Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 05:04:20 GMT
I am beginning to realize that most of the previous SIN threads can be
"clarified" by asking FASA a simple question:

"Do SINless pay taxes?"

If they do, how do they do it and remain SINless? After all, the IRS (or
whatever) needs some sort of identifier for each tax-paying individual.

If they don't, I think we have one hell of an excuse for potentially making
"being SINless" a very serious crime. It could also mean that Lone Star,
upon finding out that you are not a tax-paying citizen (and therefore not a
"paying customer"), could conceivably refuse to give you any help (they're
a corporation, remember?). The same goes for hospitals, fire, ambulance,
or any other service paid for by government coffers. If you aren't paying
taxes to fund these various services, you can be damned sure that the
government will insist that you do (regardless of whether you intend to use
them or not-- just like today).



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 2
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:04:06 -0500
> From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
> Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 12:04 AM

> I am beginning to realize that most of the previous SIN threads can be
> "clarified" by asking FASA a simple question:

> "Do SINless pay taxes?"

> If they do, how do they do it and remain SINless? After all, the IRS (or
> whatever) needs some sort of identifier for each tax-paying individual.

> If they don't, I think we have one hell of an excuse for potentially
making
> "being SINless" a very serious crime. It could also mean that Lone Star,
> upon finding out that you are not a tax-paying citizen (and therefore not
a
> "paying customer"), could conceivably refuse to give you any help
(they're
> a corporation, remember?). The same goes for hospitals, fire, ambulance,
> or any other service paid for by government coffers. If you aren't
paying
> taxes to fund these various services, you can be damned sure that the
> government will insist that you do (regardless of whether you intend to
use
> them or not-- just like today).

Then I think you have pretty much answered your own question. No, SINless
folks don't pay taxes. Yes, by definition, that means any adult SINless
individual is a criminal. Want a SIN? It's easy. Really. Just walk into
your local Lone Star precinct, and tell them you're SINless. They'll be
sure to issue you a nice shiny new one....which you won't be able to see
until you've been released from prison for serving time for tax evasion and
a bazillion other token crimes they feel like tacking on at the moment.
And when you do get out and they hand you your SIN, you will notice the
nice police record that's on it as well.

The SINless actually have a double whammy from the Star and the
government....the crash of 2029. Lots of SINs lost, so lots of people
became SINless pretty much overnight. When they walk into their local Lone
Star precinct to find out why their SIN wasn't working, they were told
their SIN must be fake, because "it's not in our databases". Now, since
this happened so much at once, they probably weren't arrested at the
time....just sent on their way to being homeless....thus the Shadows
widened.....

> James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia

Justin
Message no. 3
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:26:23 -0500
At 08:04 AM 3/6/98 -0500, Justin Pinnow wrote:
>
>Then I think you have pretty much answered your own question. No, SINless
>folks don't pay taxes. Yes, by definition, that means any adult SINless
>individual is a criminal. Want a SIN? It's easy. Really. Just walk into
>your local Lone Star precinct, and tell them you're SINless. They'll be
>sure to issue you a nice shiny new one....which you won't be able to see
>until you've been released from prison for serving time for tax evasion and
>a bazillion other token crimes they feel like tacking on at the moment.
>And when you do get out and they hand you your SIN, you will notice the
>nice police record that's on it as well.

I think we are losing a little bit of perspective here. Not filing income
tax returns for 20+ years is only a crime IF the government can actually
prove that you were earning money in that time. Additionally, the
government would much rather have its money than pay money to put you in
jail (where you can't earn more money for it to tax), so you can always pay
the back taxes with (huge) penalties. The average SINless is quite poor,
and as such the government has no interest in investigating income history,
because they are more likely to find that they were due welfare checks as
anything else. Income tax evasion is a crime of the rich, not the poor.
It is used to prosecute gangsters and white collar rip-off artists, not
your average street bum.

The main point, however, is that there is no way a SINless person is "by
definition a criminal." This is still the UCAS, and they are going to have
to prove you commited a crime, they can't convict just because it is
likely/common sense that you recieved income that you didn't report, or
even if they feel like tacking on charges. Shadowrun is dark, but not that
completely different from today. Applying for a SIN like this would raise
suspicion sure, but arbitrary and guaranteed convictions are not realistic.

For a shadowrunner to get a SIN this way, all they have to do is show up at
LoneStar looking poor. There will be no tax hassles unless it is obvious
that the runner is sitting on millions of nuyen. This would actually be a
really good way to retire. Put all the money offshore, get a legal SIN as
a poor nothing, then funnel the offshore money in slowly, laundering it on
the way and being sure to pay all taxes. Boom, suddenly you are Mr.
Respectable Self-Made man living with all the corp types. (Though paranoia
would suggest that having a real SIN is a bad idea for an ex-runner.
Probably way too many enemies that are looking for you.)

