TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US National ID Card - Coming Soon
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Neither are the rich and famous paying their fair share. Also do you see the Bush twins holding any jobs at The Gap and MacDonalds?

I agreed with you up to this point.

The whole point of living in the land of the free is to find the magical American Dream where you 'make it' and free yourself AND YOUR FAMILY from the financial bonds of everyday life; it's the ole', "leaving a legacy for your children's children".
If someone has become successful to the point where their family doesn't have to work because of their financial standing, it's because society has rewarded them so (through their father/mother/family member's former accomplishments).

The fact that Bush's daughters don't work doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Everyone should learn life's lessons of hard work and accomplishment BUT they have the CHOICE to do so or not.
It's not about pulling their share, it's about having the choice; because it's obvious that they have that.
We pleebs can shake our fist all we want at those that don't have to OR we can find a way to have our OWN choice.

Re: US National ID Card - Coming Soon

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Are the terrorists winning? When al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, they made it clear they hate America and want to terrorize us into changing America. If they could, the terrorists would destroy the unique American way of life. But they can't. Only we can do that. Tragically, too much of the legislation enacted by Congress in a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 does al-Qaeda's job for them. The Patriot Act took the first, disastrous step toward fundamentally changing our way of life. Then came the homeland security bill, followed by the 9/11 intelligence reorganization bill. And now the Real ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) will be voted on Thursday, February 10th. What's wrong with H.R. 418 -- a bill we are told will stem the flow of illegal aliens through our porous borders? For starters, it does NOTHING to stem the flow of illegal aliens. Instead, H.R. 418 will: 1. Establish a national ID card. 2. Establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information on American citizens with Canada and Mexico. 3. Use the new national ID to track American citizens when traveling outside the U.S. -- and within the U.S. 4. Re-define "terrorism" in broad new terms that could include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. 5. Authorize the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally expand the information included in driver's licenses, including such biometric information as retina scans and DNA information -- and even radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking technology. Carry a driver�s license with RFID and governmental officials will know your whereabouts 24/7. Incredibly, H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation. H.R. 418 fails miserably on this most critical issue. The Real ID Act or Real National ID Act will impose a Soviet-style internal passport on law-abiding American citizens. Proponents of H.R. 418 say we must "make sacrifices" like this to control our borders and fight illegal immigration. But H.R. 418 is a Trojan horse -- it pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: more of our constitutionally protected liberty. H.R. 418 does what al-Qaeda could never do without our help. H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state. The terrorists will have won. Urge your U.S. representative to vote "no" on H.R. 418. Go to http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/al...6938731&type=CO Kent Snyder The Liberty Committee http://www.thelibertycommittee.org

I wrote something similar for class recently:

Pros and Cons of Biometric Systems

[My NAME]

13 February 2005

Biometric systems are a kind of system that utilises a person's physiological and/or behavioural features usually for identification purposes (Biometrics � Wikipedia). In the world of information technology (IT), the use of a biometrics system usually means using a person's fingerprint or eye for accessing certain information. One example of this is if you use your fingerprint to assist in making a credit card transaction in a store. The biometric information can be stored in a database formed by a company, organisation, or even the government for whatever they plan to use it for (Biometrics � Wikipedia). One example of this is with the British National Identity card that's linked with a database called the National Identity Register (NIR) (British national identity card � Wikipedia). The NIR contains a huge amount of information, including all addresses of residence, all places of employment, and other, even further, personal information, about every British citizen who has this card and many people who care about their privacy are trying to take steps to minimise the number of people getting this card. It's currently a voluntary decision if someone wishes to get the new card, but already, the government is attempting to make it compulsory ahead of time by making requirements for driver's licences, passports, and the like include getting a British National Identity card as well (British national identity card � Wikipedia). One of the bad things about this whole system is that if biometric information falls into criminal organisations or possession, the results can be disastrous, particularly if a criminal gets access to information about someone at levels of detail never reached before. Another bad thing is that if an NIR-type system were to become wide-spread in the future, people's rights to privacy and civil liberties will be greatly diminished.

Since biometrics can be tied into almost every aspect of our life in the future, I'm strongly against such a system becoming wide-spread, no matter what original purpose they are meant for. For example, I certainly wouldn't want my cable company to ask me about a slightly overdue bill and then bring up a subject about a holiday I took to the Mediterranean during a previous week or a new computer that I just bought, as that is my own personal life, and I don't expect companies to tap into it unless specifically asked and I have the option to decline to speak about it.

