|
US National ID Card - Coming Soon (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
Close but no cigar.
Remember, remember, remember. There always has to be a boogeyman to blame.
Someone had to start the CFR which is a sister to the RIIA.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Bread and circuses.
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I like the way you think ogvh5150. |
Thank you.
I don't think, I just let other people get good information. What they intend to do with it is up to them.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So what do you think the "fair share" is for the rich? Typical diffusion of responsibility(no offense to you). |
It is easy for someone to say that "illegal" aliens have to pay their share since they are not in the system than for companies that use the "offshore loophole" to bypass paying taxes. If it's ok for a company to fatten it's bottom line from paying their fair share why should anyone else with less to offer offset the balance?
The responsibility to the tax system should not just fall on the average citizen whether illegal or not but also to companies that skirt the tax laws because they have a few people named John Q. Public Esquire on their payroll that look for the loopholes.
Until you read the Internal Revenue Code then you will understand more.
Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.
Fredrick Douglass |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
It is easy for someone to say that "illegal" aliens have to pay their share since they are not in the system than for companies that use the "offshore loophole" to bypass paying taxes. If it's ok for a company to fatten it's bottom line from paying their fair share why should anyone else with less to offer offset the balance?
The responsibility to the tax system should not just fall on the average citizen whether illegal or not but also to companies that skirt the tax laws because they have a few people named John Q. Public Esquire on their payroll that look for the loopholes.
Until you read the Internal Revenue Code then you will understand more.
Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.
Fredrick Douglass |
That's great, but you didn't answer my question. What exactly is a "fair" share in your opinion. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| 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. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| 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. :-( |
|
|
| ali92 |
| 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? :conf: |
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). |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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< |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| 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 |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheVrk
Thats EXACTLY how they want you to think |
JM is a Bush administration puppet.. dont mind him ;) |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| 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? |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
