Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the pro-or-con dept.

— The United States House of Representatives passed a bill tonight that would put America's small business owners' personally identifiable information at unprecedented risk and cost them billions of dollars and millions of hours in paperwork. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 (H.R. 2513), which passed the House 249-173 attempts to shift a responsibility from big banks to America's smallest businesses, saddling them with an additional 131.7 million hours of paperwork at a cost of $5.7 billion over the first 10 years.

"The House today not only shouldered millions of small business owners with a tremendous compliance burden but put their personally identifiable information at serious risk," said NFIB President & CEO Juanita D. Duggan. "The reporting requirements and devastating financial penalties will affect only small businesses, from farmers to franchisees to the mom-and-pop retail shop down the street. It is a big-government solution in search of a small-business problem, and we will not cease our efforts to stand up for small businesses against this serious threat."

The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 is legislation that would require only those small corporations and limited liability companies with 20 or fewer employees to complete and submit annual paperwork which includes the personally identifiable information of each business owner to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network upon the creation of the business and periodically for the life of the business. Failure to comply is a federal crime with civil penalties up to $10,000 and criminal penalties of up to three years in prison.

https://www.nfib.com/content/press-release/homepage/house-deals-blow-to-millions-of-small-businesses-by-passing-corporate-transparency-act/

While everyone is distracted by "impeachment", this is what the government is doing.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2513
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/proposed-corporate-transparency-act-2019-would-require-corporations-and-limited


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:45PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:45PM (#916225)

    The reporting requirements and devastating financial penalties will affect only small businesses

    Like the ones set up by a crook and their lawyer to launder money? Even foreign companies receiving payments from the US have to complete a W4 with the names of beneficiary owners.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:49PM (12 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:49PM (#916227) Homepage Journal

      Like SoylentNews.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:05PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:05PM (#916238)

        Are you the crook or the lawyer Mr Buzzard :P

        Not looked into the PI amendment but for foreigners, income sourced in the US is taxable unless exempted by treaty. Even then, the forms [irs.gov] have to be completed and the intent is solely prevent tax-evasion and crime. You guys could work through this on IRC in an evening while browsing the interwebs and deleting Aristarchus submissions.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:34PM (9 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:34PM (#916331) Homepage Journal

          Missing the point. It would cause unnecessary work, unnecessary risk, and privacy invasion for NCommander and matt_. All for the crime of paying out of their own pockets to get this place up and running. Or if we didn't pay attention and missed it one time later down the road, they'd get fined around twice what they put into the site and have to sit in prison for a few years.

          The field where grow my fucks about what applies to foreign corporations doth lie barren during this conversation.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:25PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:25PM (#916382)

            Good thing charities and non-profits are exempt. Look at this twat [companieshouse.gov.uk] - do you seriously think a name and correspondence address is a privacy invasion? Oh and you can see the other directors and financial statements by clicking on the company name. Amazingly useful information for vetting customers and chasing bad debts.

            The US company registration system is by state and usually there's only the name of a registered agent available on the certificate. How about the treasury make the info public and other agencies get it from there? Would that be "unnecessary work, unnecessary risk"?

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:32PM (2 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:32PM (#916427)

            Curious: what hassle would be required to declare and operate SN as a non-profit / charity?

            Vaguely related: if you do so, my company offers donation matching to any non-profit of my choosing, and I suspect many other large corps do the same.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:11AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:11AM (#916657)

              It looks like they are a Public Benefit Corporation registered in Delaware. Now, I'm not licensed in Delaware, but I usually tell my clients here that they are better off forming a new non-profit and then transferring the property over. It isn't too difficult but would probably cost $1000 or less to transfer stuff over. The real problem is how much time it takes. Thanks to the IRS getting its funding slashed, they grind to a halt every 3 months to do audits and enforcement.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:10PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:10PM (#917554) Homepage Journal

              Non-profits take a whole lot more up-front cash and paperwork to set up than a PBC, which is why we went that way. One of these days if we find we just have way too much money, we can still set up a non-profit. Personally, I think we can almost always find a better way to spend time and money than on bureaucracy.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:30PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:30PM (#916501)

            Aww yer just upset we'll find out SN is another commie created destabilization campaign!

            If you got nothing to hide amirite???? You've campaigned pretty hard on morals and ethics meaning nothing anymore, so what's the deal big fella?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:30PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:30PM (#916548)

            It would cause unnecessary work, unnecessary risk,

            I'll agree that it will cause "more" work and risk, and maybe you could convince me it causes "excessive" work and risk. However, it is far from unnecessary.

            Currently people can create shell companies, who own shell companies, who own shell companies. They shuffle money around them like so many poker chips, resulting in multi-millionaires (let alone billionaires) who are effectively immune to all public scrutiny and accountability. It's literally the same issue as hidden offshore bank accounts.

            There are also issues of creating shell companies to hide actions, such as trying to do a hostile takeover of a company and hiding their buying of stock, or a a religion trying to literally buy a city piece by piece [insider.com] (or an oil company doing the same, etc).

            If the claim is that sunlight cleanses corruption, I'd think that should apply to business just as much as it does to politicians.

