984</id>
	<title>US Programmer wages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a European, I get the impression that wages for programmers in the US are way higher than in Europe. Like 3 times higher or more. Like e.g. people who are working only a few years, already getting $70000 a year. Is my impression correct?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a European , I get the impression that wages for programmers in the US are way higher than in Europe .
Like 3 times higher or more .
Like e.g .
people who are working only a few years , already getting $ 70000 a year .
Is my impression correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a European, I get the impression that wages for programmers in the US are way higher than in Europe.
Like 3 times higher or more.
Like e.g.
people who are working only a few years, already getting $70000 a year.
Is my impression correct?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219176</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant(you know, changing clients regularly, working for multiple clients, or doing work that isn't standard 9-5 work) none of this affects you, you're still a consultant "</p><p>The problem is that because of this law, most companies won't hire you even if you are a real consultant.  They won't take the risk that the IRS will disagree with them and fine the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant ( you know , changing clients regularly , working for multiple clients , or doing work that is n't standard 9-5 work ) none of this affects you , you 're still a consultant " The problem is that because of this law , most companies wo n't hire you even if you are a real consultant .
They wo n't take the risk that the IRS will disagree with them and fine the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now the thing about this law is that if you actually are a consultant(you know, changing clients regularly, working for multiple clients, or doing work that isn't standard 9-5 work) none of this affects you, you're still a consultant "The problem is that because of this law, most companies won't hire you even if you are a real consultant.
They won't take the risk that the IRS will disagree with them and fine the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219948</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1266778500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that libertarians can go around quoting who ever they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that libertarians can go around quoting who ever they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that libertarians can go around quoting who ever they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220488</id>
	<title>Re:The more interesting part</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1266781140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo, I totally agree. I am so glad that his death wasn't in vain.<br> <br>
Black history month, so lets quote...<br>
If you haven't found something worth dying for, you aren't fit to be living. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">40k speedlimits and growing</a> [wikispeedia.org]</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo , I totally agree .
I am so glad that his death was n't in vain .
Black history month , so lets quote.. . If you have n't found something worth dying for , you are n't fit to be living .
- Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr . 40k speedlimits and growing [ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo, I totally agree.
I am so glad that his death wasn't in vain.
Black history month, so lets quote...
If you haven't found something worth dying for, you aren't fit to be living.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 
40k speedlimits and growing [wikispeedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223270</id>
	<title>chapter 8</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1266755040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chapter 8 of <a href="http://usspi.org/download/" title="usspi.org">How To Save Jobs</a> [usspi.org] contains a nice discussion of the U.S. health care system.  Since David Gewirtz has kindly made this book free to download, I've taken the liberty of quoting more than I might otherwise, concerning bankruptcy and rescission (emphasis mine):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Three-quarters had health insurance. Put those two numbers together. 60\% of all bankruptcies in America were driven by people who couldn't pay their medical bills, most of whom actually had health insurance.</p><p>...</p><p>Most insurers claim the rate of rescission is fairly small. In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Don Hamm, CEO of Assurant Health stated "Rescission is rare. It affects less than one-half of one percent of people we cover."</p><p>And yet, according to a story by Karl Vick in the September 8, 2009 issue of the <i>Washington Post</i>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>In the past 18 months, California's five largest insurers paid almost $19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $1 million fine against Health Net, <b>which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies</b>, according to company documents released in court.</i></p> </div></div><p>Amazing statistical coincidence that the rescission rate mirrors the relatively low rate in modern society of personal health catastrophe.</p><p>Gewirtz is an odd duck, with significant background in both politics and technology.  If your response to Gewirtz is to pigeon-hole him for easy target practice at one end or the other of the ideological spectrum, good luck with that.  If he's as clever as I think he is, his misguiding jingoism on "buy American" could be cured by a close listen to <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/01/rustici\_on\_smoo.html" title="econtalk.org">Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression</a> [econtalk.org], another flawed discussion which nevertheless can not be resolved by means of a circular pigeon dance.  In the end, I rejected about a quarter of what Rustici puts forward, but felt edified by the other three quarters.</p><p>I'm about halfway through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Baroque\_Cycle" title="wikipedia.org">The Baroque Cycle</a> [wikipedia.org] which has an an organizing theme tumult in the understanding of financial markets and the stability of credit and currency.  If Neil's super-great (mostly paternal) granddaughter Nellie Stephenson were to write the Barack Cycle several hundred years from now, it would focus on the present tumult and disorder in our health insurance industry, with lobbyists in Washington taking center stage as the imposing yet perhaps doomed palace of Versailles.</p><p>America fails to reform it's health care system because it is now in the late phase of the French disease, terminal narcissism.  Debate rarely turns on what needs to be done until coinage runs short.  From what I've read, mission accomplished.  Will the American empire make it to the next gas station running on fumes?  America is not to be underestimated, but far enough back, hard to believe, neither was France.</p><p>These kinds of laws are a lot like Smoot-Hawley.  The elite has a shallow hand-waving understanding of how this implicates tax revenue (shared by few of the wonks), while totally failing (with scant concern) to wrap their minds around the larger consequences.</p><p>Fortunately, there are economies gaining steam in other corners of the world less set in their sumptitude, that sucking glissando you hear as you circle around the velvet drain pipe.</p><p>In a vigorous nation, it might be prudent to fix this while time remains, starting with a cold hard look at some of these small fish nourishing larger ponds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chapter 8 of How To Save Jobs [ usspi.org ] contains a nice discussion of the U.S. health care system .
Since David Gewirtz has kindly made this book free to download , I 've taken the liberty of quoting more than I might otherwise , concerning bankruptcy and rescission ( emphasis mine ) : Three-quarters had health insurance .
Put those two numbers together .
60 \ % of all bankruptcies in America were driven by people who could n't pay their medical bills , most of whom actually had health insurance....Most insurers claim the rate of rescission is fairly small .
In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce , Don Hamm , CEO of Assurant Health stated " Rescission is rare .
It affects less than one-half of one percent of people we cover .
" And yet , according to a story by Karl Vick in the September 8 , 2009 issue of the Washington Post : In the past 18 months , California 's five largest insurers paid almost $ 19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $ 1 million fine against Health Net , which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies , according to company documents released in court .
Amazing statistical coincidence that the rescission rate mirrors the relatively low rate in modern society of personal health catastrophe.Gewirtz is an odd duck , with significant background in both politics and technology .
If your response to Gewirtz is to pigeon-hole him for easy target practice at one end or the other of the ideological spectrum , good luck with that .
If he 's as clever as I think he is , his misguiding jingoism on " buy American " could be cured by a close listen to Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression [ econtalk.org ] , another flawed discussion which nevertheless can not be resolved by means of a circular pigeon dance .
In the end , I rejected about a quarter of what Rustici puts forward , but felt edified by the other three quarters.I 'm about halfway through The Baroque Cycle [ wikipedia.org ] which has an an organizing theme tumult in the understanding of financial markets and the stability of credit and currency .
If Neil 's super-great ( mostly paternal ) granddaughter Nellie Stephenson were to write the Barack Cycle several hundred years from now , it would focus on the present tumult and disorder in our health insurance industry , with lobbyists in Washington taking center stage as the imposing yet perhaps doomed palace of Versailles.America fails to reform it 's health care system because it is now in the late phase of the French disease , terminal narcissism .
Debate rarely turns on what needs to be done until coinage runs short .
From what I 've read , mission accomplished .
Will the American empire make it to the next gas station running on fumes ?
America is not to be underestimated , but far enough back , hard to believe , neither was France.These kinds of laws are a lot like Smoot-Hawley .
The elite has a shallow hand-waving understanding of how this implicates tax revenue ( shared by few of the wonks ) , while totally failing ( with scant concern ) to wrap their minds around the larger consequences.Fortunately , there are economies gaining steam in other corners of the world less set in their sumptitude , that sucking glissando you hear as you circle around the velvet drain pipe.In a vigorous nation , it might be prudent to fix this while time remains , starting with a cold hard look at some of these small fish nourishing larger ponds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chapter 8 of How To Save Jobs [usspi.org] contains a nice discussion of the U.S. health care system.
Since David Gewirtz has kindly made this book free to download, I've taken the liberty of quoting more than I might otherwise, concerning bankruptcy and rescission (emphasis mine):Three-quarters had health insurance.
Put those two numbers together.
60\% of all bankruptcies in America were driven by people who couldn't pay their medical bills, most of whom actually had health insurance....Most insurers claim the rate of rescission is fairly small.
In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Don Hamm, CEO of Assurant Health stated "Rescission is rare.
It affects less than one-half of one percent of people we cover.
"And yet, according to a story by Karl Vick in the September 8, 2009 issue of the Washington Post: In the past 18 months, California's five largest insurers paid almost $19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $1 million fine against Health Net, which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies, according to company documents released in court.
Amazing statistical coincidence that the rescission rate mirrors the relatively low rate in modern society of personal health catastrophe.Gewirtz is an odd duck, with significant background in both politics and technology.
If your response to Gewirtz is to pigeon-hole him for easy target practice at one end or the other of the ideological spectrum, good luck with that.
If he's as clever as I think he is, his misguiding jingoism on "buy American" could be cured by a close listen to Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression [econtalk.org], another flawed discussion which nevertheless can not be resolved by means of a circular pigeon dance.
In the end, I rejected about a quarter of what Rustici puts forward, but felt edified by the other three quarters.I'm about halfway through The Baroque Cycle [wikipedia.org] which has an an organizing theme tumult in the understanding of financial markets and the stability of credit and currency.
If Neil's super-great (mostly paternal) granddaughter Nellie Stephenson were to write the Barack Cycle several hundred years from now, it would focus on the present tumult and disorder in our health insurance industry, with lobbyists in Washington taking center stage as the imposing yet perhaps doomed palace of Versailles.America fails to reform it's health care system because it is now in the late phase of the French disease, terminal narcissism.
Debate rarely turns on what needs to be done until coinage runs short.
From what I've read, mission accomplished.
Will the American empire make it to the next gas station running on fumes?
America is not to be underestimated, but far enough back, hard to believe, neither was France.These kinds of laws are a lot like Smoot-Hawley.
The elite has a shallow hand-waving understanding of how this implicates tax revenue (shared by few of the wonks), while totally failing (with scant concern) to wrap their minds around the larger consequences.Fortunately, there are economies gaining steam in other corners of the world less set in their sumptitude, that sucking glissando you hear as you circle around the velvet drain pipe.In a vigorous nation, it might be prudent to fix this while time remains, starting with a cold hard look at some of these small fish nourishing larger ponds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219520</id>
	<title>Parent post has it right</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266776340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Right.  There's no problem if you have a real business.  It's employment masquerading as consulting that's prohibited by US tax law.  If you write and sell a software product to multiple buyers, no problem.  That's a business.  If you take ten jobs a year on Rent-A-Coder, no problem.  (Not much money, though.)  If you develop and patent technology, then license the technology, no problem.
</p><p>
If you work for one company for a year, are paid for time, not results, have a "boss", and do what they tell you, you're an employee.
Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
There 's no problem if you have a real business .
It 's employment masquerading as consulting that 's prohibited by US tax law .
If you write and sell a software product to multiple buyers , no problem .
That 's a business .
If you take ten jobs a year on Rent-A-Coder , no problem .
( Not much money , though .
) If you develop and patent technology , then license the technology , no problem .
If you work for one company for a year , are paid for time , not results , have a " boss " , and do what they tell you , you 're an employee .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Right.
There's no problem if you have a real business.
It's employment masquerading as consulting that's prohibited by US tax law.
If you write and sell a software product to multiple buyers, no problem.
That's a business.
If you take ten jobs a year on Rent-A-Coder, no problem.
