DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 04, 2010, 05:13:51 PM
-
Eye-popping power grab: Licensing of U.S. colleges
Federal scheme poses 'greatest threat to academic freedom in our lifetime'
Posted: October 03, 2010
By Bob Unruh
President Obama's Department of Education, where Secretary Arne Duncan appointed a longtime homosexual activist who was part of the sometimes-violent Act Up organization to head his "safe schools" office, now is proposing to force colleges and universities to submit to a political agenda, according to critics.
Under the proposed federal rule change, institutions of higher education "would be required to have a document of state approval ? to operate an educational program, including programs leading to a degree or certificate," explained an analysis by Shapri D. LoMaglio for the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.
"I think it is the greatest threat to academic freedom in our lifetime," former Sen. Bill Armstrong, now president of Colorado Christian University, told WND. "But only if you love liberty."
Armstrong is so alarmed over the proposal identified by the federal agency as a rule change regarding "Program Integrity Issues" that he's joined with another former Colorado senator and higher education leader, Hank Brown, in writing a commentary on the subject. Brown was president of the University of Northern Colorado and the University of Colorado.
The educators were joined by prominent columnists Cal Thomas and Jay Ambrose in alerting readers about the proposal.
Armstrong is encouraging members of Congress to look into the measure, since as a proposed "regulation" change, most lawmakers probably haven't even heard of it.
Armstrong said the implications are not complicated, despite the 86 pages of tiny type in the federal agency's rule change.
"The Department of Education is attempting to subject every college and university in America ? public and private ? to political supervision," he said in an e-mail to WND.
Somebody, he said, needs to blow the whistle and put a stop "to this takeover, a huge threat to institutional autonomy and academic freedom."
Accreditation, now established by relatively independent educational councils, already is a life-or-death rating that requires institutions to meet high educational standards. But the new requirement for a "state approval" provides that "the State is expected to take an active role in approving an institution and monitoring complaints from the public about its operations and responding appropriately."
"While these regulations only encourage rather than require state involvement and oversight, if these proposals are passed as written, it is apparent the direction that future regulations will head," the analysis said. "Some states are already involving themselves in curriculum decisions for education, nursing, and other such programs for professions that require state licensure. In addition to the practical considerations of staffing and expense, this also implicates the large issues of academic freedom and religious freedom.
"As religious schools, we could particularly be adversely affected by state attempts to regulate curriculum (science, religion, etc.). Currently Colorado requires education courses to include phonics, but what if as part of 'authorization' a state required that a science course or a counseling course include certain components?"
Armstrong and Brown, in their commentary published on Colorado Christian University's website as well as in the Denver Post, asks whether colleges should "be subjugated by federal and state government."
Armstrong and Brown said what is "ominous" is "the whole idea of political supervision of higher education."
"As a practical matter, the department's power grab carries with it an implicit invitation for various pressure groups to seek legal mandates requiring colleges and universities to implement their pet theories about curriculum, degree requirements, faculty qualifications, teaching methods, textbooks, evolution, phonics, ROTC, climate change, family policy, abortion, race, sexual orientation, economic theory, etc.," they wrote.
"If adopted, regional accreditation will be denied to any institution that has not first been given 'substantive' state 'authorization.'"
They pointed out that all colleges already are licensed by one or many states and are subject to state fraud and consumer-protection laws.
That, however, is "not what the Department of Education has in mind," they warned.
"Although details are sketchy, the department's proposal calls for 'substantive' oversight, not 'merely of the type required to do business in the state.' Moreover, this legal authorization must be 'subject to adverse action by the state,' and the state must have 'a process to review and appropriately act on complaints ... and to enforce applicable state laws,'" they wrote.
"In other words, the state will be required to set standards, establish guidelines, and enact rules and regulations by which each college and university will be judged," they said. "This assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy is a slap in the face to regional accreditation agencies whose peer reviews have been bulwarks of integrity and academic quality for decades. Loss of accreditation is literally a death sentence."
