digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Tell Sen. Grassley he can't monitor your online transactions

freedomworks.org — Help stop this legislation! Hidden deep in the Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision inserted by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America's small businesses. There is a good chance that we can still stop this, but not without everyone's help.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • robthej, on 07/07/2008, -0/+77this is super-shady - must be stopped!
    • freeth1nker, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4Shady indeed. Should I be surprised to see he's a Republican?
  • bstein80, on 07/07/2008, -1/+58The Senate is expected to hold a vote today. If the bill passes, it will go back to the House. The time to act is NOW!
  • jojensen, on 07/07/2008, -1/+28just do it!
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/07/2008, -0/+48Stomp his nosey ass into the ground. He wants to blackmail the nation.
  • 1gunners4, on 07/07/2008, -0/+67Isn't being a Congressman without understanding the Constitution like being an physician without having an MD?

    ***** Fascists.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+19Grassley is one of those guys who seems to think that it's alright to violate that as long as it can fund something. But if you read the provision, the amount of money he's hoping to get on this is very minimal, especially when you look at what sort of slippery slope he is creating to get there.
      • pin0chet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5It's about taxes. The idea is if the Feds know what you're buying, then it's easier for states to collect "use" taxes. If this bill passes, say goodbye to tax-free Amazon purchases. The feds will tell your home state every dime you spent online, and your state's revenue dep't will be after you to remit 7% or whatever back to them on all your online sales.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@pin0chet

        If you're correct, then I predict a huge increase in drop box mailing.
    • OffPiste, on 07/07/2008, -17/+2I guess a ***** fascist is better than a celibate one.
    • BobOki, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It's just a goddamn piece of paper.
      Don't worry about your rights, it's not like you were using them anyways.
  • dsoleil, on 07/07/2008, -2/+44I wish we could "bury" the legislation. This is a democracy right? Tell Digg to start working on that.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6That would be nice. Just hope people don't mistake that as a plea to bury this post.

      But yeah, Digg Democracy... oh I could only imagine how that crazy that would be.
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11No, this is not. This is a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. The men who designed this country despised democracies, where "in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed."

      If upheld, our constitution would deny these bits of legislation just fine. We just need to fight for what we already had.
      • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2Just out of curiosity, which part of the consitution do you think would deny this legislation?
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2@ Kaelyiesta, good point!
  • cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -2/+20We are ultimately powerless against the bureaucracy. They're already monitoring us anyway.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I agree with that, partially. However, this is a provision that has no place being in the housing bailout bill, and if we can even get it pulled from the bill to be brought up later for debate, we'll be able to hold those who voted on this more accountable, simply because it removes the typical response of saying that they had to support the housing bill.
  • cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+39The more and more I learn, the more and more depressed I get about the state of things. I'm 25 and a graduate student, and my future looks about as bright as a cell in Guantanamo. Our govt. is now only in the habit of taking freedom.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+15Well there are still a few people who truly believe that 'limited government' is truly important to preserving the constitution, which is why it baffles me that Republican is behind this provision.
      • cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+15I wish there were more. The America I grew up loving and learning about has turned into something out of a George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, or Ayn Rand novel.
      • Minarchian, on 07/07/2008, -3/+15It doesn't surprise me that a Republican is behind this tyrannical piece of legislation.

        The Republicans have thrown out their limited government beliefs with George Bush.
      • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11There are a few who have been trying to kill this provision, right off the top of my head, Senator Jim DeMint comes to mind. However, there is a slew of Republicans who still thought it was important to support this, even with this invasive provision.

        I don't think they realize how angry people are going to be by this.
  • tkeeley, on 07/07/2008, -1/+21So if this is passed, in the coming year, it's conceivable that our YouTube views and some people's online activities will no longer be private. Yay.
  • nontoxyc, on 07/07/2008, -6/+34I'M SO SICK OF ALL THIS *****, INVASIONS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES ACROSS THE WORLD, THE COLLAPSE OF OUR CURRENCY, THE ONSET OF A DEPRESSION CAUSED BY FEDERAL OVERSPENDING, AND THEIR SOLUTION IS TO HAVE MORE MORE MORE CONTROL OVER US THE CITIZEN--***** THEM! THEY'RE NOT MY RULERS!

