IRS Making it Harder for People of Color to File Their Taxes with Mandatory Facial Recognition ID

[sensible don]

ummmm........... the NEW DISCLAIMER - whoops

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify that you can still file and pay taxes without logging into an IRS account or providing biometric data. This contradicts information an IRS spokesperson previously provided to Gizmodo. See the full details in the frustrating correction below.

 

[Dawg]

They cash it at a place where the person knows them by sight as a regular customer.
They had to have an ID to open an account

They either get seen or they don't.
w/out ID they Don't get seen

They get a ticket
Their car is towed

They get a ticket
They lose their fish and pay a big fine

 

[EatTheRich]

How do any American cash a check without ID
Hell, w/out ID no doctors appointments
Eh, while driving a car you better have an ID if stopped by cops
If fishing you better have and ID/licenses

I actually am waiting for my roommate to be able to get an ID so he can cash his paychecks and pay me the $1600 he owes me … he can’t get an appointment to get an ID till the 28th …

 

[Colorforms]

So the govt should create a photo ID database of all gun owners ?


But requiring prevents more rightful voters from voting than it does in person voter impersonation ? Do you know of anyone who committed that Crime ?

So why not require photo ID to log on to the internet, period, if it's such a good idea ?

LOL with facial recognition.

What I'm saying, and I'll try to type slowly, is that there is nothing that restricts states from verifying who you are when you do these things.

If you're going to argue one, then you have to argue the other. You want it both ways, but that's dishonest and illogical.

I do use an ID when logging onto the internet, and for getting on my computer, and my wifi. If you don't, then you're not very smart. Know why I do it? To keep people who aren't me from saying they're me when they try to get on.

Besides, why should we care if you get on the internet so long as you do it legally? That has literally nothing to do with voting and gun ownership. It was stupid to even bring it up.

 

[Spamature]

They had to have an ID to open an account

So in your lifetime, you have never had a check cashed by someone who knew your face and didn't need an ID to identify that it was you ?

And you are saying if you had a doctor's appointment, your doctor would send you away and not see you if you had left your wallet at home ?

Losing or having an ID revoked is not a lifelong thing.

What the GOP is betting on is that more poor young minorities who would vote Dem will not have an ID on voting day than their older white base of voters.

It political calculation that shaves off people who have a right to vote but can be denied from doing so by this law.

You guys are acting as if Republicans wouldn't cheat and do exactly what the Dems are doing if it were a real thing. But it's not a real thing. People are not going to the poll to impersonate other registered voters. If they were Republicans would be doing it too. You can bet your azz on that.

Hell you've been caught trying to overthrow the last election. If you will do that, you sure as hell would pull off voter impersonation too, if it were real.

 

[Spamature]

LOL with facial recognition.

What I'm saying, and I'll try to type slowly, is that there is nothing that restricts states from verifying who you are when you do these things.

If you're going to argue one, then you have to argue the other. You want it both ways, but that's dishonest and illogical.

I do use an ID when logging onto the internet, and for getting on my computer, and my wifi. If you don't, then you're not very smart. Know why I do it? To keep people who aren't me from saying they're me when they try to get on.

Besides, why should we care if you get on the internet so long as you do it legally? That has literally nothing to do with voting and gun ownership. It was stupid to even bring it up.

The IRS is not a state entity. It's part of the federal govt. We aren't talking about the states.

You log on to your ISP. That is where the requirement would be to provide proof. In a sense they already have that with secondary phone verification for login into a website. The same would go for your ISP and sending a selfie to log on to your connection or to any other website or service.

You do that so that they authorities know you are that person with the right to use the internet and not some imposter who has no business on the internet. Like antivax conspiracy theorist and potential traitors organizing another attempt to overthrow our govt.

 

[Colorforms]

The IRS is not a state entity. It's part of the federal govt. We aren't talking about the states.

You log on to your ISP. That is where the requirement would be to provide proof. In a sense they already have that with secondary phone verification for login into a website. The same would go for your ISP and sending a selfie to log on to your connection or to any other website or service.

You do that so that they authorities know you are that person with the right to use the internet and not some imposter who has no business on the internet. Like antivax conspiracy theorist and potential traitors organizing another attempt to overthrow our govt.

Doesn't matter. All these things should have verification. I don't want people who are not me going into my taxes, voting for me, nor owning a firearm in my name. These things need verification.

 

[Spamature]

Doesn't matter. All these things should have verification. I don't want people who are not me going into my taxes, voting for me, nor owning a firearm in my name. These things need verification.

My only real problem with this is using a private entity 3rd party to manage the information. If the govt itself doesn't have the capability to handle this on their own, they shouldn't implement it until they can.

 

[Colorforms]

My only real problem with this is using a private entity 3rd party to manage the information. If the govt itself doesn't have the capability to handle this on their own, they shouldn't implement it until they can.

The federal government has no role in handling voting lists nor verification procedures. That is and has been a state function. They shouldn't be handling gun registrations either.

 

[Spamature]

The federal government has no role in handling voting lists nor verification procedures. That is and has been a state function. They shouldn't be handling gun registrations either.

Constitutionally, congress has complete control over federal elections.
Doesn't and can't are two different things.

 

[Colorforms]

Constitutionally, congress has complete control over federal elections.
Doesn't and can't are two different things.

The federal government doesn't. To use an emergency authorization to intercede in a state election if a state government refuses to do their duty and hold an election is a tremendous and dangerous misuse of power.

The constitution specifically makes the states the arbiters of elections.

 

[Spamature]

The federal government doesn't. To use an emergency authorization to intercede in a state election if a state government refuses to do their duty and hold an election is a tremendous and dangerous misuse of power.

The constitution specifically makes the states the arbiters of elections.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

[Colorforms]

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Again, major federal overreach. If the states weren't supposed to be the arbiters of their own elections, the constitution would not have made them so. The federal elections clause is an emergency action and should be used only as such.

 

[Spamature]

Again, major federal overreach. If the states weren't supposed to be the arbiters of their own elections, the constitution would not have made them so. The federal elections clause is an emergency action and should be used only as such.

The Constitution is a federal overreach ?

No, it does not say "in an emergency" the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

It says "at any time", which means when ever they feel like it.

 

[Colorforms]

The Constitution is a federal overreach ?

No, it does not say "in an emergency" the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

It says "at any time", which means when ever they feel like it.

No, it says that the states are in charge of their own elections.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

You seem to want to favor the socialist side of the clause and ignore the states rights part of the clause.

 

[Spamature]

No, it says that the states are in charge of their own elections.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

You seem to want to favor the socialist side of the clause and ignore the states rights part of the clause.

It says what I said in the very beginning of the page.

The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations.

As in, they can make the election laws for the states without any input from the states, if they choose to do so.

So now you're calling me and the Founding Fathers a bunch of socialist.

Are we fascist socialist or socialist fascist ?

 

[Colorforms]

It says what I said in the very begininng of the page.

The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations.

As in, they can make the election laws for the states if they choose to do so.

Again, you read what you want to and completely ignore the rest.

 

[Spamature]

Again, you read what you want to and completely ignore the rest.

Unless they spend the rest of that time disowning the first paragraph of the article, then why should read it ?

 

[Colorforms]

Unless they spend the rest of that time disowning the first paragraph of the article, then why should read it ?

Exactly as I thought. The article itself disowns it. But then, you've never been interested in the truth.

 

[Spamature]

Exactly as I thought. The article itself disowns it. But then, you've never been interested in the truth.

It disowns your claim, not mine.