Thomas, in a column for Tribune Media Services, said the new Department of Education rule could take effect as early as November. He said a number of state lawmakers already have raised concerns about the government potentially being involved in "setting course requirements ? [and] how and what to teach."
"Imagine the outcry if someone identified with the tea party movement had made similar demands of a Republican administration concerning what is taught at Harvard or UC Berkeley. There would be protests in the quads and a lawsuit by the ACLU," Thomas wrote.
"If imposing outside agendas ? from textbook content to course selection ? is supposedly bad when conservatives do it (mostly in reaction to the liberal assault on any ideas that conflict with theirs), why is it not equally onerous when liberals push for state control and the dictation of course content at private colleges and universities?" Thomas questioned.
Further, Ambrose, a longtime editor with Scripps Howard News Service, said the proposal's possible impacts "are enormous, including a frightening assault on academic freedom as crucial decisions are transferred from faculty and administrators to bureaucrats and legislative bosses who just might use weapons of mass authority to demolish instruction of a kind they don't like."
"What strikes me (and Armstrong, too) is that the move is more of the same," Ambrose continued. "The Obama administration does not much trust liberty. If something out there sneezes, regulate it. Surround it with endless pages of rules, blankets and blankets of rules, enough rules to smother the slightest hope of autonomy. Do more if necessary. Take over things. Take over health care. Take over the auto industry. Take over financial institutions. Government knows all. Government should do all. Government, we praise thee!"
The suggested rules, specifically explained under "State Authorization," calls for states to grant colleges "authorization" to operate if the "authorization" is "subject to adverse action by the state and ? the state has a process to review and appropriately act on complaints."
And watch this be praised by the left, Academia, and the MSM (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209589)
-
who cares?
-
We shall see, but since I posted it, I'd count 6. me + the author, + 2 former Senators, + 2 columnists
-
Do you believe physical therapists should be licensed?
-
We already are...by the State. Every State has their own prerequisates for the professionals performing their duties, following what they had learned in school. Meaning, they're not only seperate (schooling from licensing), but it's a state level matter. I got my degree, THEN had to pass the State Exam, to become licensed
-
and along those lines:
The Demise of American Education
The words are those of the late John A. Pidgeon, the legendary headmaster of the Kiski School in Saltsburg, Pa. At the time, he was reflecting on his 45 years at the school, but what he said could apply to so many other things:
"I could not believe my ears when I heard 'an educational expert' say recently that a head master should serve only five to seven years, do what he can for the school, and then leave. This is without question the most idiotic statement I have heard, especially from educational experts who are probably the most idiotic group I know anyway."
Jack Pidgeon's low opinion of educational experts may be an exaggeration; I have come across one or two professors of education who actually made sense. But, if pressed, I would probably cite the generality of the country's schools of education as the most corrosive influence on American education in my time. With the possible exception of teachers' unions, of course.
Is there a fad that the educantists have not embraced over the years, much to the detriment of education? They seem to switch shibboleths -- sight-reading! self-esteem! emotional intelligence! -- as often as Mr. Pidgeon's idiotic expert would have them switch locales.
Jack Pidgeon spelled "head master" as two words -- as if to emphasize the primacy of teaching at his school. To him, administration was just a necessary evil. It is an order of priorities the rest of American education would do well to adopt.
To quote Laura Bush the other day, who was explaining why the new George W. Bush Institute was going to concentrate on training school principals: "A well-trained, energetic teacher can be stifled under lackluster or discouraging administrators." Here's hoping the first thing the Bush Institute teaches administrators is just to get out of the way of the talented. It's a lesson administrators could learn in many a field besides education.
