An AC protests, "Why exactly is it a problem if they go out of business for breaking the law?"
While technically correct, very small businesses are already at a severe tax disadvantage. Frex, if you have a "hobby business" (one which does not produce enough income to live on, or which for whatever technicality is not considered a fulltime business by the IRS -- small livestock producers often fall into this category), you must pay tax on all your income, but you cannot deduct any of your expenses! after taxes, such businesses are liable to wind up in the hole, and no one can stay in business for long if they're not at least breaking even.
So what's wrong with this proposed law is that it puts a further sqeeze on very small businesses, increasing their disadvantage in the marketplace -- disadvantages that corporations do not experience.
In short, it's yet another discouragement for people trying to get ahead on their own, free of gov't help or hindrance.
And it will actually reduce total tax revenues, since the small income these businesses then won't have at all is now no longer available to put back into the economy (ie. it's no longer taxable income for someone else, because this income no longer exists).
Sometimes when you squeeze too hard, you wind up with nothing at all.
As you say "subject" tends to be fuzzy -- but your example is at least all on the same planet. Cars, roads, gas tax, all focus on one general subject. However, add to that, say, provisions affecting transportation *specifically* of livestock feed, and that's getting too far off-topic, notably for singling out one ASPECT or intersection of another industry.
Maybe a moderation system could be used -- if enough Congresscritters think it's not single-topic, then it has to be broken up. And "enough" should be a reasonable minority, say 10% (you want the minimum objection small to discourage backroom coalitions). Surely at least 10% of 'em are sufficiently honest at any one time??
"Additionally, compromise isn't a bad thing. A bill that has two "subjects" isn't inherently bad. A bill can have two 'subjects' but only make sense in combination or only have enough support if implemented in combination. Those bills aren't inherently bad."
Think about what you just proposed -- essentially that two lousy bills (and chances are that if they're that poorly supported, they're not good bills) in combination equals one good bill. Two wrongs now make a right. I know it's not always like that, but it's USED that way far too often by Congress itself.
And finally, the reason it matters whether it's a "rule" or a "law" is that Congress can change mere rules a lot easier than it can change laws. If a "Single Subject" or "Read the Bills" rule is too onerous (meaning too inconvenient to special interests), it'll just be ignored. It's harder to ignore a *law* and still justify your behaviour to your constituents.
"How many people would install home alarm systems that let let the alarm company peer into every room in your house to make sure only "safe" activity was occurring?"
A very good observation on privacy in general.
As to the encryption thing, the problem is that it becomes a redflag for illicit activity. The gov't solution is likely to be banning encrypted traffic. And in any event, becoming an Underground does not solve the problem of gov't abuse. If anything, it encourages further abuse as the gov't then tries to root out the Underground (here defined as "encrypted traffic").
"No Congress can bind a future Congress or prohibit what laws it may or may not pass."
And this is part of the problem. Congress is in a position to do as it damn well pleases, with only the fading shadow of the Constitution to prohibit them from passing bad laws.
But the point of the "One Subject At A Time" act isn't to prohibit what laws Congress can pass; it's to ensure that all subjects in proposed laws are *individually* examined. Unrelated subjects that used to be combined into a single bill would then be separated out into multiple bills. And most importantly, that way each subject gets seen in broad daylight, rather than being hidden in the shadow of larger subjects. Many provisions that now pass because "You can't vote against [insert hotbutton here]" would fail to pass when examined by themselves, with only their own merits (if any) to promote them. Earmarks and porkbarrels would go away real quick, since viewed as standalones, it's clear they're strictly for the benefit of special interests, not for the benefit of America.
The bill under discussion today is itself a good example of why a "One Subject at a Time" law is needed. Sure, offer *separate* bills for "reporting transactions" and "fingerprinting mortgage officers", that's perfectly legit; after all there is no limit to how many bills a Congresscritter can introduce. But combining them because that way the unpopular provision gets passed along with the popular one, that's just dirty pool.
"On the down side, loopholes for special circumstances often become standard procedure if it suits people, so everything would then end up an "emergency".
That's exactly what the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors does -- if they want to pass something and bedamned to public opinion (or to severely curtail public input), they pass it under the Emergency Powers provision.
I did RTFA, all of it, and I believe your interpretation, and that of the parent, are exactly correct. This is principally a backdoor tax on internet sales, and designed to catch all the small transactions that have hitherto slipped through the cracks.