I think consumers will not take it so well if they knew what the systems were really being designed for. Even though consumers currently use credit cards a lot, especially for big purchases, I don't believe they will accept biometric identification as an acceptable 'password', because it's 'over-the-top' for even the biggest purchases.

Other possible decent uses for biometric systems is allowing home, car, and computer password entry, as long as the biometric system isn't the only way to obtain entry. The biometric information used in this kind of a system should never be stored outside the receiving device itself.

Works Cited

�Biometric � Wikipedia�. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 11 February 2005. Wikimedia Foundation. 13 February 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric>.

�British national identity card � Wikipedia�. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 February 2005. Wikimedia Foundation. 13 February 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...l_identity_card>.





PS: I think that if eventually the Western world turns into a place of constant surrveillence (sp?), where slowly civil liberties are removed in the name of 'terrorism' (or anything governments wish to call it, WMD or whatever), then it's safe to say that the real terrorists have already won. :-(

Re: Great idea

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The whole passport system needs to be updated anyways... I hope that Canada starts to use this system too. I don't see what so 'scary' about it. Hell we have to get our picture taken for driver's licences every 4-5yrs so what's the big deal?

Read my little blurb and you'll see exactly why I'm so against this kind of thing (not just national ID cards; but biometric systems in general).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's great, but you didn't answer my question. What exactly is a "fair" share in your opinion.

I would say a fair share is the taxes they pay plus what they would owe if they were not using offshore tax loopholes. They use our roads, economic institutions, police, department of defense, etc. just like we do. That money would go a long way to helping to reduce the deficit and maybe paying off some foreign debt so the burden could be softened on all of us.

figure if you abide by the laws and are a good American citizen, this shouldn't bother you. throw away your crack pipe, and get in line for that National ID card.

go on,...

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM figure if you abide by the laws and are a good American citizen, this shouldn't bother you. throw away your crack pipe, and get in line for that National ID card. go on,... >JM<

Thats EXACTLY how they want you to think

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I would say a fair share is the taxes they pay plus what they would owe if they were not using offshore tax loopholes. They use our roads, economic institutions, police, department of defense, etc. just like we do. That money would go a long way to helping to reduce the deficit and maybe paying off some foreign debt so the burden could be softened on all of us.

So you operate on the assumption that every single one of the "rich" is somehow using loopholes and tomfoolery to somehow pay less than they should. Nevermind that they pay a higher percentage on a much higher base number. God forbid they actually catch a break for being so evil.

But alas, I do think they should pay their taxes, as I believe everyone who lives and works in this country is responsible for a portion of what gets spent on public goods.

But back to your reply--what about the rich person who doesn't use roads as much as a poor person. What about the rich person that most certainly doesn't use the police department as much since there's probably far less crime in his demographic than in the poor persons' locale. How is that exactly "fair"? It's easy to say he's rich and therefore he should just pay more because he has more, but that's the argument from the poor man's position. Does the rich man somehow have an inferior set of rights? What is "fair" here? That's all I ask.

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk Thats EXACTLY how they want you to think

JM is a Bush administration puppet.. dont mind him

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's great, but you didn't answer my question. What exactly is a "fair" share in your opinion.

Read Title 26.



Good file to read which has that same table:

THE DECLINE OF CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUES
By Joel Friedman (PDF)

Found this looking for something else.

EDIT:

Loophole Inc.
A special report on Florida's corporate income tax

The state loses more than $1-billion a year in exceptions to its corporate income tax. Ninety-eight percent of businesses pay nothing.

SYDNEY P. FREEDBERG
Published October 26, 2003

Carnival Corp., Florida's 10th-largest public company with 4,220 South Florida employees and a $136-million state payroll, posted more than $1-billion in profits last year.

It also paid nothing in Florida corporate income tax.

Neither did Verizon Communications Inc., the phone giant that employs 12,500 people in Florida, or Saddlebrook Resorts Inc., the elite retreat in Wesley Chapel that is home to a famous tennis training center.

In fact, 98 percent of the estimated 1.5-million businesses in Florida paid nothing. And many of those that did pay found ways to reduce their tax bills.


Now if these companies don't pay their fair share and their employees do, how is it again fair for fairness' sake?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you operate on the assumption that every single one of the "rich" is somehow using loopholes and tomfoolery to somehow pay less than they should. Nevermind that they pay a higher percentage on a much higher base number. God forbid they actually catch a break for being so evil. But alas, I do think they should pay their taxes, as I believe everyone who lives and works in this country is responsible for a portion of what gets spent on public goods. But back to your reply--what about the rich person who doesn't use roads as much as a poor person. What about the rich person that most certainly doesn't use the police department as much since there's probably far less crime in his demographic than in the poor persons' locale. How is that exactly "fair"? It's easy to say he's rich and therefore he should just pay more because he has more, but that's the argument from the poor man's position. Does the rich man somehow have an inferior set of rights? What is "fair" here? That's all I ask.

