beaglesss

Depends. If no one currently cares, there is no significant structure or personnel or political change in the future several years, and they don't have any assets worth taking, and the government doesn't get any more desperate for assets to seize -- then they're out of the woods.

The statute of limitations is long and HSI often delays their indictment until the investigation is mostly wrapped up.

Many cases it's not to override law per se as it is to make someone care to follow the law and issue your paperwork.

US law actually carved out businesses can "bribe" foreign governments for access to services to entice foreign government worker execute their laws.

And now you've understood why every handyman job is on paper $1 under the limit at which they need a trades license.

I will tip counter if they have a jar or the terminal asks, but if I do I treat them as tipped workers -- i.e. I will leave all my trash sitting at the table and wave them over when my food is ready.

Generally my rule is 10% tip for bussing and 10% for taking and bringing my order.

Tip 0 and see what kind of service you get the next time.

I used to work food delivery and naturally the customers ordering takeout at fancy restaurants would always tip 0 to the restaurant even if they tipped me for delivery.

I quickly found myself ignored by all the workers at those restaurants, orders take an hour extra to fill, no one talk to me, etc. eventually I learned to tip out of my own tip because my next service is contingent on the prior tip.

I don't think so either, but they likely have useful data that politicians can draw off of. Remember Milton Friedman, who wanted to eliminate many forms of taxes, came up with a lot of his policies after working at the Treasury department on taxation mechanisms.

What's more likely is some bean counter at the IRS realized enforcing taxes on tips cost more money to enforce than they gained, or was barely break even. It's an easy political win at no risk.

In fact it is in many rural lawless areas where there is effectively no state, like gold mining regions of Brazil/Guyana/west africa

Fiat dominates in strong nation states because in part everyone needs it for taxes.

Or they could buy/rent a half of a duplex where both owners consent to indoor smoking.

The obvious solution is to let people pick if they want to rent/buy in a smoking complex.

Presumably if this is so popular it has democratic assent, it would create a market advantage and through the free market most everyone gets what they want.

It appears what's happened is some people picked apartment complexes with no contract banning smoking, then had a sad face about their choice.

Commodity money has been a thing in many times in history.

Things may have changed, but for awhile it was the cheapest way to buy stuff online in high-risk legal markets like precious metals if you wanted the transaction to clear in under 30 minutes. CC have high fees in high risk markets, wires are expensive for some customers, ACH takes 1+ days. Crypto clears quickly and can't be reversed so some sellers discounted it significantly against credit.

>t where it doesn’t you must add a bunch of overhead to make it work.

Unmetered water/sewage access is not popular with taxpayers and likely would be a regressive tax in favor of wealthy/corps.

> You are freeloading on work already paid for by others in order to make your libertarian idea remotely feasible.

If companies selling septic system materials rural people buy are freeloaders, this is something your jurisdiction is going to have to deal with and hopefully fix, as making out sewers public is still going to result in our people buying PVC and Portland cement from your businesses. Your issue here is not with our sewers but that you've failed to control externalities of your businesses.

>Because I couldn’t afford to. I’m not rich. However, society can.

Many taxpayers can't either. Yet you want to force them to when even you won't do it!

>. You’re saying that because it hasn’t completely solved homelessness then it’s worthless and your little libertarian faction should be able to reap all

I've said exactly what I've said. Sure you could use taxes and build a shitter next to every homeless tent (of course you admit you taxpayer have no money for that). The problem is in part housing is unaffordable, in large part due to regulations, zoning, codes, TAXES, and of course in the case of public sewers the difficult task of convincing a bunch of NIMBYs to allow their tax funded homeless bathroom to be built next to them.

I'm empowering you, since people are so willing to go along with it that they'll vote for the taxes, by all means go ahead and start a private charity and fulfill your dream. Better than what you're doing now, which is complaining to people like me who've actually personally funded and built sewage systems about how I'm a freeloader and if you could just steal enough money from others you could fulfill your goals without expending any efforts or your own money.

