Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#191

Post by lamontcg »

standardUser wrote: post #190
lamontcg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One party champions unrestricted capitalism for billionaires, the other party is in the pocket of pharma, banks and other large corporations (and the management-class that work in those businesses). Everything else they say is trying to sell you on something to try to buy your vote. We have one party of the 1% and another party of the 0.0002%.

I think that is over-simplistic, at least since the emergence of a) a genuine progressive faction among the Democrats, small though it may be and b) an insane faction that's taken over the Republicans who seem to mostly represent outspoken racists.

No, b) is easy to understand because a party of the 0.0002% doesn't sell well at all and nobody would vote for that if they said it out loud. The billionaires also tend towards being insane racists, classists, think everyone below them are serfs and that they deserve their birthright, so those viewpoints are perfectly compatible.

If the progressive Democrats could take over the party and control it then I'd agree with you about a), but effectively what the Democrats can do is controlled by Krysten Sinema, not the progressive wing.

And both Trump and the progressive wing of the Democrats shows how untenable the current situation is, and how insufficient the Democratic party has been.

If you start to view the Democratic party (aside from the progressive insurgents) as being bought for by large corporations, and then understand that all the failings and excuses of the Democratic party are really just delivering to the customer what they want, it all makes a lot more sense.

And when it comes to the failings of the Democratic party -- like Krysten Sinema -- the trick is to stop going "oh if only she wasn't in the way we could have fixed everything, we have failed due to this externality" to realize that she's playing the role that the people who have bought the Democratic party want her to play and she's a feature, not a bug. And there's always been an excuse like that for the past 30 years.

Hopefully the progressives do eventually succeed or else we're likely to get some actually competent fascist on the right wing.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#192

Post by curryst »

godelski wrote: post #54
bserge wrote: post #7

Can't get paid more than 1500 in cash in France. 2000 Pounds is "a lot of money" to exchange in the UK. The limits are suspiciously higher if you're well dressed and stepping out of an expensive car or moving millions. Tells you how pathetically poor the poor really are.

There's a proposal for a new fed program that will track anything over $600 in the US now[0]. It is pretty much aimed at gig workers. Previously the IRS just didn't care about anyone below the poverty line. I'm not sure I'm even fine with the spirit of what is happening here, since these people would be getting that money back in refunds anyways. Also, I think a problem is that it is placing the burden on people who…

They would get their income tax back, but not payroll taxes.

The distinction is important because Social Security only applies on income up to ~$140k (this year). Due to that, the amount of Social Security tax revenue from a poor person is fairly close to the amount paid by someone rich. A family of 4 at the federal poverty line ($26,500/year) pays $1,643 dollars to Social Security. Someone who makes $4M/year pays $8,853.60.

So 5 families at the poverty line == 1 bajillionaire from a Social Security perspective.

I'm not in favor of the proposal, but it's not as absurd as it looks, policy wise. Morally, I would agree with you. This is an inevitable outcome of combining low wages and 1099s. It's really hard to force yourself to put your payroll taxes away in savings when you're only netting $7/hr and your bills are past due. It does also put them in a position where they should really have a tax professional, instead of just doing TurboTax or whatever.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#193

Post by wonder_er »

hapless wrote: post #99
gamblor956 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong . CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs…

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed. Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all…

> We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves

I think this should read:

> We've deputized thousands of squabbling gangs of thieves, and given them the "special powers" of law enforcement

This CAF stuff is an expected and reasonable byproduct of that starting condition.

"How do we fix law enforcement then?"

You don't. Disband it. It's a recent creation, obviously a "failed experiment" (from the perspective of 'does LE promote a fair and safe society').

LE _isn't_ a failed experiment from the perspective of rent-seeking LE, but, well, dictatorships work out great for the dictators.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#194

Post by godelski »

curryst wrote: post #192
godelski wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a proposal for a new fed program that will track anything over $600 in the US now[0]. It is pretty much aimed at gig workers. Previously the IRS just didn't care about anyone below the poverty line. I'm not sure I'm even fine with the spirit of what is happening here, since these people would be getting that money back in refunds anyways. Also, I think a problem is that it is placing the burden on people who…

They would get their income tax back, but not payroll taxes. The distinction is important because Social Security only applies on income up to ~$140k (this year). Due to that, the amount of Social Security tax revenue from a poor person is fairly close to the amount paid by someone rich. A family of 4 at the federal poverty line ($26,500/year) pays $1,643 dollars to Social Security. Someone who makes $4M/year pays $8…

I mean I know it is harder to go after rich people with lawyers and tax accountants, but fuck man I don't think it is right to go after people below the poverty line.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#195

Post by Maursault »

voldacar wrote: post #172
Maursault wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, divorce based on infidelity of the female due to non-paternity is terrible. If she was just sleeping around, maybe he'd have a point, but if procreation is her goal, then she is merely exercising her evolutionary imperative to ensure genetic diversity and quality of her offspring; having higher-quality offspring could theoretically give her more and healthier grandchildren later. I don't see how non-paternity is…

a lot to unpack here

LOL, perfect reply. Levity supersedes gravity. Downvotes unwarranted.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#196

Post by Maursault »

kelnos wrote: post #165
Maursault wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, divorce based on infidelity of the female due to non-paternity is terrible. If she was just sleeping around, maybe he'd have a point, but if procreation is her goal, then she is merely exercising her evolutionary imperative to ensure genetic diversity and quality of her offspring; having higher-quality offspring could theoretically give her more and healthier grandchildren later. I don't see how non-paternity is…

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but I think you're pretty out of touch with how most people would react, and they're not "mentally ill".

Argumentum ad populum. The crowd is untruth.

Oversensitivity, low or no empathy, entitlement, control issues, holding grudges, passive-aggressive behavior, these are clear symptoms of mental illness, and unlike nearly all, of one that can be cured.

Here's some wisdom about marriage from Kahlil Gibran:

Give your hearts, but not into each other’s keeping. For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts. And stand together yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#198

Post by kragen »

nate_meurer wrote: post #178
kragen wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argentina definitely has its disadvantages, but there are advantages too. Healthcare access is universal. University education is free and open to everyone, and although most of the universities are not that great (and none are R1), there are two world-class universities. It's illegal to arrest people for using or having recreational drugs—not generally my thing, but it wasn't Breonna Taylor's thing either, and in th…

This is the best reply you could have given. Makes me want to visit.

Just don't bring anything you can't afford to have stolen.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#199

Post by q1w2 »

thatcat wrote: post #163
q1w2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not…

>to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation >then it's literally LEGAL Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blem…

> it was used as a form of intimidation

Correct - which is a common tactic in law enforcement. That is why people are advised to shut up until they speak to their lawyer.

> Who cares if it's legal or not?

The people above describing it incorrectly as illegal.

> a blemish on the legal system

No. It would be a blemish on the legislators who wrote the law, and those who voted for them. The legal system enforces laws - it is not meant to judge ethics.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#200

Post by joncrane »

refurb wrote: post #153
joncrane wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.

Why? You expect the government, who is infringing on your rights, to do it?

Well first of all I don't think the government should ever infringe upon my rights, but that's an "in an ideal world" type of thing.

Second of all the government itself should be striving, and one of its strongest foci should be to catch such infringements and correct them.

I suppose the donations are tax deductible which is a decent compromise, but my point is a) that such organization exist b) they have more work than they have the resources to do and c) citizens have to fund them out of their own pockets seems like a pretty big failure of government to me.

Post reply on HN