--DT
Message no. 4
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 03:04:54 GMT
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:04:06 -0500, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> > From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
> > Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 12:04 AM
>
> > I am beginning to realize that most of the previous SIN threads can be
> > "clarified" by asking FASA a simple question:
>
> > "Do SINless pay taxes?"
>
> > If they do, how do they do it and remain SINless? After all, the IRS (or
> > whatever) needs some sort of identifier for each tax-paying individual.
>
> > If they don't, I think we have one hell of an excuse for potentially
> > making "being SINless" a very serious crime. It could also mean that
Lone
> > Star, upon finding out that you are not a tax-paying citizen (and
> > therefore not a "paying customer"), could conceivably refuse to give
you
> > any help (they're a corporation, remember?). The same goes for hospitals,
> > fire, ambulance, or any other service paid for by government coffers. If
> > you aren't paying taxes to fund these various services, you can be damned
> > sure that the government will insist that you do (regardless of whether
> > you intend to use them or not-- just like today).
>
> Then I think you have pretty much answered your own question. No, SINless
> folks don't pay taxes. Yes, by definition, that means any adult SINless
> individual is a criminal. Want a SIN? It's easy. Really. Just walk into
> your local Lone Star precinct, and tell them you're SINless. They'll be
> sure to issue you a nice shiny new one....which you won't be able to see
> until you've been released from prison for serving time for tax evasion and
> a bazillion other token crimes they feel like tacking on at the moment.
> And when you do get out and they hand you your SIN, you will notice the
> nice police record that's on it as well.

Ok. Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that they will lock up everyone
that comes forward claiming that they would like to have a SIN. Like David
said, being prosecuted is a crime of the rich.

If I am right (and I'm not saying that I am), this theory would go a long
way towards the idea that SINless have fewer rights. If a person isn't
paying taxes, he technically isn't entitled to the services of a
government's police or hospital forces. Such a statement could easily be
misconstrued to mean "SINless have *no* rights-- let's go out and beat up
some SINless bums".

Now I assume that part of the ridiculously high lifestyle costs (5,000Y per
month for a Middle Lifestyle-- my ass!) could very well include prepaid
taxes. Hmmm. So maybe there should be a lifestyle cost cut for the
SINless, maybe capped off at Middle Lifestyle (I doubt many SINless could
legally get away with maintaining a High+ Lifestyle for long without being
investigated by someone).

Just more fuel for the (SHADOWRN) fire :)



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 5
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:17:03 -0500
> From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
> Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 10:04 PM

> > Then I think you have pretty much answered your own question. No,
SINless
> > folks don't pay taxes. Yes, by definition, that means any adult
SINless
> > individual is a criminal. Want a SIN? It's easy. Really. Just walk
into
> > your local Lone Star precinct, and tell them you're SINless. They'll
be
> > sure to issue you a nice shiny new one....which you won't be able to
see
> > until you've been released from prison for serving time for tax evasion
and
> > a bazillion other token crimes they feel like tacking on at the moment.
> > And when you do get out and they hand you your SIN, you will notice the
> > nice police record that's on it as well.

> Ok. Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that they will lock up everyone
> that comes forward claiming that they would like to have a SIN. Like
David
> said, being prosecuted is a crime of the rich.

> If I am right (and I'm not saying that I am), this theory would go a long
> way towards the idea that SINless have fewer rights. If a person isn't
> paying taxes, he technically isn't entitled to the services of a
> government's police or hospital forces. Such a statement could easily be
> misconstrued to mean "SINless have *no* rights-- let's go out and beat up
> some SINless bums".

That's my point exactly. SINless don't have rights. Period. They don't
have the right to a fair trial. They don't have the right to
representation. They don't have the right for a jury of their peers. They
certainly don't have the right to avoid paying taxes. Does this mean that
every Lone Star beat cop gets his jollies by beating up SINless people? Of
course not. But it does mean that any SINless individual desiring to get a
SIN has to pay the piper. What better way to do that than to work it off
in prison? The government and the Star get to say they're doing their part
to keep the streets free of the SINless scum of the earth AND the city gets
free labor out of the deal. Now, this is all conjecture and my
interpretation of the SR universe, but I take it as a dark future. Working
for no pay while in prison isn't against the law anymore....especially not
for the SINless (who don't have any rights, anyway).

If it was so easy to get a SIN, there wouldn't be the masses of SINless
people there are in SR. I mean, hell, if I had to choose between some nice
friendly police officer having me sign a few papers saying I owe the
government money or eating out of a trash can and worrying about where I
will sleep next, the choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Having a SIN
means I could get a legit job and actually get a place to live with real
bonafide utilities. Even if the government took half of my paycheck every
month, that's half more of a paycheck than I was getting before. Not to
mention that street index doesn't have to be paid anymore if I don't want
to...I can get my stuff legally now.

In my campaign, having a SIN definitely has its advantages. If a PC or NPC
wants to go get a real one, they know it's not going to be fast, free, or
easy.

<Snip>

> James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia

Justin
Message no. 6
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:09:50 -0500
> From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
> Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 12:04 AM

> I am beginning to realize that most of the previous SIN threads can be
> "clarified" by asking FASA a simple question:

> "Do SINless pay taxes?"

