Rich people shouldn't be getting more in government services. That doesn't make sense.
The government exists, in large part, to enable the rich to keep their wealth.
In addition to the no compound interest within the first seven years thing, make it illegal to have interest over like 15% annually.
I don't understand why you'd want to do that. If someone is willing to pay a certain amount of interest, they should be able to. Putting such a low and ridiculous limit on the interest rate that can be charged would destroy the economy.
Confidential student data which could be used to cause serious financial liability to individuals was stored on a laptop in a poorly secured facility
Pardon me for the strawman, but I'm going to follow along with what you seem to be saying, since you don't seem to want to explain yourself.
A school gathers information about a student, including that student's name, address, and social security number. Someone who has this information on their laptop loses it. The theif takes the information, goes to a bank, and presents them with the student's name, address, and social security number. The bank decides to lend that person $1,000. The thief doesn't pay the bank back. The bank sends a letter demanding payment to the person. The person writes back, saying that he knows nothing about the loan. The bank sues the person in court. A judge looks at the evidence, and says since the person who took out the loan knew the social security number of the defendant, they must have been the defendent, and awards $1,000 to the bank.
Now, in that story, you'd say the cause of the liability is the loss of the social security number???? Because, in my opinion the immediate cause was the fraudulent loan. The responsibility lies on the thief who took out the fraudulent loan and the bank who gave $1,000 to the thief without verifying his identity. And then, of course, the judge made a decision which no judge in the US would ever make.
Like I said, this is a strawman, so perhaps you can present a more realistic situation where someone can get a $1,000 liability just because someone knows his SSN, because my story just isn't realistic. No judge would award a settlement simply because the person taking out the loan knew the person's SSN. So it's impossible on its face, and even if you ignore that it would still be the fault of the person allowing the loan, not in the person who gave out the SSN.
As I've said in other threads, I know Bill Gates' name, address, and SSN. Does that mean I can steal money from him? Of course not. A social security number is not a password.
Because that's what the credit reporting agencies use as a key into their database.
...which is part of my point. It's wrong.
That's your argument. However, it is not true on its face, so if you're going to convince me it's wrong you're going to have to present some reasoning.
You do not use a number designed to allocate, as its name states, social security benefits, as an identifier for non-SS-related financial info.
Why not?
Fair enough, but you you _can_ do it, and you can get a new one.
Some people can, yes.
So there's not much point in using it as an identifier. Any identification mechanism which _can_ be changed without the knowledge of the system using it is not useful as an identification mechanism.
Then there is no useful identification mechanism. Well, I guess we could get someone's fingerprint whenever they apply for a loan, but somehow I don't think that'll go over very well with people.
And no, I don't have a better idea--I refuse to bring up something like personal ID cards or biometrics or other "solutions" that open up a pandora's box of issues.
So why not use the closest thing we've got. I have to dispute that there is "not much point in using it as an identifier". It still works just the same for anyone who hasn't changed their number, and it'd only be a problem for people loaning money to those that do if they had really bad credit before the change. New credit takes a while to establish anyway, and records leave your credit report after 7 years anyway. So it isn't really that big of an issue, even if someone with horrible credit is allowed to establish a new number. They've still got to work for years to build up good credit.
The system works pretty well. The only major problem is that some people have chosen to use the social security number as a password. But that has nothing to do with the fact that it's used as an identifier.
You may not have an issue with using an insecure mechanism that's subject to compromise and misuse this easily to identify yourself, but I do.
I don't see how security plays a role in identification. We just need a pointer to a person's records. We could use name, birthdate, birth city, mother's maiden name, etc., but instead we use a number. Security issues only come into play when you think that knowledge of the number means something.
The only remotely "positive" thing about using SSNs as identifiers is that they are understood to be insecure, as opposed to biometrics, which are (mistakenly) widely believed to be safe, so if I am affected I can, such as happened to many individuals in the ChoicePoint breakin, have recourse.
How are SSNs "insecure"? You seem to be cocnfusing identifiers with passwords. They are completely different things. Some people use the SSN as a password, and you have my full support that that is bad.