            If you want to argue that it's not worth it or the detriment is more than the benefit, then sure, let's have that discussion. However, don't pretend that this is just pointless bureaucracy, because it isn't.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:14PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:14PM (#917558) Homepage Journal

              Volunteer and do it then. I'm certainly not going to. I'll wrangle ancient and occasionally insane perl, I'll admin servers with multiple different distros, I'll even admin the site itself, but I will not do paperwork.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:29PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:29PM (#916424)

        This recent movie on the topic: https://g.co/kgs/ZsmbN9 [g.co] was entertaining...

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:12PM (56 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:12PM (#916243)

    5.7 billion over the first 10 years.

    So, $570 million per year, or $0.0048 per US citizen per day.

    I'd rather make the banks do the paperwork, but if they're not doing it properly and don't have access to the primary source material for disclosure anyway, a half penny a day is a small price to pay for opening up information that is supposed to expose corruption, fraud, etc. in EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:40PM (34 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:40PM (#916255) Journal

      I'd rather make the banks do the paperwork, but if they're not doing it properly and don't have access to the primary source material for disclosure anyway, a half penny a day is a small price to pay for opening up information that is supposed to expose corruption, fraud, etc. in EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY.

      Or we could not do that and save a lot of money. Sorry, I don't buy that the present of illegal activities requires this sort of intrusive and pointless theater (after all, one has numerous ways to dodge such requirements should that become necessary to hide one's illegal activities). It shouldn't be the job of banks or small businesses to gather this sort of information and it shouldn't be the business of government to know this stuff either.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:16PM (24 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:16PM (#916276)

        More likely argument could be made that the increased transparency may force certain hands into better compliance with the existing tax codes, costing even MORE money from small business' pockets, oh, the horror!

        Meanwhile, what has that wall cost to-date? I mean, beyond the international embarrassment.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:46PM (22 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:46PM (#916336)

          More likely argument could be made that the increased transparency may force certain hands into better compliance with the existing tax codes, costing even MORE money from small business' pockets, oh, the horror!

          Lefties are funny. If the other team gets to shoulder a burden that it sees as unnecessary and invasive, it's tough shit but they believe with their whole heart that getting an ID to vote is so fucking intrusive and difficult and expensive that only racists can manage it.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:34PM (20 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:34PM (#916430)

            If the other team gets to shoulder a burden

            Complying with the law is not a burden, it is actually a privilege - were it not for that law, your business would never exist in the first place.

            getting an ID to vote is so fucking intrusive and difficult

            Only in states where racists/classists make it so. I see no problems getting to vote in Florida.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:14PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:14PM (#916532)

              getting an ID to vote is so fucking intrusive and difficult

              Only in states where racists/classists make it so.

              Nobody anywhere sees it as a problem except the SJWs in their condescending derision for those they profess to be protecting.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:48AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:48AM (#916631)

                And the people who live in racist areas that effectively remove their right to vote. Maybe you should look into the issues before you claim the high ground in total ignorance.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:51AM (17 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:51AM (#916680) Journal

              Complying with the law is not a burden,

              Another counterexample is going to court to defend yourself from frivolous charges or lawsuits. It's complying with the law, but in a way that is a burden.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:45PM (16 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:45PM (#916861)

                The first point was "shouldering a burden" - the counterpoint was "if you were dodging existing legal taxes, starting to pay them is not shouldering a burden, it is participating in the system which protects your business and enables it to operate in the first place."

                Frivolous lawsuits, vexatious litigation, and even blatant patent trolls are like pickpockets and embezzling executives, illegal, but a real part of the landscape that is an unfortunate burden upon those who they affect - though much less of a burden than the absence of a legal framework altogether.

                I'll grant you another point: personal injury lawsuits do appear to be out of control - if by no other metric than the amount of advertising they generate. They seem to be able to render judgements for more or less whatever the defendant has in exchange for merely inconvenient injuries. There ought to be (new) laws restricting and normalizing what "pain and suffering" is really worth - the jury of our peers isn't handling this case well at all.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:42AM (15 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:42AM (#917155) Journal

                  "if you were dodging existing legal taxes, starting to pay them is not shouldering a burden, it is participating in the system which squanders your tax money and makes war frivolously on millions of people around the world.

                  I can play that game too. Particularly, since most parties subject to this reporting requirement aren't dodging existing legal taxes and thus, don't meet the initial condition of your if-then assertion.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:31PM (14 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:31PM (#917320)

                    Most parties subject to this reporting requirement are shells, fictitious entities of little or no net productivity.

                    Cry for your local tyrant business owner if you must, meanwhile: the shell corporation which Ricky Derringer set up in Nevada to hide his ownership of the land next to mine is going to have to report his beneficial ownership in, well, nothing other than a shell, and the poor slob is going to have to fill out a form to do it, probably himself since he's not quite rolling in the Rock'n'Roll hoochie coo dough the way he used to.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:20AM (13 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @12:20AM (#917654) Journal

                      Most parties subject to this reporting requirement are shells, fictitious entities of little or no net productivity.

                      And that is relevant how? Shells can continue to deliver false information. Consequences will only happen long after the money disappears.

                      Meanwhile people like my brother, who merely maintains a corporation in case they resume contracting at a future time, have one more landmine to worry about, just because some thugs want greater control of small businesses.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @02:49AM (12 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 08 2019, @02:49AM (#917700)

                        And that is relevant how?

                        Well - if, of those 30 million businesses, 25 million are shells, then let's all shed a tear for the shell managers shall we?

