IRS doesn’t tell 1M taxpayers that illegals stole their Social Security numbers
IRS doesn’t tell 1M taxpayers that illegals stole their Social Security numbers
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 30, 2016
The IRS has discovered more than 1 million Americans whose Social Security numbers were stolen by illegal immigrants, but officials never bothered to tell the taxpayers themselves, the agency’s inspector general said in a withering new report released Tuesday.
Investigators first alerted the IRS to the problem five years ago, but it’s still not fixed, the inspector general said, and a pilot program meant to test a solution was canceled — and fell woefully short anyway.
As a result, most taxpayers don’t learn that their identities have been stolen and their Social Security files may be screwed up. “Taxpayers identified as victims of employment-related identity theft are not notified,” the inspector general said.
The report alarmed lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who were shocked that the IRS had gone for so long without fixing the issue. “It is stunning that the IRS has chosen to aid and abet identity thieves for so long instead of protecting the innocent victims of the theft,” said Sen. Daniel Coats, Indiana Republican.
Victims’ numbers are stolen by illegal immigrants who need to give employers a valid Social Security number in order to get a job. Employers are prohibited from probing too deeply into numbers, even when they suspect fraud.
But the IRS learns of the scam when the illegal immigrants file their taxes using a special Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) the agency doles out chiefly to illegal immigrants as a way of making sure they’re paying taxes even if they’re not supposed to be in the U.S.
Between 2011 and 2015 the agency flagged nearly 1.1 million returns where someone appeared to have stolen a valid Social Security number, the inspector general said.The IRS did not have any new comment on the findings, instead referring reporters to an official response filed with the inspector general, in which the agency insisted it’s making progress.
Karen Schiller, commissioner for the IRS‘ small business and self-employed division, said the 2014 pilot program was helpful, even if it didn’t completely solve the notification problem, and said the agency will try to alert all taxpayers beginning next year. “As we continue to battle and make progress against all strains of identity theft in the tax ecosystem, we recognized that we were missing an important partner in this effort — the taxpaying public,” said Ms. Schiller, who had the task of answering the inspector general.She also vowed to figure out a system to let the Social Security Administration (SSA) know if someone’s number has been stolen.
Under the 2014 pilot program, the IRS did notify some 25,000 taxpayers whose SSNs were pilfered. The notice they received told them to contact credit-monitoring agencies to try to head off any more damage to their personal finances. But the IRS said it’s prevented by federal law from telling taxpayers who stole their identity. The IRS says its role is not to enforce immigration laws but rather to collect taxes. The agency issues ITINs to ensure that unauthorized workers can still file tax returns, even if they aren’t supposed to be working in the U.S.
Taxpayers who use an ITIN are eligible for some tax credits, particularly for their children who are U.S. citizens.
Congressional Republicans have long complained to the IRS that it is protecting illegal immigrants from discovery by allowing the use of ITINs but failing to share the information with other agencies.
Mr. Coats, who has written legislation requiring victims to be notified, even confronted IRS officials about their lax behavior at a hearing in April. “All of us can agree that victims need to know that they’re victims, and need to know that an agency of the federal government, whether it’s IRS or whether it’s SSA, or both, ought to have some ability to talk to each other,” Mr. Coats said.
IRS Commissioner John G. Koskinen told Mr. Coats at the hearing that in many of the cases, friends or relatives lent their Social Security numbers to the unauthorized workers, and already know their information is being fraudulently used. He also said the agency struggled to come up with a solution that wouldn’t chase illegal immigrants away from filing their taxes altogether.
“Obviously, priority for taxpayers and the IRS is collecting those taxes,” he said.
Mr. Koskinen testified at the time that it may take new legislation from Congress to let his agency inform taxpayers they’d been the subject of identity theft.
But the hiccup in communicating with the Social Security Administration seems like it should be easier to solve. The inspector general, however, said the IRS didn’t have a system set up to make sure SSA always knew of the fraud.
In some cases IRS employees said they sent a notice, but the Social Security Administration had no record of it. In other cases, it appears the IRS didn’t even bother to make a notification.
