Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]And that was the trigger that led to the birth of The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 which is still in effect today.[/quote]
…And so is FATCA.You either didn’t read my previous comment or didn’t understand it. [b]An act of Congress does NOT supersede a Supreme Court ruling. The 2010 FATCA law DOES supersede a conflicting 1978 law.[/b]
But it doesn’t matter WHAT laws Congress passed, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional. Both the 1976 Miller decision and another in 1979 – Smith v. Maryland – remain the law of the land.
[url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&invol=735&vol=442]Smith v. Maryland[/url]:[i] …this Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.[/i]
However as I already mentioned, the Supreme Court MAY change its mind on this. If it does, you should be happy that President Obama put Sonia Sotomayor on the Court and unhappy that Reagan put Scalia on it. I’ve already pointed out how Scalia feels about the right to privacy, but Sotomayor wrote this in a recent opinion:
United States v. Jones:[i]…it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks … I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.[/i][/quote]
And you surely didn’t read or understand my comment regarding vigilance. The issue always boils down to vigilance and speaking up when and where we see abuse (or possibly the intent of future abuse) … what you have referred to as “whining”.
Here’s a little true story, “Little Pixframe, age 4: “Ooh, Mommy, I don’t want to drink my milk, it’s ICKY! Bwah, Bwah, Bwah!”. Not so little Pixframe , age 40+, still doesn’t like drinking milk. Why? At age 20 she learned she had lactose intolerance. On many occasions there’s a very valid reason why one should (using your word again) whine! And the topic under discussion is one of them.
[quote=”sweikert925″]
[i]The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. [/i]From [url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15052729295643479698&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]United States v. Miller[/url][/quote]
And that was the trigger that led to the birth of The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 which is still in effect today.
In addition … The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the US guarantees: “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, PAPERS, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.
The Ninth Amendment says that a right that is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
We must always be vigilant in preserving our rights and when we believe they are being threatened we must question and speak up.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]What do you think the signatories of this agreement have in mind? Tax cheats? Terrorist[s]?[/quote]
Yes and yes. Also others who are engaged in illegal activities such as drug dealing. [/quote]
The government is trampling on our rights stated in The Rights To Financial Privacy Act of 1978.
The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 protects the confidentiality of personal financial records by creating a statutory FOURTH AMENDMENT protection for bank records. The Act was essentially a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in United States v. Miller, where the Court found that bank customers had no legal right to privacy in financial information held by financial institutions. 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Generally, the RFPA requires that federal government agencies provide individuals with a notice and an opportunity to object before a bank or other specified institution can disclose personal financial information to a federal government agency, often for law enforcement purposes.
The RFPA states that “no Government authority may have access to or obtain copies of, or the information contained in the financial records of any customer from a financial institution unless the financial records are reasonably described” AND THE CUSTOMER AUTHORIZES ACCESS; there is an appropriate administrative subpoena or summons; there is a qualified search warrant; there is an appropriate judicial subpoena; or there is an appropriate written request from an authorized government authority. The statutes requires that the requesting federal government agency must give the customer advance notice of the requested disclosure from the financial institution, thus giving the customer opportunity to challenge the government’s access to the records before the disclosure takes place.
[quote=”Kwhite1″][quote=”pixframe”][quote=”Kwhite1″]I doubt this has anything to do with FATCA right? Highly doubt it……..
“When adjusted for inflation …”. Trust the government to spin the numbers. They manipulate the data they use to calculate the inflationary factor. And, by doing so, make the numbers say what they want them to say … leading me to believe the deficit is much higher than depicted in this article. I’d love to review their work papers to see if that same rate of inflation was applied to their “pay outs” such as Social Security where in January of this year they gave a C.O.L.A. increase of a meager 1.5%.[/quote]
Whatever numbers they tout, I automatically double it to get at least in the ball park of reality. Anyone that thinks because unemployment benefits run out on 800,000 people means unemployment actually dropped is not some entity that I would put merit in much less believe.[/quote]
Based on the way the government calculates it, when unemployment benefits dry up and run out for all the people collecting we’ll have an unemployment rate of ZERO … LOL.