Confidential student data which could be used to cause serious financial liability to individuals was stored on a laptop in a poorly secured facility
So if I tell you someone's name I've given out "confidential student data which could be used to cause serious financial liability to individuals"? Just how can you use someone's SSN to cause serious financial liability to that person anyway? You're once again confusing a SSN with a password. A social security number is not a password. Repeat it again with me. A social security number is not a password.
The problem with property tax is that it doesn't allow true ownership of property if the government can take it away from you if you default.
But as I said, I see no reason we should allow true ownership of real property in the first place. The argument for property ownership is a practical one, based on the tragedy of the commons, not a moral one, and a resolution of the tragedy of the commons does not require "true ownership" of real property.
It's regressive cause what if the title owner has a low income, or perhaps no income for a few years due to a lost job?
Many states have a homestead rebate exempting the first $X of property used as a homestead. There's no reason not to have one of those, if you want a progressive tax. You could even go further and have a fully progressive property tax system.
That is one of the worst things someone could do, tax a person so they can remain a citizen. It treats people like cattle.
Well, as I said, it was only a response to those who argue that the poor would pay too little. I myself think a flat property tax with a homestead exemption is sufficient.
In my opinion, it's fair cause you essentially opt into how much you wish to pay in taxes.
You opt in no more than with any other tax. Don't want to pay an income tax? Don't have any income (over the standard deduction). Don't want a property tax? Don't own any property (beyond the standard exemption). If you don't want to pay the sales tax, what, you don't buy anything that isn't exempted?
Make it illegal to compound interest during the first seven years of a loan.
Do you think that would have any effect other than causing interest rates to skyrocket during the first seven years of a loan?
Why should rich people pay more in taxes than poor people?
Because they get more in government services.
Do you really want a revolt if the gap between rich and poor becomes so big that the poor people symbolically pick up pitch forks and storm the mansions of their employers?
Since I'm not rich, hey, a revolt wouldn't be so bad.
What happens if it gets so worse the poor population decides not to honor the currency the rich people have?
I don't see how that would be a bad thing, actually.
In my opinion property taxes are the closest thing to taxing people for the services they actually use. The essential services of the government are to protect life and property. I suppose the protection of life is best served by a flat tax per person, but I'd say most of the cost goes to the property side of the equation (there are far more thefts than murders, most court cases are disputes over property, etc).
Of course, I don't think that property, especially (or maybe exclusively) real property, should be absolute in the first place. Sure, we have to have some notion of ownership of land, otherwise we'd wind up with the tragedy of the commons, but if we allowed unlimited and absolute ownership of land we'd be back to feudalism. I think the happy medium is to have ownership of land, subject to a property tax. This way you avoid the tragedy of the commons, by designating a single person to control it, but at the same time you encourage that person to put that property to good use, by charging an annual fee for the privilege of ownership.
So in my opinion the property tax is useful even beyond just being a source of revenue. I don't think the same can be said of the sales tax. What does that encourage, people not to buy or sell things?
I am ignoring at least two services which are hotly contested though - education and health care. This is one where I see an argument on both sides of the fence. Why should someone healthy or wise need to pay for the education and health care of someone who isn't? Why should the rich pay more for essentially the same health and education services as the rest of us? One argument is that having a healthy well-educated population benefits everyone, but even that doesn't get to the question of why the rich should pay more. For education, I think my favorite solution is to offer cheap loans, basically the way we handle college education here today. For health care, well, I dunno. Do hospitals cost the government that much?
Should the government tax services? Service providers are not exempt from the income tax today, and should not be exempt from the FairTax.
I don't understand that one. What would be a "new" service? And where do you draw the line as to what is a sales tax on a service and what is an income tax? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, vs. if I pay a lawn mowing service to do it, they'd certainly need to both be taxed or not taxed, and I can't figure out which it'd be.
Looking at the FAQ, it seems they're claiming that they're going to get the same amount of revenue but they're also essentially claiming that everyone is going to pay less (a person who makes $1 million a year pays more than 250,000 in income taxes, and almost surely spends less than $1 million a year on new goods and services (and so would pay less than $230,000 in FairTax).
