Depends on how targeted and what type of info is being amassed in agora get and what is being compiled with specifics.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said no right to privacy, I just said I don't know all the particulars and that as far as we know, everything that has been done so far (including stuff I think went too far) is constitutional. You can't just say xxx is unconstitutional, especially if it hasn't moved up through the courts yet and scholars on both sides proclaim different opinions on the constitutionality.
WTF? The government doesn't have a right to keep a list of everyone you send mail to either through the Post Office or the internet. But they do and I don't give a shit for what purpose to be invented later. A recording of phone calls and phone number list the same. A warrant is need before the capture not after for what ever reason is invented.
I basically agree, I just think it's more nuanced and I don't know to what extent that is being done.
Bull shit on the scholars!! We all can read the Constitution and so should the President. It is not that difficult to read what it says. It only becomes difficult if you don't like what it says.
Spying on everyone. All the time. Without a warrant. Isn't that enough information? And isn't it a contradiction to gripe about money is speech ruling while waiting for the same court to rule on something this obvious?
No offense but you describe a society like the one in the movie Brazil. Seen it? How about 1984? Or THX 1138. Fiction, of course, but inspired by political philosophies all the same.
As I said, I think you are correct, but the govt has claimed it's not doing all that but only compiling without searching. I think I'm still against that, but the constitutionality of that is more plausible. If you go back into other threads, I have excoriated Obama, Bush and their administrations for doing this, I've just gotten all the facts and claimed jumbled in my head. I don't recall what we think we know and what we know. Until I know better I just can't give a well flushed out position on all this.
The data warehouse they are building to keep track of all this information gained by spying on us WITHOUT A WARRANT is huge. They're also illegally hacking into Google and Yahoo! and other providers' networks to gather information. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...oting-up-new-nsa-data-farm-takes-root-in-utah Enhanced ability. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...overnment-threaten-yahoo-with-fines/15466441/ (USA Today for the win, again!) U.S. threatened Yahoo with daily $250K fines over user data
So really I just started arguing a point and got caught. The truth is, I think it's full on shitty! It bugs me and is the one biggest reason I am disappointed in the Dems (and Repubs) including Obama. But admitting this ruins some other argument I was making a zillion posts ago.
OK, now for my corollary question after all. If this NSA spying is bad, why is the IRS good? They know every transaction people make, except for the "illegal" under the table ones, right?
Well I don't know I've ever said the IRS is good, but the do seen necessary. But collecting taxes does not equate with figuring out how to decouple politicians from quid pro quo situations. The undue influence by corporations mainly and wealthy individuals secondly is destroying our nation bit by bit. Right now we have corporation lawyers actually drafting bills and then handing them to congressional members to introduce. Our politicians are more concerned with keeping their donors and potential future bosses happy than actually doing something beneficial for their constituents. If this is not corrected, it will destroy the fabric binds America together. So what is the solution? I suggested a constitutional amendment but there may be other ways. I just don't see them.
Why shouldn't corporation lawyers write bills? In theory, they're the actual experts in the matter at hand. I've not seen this done in a non-transparent way, just people who oppose corporations in general complain about it. As for the IRS, I've never seen why it's needed. The government doesn't need to know every detail of every financial transaction tied to individuals to collect taxes. They can charge a sales tax, for example. Or tax only businesses. Does a business deserve privacy? No. It's a public entity granted liability protection (in most cases) in exchange for some government controls. If a company pays $1M a year in payroll, just tax it $250,000 (25%) and you've collected the same money as if you taxed everyone individually 25%.
And wages only account for a portion. Once again, it keeps the wealthy at an extreme advantage to allow them to have their capital continue to earn without being taxed under your proposal. So some billionaire who does not draw a salary pays zero while Betty Sue gets 25% of her 30,000k salary sent to Washington. Seems wrong.
I'm doing away with income tax, period. Corporations would pay all the taxes. So why does graduated taxation matter? Apple would be paying a huge amount of taxes. If you want to think of it as some sort of flat tax, then you win - Warren Buffett and his secretary would be paying the same amount!
You can't morally tax net worth. If I buy a share of stock for $100 today and it goes up to $200 next year, you want to tax me on the $100 gain even if I haven't sold it? What happens if after you collect that tax the stock goes down to $50 the following year? Betty Sue gets 100% of her salary. She's having $0 withheld. How is 25% of her salary getting sent to Washington? That's like saying that the 8.x% sales tax collected on you buying an iPhone comes out of her paycheck as taxes. They're not related
Even if you only tax businesses, you still need the IRS to collect that tax. It could be smaller, though. Individual income isn't limited to payroll, so if you only tax payroll income for individuals, you'll need to increase the rate. I kind of like your idea of paying income taxes at the source, it would eliminate a lot of paperwork for individuals - but it wouldn't reduce the amount of information the IRS collects on you as an employee, since the businesses report your wages to the IRS now and still would under your plan. barfo
