|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:I saw this today too; one of my pharmacy classmates found it on the "Feminists against Vaccination" page. Someone noticed the watermark and said it was from a satire group, so I linked the photoshop phriday page for them. Didn't stop the next three people from commenting on how ignorant people are without noticing the explained joke. Some people just prefer their circle jerks. Makes u think.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
Have we seen this one yet?quote:The Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more, a chilling example of how the war on cash is intensifying. There's a bunch of links in it that I don't care to put in the proper places in BBC code, but: http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/justice-department-rolls-out-an-early-form-of-capital-controls-in-america-16640/ http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...tigate_03232015 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-23/fighting-war-terror-banning-cash http://www.infowars.com/hsbc-demands-to-know-how-customers-spend-cash/ http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25861717 http://www.infowars.com/amtrak-purchasing-train-tickets-with-cash-is-a-suspicious-activity/ http://www.infowars.com/chase-imposes-new-capitol-controls-on-cash-deposits/
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
War on cash? Come the gently caress on, really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
The war on telling those drat kids to get off my lawn
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
I deal with this because I work for a financial institution (a casino). The only people who care about this stuff are people who are evading taxes, have an illegal source of income or are involved with something very shady.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Barent posted:War on cash? Come the gently caress on, really? Surprise surprise: http://www.infowars.com/amtrak-purchasing-train-tickets-with-cash-is-a-suspicious-activity/ Not entirely without basis in fact, though: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/amtrak_foia_documents.pdf#page=35 See also: "drug" forfeitures from people carrying large amounts of cash. It's a bit overblown, but not complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Barent posted:War on cash? Come the gently caress on, really? Temaha, TX is probably the most egregious example, but they got slapped down by a civil suit a while back http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10-story.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
No I'm fine with recognizing that it's a real thing I'm just tired of the "war on ____" nomenclature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Sometimes there are good ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:Sometimes there are good ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
War on cash, or war on God?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Coming to think of it, something about this ever-present fixation on "hard work" in american discourse is actually pretty off-putting. It's like working yourself to death is considered pretty much a pre-requisite before you can even start to merely hope for something better. The idea that maybe somebody should be able to have a dignified and pleasant life by working competently but also comfortably, without breaking their back in the process, just doesn't seem to occur. It's a Wonderful Life posted:Potter: ...and all because a few starry-eyed dreamers like Peter Bailey stir 'em up and fill their head with a lot of impossible ideas. Now, I say --
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
I watched Its A Wonderful Life this past christmas for the first time since I was a kid and I was surprised how socialist it was. The messages would be considered a little radical even now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
itskage posted:Have we seen this one yet? I don't know much about how banking works in the USA, but from that quote, it seems you should be able to enter a bank with a big sack with a dollar sign on it, full of blood stained, crumpled notes in small denominations and no one should bat an eyelash as you make a deposit. As a previous poster said, most of the people who would have a problem with this are evading taxes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Alterian posted:I watched Its A Wonderful Life this past christmas for the first time since I was a kid and I was surprised how socialist it was. The messages would be considered a little radical even now. You can find this with quite a few Frank Capra movies, actually. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is nominally nonpartisan and traditionalist, but I remember reading somewhere that given some of the elements which don't mean much to us now (Eastern/Western state divide, federal purchases of land for public use, etc.), it wasn't actually that wishy-washy at the time it was made. I think it's that, prior to the '50s and '60s, economic populism wasn't seen as a counterculture thing, so it was much easier to pair it with traditional values and patriotism. e: Looking at Wikipedia now, it seems a lot of people in DC attacked Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as radical and dangerous for alleging that there could be corruption in US government.  Weird, since it's just about the most traditional, patriotic, safe movie about politics I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I don't know much about how banking works in the USA, but from that quote, it seems you should be able to enter a bank with a big sack with a dollar sign on it, full of blood stained, crumpled notes in small denominations and no one should bat an eyelash as you make a deposit. Eh, not really, Last Week Tonight had a segment about civil forfeitures and there were a few stories about people who had large amounts of cash being stopped by the police and basically told "I think you're going to use this money to buy drugs, so we're seizing it." A bank being told to call the police on large withdrawals like that could set up a lot of the more corrupt precincts to chase down the person and grab the money under a civil forfeiture claim. Like Guavanaut said, if you're white and middle class you probably wouldn't have much to worry about, but I can see minorities really getting hit hard by crooked cops with this. That said, it probably is true that a good number of people who are complaining about it are well-off people who want to evade taxes, but it doesn't really invalidate their point that it would be a bad law, even if they're opposing it for the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Eh, not really, Last Week Tonight had a segment about civil forfeitures and there were a few stories about people who had large amounts of cash being stopped by the police and basically told "I think you're going to use this money to buy drugs, so we're seizing it." A bank being told to call the police on large withdrawals like that could set up a lot of the more corrupt precincts to chase down the person and grab the money under a civil forfeiture claim. I've only briefly read the links posted, so I was thinking that "bank calls and policemen come and take your money on the spot" was an exaggeration. If that's what's going to happen, yeah, it's a bad law. The way I read it, though, it seemed that the banks had no responsibility whatsoever in where the money came from or what it's used for, which is an equally bad idea. Banks in Europe (except those in Switzerland, Monaco and Andorra, I think) must contact the authorities if they suspect their customers are laundering money or evading taxes. Working in the loan department of a bank, I know how often we do that (not very).