Speakeasy forum

General discussion

No more "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", Administration wants

by James Denison / May 4, 2009 3:14 AM PDT

....a presumption of guilt with the person accused required to prove innocence.
=====================
Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: No more "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", Administration wants
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: No more "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", Administration wants
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Are they saying you're guilty or just changing the rules?
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 3:48 AM PDT

Can you see any difference between these 2 statements?

Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad.

AND

Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials.



Do they have to show income from banks that do cooperate with tax officials?

How would you, as a depositor know if your bank was cooperating?

Keep your money in a bank that doesn't cooperate with tax officials.


When they audit you aren't you trying to prove you're not guilty? (so what's new)


North of the border they ask us this question.

Did you own or hold foreign property at any time in 2008 with a total cost of more than
CAN$100,000? (see the "Foreign income" section in the guide for details) . . . . . . . . . .
As a Canadian resident, you have to report your income from all sources both inside and outside Canada.

I put a check mark in the NO Box.

I don't feel like they found me guilty of a crime.

Collapse -
they ask the same question here.

I think that should be challenged in court. It's not the government's business to know where you keep your money. Should they have a question of "Do you keep your money at home in a safe"? Of course not. It's not their money and it's none of their business. If I had money in an overseas account I'd still mark it NO, because I that question has no right to exist on a tax form. I don't care how many judges pervert the constitution. It's part of a person being secure in what is their own as the courts should be protecting the citizens according to the constitution. If they think someone is making money in some foreign country, then prove it! If they can't, then sit down and shut up about it.

Collapse -
If they think someone is making money i
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 4:34 AM PDT

If they think someone is making money in some foreign country,

What if someone is hiding it in another country?

Make a profit in America, don't declare the income, put the money in another country.

Companies/corporations are doing it, civilians are doing it.

Do they want to know where you keep it or how you earned it?

Tax evasion?

They ask the question, you respond, they investigate.

Called an audit.

Not found guilty until they make you pay or send you to jail.

How come they won't let you leave the country with $50 Large in your pocket?

Collapse -
(NT) Who do you think the money belongs to?
by James Denison / May 4, 2009 5:49 AM PDT
Collapse -
what they are saying...

...is they want the law and courts to presume you are a tax cheater if you have an offshore account until you prove otherwise to them. They want to place the burden of proof of your innocence upon you, rather than the time honored American legal tradition and constitutional presumption of innocence requiring the government to prove your guilt, if it exists. THAT is the problem here. They could easily prohibit funds being kept in offshore banks if they wanted, but that's not what they are doing.

Collapse -
They could easily prohibit funds
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 4:43 AM PDT

They could easily prohibit funds being kept in offshore banks if they wanted

Easily?

How, by taking away the right you claim to keep your money where you want?

Collapse -
maybe you are too young to remember
by James Denison / May 4, 2009 5:56 AM PDT

but in my lifetime there were no reports from banks to the government on funds held by any American unless it was by a court order. Then they put in the reporting on Savings accts interest with 1099 forms, then they added any transactions that exceeded $10K had to be reported, and now they've added any transactions for even lesser amount, I think about $3K because the govt "claimed" multiples of transactions under $10k were being done to not get reported. We need to roll back the clock, restore our freedoms, stand up for what our forefathers believed in, and make it a court order before the government has access to "our papers" which is what our bank accounts are, and exactly what our forefathers who wrote the constitution intended by such wording. Americans who don't feel that way and no longer believe in the freedoms we should have ought to put a ring in their nose so they can be lead around even easier by those who continue to erode their freedoms, they are already slaves within their own minds.

Collapse -
they are already slaves within their own minds.
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 6:03 AM PDT

I recall that it was because "the terrorists" were transferring money.

So long ago the government was accusing you of being a terrorist.

Collapse -
It went on before that...
by J. Vega / May 4, 2009 6:27 AM PDT

It went on before the current terrorist worry. In the early 1980's I had to fill out a form when I withdrew over 10k in cash from a bank account.

Collapse -
PS RE: too young to remember
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 6:04 AM PDT

or too old to remember Wink

Collapse -
That was in place long before terrorism
by Diana Forum moderator / May 4, 2009 7:56 AM PDT

The 1099s were put in place because people weren't declaring interest income on their income taxes. The $10000 item was to prevent blatant money laundrying by organized crime. This was being done openingly through certain banks.

