Some Days I Hate My Job

[vash]

dont even get me started on my day at work. i cant say anything yet, just in case it goes to court.

beer-thirty for sure.

[KFC911]

Rut-roh ...

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Could very well be. I would bet the context is entirely different, however. There is a world of difference between the sort of empathy I was aluding to and the "wink wink, nudge nudge..." spirit of the sort of conversation to which you alude. I hope you understand the difference.

i do understand the difference but you can not prove to anyone that a difference exists.


edit: or rather, the folks having the conversation cannot prove that a difference exists.

[berettafan]

vash you simply can not play 'tune in tokyo' with the over 50 crowd these days. they just don't get it.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by berettafan

i do understand the difference but you can not prove to anyone that a difference exists.

?????

I'm not sure what you are saying. Why would I have to "prove" there is a difference between my empathy for a man that I don't know (who may have fallen on hard times), and a "...conversation that bigshots have when they are derailing justice for the benefit of their cronies"? These guys, if I understand correctly, are knowingly undermining ("derailing") our legal system for a "crony" that they know has purposely broken, is breaking, or will break the law. In other words, a concious decision to cover up wrongdoing so that some one benefits, vs. simply expressing empathy for what sounds like an unfortunate turn of events for this guy.

What am I supposed to be "proving"??? Where are you going with this?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Like berretafan says, "not necessarily". My wife, as a nurse now working in a supervisory role, has over 70 nurses working for her spread accross several clinics. She, being the manager, has to deal with garnishments levied against those employees. Some that come in from the IRS are for less money than the cost of the paperwork to submit them. If your typical IRS agent discovers a discrepancy, he has no legal leeway to determine it's not enough to bother with. They have to persue it; the numbers are irrelevant.

Ok, I understand that, but my point is that if this is enough of a garnishment to cause significant financial strain then we aren't talking about a few hundred bucks here. I suspect we are talking more like in the several thousand dollar range at least.

And, the IRS would not pursue garnishment as a first line. Obviously this man filed a tax return that was inaccurate or he underpaid his taxes. I doubt the IRS would go through the trouble for $50.

[stuartj]

Arent we missing the point?

If he owes tax (and lets assume he does per the OP assertion) he needs to pay it. If a garnishee has been applied, he has been given previoius opportunity to pay it, and he has not.

If he does not pay his tax, the Gubmint, on behalf of the rest of the tax payers, will enforce the law.

There are remedies available to him if compassionate grounds apply, I would imagine, but it is irrelevant to speculate on what grounds may exist for compassion on the PPOT.

So- he earned the money and failed to pay tax on it. He has continued to neglect his tax responsibility to the extent that the Tax Man has applied a garnishee. In order to garnishee, I imagine, the Tax Office needs a court judgement against the deliquent payer. Speculation of my part, but if thats is so, he is a convicted tax cheat.

Im surprised that some of the conservative thinkers here think that is OK.

[Nathans_Dad]

+1 to Stuart (I can't believe I just wrote that).

[Christien]

Yep, there's a whole lot of double-standard talk going on here. If you're going to take a hard-line conservative viewpoint on issues like tax evasion, lazy poor, poor life choices, lack of responsibility, etc. you have to be consistent in how you apply it, even if that ends up including a good friend, relative, etc. When someone you know falls into that category, you can't turn around and say it's gov't hammering the little guy.

Stuart is 100% on the mark here.

Of course, if you're not bound so tightly to a dogmatic viewpoint handed to you wholesale by politicians and media, you might actually realize that there are vast grey areas to almost every issue, into which this would clearly fall.

But if you refuse to see grey areas, you can't just create one for convenience sake.

[Nathans_Dad]

Which grey area are we talking about Christien?

Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay their taxes but is "having a hard time" we should forgive them those taxes?

[Jim Richards]

I'm starting to feel my ability to pay taxes slipping away. H-h-h-e-e-e-l-l-l-p-p-p m-m-m-e-e-e-e!