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I deal with this because I work for a financial institution (a casino). The problem is that this pretty much only hits lower income people whether they're engaged in legitimate commerce or not. Rich people don't deal in cash. Drug dealers also don't really make insane money or anything. The revenue might be somewhat large, but the profits are a different story. Compared to the tax evasion of Apple and other companies who abuse structural loopholes it's pocket change. The mindset of, "well if you're dealing in this amount of cash then you SHOULD seem suspicious" is dangerous because it ignores the fact that these laws have a disparate impact due to the specifics of who actually uses cash. It also starts to get real ugly when you combine it with asset forfeiture laws. This law essentially tells the police who they should target for asset forfeiture abuse. Cops don't need to waste calories searching random cars anymore. They can just get tipped off by the bank, spin that into probable cause based simply on the amount of money, and just use people who deal in cash(hint, it's not Tim Cook) as their ATM. Giant multinationals walk away scot free while the purchasing of used cars/etc. becomes illegal for poors. ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Yes. My friend's dad strikes again. Not sure why he is suddenly so hung up on guns now. But surely there is only one reason thing is good. Thing has guns so it is good and only reason why good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Wiggles Von Huggins posted:Yes. My friend's dad strikes again. Not sure why he is suddenly so hung up on guns now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:Coincidentally Vermont also has the third lowest poverty rate. I wonder if that's significant. It's also because of guns. Checkmate, libtards. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:Coincidentally Vermont also has the third lowest poverty rate. I wonder if that's significant. Nevvy Z posted:It's also because of guns. Checkmate, libtards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Obviously all those guns mean that criminals were too scared to rob people/sell drugs/etc., forcing them to get real jobs and work themselves out of poverty just like the founding fathers intended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Alterian posted:I watched Its A Wonderful Life this past christmas for the first time since I was a kid and I was surprised how socialist it was. The messages would be considered a little radical even now. The FBI would agree with you, because they tried their damnedest to have it banned and suppressed as 'illegal communist propaganda'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The problem is that this pretty much only hits lower income people whether they're engaged in legitimate commerce or not. I agree that the way it ties into forfeiture is screwed up, but there are good reasons to keep track of people who are making a large number of large cash transactions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I agree that the way it ties into forfeiture is screwed up, but there are good reasons to keep track of people who are making a large number of large cash transactions. Nobody is disputing this. It's just that maybe the bar for "large number of large cash transactions" should be set higher than $5k USD in aggregate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Nobody is disputing this. It's just that maybe the bar for "large number of large cash transactions" should be set higher than $5k USD in aggregate. I don't see why in this day and age anyone needs to have $5000 in cash in their hands. Unless they're going to the strip club and the dancers don't have those little card swipers attached to their iPhones attached to their garters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Nobody is disputing this. It's just that maybe the bar for "large number of large cash transactions" should be set higher than $5k USD in aggregate. It's actually 10k as far as banks are concerned. That's when Currency Transaction Reports have to be filed. And, no, there's really no reason for an average joe schmo to be carrying around 5k plus in cash. Buying a used car? First, last, security on a apartment? There are these things called cashiers checks you can get at a bank. If you have 5k in cash, you probably have a bank account. If the seller is insisting on cash that's a red flag. Running a store that does over 5k a day in cash transactions? You probably have a safe in the back and an armored car picking up every couple days. I'm not pro civil forfeiture and think being able to have cash taken from you without cause is hosed up. But you're a moron if you're walking around with 5k anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:I don't see why in this day and age anyone needs to have $5000 in cash in their hands. Unless they're going to the strip club and the dancers don't have those little card swipers attached to their iPhones attached to their garters. Buying a car. Too many cashier's check scams, not much else has as little danger of the transaction being reversed (though means other than violence) AND everyone knowing how to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Buying a car. Too many cashier's check scams, not much else has as little danger of the transaction being reversed (though means other than violence) AND everyone knowing how to do it. Also note that it says "aggregating $5,000 or more." So it could just be a bunch of separate life poo poo happening where you need to spend or deposit more than $5k a month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
blackmet posted:It's actually 10k as far as banks are concerned. That's when Currency Transaction Reports have to be filed. I bought a car for 15k in cash a couple of years ago, because 15k was below asking, and people have a hard time saying no to cash, its part of the bargaining. I sold a car recently for 5k, and I would only deal with cash because my wife was scammed by a fake cashiers check. And an armored truck for 5k a day cash transactions? You're making GBS threads me. Hah. My work does have a safe, but thats silly. 5k ain't poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 06:02