But what's wrong with a school's switching headmasters on a regular basis? Why keep the same old leader, and stick to the same old dreary principles? Mr. Pidgeon explained why:
"Like people, schools must have an identity. If they do not, they drift along trying to be all things to all people. A school is not unlike a person in that it must have a set of values from which it does not waver. I have known many people who do not have this set of values and they bounce about the world standing for one thing one day and another thing another day and become feckless and pitiful people who do not command the respect of their peers and are unable to make any lasting impression on life. I hope that we can remember the same applies to schools."
And to many another institution. Like newspapers. I've long been fascinated by the kind of editorial writers who early on clamber aboard the transmission belt from smaller to ever larger newspapers, regularly jumping from one locale and one editorial philosophy to another with the greatest of ease till they wind up at the pinnacle of their trade -- either at the New York Times or in public relations. I have to admire -- I've never envied -- their sheer adaptability, which seems to go with their upward mobility.
It takes years, maybe a lifetime, to acquire a working knowledge of just a small town, let alone a small state, but some of my brightest colleagues can jump from convivial communities in the South to impersonal megalopoli up North or out West unburdened (and unsupported) by what is called a sense of place.
An innocent Northerner once asked me, apparently seriously, what Southerners mean by a sense of place. And I thought of Louis Armstrong's response when someone asked him what jazz is: If you have to ask, you'll never know.
A sense of place is inextricably bound up with a set of values. Forget where you came from, and who are you?
Jack Pidgeon, who died about a couple of years ago, had every one of his boys at Kiski memorize the last page of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby." ("So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.")
It's not only people that need a sense of their past and the values that go with it. Constancy of purpose is also what distinguishes a successful family, newspaper, political party, republic ... life.
Without a set of inner beliefs, we wind up abandoning principles as regularly as we adopt them. The way educantists do catchphrases.
Now the line is: Forget the classics, concentrate on an education for the 21st century! Which apparently means knowing how to operate electronic devices and figure out a spreadsheet. That's not education, it's vocational training. What once were means seem to have become ends in education. And our more with-it "educators" shift with every passing wind, clutching at the latest gimmick the way drowning men do at straws.
If there is a single factor that separates the enduring from the passing in institutions great or small, local or national, it is constancy of purpose. The way in which that purpose is pursued may be flexible, but forget one's purpose and decide to stand for everything as it comes into vogue, then a school, a university, a newspaper, an individual, a nation ... will come to stand for nothing.
The Demise of American Education (http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2010/10/04/the_demise_of_american_education)
-
HOw much would this measure amount to enforcement of orthodoxy?
-
Do you believe that schools that teach physical therapy should be licensed?
-
HOw much would this measure amount to enforcement of orthodoxy?
If you don't follow fed "guidelines", expect repercussions
Do you believe that schools that teach physical therapy should be licensed?
They already are...by the state. Its referred to as an accreditation
-
They already are...by the state. Its referred to as an accreditation
According to your article, accreditation organizations have nothing to do with the state.
Which asks the question, should the state license accreditation organizations?
-
That's strange, since my University was accredited by the state. I wonder how that slipped by. In fact, I wonder how all the universities in the state became accredited, if not by the state. Hmmmmmm
-
Interesting. Where did you go to school?
The University of Georgia is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (http://www.oap.uga.edu/).
-
University of LaVerne, followed by College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific. I'm stunned places like UCaliforniaLA & CaliforniaSUFullerton can get away with being accredited by the state.
-
The University of LaVerne is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
The College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific is accredited by the American Osteopathic Association?s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation.
At both schools the teachers are certified by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
The full text of the proposed changes can be found here:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14107.pdf (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14107.pdf)
But the gist of the changes indicate that the fed has no interest in licensing higher education centers, they rightfully leave that to the state, and the licensing required by the state could be as simple as a business license. The reasoning apparently has a lot to do with minimum requirements for the availability of federally backed student loan programs.
