‘Cyber Hall of Shame’ targets delinquent taxpayers (Colorado)

Channel 9 News, Denver, Colorado ^ | 27 March 2003 | Adam Schrager

[PatrioticAmerican]

It seems without a conviction of criminal activity, Colorado seems to want to publish libel against her citizens. We all know how inaccurate the goobermint can be, such that innocent people will most likely be the target of such publications.

Will Colorado accept lawsuits for libel that causes harm?

Will someone lose a job or contract?

Will a company or person become blacklisted by their peers over a false publication?

I agree that a conviction may be the source for a publication, but to publish based upon an inaccurate computer tax record would be negligence in the first degree.

[proxy_user]

Even if you do owe money to someone, it's not a crime. If you can't pay now, they creditor will just have to wait until you can pay.

[banjo joe]

And what will be done when some of the delinquints turn out to be state law-makers, judges, department heads or political appointees? Hmmm??? Will they also be posted?

[PatrioticAmerican]

Good question.

[cricket]

"I agree that a conviction may be the source for a publication, but to publish based upon an inaccurate computer tax record would be negligence in the first degree."

. . .negligence and ignorance create the worst circumstances; leave it to Liberal Colorado to demonstrate both.

[cricket]

Compassionate Liberalism at work. . .

[templar]

there are 1,541 individuals and businesses who owe more than $20,000 each in overdue income taxes. The list of their tax identification numbers ...

Pay up or have your name, address, and SS# published on the internet. That'll teach 'em.

[Roscoe]

Connecticut revenue officials indicate they have increased their collection of overdue taxes by $115 million in the five years there since the public shaming became state law.

Tax cheats must hate it.

[Eala]

Pay up or have your name, address, and SS# published on the internet. That'll teach 'em.

Pay up or be subject to identity theft. Nice.

[PatrioticAmerican]

The issue is that the state's records are notoriously innaccurate. I deal primarily with the state government computer systems and know very well that all of these systems have serious problems.

Innocent people will be branded as tax cheats.

If the state wants to get their money, they have the courts to do that. Why the publications? That would seem slanderous and a grudge, not a respectable method of tax collection.

Fact is, if they know who is cheating, enough to publish their names, then they have enough to prosecute.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"$115 million in the five years "

Is that $115mm per year or total? Besides, $115mm?? That isn't squat.

[N. Theknow]

Unreal.

In Connecticut they had pictures of sexual predators on the web and Someone (ACLU?) sued to have them removed.

[Roscoe]

The issue is that the state's records are notoriously innaccurate.

Source, please.

[Roscoe]

Is that $115mm per year or total?

It's an exact quote from the article that YOU posted.

You didn't read your own post?

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Source, please."

Me, and every opther computer professional dealing with these systems. You can FOI document after document for assessments performed against these systems and find problem after problem.

Do you have a source that states these systems ARE accurate? Accurate enough to be the source of personal publication?

[PatrioticAmerican]

What's with you Roscoe? What makes you so cranky?

[Roscoe]

Me, and every opther computer professional dealing with these systems.

I don't think so.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Are you an expert in state computer systems?

[Roscoe]

Are you an expert in state computer systems?

I suspect that I might know more about the reliablity of such information than you. That's why asked for a source, that's why you keep blowing smoke.

[Middle Man]

Hear, hear! The state and federal governments need to do a lot of more housecleaning before they go after anyone for tax "crimes". We need public hearings in every "piggyback" state like we had with the Roth Senate hearings on the IRS in 1997.