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
ErIog posted:Also note that it says "aggregating $5,000 or more." So it could just be a bunch of separate life poo poo happening where you need to spend or deposit more than $5k a month. Ok, this is inconsistent with what I've seen in the past. The bank definitely needs to report people who are making a large number of transactions that exceed $10,000 aggregate, and as part of that they should keep track of people who are making smaller transactions that over a short period of time will exceed $10,000. But there's no reason to keep track of someone who over the course of a month makes $5000 worth of transactions. Here's an example of a series of transactions that should definitely get reported: quote:On April 16, for instance, the records show two transfers for exactly $9,999 and one for $9,990. Eight days later, the records show an eighth transaction of $9,999 and a ninth for $5,587.92. In this case, the wife of a man on trial was attempting to move money out of a defense fund into an account that was under less scrutiny. There was concern that this was done in order for the defendant to flee the country. The government definitely has a good reason to keep tabs on this. What really needs to be reformed is asset forfeiture. I think a good first step would be mandating that forfeited property be destroyed or deposited to the US Treasury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Thread, I am looking for a story that was posted in this thread a while back that basically showed that even with flat taxes by amount or percentage, the middle class is being cheated by the upper class and are always blaming the lower class for cheating the system. It ends with the upper class being hanged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
blackmet posted:It's actually 10k as far as banks are concerned. That's when Currency Transaction Reports have to be filed. Dr. Arbitrary posted:Ok, this is inconsistent with what I've seen in the past. Did you read the thread? We are not discussing the $10k regulation. We are discussing the new rules from the Justice Department that move it from $10k to $5k. It was even posted on this very page. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3186581&perpage=40&pagenumber=1420#post443133580 ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
I guess what's important is how this is actually being implemented. If it's being used to steal from poor people then it's obviously a bad policy. What I worry about is that it's actually being used to target people who are engaged in criminal activity, and those people are trying to create a story that mean ol' Mr. Government is bullying good Americans for having the gall to use cash. Financial institutions have always been required to submit suspicious activity reports, even when the amount does not exceed $10,000 if the activity is truly unusual. One example where I've submitted a report is when someone filled up a slot machine's stacker box twice with $5's. That probably was less than $5000 in currency but it's not normal behavior and needed to be reported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Did you read the thread? We are not discussing the $10k regulation. We are discussing the new rules from the Justice Department that move it from $10k to $5k. It was even posted on this very page. A) Half the sources on that are infowars. AKA crap. B) I work for a combination brokerage/bank firm. Due to recent regulatory changes, the number of people in anti-money laundering/suspicious transactions/new account verification has tripled in less than one year (I'm one of the people who moved into it from other places in the company). Banks HATE this poo poo. It's confusing as hell, constantly changes, is open to tons of interpretation, and costs them tons of money to enforce. They don't mind reporting major problems and suspicious transactions -- although they really would rather not, it does at least let them say if something does come down that "we did our due diligence". Auto calling the cops for withdrawing 5K in cash over the span of...well, this article doesn't really make it clear? That's a breathtaking pain in the rear end that requires an entire staff of people who do nothing but that, and does nothing but piss off the 99% of customers where that's just normal for them or they do have a decent reason for it (medical emergency, buying a car, apartment down payment). Another cost center. They'll probably lobby against it. C) If there is any reason to go down this road, it's due to pot legalization and a backdoor way to keep banks from ever accepting those accounts. Despite the fact that most won't anyway due to marijuana still being illegal under federal law. D) I think at one point the threshold was $5,000, then raised to $10,000 because the feds didn't even have the manpower to sort through everything sent to them. Unless the government is going to hire more people to do the work (fat chance given this Congress), how are they going to handle it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:Thread, I am looking for a story that was posted in this thread a while back that basically showed that even with flat taxes by amount or percentage, the middle class is being cheated by the upper class and are always blaming the lower class for cheating the system. It ends with the upper class being hanged. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I wrote this in response to the Beer/Tax analogy, it's been a while but I'm pretty sure I used actual income and tax information to come up with the numbers. There you go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
the_seventh_cohort posted:There you go. Thank you very much. Although this joke/story doesn't explicitly say that the middle class hates the poor, I was trying to explain to a Chinese coworker that the US isn't all it's cracked up to be. He has a slightly naive view of what 'opportunity' means but thankfully he hasn't developed any kind of economic class identity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
I'm listening to this thread happen in real life right next to me.quote:My friend is a nurse in Arizona and she says they have so many Mexicans and none of them have have insurance quote:This country was founded as a Christian nation quote:[African Coworker] came here and was here 18 years on a green card til she finally got her citizenship. I work for a State agency with quasi judicial oversight of medicaid and welfare benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:Coincidentally Vermont also has the third lowest poverty rate. I wonder if that's significant. Everytime I see the word Vermont, the only thing I can think of is the quote from William H. Macy in Thank You For Smokng - "The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:43
|
|