    I'm going to protest at the DNC and then in DC.
    • OffPiste, on 07/07/2008, -24/+2Do us all a favor and just kill yourself. I guarantee to you all your pain and suffering will end at that moment and you'll bring joy to many millions of Americans.
    • cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -1/+13Kudos my friend, fight th3 good fight.
    • vault, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Bush is actually planning to veto this AFAIK, though not really for this specific reason.
      • CamperBob, on 07/08/2008, -2/+0He can't. This bill has a bulletproof majority, much more than the 2/3 needed to override a Presidential veto.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/07/2008, -6/+2I love how the retards are going to protest the Dems for the actions of the GOP.
      • SilverStandard, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7The two parties are two faces of the same coin, my friend. Democrats in Congress not acting equals quiet consent.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Well it's not like the Democrats have anything less than jell-o for backbones.
    • dupswapdrop, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Say it loud, say it proud
      NO MORE REPUBLICANS IN ANY OFFICE!
  • johoshua, on 07/07/2008, -10/+2I don't understand the problem. It's is tracking payments made TO the Federal Goverment. Not all Card Transactions. Sheeeshhh. Read before you comment Diggers.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+10What? This provision required Ebay, PayPal, Amazon, etc to report the transactions of companies that use their services to a certain amount. This then means that the government has the necessary information to go after these companies to collect taxes.

      The problem is that these reported amounts are only one-sided, especially since they don't take into account the cost of shipping, acquisition, etc.

      More importantly this creates a slippery slope that opens the door for even more required reporting. If the government sees this as a way for revenue, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to lower the threshold to make it apply to all transactions. That means that baseball card you sold on Ebay, could now become subject to the government taxing you on it.

      This doesn't even include the possible state taxation issues.

      The issue is that Americans are required to report their sales already, the government doesn't need to play big brother and monitor that. They won't be able to see what it cost for the seller to buy the item. They wont be able to see how much it cost to ship. All they will see is one amount and use the figure when monitoring tax reports.
      • cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3@NoBailouts Just curious, where do you stand on FISA?
      • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3I think it still needed a lot of work.
    • cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7@ johoshua "Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction." Honestly, are you sure about that(no sarcasm intended)?
  • Seldon2639, on 07/07/2008, -11/+2Wow, guys, RTFA (and not just the alarmist commentary). It's for tax purposes, and accounting, not a creation of a new monitoring agency. From the bill summary: "[companies] will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee" and "A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations".

    So, to pare down the rhetoric of "freedom watch". Senator Grassley wants to compel companies that trade online to report the *gross* transactions (rather than the current use of *net* transactions), and give a similar report to the people paying for accounting purposes. The objection freedom watch has is that they *could conceivably expand it*. That's some shady logic there. If we should stop every action because it could be a slippery slope, we'd be paralyzed.

    So, protest if you'd like, I’m comfortable with businesses having to provide information on the *gross amount of reportable transactions* to the Internal Revenue Service (which has a justifiable interest in that information). The bill mentions nothing about a new agency, nothing about rooting around in what’s being bought, and certainly nothing about trying to spy on us. It’s as innocuous as a bill comes, if you manage to ignore the libertarian rhetoric and read the bill without looking for every possible way it could be expanded to eventually spy on us.

    While it’s possible that it could be expanded/changed to require detailed reporting of individual transactions, the possibility of such abuse is not proof the abuse is taking place. You can’t prove that they *will* use this bill to bad ends simply by asserting they can
    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6At the same time you can't prove that they wont. They don't have the best track record for doing what is in the best interest of the people, so why even give them some slack to get this going?