Those are optional services, so I don't see the big deal with that. I agree with you that cell companies weren't the first with sneaky fees though. In fact, the regular phone companies generally have all the same fees as I listed.
As for the unlisted number thing, just think of it as a rebate for letting them list you in their phone book.
sales tax is only collected when an item is sold as new from a retailer
So what if you don't buy anything new from a retailer? What if instead you just hire someone to make it for you? What if you fix things instead of buying new (do you have to prorate the part of it's that's new or something)? This seems far too easy for the rich to avoid taxes completely. But meanwhile they'll still get all the services which predominantly go to the rich already.
The only one I can find is some parts of Alaska. Apparently Alaska has no state sales tax, no state income tax, no state property tax, no state inheritance tax, no state estate tax, and relatively low excise taxes. In fact, Alaska pays people to live there (the Alaska Permanent Fund). Of course, in those Alaska counties without property taxes I'd guess you're not going to get much in the way of police/fire services anyway. Still, it might be worth it to set up a business there, especially if you live in a state with no personal income tax. I wonder how much the power bill would be, though.
is judicial activism really that surprising anymore?
This isn't really judicial activism so much as executive activism (the commissioner being part of the executive branch, though acting in a quasi-judicial role), and the judiciary refusing to do anything about it.
But isn't the state providing services to the business? Don't businesses deserve police protect, fire service, etc.?
The business is paying for fire and police through its property taxes. Then, it's paying for excise taxes, corporate business taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, etc.
Imagine what would happen if all businesses were in one state, and all persons lived in another state, and all telecommuted. Both states would need taxes.
No thanks. Why should we pay a tax every single time an item changes hands? If I buy a car, and sell it 5 months later, why should the government get a sales tax twice? Sales tax, like income tax, is too artificial. By artificial I mean it is hindering a free market in a way which causes no benefit to society.
What could be simpler?
Property tax. Just pay taxes on your property (mostly real property but maybe extended to other items if need be). No double, triple, or quadruple taxation there. And you encourage people not to sit on property that they aren't using. Put it to use or sell it to someone who will.
Yeah, that part is really slimey. If I recall correctly one of the fees is a "number portability fee" or something like that. Basically, the government told them they had to make cell phone numbers portable, so they added $2 a month to everyone's bill in order to pay for that, and called it a tax, or something ridiculous like that.
That said, there are an awful lot of real taxes on your cell phone bill too. Sales tax, excise tax, regulatory fees, 911 service fee... I think my 911 service fee alone is a couple bucks a month.
A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS. You are no longer renting a video if you KEEP IT. In that case, then you are BUYING the video.
Yes but what about the people who don't keep it, but merely return it a few weeks late? They are charged a fee. What should we call this fee?
Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie?
I figured they were just advertising for their monthly service. But no, you're not the only one who figured it out.
I'm sure there were some people who were tricked. After all, what's the point of advertising "no late fees" if all the people you're advertising to are smart enough not to fall for your fraudulent ad.
I think the settlement is a good one. Give anyone who claims they were tricked a refund, stop the false advertising, and pay for the attorney fees.
If I'm not mistaken, you do not have to give out your SSN to any agency that will not use it for Social Security related stuff.
Well, I never said you have to give it.
That is, the only people who need to know your SSN is your employer (for payroll taxes) and the SS Dept (along with the IRS).
Those two aren't the same statement. You need someone's social security number for more than just employment. For instance, if you pay someone interest, gambling winnings, or nonemployee compensation, and don't withhold 20% backup withholding, you need their SSN.
Since your school does not need your SSN, you don't have to give it to them.
No, you don't, and they don't have to let you go to their school.
Perhaps this was the original idea, but isn't that way in practice. I was always under the impression that it was on the books in the way I described.
Well, see http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm for the closest thing I can find. From my quick reading, it seems even if it's a public school it would be perfectly legal for them to not let you attend without giving your social security number. If it's a private school, it's definitely legal.
They need to have a SSN to work and if the apply for one when they are older than 12 they will need to do an in-person interview and explain why they don't have one.
If the only problem were having to go through a little interview, in the event my children decide they want to work, then it'd be a no-brainer. The issue, like I said, is the tax benefits of being able to claim them.
