Tax on all bank transactions: HOAX

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

Gary,
this is a hoax... it has nothing to do with Obama or Pelosi. read about it here:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp    This proposal has been around  since 2004 and is one of many that are suggested as an alternative to Income or payroll taxes, not in addition to. This particular bill has been introduced every congress by the same Rep. from Pennsylvania. He never gets anyone to sign on to it, it always dies and he resubmits it again and again. Harkin and DeFazio have nothing to do with it. The 'copied from Snopes...' reference is a copy of the summation of the hoax in its different forms not a copy of the truth about the hoax.
The surprising thing is that when Obama's name is attached to it it gets negative attention, but when Obama or the Democrats try to pass legislation to stop the banks from doing the very same thing again and again people don't get mad at the banks or complain about corporate America screwing us they get mad at Obama and the Dems for trying 'regulate', so while we are complaining about big government big corporations are sticking it to us.

The above was in response to the following e-mail:

----- Original Message -----REMEMBER THIS IS A HOAX-----

From: Gary
To: undisclosed recipients
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:43 AM
Subject: Fw: Any Bank Transaction to cost 1% fee
Good Luck with this one.

1%  tax on all bank transactions HR 4646This  government just cannot think of enough ways to hurt the American people!
This Bill must die
FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE  YOU KNOW!
1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 -
ANOTHER  NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP.
Checked this on snopes, it's true!
Check out HR 4646. (see below copied  from Snopes)
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the  radar.
This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any  financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and  loans, etc.
Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your  account, will have a 1% tax charged.
~If your paycheck or  your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.
~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of  depositing your paycheck in your bank.
Even if you hand carry your  paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be  charged.
~You receive a $5,000  stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you  to deposit that check in the bank
~If you take $1,000 cash to  deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.
Mind you, this is from  the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you  will not see one penny of new tax.
Keep your eyes and ears open,  you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's  under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are  taxed.
~Oh, and by the way, you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in  to deposit that check, you guessed it.
You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.
Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will  pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.
Some will say, oh well,  it's just 1%. Are you kidding me?
It's a 1% tax increase across the board.
Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will.
And if anyone protests, they will just say, "oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"!
Think this is no big deal?
Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements.
Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%.
Still think it's no big  deal???
Copied from SNOPES.com <http://snopes.com/>
1. snopes.com: Debt  Free America Act<http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp> ...
Is the U.S. government  proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking  transactions?...It is true.  The bill is HR -4646 introduced by US Rep Peter  deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. Their plan is  to sneak it in after the...
  ...moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R.  4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to  pay down the...
  ...[2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.).  His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial  transaction...
Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:24:58 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp

Social Security Changes: HOAX

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

Fwd: Fw: SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES(Glen what do you think of this is it a type of a scam?)

Yes it is:

This email has been circulating before Obama was elected president. Originally it contained Bush's name and Obama has now been substituted for Bush. It originated in 2006 in regards to a confusing parliamentary occurrence that happens when a motion [in this case a senate bill] has a motion to amend attached. People who vote for or against an amendment might vote the opposite on the final amendment dependent on whether the amendment passed or failed. Its not uncommon for them to be characterized as voting just the opposite of how they actually voted. It's also not uncommon for them to unintentionally vote the opposite of what they intended. Amendments can confuse the entire issue as anyone who has dealt with parliamentary processes [Union, board, legislative meetings etc.] can tell you.
The original 2006 email mischaracterized the Senate Bill at issue and listed the vote from the amendment to the bill as the vote for the actual bill since that vote tended to be more damming for Democrats. The email further muddied the water by intentionally describing the actual bill as a vote for something other than what the bill was about. The amendment was actually a motion to PREVENT former illegal immigrants from obtaining access to social security payments they had made into social security through fake social security numbers. That amendment failed and that amendment would have actually stopped what the original [and current] 2006 email is claiming congress was trying to do. So during the Bush administration the idea of the 2006 email was to taint the democratic senators who actually voted to prevent what the original email claims to be trying to prevent. The list of senators where dropped as was Bush's name and just Obama is listed now as the purpose of the current email versions intent is to misrepresent him alone and to promote xenophobia.

To see a more current example of how motions and amendments can confuse things click here. [warning it gets even more confusing] The same thing is being practiced in Republican 'ROBO calls' in an attempt to make it appear that democrats are supporting raising the debt limit while opposing spending cuts. [p.s. they aren't but I do.]