The problem here is that for most of these very small businesses, being ignored by the taxman is the difference between life and death for their business. So most of the impacted very-small businesses will simply close up shop, because if taxes are rigidly applied, they are no longer even marginally profitable.
That's a good thought -- provided the "scope" can't be incrementally enlarged. And I don't see a way to prevent that other than a previous law absolutely prohibiting enlarging scope (tho shrinking it should be allowed).
"Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."
They don't (yet) give a damn WHAT you purchase. The whole idea is to let the tax man get at all those small transactions that presently tend to go unreported as income.
Of course, the unintended consequence of recording what you buy has its own issues, which fall under "general privacy". Nothing to hide? Do you really WANT everyone to know you bought S&M toys??
I had similar thoughts. And what about jungle and desert plants that do nearly all their major growth while the temps are in the low 100F range??
And wilt is a function of water loss (or of inadequate uptake), not of temperature, tho natually there is more evaporation at higher temps. Even so, a correctly watered plant at 115F will be a lot less wilted than a dehydrated plant at 70F.
[looks outside where it's presently 104F] Hmmph. My flowers don't seem to think this is cause for wilt at all (and that mum has grown a foot since our hot weather started a week ago). Neither do my trees, some of which are not even hot-climate species.
Don't count on that. Back in the early days of email, someone I knew tracked the path his took. Turned out to go from one end of the U.S. to the other, they were inexplicably but regularly routed through *Singapore*.
As to any hypothetical Pr0n on gov't machines... that's just your tax dollars at work!
This was back around/before 1960, and apparently not every phone system was set up to be taped. Also remember back then tape recorders were exceedingly expensive, inclined to be cranky, and in the Soviet economy, consumables like blank tape were sometimes flat not available. But warm bodies with functioning ears, those they had in abundance.
The problem is that while all of these methods may promote a thriving samizdat or underground, they DON'T stop totalitarian actions by the government. Indeed, they may even promote further repression, as the government feels threatened by the growth of the underground.
What's needed is not an underground resistance, but rather, a direct reform, or even removal, of those parts of gov't that have proven corruptable. Because otherwise you've agreed to live in your caves forever, with no freedoms except what you can sneak or steal or hide in the dark.
Bah, just write in Latin, or some ancient Chinese dialect, or anything that will take a lot of effort to find a translator for.
There was a famous Cold War story about a father and son, one in Soviet Russia, the other having escaped to the West. Both spoke Latin well. When they'd get together on the phone, they'd pass all the political news in Latin. By the time the state snoops found someone who could understand them, they'd already finished with the forbidden topics and gone on to mundane subjects.
Since they've already snooped all your emails, they already HAVE all your spam.
But it's a good incentive for mailservers to stop filtering spam -- since the more junk in the pipeline, the better for clogging the system. Customers can always filter spam at their mailbox.
Total coincidence. You're describing a standard set of studies that go WAY back. It was exactly the same, and already decades-established curricula, when I was in the 7th grade and we picked The Scarlet Letter's boring symbolism apart ad nauseum -- that was in 1966. We spent an entire quarter on that book alone. In high school (from which I graduated in 1972) we spent an entire quarter on Hamlet (that you got King Lear is just local variance) topped off by required attendance at a professional theatrical presenation (by some world-famous acting troupe whose name I don't recall). But we only spent a couple weeks each on Animal Farm and Brave New World. (1984 wasn't on our study path either, tho one of my HS's specialty English classes used it.)
I think the main reason is that Animal Farm and BNW, while loaded with (what at least can be interpreted as) symbolism, are not nearly as dense reading as the other two. The average juvenile reader breezes through Animal Farm and Brave New World, but slogs doggedly through The Scarlet Letter and Hamlet (or King Lear, as the case may be).
Slashdot Mirror
An AC protests, "Why exactly is it a problem if they go out of business for breaking the law?"
While technically correct, very small businesses are already at a severe tax disadvantage. Frex, if you have a "hobby business" (one which does not produce enough income to live on, or which for whatever technicality is not considered a fulltime business by the IRS -- small livestock producers often fall into this category), you must pay tax on all your income, but you cannot deduct any of your expenses! after taxes, such businesses are liable to wind up in the hole, and no one can stay in business for long if they're not at least breaking even.
So what's wrong with this proposed law is that it puts a further sqeeze on very small businesses, increasing their disadvantage in the marketplace -- disadvantages that corporations do not experience.