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Arent we missing the point?


If he does not pay his tax, the Gubmint, on behalf of the rest of the tax payers, will enforce the law.

Always wanted to quote meself....

The govt is obliged to enforce the law. We, as tax payers, demand that it does. The constitution requires that it does, We would be justifiably incensed if the govt persued taxes from Party A but not Party B. We demand that the law is enforced equably, it is a basic premise of democracy.

Which makes the conservaitves even more out of line on tyhis issue. IMHO.

And before any one starts says "you dont live here" Im speaking generically, but I have in the past, and will again, filed US tax returns.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Which grey area are we talking about Christien?

Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay their taxes but is "having a hard time" we should forgive them those taxes?

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't state categorically that EVERYONE should be treated this way or that. Unusual and extenuating circumstances come up, and this very well may be one of them (though of course it may not be). I've never taken the hard-line approach that everyone gets painted with the same brush, because there are always (IMO) legit exceptions, i.e. grey areas.

What if, for example, this person was paid gross wages and saved money throughout the year to remit income taxes (I used to be paid this way and had to budget this way) but the "special needs" incident arose a few months before tax filing time, the guy spent all his savings on medical bills, etc. and was so wrapped up in his son's problems that he let things like bills, etc. slide. Let's say too that he was evicted/foreclosed and didn't get mail forwarded, so was maybe unaware that he had already missed deadlines from the IRS to file this form for leniency, or that form for relief, etc, maybe missed a court date, etc. I would say there should be compassionate grounds here for leniency due to unusual circumstances. I'm not saying he should be forgiven the debt, but when the situation is explained to the IRS they work out a payment plan once the medical issues are resolved and paid. But then I've never argued that the law should be applied in full force 100% of the time regardless of circumstances, as many here have.

Granted, I'm painting a very strong picture here, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point that perhaps the "rules" can't be applied 100% all the time, black and white. Many here on PPOT think in these terms, and then try to create the grey area for convenience' sake when it's a friend or relative caught in the trap.

IMO, Byron hasn't provided enough details to make a full judgment on this case. Nor should he, really, to protect his client's privacy. However with the details we've been provided, I see no grounds for compassion. It sounds like the guy had ample opportunity to make good or to move to another line of more steady, secure work.

In the end I don't really care. My beef here is with the inconsistent application of a belief system.

[Nathans_Dad]

I would agree with your problem with inconsistency, I see the same thing.

I'm not sure what grey areas there are though. Again, garnishment is certainly not the first step the IRS takes in a back taxes matter. The man could have worked out a payment plan with the IRS or come up with some other way to deal with it. He chose not to. I understand that might be because he isn't making much money, I get that, but why should he be absolved of breaking the law 3 years ago just because he is having trouble now?

Would you also consider acquitting a man who murdered someone 3 years ago because they are having a hard time now? Is that also a grey area?

[JCF]

Originally Posted by berettafan

capitalism at all costs; down with socialistic programs; every man for himself; if you can't make money you are choosing to be a loser;

wait, the guy is a friend of a frequent board contributor? he's got a kid with special needs? then i hereby arbitrarily determine his case to be worthy of consideration for abatement!


and some of you people would probably cry foul if a politician helped a buddy out of a tax jam.


kudos to those of you who at least know where you stand on such things and stick to it....regardless of which side you lean towards.

This is what bugs the hell out of me.
Here you have a guy screaming "liberal" like a 4 letter word.
"Socialism or Communism" whenever someone wants to help out another less fortunate.

But the second it goes bad for him or a loved one - out come the tears and the "it ain't fairs"

I have all the respect in the world for a true conservative who stands by the law of the jungle and who accepts that when he or she or someone they love runs into a stretch of bad luck is willing to take the hit and claw their way back on their own.