“The lack of a formal process to ensure that the SSA is notified of income not associated with an innocent taxpayer is problematic because this notification is essential to ensure that victims’ Social Security benefits are not affected,” the inspector general said.
One World Currency Introduced by the Cartel Settlement Coin
Saturday, August 27, 2016 5:15
(Before It's News)
Well, it finally happened. Mark your calendars for the year 2016 as ‘the year’ a real One World Currency has been announced. But don’t worry – as we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – MONEY DOESN’T EXIST.
How is it possible, you say – when we haven’t heard about it in the news? Let’s start with the ‘lead’ story on this breaking event:
Big banks buckle down to build better bitcoin — RT Business
UBS, Deutsche Bank, Santander and BNY Mellon have partnered up to create a new digital currency to facilitate intra-bank settlements, the FT reports. The cryptocurrency will use blockchain technology underpinning the Bitcoin.
Why is this different than any other Bitcoin startup – there sure have been many. Because these are the banks that control the global currency market, also known as AKA ‘the cartel’ according to court documents.
Checkout some of the stories leading up into this climatic moment:
Big Banks Band Together to Launch ‘Settlement Coin’ – CoinDesk
UBS Sheds New Light on Blockchain Experimentation
Settlement Coin Creators Seek to ‘Liberalize’ Central Banks With Blockchain – CoinDesk
8 Banking Giants Embracing Bitcoin and Blockchain Tech
‘Central banks looking at Bitcoin as real threat to dominance’ — RT Op-Edge
So why does any of this matter? Central Banking policy has run the global economy into the ground. Central Banks OWN $25 Trillion of Financial Assets. $13 Trillion worth of Government Bonds in the world have NEGATIVE YIELDS. The financial system as it is now, is on the path for implosion.
Settlement Coin apparently is targeting ‘back office settlement’ to reduce costs which are about $80 Billion per year. But why then does RT compare it with SDRs:
If implemented, the new cryptocurrency would be the first to be used officially between major financial institutions. The concept resembles the IMF’s Special Drawing Right (SDR), introduced in 1964. Based on a basket of currencies (the US dollar, euro, the Japanese yen, pound sterling and the soon to be joined Chinese yuan this October), it is used to supplement the IMF’s member countries’ official reserve. As of March 2016, 204.1 billion SDRs equivalent to about $285 billion had been created and allocated to countries.
Has the world gone mad, and people don’t understand the difference between “Blockchain” and “Bitcoin” and “Cryptocurrency” and “US Dollars” ? We have to note here, RT needs to hire some “Forex Experts” to consult with their authors on this topic.
To clarify, the big banks are working on multiple blockchain projects, as well – most of them have filed patents for their own crypto currencies, most notably, Citi:
Citi: Bitcoin is an Opportunity for Banks, Not a Threat – CoinDesk
Citibank Is Working On Its Own Digital Currency, Citicoin | TechCrunch
Citi Research released a 56-page report on bitcoin saying that it is not going to disrupt banks or credit card networks. It says there will be increased transaction costs for bitcoin to provide increased volume. As for the use of bitcoin in remittance payments, it says bitcoin’s advantage dissipates when the “last mile” cost of converting to fiat currency is considered. The report notes the growth of bitcoin mobile apps in developing countries but sees regulations rising that put them in question. It claims existing payment systems are generally efficient. The report also talks about Ripple and Ethereum as well as government-backed digital currencies. There is also an extensive summary of bitcoin’s legal status in different countries.
Once implemented, these banks have the means to quickly connect this new cryptocurrency “Settlement Coin” to their existing global network, as well as adding their own proprietary currencies such as “CitiCoin.”
It will take some time before the cryptocurrency is even released, and still probably years before it’s widely accepted. What makes this week’s announcement unique is that, for the first time the banks publicly announced they are making a new digital ‘crypto currency’ that isn’t issued by a central bank, that can be implemented by them across and without borders, which is a perfect fit for a replacement of the US Dollar and other fiat currencies when they completely run out of QE steam.