In short, it's yet another discouragement for people trying to get ahead on their own, free of gov't help or hindrance.
And it will actually reduce total tax revenues, since the small income these businesses then won't have at all is now no longer available to put back into the economy (ie. it's no longer taxable income for someone else, because this income no longer exists).
Sometimes when you squeeze too hard, you wind up with nothing at all.
As you say "subject" tends to be fuzzy -- but your example is at least all on the same planet. Cars, roads, gas tax, all focus on one general subject. However, add to that, say, provisions affecting transportation *specifically* of livestock feed, and that's getting too far off-topic, notably for singling out one ASPECT or intersection of another industry.
Maybe a moderation system could be used -- if enough Congresscritters think it's not single-topic, then it has to be broken up. And "enough" should be a reasonable minority, say 10% (you want the minimum objection small to discourage backroom coalitions). Surely at least 10% of 'em are sufficiently honest at any one time??
"Additionally, compromise isn't a bad thing. A bill that has two "subjects" isn't inherently bad. A bill can have two 'subjects' but only make sense in combination or only have enough support if implemented in combination. Those bills aren't inherently bad."
Think about what you just proposed -- essentially that two lousy bills (and chances are that if they're that poorly supported, they're not good bills) in combination equals one good bill. Two wrongs now make a right. I know it's not always like that, but it's USED that way far too often by Congress itself.
And finally, the reason it matters whether it's a "rule" or a "law" is that Congress can change mere rules a lot easier than it can change laws. If a "Single Subject" or "Read the Bills" rule is too onerous (meaning too inconvenient to special interests), it'll just be ignored. It's harder to ignore a *law* and still justify your behaviour to your constituents.
"How many people would install home alarm systems that let let the alarm company peer into every room in your house to make sure only "safe" activity was occurring?"
A very good observation on privacy in general.
As to the encryption thing, the problem is that it becomes a redflag for illicit activity. The gov't solution is likely to be banning encrypted traffic. And in any event, becoming an Underground does not solve the problem of gov't abuse. If anything, it encourages further abuse as the gov't then tries to root out the Underground (here defined as "encrypted traffic").
"No Congress can bind a future Congress or prohibit what laws it may or may not pass."
And this is part of the problem. Congress is in a position to do as it damn well pleases, with only the fading shadow of the Constitution to prohibit them from passing bad laws.
But the point of the "One Subject At A Time" act isn't to prohibit what laws Congress can pass; it's to ensure that all subjects in proposed laws are *individually* examined. Unrelated subjects that used to be combined into a single bill would then be separated out into multiple bills. And most importantly, that way each subject gets seen in broad daylight, rather than being hidden in the shadow of larger subjects. Many provisions that now pass because "You can't vote against [insert hotbutton here]" would fail to pass when examined by themselves, with only their own merits (if any) to promote them. Earmarks and porkbarrels would go away real quick, since viewed as standalones, it's clear they're strictly for the benefit of special interests, not for the benefit of America.
The bill under discussion today is itself a good example of why a "One Subject at a Time" law is needed. Sure, offer *separate* bills for "reporting transactions" and "fingerprinting mortgage officers", that's perfectly legit; after all there is no limit to how many bills a Congresscritter can introduce. But combining them because that way the unpopular provision gets passed along with the popular one, that's just dirty pool.
"On the down side, loopholes for special circumstances often become standard procedure if it suits people, so everything would then end up an "emergency".
That's exactly what the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors does -- if they want to pass something and bedamned to public opinion (or to severely curtail public input), they pass it under the Emergency Powers provision.
I did RTFA, all of it, and I believe your interpretation, and that of the parent, are exactly correct. This is principally a backdoor tax on internet sales, and designed to catch all the small transactions that have hitherto slipped through the cracks.
The problem here is that for most of these very small businesses, being ignored by the taxman is the difference between life and death for their business. So most of the impacted very-small businesses will simply close up shop, because if taxes are rigidly applied, they are no longer even marginally profitable.
That's a good thought -- provided the "scope" can't be incrementally enlarged. And I don't see a way to prevent that other than a previous law absolutely prohibiting enlarging scope (tho shrinking it should be allowed).
Note the last line from TFA:
"Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."
They don't (yet) give a damn WHAT you purchase. The whole idea is to let the tax man get at all those small transactions that presently tend to go unreported as income.