>And this is how it already works in “most places”. Where it isn’t currently doing that you propose installing meters that aren’t already there, or determining pipe size to every user to determine the proper amount to charge for their shit. How is this not adding complexity

? Sewage systems are built under permit virtually everywhere and the pipe size or drain units is documented. I live in about the least regulated place in the Continental US and even here my drain units are public record. Of course if everything is private connections could be added without permit since that burden falls privately.

Of course if water is unmetered and public I think the average person even worse, with tragedy of the commons and the rich or corps consuming water in mass then taxing the poor to fund it.

>Sure, just as soon as you pay for all of the infrastructure between your community and the septic system. I wonder how many million or billions of dollars that would add up to.

This doesn't make sense. You tax this in pieces, you can 'tax' at consumption in pieces without each consumer building their own billion dollars in infrastructure. If your local companies are selling PVC pipes and Portland cement to country folk, why aren't you charging them for that infrastructure instead of complaining about maybe poorer people are getting a slight discount on poop system materials at your cost (which you seem to think is good anyway, personally im noy sure how much im robbing you when i privately buy portland and pvc, but corporations siphoning tax money via subsidies etc can be a problem).

>In practice they’re spending that money on something else. This isn’t about savvy savers losing a few percent to inflation. This is about people mortgaging a way to take a shit because they need to hook up their apartment to some company’s system.

... Apartment owners mortgage the cost of their sewage pipe yes, as well as the toilet they sit on. If renting landlord pays for the pipes you rent and indirectly also pay for. This is the case whether you connect to a public or private system, taxes or not. You are not mortgaging the cost of the treatment system unless you own it.

>Huh, no restrooms available in the city? Oh wait, you have to be a customer to use a lot of those restrooms… so you have to pay to shit. Crazy how that isn’t working. It’s not libertarianism that’s wrong, it’s the damn poor and mentally ill.

If you want shitters for the homeless why don't you buy them some? Or if it's so wildly popular a cause why not solicit donations? Taxes haven't been very successful at solving the problem and you have it all figured out so you should spearhead it. How much are you committing today for shitters for the homeless?

>So we agree it doesn’t scale. You can’t have 1,000 people each digging their own septic system around an apartment complex. What you’re proposing is adding cost and complexity to sewage in order to ensure you only pay for your shit.

The asinine approach of using a rural septic system on a Manhattan apartment doesn't scale. Metering water consumed in most cases is pretty good at finding sewage use, and water metering exists in most apartments or at least every one I've lived in.

>...complexity...

On the contrary, your system is a complicated one that instead of metered sewage or water one has an army of tax collectors who meter our earnings & property & spending, who in practice toss people in a cage when they don't pay up rather than just stop the service.

>Indeed, but literally all of the infrastructure up and down the supply chain that makes a $5k septic system available to you is.

Sure but under my proposal everyone pays for services consumed, if you think rural people are stealing your infrastructure taxes to build septic systems by all means that's an argument to 'tax' at point of consumption, since we're cheating you apparently. (Now we know you really are against paying taxes for others poop!)

>Ah, so you’d rather the poor pay interest on the ability to shit? Surreal.

Well in practice they pay interest either way, privately or via inflation and public debt gov uses to expand their scope.

>Yes, and I don’t think those people ought to be unable to shit in dignity. The libertarian dream is a nightmare

Mentally ill and the poor shit in public largely because housing is unaffordable and it isn't convenient to have to hike a long way to take a shit. If you have democratic assent and are so sure people are eager to fund the shitting of the homeless, by all means go out and open a public shittery next to them, sounds like you'll get the support.

>How does this work in Manhattan? How about for a single apartment complex? It doesn’t scale.

Waste treatment system similar to many public systems. Charge by drain units, sewage pipe size, or maybe metered. Point is sewage treatment plant can be funded on individual apartment basis.

> works if you’re in a low density area benefiting from the taxes pulled from high density areas.

