- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Houston businesses now required hand over video without a warrant
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:09 am to WDE24
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:09 am to WDE24
quote:
Because it’s a violation of constitutionally protected rights that help keep governments in check and accountable and citizens free from unjustified government intrusion.
Are we talking about surveillance or forcing businesses to pay for it?
1
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:10 am to lsufb1912
We are talking about search and seizure without a warrant first and foremost.
ETA: if they can force this on private business, what stops it from expanding it to all property owners?
quote:But this is also an issue. What if, instead of paying for surveillance equipment, the businesses were forced to pay for off duty law enforcement officers to be on premises? Where does the city’s authority to force businesses to help police the city end?
forcing businesses to pay for it?
ETA: if they can force this on private business, what stops it from expanding it to all property owners?
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 11:17 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:10 am to lsufb1912
quote:
but it just seems pretty hypocritical for the OT that says something needs to be done about crime in every city & then criticize a city for actually trying to do something about it
When the city puts the financial burden on small business owners to fix a crime problem that the city is ultimately responsible for, you should expect push back.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:17 am to Dire Wolf
That actually will help catch and likely deter at least some criminals.
Also, it's completely unconstitutional. It employs a private entity to become a state actor. It circumvent the "strict" warrant "requirement."
Also, it's completely unconstitutional. It employs a private entity to become a state actor. It circumvent the "strict" warrant "requirement."
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:19 am to MSMHater
I think the OT is overestimating the "financial burden" of this. I don't think we're talking thousands of dollars.
I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised that small business owners don't get that $ back in some kind of tax write-off for business expenses. I'd also assume another small business owner is getting paid for the surveillance equipment.
I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised that small business owners don't get that $ back in some kind of tax write-off for business expenses. I'd also assume another small business owner is getting paid for the surveillance equipment.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:22 am to Dire Wolf
Typical
Skip over the part where the same groups are committing the same crimes over and over and install a surveillance state so you don't have to acknowledge uncomfortable truths about where your crime surge is coming from and how local government fosters it
Skip over the part where the same groups are committing the same crimes over and over and install a surveillance state so you don't have to acknowledge uncomfortable truths about where your crime surge is coming from and how local government fosters it
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:23 am to lsufb1912
quote:I’d love to get your understanding of how tax write offs for business expenses work.
I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised that small business owners don't get that $ back in some kind of tax write-off for business expenses.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:25 am to lsufb1912
quote:
I think the OT is overestimating the "financial burden" of this. I don't think we're talking thousands of dollars.
I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised that small business owners don't get that $ back in some kind of tax write-off for business expenses. I'd also assume another small business owner is getting paid for the surveillance equipment.
This right here explains a lot. You are out of your depth.
This reminds me of the Schitt's Creek episode when David has no clue how write offs work.
Just write it off
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 11:28 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:26 am to lsufb1912
You're might be right. But it's still the city selectively choosing certain business entities to subsidize their crime/law enforcement expenses. Between that and the search and seizure requirements, I just don't see how the statute survives a court challenge.
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 11:27 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:27 am to jrodLSUke
My home was broken into in August 2020. fricker got away with $15000 worth of stuff. Had amazing video. He had a mask on. HPD came, saw, called me next day and left a messages saying they couldn't see his face so case closed. I tried to call back. Number blocked. They don't give a shite.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:33 am to The Boat
quote:
sexually-oriented businesses
Pretty sure not even the gays get mad over the term gay bars. We don’t have to make up terms to keep everyone happy, libs.
I thought they were talking about strip clubs
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:49 am to TDTOM
OK, they spend $500 now for cameras or pay $500 in taxes later. either way you're spending $500
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:51 am to Gee Grenouille
quote:
I thought they were talking about strip clubs
oh. maybe so
Posted on 4/21/22 at 11:56 am to TDTOM
good job telling me how I'm wrong.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 12:07 pm to lsufb1912
Because spending $500 (it will be much more than this) has no relevance with paying $500 in taxes.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 12:11 pm to TDTOM
Ok then let's say surveillance equipment is $850.
Next year, the business is completing their taxes & still owe $1,250. They forgot to include the expense for surveillance & include that as a business expense and now only owe $400. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Next year, the business is completing their taxes & still owe $1,250. They forgot to include the expense for surveillance & include that as a business expense and now only owe $400. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 12:14 pm to lsufb1912
quote:
I'm not saying that I do, but it just seems pretty hypocritical for the OT that says something needs to be done about crime in every city & then criticize a city for actually trying to do something about it
Here's a novel idea: how about arresting, convicting and imprisoning criminals? All without turning business owners into Big Brother accomplices or trampling people's constitutional rights?
Posted on 4/21/22 at 12:14 pm to lsufb1912
quote:
Next year, the business is completing their taxes & still owe $1,250. They forgot to include the expense for surveillance & include that as a business expense and now only owe $400. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Nope. That is not how it works. It is not a credit. It is a deduction.
Again, go watch the video I linked.
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 4/21/22 at 12:14 pm to TDTOM
quote:
It is a deduction.
a deduction from what you owe? hmmm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News