Some Days I Hate My Job

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Christien

...(did that make any sense? )

Yes, but don't ask me again in a year

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Christien

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- I see your case, and you are correct- the exception proves the rule- but I dont find your argument compelling in this case.

For this reason- the garnishee. A garnishee doesn’t just happen. There is a process that leads to it, and it usually requires a court order. So the tax payer would have had every chance to participate in this process, which likely ended with a court judgment. As far as I know, if someone takes you to court in the USA, you are still allowed to attend and be represented. So our tax payer has either elected not to participate and been found to be liable for the tax owed, or he has engaged in the process, made his case, and still been found to be liable for the tax owed.

There might be all sorts of other considerations we could speculate on, but it would be simply speculation. Its not “Gubmint coming after a little guy”, it’s a tax cheat being dealt with by due process on our behalf.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

We make choices in life, some good, some bad, some downright stupid.

What about decisions made under extreme duress? An extreme example would be a confession under torture. Obviously that's not what we're talking about but it makes the point that under psychological/emotional duress, an otherwise rational and responsible person can make bad decisions that perhaps should not be held against him to the fullest extent of the law when he's returned to his senses.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Most notable seems to be our old friend stuart the troll. Just ignore him. Almost guaranteed he could really give a rip about your buddy, and is only using this as a vehicle to dig at you. Don't let him. He has a demonstrated history of this here on PPOT, apparently taking some weird childish delight in antagonizing others. He "contributes" in no other way. You and I (among a few others) appear, for whatever reason, to have made his "A" list. I guess we should be flattered, or something. It's not often we can become the objects of another's attentions from halfway around the globe. Keep up the good work.

Its such a shame Jeff that you seem unable to put aside your personal rancor and discuss things sensibly, without getting all catty.

Prima facie, we all have a responsibility- a citizens responsibility- to pay our tax in accordance with the equitable application of the law of the land.

Sometimes you seem to display a real lack of judgement in your zeal to wage these personal attacks, if you dont mind me saying.


regards Stuart

[Racerbvd]

First of all, I never said that he shouldn't pay the taxes, I just said that it sucks to get hit out of the blue. While faxing the paper work to my CPA (and yes, those of you who said to use a good CPA, I'm firmly with you, it is truly worth it) and the time in question is a few years before he started with us, about the same time his marriage was ending, so it had nothing to do his income from us. I'm going to see what my CPA says. I am not, nore have I asked anyone here to help bail him out, was not the intention of the thread, and only the socialist view it that way, I guess that is how they do things. Again, I posted, because it bums me out when this type of thing happens, like when the singer from one of our bands was found murdered a while back. Nothing anyone could do, just venting, but I guess you can't do that here anymore.

I asked Byron about a "benefit" to help the guy out...not that he be absolved of his responsibilities. The guy "might" be doing his ABSOLUTE best to care for his child and just can't quite make it (and still NOT turn to the gov. for a handout like some do), and then imo, he definitely does not "suck". I just don't know his circumstances

That is an idea, but he is a proud man, who enjoys his work & loves his son, we have done these for others who have fallen on bad times (mostly from accidents) to keep an income flowing.

We make choices in life, some good, some bad, some downright stupid.

Very true, I have made & paid for mine, his was his choice of wife (like many in this biz, always finding the wrong women) who couldn't deal with a special needs baby.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Christien

What about decisions made under extreme duress? An extreme example would be a confession under torture. Obviously that's not what we're talking about but it makes the point that under psychological/emotional duress, an otherwise rational and responsible person can make bad decisions that perhaps should not be held against him to the fullest extent of the law when he's returned to his senses.

Are you seriously equating something said during torture to not paying your taxes? Sorry, I'm not buying that.

[Christien]

Of course I'm not equating the two - read what you quoted me saying. I said I was extremizing to make a point. It's done all the time in debates and discussions to remove all variables and cut to heart of the question. I was making a point that there are some situations which cause an otherwise rational person to do irrational things. The question in the air here is did a rational/responsible person do something irrational/irresponsible in an extreme circumstance, or was the person irrational/irresponsible to begin with? And if the former, was the situation extreme enough to warrant the irrationality/irresponsibility?

[Nathans_Dad]

Byron no one is throwing your client under the bus, nor are we throwing you under the bus (much).

I have complete compassion for your client, the situation he is in sucks and I am sure there are multiple reasons why he is there. I just don't think the correct response is to blame the gubmint.

We all make choices in life, as I said before. Even the worst choices often seem right at the time or may seem like the only choice we have. This obviously doesn't only apply to owing taxes and I think your client should be grateful that he didn't make even worse choices.

As part of my job I do initial medical exams on drug addicts coming into a local rehab center. I have yet to meet one who didn't have legitimate reasons for starting to do drugs. Many of them were depressed or had a major life stressor that began their addiction. I feel compassion for the situation they were in and I wish they had made a different choice. That doesn't change the fact that they are where they are and they still have to go through withdrawal and rehab. Sometimes you just gotta pay the piper.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Christien

Of course I'm not equating the two - read what you quoted me saying. I said I was extremizing to make a point. It's done all the time in debates and discussions to remove all variables and cut to heart of the question. I was making a point that there are some situations which cause an otherwise rational person to do irrational things. The question in the air here is did a rational/responsible person do something irrational/irresponsible in an extreme circumstance, or was the person irrational/irresponsible to begin with? And if the former, was the situation extreme enough to warrant the irrationality/irresponsibility?

I understand your debate tactic, I just reject it. Paying taxes may be difficult at the time, but it is in no way equivalent to bodily torture. Secondly, if you want to play the extreme game, I might suggest that you are advocating taking a mass murderer off of death row and releasing him into the public because he was feeling a bit depressed at the time. Doesn't compute, does it?