                        Meanwhile people like my brother, who merely maintains a corporation in case they resume contracting at a future time, have one more landmine to worry about, just because some thugs want greater control of small businesses.

                        Not feeling much sympathy for your brother, either. Corporations that are on the shelf collecting dust should die. For that matter, the whole LLC structure needs to come into some alignment with the personal responsibility of direct ownership - just because you've paid off some lawyers to set up your straw man should not absolve you of any personal responsibility - maybe personal responsibility needs to tone down for individuals who have not set up a LLC, but the disparity just rewards the lawyers and the people who pay them off ahead of time, for insurance, or protection, or whatever you want to call it.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:33AM (11 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @04:33AM (#917756) Journal

                          Well - if, of those 30 million businesses, 25 million are shells, then let's all shed a tear for the shell managers shall we?

                          The point here is that shell managers can easily handle this regulation. They're probably handling thousands at a time. It's easy for them to automate. The real problem as usual will the people with one corporation who aren't well versed in yet another land mine in the path.

                          Once again, I find it remarkable how much you and others defend yet more crap regulation. It doesn't solve a problem and it just creates problems.

                          Not feeling much sympathy for your brother, either. Corporations that are on the shelf collecting dust should die.

                          Of course not. You're not affected. My brother is affected. There's overhead to creating a corporation and to the various IP associated with corporations. It's easier to pay the annual fee to renew the corporation's registration than attempt to recreate it at a future date.

                          For that matter, the whole LLC structure needs to come into some alignment with the personal responsibility of direct ownership

                          Then it would not be an LLC structure. We've already established that the whole point of your approach is to prevent some hypothetical evasion of regulation and taxes. Creating duplicate structures that do the same things have no point except to create loopholes.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @02:05PM (10 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 08 2019, @02:05PM (#917853)

                            Then it would not be an LLC structure

                            Have I mentioned yet how little regard I hold for "fake people" in our legal system. Corporations, for the most part, should simply die. For someone who abhors complexity in regulation, you show a lot of love for these legal structures whose purpose is to dodge personal responsibility.

                            If you are responsible, YOU should be held responsible. LLCs don't make decisions on their own. If an LLC ends up "responsible" to someone, it should not simply be able to shrivel up and die to dodge that responsibility.

                            Now, $1M judgements for "pain and suffering" resulting from a slippery floor - those need to end, but LLCs aren't the answer.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @03:10PM (9 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @03:10PM (#917881) Journal

                              Have I mentioned yet how little regard I hold for "fake people" in our legal system.

                              So what? Your livelihood exists because of that minor legal fiction. Separating capital from legal responsibility is a huge innovation that helped make the modern world. We can't be legally responsible for everything in the world and it's foolish to try.

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @04:35PM (8 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 08 2019, @04:35PM (#917926)

                                We can't be legally responsible for everything in the world and it's foolish to try.

                                Actually, with tort reform and insurance, we could. Without tort reform, real insurance would be too expensive.

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:16AM (7 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:16AM (#918131) Journal

                                  Actually, with tort reform and insurance, we could.

                                  I hope the unicorns get that fixed soon.

                                  And limiting liability means you don't need that reform and insurance in order to function. It's a superior approach.

                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:50AM (6 children)

                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:50AM (#918153)

                                    It's a superior approach.

                                    It's a superior approach for those who have taken the time and paid the payola to get the protection, like your brother.

                                    Rights should not have to be purchased, says the man who's about to pay a lawyer - twice - for power of attorney for an 18 year old child who cannot handle their own affairs.

                                    --
                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @05:33AM (5 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @05:33AM (#918169) Journal

                                      It's a superior approach for those who have taken the time and paid the payola to get the protection, like your brother.

                                      I notice you're advocating adding more time and cost to that payola for frivolous reasons. Not feeling it over here.

                                      Rights should not have to be purchased, says the man who's about to pay a lawyer - twice - for power of attorney for an 18 year old child who cannot handle their own affairs.

                                      Rights aren't being purchased. You're paying someone competent so this process doesn't get fucked up. Now, having said that, maybe those regulations should be changed or curbed - though obtaining power of attorney for an adult shouldn't be an easy thing.

                                      I find it interesting how you whine about paying for rights in a thread where you propose to increase the cost of paying for those rights. Not the first owned goal.

                                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:42PM (4 children)

                                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:42PM (#918231)

                                        I notice you're advocating adding more time and cost to that payola for frivolous reasons.

                                        I'm advocating adding trivial amounts of time and cost to that payola - trivial for PERSONS using the corporate structure for your purported legitimate reasons - reasons which should be addressed in other fashion, but since this is the system we're stuck with for now, if you're running a real business, this is a trivial bit of overhead - less than regeneration of an invoice for a customer who changed address and never told you.

                                        When the majority of uses of a legal structure are for abuse, those abusive uses need to be curbed - and if the "legitimate" users of the structure have to pay a bit extra - in this case 20 minutes of labor - boo hoo.

                                        obtaining power of attorney for an adult shouldn't be an easy thing.

                                        You haven't met this adult. $800 minimum legal fees seems a bit steep for something that 30 seconds to 20 minutes in front of a judge should cure.

                                        --
                                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:24PM (3 children)

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:24PM (#918247) Journal

                                          I'm advocating adding trivial amounts of time and cost

                                          No, you're not.