A lot of the questions on this thread (sort of) on pg 86 of Shadowbeat.
Basically, no SINless do not pay taxes, and yes that is a crime. Therefore,
a SINner paying a SINless must use a fence (using rules in SR, pg 188).

Wordman
Message no. 7
From: Stefan <casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:34:40 +0000
> > I am beginning to realize that most of the previous SIN threads can be
> > "clarified" by asking FASA a simple question:
>
> > "Do SINless pay taxes?"
>
> A lot of the questions on this thread (sort of) on pg 86 of Shadowbeat.
> Basically, no SINless do not pay taxes, and yes that is a crime. Therefore,
> a SINner paying a SINless must use a fence (using rules in SR, pg 188).

Well no SINless pay taxes on income but they still pay taxes on the
stuff they buy like food and cloths ... nobody gets of from that ...

But then perhaps all stores require a SIN to do shopping which I
doubt ..

/Stefan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .............................. http://hsl.home.ml.org ...
... HomePage ................... http://www.bugsoft.hik.se/sl11ls/ ...
... ICQ .................................................. 1403212 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:54:51 +0000
In article <199803071522.KAA03697@*****.provide.net>, Justin Pinnow
<vanyel@*******.NET> writes
>That's my point exactly. SINless don't have rights. Period. They don't
>have the right to a fair trial. They don't have the right to
>representation. They don't have the right for a jury of their peers. They
>certainly don't have the right to avoid paying taxes.

Mix of agree and disagree...

Crimes committed against SINless people are still crimes, just like
today. If you shoot an illegal immigrant, you're still committing
murder. The problem is, unless you're caught standing over the corpse,
or you go on a rampage bloody enough to attract attention, the case
stays at the bottom of an overworked detective's in-tray.

If you are accused of a crime, you will generally be assigned a SIN and
face a trial, though "jury of your peers" is made up of citizens with
SINs. It's not impossible that you'll simply vanish, but it causes
problems if anyone sees Lone Star executing suspects, and it only takes
one slip where a full citizen is murdered...

And while you don't get to pay tax, you probably don't get to draw
welfare either. However, to support the numbers of SINless people, I'd
guess there is a sizeable black economy, using SINless labour (no tax,
no minimum wage, no hassles about workplace safety, would-be union
bosses have painful accidents) in the Barrens.

>But it does mean that any SINless individual desiring to get a
>SIN has to pay the piper. What better way to do that than to work it off
>in prison?

Give them a SIN and let them get a real job, on which they now pay tax?
Going to end up a lot more cost-efficient than locking them up in a
prison. You only need so many mailbags and licence plates in a year.

>The government and the Star get to say they're doing their part
>to keep the streets free of the SINless scum of the earth AND the city gets
>free labor out of the deal.

The corps get upset because those "toxic castle" factories are running
out of labour. People with SINs can lodge complaints with the EPA, and
are harder to intimidate or kill: you at least have to pay more to buy
the cops off.

If the SINless weren't useful to some powerful bodies, they would have
vanished. If you stay in your corner of the Barrens, you get left alone.
If you want out, well, if you have a SIN you're easier to track and you
can be taxed.

In all honesty, I think there would be a nominal program to encourage
the SINless to come forward and register... filling out a ten-page form,
presenting two references from "people of standing in the community" and
paying a "processing fee". About the same as getting a UK passport, and
well beyond the means of most SINless individuals.

>If it was so easy to get a SIN, there wouldn't be the masses of SINless
>people there are in SR. I mean, hell, if I had to choose between some nice
>friendly police officer having me sign a few papers saying I owe the
>government money or eating out of a trash can and worrying about where I
>will sleep next, the choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Having a SIN
>means I could get a legit job and actually get a place to live with real
>bonafide utilities. Even if the government took half of my paycheck every
>month, that's half more of a paycheck than I was getting before.

You work at a chemical plant in Puyallup, and they pay well under
minimum wage. Didn't matter so much before, because you didn't pay tax.
Now you do, and you're a lot worse off. Especially if your boss reports
that he _is_ paying you minimum wage and you get taxed accordingly...

Move out and get a better job? No problem. Where? Uptown, Auburn maybe.
Where are you going to live? Rent's a lot more expensive there, and most
SINless people will have trouble scraping up a deposit.

Also, your would-be employer wants to know your qualifications. Where's
your educational record? How literate are you? That "better job" looks
like it's going to be hauling trash and pushing a broom...


I can see a lot of reason for an ordinary SINless person not to want the
hassle of being inside the system.

>Not to
>mention that street index doesn't have to be paid anymore if I don't want
>to...I can get my stuff legally now.

If you're paying certified cred (which would likely be how you're
getting paid, that or your employers' corp scrip) then you're buying
legally anyway.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 9
From: Andy Gardner <A.Gardner@******.COM>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:02:10 +0000
Just my .02 for this one.
Does anybody else remember reading somewhere that it took an act from
the american congress (or was it senate ?) to give a meta-human or
other creature citizenship ? And don't forget that together with
your SIN number you get citizenship of the UCAS, or whatever.

