Posts: 341
Threads: 64
Joined: Oct 2007
NOW that the POLES are in alignment (opposites attract) can we get back to the topic.
There have been some interesting comments in between the "Polar Shifts".
In the news article Tax Squad - in the upper left hand corner are PDF files - READ THEM - then hang onto your hat - lost mine reading this:
"A fine for selling, offering to sell, or otherwise conveying more than one price for
any business to be transacted when the lower price is offered if the transaction is
paid for in cash, unless there is a legitimate business purpose for the separate
prices. The fine may not exceed $3,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not
exceed $2,000 for all other persons."
So if a person running a legitimate business does not want to pay - let's say credit card fees - it is "Illegal" for him to say - I can give you a "discount for cash"! [?]
They put in a disclaimer "unless there is a legitimate business purpose for the separate
prices" - who decides - the newbie just hired to enforce "Act 134"? [?]
They do not define cash as "CASH" - dollar bills, coin - but also as "note" which covers writing a check!
How did this get thru the "Legislative Process" and SIGNED - without a STINK being raised? [?]
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
and it may all be illegal soon. read below... its just a tidbit of what is going on. taxing on the local level like this is a problem, but what is happening at the higher levels is far worse as the government begins to implement codex alimentarius (google it the first link is the official WHO site)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...l=h111-875
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2749
Here are a few opinions DON'T TRUST ME read the bills yourself please.
* Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
* Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
* Affects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Affects anyone producing meat of any kind including the processing wild game for personal consumption.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
* There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someone's attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)
* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.”
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.
quote:
Originally posted by Menehune
NOW that the POLES are in alignment (opposites attract) can we get back to the topic.
There have been some interesting comments in between the "Polar Shifts".
In the news article Tax Squad - in the upper left hand corner are PDF files - READ THEM - then hang onto your hat - lost mine reading this:
"A fine for selling, offering to sell, or otherwise conveying more than one price for
any business to be transacted when the lower price is offered if the transaction is
paid for in cash, unless there is a legitimate business purpose for the separate
prices. The fine may not exceed $3,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not
exceed $2,000 for all other persons."
So if a person running a legitimate business does not want to pay - let's say credit card fees - it is "Illegal" for him to say - I can give you a "discount for cash"! [?]
They put in a disclaimer "unless there is a legitimate business purpose for the separate
prices" - who decides - the newbie just hired to enforce "Act 134"? [?]
They do not define cash as "CASH" - dollar bills, coin - but also as "note" which covers writing a check!
How did this get thru the "Legislative Process" and SIGNED - without a STINK being raised? [?]
Posts: 1,243
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2008
Purely unenforceable though. Just like all of the illegal vacation rentals, cleaning companies, fishing boats and B & B's... yes they are illegal but will they ever have to pay fines and shut down? Probably not. This is all about scaring the s**t out of people so they act like they want us to act. It is like when they have tons of stories of people like Willie Nelson with his tax problems on April 14th. The IRS is just trying to scare people into being honest. Either you are honest or you are not and if you are not, you have to live with yourself and the remote possibility of actually being caught.
Aloha au i Hawai`i,
devany
www.myhawaiianhome.blogspot.com
www.eastbaypotters.blogspot.com
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
808Blogger, the myths about the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 have already been discussed and shown to be false.
First, it deals with the FDA's authority. Local organic and farmers markets are covered under USDA, which this bill does not interfere with. This has already been publicly acknowledged and clarified by many local organic farming groups. Its purpose is commercial operations on a regional or national level, not "local". Nothing in the bill authorizes the FDA to get involved in local markets where the produce and products are kept within the local market and not sold to commercial processors. So all claims this will hinder or criminalize local organic farmers and produce is false.
Second, nothing in the bill addresses individual personal consumption farming (to include the giving away of one's own produce to friends and family) by individuals and families. It is absolutely false that this Act will in anyway be applied to your own garden.
The Act does not cover your farm animals you consume, or any game caught for personal use. It only deals with products that can end up in a distribution chain. So unless you’re selling your farm animals or hunted game to Hormel, a restaurant or a butcher shop, the Act would not apply to you.
Food production facility is a bit confusing but once people realized that the authority was to the FDA, they understood what food processing facility meant and whom it applies to. So baking some bread for sale at a farmers market is not covered by the Act unless you’re selling it for distribution.
This got blown out of proportion and (admittedly understandably) cause so much misinformation simply because the average person had absolutely no idea (and didn’t connect the dots properly)of the role of the FDA versus the USDA. So they assumed that the ACT was addressing everything based on the words of the Act not realizing that the FDA does not regulate all food issues.
Bottom line, this Act will have no negative impact on locally produced produce sold locally for individual personal consumption. If sold to a restaurant, the restaurant will need to keep records of what was purchased and from whom. Same goes if you sell to a commercial market, which sells to others, or if you sell a product and it’s going into a regional or national distribution or production. This is so that in the event of some illness, a backtrack can occur. Odds are local people or tourist who get sick will remember buying something at a farmers market, but if it's blended with produce from all over the US and distributed all over, those people have no idea where it came from so hence the Act.
Posts: 1,243
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 168
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2008
As the friend of a troopleader of cubscouts, I say why exempt the girlscouts? They already have the thin mints! All the cubscouts have is caramel corn...
See you in the surf
Posts: 1,062
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2009
quote:
Originally posted by mella l
309 area code is in Chicago Illinois yet here we go, need to buy a domain name? NO! OKAY
#
Hilo, Puna, Hilo District, Puna District, Big Island, Hawaii ...
Hilo, Puna, Hilo District, Puna District, Big Island, Hawaii County, computer repair, consulting, project management, business continuity planning, ...
www.duganconsulting.com/ - Cached - Similar
mella l
Is there some point you are trying to make in pointing out one of my websites and/or phone numbers? Why is it some sort of issue to you that I may have a work phone number that isn't in the 808 area code? I actually have 3 work numbers all with different area codes based upon the clients I routinely work with (also 214 and 312).
I also noticed that Chuysmom has edited, yet again this afternoon, her long post of what are supposedly all my words (and aren't). Please delete your posts and I will in kind, delete mine in the interest of civility, including this one. (unless someone decides to quote this one)
It is OK to disagree, and is to be expected on a forum, but when you make personal attacks instead of using facts to back yourself up, you lose credibility.
Thank you.
Posts: 341
Threads: 64
Joined: Oct 2007
SIGH! [|)]
Another "Magnetic" shift - this topic is hard to stay on track - the last time the "poles" reversed the dinosaurs died! [  ]
Started with "ACT 134"- the "Cash Economy Enforcement Act of 2009. Even discussed "ACT (no number) - the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009". With all these "ACTS" you'd think this was a bible class! [8]
Had a couple of "ACT-cidents" along the way - a lot of "flame" - no visible smoke. [  ]
ONE MORE TIME - How did this legislation fly so far under the radar that we can only REACT to something already PASSED, SIGNED and LAW? [?]
Posts: 1,062
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2009
I thought that the credit card companies actively went against "cash discounts"?
Posts: 1,062
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2009
Chuysmom - I quoted the "twinkie" part from someone else! It wasn't MY words! That's the whole point. You attacked me instead of quoting facts to support your position.
Your union failed you if you were laid off simply because you had the least amount of seniority. If you were a better educated, more qualified and better overall employee than those who worked with you, why would you have to lose your job over theirs? The best employees should keep the job, right?
I am not against state employees. There is a need for government. I am against waste which is inherently rampant in government. I am sure you could identify plenty of waste in government yourself?
|