I wonder what the deal is if you pay someone who voluntarily does work for you (on a regular basis) and they don't have a social security number. I don't see how this could possibly be illegal. I mean, I have a right to give my kids money, and they have a right to do things for me, right?
You obviously have never actually had to deal with Identity theft.
Of course not. No one has ever stolen my identity. At the most they've copied it.
If you happen to find out about this because you are applying for a loan, as I was, this can be a major hassle waiting for a month before the bank can begin to process the loan.
Well, if you knew you were going to be buying a house, you should have checked your credit report at least a month before you even begun the process. Of course, maybe you didn't know until the last minute and couldn't do that.
If you don't have a SSN, you can't become legally employed, nor will you ever build any credit. That's a pretty silly move.
It's a silly move if you want to be employed or borrow money. Not everyone needs that, though, and if you don't have an SSN, you can always get one (at least, if you were born here).
"A phone call or two" are not how most of the stories of abused credit ratings read.
Because "a phone call or two" doesn't make for a very good story.
Seems to me more like a multi-year process of making calls and writing letters, and dealing with sleezy collection agencies.
If you catch it soon enough it's not going to get to that. I strongly recommend that everyone check their credit once a year. Under a new federal law you can do this for free in every state, it used to be state law in only some states. I've had a number of false items taken off my credit, and haven't had any problem. I know someone else who has had their identity used by someone to sign up for all kinds of stuff. A few phone calls was all it took to take it off her credit report. The only ongoing inconvenience is that now she can't sign up for anything major online or over the phone, which is essentially what we'd have anyway.
I'm sure there are a few isolated cases of people who have gone through bigger problems, but most of the time it's nothing more than a phone call or two (it's just that this doesn't make the news). Anyway, one thing that should be done to make things easier is to give everyone unlimited access to check their own credit report.
Slashdot Mirror
Rich people shouldn't be getting more in government services. That doesn't make sense.
The government exists, in large part, to enable the rich to keep their wealth.
In addition to the no compound interest within the first seven years thing, make it illegal to have interest over like 15% annually.
I don't understand why you'd want to do that. If someone is willing to pay a certain amount of interest, they should be able to. Putting such a low and ridiculous limit on the interest rate that can be charged would destroy the economy.
Confidential student data which could be used to cause serious financial liability to individuals was stored on a laptop in a poorly secured facility
Pardon me for the strawman, but I'm going to follow along with what you seem to be saying, since you don't seem to want to explain yourself.
A school gathers information about a student, including that student's name, address, and social security number. Someone who has this information on their laptop loses it. The theif takes the information, goes to a bank, and presents them with the student's name, address, and social security number. The bank decides to lend that person $1,000. The thief doesn't pay the bank back. The bank sends a letter demanding payment to the person. The person writes back, saying that he knows nothing about the loan. The bank sues the person in court. A judge looks at the evidence, and says since the person who took out the loan knew the social security number of the defendant, they must have been the defendent, and awards $1,000 to the bank.
Now, in that story, you'd say the cause of the liability is the loss of the social security number???? Because, in my opinion the immediate cause was the fraudulent loan. The responsibility lies on the thief who took out the fraudulent loan and the bank who gave $1,000 to the thief without verifying his identity. And then, of course, the judge made a decision which no judge in the US would ever make.
Like I said, this is a strawman, so perhaps you can present a more realistic situation where someone can get a $1,000 liability just because someone knows his SSN, because my story just isn't realistic. No judge would award a settlement simply because the person taking out the loan knew the person's SSN. So it's impossible on its face, and even if you ignore that it would still be the fault of the person allowing the loan, not in the person who gave out the SSN.
As I've said in other threads, I know Bill Gates' name, address, and SSN. Does that mean I can steal money from him? Of course not. A social security number is not a password.
Because that's what the credit reporting agencies use as a key into their database.
That's your argument. However, it is not true on its face, so if you're going to convince me it's wrong you're going to have to present some reasoning.
You do not use a number designed to allocate, as its name states, social security benefits, as an identifier for non-SS-related financial info.
Why not?
Fair enough, but you you _can_ do it, and you can get a new one.