                                          When the majority of uses of a legal structure are for abuse, those abusive uses need to be curbed - and if the "legitimate" users of the structure have to pay a bit extra - in this case 20 minutes of labor - boo hoo.

                                          The abuses may need to be curbed, but not the legitimate uses.

                                          obtaining power of attorney for an adult shouldn't be an easy thing.

                                          You haven't met this adult. $800 minimum legal fees seems a bit steep for something that 30 seconds to 20 minutes in front of a judge should cure.

                                          What's steep about it? $800 seems pretty damn cheap for exposure to the legal system and what you're trying to do. And you did pay, right? Means you agree too even though you whine about it.

                                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:59PM (2 children)

                                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:59PM (#918300)

                                            What's steep about it? $800 seems pretty damn cheap for exposure to the legal system and what you're trying to do.

                                            Well, let's see, you're whining about 20 minutes of self-labor for your brother with zero cash out of pocket which is addressed at curbing fraud, funding of illegal activities, etc. All so your brother doesn't have to let his unused LLC structure lapse and re-create it if he ever has a legitimate need for it.

                                            I'm whining about $800 to declare something that is self-evident after a 20 minute interview (actually, most people will have their mind made up in 30 seconds or less) - he is not and will not contest the decision (I'd be thrilled if he would, but no such luck), and has been in a fully supported environment in the public school systems since he was 3, specifically transferred from the "level 2 high support" program to a "level 1 self contained facility" because level 2 can't handle him.

                                            And you did pay, right? Means you agree too even though you whine about it.

                                            Not yet, still seriously considering letting the legal system have him and they can work it out amongst themselves when the shit hits the fan. 18th birthday is in 60 days, still on the fence about whether I want this responsibility or not.

                                            The abuses may need to be curbed, but not the legitimate uses.

                                            And what's your brilliant plan to curb the abuses that involves less than 20 minutes of labor from the legitimate users of the system? Got any Unicorns and Rainbows to address that one? Not that I doubt there's a better solution, our legislators being the social-economic geniuses that they are, but I don't hear you with anything better beyond: leave things the screwed up way they are, because any change might slightly inconvenience someone who "doesn't deserve" it.

                                            --
                                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:20PM (1 child)

                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:20PM (#918375) Journal

                                              Well, let's see, you're whining about 20 minutes of self-labor for your brother with zero cash out of pocket

                                              So you claim. How does that information magically transport itself to the appropriate bureaucracy. How does my brother document that? How does my brother CYA in case someone decides to audit it? Better to just not do it in the first place.

                                              I'm whining about $800 to declare something that is self-evident after a 20 minute interview

                                              And your hypocrisy is noted. So what?

                                              And what's your brilliant plan to curb the abuses that involves less than 20 minutes of labor from the legitimate users of the system? Got any Unicorns and Rainbows to address that one? Not that I doubt there's a better solution, our legislators being the social-economic geniuses that they are, but I don't hear you with anything better beyond: leave things the screwed up way they are, because any change might slightly inconvenience someone who "doesn't deserve" it.

                                              Just not waste the time in the first place. Law enforcement has tools for this.

                                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:59PM

                                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:59PM (#918425)

                                                How does my brother CYA in case someone decides to audit it?

                                                Well, I'm sure some cop did something heinous to all of us at some point in our lives, but, for the most part, that $10K fine is directed at people who are abusing the system, and like a million+ other laws on the books that you, I, and your brother are in violation of every day, it's _probably_ not going to be the basis for future crucifixion. Unless you piss off "the man," and if you never had a cop do something heinous to you just because he felt like it, then you don't really have an appreciation for how exposed you are every single day to all sorts of bad "legal shit" that just doesn't happen because you're not out there being an irritating jackass to people who get off on ruining your day.

                                                Better to just not do it in the first place.

                                                The Senate may take care of this, but only if it's not costing them some bargaining chip they value more.

                                                Just not waste the time in the first place.

                                                Too late, your elected officials are pushing it now - probably in some small way as a response to the Panama Papers, which, IMO, needs a lot more response than this. Are they listening to your position, or mine, at the moment? Seems like mine.

                                                Law enforcement has tools for this.

                                                Apparently not enough, in the opinion of the legislature.

                                                --
                                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @10:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @10:07PM (#916570)

            Righties are funny. If the other side points out existing inequalities about they system it's tough shit but they believe with their whole heart that they aren't racist but support, "Your papers, Mein Herr!" policies. Despite it being completely unnecessary to establishing that one has a residence in an area to be a voter in and maintains a comparable copy of the individual's signature at the polling place (not to mention being able to ask that individual after the fact if there is a fraud question) so that requiring such an identification is completely unnecessary towards deterring fraud.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:56PM (#916346)

          what has that wall cost to-date?

          Just because I thought it would be funny, the info is from wikipedia. But at least 6 Billion has been 'allocated' for the wall (2.5 billion diverted from Department of Defense anti-drug funding; And $3.6 billion diverted from U.S. military construction projects around the world, including schools for children of American soldiers). Not sure haw much money has been spent, but either none or 'something' depending on whether you count replacing old wall as building 'The Wall' (As of July 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had begun to replace old fencing, no new wall had yet been built. 450 miles of new barrier is planned to be constructed by the end of 2020). And now the fun, to me, part:

          Cost of US border wall:       ~$20 Million -pinky twist- Dollars, per mile.