Update: Both UCLA and CAL State Fullerton are accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
-
SIRS....this sounds like a plan of the "control freaks" to ram
their pro-homo agenda even in the church schools....thats
why they have so much contempt for religion...look at XO
every chance he gets he demeans religion....so now they
want to force excellent schools like BYU, Notre Dame, SMU,
Georgetown, Texas Christian University, Gonzaga, Creighton,
Villanova, ect.....to teach that homo sex is a-ok.
We didn't have the US Department of Education until 1979-1980.
Boy our test scores have sure improved since then haven't they? ::)
I say lets get rid of the US Department of Education...
It's none of their damn business anyway.
-
Religious affiliated schools can teach whatever they wish as far as I am concerned, so long as it is not nonsense of the Rev Fred Phelps variety (he's the Bob Jones "University" grad that picks military funerals on the grounds that God kills soldiers to protest gays in the military). Am I to assume that "Christians" is all for Fred Phelps and his bizarre family church?
Is it so wrong to not want colleges to teach that their students should stomp the sh!t out of gays? I do not believe that any of the schools you mentioned come close to doing this.
I taught for 32 years in a church-affiliated college that became a university. I just do not favor any alliance of church and state. People who attend a church related school know what they are enrolling in, and that's no problem for me.
The deal here is that the government lends money to students to attend a variety of non-profit and for-profit schools. There are some that have a minimal graduation rate, especially beauty colleges that teach hair and nail preparation and such. An article in the Miami Herald spoke of one that had a graduation rate of 2% and less than 1% of those who had attended actually had jobs as beauticians. But they ALL owed a LOT of money on their federally guaranteed loans, and the default rate on these loans was huge.
Here is one example:
http://www.bizclaims.com/2010/09/corinthian-colleges-corinthian-colleges-olympia-everest-deception-scam-fraud-physical-and-mental-anguish-grand-rapids-michigan/ (http://www.bizclaims.com/2010/09/corinthian-colleges-corinthian-colleges-olympia-everest-deception-scam-fraud-physical-and-mental-anguish-grand-rapids-michigan/)
This is not about religion or gays at all. It is about the public subsidizing educational programs that benefit no one but those operating schools that do not train people adequately or successfully for careers.
Colleges and universities are accredited by private regional associations: New England, North Central, Southern, and Western.
Here is a list:
http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp (http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp)
-
Bt, I love the nitpicking, but the point remains, which I've consistently been pointing out, which you yourself have been kind enough to reinforce, is that per your request, higher education (i.e. Physical Therapy services & other graduate degrees have accreditation agencies, the UC schools, and Cal State schools in particular, located at the state level) The article I've posed references a proposal by the Fed to mandate curriculums for schools across the country.
And you don't have a problem with that, it appears. That's unfortunate
-
Do you believe that schools that teach physical therapy should be licensed?
I will ask my chiropractor.
-
The article I've posed references a proposal by the Fed to mandate curriculums for schools across the country.
I posted the link to the regulation proposals. Perhaps with the actual document in hand you can show where they are mandating curriculum.
And your schools are not accredited by your state. That's not nitpicking. That's a fact.
-
Do you believe that schools that teach physical therapy should be licensed?
I will ask my chiropractor.
Life University which is the largest chiropractic college in the US is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The same group that accredits the University System of Georgia.
-
The nitpicking is in referencing state from Fed. But you went one better.....you took Government completely out of many of the colleges' acreditation. I thank you for helping my point out all the more
-
You are the one who said your schools were accredited by your state. They aren't but if they were, then what changes?
-
"What the Frell.....Fed to "License" education??"
-
"What the Frell.....Fed to "License" education??"
Cool. Now show me where in the proposed regulations, they say that.
-
I'll simply have to refer you to the beginning of the thread (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/what-the-frell-fed-to-'license'-education/msg111330/#msg111330). Note, I have seen no denials by the aformentioned "Fed"
-
Note, I have seen no denials by the aformentioned "Fed"
You are kidding right?
The "fed" is to respond to post in this forum or they are admitting whatever the charges are, are true?