Some people can, yes.
So there's not much point in using it as an identifier. Any identification mechanism which _can_ be changed without the knowledge of the system using it is not useful as an identification mechanism.
Then there is no useful identification mechanism. Well, I guess we could get someone's fingerprint whenever they apply for a loan, but somehow I don't think that'll go over very well with people.
And no, I don't have a better idea--I refuse to bring up something like personal ID cards or biometrics or other "solutions" that open up a pandora's box of issues.
So why not use the closest thing we've got. I have to dispute that there is "not much point in using it as an identifier". It still works just the same for anyone who hasn't changed their number, and it'd only be a problem for people loaning money to those that do if they had really bad credit before the change. New credit takes a while to establish anyway, and records leave your credit report after 7 years anyway. So it isn't really that big of an issue, even if someone with horrible credit is allowed to establish a new number. They've still got to work for years to build up good credit.
The system works pretty well. The only major problem is that some people have chosen to use the social security number as a password. But that has nothing to do with the fact that it's used as an identifier.
You may not have an issue with using an insecure mechanism that's subject to compromise and misuse this easily to identify yourself, but I do.
I don't see how security plays a role in identification. We just need a pointer to a person's records. We could use name, birthdate, birth city, mother's maiden name, etc., but instead we use a number. Security issues only come into play when you think that knowledge of the number means something.
The only remotely "positive" thing about using SSNs as identifiers is that they are understood to be insecure, as opposed to biometrics, which are (mistakenly) widely believed to be safe, so if I am affected I can, such as happened to many individuals in the ChoicePoint breakin, have recourse.
How are SSNs "insecure"? You seem to be cocnfusing identifiers with passwords. They are completely different things. Some people use the SSN as a password, and you have my full support that that is bad.
Confidential student data which could be used to cause serious financial liability to individuals was stored on a laptop in a poorly secured facility
So if I tell you someone's name I've given out "confidential student data which could be used to cause serious financial liability to individuals"? Just how can you use someone's SSN to cause serious financial liability to that person anyway? You're once again confusing a SSN with a password. A social security number is not a password. Repeat it again with me. A social security number is not a password.
If I buy a car, and sell it 5 months later, why should the government get a sales tax twice?
Where does this *not* happen already?
In states that don't have sales tax.
The problem with property tax is that it doesn't allow true ownership of property if the government can take it away from you if you default.
But as I said, I see no reason we should allow true ownership of real property in the first place. The argument for property ownership is a practical one, based on the tragedy of the commons, not a moral one, and a resolution of the tragedy of the commons does not require "true ownership" of real property.
It's regressive cause what if the title owner has a low income, or perhaps no income for a few years due to a lost job?
Many states have a homestead rebate exempting the first $X of property used as a homestead. There's no reason not to have one of those, if you want a progressive tax. You could even go further and have a fully progressive property tax system.
That is one of the worst things someone could do, tax a person so they can remain a citizen. It treats people like cattle.
Well, as I said, it was only a response to those who argue that the poor would pay too little. I myself think a flat property tax with a homestead exemption is sufficient.
In my opinion, it's fair cause you essentially opt into how much you wish to pay in taxes.
You opt in no more than with any other tax. Don't want to pay an income tax? Don't have any income (over the standard deduction). Don't want a property tax? Don't own any property (beyond the standard exemption). If you don't want to pay the sales tax, what, you don't buy anything that isn't exempted?
Make it illegal to compound interest during the first seven years of a loan.
Do you think that would have any effect other than causing interest rates to skyrocket during the first seven years of a loan?
Why should rich people pay more in taxes than poor people?
Because they get more in government services.
Do you really want a revolt if the gap between rich and poor becomes so big that the poor people symbolically pick up pitch forks and storm the mansions of their employers?
Since I'm not rich, hey, a revolt wouldn't be so bad.
What happens if it gets so worse the poor population decides not to honor the currency the rich people have?
I don't see how that would be a bad thing, actually.
In my opinion property taxes are the closest thing to taxing people for the services they actually use. The essential services of the government are to protect life and property. I suppose the protection of life is best served by a flat tax per person, but I'd say most of the cost goes to the property side of the equation (there are far more thefts than murders, most court cases are disputes over property, etc).