(Not much money, though.
)  If you develop and patent technology, then license the technology, no problem.
If you work for one company for a year, are paid for time, not results, have a "boss", and do what they tell you, you're an employee.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220578</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1266781560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When citizens of the same government attack its a civil uprising. When its foreigners attacking your government/citizens its terrorism. Get a clue. Domestic terrorism is just BULLSHIT so government can get away with using more abusive terrorism laws illegally against their own citizens. Agenda is irrelevant as everyone has one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When citizens of the same government attack its a civil uprising .
When its foreigners attacking your government/citizens its terrorism .
Get a clue .
Domestic terrorism is just BULLSHIT so government can get away with using more abusive terrorism laws illegally against their own citizens .
Agenda is irrelevant as everyone has one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When citizens of the same government attack its a civil uprising.
When its foreigners attacking your government/citizens its terrorism.
Get a clue.
Domestic terrorism is just BULLSHIT so government can get away with using more abusive terrorism laws illegally against their own citizens.
Agenda is irrelevant as everyone has one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</id>
	<title>Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question I have is whether this guy is the tip of the iceberg or whether he's just another wing nut who can't admit when he's lost whatever argument he got in.</p><p>He does make some complaints in his screed about the kinds of issues that even rational people are worried about -- big government, big corporations and a "system" that feels stacked against individuals; some of these issues have been kicking around among conspiracy theorists and paranoids forever, yet a Treasury run by ex-bankers that loans out a trillion dollars to bankers and others who make sure the banks get paid is only too real.</p><p>Is unemployment and the rest of it going to create more of these guys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question I have is whether this guy is the tip of the iceberg or whether he 's just another wing nut who ca n't admit when he 's lost whatever argument he got in.He does make some complaints in his screed about the kinds of issues that even rational people are worried about -- big government , big corporations and a " system " that feels stacked against individuals ; some of these issues have been kicking around among conspiracy theorists and paranoids forever , yet a Treasury run by ex-bankers that loans out a trillion dollars to bankers and others who make sure the banks get paid is only too real.Is unemployment and the rest of it going to create more of these guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question I have is whether this guy is the tip of the iceberg or whether he's just another wing nut who can't admit when he's lost whatever argument he got in.He does make some complaints in his screed about the kinds of issues that even rational people are worried about -- big government, big corporations and a "system" that feels stacked against individuals; some of these issues have been kicking around among conspiracy theorists and paranoids forever, yet a Treasury run by ex-bankers that loans out a trillion dollars to bankers and others who make sure the banks get paid is only too real.Is unemployment and the rest of it going to create more of these guys?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221714</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266745620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your attack is ad-hominem and therefore a logical fallacy.</p><p>Terrorism is the poor man's war.  War is the rich man's terrorism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your attack is ad-hominem and therefore a logical fallacy.Terrorism is the poor man 's war .
War is the rich man 's terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your attack is ad-hominem and therefore a logical fallacy.Terrorism is the poor man's war.
War is the rich man's terrorism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222246</id>
	<title>In UK</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1266749220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds very similar to the "<a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ir35/" title="hmrc.gov.uk">IR35</a> [hmrc.gov.uk]" rules we have in the UK (nickname comes from the Inland Revenue press release kicking of the debacle, now codified into statutes). Enforcement also very similar, they treat the "employer" company's payments to the "employee" as the amount net of tax and then gross it up to get the tax from the company. </p><p>The arguments in favour are basically to protect employees by preventing companies from avoiding all the protection/benefits employees (but not contractors) are given by law. They have a very valid point here, some industries were really abusing this, literally forcing staff to become self-employed so they didn't have to pay them sick time or redundancy. They'd also only get paid for hours worked, no guaranteed minimum pay, leaving a lot of (particularly construction) workers with no income for uncertain periods (particularly winter).</p><p>The other reason companies were doing it is to avoid employers' NIC, a "tax on jobs" that the employer pays based on the employee's wages, roughly 12.8\%). Hence the tax man's interest - and let's not ignore that rather a lot of the self-employed people were not paying their taxes, and those that were have relatively generous expense rules if they are self-employed compared to those of an employee. And then there's the lower tax rate from taking dividends rather than salary or trade income. So IR35 is significantly an anti- tax-avoidance measure.</p><p>But, they also did over people who genuinely wanted to be and were better off as self-employed. For these guys it's just time to make an appointment with an accountant or lawyer, getting round it is often not very difficult provided you have room to negotiate in your contracts and that, well, the whole thing isn't a blatant sham. HMRC helpfully tells us <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/guide\_limitcomp.htm" title="hmrc.gov.uk">things they look for</a> [hmrc.gov.uk] in determining employee-status therefore you construct your business and contracts to show the reverse. Two key things are firstly to ensure that you only need to do what is required - when, how and who actually does it is totally up to you; even if in practice this is always you, the mere fact that you are allowed to delegate work is what matters. Secondly, have more than one customer/employer. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds very similar to the " IR35 [ hmrc.gov.uk ] " rules we have in the UK ( nickname comes from the Inland Revenue press release kicking of the debacle , now codified into statutes ) .
Enforcement also very similar , they treat the " employer " company 's payments to the " employee " as the amount net of tax and then gross it up to get the tax from the company .
The arguments in favour are basically to protect employees by preventing companies from avoiding all the protection/benefits employees ( but not contractors ) are given by law .
They have a very valid point here , some industries were really abusing this , literally forcing staff to become self-employed so they did n't have to pay them sick time or redundancy .
They 'd also only get paid for hours worked , no guaranteed minimum pay , leaving a lot of ( particularly construction ) workers with no income for uncertain periods ( particularly winter ) .The other reason companies were doing it is to avoid employers ' NIC , a " tax on jobs " that the employer pays based on the employee 's wages , roughly 12.8 \ % ) .
Hence the tax man 's interest - and let 's not ignore that rather a lot of the self-employed people were not paying their taxes , and those that were have relatively generous expense rules if they are self-employed compared to those of an employee .
And then there 's the lower tax rate from taking dividends rather than salary or trade income .
So IR35 is significantly an anti- tax-avoidance measure.But , they also did over people who genuinely wanted to be and were better off as self-employed .
For these guys it 's just time to make an appointment with an accountant or lawyer , getting round it is often not very difficult provided you have room to negotiate in your contracts and that , well , the whole thing is n't a blatant sham .
HMRC helpfully tells us things they look for [ hmrc.gov.uk ] in determining employee-status therefore you construct your business and contracts to show the reverse .
Two key things are firstly to ensure that you only need to do what is required - when , how and who actually does it is totally up to you ; even if in practice this is always you , the mere fact that you are allowed to delegate work is what matters .
Secondly , have more than one customer/employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds very similar to the "IR35 [hmrc.gov.uk]" rules we have in the UK (nickname comes from the Inland Revenue press release kicking of the debacle, now codified into statutes).
Enforcement also very similar, they treat the "employer" company's payments to the "employee" as the amount net of tax and then gross it up to get the tax from the company.
The arguments in favour are basically to protect employees by preventing companies from avoiding all the protection/benefits employees (but not contractors) are given by law.
They have a very valid point here, some industries were really abusing this, literally forcing staff to become self-employed so they didn't have to pay them sick time or redundancy.
They'd also only get paid for hours worked, no guaranteed minimum pay, leaving a lot of (particularly construction) workers with no income for uncertain periods (particularly winter).The other reason companies were doing it is to avoid employers' NIC, a "tax on jobs" that the employer pays based on the employee's wages, roughly 12.8\%).
Hence the tax man's interest - and let's not ignore that rather a lot of the self-employed people were not paying their taxes, and those that were have relatively generous expense rules if they are self-employed compared to those of an employee.
And then there's the lower tax rate from taking dividends rather than salary or trade income.
So IR35 is significantly an anti- tax-avoidance measure.But, they also did over people who genuinely wanted to be and were better off as self-employed.
For these guys it's just time to make an appointment with an accountant or lawyer, getting round it is often not very difficult provided you have room to negotiate in your contracts and that, well, the whole thing isn't a blatant sham.
HMRC helpfully tells us things they look for [hmrc.gov.uk] in determining employee-status therefore you construct your business and contracts to show the reverse.
Two key things are firstly to ensure that you only need to do what is required - when, how and who actually does it is totally up to you; even if in practice this is always you, the mere fact that you are allowed to delegate work is what matters.
Secondly, have more than one customer/employer. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219038</id>
	<title>You owe taxes if you are a "non-contractor"</title>
	<author>originalhack</author>
	<datestamp>1266773460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>The issue with this would impact someone who forms his own contracting firm and starts to deduct business expenses like getting from home to the job site, home office costs, etc...  If he is later declared to be an employee, all those deductions get disallowed and he owes the back taxes.   I suspect that, if he incorporated and paid himself mostly by distributions, he also paid his taxes at capital gains rates instead of the wage rates.  That's a privilege restricted to lawyers, doctors, financial consultants, investment fund managers, and corporate officers.<br><br>Now, originally, the law's effect would have been balanced by the way that it kept companies like Microsoft and IBM from just making everyone a contractor to remove benefits, but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man.  It wasn't until a major lawsuit in the late 1990s that companies became sensitive to the idea that if it walks like a duck (employee) and quacks like a duck (employee), then it is a duck (employee) that can sue you for benefits.  After that suit, many companies started brining contractors back on the payroll to avoid later class action claims.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with this would impact someone who forms his own contracting firm and starts to deduct business expenses like getting from home to the job site , home office costs , etc... If he is later declared to be an employee , all those deductions get disallowed and he owes the back taxes .
I suspect that , if he incorporated and paid himself mostly by distributions , he also paid his taxes at capital gains rates instead of the wage rates .
That 's a privilege restricted to lawyers , doctors , financial consultants , investment fund managers , and corporate officers.Now , originally , the law 's effect would have been balanced by the way that it kept companies like Microsoft and IBM from just making everyone a contractor to remove benefits , but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man .
It was n't until a major lawsuit in the late 1990s that companies became sensitive to the idea that if it walks like a duck ( employee ) and quacks like a duck ( employee ) , then it is a duck ( employee ) that can sue you for benefits .
After that suit , many companies started brining contractors back on the payroll to avoid later class action claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with this would impact someone who forms his own contracting firm and starts to deduct business expenses like getting from home to the job site, home office costs, etc...  If he is later declared to be an employee, all those deductions get disallowed and he owes the back taxes.
I suspect that, if he incorporated and paid himself mostly by distributions, he also paid his taxes at capital gains rates instead of the wage rates.
That's a privilege restricted to lawyers, doctors, financial consultants, investment fund managers, and corporate officers.Now, originally, the law's effect would have been balanced by the way that it kept companies like Microsoft and IBM from just making everyone a contractor to remove benefits, but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man.
It wasn't until a major lawsuit in the late 1990s that companies became sensitive to the idea that if it walks like a duck (employee) and quacks like a duck (employee), then it is a duck (employee) that can sue you for benefits.
After that suit, many companies started brining contractors back on the payroll to avoid later class action claims.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222854</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional and Surprised no Challenges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266752520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's blatantly unconstitutional.  It restricts the rights of an individual to participate in commerce for his profit in his profession.</p></div><p>Indeed; yet I assume most people haven't RTAs (understandable, they're long), yet one of the most interesting parts is near the bottom of the old article:</p><p> <i>"''The only reason this hasn't gotten fixed is because the official Joint Tax Committee estimate in the past was that repeal of Section 1706 would cost a billion dollars in tax revenue over five years. "</i> </p><p>In other words, the government has stated quite bluntly that the reason they're happily continue to violate constitutional liberties is that, "well, gee, it's making us shitloads of illicitly-earned cash". So unbelievably blatant that it just accentuates the absurdity of so many people so blindly and dutifully accepting and even defending the ongoing 'daylight robbery' from their own selves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's blatantly unconstitutional .