That could explain a large chunk of the SINless population
and why meta's seem to have so much more trouble. I just can't
remember where it said that but I think it was one of the fairly
early and/or basic books. Anybody remember where it is ?


Fox on the Net
ICQ UIN - 5239612
Message no. 10
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 17:44:37 -0500
> From: Stefan <casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE>
> Date: Saturday, March 07, 1998 2:34 PM

> Well no SINless pay taxes on income but they still pay taxes on the
> stuff they buy like food and cloths ... nobody gets of from that ...

> But then perhaps all stores require a SIN to do shopping which I
> doubt ..

Actually, that's exactly how I run it in my campaign. If you're SINless,
you're a criminal by definition. Since most folks in society don't like
criminals hanging around where they work and shop, you must provide ID
(i.e. a SIN) to get into said establishments. This generally involves
waving your sin in front of a scanner on the way in or whatever....very
brief, and it doesn't really verify that your SIN is legit, it merely
recognizes the type of chip used in a SIN. It's like using a keycard
nowadays that you wave in front of a scanning plate. Fast and easy to
fool. At checkout time, however, it's a different story. When you go to
pay for anything, your SIN is checked with the appropriate level SIN
verification system. Thus, while even a Rating 1 fake SIN will get you
into Radio Shack, you might not be able to buy anything there.

Higher up establishments might have human security at the door (over rated
bouncers) to ensure a higher level of appearance of security.

IMO, that's what Street Index is all about. If you don't have a SIN, you
MUST buy your gear, utilities, etc. through the black market in one form or
another. When you do so, you incur Street Index. If you walk into the
local mall and buy something, you MUST have a SIN (valid or otherwise) and
don't pay Street Index because you bought it legally.

> /Stefan

Just my input.

Justin
Message no. 11
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 18:12:03 -0500
> From: Paul J. Adam <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
> Date: Saturday, March 07, 1998 2:54 PM

> Mix of agree and disagree...

Heh. That's better than I expected. ;)

> Crimes committed against SINless people are still crimes, just like
> today. If you shoot an illegal immigrant, you're still committing
> murder. The problem is, unless you're caught standing over the corpse,
> or you go on a rampage bloody enough to attract attention, the case
> stays at the bottom of an overworked detective's in-tray.

True. Or, more likely, the case is very quickly closed - thus not leaving
more work for later.

> If you are accused of a crime, you will generally be assigned a SIN and
> face a trial, though "jury of your peers" is made up of citizens with
> SINs. It's not impossible that you'll simply vanish, but it causes
> problems if anyone sees Lone Star executing suspects, and it only takes
> one slip where a full citizen is murdered...

Well, I would be more inclined to believe that if you are accused of a
crime, you pay the usual fines and/or do the jail time and are not given
any trial or representation, etc. Otherwise, the strain on the system
would be MUCH worse than it already is. This allows expedited judgements
(generally made by someone not even qualified to be a judge) taking a few
minutes, at most. This keeps the cost down quite a bit.

> And while you don't get to pay tax, you probably don't get to draw
> welfare either. However, to support the numbers of SINless people, I'd
> guess there is a sizeable black economy, using SINless labour (no tax,
> no minimum wage, no hassles about workplace safety, would-be union
> bosses have painful accidents) in the Barrens.

Of course. I agree totally on this.

> >But it does mean that any SINless individual desiring to get a
> >SIN has to pay the piper. What better way to do that than to work it
off
> >in prison?

> Give them a SIN and let them get a real job, on which they now pay tax?
> Going to end up a lot more cost-efficient than locking them up in a
> prison. You only need so many mailbags and licence plates in a year.

Well, let them make more than just mailbags and license plates. With the
prison system as poor as it is today, SOMETHING has to change by the year
2057 to handle all the criminals. I say free labor is reinstated in a
broader spectrum than today. You may rule otherwise. Such a system could
very easily cause the prisons to show a profit, rather than a loss. Why?
Because the prisoners are forced to work long hard hours and produce
products that generate revenue for the prison. Said goods that are
produced could overcome the cost of keeping the prisoner....it just depends
on what they produce.

> >The government and the Star get to say they're doing their part
> >to keep the streets free of the SINless scum of the earth AND the city
gets
> >free labor out of the deal.

> The corps get upset because those "toxic castle" factories are running
> out of labour. People with SINs can lodge complaints with the EPA, and
> are harder to intimidate or kill: you at least have to pay more to buy
> the cops off.

There are plenty of SINless to go around, trust me - despite of the LS
propaganda. As far as the EPA, think about corporate owned or sponsored
prisons.....with extraterritoriality (ick). A lot can and does already
happen behind closed doors with the megacorps anyway. What's some slave
labor? What happens in their prison's isn't privy to the public eye,
unless some Intel leaks out. That's always a risk - and it certainly
doesn't stop them from doing the nasty stuff they already do.