You being a small business owner will appreciate how even more misleading their unemployment count is when you consider small business owners, whose businesses fail, don’t qualify for unemployment (at least here in New York State they don’t). As long as the government can tax them up the wazoo they’re highly visible …. but as soon as their business fails they become invisible … not even to be counted in the number of unemployed.
[quote=”Kwhite1″]I doubt this has anything to do with FATCA right? Highly doubt it……..
“When adjusted for inflation …”. Trust the government to spin the numbers. They manipulate the data they use to calculate the inflationary factor. And, by doing so, make the numbers say what they want them to say … leading me to believe the deficit is much higher than depicted in this article. I’d love to review their work papers to see if that same rate of inflation was applied to their “pay outs” such as Social Security where in January of this year they gave a C.O.L.A. increase of a meager 1.5%.
[quote=”davidd”]I dont know but these types of comments gives me the willys
sounds like the same mantra from thier papa
http://www.qcostarica.com/2014/05/12/figueres-the-good-citizen-has-nothing-to-fear-from-the-dis/
[/quote]
And so it begins ….
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]There are times when extreme measures need to be taken to make things right again.[/quote]
Yeah, we already know you heartily approve of punishing the innocent along with the guilty.Some day it may happen that you are part of a group, some of whom are guilty of something but you are not. And then it would be OK to punish you too, according to your philosophy.
So turning this topic back to where it started, if the US government passes laws aimed at tax cheats and people who acquire wealth through illegal means and those laws cause inconvenience – or worse – to you, you’re hardly in a position to complain about it, are you? Because (you insist) it’s OK to punish the innocent along with the guilty.[/quote]
You really can’t help yourself from having to get in the last word. But, rethinking it, it’s not the last word you want it’s the conflict … you thrive on the conflict. You twist words and/or tell people what they’re actually saying and pat yourself on your back for being so clever …. but you’re not so clever.
You’re the kid in the school yard that no one wants to play with. To get some attention you choose a kid and hit him. And, when he hits you back you get some satisfaction because for that brief moment you weren’t ignored.
You should NEVER have brought up the Bible. Religion (one with a God, a group of Gods, or no God at all) is a very personal, emotional, and spiritual matter that goes to the core of who each of us are. You and your righteousness were way out of line bringing it up.
Enough said!
[quote=”sweikert925″] I’m sorry to hear that. I happen to think there is a great deal of wisdom in the Bible regardless of whether you accept the supernatural dogma. The Sermon on the Mount by itself is worth putting the Bible up there with the greatest moral texts. (And something a couple people who contribute to this message board should read or re-read when they get the chance). [/quote]
This is the same Book where every innocent child on the face of the Earth (other than the children of Noah) were drowned along with their parents and later, in two cities (Sodom & Gomorrah), again the innocent children and their parents were brutally killed by fire and brimstone. There are times when extreme measures need to be taken to make things right again.
[quote=”sweikert925″]So you have 3 possible alternatives:
(2) Stop providing for them to show those dirty stinkin’ poor people they can’t get away with their shameful behavior
[quote=”pixframe”] I vote for #2[/quote]
[quote=”Imxploring”]I vote for #2 as well[/quote]
What is there left to say to a pair that are willing to let innocent children suffer in order to punish their parents for behavior they disapprove of?[/quote]I can’t speak for Imx (don’t know the guy but do like what he has to say) but I can speak for myself. You are misplacing the guilt. It belongs at the source … totally and completely, 100%, it belongs to the parents who brought into the world children they knowingly couldn’t or wouldn’t support and nurture.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]I put “for the children” in quotes because that’s where the system gets sucked into paying for people’s irresponsible actions.[/quote]
So you have 3 possible alternatives:
(1) Provide for those innocent children regardless of the shameful behavior of their parents and resign yourself to the fact
(2) Stop providing for them to show those dirty stinkin’ poor people they can’t get away with their shameful behavior
(3) Keep providing for them but whine and moan at every opportunity that you’re forced to do soI see you’ve gone with option (3).[/quote]
Oh, gee, a survey. I love taking surveys! And, although this one’s wording is more than somewhat biased … I vote for #2 (Stop providing for them to show these parents they must personally take responsibility for their actions).