It restricts the rights of an individual to participate in commerce for his profit in his profession.Indeed ; yet I assume most people have n't RTAs ( understandable , they 're long ) , yet one of the most interesting parts is near the bottom of the old article : " ''The only reason this has n't gotten fixed is because the official Joint Tax Committee estimate in the past was that repeal of Section 1706 would cost a billion dollars in tax revenue over five years .
" In other words , the government has stated quite bluntly that the reason they 're happily continue to violate constitutional liberties is that , " well , gee , it 's making us shitloads of illicitly-earned cash " .
So unbelievably blatant that it just accentuates the absurdity of so many people so blindly and dutifully accepting and even defending the ongoing 'daylight robbery ' from their own selves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's blatantly unconstitutional.
It restricts the rights of an individual to participate in commerce for his profit in his profession.Indeed; yet I assume most people haven't RTAs (understandable, they're long), yet one of the most interesting parts is near the bottom of the old article: "''The only reason this hasn't gotten fixed is because the official Joint Tax Committee estimate in the past was that repeal of Section 1706 would cost a billion dollars in tax revenue over five years.
" In other words, the government has stated quite bluntly that the reason they're happily continue to violate constitutional liberties is that, "well, gee, it's making us shitloads of illicitly-earned cash".
So unbelievably blatant that it just accentuates the absurdity of so many people so blindly and dutifully accepting and even defending the ongoing 'daylight robbery' from their own selves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219048</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1266773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry to say I told you so:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498344&amp;cid=30658998" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498344&amp;cid=30658998</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to say I told you so : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1498344&amp;cid = 30658998 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to say I told you so:
 
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498344&amp;cid=30658998 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220070</id>
	<title>Re:Boo hoo</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266779160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are, and this asshole broke the law. He was a tax cheat plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are , and this asshole broke the law .
He was a tax cheat plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are, and this asshole broke the law.
He was a tax cheat plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932</id>
	<title>Good luck getting it repealed now</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1266772680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.  Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.

</p><p>Way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was part of this nutjob 's manifesto , now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism .
Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way , this law will now have to remain on the books forever .
Way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.
Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
Way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221428</id>
	<title>It's a duck law.</title>
	<author>kungfugleek</author>
	<datestamp>1266743760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's a <i>wabbit</i> law!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's a wabbit law !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's a wabbit law!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222794</id>
	<title>Re:he was mentally ill</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1266752220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dave Cullen has a great analysis of Joe Stack's manifesto at Slate: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2245337/" title="slate.com">Seven Deadly Traits: Decoding the confession of the Austin plane bomber.</a> [slate.com] <br> <br> A choice excerpt: "More comical is Stack's portrait of his own misery. As a fuller, objective emerges, we're likely to see more dramatic chasms between reality and his depictions, but the contradictions are already comical. Stack likens his plight to an elderly woman in the neighborhood living on cat food. He doesn't mention eating it in the cockpit of his private plane. In Stack's version, he lived and died a pauper. In real life, he amassed a series of businesses, a $230,000 home in an affluent community, and the airplane he crashed into the building."
<br> <br>
Here are the traits that Cullen identified and shows in Stack's writing:
<ul> <li>Narcissism/egocentricity</li>
<li>Grandiosity</li>
<li>Martyr/injustice collector</li>
<li>Superiority masking self-loathing (projection)</li>
<li>Isolationist thinking</li>
<li>Construing selfishness as selflessness</li>
<li>Helplessness/hopelessness:</li> </ul><p>
A very insightful and prescient piece.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dave Cullen has a great analysis of Joe Stack 's manifesto at Slate : Seven Deadly Traits : Decoding the confession of the Austin plane bomber .
[ slate.com ] A choice excerpt : " More comical is Stack 's portrait of his own misery .
As a fuller , objective emerges , we 're likely to see more dramatic chasms between reality and his depictions , but the contradictions are already comical .
Stack likens his plight to an elderly woman in the neighborhood living on cat food .
He does n't mention eating it in the cockpit of his private plane .
In Stack 's version , he lived and died a pauper .
In real life , he amassed a series of businesses , a $ 230,000 home in an affluent community , and the airplane he crashed into the building .
" Here are the traits that Cullen identified and shows in Stack 's writing : Narcissism/egocentricity Grandiosity Martyr/injustice collector Superiority masking self-loathing ( projection ) Isolationist thinking Construing selfishness as selflessness Helplessness/hopelessness : A very insightful and prescient piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dave Cullen has a great analysis of Joe Stack's manifesto at Slate: Seven Deadly Traits: Decoding the confession of the Austin plane bomber.
[slate.com]   A choice excerpt: "More comical is Stack's portrait of his own misery.
As a fuller, objective emerges, we're likely to see more dramatic chasms between reality and his depictions, but the contradictions are already comical.
Stack likens his plight to an elderly woman in the neighborhood living on cat food.
He doesn't mention eating it in the cockpit of his private plane.
In Stack's version, he lived and died a pauper.
In real life, he amassed a series of businesses, a $230,000 home in an affluent community, and the airplane he crashed into the building.
"
 
Here are the traits that Cullen identified and shows in Stack's writing:
 Narcissism/egocentricity
Grandiosity
Martyr/injustice collector
Superiority masking self-loathing (projection)
Isolationist thinking
Construing selfishness as selflessness
Helplessness/hopelessness: 
A very insightful and prescient piece.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220358</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266780540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funnily, I could have sworn it was the Democrats whose sole driving engine was the desire to control and reshape through carrot, stick and mindtricks.</p><p>- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'justice'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?<br>- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'freedom'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?<br>- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'fair'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?<br>- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'social'? What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?</p><p>My feeling is that one of the revolting methods the Dems seek to use is to adopt old terms with old connotations, and inject a new meaning into them, so that they can piggyback on the preexisting positive of the word whenever they use it. "We support this fairness tax" says the Dems - "We oppose it" says the Repubs - "Oh, so you oppose fairness." responds the Dems. Cue the cancer of the political system. A bit like creating a Newspeech aka 1984 that makes it impossible to oppose you, because all words contain the meaning you have injected into them.</p><p>This ignores, of course, that \_all words\_ have connotations, which may be friendly to one side or the other. The difference is that the Democrats actively seek to do this to the maximum extent possible, whereas the Republicans really don't.</p><p>And I come from a European nation where 'people who relocate to inside the country' has been rebranded over the last decade following the chain: Aliens -&gt; Foreigners -&gt; Immigrants -&gt; Asylum Seekers -&gt; Refugees -&gt; Pluriculturals, justified by prejudices being attached to the previous terms creating the need for a new one. "Gypsies" were rebranded "The Roma People" last year. Rebranding happens in all major state and private media according to government and press-organisation issued guidelines.</p><p>What is your view on that? I am curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily , I could have sworn it was the Democrats whose sole driving engine was the desire to control and reshape through carrot , stick and mindtricks.- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'justice ' ?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it ? - What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'freedom ' ?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it ? - What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'fair ' ?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it ? - What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'social ' ?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it ? My feeling is that one of the revolting methods the Dems seek to use is to adopt old terms with old connotations , and inject a new meaning into them , so that they can piggyback on the preexisting positive of the word whenever they use it .
" We support this fairness tax " says the Dems - " We oppose it " says the Repubs - " Oh , so you oppose fairness .
" responds the Dems .
Cue the cancer of the political system .
A bit like creating a Newspeech aka 1984 that makes it impossible to oppose you , because all words contain the meaning you have injected into them.This ignores , of course , that \ _all words \ _ have connotations , which may be friendly to one side or the other .
The difference is that the Democrats actively seek to do this to the maximum extent possible , whereas the Republicans really do n't.And I come from a European nation where 'people who relocate to inside the country ' has been rebranded over the last decade following the chain : Aliens - &gt; Foreigners - &gt; Immigrants - &gt; Asylum Seekers - &gt; Refugees - &gt; Pluriculturals , justified by prejudices being attached to the previous terms creating the need for a new one .
" Gypsies " were rebranded " The Roma People " last year .
Rebranding happens in all major state and private media according to government and press-organisation issued guidelines.What is your view on that ?
I am curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily, I could have sworn it was the Democrats whose sole driving engine was the desire to control and reshape through carrot, stick and mindtricks.- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'justice'?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'freedom'?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'fair'?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?- What content does the Democrats seek to ascribe to the term 'social'?
What content does the Republicans seek to ascribe to it?My feeling is that one of the revolting methods the Dems seek to use is to adopt old terms with old connotations, and inject a new meaning into them, so that they can piggyback on the preexisting positive of the word whenever they use it.
"We support this fairness tax" says the Dems - "We oppose it" says the Repubs - "Oh, so you oppose fairness.
" responds the Dems.
Cue the cancer of the political system.
A bit like creating a Newspeech aka 1984 that makes it impossible to oppose you, because all words contain the meaning you have injected into them.This ignores, of course, that \_all words\_ have connotations, which may be friendly to one side or the other.
The difference is that the Democrats actively seek to do this to the maximum extent possible, whereas the Republicans really don't.And I come from a European nation where 'people who relocate to inside the country' has been rebranded over the last decade following the chain: Aliens -&gt; Foreigners -&gt; Immigrants -&gt; Asylum Seekers -&gt; Refugees -&gt; Pluriculturals, justified by prejudices being attached to the previous terms creating the need for a new one.
"Gypsies" were rebranded "The Roma People" last year.
Rebranding happens in all major state and private media according to government and press-organisation issued guidelines.What is your view on that?
I am curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774</id>
	<title>Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I even settle for "I get the gist of it", given that it's tax law we're talking here and the last person understanding that went into an asylum a few moments after he has been illuminated.</p><p>Since that pretty much might apply to me under certain circumstances, what the hell does that mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I even settle for " I get the gist of it " , given that it 's tax law we 're talking here and the last person understanding that went into an asylum a few moments after he has been illuminated.Since that pretty much might apply to me under certain circumstances , what the hell does that mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I even settle for "I get the gist of it", given that it's tax law we're talking here and the last person understanding that went into an asylum a few moments after he has been illuminated.Since that pretty much might apply to me under certain circumstances, what the hell does that mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266772920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are you on?</p><p>All this does is give the employee a false sense of security. The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.</p><p>Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.</p></div><p>Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction.  It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction. There is no law that says you have to let them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you on ? All this does is give the employee a false sense of security .
The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.Um , programmers , or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction .
It 's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are " part of the transaction " , that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction .
There is no law that says you have to let them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you on?All this does is give the employee a false sense of security.
The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction.
It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction.
There is no law that says you have to let them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221668</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>GlassHeart</author>
	<datestamp>1266745320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So was slavery, but you don't hear much support for that these days. Bombings targeting civilians were common in WWII, and defoliant chemicals were used in Vietnam, but not anymore. Things have changed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So was slavery , but you do n't hear much support for that these days .
Bombings targeting civilians were common in WWII , and defoliant chemicals were used in Vietnam , but not anymore .
Things have changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So was slavery, but you don't hear much support for that these days.
Bombings targeting civilians were common in WWII, and defoliant chemicals were used in Vietnam, but not anymore.