Of course, I don't think that property, especially (or maybe exclusively) real property, should be absolute in the first place. Sure, we have to have some notion of ownership of land, otherwise we'd wind up with the tragedy of the commons, but if we allowed unlimited and absolute ownership of land we'd be back to feudalism. I think the happy medium is to have ownership of land, subject to a property tax. This way you avoid the tragedy of the commons, by designating a single person to control it, but at the same time you encourage that person to put that property to good use, by charging an annual fee for the privilege of ownership.
So in my opinion the property tax is useful even beyond just being a source of revenue. I don't think the same can be said of the sales tax. What does that encourage, people not to buy or sell things?
I am ignoring at least two services which are hotly contested though - education and health care. This is one where I see an argument on both sides of the fence. Why should someone healthy or wise need to pay for the education and health care of someone who isn't? Why should the rich pay more for essentially the same health and education services as the rest of us? One argument is that having a healthy well-educated population benefits everyone, but even that doesn't get to the question of why the rich should pay more. For education, I think my favorite solution is to offer cheap loans, basically the way we handle college education here today. For health care, well, I dunno. Do hospitals cost the government that much?
I don't understand that one. What would be a "new" service? And where do you draw the line as to what is a sales tax on a service and what is an income tax? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, vs. if I pay a lawn mowing service to do it, they'd certainly need to both be taxed or not taxed, and I can't figure out which it'd be.
Looking at the FAQ, it seems they're claiming that they're going to get the same amount of revenue but they're also essentially claiming that everyone is going to pay less (a person who makes $1 million a year pays more than 250,000 in income taxes, and almost surely spends less than $1 million a year on new goods and services (and so would pay less than $230,000 in FairTax).
Those are optional services, so I don't see the big deal with that. I agree with you that cell companies weren't the first with sneaky fees though. In fact, the regular phone companies generally have all the same fees as I listed.
As for the unlisted number thing, just think of it as a rebate for letting them list you in their phone book.
sales tax is only collected when an item is sold as new from a retailer
So what if you don't buy anything new from a retailer? What if instead you just hire someone to make it for you? What if you fix things instead of buying new (do you have to prorate the part of it's that's new or something)? This seems far too easy for the rich to avoid taxes completely. But meanwhile they'll still get all the services which predominantly go to the rich already.
The only one I can find is some parts of Alaska. Apparently Alaska has no state sales tax, no state income tax, no state property tax, no state inheritance tax, no state estate tax, and relatively low excise taxes. In fact, Alaska pays people to live there (the Alaska Permanent Fund). Of course, in those Alaska counties without property taxes I'd guess you're not going to get much in the way of police/fire services anyway. Still, it might be worth it to set up a business there, especially if you live in a state with no personal income tax. I wonder how much the power bill would be, though.
As I said, AFAIK, all states have property taxes. Do you know of any that don't?
is judicial activism really that surprising anymore?
This isn't really judicial activism so much as executive activism (the commissioner being part of the executive branch, though acting in a quasi-judicial role), and the judiciary refusing to do anything about it.
But isn't the state providing services to the business? Don't businesses deserve police protect, fire service, etc.?
The business is paying for fire and police through its property taxes. Then, it's paying for excise taxes, corporate business taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, etc.
Imagine what would happen if all businesses were in one state, and all persons lived in another state, and all telecommuted. Both states would need taxes.
AFAIK, all states have property taxes.
How about we abolish income tax.
Absolutely.
Replace it with a sales tax.
No thanks. Why should we pay a tax every single time an item changes hands? If I buy a car, and sell it 5 months later, why should the government get a sales tax twice? Sales tax, like income tax, is too artificial. By artificial I mean it is hindering a free market in a way which causes no benefit to society.
What could be simpler?
Property tax. Just pay taxes on your property (mostly real property but maybe extended to other items if need be). No double, triple, or quadruple taxation there. And you encourage people not to sit on property that they aren't using. Put it to use or sell it to someone who will.
I agree. We should unify things. All states should have no income tax.