My area is far poorer than Manhattan but virtually everyone has a private septic system, and I've never seen poop in the street. You were previously paying for public poop now your just paying privately in lieu of publicly, and of course the homeless still probably shit in the street.

Also rural septic systems are almost never publicly funded.

>Something like 40% of Americans couldn’t field a $400 expense.

In practice in places like Manhattan you'd be paying for sewage monthly (when I lived in city that charged cost of sewage it was about 40 of my water bill). In rural areas septic is usually owned as part of mortgage or as debt services, if one cannot pay outright. All of which is amortized pretty close to real cost of sewage most anywhere.

>You’re in shock after discussing a place where it happens?

I'm in shock because having lived in areas that charge individually for sewage, the very few that don't spend the $1-$2 a day are either brutally poor or mentally ill, its just not a thing that people like you poop in the streets anyplace I've lived that charges near full rate for sewage treatment. As it were, the vast majority given the $1.40 a day to spare, will pay it to not have to poop outside or let it accumulate in their home, and if unable or unwilling to do so it is nearly always a symptom of something else that public sewers won't solve.

It scales fine, you can have private waste treatment en masse. Why should someone pay for my shit? Why is it their fault if I poop? It makes no sense.

Also you can build your own septic for 5k if you do your own work. I'm honestly in shock you'd poop in the street to save the 40 or so a month it costs at worst, considering when I lived in the city I was billed sewage and it came out about the same as the amortized cost of my septic system. The only people pooping in the streets were the homeless or the odd mentally ill person. I realize people like you are the real problem who will poop on others stuff to save a buck, but that honestly seems a mental health issue that public sewage systems wont solve.

Sure you could. In fact many do in places like San Francisco where regulations and taxes and construction costs are so high many end up homeless then poop all over the streets.

Where I live there is absolutely no public sewage and I built my own system and so did most my neighbors, because as it turns out in our low tax libertarian enclave of mostly poor people, the vast majority prefer 10k once every few decades on a septic system over living in shit or getting in feuds with their neighbors for shitting on their road or lawn (there are no public roads here thank god). Your paranoia turned out unfounded.

Gold and many other useful commodities are valuable with or without fighter jets backing them.

That's why I'd argue each service should be 'taxed' at the point of use. If you like a road, pay the toll. If you like sewage, build a septic system or pay for treatment. If you want to help Ukraine, fly on over or donate to the cause.

Yes under the commerce clause in recent history has been interpreted to mean interstate commerce is something as simple as growing a weed plant on your own land and smoking it.

The precious CRA is an oft cited law as to why we need expansive interpretation of that clause (as without it CRA as we know it would be finished), the sooner SCOTUS crushes the CRA the sooner we can finally crush the rest of the civil rights violating overreaches of the prior commerce clause interpretations.

In intrastate commerce I see no reason how the feds can constitutionally stop them.

The CRA explicitly allows discrimination of say off res private businesses in favor of employing Indians, but not say in favor of blacks near historically black neighborhoods. The CRA itself is quite racist, and not only that is used to hold the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause hostage.

It might be easier to discriminate against Asians via immigration status, if that's the goal.

Civil rights act as imposed on private entities is blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment IMO. I think current SCOTUS may have the cajones to actually nix it.

I've been detained 12 hours or so without arrest, including imprisonment, by feds. Pulling my FBI report confirms no federal arrest record, so it was just a detainment.

More like it requires protection from one of the few blocks of nations resistant to extradition to the US.

You can always refuse. They can't kidnap you or the baby if for whatever reason you don't want a wheelchair, and it's almost always illegal to block the exits without a court order or documented altered mental status.

Sure if you ignore all the examples of it happening, after you so rudely lied about in your other reply where you claimed I cited no evidence despite citing sister comment that included articles such as children being taken into cps custody for walking home alone from the park.

Of course the genius is the kidnappers seal most these cases so their relatives can gaslight you about what happened, which is the icing on the cake.