Things have changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218876</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266772080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a tax attorney, but I do know a little about the situation. Here's a brief summary:</p><p>There's a lot of concern over how to classify workers as either "employees" or "independent contractors." Each has its own pros and cons, but in general, it's better for a company to consider its workers as contractors from a tax perspective.  Because taxes are radically different based on how an employee is classified, a misclassification that is turned up by the IRS can be very expensive for a company. As such, there is a "safe harbor" which protects companies who have a reasonable basis in considering an employee to be an independent contractor.</p><p>There was a sense this was being abused in the technology industry in the 1980s, and as such, Congress amended the law. The amendment didn't change the classification system of employees versus independent contractors, but did remove the safe harbor. As such, companies became much more reticent to hire a worker as an independent contractor, because the penalty for getting it wrong was much more likely to be assessed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a tax attorney , but I do know a little about the situation .
Here 's a brief summary : There 's a lot of concern over how to classify workers as either " employees " or " independent contractors .
" Each has its own pros and cons , but in general , it 's better for a company to consider its workers as contractors from a tax perspective .
Because taxes are radically different based on how an employee is classified , a misclassification that is turned up by the IRS can be very expensive for a company .
As such , there is a " safe harbor " which protects companies who have a reasonable basis in considering an employee to be an independent contractor.There was a sense this was being abused in the technology industry in the 1980s , and as such , Congress amended the law .
The amendment did n't change the classification system of employees versus independent contractors , but did remove the safe harbor .
As such , companies became much more reticent to hire a worker as an independent contractor , because the penalty for getting it wrong was much more likely to be assessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a tax attorney, but I do know a little about the situation.
Here's a brief summary:There's a lot of concern over how to classify workers as either "employees" or "independent contractors.
" Each has its own pros and cons, but in general, it's better for a company to consider its workers as contractors from a tax perspective.
Because taxes are radically different based on how an employee is classified, a misclassification that is turned up by the IRS can be very expensive for a company.
As such, there is a "safe harbor" which protects companies who have a reasonable basis in considering an employee to be an independent contractor.There was a sense this was being abused in the technology industry in the 1980s, and as such, Congress amended the law.
The amendment didn't change the classification system of employees versus independent contractors, but did remove the safe harbor.
As such, companies became much more reticent to hire a worker as an independent contractor, because the penalty for getting it wrong was much more likely to be assessed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220616</id>
	<title>Re:irrational or rational response?</title>
	<author>RGRistroph</author>
	<datestamp>1266781680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stack's note claims that his problems stem from $12,000 in unreported income that his wife had, and a piano that had been claimed as a business expense or asset that the IRS said was not.  He also mentioned having his retirement reset to 0, but hey, that's about as common as having freckles or wearing glasses.</p><p>This caused him to destroy a house worth $250,000 and a plane that is probably worth $20,000 to $40,000.  The unpaid tax on $12,000 might have been $4,000 at most, maybe doubled with penalties especially given his previous tax problems, and if he had written off a piano he should not have, at most that is another $5,000 in income - I'm presuming he didn't buy a Steinway Grand or something, if so I hope that also wasn't burned in the house.</p><p>His note also failed to mention that his ex-cultist wife had left him the day before.  It is possible based on the manner in which the house burned that he had booby trapped in an attempt to kill her.</p><p>Now, this aspect of the tax code probably is screwed up.  But it's a little like deciding to pass gun legislation in the heated atmosphere following a mass shooting; do we really want people in the mental condition of the last days of Joe Stack to be dictating our tax reform debate ?</p><p>If you cleared your mind of all the emotive pictures and chatter of the last week, and sat down and looked at the tax code and picked something that needed changing, would the treatment of technical contractors really be at the top of the list ?  There's a lot of crap in there, from how deductions are counted for leasing versus purchase to whatever causes all those big corporations to pay no tax year after year.</p><p>Also, if you pick Joe Stack in his final days as your guide in tax law, note that he also complained bitterly about the tax exemptions of churches, particularly the Catholic church.  I don't see the Joe Stack fans arguing for a change in that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stack 's note claims that his problems stem from $ 12,000 in unreported income that his wife had , and a piano that had been claimed as a business expense or asset that the IRS said was not .
He also mentioned having his retirement reset to 0 , but hey , that 's about as common as having freckles or wearing glasses.This caused him to destroy a house worth $ 250,000 and a plane that is probably worth $ 20,000 to $ 40,000 .
The unpaid tax on $ 12,000 might have been $ 4,000 at most , maybe doubled with penalties especially given his previous tax problems , and if he had written off a piano he should not have , at most that is another $ 5,000 in income - I 'm presuming he did n't buy a Steinway Grand or something , if so I hope that also was n't burned in the house.His note also failed to mention that his ex-cultist wife had left him the day before .
It is possible based on the manner in which the house burned that he had booby trapped in an attempt to kill her.Now , this aspect of the tax code probably is screwed up .
But it 's a little like deciding to pass gun legislation in the heated atmosphere following a mass shooting ; do we really want people in the mental condition of the last days of Joe Stack to be dictating our tax reform debate ? If you cleared your mind of all the emotive pictures and chatter of the last week , and sat down and looked at the tax code and picked something that needed changing , would the treatment of technical contractors really be at the top of the list ?
There 's a lot of crap in there , from how deductions are counted for leasing versus purchase to whatever causes all those big corporations to pay no tax year after year.Also , if you pick Joe Stack in his final days as your guide in tax law , note that he also complained bitterly about the tax exemptions of churches , particularly the Catholic church .
I do n't see the Joe Stack fans arguing for a change in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stack's note claims that his problems stem from $12,000 in unreported income that his wife had, and a piano that had been claimed as a business expense or asset that the IRS said was not.
He also mentioned having his retirement reset to 0, but hey, that's about as common as having freckles or wearing glasses.This caused him to destroy a house worth $250,000 and a plane that is probably worth $20,000 to $40,000.
The unpaid tax on $12,000 might have been $4,000 at most, maybe doubled with penalties especially given his previous tax problems, and if he had written off a piano he should not have, at most that is another $5,000 in income - I'm presuming he didn't buy a Steinway Grand or something, if so I hope that also wasn't burned in the house.His note also failed to mention that his ex-cultist wife had left him the day before.
It is possible based on the manner in which the house burned that he had booby trapped in an attempt to kill her.Now, this aspect of the tax code probably is screwed up.
But it's a little like deciding to pass gun legislation in the heated atmosphere following a mass shooting; do we really want people in the mental condition of the last days of Joe Stack to be dictating our tax reform debate ?If you cleared your mind of all the emotive pictures and chatter of the last week, and sat down and looked at the tax code and picked something that needed changing, would the treatment of technical contractors really be at the top of the list ?
There's a lot of crap in there, from how deductions are counted for leasing versus purchase to whatever causes all those big corporations to pay no tax year after year.Also, if you pick Joe Stack in his final days as your guide in tax law, note that he also complained bitterly about the tax exemptions of churches, particularly the Catholic church.
I don't see the Joe Stack fans arguing for a change in that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220432</id>
	<title>Re:irrational or rational response?</title>
	<author>GNT</author>
	<datestamp>1266780900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I vote for a combination of depression and desperation.  He could have simply walked away into the nether regions of Wyoming and fallen off the tax rolls like tens of thousands seem to be doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I vote for a combination of depression and desperation .
He could have simply walked away into the nether regions of Wyoming and fallen off the tax rolls like tens of thousands seem to be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I vote for a combination of depression and desperation.
He could have simply walked away into the nether regions of Wyoming and fallen off the tax rolls like tens of thousands seem to be doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220684</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1266782100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you but I'm getting really tired of other people "protecting" me and treating me like a person who cannot protect nor fend for myself. I enter into relationships of my own choosing - of my own volition. But my government doesn't trust that I can make the right decision for myself and must force me to do what they think is right at the point of a gun. Didn't we used to overthrow such tyrants? Perhaps it's time to do so again!</p><p>If I wish to perform contract work for a client for years and at pretty handsome rate and I must then get my own benefits, to pick and choose those that I want and not get those which I determine I don't want, if I am happy with such a relationship then isn't it I who have voluntarily chosen to engage in such a relationship?!? If the government still wishes to steal my hard earned earnings in the form of taxation and they don't believe I'm paying my "fair share" then that is an issue between my government and me - not an issue between my government and my customers/client. Take me to tax court if you must and I will show you I am complying with your silly rules for membership in the Socialist States of America.</p><p>What happened to the thought that we should limit the abuse of forceful power that the government wields against our lives in the forms of such laws? Unlike the government, private business does not hold a gun to my head to force me to work for them. If they did, then that, and that alone, is the proper place for government to step in and protect my rights which are being violated <b>against my will in a non-voluntary fashion</b>. Now government implements this abuse of power indirectly by forcing private business to comply with legislation designed to protect me, even against my protestations to the contrary.</p><p>We see this in spades by private businesses asking all of these security questions that provide no real security, and collecting even more personal information, thus making identity theft even more likely, all in the name of 9/11 and the Patriot Act and "for my protection" as they say. But what if I don't want such protection or if I feel such protection is actually counter-intuitive or that it provide less security because now the identity thieves have a much more convenient target - your cell phone company's computer systems (and don't tell me you haven't heard of such theft of that information).</p><p>Lord please stop my government from forcing me to protect myself from that which I've voluntarily decided I do not wish to be protected from? IOW if you need me to sign a release I will gladly do it but stop forcing me to live my life as <b>you</b> see fit! It used to be that such an ideal was esteemed in this country but not it seems to be reviled! Why?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you but I 'm getting really tired of other people " protecting " me and treating me like a person who can not protect nor fend for myself .
I enter into relationships of my own choosing - of my own volition .
But my government does n't trust that I can make the right decision for myself and must force me to do what they think is right at the point of a gun .
Did n't we used to overthrow such tyrants ?
Perhaps it 's time to do so again ! If I wish to perform contract work for a client for years and at pretty handsome rate and I must then get my own benefits , to pick and choose those that I want and not get those which I determine I do n't want , if I am happy with such a relationship then is n't it I who have voluntarily chosen to engage in such a relationship ? ! ?
If the government still wishes to steal my hard earned earnings in the form of taxation and they do n't believe I 'm paying my " fair share " then that is an issue between my government and me - not an issue between my government and my customers/client .
Take me to tax court if you must and I will show you I am complying with your silly rules for membership in the Socialist States of America.What happened to the thought that we should limit the abuse of forceful power that the government wields against our lives in the forms of such laws ?
Unlike the government , private business does not hold a gun to my head to force me to work for them .
If they did , then that , and that alone , is the proper place for government to step in and protect my rights which are being violated against my will in a non-voluntary fashion .
Now government implements this abuse of power indirectly by forcing private business to comply with legislation designed to protect me , even against my protestations to the contrary.We see this in spades by private businesses asking all of these security questions that provide no real security , and collecting even more personal information , thus making identity theft even more likely , all in the name of 9/11 and the Patriot Act and " for my protection " as they say .
But what if I do n't want such protection or if I feel such protection is actually counter-intuitive or that it provide less security because now the identity thieves have a much more convenient target - your cell phone company 's computer systems ( and do n't tell me you have n't heard of such theft of that information ) .Lord please stop my government from forcing me to protect myself from that which I 've voluntarily decided I do not wish to be protected from ?
IOW if you need me to sign a release I will gladly do it but stop forcing me to live my life as you see fit !
It used to be that such an ideal was esteemed in this country but not it seems to be reviled !
Why ? ! ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you but I'm getting really tired of other people "protecting" me and treating me like a person who cannot protect nor fend for myself.
I enter into relationships of my own choosing - of my own volition.
But my government doesn't trust that I can make the right decision for myself and must force me to do what they think is right at the point of a gun.
Didn't we used to overthrow such tyrants?
Perhaps it's time to do so again!If I wish to perform contract work for a client for years and at pretty handsome rate and I must then get my own benefits, to pick and choose those that I want and not get those which I determine I don't want, if I am happy with such a relationship then isn't it I who have voluntarily chosen to engage in such a relationship?!?