[Christien]

No, I'd say that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're not extremizing by giving the example of "he was feeling a bit depressed at the time" - in fact, that's minimizing. If you want to use that example, try temporary insanity, and yes, people have been let off murder charges claiming temporary insanity.

[mossguy]

Rick - I think you need to sit back, take a few deep breaths, and reread Christien's posts. What he is saying makes sense, and is appropriate. Perhaps he hit an unseen hot button?

Best,

Tom

[Racerbvd]

Byron no one is throwing your client under the bus, nor are we throwing you under the bus (much).

I have complete compassion for your client, the situation he is in sucks and I am sure there are multiple reasons why he is there. I just don't think the correct response is to blame the gubmint.

We all make choices in life, as I said before. Even the worst choices often seem right at the time or may seem like the only choice we have. This obviously doesn't only apply to owing taxes and I think your client should be grateful that he didn't make even worse choices.

As part of my job I do initial medical exams on drug addicts coming into a local rehab center. I have yet to meet one who didn't have legitimate reasons for starting to do drugs. Many of them were depressed or had a major life stressor that began their addiction. I feel compassion for the situation they were in and I wish they had made a different choice. That doesn't change the fact that they are where they are and they still have to go through withdrawal and rehab. Sometimes you just gotta pay the piper.

I'm not blaming the gubmint, we know who was resposable for paying those taxes and even if his wife did hide paperwork (and I have seen that done too) he should have known when he didn't get any forms to check it out. Again, I don't know the reasons, and am not trying to excuse them, that doen't make it any better, nor was it the reason of the post. He is not crying on our shoulders, but I can't do anything until I here from the CPA.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Today is one of those days We get a letter from the IRS, one of our entertainers owes them money, and now they are going to garnish his wages
He is a good guy, a single dad with a special need child, so it isn't like he can work as much as others, but he is a great entertainer and an all around good guy. More of the government screwing the little guy.

Racer, you dont to tell us about what you said. Here is exactly what you said...... "More of the government screwing the little guy" with a really angry smiley.

Its gilding the lilley to spin that into "First of all, I never said that he shouldn't pay the taxes, I just said that it sucks to get hit out of the blue. " - dont you think?

The govt is not screwing the little guy, the IRS is collecting the tax your bud has attemted to avoid paying. I doubt much sympathy will be extended by those that manage to, and indeed make a point of, meeting their civic obligations.

The would seem to be that, as a self proclaimed conservative, you seem think collecting taxes amounts to "More of the government screwing the little guy" while others see a tax cheat being caught.

It might make some wonder if the IRS needs to have a little look at you....

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Christien

No, I'd say that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're not extremizing by giving the example of "he was feeling a bit depressed at the time" - in fact, that's minimizing. If you want to use that example, try temporary insanity, and yes, people have been let off murder charges claiming temporary insanity.

No they haven't. The equivalent situation would be someone murdered a person in cold blood 3 years ago and currently is insane. They were sane when they committed the murder but now they are crazy. No acquittal there.

Besides, as Stuart has said, there is a process that is undertaken prior to someone having their wages garnished. I would assume this process includes review of extenuating circumstances.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by mossguy

Rick - I think you need to sit back, take a few deep breaths, and reread Christien's posts. What he is saying makes sense, and is appropriate. Perhaps he hit an unseen hot button?

Best,

Tom

No, there's no hot button and I take deep breaths all the time.

I just don't buy his argument.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

No, there's no hot button and I take deep breaths all the time....

Careful there Rick, or you'll end up hyphenating yourself and end up with a different last name from your wife

[Jeff Higgins]

This thread has has had a rather unpredicted, "unintended consequence" that I find a bit disheartening. It appears many of you hold fast to your own paradigms as to what constitutes a "liberal" or a "conservative", and are more than happy to pidgeonhole others into your pet definitions. You use these categories to determine how some one "must" respond to a given situation (after having first assigned that individual to the category of your choosing, of course). When said individual responds in a manner other than how you feel he should have (based upon your categorization), you accuse him of being inconsistent, of having situational morals or ethics, of not being a "true ____" or whatever. What incredibly narrow thinking.

On the other hand, I find it encouraging to hear from those who have responded "outside the box" of whatever category you others have assigned them. These folks are able to look at a given situation, a socially/politically charged one such as this, and choose answers from elsewhere other than their "approved list" consistant with their "liberal" or "conservative" standing on this board. That seems to have thrown the rest of you into a bit of a tailspin, unable to deal with these folks who have crossed some invisible line. That's really too bad. Like I said earlier, it appears many of you are living in far too black and white of a world for my tastes.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

?????



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

Lets say PPOT was in a position to grant this guy a break and set aside the rules. And let's say they majority of folks involved voted to do so. How does everyone who wasn't involved in the discussion know that it wasn't done because this guys girlfriend likes to post nekkid pics of herself on PPOT and the deciders in question didn't want to lose that?

Yes, there's a difference but if it can't be supported by anything stronger than unsubstantiated opinions then you are unable to prove to me that you had the best intentions at heart. I know you guys (sorta) and would be comfortable with many of your judgements BUT what about folks that don't???

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

No they haven't. The equivalent situation would be someone murdered a person in cold blood 3 years ago and currently is insane. They were sane when they committed the murder but now they are crazy. No acquittal there.

No, it really wouldn't be the equivalent. I think you misread my hypothetical situation. In it I suggested that the poor decision(s) was/were made under duress, not before or after duress had passed. Now that duress has passed the person needs to make things right, but not by being penalized to the full extent of the law.

[berettafan]

if we can all agree that anarchy is not desirable then i see only one possible course of action here:

1-continue with tax collection activities as per tax code.
2-help this guy find assistance through charitable organizations