Think of this possibility: as an answer to the overcrowding and expense
involved with federal and local correctional facilities, the megacorps
strike up deals with the government, etc. to harbor the criminal facet of
society, thus relieving the duty from the governmental bodies (a lot like
what happened with LS and the police). Then, the megacorps use the prisons
to generate revenue (isn't it always the bottom line with them?). In order
to do so, they force the prisoners to work long hours and in unsavory
conditions. Buy who cares? No one really knows what's going on behind
those macroplast bars anyway, except the loyal company employees involved.
And your average citizen wouldn't dig too deep to discover the truth,
anyway. Why not? Because the criminals are that much further removed from
their precious neighborhood than before. Also, the general public doesn't
see the megacorps as big bad nasty entities anyway. They create a lot of
jobs and put a lot of food on the table for a lot of people. So, the
average citizen won't go looking for a reason to dislike the hand the feeds
them. It's a perfect solution to a very big problem. Well, perfect for
everyone but the criminals, that is.

> If the SINless weren't useful to some powerful bodies, they would have
> vanished. If you stay in your corner of the Barrens, you get left alone.
> If you want out, well, if you have a SIN you're easier to track and you
> can be taxed.

True, but it costs money to create a SIN. The administration of such a
program would be pretty expensive, and most SINless won't be able to cover
the costs generated by it. Thus, looking at the bottom line, it's not
profitable to institute a large program of this sort. SINless remain such
because they don't have a lot of options. Every child they bear is SINless
as well. The cycle is self-supporting. And yes, there are uses for
SINless beings. Generally not fun ones, either.

> In all honesty, I think there would be a nominal program to encourage
> the SINless to come forward and register... filling out a ten-page form,
> presenting two references from "people of standing in the community" and
> paying a "processing fee". About the same as getting a UK passport, and
> well beyond the means of most SINless individuals.

See above. I see it as a Catch-22. You don't have a SIN to prove you are
a citizen and you can't get one because you aren't in the big database you
must exist in to get one. Thus, by asking for a SIN you are a criminal by
default and turned over to one of the local prisons for "societarial
integration". Once you have served your time (and generated enough
revenue), you are a bonafide citizen. This is one of the main reasons the
SINless don't come forward more often. Hard time isn't really fun. The
role playing opportunities here are also intriguing.

> >If it was so easy to get a SIN, there wouldn't be the masses of SINless
> >people there are in SR. I mean, hell, if I had to choose between some
nice
> >friendly police officer having me sign a few papers saying I owe the
> >government money or eating out of a trash can and worrying about where I
> >will sleep next, the choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Having a SIN
> >means I could get a legit job and actually get a place to live with real
> >bonafide utilities. Even if the government took half of my paycheck
every
> >month, that's half more of a paycheck than I was getting before.

> You work at a chemical plant in Puyallup, and they pay well under
> minimum wage. Didn't matter so much before, because you didn't pay tax.
> Now you do, and you're a lot worse off. Especially if your boss reports
> that he _is_ paying you minimum wage and you get taxed accordingly.

Yeah, but you don't pay street index, either. I think if your example were
the case, there would be fewer SINless individuals because it would more or
less balance out financially in the not-so-long-term.

> Move out and get a better job? No problem. Where? Uptown, Auburn maybe.
> Where are you going to live? Rent's a lot more expensive there, and most
> SINless people will have trouble scraping up a deposit.

> Also, your would-be employer wants to know your qualifications. Where's
> your educational record? How literate are you? That "better job" looks
> like it's going to be hauling trash and pushing a broom...

Exactly. Yet a couple more reasons for no real effort to convert the
SINless into citizens.

> I can see a lot of reason for an ordinary SINless person not to want the
> hassle of being inside the system.

> >Not to
> >mention that street index doesn't have to be paid anymore if I don't
want
> >to...I can get my stuff legally now.

> If you're paying certified cred (which would likely be how you're
> getting paid, that or your employers' corp scrip) then you're buying
> legally anyway.

Not true. Certified cred is used all over the place, not just in legal
establishments. Also, you are generally paid with registered cred from
your employer...after all, they have to report their expenses for tax
purposes. The only taxable income is that which is attached to a SIN, thus
must be registered. Certified cred is the ONLY money useful to the average
SINless person on the streets. They can't spend registered cred (it's not
their SIN), or corp scrip (they have no SIN for identification), etc.
That's why bartering is also commonplace in the barrens in my
campaign....it's hard to get the money you need when you work for peanuts.

> Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Justin
Message no. 12
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:28:03 -0500
>
> IMO, that's what Street Index is all about. If you don't have a SIN, you

> MUST buy your gear, utilities, etc. through the black market in one form or
> another. When you do so, you incur Street Index. If you walk into the
> local mall and buy something, you MUST have a SIN (valid or otherwise) and
> don't pay Street Index because you bought it legally.
>

Except that street index applies to everything, not just items bought on
the black market. First, most legal items have SIs of 1 or less, maybe 1.5
or 2 for more uncommon items. It is only *illegal* items that have high
street indexes, and those could not be bought in a store. In fact, those
are precisely the types of things one would not use a SIN to buy.
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 12:16:23 +0100
Andy Gardner said on 21:02/ 7 Mar 98...