If the government still wishes to steal my hard earned earnings in the form of taxation and they don't believe I'm paying my "fair share" then that is an issue between my government and me - not an issue between my government and my customers/client.
Take me to tax court if you must and I will show you I am complying with your silly rules for membership in the Socialist States of America.What happened to the thought that we should limit the abuse of forceful power that the government wields against our lives in the forms of such laws?
Unlike the government, private business does not hold a gun to my head to force me to work for them.
If they did, then that, and that alone, is the proper place for government to step in and protect my rights which are being violated against my will in a non-voluntary fashion.
Now government implements this abuse of power indirectly by forcing private business to comply with legislation designed to protect me, even against my protestations to the contrary.We see this in spades by private businesses asking all of these security questions that provide no real security, and collecting even more personal information, thus making identity theft even more likely, all in the name of 9/11 and the Patriot Act and "for my protection" as they say.
But what if I don't want such protection or if I feel such protection is actually counter-intuitive or that it provide less security because now the identity thieves have a much more convenient target - your cell phone company's computer systems (and don't tell me you haven't heard of such theft of that information).Lord please stop my government from forcing me to protect myself from that which I've voluntarily decided I do not wish to be protected from?
IOW if you need me to sign a release I will gladly do it but stop forcing me to live my life as you see fit!
It used to be that such an ideal was esteemed in this country but not it seems to be reviled!
Why?!?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218780</id>
	<title>Yo dawg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pretty much see the whole of America, and the whole of Europe as giant cattle pens, full of cows ready for milking<br>The loopholes all you to "project" your services into these countries, but not have to worry about the details of high tax regimes. High tax is for cattle.</p><p>Doesn't work with physical objects that have to pass though customs though, and it looks like the man is about to clamp down on the so called "amazon tax".<br>No tax freelance/consultancy work FTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pretty much see the whole of America , and the whole of Europe as giant cattle pens , full of cows ready for milkingThe loopholes all you to " project " your services into these countries , but not have to worry about the details of high tax regimes .
High tax is for cattle.Does n't work with physical objects that have to pass though customs though , and it looks like the man is about to clamp down on the so called " amazon tax " .No tax freelance/consultancy work FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pretty much see the whole of America, and the whole of Europe as giant cattle pens, full of cows ready for milkingThe loopholes all you to "project" your services into these countries, but not have to worry about the details of high tax regimes.
High tax is for cattle.Doesn't work with physical objects that have to pass though customs though, and it looks like the man is about to clamp down on the so called "amazon tax".No tax freelance/consultancy work FTW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222998</id>
	<title>Re:irrational or rational response?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1266753420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that we should look at this man's thoughts and actions with an open mind. I read his website and his manifesto the day this happened. I came away with the sense of a guy who felt special, entitled and an out-sized sense of his own importance to the world.

<br> <br>I pretty much concur with <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2245337/" title="slate.com">Dave Cullen's analysis at Slate</a> [slate.com]. He was a guy who chafed at having to pay taxes, though he was God's gift to programming, and blew himself up, thinking society's loss of Him would start a revolution, when he began to see that neither of his grandiose fantasies of self-worth were true.
<br> <br>
He burned his wife and kids out of a home. How does that action help anybody or make the world fairer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that we should look at this man 's thoughts and actions with an open mind .
I read his website and his manifesto the day this happened .
I came away with the sense of a guy who felt special , entitled and an out-sized sense of his own importance to the world .
I pretty much concur with Dave Cullen 's analysis at Slate [ slate.com ] .
He was a guy who chafed at having to pay taxes , though he was God 's gift to programming , and blew himself up , thinking society 's loss of Him would start a revolution , when he began to see that neither of his grandiose fantasies of self-worth were true .
He burned his wife and kids out of a home .
How does that action help anybody or make the world fairer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that we should look at this man's thoughts and actions with an open mind.
I read his website and his manifesto the day this happened.
I came away with the sense of a guy who felt special, entitled and an out-sized sense of his own importance to the world.
I pretty much concur with Dave Cullen's analysis at Slate [slate.com].
He was a guy who chafed at having to pay taxes, though he was God's gift to programming, and blew himself up, thinking society's loss of Him would start a revolution, when he began to see that neither of his grandiose fantasies of self-worth were true.
He burned his wife and kids out of a home.
How does that action help anybody or make the world fairer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220726</id>
	<title>What big government?</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1266782280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its going to get worse unless we can curb the corporate takeover. Its hardly our government anymore - and resembles more of a trade group.</p><p>What big government?  The corporations almost run the government; soon they will become the government--- well not completely because that would be too obvious and people would revolt--  its a charade to fool the gullible as is the left/right false dichotomy -- they really need to make a few more viable political parties because its just too obvious for many of us.  Anyhow- if they get full WORKING control over it-- is it really our government?  is it actually government or some enforcer cartel? Its not a legitimate democracy at that point but just another means of control. A Corporate Theocracy?  A Corporate Plutocracy?</p><p>Much of the bailout was payed back. just saying.  the fact they got fractional lending (10x or higher) on that money which means they could have given it back immediately is a bigger mess...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its going to get worse unless we can curb the corporate takeover .
Its hardly our government anymore - and resembles more of a trade group.What big government ?
The corporations almost run the government ; soon they will become the government--- well not completely because that would be too obvious and people would revolt-- its a charade to fool the gullible as is the left/right false dichotomy -- they really need to make a few more viable political parties because its just too obvious for many of us .
Anyhow- if they get full WORKING control over it-- is it really our government ?
is it actually government or some enforcer cartel ?
Its not a legitimate democracy at that point but just another means of control .
A Corporate Theocracy ?
A Corporate Plutocracy ? Much of the bailout was payed back .
just saying .
the fact they got fractional lending ( 10x or higher ) on that money which means they could have given it back immediately is a bigger mess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its going to get worse unless we can curb the corporate takeover.
Its hardly our government anymore - and resembles more of a trade group.What big government?
The corporations almost run the government; soon they will become the government--- well not completely because that would be too obvious and people would revolt--  its a charade to fool the gullible as is the left/right false dichotomy -- they really need to make a few more viable political parties because its just too obvious for many of us.
Anyhow- if they get full WORKING control over it-- is it really our government?
is it actually government or some enforcer cartel?
Its not a legitimate democracy at that point but just another means of control.
A Corporate Theocracy?
A Corporate Plutocracy?Much of the bailout was payed back.
just saying.
the fact they got fractional lending (10x or higher) on that money which means they could have given it back immediately is a bigger mess...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219052</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266773580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are only so many people that have the ironic composition of despair about their financial futures, thousands of dollars to spend attempting to fight tax classification that isn't that onerous and a private plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are only so many people that have the ironic composition of despair about their financial futures , thousands of dollars to spend attempting to fight tax classification that is n't that onerous and a private plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are only so many people that have the ironic composition of despair about their financial futures, thousands of dollars to spend attempting to fight tax classification that isn't that onerous and a private plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219254</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>freeweed</author>
	<datestamp>1266775080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet Stack didn't even have his water bottle confiscated at security. No wonder he was able to crash a plane!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet Stack did n't even have his water bottle confiscated at security .
No wonder he was able to crash a plane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet Stack didn't even have his water bottle confiscated at security.
No wonder he was able to crash a plane!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220306</id>
	<title>The tax code is really a minor problem though</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1266780300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would point you to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556" title="amazon.com">Three Felonies a Day</a> [amazon.com] by Harvey Silverglate.</p><p>Silverglate should have a great deal of appeal here.  He was deeply involved in the ACLU, was a founding member of FIRE, and was the first litigation counsel for the EFF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would point you to Three Felonies a Day [ amazon.com ] by Harvey Silverglate.Silverglate should have a great deal of appeal here .
He was deeply involved in the ACLU , was a founding member of FIRE , and was the first litigation counsel for the EFF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would point you to Three Felonies a Day [amazon.com] by Harvey Silverglate.Silverglate should have a great deal of appeal here.
He was deeply involved in the ACLU, was a founding member of FIRE, and was the first litigation counsel for the EFF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219756</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1266777480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some times falling into harder times causes the crazies to do stupid things.  And it's not about absolute wealth or income, but changes in wealth or income, because this guy did manage to own an airplane.  Airplanes aren't terrifically expensive, I think people might be surprised how inexpensive one can be in good shape, but they do cost money to operate and maintain.  But even wealthy people like popular movie actors or corporate officers go crazy.  I think it's partly stress, partly an underlying emotional imbalance that didn't manifest itself so strongly before.</p><p>Niall Ferguson did an interesting TV mini-series and book on how a previous age of globalization and its collapse in the late 19th, early 20th century initiated conditions that precipitated into WWI, the aftermath precipitated into WWII.  That pattern was why the Marshall Plan was so important.  Mid-east terrorism might not be so common if unemployment and poverty wasn't so high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some times falling into harder times causes the crazies to do stupid things .
And it 's not about absolute wealth or income , but changes in wealth or income , because this guy did manage to own an airplane .
Airplanes are n't terrifically expensive , I think people might be surprised how inexpensive one can be in good shape , but they do cost money to operate and maintain .
But even wealthy people like popular movie actors or corporate officers go crazy .
I think it 's partly stress , partly an underlying emotional imbalance that did n't manifest itself so strongly before.Niall Ferguson did an interesting TV mini-series and book on how a previous age of globalization and its collapse in the late 19th , early 20th century initiated conditions that precipitated into WWI , the aftermath precipitated into WWII .
That pattern was why the Marshall Plan was so important .
Mid-east terrorism might not be so common if unemployment and poverty was n't so high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some times falling into harder times causes the crazies to do stupid things.
And it's not about absolute wealth or income, but changes in wealth or income, because this guy did manage to own an airplane.
Airplanes aren't terrifically expensive, I think people might be surprised how inexpensive one can be in good shape, but they do cost money to operate and maintain.
But even wealthy people like popular movie actors or corporate officers go crazy.
I think it's partly stress, partly an underlying emotional imbalance that didn't manifest itself so strongly before.Niall Ferguson did an interesting TV mini-series and book on how a previous age of globalization and its collapse in the late 19th, early 20th century initiated conditions that precipitated into WWI, the aftermath precipitated into WWII.
That pattern was why the Marshall Plan was so important.
Mid-east terrorism might not be so common if unemployment and poverty wasn't so high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31242466</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck getting it repealed now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266924120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this needs to happen repeatedly. Blood of tyrants. Tree of liberty. Look it up, fucktard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this needs to happen repeatedly .
Blood of tyrants .
Tree of liberty .
Look it up , fucktard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this needs to happen repeatedly.
Blood of tyrants.
Tree of liberty.
Look it up, fucktard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219660</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266777120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist."</p><p>Hey, douchebag - terrorism is our birthright. Our country was pretty much formed from terrorism (refusal to follow wartime protocol, guerrilla tactics) and battle.</p><p>The government fails to understand this and it looks like the people are truly going to need another violent revolution to force the government to truly work for us again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist .
" Hey , douchebag - terrorism is our birthright .
Our country was pretty much formed from terrorism ( refusal to follow wartime protocol , guerrilla tactics ) and battle.The government fails to understand this and it looks like the people are truly going to need another violent revolution to force the government to truly work for us again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.
"Hey, douchebag - terrorism is our birthright.
Our country was pretty much formed from terrorism (refusal to follow wartime protocol, guerrilla tactics) and battle.The government fails to understand this and it looks like the people are truly going to need another violent revolution to force the government to truly work for us again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225514</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266770940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great explanation. I get it. But why single out technology workers? So maybe tech workers were abusing things, but slamming the door on them and leaving it open to other type of workers doesn't seem right either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great explanation .
I get it .
But why single out technology workers ?
So maybe tech workers were abusing things , but slamming the door on them and leaving it open to other type of workers does n't seem right either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great explanation.
I get it.
But why single out technology workers?
So maybe tech workers were abusing things, but slamming the door on them and leaving it open to other type of workers doesn't seem right either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219698</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional and Surprised no Challenges</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1266777300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For as smart as we programmers are, why has no independent contractor sued and taken this law up to the supreme court.  It's blatantly unconstitutional.  It restricts the rights of an individual to participate in commerce for his profit in his profession.  It's completely discriminatory based on profession as well.</p><p>Independent contractors are no different from contracted doctors working for a hospital.  This should be challenged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For as smart as we programmers are , why has no independent contractor sued and taken this law up to the supreme court .
It 's blatantly unconstitutional .
It restricts the rights of an individual to participate in commerce for his profit in his profession .
It 's completely discriminatory based on profession as well.Independent contractors are no different from contracted doctors working for a hospital .
This should be challenged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For as smart as we programmers are, why has no independent contractor sued and taken this law up to the supreme court.
It's blatantly unconstitutional.
It restricts the rights of an individual to participate in commerce for his profit in his profession.
It's completely discriminatory based on profession as well.Independent contractors are no different from contracted doctors working for a hospital.
This should be challenged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223440</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266756120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile, all FedEx delivery drivers are forced to be "independent contractors" when they clearly should be employees like at UPS.</p><p><a href="http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com/" title="fedexdriverslawsuit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com/</a> [fedexdriverslawsuit.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , all FedEx delivery drivers are forced to be " independent contractors " when they clearly should be employees like at UPS.http : //www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com/ [ fedexdriverslawsuit.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, all FedEx delivery drivers are forced to be "independent contractors" when they clearly should be employees like at UPS.http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com/ [fedexdriverslawsuit.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221680</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1266745380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're self-employed, you're able to deduct your insurance premiums on your tax return (thereby making them pre-tax income).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're self-employed , you 're able to deduct your insurance premiums on your tax return ( thereby making them pre-tax income ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're self-employed, you're able to deduct your insurance premiums on your tax return (thereby making them pre-tax income).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219364</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1266775740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gross receipts tax. It's like a VAT, but on everything you receive. No deductions, no exemptions, no exclusions. Applies to everyone with a tax ID (i.e. persons and corporations).  Double taxation for small businesses? Yup - you get the protection of the government via corporate veil, you pay the extra. (disclaimer - I own an S corp - I would be double taxed)</p><p>Then it doesn't matter what is deductable. It doesn't matter how you make it or where it comes from - gifts, cap gains, interest, wages, inheritance. It favors local production (fewer middlemen). It's easy to administer. Everybody pays something.</p><p>It does not, however, allow for social tinkering via the tax code, so it will never be adopted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gross receipts tax .
It 's like a VAT , but on everything you receive .
No deductions , no exemptions , no exclusions .
Applies to everyone with a tax ID ( i.e .
persons and corporations ) .
Double taxation for small businesses ?
Yup - you get the protection of the government via corporate veil , you pay the extra .
( disclaimer - I own an S corp - I would be double taxed ) Then it does n't matter what is deductable .
It does n't matter how you make it or where it comes from - gifts , cap gains , interest , wages , inheritance .
It favors local production ( fewer middlemen ) .
It 's easy to administer .
Everybody pays something.It does not , however , allow for social tinkering via the tax code , so it will never be adopted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gross receipts tax.
It's like a VAT, but on everything you receive.
No deductions, no exemptions, no exclusions.
Applies to everyone with a tax ID (i.e.
persons and corporations).
Double taxation for small businesses?
Yup - you get the protection of the government via corporate veil, you pay the extra.
(disclaimer - I own an S corp - I would be double taxed)Then it doesn't matter what is deductable.
It doesn't matter how you make it or where it comes from - gifts, cap gains, interest, wages, inheritance.
It favors local production (fewer middlemen).
It's easy to administer.
Everybody pays something.It does not, however, allow for social tinkering via the tax code, so it will never be adopted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31232680</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly what's fundamentally wrong about the "American system" of health care, where you are normally insured by an employer's benefits package, i.e. group insurance.</p><p>I know not everything is great in Europe either, but take the German system for example. Everyone (who is not self employed) is \_required\_ to be insured by one of the insurance companies. There is not even an option for companies to not pay for health care. That also means that the insured group is big enough such that it doesn't matter if you have pre-existing conditions. That is obviously only true, if the insurance company has enough customers in total, but the whole system pretty much makes sure of that.</p><p>Basically, that insures that nobody can get bankrupted just because they get hit by a car or something like that. Of course this is a generalisation, because you \_can\_ get private insurance, if you earn enough or are self-employed and those private insurance policies have the same problems that plague the US system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what 's fundamentally wrong about the " American system " of health care , where you are normally insured by an employer 's benefits package , i.e .
group insurance.I know not everything is great in Europe either , but take the German system for example .
Everyone ( who is not self employed ) is \ _required \ _ to be insured by one of the insurance companies .
There is not even an option for companies to not pay for health care .
That also means that the insured group is big enough such that it does n't matter if you have pre-existing conditions .
That is obviously only true , if the insurance company has enough customers in total , but the whole system pretty much makes sure of that.Basically , that insures that nobody can get bankrupted just because they get hit by a car or something like that .
Of course this is a generalisation , because you \ _can \ _ get private insurance , if you earn enough or are self-employed and those private insurance policies have the same problems that plague the US system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what's fundamentally wrong about the "American system" of health care, where you are normally insured by an employer's benefits package, i.e.
group insurance.I know not everything is great in Europe either, but take the German system for example.
Everyone (who is not self employed) is \_required\_ to be insured by one of the insurance companies.
There is not even an option for companies to not pay for health care.
That also means that the insured group is big enough such that it doesn't matter if you have pre-existing conditions.
That is obviously only true, if the insurance company has enough customers in total, but the whole system pretty much makes sure of that.Basically, that insures that nobody can get bankrupted just because they get hit by a car or something like that.
Of course this is a generalisation, because you \_can\_ get private insurance, if you earn enough or are self-employed and those private insurance policies have the same problems that plague the US system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218742</id>
	<title>Was it a cause of his legal trouble?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266770880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article, but can't figure out how it got him into legal trouble?  It sounds like the law makes it less beneficial to be an independent contractor but doesn't explain how it could get Stack into $10,000 of legal fees.</p><p>Or, was this just one of a litany of complaints?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article , but ca n't figure out how it got him into legal trouble ?
It sounds like the law makes it less beneficial to be an independent contractor but does n't explain how it could get Stack into $ 10,000 of legal fees.Or , was this just one of a litany of complaints ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article, but can't figure out how it got him into legal trouble?
It sounds like the law makes it less beneficial to be an independent contractor but doesn't explain how it could get Stack into $10,000 of legal fees.Or, was this just one of a litany of complaints?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31239670</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266851160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fundamentalist libertarian?"</p><p>Damn.  I never thought I'd see those two descriptors together!  What a hoot!</p><p>Really, though, have you not read his "manifesto" on the web?  Sorry to disappoint you but this guy is a standard-issue liberal Democrat.  Go do some reading on the notes he left behind, and we might hear a lot of excuse-making by the liberals because this guy definitely shared THEIR views.</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fundamentalist libertarian ? " Damn .
I never thought I 'd see those two descriptors together !
What a hoot ! Really , though , have you not read his " manifesto " on the web ?
Sorry to disappoint you but this guy is a standard-issue liberal Democrat .
Go do some reading on the notes he left behind , and we might hear a lot of excuse-making by the liberals because this guy definitely shared THEIR views.Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fundamentalist libertarian?"Damn.
I never thought I'd see those two descriptors together!
What a hoot!Really, though, have you not read his "manifesto" on the web?
Sorry to disappoint you but this guy is a standard-issue liberal Democrat.
Go do some reading on the notes he left behind, and we might hear a lot of excuse-making by the liberals because this guy definitely shared THEIR views.Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219102</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not making up excuses for anybody; what this guy did was simply inexcusable.  However, it can be useful to understand his situation and reasons for the attack (even if they are misguided).  As an example, we're waging a war in the middle east right now that is going to solve absolutely nothing because we are attacking the symptom instead of the cause.  Maybe the tax system can be fixed so people don't feel as helpless as this guy apparently did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not making up excuses for anybody ; what this guy did was simply inexcusable .
However , it can be useful to understand his situation and reasons for the attack ( even if they are misguided ) .
As an example , we 're waging a war in the middle east right now that is going to solve absolutely nothing because we are attacking the symptom instead of the cause .
Maybe the tax system can be fixed so people do n't feel as helpless as this guy apparently did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not making up excuses for anybody; what this guy did was simply inexcusable.
However, it can be useful to understand his situation and reasons for the attack (even if they are misguided).
As an example, we're waging a war in the middle east right now that is going to solve absolutely nothing because we are attacking the symptom instead of the cause.
Maybe the tax system can be fixed so people don't feel as helpless as this guy apparently did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222470</id>
	<title>Re:You owe taxes if you are a "non-contractor"</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1266750300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man."<br>Could you give some pointers on that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man .
" Could you give some pointers on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man.
"Could you give some pointers on that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296</id>
	<title>irrational or rational response?</title>
	<author>Alan R Light</author>
	<datestamp>1266775380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was traveling through airports when I happened to see this story on the news, so I haven't caught up on all the details, but one thing disturbed me:  the lying heads went on and on about how mentally disturbed this man must have been, and how could we identify such mentally disturbed people in the future, but never once did they ponder whether this was a rational response to an untenable situation.  Never once did they question the role of a convoluted, maddening, and probably illegal tax code.

</p><p>It is difficult living in a country where there is little rule of law because the multitude and complexity of laws makes virtually everyone eligible for a felony conviction at the arbitrary whim of unaccountable government officials.  If Mr Stack had run into such persecution his response may well have been the only rational one.  What other avenues were open to him to escape from the situation?  Good riot police know that they should never cut off an angry crowd's escape routes, as they will have no choice but to fight, and most of us have heard of the dangers of a cornered animal, but what opportunities did Mr Stack have to avoid what he (probably accurately) described as a kind of slavery?

</p><p>In short, if Mr Stack had no viable alternatives, or if he was feeling especially patriotic, this response may not have been irrational.  If all his friends and colleagues never suspected that he was insane, it may be because he wasn't.  The fact that his suicide note was angry and used profanity does not necessarily mean that Mr Stack was mentally unbalanced - it may simply mean that he had good cause to be angry.  If someone tried to enslave you, would you be angry?  Would you say some naughty words?  If so, does that mean that you are wrong or mentally ill to object to being enslaved, or does it mean that the bastard who is trying to enslave you is wrong?

</p><p>The fact is, all Americans have become or are becoming the slaves of the United States government, which in turn has become the instrument by which those who take more than they give (at present 60\% of Americans) have harnessed the productive classes for their own benefit.  This is the tyranny of the majority, and it looks like it will only increase in the future.  Talking to people overseas, I have met many who envy American wealth but none who envy American "freedom".

</p><p>The fact that the lying heads on the News never addressed this question concerns me.  The American media is no longer interested in discovering the truth, they merely do the bidding of their employers - and with the U.S. government being the largest advertiser, guess who their employers are?  It may well be that Mr Stack really WAS crazy, but we will never learn the truth from the media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was traveling through airports when I happened to see this story on the news , so I have n't caught up on all the details , but one thing disturbed me : the lying heads went on and on about how mentally disturbed this man must have been , and how could we identify such mentally disturbed people in the future , but never once did they ponder whether this was a rational response to an untenable situation .
Never once did they question the role of a convoluted , maddening , and probably illegal tax code .