      Even beyond all that, I would hope you would agree that a bill like this has no place being put into the housing bailout bill. If anything, this should be pulled out and debated, and addressed separately. It almost seems that they don't want to debate it, because the people won't like it.

      If they would pull it from this bill and put it up on the floor separately, I dont think think there would be as many problems simply because it would be debated and on the record.
    • vault, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Funny how you left out this sentence: "This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."

      It's a tax hike for small business while we're in the midst of a recession, while credit is extremely tight. The government needs to back off and leave them alone. It's a scam suspiciously buried in a housing bill, and apart from that brings up a number of privacy considerations as well.
    • DrVermin, on 07/08/2008, -2/+0Wait, what??? You mean the gov't isn't trying to read my Kim Possible fanfic or my IMs with my Canadian girlfriend? (she's from the Niagra Falls area... you wouldn't know her)

      But I want to panic! I want to raise my hackles in self-righteous outrage! Are you SURE?
  • kavutu, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12Sen GRASSLY needs MOWED!!!
    • moethelawn, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Right on! *points to my name*

      (I'm from Iowa and I won't vote for him if this legislation is successful)
    • Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3epic pun, I salute you.
  • jstohler, on 07/07/2008, -0/+91-866-928-3035
  • SuckMyDigg, on 07/07/2008, -0/+21I have written and called Grassley at least a dozen times. He has yet to ever say anything other than a general "tough luck, you're on the wrong side of the fence" back.

    He's a jerk-off and he sure as ***** won't get my vote next election.
    • Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Ugh... unfortunately I believe you completely.

      I know both parties are really one-and-the-same... but aren't the republicans supposed to at least PRETEND to protect us from this liberal *****?
    • BobOki, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Not that voting means a damn thing in this country anymore. That all stopped when Bush heiled his way into office.
  • stienster, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5anything shoved onto a bill with a completely seperate agenda, should automatically be voted down. That would stop the BS!
  • byrdgang, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Wait...is there a source other than FreedomWorks? As soon as I saw this, I figured E.F.F. (Electronic Freedom Frontier) would have something on this. It doesn't. The FreedomWorks homepage links to a Yahoo article that, in reverse, cites FreedomWorks. Huh?

    The EFF is pretty reliable on this kind of stuff. Don't sweat yourself until this actually hits them or another organization known for protecting Internet rights.

    • NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6EFF is focusing on the FISA stuff right now, but I'm sure they are on the same page.
    • pin0chet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121417819688495525 ...

      Wall Street Journal on June 23, 2008:
      "Meanwhile, the free-market activist group FreedomWorks points to a provision of the Senate's housing tax package that would require payment settlement entities, such as eBay and Amazon, to report customer transactions over a certain threshold to the IRS. This would be done as an offset to pay for the housing tax breaks. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a liberal policy group, has testified that a similar proposal "raises serious privacy and data security concerns that are especially significant in the small business context."
  • bluesman3535, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Gives 'Vote For Pig" a whole new meaning! snort snort
  • SharpEye, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1OK so it's a lot easier to protest the bill if we knew the bill's "number" (or whatever they call the unique identifier of the legistlation)... Anyone? (Not in article.)
  • spongebue, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8"This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."