> Just my .02 for this one.
> Does anybody else remember reading somewhere that it took an act from
> the american congress (or was it senate ?) to give a meta-human or
> other creature citizenship ? And don't forget that together with
> your SIN number you get citizenship of the UCAS, or whatever.

That's only for non-metahumans. If you're, say, a great dragon and want
UCAS citizenship, the US Congress has to decide whether they want to try
and tax you or not. After '57, I doubt they'll go through with it :)

Humans and metahumans (i.e. the five races in the main rulebook, and
probably the ones in the Companion as well) can get citizenship by going
through the regular channels.

> That could explain a large chunk of the SINless population
> and why meta's seem to have so much more trouble. I just can't
> remember where it said that but I think it was one of the fairly
> early and/or basic books. Anybody remember where it is ?

I can't remember where this is said, but I think it's in SRII.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:53:14 +0000
In article <199803072317.SAA18169@*****.provide.net>, Justin Pinnow
<vanyel@*******.NET> writes
>> From: Paul J. Adam <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
>> Date: Saturday, March 07, 1998 2:54 PM
>> If you are accused of a crime, you will generally be assigned a SIN and
>> face a trial, though "jury of your peers" is made up of citizens with
>> SINs. It's not impossible that you'll simply vanish, but it causes
>> problems if anyone sees Lone Star executing suspects, and it only takes
>> one slip where a full citizen is murdered...
>
>Well, I would be more inclined to believe that if you are accused of a
>crime, you pay the usual fines and/or do the jail time and are not given
>any trial or representation, etc. Otherwise, the strain on the system
>would be MUCH worse than it already is.

You're innocent until proven guilty, remember? And that's a principle
that applies even to ilegal immigrants and other unregistered types
today, and would not be lightly discarded.

>This allows expedited judgements
>(generally made by someone not even qualified to be a judge) taking a few
>minutes, at most. This keeps the cost down quite a bit.

Corporate citizen wanders out into the UCAS for a wild night of drink,
chips and hookers. Arrested, he has no UCAS SIN, so the magistrate says
"Possession of BTL, seven years, no parole. Next!"

Can't see many corporations sitting still for this - but they won't give
their citizens UCAS SINs either.

>> Give them a SIN and let them get a real job, on which they now pay tax?
>> Going to end up a lot more cost-efficient than locking them up in a
>> prison. You only need so many mailbags and licence plates in a year.
>
>Well, let them make more than just mailbags and license plates.

Would you trust anything more complex made by prisoners who hate where
they are? For instance, the Germans ran the Fabrique Nationale plant in
Liege during their occupation, using forced labour to produce weapons.
Throughout the war, those weapons were notorious for faults, defects and
unreliability.

The security and QA you need to get usable product out of forced labour
make it uneconomic for anything involving significant value-added.

>With the
>prison system as poor as it is today, SOMETHING has to change by the year
>2057 to handle all the criminals.

I seem to recall (don't have Lone S


>I say free labor is reinstated in a
>broader spectrum than today. You may rule otherwise. Such a system could
>very easily cause the prisons to show a profit, rather than a loss. Why?
>Because the prisoners are forced to work long hard hours and produce
>products that generate revenue for the prison. Said goods that are
>produced could overcome the cost of keeping the prisoner....it just depends
>on what they produce.

Again: what can you produce from unskilled labour, that isn't vulnerable
to sabotage, that has enough profit margin to cover the cost of running
the prison? How do you cover the overheads compared to someone in
business without all the security and with willing labour?

If it were that easy, someone would be doing it already: the US prison
system is under terrific pressure, and yet there are no private prisons
that turn a profit unsubsidised.

>> The corps get upset because those "toxic castle" factories are running
>> out of labour. People with SINs can lodge complaints with the EPA, and
>> are harder to intimidate or kill: you at least have to pay more to buy
>> the cops off.
>
>There are plenty of SINless to go around, trust me - despite of the LS
>propaganda.

True, but if their very existence is illegal then you lose workers
rapidly. Or else the law is ignored because there's too many SINless, in
which case why bother with it at all?

From NAGNA, the 14th Amendment to the UCAS Constitution requires
registration of all UCAS citizens. SINless residents are "probationary
citizens" with limited civil rights, _not_ criminals.

>As far as the EPA, think about corporate owned or sponsored
>prisons.....with extraterritoriality (ick).

Though nothing leaks out. If you're extraterritorial, what you do inside
your boundary is your problem, but anything leaking out is actionable.
That imposes significant constraints.

>A lot can and does already
>happen behind closed doors with the megacorps anyway. What's some slave
>labor? What happens in their prison's isn't privy to the public eye,
>unless some Intel leaks out. That's always a risk - and it certainly
>doesn't stop them from doing the nasty stuff they already do.

Fine; but this is _corporate_ prison. What happens to people the UCAS
throw in there is an issue. Since they emerge with SINs, even ones with
criminal records attached, you have to be wary of crippling them, or
else you end up with (a) welfare cases rather than productive citizens,
(b) a high risk of lawsuit for injury and loss of earnings.

