The IRS reads your email

[tfcrew]

April 11, 2013, 12:26 PM By Jonnelle MarteThe Internal Revenue Service believes it doesn’t need a warrant to search through taxpayers’ emails, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
 

Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com

The ACLU reviewed 247 pages of IRS records in an effort to see if the agency gets a warrant before reading people’s email, text messages and other digital communications. The records didn’t provide a clear answer but suggested that the IRS often doesn’t bother with a warrant before sifting through digital records during criminal investigations. “It’s been very clear under the law for many, many years that when the government wants to read the content of our letters, diaries or listen to our phone calls they need to get a warrant,” says Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU. “And the content in our emails is just as private.”
Part of the issue is that the law regulating how the government can access emails, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, is outdated, the group says. Enacted in 1986, the law only protects unopened email or email that has been stored on a server for 180 days or less. That means any email that’s been opened or stored for more than 180 days doesn’t require a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, a measure that was tested in a 2010 decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Warshak. The court found that the government needs probable cause before asking email providers to release messages. The ACLU review found that it was the IRS’s policy to read emails without a warrant before that ruling and that the IRS contends the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to email. But it’s not clear if the agency changed its policy after the ruling– something the ACLU is calling on the IRS to clarify.  The agency declined to comment.
The IRS can also check Facebook and Twitter accounts for signs that people may be lying on their tax returns, though the agency says it conducts audits based on the information taxpayers put on their returns, not on postings on social media sites. And agents cannot deceive people or use fake profiles to obtain information. Still, it’s a reminder to those playing fast and loose with their tax filings not to boast on Twitter about it, experts say.
The ACLU made similar document requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. It expects the findings to be ready by the end of the month. “It’s really amazing to us that in 2013 the American public still doesn’t know what the legal standards are for the government to read our digital records,” says Wessler.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/taxwatch/2013/04/11/the-irs-reads-your-email/

[lordtiberius]

Maybe it is time to abolish the income tax in favor of a sales tax or a lax levied only on the states based on population like in the old days when the government was less large, thoughts?

[Boethius]

Sales taxes are regressive.

[Shadow]

But hey, you can say in those mails whatever you want.....

[Slumba]

Sales taxes are regressive.

That is what people keep saying, but I no longer buy it... the argument is that poor people pay more because they have to spend a larger %age of their income on things that are taxed; but the alternative is worse - instead of regressive, we have oppressive. 

And if sales taxes are most or the only taxes, then there is a built in incentive to save.

[Shadow]

That is what people keep saying, but I no longer buy it... the argument is that poor people pay more because they have to spend a larger %age of their income on things that are taxed; but the alternative is worse - instead of regressive, we have oppressive. 

And if sales taxes are most or the only taxes, then there is a built in incentive to save.

There is also a built in incentive to change to an informal economy where taxes are simply evaded. Russia is a good example....

[Boethius]

There are countless studies, generally done by tax policy institutes, on the impact sales taxes have on the poor. 

[Shadow]

There are countless studies, generally done by tax policy institutes, on the impact sales taxes have on the poor.

The studies look at the current models, where there are numerous exemptions from sales tax. If there would be zero exception that would mean that those who spend more also pay more tax and it becomes a flat rate.
The problem is that to trace private transactions in order to reach such a flat rate is impossible.

[Boethius]

The studies look at impacts, yes, based on how taxes are applied.  However, not all sales tax regimes have exceptions other than for groceries.  Canada, for example, has zero sales tax on medical/dental services, and some educational services, as well as groceries.  There are not many other exceptions.  The poor get a notional "rebate", which is relatively minor.  But, that person generally pays no income tax.

[Muzh]

That is what people keep saying, but I no longer buy it... the argument is that poor people pay more because they have to spend a larger %age of their income on things that are taxed; but the alternative is worse - instead of regressive, we have oppressive. 

And if sales taxes are most or the only taxes, then there is a built in incentive to save.

[Shadow]

The studies look at impacts, yes, based on how taxes are applied.  However, not all sales tax regimes have exceptions other than for groceries.  Canada, for example, has zero sales tax on medical/dental services, and some educational services, as well as groceries.  There are not many other exceptions.  The poor get a notional "rebate", which is relatively minor.  But, that person generally pays no income tax.

Does transfer of property or renting it fall under sales tax in Canada ? After all that is one major thing which makes money.

[Boethius]

New homes are taxed, but used residential housing is not, and rent is not taxed


There is an "indirect" tax on transfers of property, which are the land transfer fees paid, but they vary from province to province.  Where I live, they are minimal, and there is no federal tax for property transfers (can't be, constitutionally).