          Cost of cutting through
          US border wall,
          the first time:                ~$100 Sawzall from Home Depot
          the second time:               Free!

          Republic Base Ignorance,
          Stupidity, Treasonousness:      Priceless

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:44PM (#916294)

        I think it is totally fair for people doing business in the US to identify themselves like this, as someone else said it they have to send the info to the IRS anyway. I can't see how this would do anything other than catch crimi als. And the cost? Learn math ya big dope, I thought you already knew it but your comment here says otherwise.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:10PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:10PM (#916314) Journal

        Yeah, well, you know, if you wanna enjoy the benefits of incorporating and limited liability, you gotta pay a price, but we should start this "transparency" fight at the very top, not with the small fish.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 05 2019, @10:49PM (6 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @10:49PM (#916580) Journal

        Or we could not do that and save a lot of money.

        Or we could do without any kind of government and save trillions every year.

        Point: saving alone is meaningless. Cost/benefit is more appropriate, and I haven't seen any comment touching the benefit (I'll continue browsing them, maybe there are).

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:52AM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:52AM (#916681) Journal
          What's supposed to be the benefit of this law?
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 06 2019, @05:48AM (4 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @05:48AM (#916726) Journal

            Are you asserting there's no benefit?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:22PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:22PM (#916771) Journal
              Yes. No benefit. Keep in mind there was no need for the law for generations. What changed?
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:46PM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:46PM (#916784) Journal

                Yes. No benefit.

                Then you'll need to prove your assertion. Or state it as a personal opinion

                Keep in mind there was no need for the law for generations. What changed?

                The level of taxes and the taxation base.
                Can't repair those highways and keep the MIC satisfied in the same time - at least one of the two would be a benefit (large grin)

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:08AM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:08AM (#917132) Journal
                  For example, another poster noted that this information is already recorded, just by another federal government party. And I think you greatly underestimate the potential for grief of creating yet another simple way for businesses to generate felonies.
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:21AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:21AM (#917164) Journal

                    For example, another poster noted that this information is already recorded, just by another federal government party.

                    Linky please?

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:41PM (9 children)

      by digitalaudiorock (688) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:41PM (#916256) Journal

      The quoted nfib article seems beyond slanted frankly...like the stuff about putting their "personally identifiable information at unprecedented risk" for example. Based on the other links, they need to report this to the Treasury Department. Is that somehow riskier than when they file taxes with the IRS?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:47PM (6 children)

        by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:47PM (#916295) Homepage Journal

        The point isn't actually the risk, it's the reporting. When I was still a US citizen, I had to file taxes with the IRS. But I also, as an expat, I also had to file paperwork with the treasury department. It's a completely different set of forms. It's much the same information, but in a different format, with different instructions, and you're a federal criminal if you screw it up. WHY???

        Small businesses already register their owners with the government, they already file taxes. Why does the government need the same information, in yet a different format, sent to yet a different agency?

        Repeat this at the state, county and local levels. The amount of reporting required increases continually. Somehow old reporting requirements never disappear, but new ones are added all the time. The amount of non-productive crap business owners deal with is completely nuts, all because some bureaucrat somewhere had a brainstorm.

        From what I've read from small business owners in the US, the continually increasing requirements of the census bureau are a perfect example. You have to report all sorts of minority/discrimination/classification data on your employees. Of course, before you can report that data, you first have to collect and manage that data. Which, of course, every mom'n'pop business is just dying to do, because what else would small business owners do with their copious spare time.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:59PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:59PM (#916306)

          Yes, exactly. And the idiots in this thread saying "it is only $19 per year" or whatever do not understand that $19 is coming from their paychecks one way or another.

          Listen to Peter Schiffs podcasts where he discusses why he moved part of his business overseas just because of junk like this. The US gov is an active impediment to people hiring Americans.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:10PM (2 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:10PM (#916410) Journal

            And the idiots in this thread saying "it is only $19 per year"

            Or, it's added to whatever tax software you use and automatically completed and submitted costing the average business roughly nothing. (That software should be provided for free by the government but that's socialism, and a whole other topic, for the record.)

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:55AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:55AM (#916683) Journal

              That software should be provided for free by the government

              Why should things be so complicated that software needs to be provided? It's a deadend to make things that complicated when you can just not do it in the first place.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:14AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:14AM (#917136) Journal

              ...tax software...

              Another huge problem with this assertion is that it goes to the US Treasury Department not the IRS. It's not tax related. Thus, it's not covered by tax software! So now, you have either some additional software that sends your information to the US Treasury Department. Or you have a massive information sharing uber program that sends all the appropriate information to the appropriate sources and never gets misappropriated by the usual suspects like US intelligence or Russian organized crime.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:12PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:12PM (#916318)

          Or the SBOs could just publish a webpage with the required information on it, one time - updated as required, and every agency in the country who needs it could scrape it from there. That would be real transparency.

          If you were a Scandinavian, your annual income would be public record, much like property ownership is in the US, and, again, you could file your taxes as a transparent webpage. Shocking? Not really.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:14PM (#916489)

          Small businesses already register their owners with the government

          Do they? How and where?