When did I ever make that assumption? We were talking about companies that use offshore tax loopholes, so I never was referring to every single company, let alone even individual people, I was discussing companies that do use these loopholes. The point is that companies that are obviously American but use a loophole to not pay certain American taxes certainly use our infrastructure to a great extent. Look at the graph just posted by Ogvh, there's been continued growth in the county while that graph has tread downward. There are a number of companies that simply don't pay their full taxes but still do a tremendous amount of business here.

As for your argument about whether individuals and companies should pay for police protection when they live in a safe neighborhood, etc., are you implying that people in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods should pay extra in taxes for police than people in rich gated communities? I think a lot of the problem would be solved if they were able to afford to pay that in the first place. It's not a perfect world and the reality is the near 50% of our taxes that go for military, the money we gave for tsunami victims, the money for tax cuts that we really borrow has to come from somewhere. I don't see how you can get anymore from those with the least and a flat tax would simply lead to far less revenue in an economy where our REPUBLICAN president and congress are spending more than we have as it is. If offshore tax loopholes weren't used or if policy favored companies located here that do not outsource jobs, the tax burden would be lifted from poor and rich citizens alike to some degree.

EDIT: My personal belief is we should cut a lot of government spending, not including social programs, balance the budget and pay off foreign debt. The less we pay in interest, the more we can do things like shore up SS, medicare and pay less in taxes at the same time in the long run.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 The point is that companies that are obviously American but use a loophole to not pay certain American taxes certainly use our infrastructure to a great extent.

I don't disagree about loopholes being closed--I think that's a good thing. Perhaps I misinterpreted some of what you were saying earlier with regards to Tyco or any other multinational conglomerates. If they do a lot of business outside of the U.S., then they pay taxes at the rates mandated by the countries where those revenues are generated and harbored. If they want to repatriate those assets, then they generally have to pay some level of taxes on them to the government. And oddly enough, there is a current movement underway which will allow companies to repatriate foreign assets at a substantially reduced tax rate. There's a real dilemma for you. Supposedly, by bringing more assets back to the States, it will be stimulative for our economy--though here they are again getting a break. The flipside being that minus the incentive to do so, these companies would otherwise just keep their assets out of the U.S. Not so much a loophole so much as a Catch 22.

quote:

As for your argument about whether individuals and companies should pay for police protection when they live in a safe neighborhood, etc., are you implying that people in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods should pay extra in taxes for police than people in rich gated communities?

No. Just pointing out the irony.

quote:

I don't see how you can get anymore from those with the least and a flat tax would simply lead to far less revenue in an economy where our REPUBLICAN president and congress are spending more than we have as it is.

I love how you give a pass to Democrats on this one. They are ALL guilty of overspending. CONGRESS controls the purse strings, not the president. He may request a lot of spending, but it must be approved. Regardless, congress needs to reign in their discretionary spending on many of the idiotic programs and projects that they blatantly piss money on.

quote:

EDIT: My personal belief is we should cut a lot of government spending, not including social programs, balance the budget and pay off foreign debt.

Absolutely. Though easier said than done.


EDIT: With regards to the article posted by the other guy. While there are ceratinly loopholes that need to be closed, it fails to specify as to why some of those companies aren't paying taxes. Perhaps it's because they have years of operating losses than they are legally allowed to carry forward(Just like you and I) to offset future tax liabilities. Surely you don't think that's unfair? Should the needle not move in both directions if the system is to be truly "fair"?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka EDIT: With regards to the article posted by the other guy. While there are ceratinly loopholes that need to be closed, it fails to specify as to why some of those companies aren't paying taxes. Perhaps it's because they have years of operating losses than they are legally allowed to carry forward(Just like you and I) to offset future tax liabilities. Surely you don't think that's unfair? Should the needle not move in both directions if the system is to be truly "fair"?

You're right corporations need to list every single year some sort of loss to offset their tax liability. But in all fairness how can a company float stocks and bonds and carry over losses and expect people to continue to invest in these same companies that operate with very little fiduciary responsibilty?

Seems to me the system is designed to fail and is intended to be a Ponzi scheme where the big money makers get the golden parachutes.

