Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Transaction Reporting Slipped Into Senate Bill
StealthyRoid writes "The Senate mortgage bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (who was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from Countrywide, one of the beneficiaries of the bill) includes an attempt to sneak into law a requirement that all electronic payment processors send detailed transaction data to the federal government. The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000. Quoting FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader) from the article: 'This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking.'" This is the same bill that contains a controversial provision to fingerprint all mortgage brokers.
yes what we need more govt intrusion into our daily lives sure they won't monitor transactions unless they're over $10000 for 200. but how will they cull this out after the fact? Someday we'll enjoy the freedom and privacy the Soviet Union use to have.
The summary says that the minimum reporting is under $10K (USD) or under 200 transactions, but the article shows an and.
Aside from that nitpick, how is this supposed to "raise $9.802 billion over ten years"?
presumably to avoid tax fraud. if you are sat at home apparently out of work and claiming state benefits, but in practice have a major ebay store that brings in $80,000 a year, then the federal government would like to
1) tax you
and
2) stop paying you benefits.
How is this not fair? Like many companies, I do most of my business on-line, and have no noticeable bricks and mortar premises. If it wasn't for banks reporting to the govt what I earned, I could pretend to be earning nothing, and pay not a penny in a tax.
Am I missing something here? People really expect the govt to not be interested in small online businesses and taxing them?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
You are missing the benefits of running a cash based brick and mortar business...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
A congressional bill, as it evolves and eventually maybe becomes law, is a living document. In every sphere of the real world where multiple authors work collaboratively on a same document, we use content management systems, that allow versioning, attribution, and history. It makes changes to a document transparent. Businesses use it, non-profits use it. Why not demand our Congress to use it and stop this monkey business of "was slipped into the bill"? Sounds like conversation you'd here in the playground, for gods' sake..
... to tax you with, my dear. Funny delivery yes, but not so funny realities. It's clearly paving the way for the federal government to track that persnickity little inter-state commerce that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the country. I'm sure the twinkling in the eyes has at least some part about taking a cut, or at the very least taking a cut for the states (since congress is elected via the state, they're job is to bring home the bacon).More Twoson than Cupertino
Why? Because the system is seriously f'ed up! Why don't we do anything about it? Um... uh... wait - Lost is about to start!
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
Not to say it's never happened before. Terrorists, pedophiles, drug abusers... they all welcome tax evaders as the new bogeyman by which the government can shoehorn new bad laws onto the books with overreaching influence.
So am I for tax-dodgers? No: the people not paying taxes on their ebay stores are ALREADY breaking the law and can ALREADY be successfully prosecuted for it. Financial records can be obtained by subpoena and the proper procedure within the justice system. This bill would force all handlers of electronic payment to account and disclose information at THEIR expense (read: our expense because profit margins sure as hell aren't going to take the hit from government compliance costs). Now justice and investigation doesn't need a warrant or a court order because private companies are now compelled to broadcast this data.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Well, sure. The government would like to know about your every activity, from breathing, eating, voiding, spending, reading, listening, talking, pretty much everything. The better to tax you, regulate you, imprison you, coerce you.
That doesn't mean we should willing give up that right, nor does it say in the supreme law of the land where the government has been given that power.
Better to let 1 million people cheat on their taxes than 250 million give up every last vestige of privacy.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It isn't just Slashdot. Look back through any recent news article about a Republican who has done something illegal and/or really stupid. You're not only going to see the word 'Republican' much more often, but news stories also like ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party. While there isn't any true intense misconduct in this particular article, all you have to do is look back to Elliot Spitzer's demise as a real example; most news stories did not plaster the word 'Democrat' all over, let alone suggest a party-wide fallout from the scandal. Just the observations of an independent with a pretty staunch disdain for both major political parties....
I wish we could seriously apply this to laws. Why not create a "Scope" section for bills that specifies what the bill is about and limits its reach? Then interpret the bill such that anything outside the specified scope would be ignored.
Anything nasty trying to sneak in unnoticed would be in danger of going outside the specified scope and being ignored, but anything legitimately related to the bill would not be affected.
Congressmen often vote on bills they haven't read, but perhaps they could at least make time to review scope sections.
but news stories also like to ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party.
Yeah. The fact that they held the congress for 12 years and WERE incredibly corrupt, got caught practicing wide stances in men's room stalls while preaching family values, faked intelligence data, progagandized the country into a war, illegally spied on Americans, and instituted a policy of torture - to name but a few of their top hits - had nothing to with that. My god, it would be INSANE to speculate if there were MORE shoes to drop!
do you not remember Bill Clinton's sexual practices
Sure, but what's your point? Was there some lack of coverage on Clinton? Did the media somehow fail to note that he was a Democrat?
My point is that a very good percentage of news articles about about a Republican doing something stupid are often more about embarrassing and discrediting the party than they are about a thorough depiction of of the events that spurred the story at hand to begin with.
I know but you offer no proof. Because you can't. It's just your perception.
Surveys show that there are substantially (on the scale of 2-5 times) more Democrats than Republicans in journalism.
Enough with this old chestnut, already. The people who REALLY matter, the guys who run the corporations and own the shares are overwhelmingly Republican. They set the agenda. The reporters may lean slightly Dem but if they act against the editorial policies they are unemployed Dem leaning reporters.
Look at all the stories coming out recently (because of the "military advisors" hired by the media but run out of the Pentagon) of reporters finally fessing up about how they were pressured from above to not print anti-war stories or to always have 2 or 3 pro-Administration guests for every anti-war person. Seriously, if the media was so "liberal" how could that possibly happen?
But they don't even ask the question of how douche bag-esque Democrats have been lately.
This very story about Dodd shows how flawed he is. Many scumbag Dems are going to vote for Telecom Immunity today. And I, among many other, will take note of each and every one of them. All I can say is: remember Joe Lieberman. I just wish the Repbulican party would start to hold their scumbags' feet to fire as well.