janw@inmet.UUCP (09/19/86)
/* ---------- "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