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Pixframe wrote:
You (conveniently?) omitted when it was first devised it did not include a “Social Security Disability” component which has had a major impact on shortening the life of the (supposed) fund.[/quote][quote=”sweikert925″] True enough. But the tax was raised to cover the additional benefits. In 1935 the tax was 2%, SSDI was passed in 1956 and the tax was raised to 6% in 1960 in steps. That was supposed to cover both the increased lifespan that Americans enjoyed and the new SSDI benefit. The fact that there is still a shortfall means that we have to tinker with SS again as was done in 1986.[/quote]
Tinker? That’s just another euphemism for “kicking the can down the road”.[quote=”sweikert925″][By the way I am getting a little irked with these snide insinuations that I am only looking out for myself in the arguments I make. Every argument you make happens to benefit you personally, but I don’t feel the need to keep pointing that out.[/quote]
Since I’m already collecting social security, how does my rejecting the suggestion that the FICA rate be increased and the full retirement age be postponed benefit me?[quote=”sweikert925″]If I truly was only out for myself, I would be in favor of no changes to SS at all. There is enough money in SS to pay currently promised benefits until well after I am dead. I was in favor of the 1986 reform even though it meant waiting until age 66.5 to collect the full benefit for me instead of age 65.[/quote]
I very much hope, for your sake, that your unbridled enthusiasm for the future of the fund doesn’t interfere with you providing for yourself some form of survival plan in the event your unrealistic, overly optimistic, beliefs don’t come to fruition.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Kwhite1″]Steve, once again you fail to see what this issue is. Raising taxes is the answer? [/quote]
If the SS funding problem could be fixed by the other 2 solutions I mentioned alone, then fine – but it can’t. The only other alternative is to reduce benefits – and I don’t mean reducing annual inflation INCREASES, I mean actual reductions in benefits. Is that what you prefer?If we do nothing at all, SS can still pay promised benefits at 75% of the promised amount. For me that would be no hardship as I have 3 other sources of retirement income, 2 of which are for life.
When SS was first devised in 1935, you had to wait til you were 65 to collect – and oh, by the way, the life expectancy for someone who reached 65 was another 5 years. Today you can start collecting at 62 and life expectancy is 78. And to top it off the numbers of people reaching retirement age from 2011 on is exploding thanks to all those frisky returning soldiers after WWII.
5 years of benefits in 1935, 13 to 16 years in 2014. 45 million recipients in 2000, 57 million in 2013. Why shouldn’t taxes be raised to fund the additional years of benefits that most of us can expect to get? Who do [b]you[/b] think should pay for those additional years worth of benefits?[/quote]
You (conveniently?) omitted when it was first devised it did not include a “Social Security Disability” component which has had a major impact on shortening the life of the (supposed) fund.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Gradually raising the retirement age to 70, for the many who have labored physically all their lives it’s not possible to continue working to that age. [/quote]
It seems doubtful that any change to SS will remove the early payout option starting at 62.[quote=”pixframe”]if they were to be imposed, not taking effect until after your retirement … heck!!! it sure would be easy since there would be no sacrifices made by or pain felt by you. [/quote]
If they fix this next year and increase the tax rate by 2% immediately it would be fine with me. In 1986 they raised both the tax rate AND the retirement age for people born the year I was and it seemed a reasonable thing to do both then and now.[/quote]As I’ve already said, it’s just kicking the can down the road. Watch that 29 minute film I suggested … hopefully it will help open your eyes.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”VictoriaLST”]SS tax pays for retirement income? Nah – they raided that.[/quote]
So all those folks who get a check every month are just imagining that? Hmmm. That must be some powerful imaginations those folks have.[/quote]
I also suggest you spend 29 minutes to understand how our money supply is created http://hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4
