Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/17/obama_cell_phone_tax/

What does this have to do with Obama? It looks like Dan Shulman of the IRS is pusher here.

GG

Isn't the IRS part of the government?

Last time I checked it was.

Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

As to the merits of the plan, it actually makes sense to tax in kind benefits. If you get a cell through work, you are wealthier than if you did not. It's just impractical, to an extent, so despite having cash value, it'll be treated more or less like a de minimus fringe (like free coffee, photocopy usage, etc.).

Polonius wrote:

As to the merits of the plan, it actually makes sense to tax in kind benefits. If you get a cell through work, you are wealthier than if you did not. It's just impractical, to an extent, so despite having cash value, it'll be treated more or less like a de minimus fringe (like free coffee, photocopy usage, etc.).

Respectfully, thats absolute poppycock, or as dad would say, complete and utter bull .

It means you're chained 24/7 to your job and get to have fun like answering calls or emails at 3.00AM. On an economic basis you're poorer, as your salary vs. hours working ratio decreases substantially. Ask anyone chained thusly. 9 out of 10 would ditch it if not required. I've awakened to dreams of launching mine off a skeet shoter and blasting it with a shotgun...

Wow. I didn't say better off, I said wealthier. If you have a crappy job, you're better off being able to make free personal phone calls at the same time. From a tax law standpoint, a person with that kind of benefit has an increase in wealth.

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

Then allow me to clarify. I am not wealthier. My hours worked increases, with no material benefit to me.

*Its against policy to use it for personal calls.



To the title-hey thats just good marketing.

Well, if you can't use it for personal calls, then it wouldn't be taxed. The tax only applied to actual benefits, not services provided for the convenience of the employer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

I blame media bias.

The IRS originally was proffering a default rate of 25%. My company, like most would have immediately installed that tax and it would have been up to me to fight it.

Ever fight the IRS?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Last time I checked it was.

I thought they were a part of the IMF.

Frazzled wrote:The IRS originally was proffering a default rate of 25%. My company, like most would have immediately installed that tax and it would have been up to me to fight it.

Ever fight the IRS?

Or you could fight your employer. I dont' know why you'd blame the IRS if your company is lying.

Thats not lying, thats following the IRS default policy.
If a company doesn't follow policy its a audit issue (as well as a tax issue) plus expensive to differentiate.

Hence I would get taxed at 25%. I'd proffer 90% would follow the same practice.

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

Nobody in Britain knows who Shulman is and lots of us wouldn't know what the IRS is.

So for a British IT website this is a well crafted headline.

Nobody in Britain knows who Shulman is

To be fair, most Americans don't know who Shulman is.

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

So for a British IT website this is a well crafted headline.

So's "Pamela Anderson has real tits!", but that doesn't make it accurate.

youngblood wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

So for a British IT website this is a well crafted headline.

So's "Pamela Anderson has real tits!", but that doesn't make it accurate.

But viewed much more than Geitner posits new limits on deemed risk factors for natural gas hedges utiliziog historical three year rates vs. 3.5 year rates.

Haha... true

youngblood wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

So for a British IT website this is a well crafted headline.

So's "Pamela Anderson has real tits!", but that doesn't make it accurate.

Headlines aren't meant to be accurate. They are meant to get the reader to read the story.

They should resemble accuracy though. You can still have some sort of integrity when reporting and still get readership. God knows the world is fethed enough for shocking headlines.

It doesn resemble accuracy. Everyone knows that Obama is in charge of the govt so anything the govt does can be laid at his responsibility.

"The buck stops here."

Bah, alright.

Kilkrazy wrote:

youngblood wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, the commissioner of the IRS reports to the Treasury Secetary, who reports to the president. So, it's highly likely that Obama was at least involved in the decision. That said, I'm guessing he spent roughly 5 minutes on this issue.

Exactly, so why is it all of a sudden "Obama" and not "IRS" or "Shulman".

Obviosuly my point was to mock the use of Obamas name for sensational reasons. I.E. If they used "SHULMAN in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" no one cares but make it "OBAMA in "Bins Stupid Tax" Shock!!11!" All of a sudden you get traction.


Gg

So for a British IT website this is a well crafted headline.

So's "Pamela Anderson has real tits!", but that doesn't make it accurate.

Headlines aren't meant to be accurate. They are meant to get the reader to read the story.

Which is why modern for profit news is broken and stupid. People that read only the headline are misinformed, and those people outnumber those that read the article by an order of magnitude. It's profit at the cost of credibility or usefulness. The system worked back when journalistic integrity existed, though I'm not sure when that was. Probably sometime before the spanish american war (which was caused by sensationalist and yellow headlines and not actual events).

It isn't possible to force people to become well-informed.

As long as they are easily misled by reading the headline and not the article, that's their lookout, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To expand on that, there is a generally understood principle that headlines are to attract the reader's attention, and not to contain the precise and literal meat of the actual story.