    So end the war in Iraq 10 days earlier instead and you'll save the same amount.
    • Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4but.... ending the war any earlier wouldn't infringe on our right to privacy.
  • dlk289, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6I'm from Iowa and this is embarrassing that my state is represented by this someone like this. If people are going to buy a combination of items that may lead to illegal activity they would use cash, duh! It would be nice if my senator was trying to persuade congress for money to help fix my state, which was ruined by floods, instead of invading my privacy.
    • pin0chet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Agreed. As a former Iowan, I'm disgraced we have two of the worst Senators in America. Harkin and Grassley both seem to hate freedom and love expanding government. They're both getting pretty old, though, so hopefully we have a chance for some new blood in the U.S. Senate soon. Unfortunately, given Iowa politics, I doubt anybody who cares about limited government and individual liberties will have a shot at getting elected.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6I lived in downtown CR during the flood (still homeless because of it). It was second worst flood in history and the 4th worst natural disaster. You'd think both of our senators would maybe want to come down and look at the damage and lobby for some more aid or at the very least, try and show a little leadership because frankly our city is ***** and the council has no idea what to do. I haven't heard anything from either one of them. When it's election time I'll remember this. What a joke of a man.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2What's even more embarrassing is that the American public keeps sending these dinosaurs back to Washington year after year.
  • meeko81, on 07/08/2008, -6/+1C'mon folks. Read before you become indignant. What is this the Sean Hannity show?!
  • Shadwell, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Don't jump on Grassley's ass. Chris Dodd is supporting this bill too. This is a bi-partisan effort to get the government's nose where it doesn't belong.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4The both need to go down.
    • Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5What amazes me is that people still think either party give a *****.
  • bluesman3535, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Nothing against voting. I love voting! Voting Out Idiots, lately....However learning to swallow large amounts of BS is not for me. So let's vote .then celebrate if we can. If not, move!
  • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -3/+3
    Wait, so the bill is to start requiring online payees to report gross transactions to the governement... of over 10K dollars and over 200 total transactions. In other words, not your typical guy selling his old stuff on Ebay. And then, ostensibly, they will tax this income and generate the money that they're talking about.

    And companies that operate in the physical world (not online) already have to report their gross income from credit card transactions and get taxed on it. I don't get what the problem is here. Anyone care to elaborate for me, maybe I'm missing some details?

    Oh, and if you look at the actual government pdf (http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L62HR3221House ... this is stuck under the "provisions" title. As in, this is one of the places where funding for this housing rescue is coming from. So that's why this is in the housing bill. It's not nefarious in that regard.
    • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2If this is passed, it should be no shock to anyone that if the government sees success, they will continue to lower the transaction minimums. Sure, its $10k now, but what's stopping them from taking it down to $8k, $5k, etc?

      Furthermore, when non-web based companies report their income, the number they give is what they make after they subtract the cost of shipping, aquisition, staffing, etc. If they just take the online totals that Ebay reports, they wont see any of this.

      This means that the it's your word against theirs, and if the government thinks you've made more, I guarantee that there will be the need for more audits. The $9 billion they plan to raise with this is really much less when you take into account the oversight and implementation expenses that will be required to accommodate this.

      As we all know, the government is not the best steward of our money.
      • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Ah, but now at least it's back where it belongs: A tax issue. It's deceitful however to disguise it as a "privacy" issue.

        I am also against new taxes. But then I'm also against the housing bailout. As it stands now, if you want the housing bailout then you need to support this new tax or come up with your own way of paying for it. And that's how taxation works.
      • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1What about the JP Morgan Bailout? What is supporting that? Or, the stimulus package, who paid for that?

        This provision wasn't thrown in to pay for the housing bailout. This is something that Grassley has been trying to get through for years and with his tenure on the Banking committee, this was the easiest way to get it in.

        Hell, if we want to find a source for funding, just tell Grassley to stop with his earmarks.
      • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2I don't know personally what Grassley's history with this bill is, but if you can provide references for that, I'd be open to it. And if he has been wanting to pass this bill, I suspect it's what every politician I despise is always trying to do: pass new taxes to raise more money for the government to spend.

        JP Morgan helped the Federal Reserve "bail out" Bear Stearns. And the Federal Reserve bought distressed housing securities. And the Federal Reserve's money is "owned" by member banks who hold accounts with the Fed.

        The Stimulus package is, by definition, a tax cut. It is not paid for anything by virtue of the fact that it is a CUT in taxes, not an increase in spending.
      • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1I've never understood how you can have a stimulus package when you're operating in the red. It's always baffling to me. Furthermore, I've never understood why the government would want to get involved with bailing out private institutions. What happened to letting the market correct itself?