Of course, the unintended consequence of recording what you buy has its own issues, which fall under "general privacy". Nothing to hide? Do you really WANT everyone to know you bought S&M toys??
I had similar thoughts. And what about jungle and desert plants that do nearly all their major growth while the temps are in the low 100F range??
And wilt is a function of water loss (or of inadequate uptake), not of temperature, tho natually there is more evaporation at higher temps. Even so, a correctly watered plant at 115F will be a lot less wilted than a dehydrated plant at 70F.
[looks outside where it's presently 104F] Hmmph. My flowers don't seem to think this is cause for wilt at all (and that mum has grown a foot since our hot weather started a week ago). Neither do my trees, some of which are not even hot-climate species.
Good point!
And one has to wonder about lobbying dollars from companies that hawk surveillance equipment....
Don't count on that. Back in the early days of email, someone I knew tracked the path his took. Turned out to go from one end of the U.S. to the other, they were inexplicably but regularly routed through *Singapore*.
As to any hypothetical Pr0n on gov't machines... that's just your tax dollars at work!
This was back around/before 1960, and apparently not every phone system was set up to be taped. Also remember back then tape recorders were exceedingly expensive, inclined to be cranky, and in the Soviet economy, consumables like blank tape were sometimes flat not available. But warm bodies with functioning ears, those they had in abundance.
Yeah, in fact, it's ALL we can do, barring aliens who arrive and force us to learn other things entirely!
And now instead of an Iron Curtain, we'll have an Electronic Curtain. Oh-so-much-more transparent, but every bit as evil.
The problem is that while all of these methods may promote a thriving samizdat or underground, they DON'T stop totalitarian actions by the government. Indeed, they may even promote further repression, as the government feels threatened by the growth of the underground.
What's needed is not an underground resistance, but rather, a direct reform, or even removal, of those parts of gov't that have proven corruptable. Because otherwise you've agreed to live in your caves forever, with no freedoms except what you can sneak or steal or hide in the dark.
We did that once. Back in the late 1700s. It seems to have been less robust than we thought, since we failed to take into account human nature.
Bah, just write in Latin, or some ancient Chinese dialect, or anything that will take a lot of effort to find a translator for.
There was a famous Cold War story about a father and son, one in Soviet Russia, the other having escaped to the West. Both spoke Latin well. When they'd get together on the phone, they'd pass all the political news in Latin. By the time the state snoops found someone who could understand them, they'd already finished with the forbidden topics and gone on to mundane subjects.
Since they've already snooped all your emails, they already HAVE all your spam.
But it's a good incentive for mailservers to stop filtering spam -- since the more junk in the pipeline, the better for clogging the system. Customers can always filter spam at their mailbox.
Total coincidence. You're describing a standard set of studies that go WAY back. It was exactly the same, and already decades-established curricula, when I was in the 7th grade and we picked The Scarlet Letter's boring symbolism apart ad nauseum -- that was in 1966. We spent an entire quarter on that book alone. In high school (from which I graduated in 1972) we spent an entire quarter on Hamlet (that you got King Lear is just local variance) topped off by required attendance at a professional theatrical presenation (by some world-famous acting troupe whose name I don't recall). But we only spent a couple weeks each on Animal Farm and Brave New World. (1984 wasn't on our study path either, tho one of my HS's specialty English classes used it.)
I think the main reason is that Animal Farm and BNW, while loaded with (what at least can be interpreted as) symbolism, are not nearly as dense reading as the other two. The average juvenile reader breezes through Animal Farm and Brave New World, but slogs doggedly through The Scarlet Letter and Hamlet (or King Lear, as the case may be).
Communism didn't come about because people trusted the gov't.
Suggested reading: Why They Behave Like Russians
http://openlibrary.org/details/whytheybehavelik00fiscmiss
Guess no one noticed the electric fence surrounding the Farm ;)
And when the activation scheme does a Caller ID on your phone number and discovers it's a US area code -- now what??
Don't know if any of 'em actually do that, but if I can think of it, surely they can.
I'd rather they argued that in front of the Franchise Tax Board. If they still own it, let's find out why I had to pay sales tax on it.
'I've seen a bumper sticker that says "as a matter of fact, I do own the road".'
;)
And when I drive on the wrong side of the road -- well, I paid for both sides...
"If you brake in order to "scare" the person behind you and cause a crash, you committed assault."
So what do you call it when the person behind you is trying to scare you by tailgating 3 feet from your rear bumper??