Or they are supposed to take out an ad in the NY Times to refute a column in World Net Daily?
Please.
Here's the link to the proposed regulations.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14107.pdf (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14107.pdf)
Prove your claims.
-
The claims are in the reports I've referenced. If you don't wish to agree with them fine, and NO, I'm not demanding that the Fed respond to something I posted in the forum. I'm NOTING an absense of any denial to the proposals being reported on
I realize Bt, that some how, you think because I highlight something, especially if its an ommission, somehow you've concluded that is tantamount to my demanding a response. You've been doing that as of late. And apparently no manner of my correcting you on that flawed reasoning is going to alter than apparent preconceived mindset. So, best we move on
-
Didn't think you could prove your claims, thus your eagerness to Move-on.
-
Just like with the Gold thread
(where by the way BT was proven wrong...
because the govt will now know about my
gold transcations when before they did not,
dudn't matter who the hell reports it to
the govt....the bottom line is they find out now
when they didn't before)
BT seems to think if the new laws don't clearly state " hey we're gonna F-You"
then BT thinks...."well whats the problem?"
of course these morons are gonna hide their real agenda within the legislation
they aren't gonna come right out and say "with this new law we're gonna screw you"
it's really not "a reach" by SIRS to assume the worst when you look at our country today
But here is BT racing to nitpick our concerns about these new laws saying "where's it say that?"
Well where in Obamacare does it say McDonald's & other companies may have to drop their healthcare?
forcing their people on to the new govt socialized medicine
hell no that wasn't stated in the legislation, but it obviously is the leftists agenda
If these new laws don't really change a thing, then why the hell do we even need them BT?
-
Didn't think you could prove your claims, thus your eagerness to Move-on.
Didn't think you could read the original post of the thread, thus your continued beating the dead horse of flawed concluding ::)
-
because the govt will now know about my
gold transcations when before they did not,
How so?
Where in that section does it say individuals need to provide the IRS with 1099's when they make purchases above $600?
Show me where it says that and I'll be glad to admit I'm wrong.
-
How so? Where in that section does it say individuals need to provide the IRS with 1099's when they make purchases above $600? Show me where it says that and I'll be glad to admit I'm wrong.
BT...good grief man...how many times do I have to say it?
Repeatedly I have stated to BOTH you and XO how this works.
And honestly I sometimes think you don't even read my posts....
Ok lets try again.
In 2005 for example...I bought $50K worth of gold from my dealer
I did not fill out a govt document about that specific transaction & neither did the dealer.
Under the new law you are correct I wont have to fill out a form, but the dealer will if it's over $600.
The dealer will have to send the govt the exact details of that specific transaction.
Thus the govt is getting the specific details of my transaction.
You are pretending there has not been a change.
When in fact there has been.
The point isn't whether I or the dealer has to fill out the form.
The end result is the same no matter who fills it out.
The point is the govt gets the specific info they didn't before this $600 rule.
Honestly....do you see what I am saying?
-
Under the new law you are correct I wont have to fill out a form, but the dealer will if it's over $600.
Where in that section of the healthcare bill does it say dealers musts file 1099's on sales?
That section deals specifically with those who are making payments.
And unless you have a real sweet relationship with your dealer, they are not paying you to buy their gold.
You as the buyer do not have to file the form as long as it is a personal purchase. The dealer doesn't have to file the form, because they are the seller.
So where is the paper trail as it relates to the feds tracking your gold purchases?
-
Where in that section of the healthcare bill does it say dealers musts file 1099's on sales?
So where is the paper trail as it relates to the feds tracking your gold purchases?
(http://stephenviscusi.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/abc-news-logo.gif?w=136&h=50)
Gold Coin Sellers Angered by New Tax Law
Amendment Slipped Into Health Care Legislation Would Track,
Tax Coin and Bullion Transactions
July 21, 2010
Those already outraged by the president's health care legislation now have a new bone of contention --
a scarcely noticed tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin buyers and sellers under closer
government scrutiny.