[Shadow]

New homes are taxed, but used residential housing is not, and rent is not taxed


There is an "indirect" tax on transfers of property, which are the land transfer fees paid, but they vary from province to province.  Where I live, they are minimal, and there is no federal tax for property transfers (can't be, constitutionally).

Now imagine a sales tax system where this would be present, and then think of how it would influence the rich. There are similar examples of exemptions that you may not be thinking about immediately, but that are creating the regression.

[GQBlues]

Sales taxes are regressive.

Not as far as California's politicos are concerned. 2010 reported almost $100B revenue for the state (Income/Sales/Corporate/Sin) from a statewide population of +/- 30 million (that's a whopping $33K/person). Amazing if you take into consideration that the US poverty threshold is at $24K.
 
This revenue doesn't include the 1-1.5% percent tax hikes recently placed statewide because the state is supposedly broke.
 
Not included on the revenue are property taxes collected which pays for schools & social services like police, firemen, etc...(Note: If you don't own a home or real property, you don't have the leverage to scream at any police officer about how you're paying for his salary)
 
Not included in the revenue are gas/road taxes that's collected by the State DOT to repair, renovate and develop roads and highways...
 
Not included in the revenue are local and district wide taxes...
 
Not included in the revenue are utility taxes....
 
Now, I wonder...why are we 'broke'? What makes my State different than any other in that its annual revenue literally equals to more than a few nation - COMBINED - YET still be so broke?

[GQBlues]

From the article:
 

..The ACLU reviewed 247 pages of IRS records in an effort to see if the agency gets a warrant before reading people’s email, text messages and other digital communications. The records didn’t provide a clear answer but suggested that the IRS often doesn’t bother with a warrant before sifting through digital records during criminal investigations. “It’s been very clear under the law for many, many years that when the government wants to read the content of our letters, diaries or listen to our phone calls they need to get a warrant,” says Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU. “And the content in our emails is just as private.”...

Emails are digital. From what I understand, there are 'no' privacy laws protecting any 'public' or 'private' email systems that necessitate requiring a court-ordered search warrant during a criminal investigation, IINM.
 
 

[Shadow]

From the article:
 
Emails are digital. From what I understand, there are 'no' privacy laws protecting any 'public' or 'private' email systems that necessitate requiring a court-ordered search warrant during a criminal investigation, IINM.

Perhaps that is true in the US. However in the EU emails are protected similar to written mail.

[GQBlues]

Perhaps that is true in the US. However in the EU emails are protected similar to written mail.

Yeah...this is what I remembered reading before..It wasn' from Wiki but that's where I find it now...I'm not aware of how it is elsewhere.
 

..
After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record.^[1] This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that is needed for a government agency to force email providers such as Google's Gmail to produce a copy.^[1] Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.
Email sent by employees through their employer's equipment has no expectation of privacy; the employer may monitor all communications through their equipment. According to a 2005 survey by the American Management Association, about 55% of US employers monitor and read their employees' email. Even attorney–client privilege is not guaranteed through an employer's email system; US Courts have rendered contradictory verdicts on this issue.^{[2] ...}

[YoungBuck]

Whatever happened to "unreasonable search and seizure"?

This is one of the things that I find hard to explain to foreigners; Yes, your country is wildly intrusive, but the US is too, and each day it slides into more intrusion, essentially to the point where we have tossed out the entire Bill of Rights with laws like the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, etc. The IRS reading your email is just adding salt to the wounds.

[alex330]

I have the worst tech, he is always accidentally wiping my mailservers drive...

[Shadow]

I have the worst tech, he is always accidentally wiping my mailservers drive...

Which does nothing to help you. The mail is read through the Cisco/HP filters that every country has installed and that monitor all internet traffic, delivering the needed bits to the right people.

Now they may not be able to enter it as evidence, but simply by knowing there is something to find it will be possible to dig up useable evidence.

[Slumba]

There are countless studies, generally done by tax policy institutes, on the impact sales taxes have on the poor.

That is an "argument from authority" , name the position, almost any position, and I can quote you a study that supports the position. 

The OECD studied the issue and found that sales taxes were among the least intrusive and the most supporting of growth.

See how easy it is?

[Boethius]

In this publication, the OECD states that consumption taxes increase poverty
http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/49417295.pdf
 
In these briefs, the OECD acknowledges the effect of consumption taxes on the poor
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/39495382.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/39495382.pdf

[lordtiberius]

That is an "argument from authority" , name the position, almost any position, and I can quote you a study that supports the position. 

We live to serve the state or rather the head of state . . .