          In fact, this has been an issue for quite some time [acfcs.org]:

          The global AML standards-setting body gave the United States its lowest possible ratings for preventing criminals from laundering money using shell companies, and the oversight of attorneys and real estate agents, black marks tarnishing the country’s overall powerful framework to counter financial crime.

          Those are some of the findings from a mutual evaluation of the U.S. released last week by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which sets international anti-money laundering (AML) standards. In its latest round of evaluations, the FATF has reviewed more than two dozen countries, this week releasing its evaluation of longtime bank secrecy haven Switzerland.

          As for the United States, FATF evaluators highlighted many of the same deficiencies as a prior review in 2006, chiefly failings tied to requiring that corporate beneficial ownership (BO) details are gathered at company formation and made available to law enforcement.

          The problem of opaque corporate ownership was an issue given top billing on the world’s stage after the Panama Papers scandal revealed how terrorists, criminals and the corrupt can hide illicit assets behind murky ownership structures.
          [...]
          But where the U.S. has its most serious shortcomings, and must make “fundamental improvements,” according to FATF, is tied to capturing beneficial ownership details and making them available to either law enforcement, banks or creating a public register.

          Some U.S. lawmakers, even broad, bipartisan groups, have tried to release bills to address those gaps, but the efforts have never come to fruition.

      • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:33PM (1 child)

        by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:33PM (#916429)

        Taxes are legally protected from disclosure in most circumstances. I'm not sure FINCEN material is. Would a FOIA request produce PII?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:02AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:02AM (#916730)

          Such disclosures are under 5 USC § 552a(b) and are not allowed without the express written permission of the person in the record. There are exceptions to that rule, but they mostly apply to government, law enforcement, or litigation use. Based on the quoted language, I think the writer of the release thought they'd be under 5 USC 552, which uses the "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" standard for general FOIA disclosures. However, that provision wouldn't apply to this type of record, as there is no general purpose to the information beyond the names and PII contained in it.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:58PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:58PM (#916304)

      EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY

      Except those with 21 or more employees.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:27PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:27PM (#916423)

        There are other disclosure laws that already apply to the larger businesses.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:10PM (8 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:10PM (#916409) Journal

      Averaging is deceptive. The vast majority of Americans fall into a category of employee/minor/retired/unemployed. A much much smaller number are self-employed. This is going to hit those people and nobody else. And no it won't be worked into the price because there are a lot external reasons that limit the price a person can charge. So this isn't going to cost every American 0.5c. It will cost the vast majority nothing, and a small minority a lot.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:25PM (7 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:25PM (#916420)

        30 million businesses, with 20 or fewer employees - total US population is 325 million, so, sure, they clearly don't average > 12 employees each, but they do comprise at least 10% of the total population, and a much higher percentage of the working population.

        I agree with the bitch and moan about yet another redundant reporting of repeated information to yet another branch of the government that can't communicate with itself. Still, the price (less than 30 minutes per business per year) seems small enough to pay for the result of getting that information "above board" and clearly visible to the agencies that have a reason to know it.

        Personally, I believe that if you're doing business in the U.S., you should be transparent about who you are (not just a DBA ad in a newspaper classified that nobody reads - that may have worked in the early 1800s, not so much anymore), and even, gasp, what kind of profit/loss you are making. As stated elsewhere: my home and land ownership is all public record, as is everyone elses, and that doesn't seem to have imploded anybody's privacy into oblivion - sure, I get the occasional junk mail offering to buy my real-estate, I wish a pox on all junk mail, but hiding property ownership isn't the answer.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:36PM (4 children)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:36PM (#916433) Journal

          I've been in business for 15 years and even so, just this year some obscure state agency I'd never heard about wants some data that has taken over a week's worth of hours to complete. So much of this stuff is completely outside the realm of what you would think about -- about three or four years into my business, the city made me aware I wasn't paying property tax. I lease office space, have no company cars, nothing of any great value (desks, servers, chairs, paperclips, etc.). I literally have to pay property tax on my office supplies, though I don't actually have to count the paperclips and can estimate their value thankfully. Who would think that after paying sales tax on consumer goods, there would be some government entity out there looking to get a property tax on the value of those already taxed goods. Fine, whatever, I pay the city's stupid property tax on paperclips. Where this law differs from the normal level of oppressive bullshit, is the PRISON time. They won't go after banksters crashing the entire economy, but forget or not know about some form and you could go to prison. Nice.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:48PM (3 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:48PM (#916438)

            I literally have to pay property tax on my office supplies

            Thank your city politicians for that one...

            They won't go after banksters crashing the entire economy

            Thank your national level politicians for that one.

            forget or not know about some form and you could go to prison. Nice.

            There are so many laws that so many people break every minute of every day - it's one of the things that I, as all powerful Emperor of the Matrix, consciousness transferred into the machine and re-living 1940 through 2140 over and over in simulation, would attempt to change and see what happens:

            What if "THE LAW" actually said what it meant, and was enforced 100%? Laws could be so much more lax than they are, the freedom, and leveling of the playing field would be quite interesting.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:33PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:33PM (#916503)

              You already admitted to being a lifelong corporate drone upthread, no surprise you do not understand the plight of people who want to live normal lives without feeding the beast.