It is difficult living in a country where there is little rule of law because the multitude and complexity of laws makes virtually everyone eligible for a felony conviction at the arbitrary whim of unaccountable government officials .
If Mr Stack had run into such persecution his response may well have been the only rational one .
What other avenues were open to him to escape from the situation ?
Good riot police know that they should never cut off an angry crowd 's escape routes , as they will have no choice but to fight , and most of us have heard of the dangers of a cornered animal , but what opportunities did Mr Stack have to avoid what he ( probably accurately ) described as a kind of slavery ?
In short , if Mr Stack had no viable alternatives , or if he was feeling especially patriotic , this response may not have been irrational .
If all his friends and colleagues never suspected that he was insane , it may be because he was n't .
The fact that his suicide note was angry and used profanity does not necessarily mean that Mr Stack was mentally unbalanced - it may simply mean that he had good cause to be angry .
If someone tried to enslave you , would you be angry ?
Would you say some naughty words ?
If so , does that mean that you are wrong or mentally ill to object to being enslaved , or does it mean that the bastard who is trying to enslave you is wrong ?
The fact is , all Americans have become or are becoming the slaves of the United States government , which in turn has become the instrument by which those who take more than they give ( at present 60 \ % of Americans ) have harnessed the productive classes for their own benefit .
This is the tyranny of the majority , and it looks like it will only increase in the future .
Talking to people overseas , I have met many who envy American wealth but none who envy American " freedom " .
The fact that the lying heads on the News never addressed this question concerns me .
The American media is no longer interested in discovering the truth , they merely do the bidding of their employers - and with the U.S. government being the largest advertiser , guess who their employers are ?
It may well be that Mr Stack really WAS crazy , but we will never learn the truth from the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was traveling through airports when I happened to see this story on the news, so I haven't caught up on all the details, but one thing disturbed me:  the lying heads went on and on about how mentally disturbed this man must have been, and how could we identify such mentally disturbed people in the future, but never once did they ponder whether this was a rational response to an untenable situation.
Never once did they question the role of a convoluted, maddening, and probably illegal tax code.
It is difficult living in a country where there is little rule of law because the multitude and complexity of laws makes virtually everyone eligible for a felony conviction at the arbitrary whim of unaccountable government officials.
If Mr Stack had run into such persecution his response may well have been the only rational one.
What other avenues were open to him to escape from the situation?
Good riot police know that they should never cut off an angry crowd's escape routes, as they will have no choice but to fight, and most of us have heard of the dangers of a cornered animal, but what opportunities did Mr Stack have to avoid what he (probably accurately) described as a kind of slavery?
In short, if Mr Stack had no viable alternatives, or if he was feeling especially patriotic, this response may not have been irrational.
If all his friends and colleagues never suspected that he was insane, it may be because he wasn't.
The fact that his suicide note was angry and used profanity does not necessarily mean that Mr Stack was mentally unbalanced - it may simply mean that he had good cause to be angry.
If someone tried to enslave you, would you be angry?
Would you say some naughty words?
If so, does that mean that you are wrong or mentally ill to object to being enslaved, or does it mean that the bastard who is trying to enslave you is wrong?
The fact is, all Americans have become or are becoming the slaves of the United States government, which in turn has become the instrument by which those who take more than they give (at present 60\% of Americans) have harnessed the productive classes for their own benefit.
This is the tyranny of the majority, and it looks like it will only increase in the future.
Talking to people overseas, I have met many who envy American wealth but none who envy American "freedom".
The fact that the lying heads on the News never addressed this question concerns me.
The American media is no longer interested in discovering the truth, they merely do the bidding of their employers - and with the U.S. government being the largest advertiser, guess who their employers are?
It may well be that Mr Stack really WAS crazy, but we will never learn the truth from the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221918</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1266747120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction. It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction. There is no law that says you have to let them.</p></div><p>It's also a tax deduction if the employer does it but much more difficult to claim as a deduction if you do it on an individual basis.<br>That was actually one of the best things about McCain - he wanted to kill the tax deduction for health insurance so that the incentive for the corps to get involved in something they really have no business doing would go away - thus opening the market up for much better competition for individual policies.<br>Of course most people - especially regular W2 employees - have never really thought through how the current tax laws really skew the market for health insurance and so McCain's proposal was roundly booed off the stage by the ignorant (and the insurance corps who have an interest in keeping things the way they are).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , programmers , or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction .
It 's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are " part of the transaction " , that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction .
There is no law that says you have to let them.It 's also a tax deduction if the employer does it but much more difficult to claim as a deduction if you do it on an individual basis.That was actually one of the best things about McCain - he wanted to kill the tax deduction for health insurance so that the incentive for the corps to get involved in something they really have no business doing would go away - thus opening the market up for much better competition for individual policies.Of course most people - especially regular W2 employees - have never really thought through how the current tax laws really skew the market for health insurance and so McCain 's proposal was roundly booed off the stage by the ignorant ( and the insurance corps who have an interest in keeping things the way they are ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction.
It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction.
There is no law that says you have to let them.It's also a tax deduction if the employer does it but much more difficult to claim as a deduction if you do it on an individual basis.That was actually one of the best things about McCain - he wanted to kill the tax deduction for health insurance so that the incentive for the corps to get involved in something they really have no business doing would go away - thus opening the market up for much better competition for individual policies.Of course most people - especially regular W2 employees - have never really thought through how the current tax laws really skew the market for health insurance and so McCain's proposal was roundly booed off the stage by the ignorant (and the insurance corps who have an interest in keeping things the way they are).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223220</id>
	<title>Author writing off billed hours?</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1266754740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA seems pretty clearly to be an attempt by the author, Mr. Shulman, to write off a pre-existing brief (probably billed at his own rate though actually written by a clerk) as an "expense incurred in the writing of an original work for publication."</p><p>Nice of the NYT to give him the opportunity to shaft the IRS and all other US taxpayers in this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA seems pretty clearly to be an attempt by the author , Mr. Shulman , to write off a pre-existing brief ( probably billed at his own rate though actually written by a clerk ) as an " expense incurred in the writing of an original work for publication .
" Nice of the NYT to give him the opportunity to shaft the IRS and all other US taxpayers in this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA seems pretty clearly to be an attempt by the author, Mr. Shulman, to write off a pre-existing brief (probably billed at his own rate though actually written by a clerk) as an "expense incurred in the writing of an original work for publication.
"Nice of the NYT to give him the opportunity to shaft the IRS and all other US taxpayers in this way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225028</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>dragonturtle69</author>
	<datestamp>1266767700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The curious bit is that without his act of terroism, no one would be talking about this bit of foolish tax code.
</p><p>
No, it was not the correct thing to do, but it certainly got us talking.  I did not even realize that this problem existed for the coding self-employed, and makes me rethink my next career.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The curious bit is that without his act of terroism , no one would be talking about this bit of foolish tax code .
No , it was not the correct thing to do , but it certainly got us talking .
I did not even realize that this problem existed for the coding self-employed , and makes me rethink my next career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The curious bit is that without his act of terroism, no one would be talking about this bit of foolish tax code.
No, it was not the correct thing to do, but it certainly got us talking.
I did not even realize that this problem existed for the coding self-employed, and makes me rethink my next career.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219700</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266777300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No this was not terrorism, here is why.</p><p>It was a lone act by one person and there is no expectation of repeated acts by his group or him. Terrorism implies pushing a goal for a group through repeated violent actions....hence the terror part. If he were to say blow up that building and then send in a letter saying he will continue this until he gets what he wants then yeah that would be terrorism. Repeated acts of violence to push an agenda is terrorism. A lone act by one person that can not or will never commit the act again, is not. He wanted to make a point, not terrorize people to convert or change laws. He made his point and it was a stupid dumb ass way to do it but he did. I just have an issue with people comparing real terrorists to some of our native born idiots. There is a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No this was not terrorism , here is why.It was a lone act by one person and there is no expectation of repeated acts by his group or him .
Terrorism implies pushing a goal for a group through repeated violent actions....hence the terror part .
If he were to say blow up that building and then send in a letter saying he will continue this until he gets what he wants then yeah that would be terrorism .
Repeated acts of violence to push an agenda is terrorism .
A lone act by one person that can not or will never commit the act again , is not .
He wanted to make a point , not terrorize people to convert or change laws .
He made his point and it was a stupid dumb ass way to do it but he did .
I just have an issue with people comparing real terrorists to some of our native born idiots .
There is a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No this was not terrorism, here is why.It was a lone act by one person and there is no expectation of repeated acts by his group or him.
Terrorism implies pushing a goal for a group through repeated violent actions....hence the terror part.
If he were to say blow up that building and then send in a letter saying he will continue this until he gets what he wants then yeah that would be terrorism.
Repeated acts of violence to push an agenda is terrorism.
A lone act by one person that can not or will never commit the act again, is not.
He wanted to make a point, not terrorize people to convert or change laws.
He made his point and it was a stupid dumb ass way to do it but he did.
I just have an issue with people comparing real terrorists to some of our native born idiots.
There is a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218852</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266771960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: <i>In an earlier interview, Tom Burger, the director of employment taxes for the I.R.S., said one of the agency's difficulties ''is that, and I need to pick my words carefully, Congress passes laws, often without asking us about them, and then tells us to enforce them.''</i></p><p>Translation: Politicians make laws without knowing jack about the consequences and not even bothering to ask those that could tell them what kind of can of worms they are about to open. And then they're too pussy to admit they blundered.</p><p>Sounds familiar? A law gets passed that should cure some problem with the economy and the only thing it accomplishes is to cause troubles where there were none before while the problem continues to exist.</p><p>If I get that right, the law aimed at eliminating the "fake freelancing", where companies pretty much forced programmers into freelancing instead of hiring them, resulting in cheaper labour for them and shifting the risk and insurance burden on their not-quite-really-employee. Now, that still exists, with programmers now being passed about like slaves by temp agencies where they enjoy little less risk or much more insurance while at the same time losing their freedom entirely, while those companies still get the cheap programming labour they wanted, and at the same time the whole deal also keeps those programmers that are good and sought after enough to actually be (really) self employed and successful at it from actually being this.</p><p>Sounds very familiar...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : In an earlier interview , Tom Burger , the director of employment taxes for the I.R.S. , said one of the agency 's difficulties ''is that , and I need to pick my words carefully , Congress passes laws , often without asking us about them , and then tells us to enforce them .
''Translation : Politicians make laws without knowing jack about the consequences and not even bothering to ask those that could tell them what kind of can of worms they are about to open .
And then they 're too pussy to admit they blundered.Sounds familiar ?
A law gets passed that should cure some problem with the economy and the only thing it accomplishes is to cause troubles where there were none before while the problem continues to exist.If I get that right , the law aimed at eliminating the " fake freelancing " , where companies pretty much forced programmers into freelancing instead of hiring them , resulting in cheaper labour for them and shifting the risk and insurance burden on their not-quite-really-employee .
Now , that still exists , with programmers now being passed about like slaves by temp agencies where they enjoy little less risk or much more insurance while at the same time losing their freedom entirely , while those companies still get the cheap programming labour they wanted , and at the same time the whole deal also keeps those programmers that are good and sought after enough to actually be ( really ) self employed and successful at it from actually being this.Sounds very familiar.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: In an earlier interview, Tom Burger, the director of employment taxes for the I.R.S., said one of the agency's difficulties ''is that, and I need to pick my words carefully, Congress passes laws, often without asking us about them, and then tells us to enforce them.
''Translation: Politicians make laws without knowing jack about the consequences and not even bothering to ask those that could tell them what kind of can of worms they are about to open.
And then they're too pussy to admit they blundered.Sounds familiar?