Diana

Collapse -
The real shame of it is, IMO,
by Steven Haninger / May 4, 2009 8:05 AM PDT

that so many people are fed up with a tax system so full of negative incentives that hiding money from the government is felt to be necessary. Higher taxes can become the penalty for achievement. Just how stupid an idea is that? Happy

Collapse -
I can't deposit more than a million??
by Steven Haninger / May 4, 2009 10:13 AM PDT

What shall I do with all the rest of it? Wink

Collapse -
RE: What shall I do with all the rest of it?
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 10:45 AM PDT

I can hide $5000/year in a Tax Free Savings Account in Canada for you. Wink

I only charge 1% not 2% like those nasty people in the link I provided

Every little bit helps.

Collapse -
I appreciate the offer but
by Steven Haninger / May 4, 2009 10:55 AM PDT

saving money is no longer allowed in the US. We must buy stuff even if we don't need or want it. Having anything left in one's pockets at the end of the day other than debit receipts is un-American. Wink

Collapse -
Oooops
by Josh K / May 4, 2009 5:01 AM PDT

I thought this was going to be a thread about detaining people without letting them speak to a lawyer, etc. for interminable periods of time, and that by "Administration" you meant the last one.

Wink

Collapse -
Detaining people without letting them speak to a lawyer, etc
by EdHannigan / May 4, 2009 5:45 AM PDT
In reply to: Oooops

You mean like FDR did with German POWs?

Collapse -
Or there was...
by J. Vega / May 4, 2009 7:00 AM PDT

Or there was the military tribunal that led to the execution of 6 potential saboteurs with the Operation Pastorius situation. A web article on it says in part:
"Nevertheless, the only concern of the US government was in reassuring its citizens and sending a powerful message to the Nazis. Since the men hadn?t actually committed any crime, a normal court could sentence them to at most a few years in prison?or even acquit them entirely. To President Roosevelt, this was unacceptable. In a memorandum sent to Attorney General Biddle, he wrote: 'Surely they are as guilty as it is possible to be and it seems to me that the death penalty is almost obligatory.' A military tribunal, he felt, was the only way to ensure this outcome. 'I won?t give them up,' he told Biddle, 'I won?t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus.'".

Collapse -
No, like FDR did with Japanese-Americans
by Josh K / May 4, 2009 7:21 AM PDT

Not soldiers, not "enemy combatants," just people with the wrong ancestry. And the fact that FDR did it doesn't justify anyone else doing it.

Collapse -
Are terrorists "just people with the wrong ancestry"?
by EdHannigan / May 4, 2009 7:36 AM PDT

Hmmmm. A strange way of looking at it.

But I was referring to German soldiers held prisoner. They had no lawyers, no trials, no rights. No one thought that was strange or wrong.

Collapse -
Of course you meant to include....
by Josh K / May 4, 2009 11:15 PM PDT

....the word "alleged," especially when referring to American citizens (e.g. Jose Padilla), right?

Collapse -
Yeah, sure...
by EdHannigan / May 4, 2009 11:27 PM PDT

We ARE in a war, whether you believe it or not. I'm on America's side? How about you?

Collapse -
RE: I'm on America's side
by JP Bill / May 4, 2009 11:52 PM PDT
In reply to: Yeah, sure...

But not on Obama's side?

Collapse -
I'm on America's side..
by Josh K / May 5, 2009 6:31 AM PDT
In reply to: Yeah, sure...

....which is why I believe in protecting the Bill of Rights, since it's the foundation upon which this great country is built. How about you?

Collapse -
I don't think the Bill of Rights was under attack..
by EdHannigan / May 5, 2009 6:47 AM PDT

in this case.

Except by Padilla, of course.

Collapse -
So if someone in the federal government...
by Josh K / May 5, 2009 11:23 PM PDT

....were to decide that you, Ed Hannigan, were a threat, and lock you up and deny you your right to an attorney and due process (by keeping you confined without trial for years), you'd be OK with that?

Collapse -
If there was evidence of a threat?
by EdHannigan / May 5, 2009 11:45 PM PDT

I am not a jihadist. I have not undergone training in Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan.

I think your outrage is misplaced.

Collapse -
RE: If there was evidence of a threat?
by JP Bill / May 6, 2009 12:27 AM PDT

How does the person in custody know what/if there is evidence?

They put you in jail, don't tell you what they think, ask you what you know, don't give you access to a lawyer.

What recourse do you have?

Trust them?


I think your trust is misplaced.

Collapse -
You wouldn't know...
by Josh K / May 6, 2009 1:19 AM PDT

....because they would also deny you your right to know what the evidence against you is.

So are you OK with that? Your personal knowledge of your innocence doesn't really matter.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
icon
Laptops 20,411 discussions
icon
Security 30,882 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
icon
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
icon
Phones 16,494 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions

REVIEW

Meet the drop-resistant Moto Z2 Force

The Moto Z2 Force is really thin, with a fast processor and great battery life. It can survive drops without shattering.