The issue is rising to the fore just as gold coin dealers are attracting attention over sales tactics.
Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code
to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous
income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.
Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service
the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed
$600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category
and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change.
This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of uncollected income tax,
was included in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it. The tax code tweak
is expected to raise $17 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Taking an early and vociferous role in opposing the measure is the precious metal and coin industry,
according to Diane Piret, industry affairs director for the Industry Council for Tangible Assets.
The ICTA, based in Severna Park, Md., is a trade association representing an estimated 5,000
coin and bullion dealers in the United States.
"Coin dealers not only buy for their inventory from other dealers, but also with great frequency
from the public," Piret said. "Most other types of businesses will have a limited number of suppliers
from which they buy their goods and products for resale."
So every time a member of the public sells more than $600 worth of gold to a dealer, Piret said,
the transaction will have to be reported to the government by the buyer.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/nm_gold_coins_100720_mn.jpg)
A stack of coins is shown in this file photo. A new IRS rule that will start in
2012 will require sellers, buyers of gold coins to file IRS paperwork. (Florence Delva/Getty Images)
Pat Heller, who owns Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Mich., deals with around 1,000 customers every week.
Many are individuals looking to protect wealth in an uncertain economy, he said, while others are dealers
like him.
With spot market prices for gold at nearly $1,200 an ounce, Heller estimates that he'll be filling out between
10,000 and 20,000 tax forms per year after the new law takes effect.
"I'll have to hire two full-time people just to track all this stuff, which cuts into my profitability,"
he said.
An issue that combines gold coins, the Obama health care law and the IRS is bound to stir passions.
Indeed, trading in gold coins and bars has surged since the financial crisis unfolded and Obama
took office, metal dealers said.
The buying of actual gold, as opposed to futures or options tied to the price of gold, has been a particularly
popular trend among Tea Party supporters and others who are fearful of Obama's economic policies, gold
industry members such as Heller and Piret said. Conservative/libertarian commentators, such as Fox
News Channel's Glenn Beck, routinely tout precious metal on the air as being a safe, shrewd investment
in an environment in which the financial system -- and paper money backed by the rest of the world's
faith in the U.S. government's credit -- is viewed as increasingly fragile.
The recently revealed investigation by California authorities into consumer complaints against Goldline
International, which has used Beck as a pitchman, and Superior Gold Group (which has not) has put
a spotlight on what one liberal leaning politician, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., calls the "unholy alliance"
between gold coin sellers, such as Goldline, and conservative talk personalities, such as Beck.
Beck, who through his spokesman, Matt Hiltzik, declined to comment for this story, and Goldline marketers
portray gold coins as a better alternative to owning bullion in the event that the U.S. government ever decides,
as it did under FDR in 1933, to make it illegal for private citizens to own physical gold. At that time, the U.S.
dollar was still pegged to the price of gold; the gold standard was abandoned during the Nixon administration.
Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., has introduced legislation to repeal the section of the health care bill that
would trigger the new tax reporting requirement because he says it's a burden on small businesses.
"Large corporations have whole divisions to handle such transaction paperwork but for a small business,
which doesn't have the manpower, this is yet another brick on their back," Lungren said in a statement
e-mailed to ABCNews.com. "Everyone agrees that small businesses are job creators and the engine which
drives the American economy. I am dumfounded that this Administration is doing all it can to make it
more difficult for businesses to succeed rather than doing all it can to help them grow."
The ICTA's Piret says identity theft is another concern because criminals may set up shops specifically
to extract personal information that would accompany the filing out of a 1099.
The office of the National Taxpayer Advocate, a citizen's ombudsman within the IRS,
issued a report June 30 that said the new rule "may present significant administrative challenges to taxpayers and the IRS."