        I'm looking for some more details on Grassley, as soon as I find it, I'll post it. Just from searching, it looks like he's quite popular in the news these days.

  • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2By the way, I continue to be amused at how utterly gullible diggers are. Here's a bill that will save homeowners (which a lot of liberals are in favor of), extends taxes to business that currently operate tax free (which liberals are always complaining about), and creates a bill that pays for it self and then some (which liberals are saying is what we need in Washington- more fiscal responsibility).

    Oh yea, and the Bush administration doesn't like the bill because it gives a "provision that would give state and local governments money to buy and fix foreclosed properties" (from Reuters reporting). So they send Dick Armey, one of the staunchest conservatives around to attack it. And all these liberals diggers eat it up because he threw in some BS about privacy.

    (Freedomworks, the source of this article, is headed more or less by Dick Armey)
    • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2This bill does not pay for itself by any means. Me, you, and everyone else is going to have to foot the bill.

      The problem is that this provision shouldn't be in the bill that you're referring to. These reporting requirements have no relevance whatsoever to the housing bailout plan, and will have ZERO impact on homeowners.

      All I'm saying is that we should fight to at least get this provision out of the bill, so it can be debated separately, and the accountability can be placed based on a singular vote, not some packaged legislation.
      • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2It has relevance in that the money for the housing bill has to come from somewhere, and they want to tax online transactions. Why shouldn't an ebay retailer have to pay taxes just as a guy operating a pawn shop would? (ostensibly- obviously many pawn shop owners are known to under report their income)

        And yea, I used the wrong words in saying that the bill will pay for itself, since there's obviously a new tax that pays for the bill. But it still demonstrates fiscal responsibility in that regard.
      • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2The problem is that the information that the government is provided is not an accurate picture of the full course of the transaction, it's only one segment. If I sell widgets on Ebay and make $25,000 a year doing it, but they cost me $20,000 to purchase, ship, etc, I'm only making $5,000.

        However, the government is seeing that I've had $25,000 in transactions, and I'm certain they're going to investigate as much as they can to get whatever they can out of me, when in reality it's a small amount.

        I know that might seem like a stretch, but the government is notorious for expanding the scope of legislation once it has been passed.

        Furthermore, there is a whole slew of privacy concerns that would stem from this if it's passed.
      • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2You can deduct business expenses from your tax return. I did that when I used to work as a tutor and had to report my income. I deducted gas mileage to reach kid's houses from my income and noted it on my tax return. I even deducted meals if I had to travel several hours.

        As for privacy concerns- the retailer (or 3rd party like say Visa or Mastercard) simply have to report all transactions for a payee (that's the business) that totals over 10 grand and over 200 transactions. There's no such thing as privacy in reporting your income as a business.

        Again, I'm (almost) always against new taxes. But this is a TAX issue... not a privacy issue.
      • NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Yes, I agree, and I do the same. However, when you report your income to the government, the final number is what the government sees. With this provision, they only see one number, without any of the deductions and/or credits you might qualify for.

        There is absolutely a privacy concern here. The government is not exactly the best stewards of our personal information and I can guarantee you that there will be people who will try and access this information. Let's keep in mind here, what do most sole proprietors operate based on, their Social Security number.

        The bigger issue to me, is that this is just going to escalate even more. They'll want to know more and they'll want to tax more.
    • squaredUP, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1The income tax is illegal, broham... All businesses should operate tax free (income tax)
  • viewofeverlast, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Why give my full name to this? So I can be red-flagged when the petition fails and the bill passes?
  • slyzxx, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1why not he can also view the porn i`m viewing but you`ll have to pay 1/2
  • lateralus, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1A flag lapel-wearing Republican wants to snoop in on your privacy? Say it ain't so...

  • nJectid, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0will someone please go chuck norris on this tard already?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.