              Blame the politicians for that? No, blame you who keeps voting for and justifying this oligarchical crap just to get a few more coins in your pocket.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:50AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:50AM (#916632)

                This is not oligarchic crap, quite the opposite actually by making it harder for people to run fraudulent businesses to launder their ill gotten monies and evade taxes. I don't think any honest business has any problem mailing a piece of paper outlining who has a stake in their business.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @01:44AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @01:44AM (#916646)

                  Oh? Have you run a business and dealt with all the regulatory crap? What do you think happens when one of the dozens of documents like this turns out to have an error or gets forgotten?

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:28PM (1 child)

          by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:28PM (#916500) Homepage Journal

          I agree with the bitch and moan about yet another redundant reporting of repeated information to yet another branch of the government that can't communicate with itself.

          Except this information is *not* redundant. The Federal government does not currently require this information, and most states don't either.

          As for the "costs," we have a single piece of paper, an inconsequential amount of ink, an envelope and a stamp. That, plus the 3-5 minutes (max) it may take to list the information required is negligible (all amounts are in USD):
          Piece of paper: $0.02
          Ink used (I'll fatten this up so no one can say I'm skimping on the costs): $.05
          Envelope: $0.10
          First Class Postage stamp: $0.55
          Labor required (at $150/hour): $12.50 (again, fattened way up, this is a ridiculously high number)
          Total: $13.22/year

          Using the 30,000,000 businesses you mention, at the *inflated* rates I have above, that's ~$400,000,000 per year, about 20% less than the "estimate" in TFS.

          The whining sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:44PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:44PM (#916515)

            Well, the real bitching and moaning is coming from the shell factories who now have to reveal how bogus they really are. If you recall the Panama papers, shell owners include some of the most rich and powerful- and some of them are smart enough to launch promotional whitewashing campaigns to protect their continued privacy / secrecy.

            If you haven't seen it, The Laundromat is a pretty entertaining take on the situation.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:32PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:32PM (#916250)

    when they opened a bank account?

    If you open a corporate bank account in the U.S. you pretty much have to sign a loyalty oath these days.

    Maybe congress ought to just learn to use a database?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:42PM (#916257)

      Maybe congress ought to just learn to use a database?

      That ain't it but welcome to last decade boomer! [fxstreet.com]

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:41PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:41PM (#916292) Journal

      Maybe congress ought to just learn to use a database?

      Microsoft Excel is easier to use than Access and VB.

      Anecdote: In the 1990s, the Russians stored locations of nuclear weapons in . . . Excel. I read it on Usenet (yes really), so it MUST be true!

      --
      With modern TVs you don't have to worry about braking the yolk on the back of the picture tube.
    • (Score: 1) by bmimatt on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:26PM

      by bmimatt (5050) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:26PM (#916461)

      Or you could just rename your business...
      Obligatory xkcd: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/exploits_of_a_mom.png [xkcd.com]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:38PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:38PM (#916253)

    Considering there are about 30 million such entities, this works out to 26 minutes and $19 per year. I spend that getting to the gym and buying lunch on one day.

    Whoop-de-fucking-do.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:45PM (#916259)

      I spend that getting to the gym and buying lunch on one day.

      I spend one day getting to the gym and buying lunch - you insensitive clod!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:01PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:01PM (#916308) Journal

      That's over 30 million owners and partners that vote. Let's see how that works out next year.

      Notice it doesn't touch the big "donors":

      The Act would exempt certain entities from the beneficial ownership reporting requirement, including SEC-reporting companies, depository institutions, credit unions, bank holding companies, SEC-registered broker-dealers, investment companies and investment advisors, churches, charities and other tax-exempt organizations, as well as businesses with more than 20 full-time US employees reporting over $5 million in gross receipts or sales on a US income tax return and having an operating presence of a physical office in the US.

      Quid pro quo, babe. I hope people notice...

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by istartedi on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:03PM (1 child)

      by istartedi (123) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:03PM (#916353) Journal

      If you forget to go to the gym, you don't go to Federal prison.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:02PM (14 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:02PM (#916268) Journal

    .... like the other (200? 300? 400? numbers vary) that President Pro Tempore McConnell is sitting on. It's not quite the stew it's being made out to be, because there are always minority bills which are sat on and go nowhere and there always will be dead on arrival bills, And yet it does have some merit thanks to Grim Reaper McConnell. [thehill.com], in fact quite a bit of merit. [cbsnews.com]

    And it wasn't completely party line (25 Republican yays, 5 Democrat and 1 Indep Nays [house.gov]), but it's close enough to party line to predict how it will fare in the Senate. It will die.

    So this is a non-story, effectively.

    With a protip: Whenever you hear a bill pass only one chamber (especially in a divided Congress), if there is no status listed on who voted or a divided vote, it's likely a dead issue unless mighty political wrangling occurs and that wrangling would then be noted in the story. In this Congress, a Democrat-only supported House bill that gets Senate traction should also be a separately noted element of the story.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:50PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:50PM (#916297)

      Good point, just more fodder to rile up the red base. That explains the focus on numbers, the reds always get overly worked up by the very idea of government costing them any amount of money.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:35PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:35PM (#916332)

        And the blues never met any regulation they didn't like as long as somebody else is paying. Papers please...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:35PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:35PM (#916505)

          Ok boomer

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:16PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:16PM (#916535)

            One day you'll grow up too, junior.

            • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @01:19AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @01:19AM (#916641)

              Alrighty boomer

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:36PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:36PM (#916333)

        Not just any amount, BILLIONS!, and if it's not BILLIONS! in the first year, roll it out to year 5, or 10, or 20 until is is BILLIONS!!!!!

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:15PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:15PM (#916320)

      It will die.

      Yep, but they can scream about it on talk radio and Fox News for hours in an attempt to drown out things they don't want talked about.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:08PM (6 children)

      by stormreaver (5101) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:08PM (#916360)

      ...Whenever you hear a bill pass only one chamber (especially in a divided Congress)....

      And this is perhaps the only reason I can think of to vote for Trump: the more that Congress is divided and bickering, and therefore unlikely to pass any new laws, the better off the entire country is. The ideal congressional split is exactly 50%, thereby limiting the ability of our Federal government to agree on ways to harm our country with new laws.

      • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:54PM (5 children)

        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:54PM (#916441)

        When things are as fucked up as they are now, doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do. Doing Something may not fix the problems, but Doing Nothing WILL NOT fix them.

        Unfortunately with The Single Largest Enemy Of Democracy Mitch McConnell in office nothing is precisely what we will get.

        --
        The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:16PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:16PM (#916491)

          All because in this world of entropy, the set of trajectories increasing chaos is always the larger one. Doing nothing is preferable to thrashing at random.

          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 06 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday November 06 2019, @03:15PM (#916818) Journal

            Interesting point. But if in the current trajectory chaos is accelerating at 100 G, and all potential shots which reinforce accelerate at 110 G, and the negative trajectory possibility reduces that to 1G, then maybe it is time to take a shot anyway.

            --
            This sig for rent.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:25AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:25AM (#917142) Journal
              So are you going to propose a 1 G negative trajectory? I suggest massive regulatory reduction as the 1 G trajectory. Adding yet more reporting burden is not.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:02PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:02PM (#916587) Journal

          When things are as fucked up as they are now, doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do. Doing Something may not fix the problems, ...

          Chill, man, you are not (yet) at the worst, doing something can still result in worse. So, careful what you wish for, it may happen.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday November 06 2019, @07:58PM

            by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @07:58PM (#916957)

            Of course it can make things worse. Then again, it might make it better, too!

            Change is needed. Doing Nothing will not change things.

            The actual problem is getting those assholes in Congress to fix things better for the people instead of the powerful.

            --
            The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:12PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:12PM (#916317)

    This will make the US more like the EU, which is close to disintegration if Deutsch Bank goes under. It does nothing to prevent mass corruption.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:18PM (#916321)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:47PM (#916337)

      douchebank [nytimes.com] has been insolvent for years, buys and sells its own debt [bloomberg.com] and believes other commercial banks are dumb enough to buy their derivatives. [marketwatch.com]

      It's not just the EU that disintegrates when DB finally collapses.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by galgon on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:54PM (6 children)

    by galgon (3041) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:54PM (#916342)

    https://thefactcoalition.org/fact-sheet-a-brief-summary-of-the-corporate-transparency-act-of-2019-h-r-2513?utm_medium=policy-analysis/fact-sheets [thefactcoalition.org]

    So basically any business under 20 employees has to fill out a form with 4 pieces of information for each owner every year. How is this a massive problem? Should take less than an hour and any accountant will probably do it for their small business customers directly when filing taxes. The idea is to try to understand the anonymous (shell) corporations which can be setup where the owners are other corporations. These are setup to launder money, commit scams or hide the source of funding. Yes there are legit uses for anonymous corps and those legit companies will have to spend an hour to fill out a form because others are abusing the system.

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nnqgj8/setting-up-a-bogus-shell-corporation-is-really-easy-1215 [vice.com]

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:47PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:47PM (#916399)

      Have you ever been self employed or better yet employed anyone? Or do you just slave away for a giant corporation/government you whole life?

      • (Score: 1) by galgon on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:11PM (4 children)

        by galgon (3041) on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:11PM (#916447)

        I fill out taxes every year which is much harder than this. If I was self employed I could certainly fill out a 4 item questionnaire for my corporation consisting of: a name, address, date of birth, and driver’s license or other identification number.

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @08:46PM (#916516)

          Then you won't mind another couple dozen 4 item questionnaires either.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 06 2019, @01:13AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @01:13AM (#916636) Journal

          The difficulty of filling out the form is not an issue, IMO. It's the fact you have to fill out one more form. A small business owner works his arse off already, often times putting in double the hours of any employee. Most small business owners start on less than a shoestring, and work their way up from nowhere. There's no time to research all the required forms, where to get them, and how to fill them out.

          It's just one more headache, stacked on top of a small mountain of headaches. Businesses with the resources to deal with these headaches are probably not "small businesses" at all.

          • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday November 06 2019, @10:33PM (1 child)

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday November 06 2019, @10:33PM (#917025)

            The difficulty of filling out the form is not an issue, IMO. It's the fact you have to fill out one more form.

            This should be a simple addition to any tax software, if the information is not included already. I think the issue lies with the fact this isn't already included, so a great deal gets left hidden. They could just abolish the ability to create shell companies, then I suspect the issue would go away.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:26AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:26AM (#917145) Journal

              This should be a simple addition to any tax software

              This reporting is not tax related.

(1) 2