]http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gold-coin-dealers-decry-tax-law/story?id=11211611&page=1]
(http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gold-coin-dealers-decry-tax-law/story?id=11211611&page=1)
-
"Coin dealers not only buy for their inventory from other dealers, but also with great frequency
from the public," Piret said. "Most other types of businesses will have a limited number of suppliers
from which they buy their goods and products for resale."
So every time a member of the public sells more than $600 worth of gold to a dealer, Piret said,
the transaction will have to be reported to the government by the buyer.
So how again does this law track your purchases?
-
So how again does this law track your purchases?
Under this new law I buy $50K in gold coins. .
Seller will now be required by law to fill out gvt
form and disclose the details of the transaction.
Me as the buyer will now be named on the gvt form.
Thats not been the case.
The form will say who the buyer and seller is and the details
of the transaction. If the form does not include the facts of the
transaction what would be the purpose of even bothering?
The gold retailer won't be able to name the buyer as
"well somebody that just walked in the door".
The gvt will now (and it never has before)
get the details of every single time I purchase or sell gold coins
over $600. The gvt will now get the amount I purchase/sell
it never has before, the date of my purchase/sale...it never
has before and from whom I purchase my gold coins...it never has before.
Come on BT....we both know and as the ABC News article shows
they want to keep track of these transactions to raise tax revenues.
This isn't really that complicated. It's obvious why and what
they are doing. Honestly I am not being a smartass, but
I find it puzzling why you continue to seem to want to
deny this reality. It's right there in the ABC News article.
Although quite frankly in some ways I do appreciate your
dogged refusal to accept the info just upon face-value
and forced me to go get the facts and source my position.
Because this afternoon I stand much better informed
on this specific issue than I was 48 hours ago....
and for that I thank you....thats what I've always
said about this place...for me it's a learning experience.
We may not be converting the other side to our own
side....but if we take these dialogues seriously then
we at least learn more about our own positions.
-
The thing BT is doing very well is to challenge these opinion pieces, and along those lines, validating our own opinions. For that, he gets high marks. It is a bit crazy to think I should be reading, cover to cover the 2000+page piece of Obamanationcare, to bring out the specific regulations being presented in the reports, regarding the gold tracking, or similarly in what has transpired in this thread
He is correct that the authors to such opinion pieces, themselves should provide the evidence to their claims within their reports. In the absense of any such specificity, one either holds back any conclusions until such, or if finding the reporter credible (or uncredible), backed up by other credible reports/articles, can agree (or not agree) with the conclusions
-
Under this new law I buy $50K in gold coins. .
Seller will now be required by law to fill out gvt
form and disclose the details of the transaction.
As the buyer, not true. Unless buying and selling gold is a business venture of yours.
If you were the seller, it might be. But then the goods being tracked are no longer yours.
Odds are very good that this revision will be repealed by bipartisan effort. It is poorly defined and over-reaching. And i would be in favor of that.
This is the problem. Mom and pop are at a point in their lives where they are ready to downsize. They have a garage sale and sell their furniture and all the stuff they have accumulated over the years because they won't need half that stuff in the smaller condo or motor home where they plan to ride off into the sunset as air conditioned gypsies.
What are the chances one buyer purchase more than $600 worth of goods. That antique china cabinet alone is worth that, let alone all the power tools pops has in the workshop.
Is the buyer going to have to file 1099's on mom and pop? The law says yes, kinda.
This is why they put that change in the bill.
They needed to make ObamaCare revenue neutral. and they needed to show offsets. That is why they touted savings on digitized record keeping, that is why they promised to tighten scrutiny on medicare payments.
Sowells take on this provision was misleading because it doesn't just focus on gold purchases. It focuses on all kinds of goods and services.
I've been reading Sowell for years and normally when he is writing about principles he's good. In this case, he picked up on a news story and ran with it, perhaps not bothering to go to the actual provision itself to see whether the story was entirely accurate.
The internet is a wonderful research tool for information, but it is also rife with disinformation.
It is up to us to sluice out the difference.
-
Do you believe that schools that teach physical therapy should be licensed?