>Think of this possibility: as an answer to the overcrowding and expense
>involved with federal and local correctional facilities, the megacorps
>strike up deals with the government, etc. to harbor the criminal facet of
>society, thus relieving the duty from the governmental bodies (a lot like
>what happened with LS and the police). Then, the megacorps use the prisons
>to generate revenue (isn't it always the bottom line with them?). In order
>to do so, they force the prisoners to work long hours and in unsavory
>conditions. Buy who cares? No one really knows what's going on behind
>those macroplast bars anyway, except the loyal company employees involved.
>And your average citizen wouldn't dig too deep to discover the truth,
>anyway. Why not? Because the criminals are that much further removed from
>their precious neighborhood than before.

Problem is, there's always the controversial case, where someone is
convicted in questionable circumstances and his family gets some
momentum going. "Condemned in a three-minute hearing without legal
representation, John Harris is now supposedly in a corporate-run prison.
His family have not been permitted to visit, and many of its inmates
never emerge, or come out sick and crippled by the conditions inside..."

>Also, the general public doesn't
>see the megacorps as big bad nasty entities anyway. They create a lot of
>jobs and put a lot of food on the table for a lot of people.

I _really_ disagree with this. The megacorps _don't_ do this in the
UCAS: they're extraterritorial.

Their jobs are all inside corporate enclaves, and pay in corporate scrip
that's only usable in corporate stores. They don't pay income tax, sales
tax or corporation tax to the UCAS. As well claim that high employment
in Canada is of direct benefit to the man in the US street today.

Now, a lot of smaller "wholly-owned subsidiaries" provide a lot of
employment. But how many people today associate Gilbarco or Picker in
the US with the British General Electric Company, for example? And when
one of these subsidiaries is traded, how much difference does it make to
even the employees?

>So, the
>average citizen won't go looking for a reason to dislike the hand the feeds
>them. It's a perfect solution to a very big problem. Well, perfect for
>everyone but the criminals, that is.

The problem is, where's the line between "criminal" and "average
citizen"? Lose your credstick and you could end up in a corporate
prison. "Yeah, yeah, bozo, like we haven't heard it before. You left it
in your other pants back in your Bellevue mansion, and if you can only
call your lawyer you'll get it all straightened out. Tell it to the
magistrate."

>> If the SINless weren't useful to some powerful bodies, they would have
>> vanished. If you stay in your corner of the Barrens, you get left alone.
>> If you want out, well, if you have a SIN you're easier to track and you
>> can be taxed.
>
>True, but it costs money to create a SIN. The administration of such a
>program would be pretty expensive, and most SINless won't be able to cover
>the costs generated by it.

If it's that expensive, how is it being done for the hundred-million-
plus SINful citizens?

And SINful citizen = taxpayer, who's easier to catch if he or she
commits a crime.

>> In all honesty, I think there would be a nominal program to encourage
>> the SINless to come forward and register... filling out a ten-page form,
>> presenting two references from "people of standing in the community"
and
>> paying a "processing fee". About the same as getting a UK passport, and
>> well beyond the means of most SINless individuals.
>
>See above. I see it as a Catch-22. You don't have a SIN to prove you are
>a citizen and you can't get one because you aren't in the big database you
>must exist in to get one. Thus, by asking for a SIN you are a criminal by
>default

Not according to FASA.

>> You work at a chemical plant in Puyallup, and they pay well under
>> minimum wage. Didn't matter so much before, because you didn't pay tax.
>> Now you do, and you're a lot worse off. Especially if your boss reports
>> that he _is_ paying you minimum wage and you get taxed accordingly.
>
>Yeah, but you don't pay street index, either.

Which makes many things _cheaper_.

>I think if your example were
>the case, there would be fewer SINless individuals because it would more or
>less balance out financially in the not-so-long-term.

It's rather vague how many SINless there are: as it is, the Barrens
account for 40% of Seattle's registered citizens. How many more can
those areas support?

>> If you're paying certified cred (which would likely be how you're
>> getting paid, that or your employers' corp scrip) then you're buying
>> legally anyway.
>
>Not true. Certified cred is used all over the place, not just in legal
>establishments. Also, you are generally paid with registered cred from
>your employer...after all, they have to report their expenses for tax
>purposes.

Tax? In an extraterritorial corporate facility? Or a black-economy
sweatshop?

Places that honestly report their employee's pay and benefit don't
routinely hire SINless individuals. One major benefit to hiring SINless
workers is precisely because you _can_ lie outrageously about what
you're paying them.

>Certified cred is the ONLY money useful to the average
>SINless person on the streets. They can't spend registered cred (it's not
>their SIN), or corp scrip (they have no SIN for identification), etc.

Corporate Shadowfiles, page 54. "Most cities with a major corporate
presence have a booming corporate scrip market." Corporate scrip is
paper money, if you've got it you can spend it... providing you find
someone who'll take it.

Real-life examples would be MPC, "military payment currency", the US
scrip issued in lieu of actual dollars in Vietnam. There was a lively
black market in the stuff: it was probably a harder currency than the
legitimate Vietnamese piaster.