But here’s the real clincher, exposing this as a real One World Currency:
One of those resources is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system used by central banks (it’s typically reserved for high-value transactions that need to be settled instantly), and the other is central bank-issued cash. Using the Utility Settlement Coin (USC) unveiled today, the five-member consortium that has sprung up around the project aims to help central banks open-up access to these tools to more customers. If successful, USC has the potential to create entirely new business models built on instant settling and easy cash transfers. In interview, Robert Sams, founder of London-based Clearmatics, said his firm initially worked with UBS to build the network, and that BNY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, ICAP and Santander are only just the first of many future members. “Cash is a leg to almost every trade,” said Sams, who previously worked for nine years as a derivatives trader with Sanctum FI, also in London. “In order to get most of the benefits of a distributed ledger in settlement, there has to be cash on a distributed ledger rail.” How transactions might be processed, and who will own the nodes, has also not been shared. But what we do know based on a statement from the company is that Clearmatics described the USC as “a series of cash assets” for currencies, including US dollars, euros, British pounds and Swiss francs.
For those who understand that it’s monetary policy driving the value of currencies down, not supply and demand, there’s no need to read between the lines – they spell it all out real simple.
For a quick primer for those who don’t know, the Federal Reserve is the sole issuer of US Currency (not the US Mint, who prints notes and coins.) The Federal Reserve is a private institution, owned by the banks. It was previously thought that, the idea of a one world currency was preposterous, because, how would all countries agree on having a single central bank? But here’s the workaround – the Forex banks have a monopoly on the global monetary system. So by forcing their central bank partners to use “Settlement Coin” in order to save on hefty settlement fees (and it will solve the problem of the recent SWIFT hacks as well – part of the plan??? )
A few scenarios here – one, the banks knew that if they didn’t do it, some new players might do it. Two, this plan was hatched long ago by some clandestine CIA op, starting with the release of Bitcoin, leading into the global one world cryptocurrency, all sponsored by Illuminati. Three, central banks have legitimate concerns about security (such as because of recent hacks) and have no real way out of QE, they can’t stop it and they can’t continue it. This is a parallel financial system in which assets can be transferred over to.
Which States Have The Most Millennials Living At Home With Mom?
Post by Newsroom Superstation95.com
- Aug 20, 2016
We've written frequently about the legions of "safe space" seeking Millennials moving back in with mom (see "More Young Americans Live With Their Parents Than At Any Time Since The Great Depression"). As the Pew Research Center reported back in May, for the first time ever more 18-34 year olds are living at home with mom than are "married or cohabiting in their own households." According to Pew research the biggest reason for Millennials moving back home is their inability find jobs to support their independence. Take, for example, "young" Lisa Jacobs:
Lisa Jacobs holds two bachelor’s degrees, one in photography and one in graphic design. But work has been sporadic, so this year she moved back in with her parents in Somerset, New Jersey.
“My parents have a lovely home, but nobody’s happy to be living at home at 32,” Jacobs said, adding that she needs to make at least $20 an hour to afford an apartment. “There are plenty of places that would pay me $15 an hour. But that’s not getting me any closer to moving out.”
Frankly, we're shocked that someone with TWO uselessamazing bachelor degrees wouldn't be able to find a job in such a robust economy. But don't strain yourself, young Lisa Jacobs, with a $15 per hour job that is beneath your level of enlightenment...no you just move in with mom and wait for your dreams to come true!
For parents who might find themselves in similar situations, the University of Minnesota has developed a very helpful map to assess the risk of your over-educated, entitled, self-indulging offspring moving back home. Unsurprisingly, parents are most at risk in the states with large, expensive metropolitan cities where recently-educated, residentially-challenged young adults like to return to indulge their "social" desires but can't necessarily afford to live. The states with the highest percentage of Millennials living at home were New Jersey (43.9%), Connecticut (38.8%), New York (37.4%) Florida (37.2%) and California (36.7%).
If you're the parent of a Millennial and just want to be left alone might we suggest a nice "fly-over" state like North Dakota where only 15.6% of Millennials are found to be living at home. Sure it's a little cold but the remote, barren landscapes are amazing Millennial deterrents.