With PA and NJ, it's a credit, so I assume that's what he was talking about. However, as someone else pointed out, TN doesn't have state income tax.
Yeah, that part is really slimey. If I recall correctly one of the fees is a "number portability fee" or something like that. Basically, the government told them they had to make cell phone numbers portable, so they added $2 a month to everyone's bill in order to pay for that, and called it a tax, or something ridiculous like that.
That said, there are an awful lot of real taxes on your cell phone bill too. Sales tax, excise tax, regulatory fees, 911 service fee... I think my 911 service fee alone is a couple bucks a month.
A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS. You are no longer renting a video if you KEEP IT. In that case, then you are BUYING the video.
Yes but what about the people who don't keep it, but merely return it a few weeks late? They are charged a fee. What should we call this fee?
Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie?
I figured they were just advertising for their monthly service. But no, you're not the only one who figured it out.
I'm sure there were some people who were tricked. After all, what's the point of advertising "no late fees" if all the people you're advertising to are smart enough not to fall for your fraudulent ad.
I think the settlement is a good one. Give anyone who claims they were tricked a refund, stop the false advertising, and pay for the attorney fees.
If I'm not mistaken, you do not have to give out your SSN to any agency that will not use it for Social Security related stuff.
Well, I never said you have to give it.
That is, the only people who need to know your SSN is your employer (for payroll taxes) and the SS Dept (along with the IRS).
Those two aren't the same statement. You need someone's social security number for more than just employment. For instance, if you pay someone interest, gambling winnings, or nonemployee compensation, and don't withhold 20% backup withholding, you need their SSN.
Since your school does not need your SSN, you don't have to give it to them.
No, you don't, and they don't have to let you go to their school.
Perhaps this was the original idea, but isn't that way in practice. I was always under the impression that it was on the books in the way I described.
Well, see http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm for the closest thing I can find. From my quick reading, it seems even if it's a public school it would be perfectly legal for them to not let you attend without giving your social security number. If it's a private school, it's definitely legal.
They need to have a SSN to work and if the apply for one when they are older than 12 they will need to do an in-person interview and explain why they don't have one.
If the only problem were having to go through a little interview, in the event my children decide they want to work, then it'd be a no-brainer. The issue, like I said, is the tax benefits of being able to claim them.
I wonder what the deal is if you pay someone who voluntarily does work for you (on a regular basis) and they don't have a social security number. I don't see how this could possibly be illegal. I mean, I have a right to give my kids money, and they have a right to do things for me, right?
You can't garnish someone's wages just because you gave a loan to someone who pretended to be him.
You obviously have never actually had to deal with Identity theft.
Of course not. No one has ever stolen my identity. At the most they've copied it.
If you happen to find out about this because you are applying for a loan, as I was, this can be a major hassle waiting for a month before the bank can begin to process the loan.
Well, if you knew you were going to be buying a house, you should have checked your credit report at least a month before you even begun the process. Of course, maybe you didn't know until the last minute and couldn't do that.
If you don't have a SSN, you can't become legally employed, nor will you ever build any credit. That's a pretty silly move.
It's a silly move if you want to be employed or borrow money. Not everyone needs that, though, and if you don't have an SSN, you can always get one (at least, if you were born here).
"A phone call or two" are not how most of the stories of abused credit ratings read.
Because "a phone call or two" doesn't make for a very good story.
Seems to me more like a multi-year process of making calls and writing letters, and dealing with sleezy collection agencies.
If you catch it soon enough it's not going to get to that. I strongly recommend that everyone check their credit once a year. Under a new federal law you can do this for free in every state, it used to be state law in only some states. I've had a number of false items taken off my credit, and haven't had any problem. I know someone else who has had their identity used by someone to sign up for all kinds of stuff. A few phone calls was all it took to take it off her credit report. The only ongoing inconvenience is that now she can't sign up for anything major online or over the phone, which is essentially what we'd have anyway.
I'm sure there are a few isolated cases of people who have gone through bigger problems, but most of the time it's nothing more than a phone call or two (it's just that this doesn't make the news). Anyway, one thing that should be done to make things easier is to give everyone unlimited access to check their own credit report.