To me, the amazing thing about the whole hard core anti-immigration group and the social security is broke group is they are bumping heads in regards to solving their particular grievances. In 2005 [the last year available] it is believed that illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers paid 5 BILLION DOLLARS into social security. This is money they will never get and it represents a plus for the SS trust fund. A minority use fake ss numbers yet they accounted for that much in 2005? Imagine if we legalized even less than half of the illegal's in this country. Since a majority of illegal immigrants get paid under the table and therefore do not pay either income taxes or social security payments imagine how much tax revenue and ss payments are being avoided. Legalizing even a portion of those illegal immigrants, forcing their employees to properly collect those revenues, could be a great boost to both social;l security trust fund and tax revenues. Take it a step further and think what it would do for the unemployment insurance funds if those employers paid premiums for employees that they now avoid by hiring illegal's and paying them under the table.

naturally I've oversimplified the issue, and obviously I have a slanted point of view on the issue, but if Republicans would occasionally drop the 'hard core, take no prisoner approach' to problem solving and look for solutions we might actually see bipartisan solutions instead of reoccurring long term campaign slogans [hot button issues: abortion, immigration, regulations, gay marriage, etc.,]. Identifying the problems is not the same as solving it, we can usually agree on the problem, the problem's solution is seldom obtainable by advocating an extreme or unbending position, compromise moves us closer to a final resolution while unbending stances just guarantees that the problem will continue to exist and therefore the political benefits of always having a hot button issue to whip out every four years.

       GlennDL                              

 

Related links:

• FYI: ChainMail Hoaxes Update   why do these hoaxes exist?
• Spitting Back: debunked Chain E-Mails  
• http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/illegal.asp  
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/03/national-republican-congressional-committee/nrcc-robocall-debt-ceiling-spending-cuts/

The above was in response to the following e-mail:

----- Original Message -----REMEMBER THIS IS A HOAX----- 
From:
To: Glenn Littrell
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 2:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES(Glen what do you think of this is it a type of a scam?)
SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Obama.  You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it.  It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone.  If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?
As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow 'illegal' aliens access to Social Security benefits.   Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Instructions are below.  If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names.
If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know.
Thank you!
To add your name, click on 'forward'..  Address it to all of your email correspondents, add your name to the list and send it on.
IMPORTANT NOTE:  When the petition hits 1,500, it is up to you to send it to< REFERENCE DELETED gdl else, it will not be sent.
PETITION for President Obama:
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security.  We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a pre-requisite for social services in the United States .
1. Mary PETITIONERS DELETED gdl

If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names.
If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know.
Thank you!  Just think every time that the list hits 1,500 in all the forwarded
e-mails, this petition will be sent not just by a thousand petitioners, but rather
THOUSANDS of petitioners!
To add your name, click on 'forward'.
Add your name to the bottom of the list, then
Address it to all of your email correspondents and send..
________________________________________

Military Pay: HOAX

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

While part of this chain e-mail [original below] is true it has been and is obviously still being used to appeal to sentiment as a way of stealing mailing list and dishonestly maligning people:    [note: some versions of the chain mail identify C.Williams the actress and some reference President Obama, both incorrectly]
The true part:

• A Cindy Williams did write an editorial criticizing military pay in comparison to civilian pay. She did serve as assistant director for national security in the Congressional Budget Office, but wrote her criticism after leaving office.
• An airmen did write a response disputing her claims.
• The airmen attributed in the chainmail did write the original version which has changed much since he wrote it.

That is where the truth starts and ends. That is also all that a spammer needs to get your attention and hook you.
Now for just some of the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and lying:

• It was not the Cindy Williams [actress] of Laverne and Shirley fame as claimed in some variations of the chainmail. Over the years the actress, a supporter of the military, has received repeated hate mail because of the circulation of this letter.
• The letter and the events referenced occurred in 2000. Before the war in Afghanistan. [Obviously the airmen was not about to deploy]
• The real author of the criticisms of military pay, Cindy Williams, was not appointed by President Obama as recent versions of the chainmail claim. She served 1994 to 1997. This is another dishonest and malicious attempt to demonize the current president. I have looked for versions of the email that might blame Bush for her appointment but apparently spammers might have an ideological preference.

Whether this chainmail is re-circulated as a ploy to steal your mailing list or as a means of poisoning your attitude toward our president, it is malicious, dishonest and not worthy of continued circulation. 
Read more at:

• FYI: ChainMail Hoaxes Update 
• Spitting Back: debunked Chain E-Mails

References:

• http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/cindywilliams.html
• http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/gipay.asp
• http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cindywilliams.htm
• http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-spends-1-trillion-foreign-policy/  [unrelated reference to Cindy Williams [not the actor]

----- Original Message ----- REMEMBER THIS IS A HOAX

From:To:Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: FW: Military Pay

---

MILITARY PAY

---

if you get this more than once, feel honored that you know more than one person who supports our military and appreciates what they do.
If you don't forward it, you don't deserve their sacrifice.
CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office.....
Military Pay  
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America .  
Ms. Cindy William  wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.  
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.  
"Ms  Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20.  When I run that through the calculator, I come up with  an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.  
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington , D.C. Area reveals a position in my career field, requiring  three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.  
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.  
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience.."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.  
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.  
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.  
But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to say it.  
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on  a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.  
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?  
A1C Michael Bragg,  Hill AFB AFNCC  
IF YOU AGREE,
PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO
AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN.  
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

---