Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: new tax disaster
Message-ID: <117200074@inmet>
Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 13:06:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200074
Posted: Fri Sep 19 13:06:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:19:26 EDT
References: <911@usl.UUCP>
Lines: 30
Nf-ID: #R:usl.UUCP:-91100:inmet:117200074:000:1500
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 19 13:06:00 1986


/* ---------- "Re: new tax disaster" ---------- */
In article <1864@shark.UUCP> alang@shark.UUCP (Alan Geist) writes:
>
>In article <1020@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes:
>>The front page of today's WSJ says, "Taxpayers claiming a dependent
>>who is five years old or more will have to provide his Social Security
>>number."  The new tax bill is consistent with Reagan's pro-repression
>>policies.  I am no longer neutral with regard to this bill.

>Would David or someone else please explain what is "repressive" about this
>idea?  Am I being naive in not seeing anything wrong with this?  What could
>a corrupt official possibly do with your child's SS number that is so bad?
>If all this idea is going to do is help prevent people from cheating on their
>taxes, then I am in favor!

I am still in support of the  tax  bill  -  but  this  part  *is*
repressive.  It  lets the government know more about individuals.
*You* may not see immediately how this piece of  information  can
be  used  for  repression, but that does not mean it can't. *Any*
information can be used, e.g., to track down someone's movements.
Suppose you speak out against the IRS, and they keep auditing you
as a reprisal. You move to another  place,  and  get  another  SS
number - but now there's the extra problem of your child.

Then there's a matter of principle. There was this personal thing
you  didn't have to tell them, now you *do*. Another little right
gone - erosion continues.

		Jan Wasilewsky