Socialism: The World's Greatest Generator Of Poverty
ZeroHedge.com Aug 20, 2016 8:00 PM
Submitted by Allen Mendenhall via The Mises Institute,
If you’re looking for a short introduction to socialism that rewards re-reading, Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Problem With Socialism is it.
Perhaps your son or daughter has returned from college talking about collective control of the means of production and sporting Bernie Sanders t-shirts. Perhaps you’re a political novice looking for informed guidance.
Perhaps you’re frustrated with America’s economic decline and deplorable unemployment rates. Perhaps you listened with bewilderment as some pundit this election season distinguished democratic socialism from pure socialism in an attempt to justify the former.
Whoever you are, and whatever your occasion for curiosity, you’re likely to find insight and answers from DiLorenzo.
A professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland, DiLorenzo opens his book with troubling statistics: 43% of millennials, or at least those between ages 18 and 29, view socialism more favorably than capitalism, and 69% of voters under 30 would vote for a socialist presidential candidate. Socialism—depending on how it’s defined in relation to communism—may have killed over 100 million people and impoverished countless others over the course of the 20th Century.
So why have the youth (full disclaimer: by certain measures, at 33, I’m considered a millennial myself) welcomed this ideology that’s responsible for mass killings, organized theft, war crimes, forced labor, concentration camps, executions, show trials, ethnic cleansing, disease, totalitarianism, censorship, starvation, hyperinflation, poverty, and terror?
Why have death, destruction, and abject destitution become so hip and cool? Because of effective propaganda and utopian promises of “free” everything. The problem is, as anyone who’s ever studied economics knows, there’s no such thing as free stuff. Somebody pays at some point.
“What socialists like Senator Sanders should say if they want to be truthful and straightforward,” DiLorenzo thus avers, “is not that government can offer citizens anything for free, but that they want healthcare (and much else) to become a government-run monopoly financed entirely with taxes. Taxes hide, but do not eliminate, the cost of individual government programs.” And these programs are far more expensive to society than they would be on the free market.
The predicable rejoinder to such a claim — repeated ad nauseam by television personalities—is that socialism works, nay thrives, in, say, Sweden. DiLorenzo corrects the record: “Socialism nearly wrecked Sweden, and free market reforms are finally bringing its economy back from the brink of disaster.”
Strong language, but DiLorenzo maps the history and supplies the data to back it up. “The real source of Sweden’s relatively high standard of living,” he explains, has “everything to do with Sweden avoiding both world wars and jumping into the industrial revolution when its economy was one of the freest, least regulated, and least taxed in Europe.”
Other common binary assumptions are reversed in these pages: socialism causes pollution whereas capitalism protects the environment; socialism leads to war whereas capitalism is peaceful; socialism consolidates power among an elite few whereas capitalism decentralizes and disperses power, which ultimately resides with individual consumers making small economic adjustments based on their particular needs.
Even socialized medicine proves more inequitable than market-based alternatives. Proponents of Canadian-style healthcare ignore the fact that “Canadian health care is actually far more expensive, and the quality far less than it would be if doctors and hospitals had to compete for patients on the basis of quality and price.”
Coloring his analysis with references to the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, DiLorenzo undertakes a variety of other issues implicated by socialism: egalitarianism, fascism, income taxation, wage and price controls, monopolies, public schooling, and more.
Had I been his publisher, I would have insisted that he also include disturbing, graphic, and gruesome images of real, dead human bodies stacked on real, dead human bodies, of ransacked churches, and of confiscated property—alarmingly tangible consequences and horrifying illustrations of pure, realized socialism.
Senator Sanders and most of his followers mean well, of course, and genuinely and in good faith advocate policies they believe to be in the best interests of the United States. Yet the history of the cause they champion is fundamentally at odds with their desired goals.
DiLorenzo has the courage to call socialism what it is: “the biggest generator of poverty the world has ever known.” For young students especially, his concise primer could make the difference between feeling the Bern, and getting burned.