I will ask my chiropractor.
Life University which is the largest chiropractic college in the US is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The same group that accredits the University System of Georgia.
I am surprised , that is diffrent than my expectation.
-
Unless your cash purchase and gold hoard is small, keeping recipts would be a good idea , for decades now police have been confiscating cash from people who couldn't explain where they got so much cash.
-
"As the buyer, not true"
Yes it absolutely is true that the govt will now find out from whom, where, and when I buy over $600 in gold coins.
The govt finds out I am the buyer when the seller discloses the details of the transaction on the new required $600 govt form.
That's what the form does...it is to inform the govt of the transaction.
What do you think the seller at the gold store puts on the govt form?
Are you saying when the gold coin retailer fills out the govt form he leaves the buyers info blank?
That would be insane...."Gold Store Inc: "We sold $50K in gold coins today to some red headed guy"?
Of course they will disclose the buyers information and the govt will get that information.
Otherwise the govt would not be getting the transaction details and could not verify it.
That is the purpose of the form to gather details of a transaction.
The buyer and the seller of transactions over $600 will be on the new form.
Thus the govt would get my info and details of my purchase when the seller/company turns in the newly required form.
-
The govt finds out I am the buyer when the seller discloses the details of the transaction on the new required $600 govt form.
What form does the seller fill out? The buyer is responsible for this new form, but only if they are in the business of buying whatever it is they bought.
-
Under ? 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), persons engaged in a trade or business who
make payments totaling at least $600 to another person in a single year are required to file an
information return (typically a Form 1099) with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and to
provide the payee with a copy. For payments made after December 31, 2011, ? 9006 of P.L. 111-
148, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), expanded the information
reporting requirements contained in IRC ? 6041. Under the amended provision, most payments to
corporations will no longer be exempt from reporting and the types of payments that can trigger
the reporting requirement will include gross proceeds and amounts received by a payee in
consideration for property.
http://www.pppnet.org/pdf/crs._1099.pdf (http://www.pppnet.org/pdf/crs._1099.pdf)
-
The buyer is responsible for this new form, but only if they are in the business of buying whatever it is they bought.
BT where do you think most people buy and sell large amounts of gold?
Who do gold investors sell $10K, $20K, $50K, or a $100K of gold they own?
You think they put an ad on Craigslist & invite Joe-the-Mugger over to their house for a looksie?
Investors of large amounts of gold sell their gold to dealers who now have to report the specific details of the transaction to the gvt.
That is a change. That is something new. The gvt will be tracking who, when, the amount, and price of gold I sell.
Anyone that sells more than $600 worth of gold will be now be tracked by the gvt.
-
CU yes a dealer would have to report that they bought more than $600 worth of gold from you in a given year.
And all that would show is that at one time you had $600 worth of gold at any given time.
It would not show that you had more gold you were sitting on.
But if it worries you that the govt might figure out that you possess gold, my suggestion is you sell it before dec 2011 to avoid the stress.
In fact if you own anything of value that a business might buy from you, i suggest you liquidate it post haste.
You keep focusing on gold like it is the only material subject to this rule. Even old barn wood would qualify.
-
The other thing you can do and the gold dealers have probably already thought about this is simply have the dealer be a matchmaker between seller and buyer acting as individuals and both sides pay the matchmaker a finders fee.
Poof, no 1099
-
"But if it worries you that the govt might figure out that you possess gold,
my suggestion is you sell it before dec 2011 to avoid the stress"
I am hoping this part of ObamaCare will be repealed....with as many Democrats supporting repeal of this I
think it stands a good chance of repeal....OMG....is this really in a healthcare bill?
"You keep focusing on gold like it is the only material subject to this rule. Even old barn wood would qualify"
True, but the reason I was focusing on Gold is because thats how the discussion started when SIRS posted
an article about as the great Dr. Thomas Sowell says "sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold"
in a healthcare bill.