Electronic Transaction Reporting Slipped Into Senate Bill 343
StealthyRoid writes "The Senate mortgage bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (who was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from Countrywide, one of the beneficiaries of the bill) includes an attempt to sneak into law a requirement that all electronic payment processors send detailed transaction data to the federal government. The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000. Quoting FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader) from the article: 'This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking.'" This is the same bill that contains a controversial provision to fingerprint all mortgage brokers.
Re:You have nothing to fear! (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that it was slipped in by a Democrat (Dodd) and the person blowing the whistle is a Republican (Armey) you might want to warn people about not purchasing the equivalent "Obama Is Evil" book.
You know how you can tell the party affiliations on a Slashdot story? If its negative about a Republican the summary almost always mentions it. If its negative about a Democrat they usually just say "Senator" or 'Congressman" with no party affiliation.
Cash only (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but I'm seriously thinking of shutting down my credit cards and going back to strictly using cash for everything. This Big Brother Government is seriously beginning to piss me off by constantly being in my shorts!
As a non-American, can someone explain to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not American, but I have always been surprised about these riders... Why on earth are riders legal? A bill about picking daisies can have a rider about nuclear weapons... there's no connection, they can be introduced any time, and they always seem to be used to sneak in unfavorable laws... Why are they allowed?
Re:As a non-American, can someone explain to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Congress gets to make their own rules.
There is a mechanism for the various states to get together and amend the Constitution without the participation of the congress, but it has never been used and it is unlikely that it will ever be used.
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
"Payment settlement entities [...] will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS..."
Although I'm a long-time libertarian, I have to say that if they're collecting ONLY an annual gross dollar figure, and not the details of individual transactions, it probably would help them collect taxes and it would probably be a sensible thing to do in the context of existing laws. Income taxes are stupid in principle, but I can't think of a good reason to apply them only to money that's harder to conceal.
It is a concern that this "gimme a ballpark figure" will eventually become "gimme your customer list" but we can burn that bridge when we come to it...
Re:You have nothing to fear! (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I've seen, Slashdot doesn't have a democrat bias, it has an anti-administrative bias. which makes a lot of sense since you'd find most of the people who post here are likely programmers or IT guys and not the guys who boss them around.
One Subject at a Time Act (Score:2, Interesting)
Write to your senators and congressmen/women and urge them to support the act and put an end to this practice.
Also, look at the "Read the Bills Act" and "Write the Bills Act"
BILL NUMBERS! (Score:2, Interesting)
The simplest and best change all media can make is to include the bill number of the bills they are talking about. Then people can easily go to THOMAS [loc.gov] and see and interpret the bill for themselves.
How about it Slashdot? Will you start including the bill number in any discussion about legislation?
Re:You have nothing to fear! (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you read ANY of the responses to your post? If you had, and then checked up on their claims (they are correct, BTW) you would have found that the only thing painfully obvious about your post is that it was a politically motivated post couched in BDS and ignorance, intended to inflame other posters. In other words, a Troll post. You were modded properly.
Nothing personal, I'm sure you are a fine fellow, but your post came off as horribly trollish. I would recommend dumping the BDS. You'll be better off without it.
(BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome: An Irrational fear of anything related to the George W. Bush presidency, and a tendency to blame everything wrong with the US Government, America, the World, and one's own personal life solely on G.W. Bush.)
Constitution (Score:3, Interesting)
Is toast anyway, so not surprised a bit.
Time to go back to cash only.
Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He did get a sweetheart deal (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't know about Dodd, but here's Obama on Countrywide:
"We saw this again today when we learned that two executives at Countrywide, the nationâ(TM)s top subprime lender, are set to walk away with nearly $20 million in payouts. This is an outrage. Top mortgage lenders spent $185 million in recent years lobbying Washington to look the other way, while they tricked families into buying homes they couldnâ(TM)t afford, forcing millions of Americans to face foreclosure and pushing our economy toward recession."
-- Barack Obama, March 2008 [barackobama.com]
Sounds like a fishy operation, and I'd be suspicious of anyone who might be connected with it.
Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip? (Score:5, Interesting)
I did RTFA, all of it, and I believe your interpretation, and that of the parent, are exactly correct. This is principally a backdoor tax on internet sales, and designed to catch all the small transactions that have hitherto slipped through the cracks.
The problem here is that for most of these very small businesses, being ignored by the taxman is the difference between life and death for their business. So most of the impacted very-small businesses will simply close up shop, because if taxes are rigidly applied, they are no longer even marginally profitable.
Re:onos, the gummint knows i sell stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
You must have last checked some time before World War II, then. Most taxpayer money has been spent on the military-industrial complex for the last half century or so, just like Eisenhower warned us would happen.
"... we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
And to bring this back on topic, another quote from his all too forgotten speech:
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Re:You have nothing to fear! (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't put the onus of this bias on /., though. I've noticed that the media in general has been publishing more Obama stories than McCain stories. I think there is a good (if not healthy) reason for this, too. Obama is more newsworthy.
Like him, hate him, or indiferent to him, you must admit he something different. And not just racially, but his campain is not quite following the historic pattern, his followers are different. John McCain is just another stodgy white-guy, going for oil executives and big money. No big deal.
Not saying who would actually be the best president, since that's completely subjective. Just who is more interesting.
Though anyone who mouths anything partison, or identifies themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" is in my book a fool. If your political views are so narrow as to fit into a tiny category, your doing it wrong.
I myself an a radical moderate, or more susinctly a a fiscally conservative, social libertarian, with pronounced socialist tendencies, who often veers into dreams of anarchy. What party does that make me? Both parties have insightful stances on several issues, why should I just pick one?
Re:you're freedoms can you feel the slip? (Score:4, Interesting)
An AC protests, "Why exactly is it a problem if they go out of business for breaking the law?"
While technically correct, very small businesses are already at a severe tax disadvantage. Frex, if you have a "hobby business" (one which does not produce enough income to live on, or which for whatever technicality is not considered a fulltime business by the IRS -- small livestock producers often fall into this category), you must pay tax on all your income, but you cannot deduct any of your expenses! after taxes, such businesses are liable to wind up in the hole, and no one can stay in business for long if they're not at least breaking even.
So what's wrong with this proposed law is that it puts a further sqeeze on very small businesses, increasing their disadvantage in the marketplace -- disadvantages that corporations do not experience.
In short, it's yet another discouragement for people trying to get ahead on their own, free of gov't help or hindrance.
And it will actually reduce total tax revenues, since the small income these businesses then won't have at all is now no longer available to put back into the economy (ie. it's no longer taxable income for someone else, because this income no longer exists).
Sometimes when you squeeze too hard, you wind up with nothing at all.