I have heard other conservatives and libertarians complain about censorship on Facebook. For the most part, it really hasn't affected my feeds and I really post my opinions on my blog, not Facebook, so for the most part, I've mostly posted comments on feed-related kerfuffles. For example, every time Cato Institute publishes an immigrant-friendly post, nativists come out of the woodwork to bash immigrants. I used to spend some time fighting the good fight, and I would republish my comments in my social media digest posts along with my latest tweets. But it's been a while (meaning weeks), since I published a comment on the post. Maybe my feeds have been affected by Facebook policies and algorithms. Currently it seems every third post in my feed is an ABBA image; don't get me wrong: I love the group, but I'm not obsessed with the group.
Peter Schiff is an investment broker/administrator, an Austrian School economist who advised the 2008 Ron Paul POTUS campaign, and a prominent media host and commentator. (Tom Woods really got his start in podcasting after substitute hosting Schiff's radio show.) I've followed him on Facebook for quite some time, we share a number of criticisms of the Federal Reserve, an aversion to progressive versus flat taxes, and a preference for consumption vs. income taxes as doing less economic harm, among other things.
I wouldn't say I often share a number of Peter Schiff posts, but I did for the following meme:
Now this scenario reminds me of a couple of issues that the Institute For Justice and other liberty groups have:strucuring violations and certain notorious civil asset forfeitures. In the former case there is a dated law requiring reporting to the IRS deposits of $10K or more. The structuring charge is the allegation of people splitting deposits to get around the reporting requirement, e.g., $9K and $7K nonreportable vs $16K reportable. Small business owners have sometimes triggered structuring charges just depositing their day's cash. Then a
classic case illustrates the latter point: an aging father, afraid of possible theft gave his lifetime savings in cash for his daughter to open a joint account. The DEA discovered the cash in the daughter's luggage and seized it, on suspicion of drug money.
The $600 reporting requirement Schiff is referring to is an actual policy in Biden's agenda up for approval in the House of Representatives. The fact is that Schiff is correct: $600 reporting requirement is going to hit a lot of people, not just the wealthy tax evaders that Biden and Yellen are allegedly targeting. For example, my monthly credit card bill payment often exceeds that amount. I rarely spend that much on any one purchase, but when you add the bills I pay by credit cars, it builds up. My car payment alone approaches that amount, Buying a new PC, any new household appliance, putting a deposit on an apartment, paying for prescriptions or other medical expenses, buying an engagement ring, and probably 1001 other things could trigger IRS scrutiny. The wealthy probably have lawyers and accountants on retainer. But the average joe doesn't and hiring a lawyer is beyond most people's budgets.
So, anyway, Facebook has labeled Schiff's opinion as "partly false", citing some fact checker. What the hell is "false"? The $600 number is not a Schiff fabrication. Basically the fact checkers, like
Snopes, argue that what's being reported to the IRS is not individual transactions, but aggregate number of such transactions. But Schiff's point remains: the IRS is getting information on lower/middle class residents they don't get now, and you have to depend on the IRS' promise it will use its new powers for the good, to target only the wealthy. Ask the old man, never charged with a drug crime but found his life savings confiscated by the DEA, whether the government was acting in good faith.
I think Schiff's opinion can be debated by others in the free market of ideas. I do not agree with Facebook's intervention in the dispute which tends to impede free expression. I responded with my own Facebook comment on the kerfuffle.
