Skip to comments.
New Federal Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers
The Boston Globe ^
| 11/28/2001
| By Scott Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe
Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-428 next last
To: Mercuria
Yup, here ya go, peppermint flavor, very rare.
To: pcl
This new law should not trouble anyone except someone with something to hide. Plenty of people have things to hide. Wanting to conceal information about yourself does not make you a criminal. At least last time I checked. For example. We all conceal are real identities on this forum.
42
posted on
11/23/2001 5:40:59 PM PST
by
Smogger
To: Smogger
It's cumulative...like in one day. For instance, using the example in the article. Buying something for $4,000, paying cash...something for $4,000 and something for $4,000. Three purchases, each under the radar if made separately...but three made in the same store, same day...counts as over $10,000 in cash purchases.
43
posted on
11/23/2001 5:41:03 PM PST
by
JD86
To: JD86
This actually scares me a little more:
Making a series of transactions just below the $10,000 filing threshold is also illegal under the new law if it's done to keep a business from contacting the government
hehehehe... It's AGAINST the LAW to attempt to conceal your activities from us.
44
posted on
11/23/2001 5:45:13 PM PST
by
Smogger
To: JD86
It's cumulative...like in one day. Who says one day? The article? The law? My impression is that it could be cumulative over one week. One month? One year?
I don't think it would do much good if it was only cumulative for one day. Tax evaders (er.. I mean terrorist) would simply spread their purchases out over a week.. month.. etc...
45
posted on
11/23/2001 5:47:40 PM PST
by
Smogger
To: Smogger
Making a series of transactions just below the $10,000 filing threshold is also illegal under the new law if it's done to keep a business from contacting the governmentThat was made law when the drug dealers starting getting money orders for $8,000 or $9,000....just to stay under the $10,000 notification point. As another poster has said,(pcl) most of these laws were written to catch people who were laundering money....that's also where the accumulation provision comes in.
46
posted on
11/23/2001 5:48:48 PM PST
by
JD86
To: Smogger
I have not looked at the law lately...but from memory, I think the cash purchases were cumulative for a day. I may be wrong. I know in financial transactions they look at a day and also a pattern...like pcl pointed out of daily transactions of cash that are just under the $10,000 threshold but are not warranted for the type of business or are out of the ordinary. If someone else knows for sure, please post.
47
posted on
11/23/2001 5:52:02 PM PST
by
JD86
To: nunya bidness; Mercuria; carenot
To: Mercuria
"...Remember: "We're all in this together."
# 2 by nunya bidness ************
Yes, and "We're at war," too.
To paraphrase,
"We have met Lucianne.com, and we are it."
48
posted on
11/23/2001 5:58:11 PM PST
by
exodus
To: Smogger
If anyone comes on and gives an explanation why they think this law violates the 4th Amendment, please ping me. Thanks.
49
posted on
11/23/2001 6:02:25 PM PST
by
JD86
To: RightOnline
You made too much sense on your post no. 20 -- you know you're in for it now . . .
To: bpjam
The same $10,000 reporting requirement for banks has been in effect for retailers with large ticket items like: boats, homes, cars, planes, etc. Yeah, but not for high-volume purchases of, say, Kotex. This will be living hell for Sears and the furniture stores, or the jewelers. I mean, c'mon--what's $10K in the tool area of Sears?
51
posted on
11/23/2001 6:10:21 PM PST
by
ninenot
To: Mercuria
The U.S. Postal Service already does this. The threshold is much lower. $3,000, I believe.
52
posted on
11/23/2001 6:10:51 PM PST
by
kristinn
Comment #53 Removed by Moderator
To: JD86
Allow me to set you and all others straight ...the $10,000.00 reporting requirment means anything the US Treasury deems as cash....ie...bank checks (not drawn on your bank) money orders,cash,gold,silver pre 64 US coins the only thing not classified as cash is a personal check...it has your name on it! As a business owner I am required to keep all cash transactions on the books for a full calender year from date of purchase if the client exceeds $10,000.00 in purchases using anything but a personal check it becomes reportable
Who Must File Form 8300?
54
posted on
11/23/2001 6:23:06 PM PST
by
robnoel
To: Smogger
I am unable to see how this can be a problem with people making a legitimate purchase for personal use or gifts. I have nothing to hide from anyone.
To: Dialup Llama
>Immigrants and the working poor are the most likely to find themselves in the database, since they tend to use the traditional banking system the least. If the working poor have $10,000 in cash to spend at one time, we should all be so poor.
To: EverOnward; JD86; eddie willers
Now y'all just
wait a minute here.........I fully expected to get flamed beyond the ability of asbestos to withstand on this thread; you're screwin' 'round with my expectations. :)
God bless y'all. It's SO refreshing to run into those with the ability to consider a different point of view......and really consider it.
To: Dialup Llama; Smogger
From the article;
"...Immigrants and the working poor
are the most likely to find themselves in the database,
since they tend to use the traditional banking system the least..."
*******************
To: Smogger
"Translation:
Immigrants use their informal 'cultural' banking systems
so they dont have to pay taxes.
# 3 by Dialup Llama
************
You have no memory, Dialup Llama.
The old folks back in the "good ol' days"
didn't hide their money in mattresses to avoid taxes.
They put the money in the mattress
because they didn't trust banks, or bankers.
I can't think of any reason that an immigrant
would have to trust the federal government.
It doesn't matter whether the immigrant is legal or illegal,
his best interests are served by avoiding
the attention of government officials.
He doesn't trust them, and with good reason.
58
posted on
11/23/2001 6:25:16 PM PST
by
exodus
To: RightOnline
Good post.
To: robnoel
Forgot to ad....the only difference with this new expanded reporting reqirment in the "patriot act"is that it gives immunity from lawsuits if a business blows a call in reporting you to a federal agency....
60
posted on
11/23/2001 6:30:56 PM PST
by
robnoel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-428 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson