Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Revoke passports for back taxes...that's the next step

Started by aequalsa, Apr 17 2012 06:26 AM
Travel ban for back taxes

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 aequalsa

aequalsa

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:denver

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:26 AM

So...bill of attainder, anyone? The number of civil rights that have disappeared in the last couple years alone is becoming breathtaking. As in...making it hard to breath. Not to break the internet rule about Hitler comparisons, but weren't their a few other times in history where you weren't allowed to leave the country if someone in the party decided you couldn't? Might be time to move to a place with freedom....like China maybe...


‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes.

....

“There is no requirement that the tax payer be guilty of or even charged with tax evasion, fraud, or any criminal offense — only that the citizen is alleged to owe the IRS back taxes of $50,000 or more,”


http://www.infowars.com/irs-travel-ban-revoking-citizenship-by-stealth/
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
...or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly;
who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings;
but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause,
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.-Teddy

#2 FeatherFall

FeatherFall

    Ideologue

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Green Bay, WI
  • Real Name:Jacob Zeise

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:00 AM

I just glanced at that peice this morning. I think the Republicans will shoot it down, and then suffer the accusation of "pandering to rich-tax evaders." Nevermind that killing this monstrosity would be an act in defense of civil liberties.

#3 CptnChan

CptnChan

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Real Name:Chandler

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:22 AM

I found your post extra funny because this is the scenario my brother is in, and he actually did go to China! Maybe he'll never come back now..... :/

#4 Eiuol

Eiuol

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:NJ

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:01 PM

InfoWars? I don't trust any place associated with Alex Jones. Where in the bill does it in fact say "allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes"?
"Soldiers: don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you as cattle, as cannon fodder!" -Charlie Chaplin

#5 Reidy

Reidy

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Real Name:Peter Reidy

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:37 PM

A quick search on passport Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act turned up at least one legitimate news story. You don't have to take his word for it.

#6 aequalsa

aequalsa

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:denver

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:30 PM

I just glanced at that peice this morning. I think the Republicans will shoot it down,


I don't know. I've gone way past hoping Republicans will protect any liberties that the psuedo-communists present...78-22 in the senate doesn't seem to bode well.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
...or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly;
who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings;
but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause,
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.-Teddy

#7 aequalsa

aequalsa

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:denver

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:34 PM

InfoWars? I don't trust any place associated with Alex Jones. Where in the bill does it in fact say "allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes"?




‘SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.
‘(a) In General- If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.


It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
...or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly;
who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings;
but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause,
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.-Teddy

#8 Reidy

Reidy

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Real Name:Peter Reidy

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:08 PM

The story that #5 links to sees trouble ahead for the bill in the House, but it doesn't quite predict failure.

Plato, in the Crito, took up the question of what are the minimal conditions of legitimacy for a government (a question Locke and Rand later raised). Socrates says that if you've chosen to stay in a community you've thereby accepted its laws. This is why he won't accept his disciples' offer help him escape. That would imply or at least suggest that a necessary condition of legitimacy is that people be free to leave. The bill in question wants to take away even that.
Back to Political Philosophy


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Objectivism Online Forum
  2. → Philosophy
  3. → Political Philosophy
  4. Forum Rules