This boohooing of companies doesn't warrant any justification that they are paying their fair share period.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't disagree about loopholes being closed--I think that's a good thing. Perhaps I misinterpreted some of what you were saying earlier with regards to Tyco or any other multinational conglomerates. If they do a lot of business outside of the U.S., then they pay taxes at the rates mandated by the countries where those revenues are generated and harbored. If they want to repatriate those assets, then they generally have to pay some level of taxes on them to the government. And oddly enough, there is a current movement underway which will allow companies to repatriate foreign assets at a substantially reduced tax rate. There's a real dilemma for you. Supposedly, by bringing more assets back to the States, it will be stimulative for our economy--though here they are again getting a break. The flipside being that minus the incentive to do so, these companies would otherwise just keep their assets out of the U.S. Not so much a loophole so much as a Catch 22. No. Just pointing out the irony. I love how you give a pass to Democrats on this one. They are ALL guilty of overspending. CONGRESS controls the purse strings, not the president. He may request a lot of spending, but it must be approved. Regardless, congress needs to reign in their discretionary spending on many of the idiotic programs and projects that they blatantly piss money on. Absolutely. Though easier said than done. EDIT: With regards to the article posted by the other guy. While there are ceratinly loopholes that need to be closed, it fails to specify as to why some of those companies aren't paying taxes. Perhaps it's because they have years of operating losses than they are legally allowed to carry forward(Just like you and I) to offset future tax liabilities. Surely you don't think that's unfair? Should the needle not move in both directions if the system is to be truly "fair"?

I think there's a lot of bulk that could be taken out of the budget real fast, starting with the military. I emphasized republicans not because there are not Dems who overspend as well, but they're completely in control and even in the last election Bush was all over the place calling Kerry a "tax & spend liberal" at his invite-only rallies while some Dems like Clinton and Dean (who's been unfairly called far left) have had records of balanced budgets. I think tariffs are the way to go if needed to get some companies to avoid using loopholes. If business is being done in another country, that's different in terms of those sales, but I stand by the assertion that the tax burden has unfairly been moved more onto individuals largely because of offshore tax havens that are in the interests of increasing profits, rather than lost income. The country has experienced economic expansion overall throughout the years, so where some large companies would stumble, others would certainly grow and therefore should maintain the tax revenue level in proportion to population increases and individual tax revenue.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX JM is a Bush administration puppet.. dont mind him

hey, if that's how you wanna call it and/or word it, that's fine with me.

....and i'm loving it 200%

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM hey, if that's how you wanna call it and/or word it, that's fine with me. ....and i'm loving it 200% >JM<

Weak minds are soooooo easy to mold.


Haaa hahaha haha hahahaha

*sinister neo-con laugh*

@TrancerX:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
Benjamin Franklin

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
Abraham Lincoln

Always my favorite:

Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.
Frederick Douglass

did the law pass? im anxious to prep up for my picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Weak minds are soooooo easy to mold. Haaa hahaha haha hahahaha *sinister neo-con laugh*

i love this place - the PDD forum. thank God i got a job now, and rarely have time to get on here and bs. here I come - Benjamins and low taxes.

Tha latter thanks to our political conservatives in office!

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM i love this place - the PDD forum. thank God i got a job now, and rarely have time to get on here and bs. here I come - Benjamins and low taxes. Tha latter thanks to our political conservatives in office! >JM<

Hahahahahaha! What a joke! A Bush tax break is like taking your family out to Red Lobster on the credit card because you can't actually afford it. Let's all enjoy paying the interest on that. Even Reagan realized he could not afford the tax cut he gave and raised taxes. You can't lower taxes unless you decrease your spending and as much as Bushie tries to claim he's cut spending, he's just cut police,fireand other civil expenditures that are a minute fraction of what Iraq has cost. The people in charge are not "conservatives" and you know it. The "Contract With America" has been breached, Clinton actually had a budget surplus, not W!

taxes

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 @TrancerX: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Benjamin Franklin A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. Abraham Lincoln Always my favorite: Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave. Frederick Douglass

All are so true. The Lincoln quotation makes me think of how divided this country is now. USA will 'fall' some day because it's getting more & more divided as each year goes on...

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 All are so true. The Lincoln quotation makes me think of how divided this country is now. USA will 'fall' some day because it's getting more & more divided as each year goes on...

Hegelian dialectic.

The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
Benjamin Disraeli

Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
Woodrow Wilson

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 The people in charge are not "conservatives" and you know it.

hehe... true in a big way. no conservative spends as much $$$ as Pres. Bush.

so what do you guys want? after all, you did get a liberal as a president



>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. Woodrow Wilson

But they sure do make one hell of a wine!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.