A law gets passed that should cure some problem with the economy and the only thing it accomplishes is to cause troubles where there were none before while the problem continues to exist.If I get that right, the law aimed at eliminating the "fake freelancing", where companies pretty much forced programmers into freelancing instead of hiring them, resulting in cheaper labour for them and shifting the risk and insurance burden on their not-quite-really-employee.
Now, that still exists, with programmers now being passed about like slaves by temp agencies where they enjoy little less risk or much more insurance while at the same time losing their freedom entirely, while those companies still get the cheap programming labour they wanted, and at the same time the whole deal also keeps those programmers that are good and sought after enough to actually be (really) self employed and successful at it from actually being this.Sounds very familiar...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31234158</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to care about terrorism BECAUSE we were merely getting our just desserts for "oppressing" the 7th century savages?  The cure was supposed to be so much worse than the disease, George McChimpyHitlerBurton is baaddd.  The patriot act was the worst thing since jet pack wearing lamprey eels, blah blah blah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , I thought we were n't supposed to care about terrorism BECAUSE we were merely getting our just desserts for " oppressing " the 7th century savages ?
The cure was supposed to be so much worse than the disease , George McChimpyHitlerBurton is baaddd .
The patriot act was the worst thing since jet pack wearing lamprey eels , blah blah blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to care about terrorism BECAUSE we were merely getting our just desserts for "oppressing" the 7th century savages?
The cure was supposed to be so much worse than the disease, George McChimpyHitlerBurton is baaddd.
The patriot act was the worst thing since jet pack wearing lamprey eels, blah blah blah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31242670</id>
	<title>Re:There's more to this story</title>
	<author>fuzzywig</author>
	<datestamp>1266926880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can say is, thank fuck I live somewhere with a public health system, even if it is a bit shit.
<p>
(the uk in case you were wondering)
</p><p>
(and oddly enough I used to get private health care in my old job, but that's really unusual for over here)
</p><p>
(ps, if you don't have public health care, why do you have public schools?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is , thank fuck I live somewhere with a public health system , even if it is a bit shit .
( the uk in case you were wondering ) ( and oddly enough I used to get private health care in my old job , but that 's really unusual for over here ) ( ps , if you do n't have public health care , why do you have public schools ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is, thank fuck I live somewhere with a public health system, even if it is a bit shit.
(the uk in case you were wondering)

(and oddly enough I used to get private health care in my old job, but that's really unusual for over here)

(ps, if you don't have public health care, why do you have public schools?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222536</id>
	<title>Re:Jews did 9/11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266750720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll? Their the only ones that benefitted from the war. Everyone else lost money, freedom, leaders, soldiers. Stop taking away freedoms of the people every time an incident like 9/11 happens!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll ?
Their the only ones that benefitted from the war .
Everyone else lost money , freedom , leaders , soldiers .
Stop taking away freedoms of the people every time an incident like 9/11 happens !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll?
Their the only ones that benefitted from the war.
Everyone else lost money, freedom, leaders, soldiers.
Stop taking away freedoms of the people every time an incident like 9/11 happens!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218738</id>
	<title>Jews did 9/11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266770880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember the WTC!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the WTC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the WTC!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266772980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This AC needs modded up.</p><p>Just because the guy hated the same things as other libertarians that does not make him less of a terrorist nutbag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This AC needs modded up.Just because the guy hated the same things as other libertarians that does not make him less of a terrorist nutbag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This AC needs modded up.Just because the guy hated the same things as other libertarians that does not make him less of a terrorist nutbag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219332</id>
	<title>tell that to the mgt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266775620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...you set your own hours...</p></div><p>When I was contracting, if it was slow and my work was done, I left for the day because I value my free time more than work. The (non-tech) VP in charge saw my invoice and time sheet and made a comment that if I wasn't there for 40 hours a week then they didn't need me. It was a huge crunch and I was taking up the slack from the regular employees so the work was run fast and then stop for day and so on. The managers wanted me, though.</p><p>Many companies shoot themselves in the foot with their misunderstanding of contract work and technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you set your own hours...When I was contracting , if it was slow and my work was done , I left for the day because I value my free time more than work .
The ( non-tech ) VP in charge saw my invoice and time sheet and made a comment that if I was n't there for 40 hours a week then they did n't need me .
It was a huge crunch and I was taking up the slack from the regular employees so the work was run fast and then stop for day and so on .
The managers wanted me , though.Many companies shoot themselves in the foot with their misunderstanding of contract work and technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...you set your own hours...When I was contracting, if it was slow and my work was done, I left for the day because I value my free time more than work.
The (non-tech) VP in charge saw my invoice and time sheet and made a comment that if I wasn't there for 40 hours a week then they didn't need me.
It was a huge crunch and I was taking up the slack from the regular employees so the work was run fast and then stop for day and so on.
The managers wanted me, though.Many companies shoot themselves in the foot with their misunderstanding of contract work and technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220192</id>
	<title>Re:Tip of the iceberg or just another wing nut?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266779760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He was kind of crazy.  At one point he spent $40,000 trying to defend his declaration of his house as a church for tax purposes.  Seems he always viewed life as a fight between him and the IRS, or him and the 'big guys.'<br> <br>
Even though he has been portrayed as a tea-partier, or libertarian, he is really just paranoid crazy, trying to find someone else to blame for his problems, and mainly blaming the 'big' guys (big tax-man, big churches, the rich, whoever he perceives as having power).  He feels they are ripping him off and laughing about it; which mostly wasn't true, mostly he didn't understand the rules of the game, which cost him.  For example, even after all his tax fights (which he lists), he still didn't understand the tax code enough to realize that he needs to file every year, whether he made a profit or not.  He is failing at the most basic things, he should understand that.  Finally he said this:<p><div class="quote"><p>The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.<br>
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.</p></div><p>This doesn't represent the philosophy of any major party, really, although as you said, most people are concerned about too-strong ties between corporations and the government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He was kind of crazy .
At one point he spent $ 40,000 trying to defend his declaration of his house as a church for tax purposes .
Seems he always viewed life as a fight between him and the IRS , or him and the 'big guys .
' Even though he has been portrayed as a tea-partier , or libertarian , he is really just paranoid crazy , trying to find someone else to blame for his problems , and mainly blaming the 'big ' guys ( big tax-man , big churches , the rich , whoever he perceives as having power ) .
He feels they are ripping him off and laughing about it ; which mostly was n't true , mostly he did n't understand the rules of the game , which cost him .
For example , even after all his tax fights ( which he lists ) , he still did n't understand the tax code enough to realize that he needs to file every year , whether he made a profit or not .
He is failing at the most basic things , he should understand that .
Finally he said this : The communist creed : From each according to his ability , to each according to his need .
The capitalist creed : From each according to his gullibility , to each according to his greed.This does n't represent the philosophy of any major party , really , although as you said , most people are concerned about too-strong ties between corporations and the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was kind of crazy.
At one point he spent $40,000 trying to defend his declaration of his house as a church for tax purposes.
Seems he always viewed life as a fight between him and the IRS, or him and the 'big guys.
' 
Even though he has been portrayed as a tea-partier, or libertarian, he is really just paranoid crazy, trying to find someone else to blame for his problems, and mainly blaming the 'big' guys (big tax-man, big churches, the rich, whoever he perceives as having power).
He feels they are ripping him off and laughing about it; which mostly wasn't true, mostly he didn't understand the rules of the game, which cost him.
For example, even after all his tax fights (which he lists), he still didn't understand the tax code enough to realize that he needs to file every year, whether he made a profit or not.
He is failing at the most basic things, he should understand that.
Finally he said this:The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.This doesn't represent the philosophy of any major party, really, although as you said, most people are concerned about too-strong ties between corporations and the government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219154</id>
	<title>Re:Double-Standard</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1266774360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we can't objectively identify whether or not he had a point?</p><p>Obviously terrorism is evil and should be stopped, but it doesn't mean we should shut off our brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we ca n't objectively identify whether or not he had a point ? Obviously terrorism is evil and should be stopped , but it does n't mean we should shut off our brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we can't objectively identify whether or not he had a point?Obviously terrorism is evil and should be stopped, but it doesn't mean we should shut off our brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31238012</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1266841080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see two possible outcomes of such a tax scenario.</p><p>One is we would end up with one entity handling everything from manufacture (and even manufacture of the tools/materials needed for said manufacture) or import through to final sale.</p><p>Another would be arrangements where rather than people paying thier immediate supplier they paid the people up the tree directly.</p><p>The former of these would be an environment where it was even harder for non-megacorps to operate. The latter would be an administrative mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see two possible outcomes of such a tax scenario.One is we would end up with one entity handling everything from manufacture ( and even manufacture of the tools/materials needed for said manufacture ) or import through to final sale.Another would be arrangements where rather than people paying thier immediate supplier they paid the people up the tree directly.The former of these would be an environment where it was even harder for non-megacorps to operate .
The latter would be an administrative mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see two possible outcomes of such a tax scenario.One is we would end up with one entity handling everything from manufacture (and even manufacture of the tools/materials needed for said manufacture) or import through to final sale.Another would be arrangements where rather than people paying thier immediate supplier they paid the people up the tree directly.The former of these would be an environment where it was even harder for non-megacorps to operate.
The latter would be an administrative mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222030</id>
	<title>Poor</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266747900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only people I know that live in poverty conditions do so<br>willingly. I have friends that live at the poverty level but<br>they have no desire or drive to change that condition. They<br>come home, plop on the couch, drink beer until they are blind<br>and go to sleep and repeat the cycle. The old lady will not get<br>a drivers license or job for that matter. Not because she cannot<br>but because she does not want to.</p><p>I have very little pitty for these people when it comes to financial<br>hardship as it is self induced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people I know that live in poverty conditions do sowillingly .
I have friends that live at the poverty level butthey have no desire or drive to change that condition .
Theycome home , plop on the couch , drink beer until they are blindand go to sleep and repeat the cycle .
The old lady will not geta drivers license or job for that matter .
Not because she cannotbut because she does not want to.I have very little pitty for these people when it comes to financialhardship as it is self induced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people I know that live in poverty conditions do sowillingly.
I have friends that live at the poverty level butthey have no desire or drive to change that condition.
Theycome home, plop on the couch, drink beer until they are blindand go to sleep and repeat the cycle.
The old lady will not geta drivers license or job for that matter.
Not because she cannotbut because she does not want to.I have very little pitty for these people when it comes to financialhardship as it is self induced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222678</id>
	<title>Re:he was mentally ill</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1266751560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He blamed 'politicians, the Catholic Church</p></div><p>He didn't blame the Catholic Church, he merely cited them as an example of a large organization that is able to successfully avoid paying taxes while the middle class gets the screws tightened on them. RTFM next time (i.e. Read The Fucking Manifesto).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He blamed 'politicians , the Catholic ChurchHe did n't blame the Catholic Church , he merely cited them as an example of a large organization that is able to successfully avoid paying taxes while the middle class gets the screws tightened on them .
RTFM next time ( i.e .
Read The Fucking Manifesto ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He blamed 'politicians, the Catholic ChurchHe didn't blame the Catholic Church, he merely cited them as an example of a large organization that is able to successfully avoid paying taxes while the middle class gets the screws tightened on them.
RTFM next time (i.e.
Read The Fucking Manifesto).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31232680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31239670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31238012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31242670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31230374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31242466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31224716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31224996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31231826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31231850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31241880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31234158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1353223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31238012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219206
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31241880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31239670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31230374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31231850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31234158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31231826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31224716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31242466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31222998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31225212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220200
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31224996
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31223270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219258
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219488
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31221680
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31226422
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31220958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31219214
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31242670
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31232680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1353223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1353223.31218742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