But this new breed of cry baby conservative - sorry, LOSER .
Spare us the tiny violin sonata.
And the "it's all the mean old governments fault"

I feel sorry for the special needs kid - but hey, maybe he should have chosen his dad better.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Christien

....Of course, if you're not bound so tightly to a dogmatic viewpoint handed to you wholesale by politicians and media, you might actually realize that there are vast grey areas to almost every issue, into which this would clearly fall.....

First of all, I've never said he shouldn't pay the tax. I clearly belong to the description above (as I suspect most do) depending upon the topic at hand. I think I even posted a thread several years ago along these same lines. Give me a topic, and I'll tell you where I stand, and depending upon the topic, I may be on either end of the spectrum (or somewhere in between on some). I find the whole dogmatic perspective of liberal vs conservative rather stupid actually. I have no problem with these "inconsistencies" within myself, in fact, I'd maintain that's "normal" for most people and it's the dogmatic concepts themselves that are flawed. I also have NO problem changing my viewpoint over time (flip flopping) as situations change and also my perspective (based upon experience). Show me a flaw in my "logic" on a matter, and I may concede being wrong and change my viewpoint immediately. That's just the way I am...human. Might be interesting for someone to come up with a list of 25 "conservative" vs "liberal" items, and see where we all fall .

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Christien

. My beef here is with the inconsistent application of a belief system.

My beef is folks attempting to attach a "belief system" on me

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Again, garnishment is certainly not the first step the IRS takes in a back taxes matter. The man could have worked out a payment plan with the IRS or come up with some other way to deal with it. He chose not to. I understand that might be because he isn't making much money, I get that, but why should he be absolved of breaking the law 3 years ago just because he is having trouble now?

Right, absolutely. Maybe I didn't explain my hypothetical example clearly, but I was suggesting that he was having trouble when he didn't pay his taxes a year, 2 years, 3 years, whatever, ago, and that he was still having trouble now, with his life being all consumed by his son's medical issues, such that he neglected to file various forms, etc. I was trying to think of a situation where any reasonable and otherwise responsible person would have fallen so far behind, for legitimate reasons. Albeit I had to stretch a fair amount to make the case, but I think it's there. And again, I'm not suggesting this is the case with Byron's client, just trying to come up with an example whereby the rule shouldn't be strictly applied.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by KC911

My beef is folks attempting to attach a "belief system" on me

That's refreshing to hear. At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I always appreciate hearing someone say they refuse to partake in any one belief system, but instead prefer to think for themself.

edit: oops, didn't read your first post. I couldn't agree more. I think you're absolutely 100% right that the dogmatic "must be liberal or conservative" viewpoint is deeply flawed. Once you start thinking that way, you stop thinking for yourself and you're bound to fall into a trap of inconsistencies, like we've found here in this thread. Your changing beliefs, what you refer to as "inconsistencies" I think are just the opposite - they're your opinions being consistent with your beliefs, which you don't pigeon-hole into a pre-packaged belief system.

(did that make any sense? )

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Christien

Right, absolutely. Maybe I didn't explain my hypothetical example clearly, but I was suggesting that he was having trouble when he didn't pay his taxes a year, 2 years, 3 years, whatever, ago, and that he was still having trouble now, with his life being all consumed by his son's medical issues, such that he neglected to file various forms, etc. I was trying to think of a situation where any reasonable and otherwise responsible person would have fallen so far behind, for legitimate reasons. Albeit I had to stretch a fair amount to make the case, but I think it's there. And again, I'm not suggesting this is the case with Byron's client, just trying to come up with an example whereby the rule shouldn't be strictly applied.

I understand your point, but I fail to see how that equates to him escaping the results of his prior actions.

I see this the same way I see someone who got into a zero principle mortgage 5 years ago and is now foreclosed upon. We make choices in life, some good, some bad, some downright stupid. Why are we so insistent on taking the load for everyone else's stupid choices (and yes, choosing to try and escape paying taxes is a stupid choice).