>That's why bartering is also commonplace in the barrens in my
>campaign....it's hard to get the money you need when you work for peanuts.

I'd tend to figure barter as very common for the same reasons. Why
bother turning stolen goods into certified cred or corp scrip at an
uncomfortable markup, then spending that at another loss to buy what you
want? If you can, trade directly. "Swap you this watch for those
smokes?"

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 15
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:54:59 +0000
In article <199803081114.MAA22635@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Andy Gardner said on 21:02/ 7 Mar 98...
>> That could explain a large chunk of the SINless population
>> and why meta's seem to have so much more trouble. I just can't
>> remember where it said that but I think it was one of the fairly
>> early and/or basic books. Anybody remember where it is ?
>
>I can't remember where this is said, but I think it's in SRII.

NAGNA.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 16
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:58:38 -0500
>If it was so easy to get a SIN, there wouldn't be the masses of SINless
>people there are in SR. I mean, hell, if I had to choose between some nice
>friendly police officer having me sign a few papers saying I owe the
>government money or eating out of a trash can and worrying about where I
>will sleep next, the choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Having a SIN
>means I could get a legit job and actually get a place to live with real
>bonafide utilities. Even if the government took half of my paycheck every
>month, that's half more of a paycheck than I was getting before. Not to
>mention that street index doesn't have to be paid anymore if I don't want
>to...I can get my stuff legally now.

Good point. I think that FASA's view of SINless is unrealistic, partly for
the reasons you site, but mostly because a SIN gives government and
corporations a degree of control over citizens.

An extreme example: suppose to get a SIN you had to supply a DNA sample.
Ritual magic considerations aside, knowing everyone's DNA pattern would
make most crimes much easier to solve.

Hmm. That might lead to some intersting MOs. If you take the position that
any serious murder will justify the costs of combing the crime scene, body,
etc. for DNA traces, it might actually make sense to commit the murder in
public, where the presence of other DNA sources would confuse the
investigation. You'd have to be disguised, or whatever, naturally, but even
positive ID by witness is not as convincing as a DNA match (assuming DNA
match technology is much better in 2058 than it is now).

Wordman
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:31:11 +1000
Justin Pinnow writes:
>> If I am right (and I'm not saying that I am), this theory would go a long
>> way towards the idea that SINless have fewer rights. If a person isn't
>> paying taxes, he technically isn't entitled to the services of a
>> government's police or hospital forces. Such a statement could easily be
>> misconstrued to mean "SINless have *no* rights-- let's go out and beat up
>> some SINless bums".
>
>That's my point exactly. SINless don't have rights. Period. They don't
>have the right to a fair trial. They don't have the right to
>representation. They don't have the right for a jury of their peers. They
>certainly don't have the right to avoid paying taxes.

Granted on the taxes and representation (which boils down to the right to
vote), but they would have the right to a fair trial, and the right for a
jury of their peers.


> Does this mean that
>every Lone Star beat cop gets his jollies by beating up SINless people? Of
>course not. But it does mean that any SINless individual desiring to get a
>SIN has to pay the piper. What better way to do that than to work it off
>in prison? The government and the Star get to say they're doing their part
>to keep the streets free of the SINless scum of the earth AND the city gets
>free labor out of the deal.

Prison labour, or any other forced labour system, is not cost-efficient.
It's actually _cheaper_ to pay someone to do a job willingly. That's why
slave economies don't work well, and why conscript armies don't tend to
fight well.

Besides, prisons aren't cheap to run.

> Now, this is all conjecture and my
>interpretation of the SR universe, but I take it as a dark future. Working
>for no pay while in prison isn't against the law anymore....especially not
>for the SINless (who don't have any rights, anyway).


*ahem* Part of the concept of the SIN is that as soon as you're arrested,
you'll be assigned a SIN. So there aren't any SINless in jail.

(Oh, and working for no pay in prison probably would still be against the
law... it's hard to change laws. So you charge them rent, board, uniform
costs, laundry costs, and sundries, which, oh gee, add up to almost the
amount they get paid. The remainder goes to pay assorted fines and legal
bills. To top this off, you can extend the sentence if the prisoner is
unruly ("Sorry, you don't earn any money while in solitary, but your bill
still racks up. Each day in solitary will take you two weeks to work off").
That's IF you want to keep people in prison anyway, which you don't, as
they're not cost-effective.)

>If it was so easy to get a SIN, there wouldn't be the masses of SINless
>people there are in SR. I mean, hell, if I had to choose between some nice
>friendly police officer having me sign a few papers saying I owe the
>government money or eating out of a trash can and worrying about where I
>will sleep next, the choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Having a SIN
>means I could get a legit job and actually get a place to live with real
>bonafide utilities. Even if the government took half of my paycheck every
>month, that's half more of a paycheck than I was getting before. Not to
>mention that street index doesn't have to be paid anymore if I don't want
>to...I can get my stuff legally now.

Hey, who said getting a SIN was easy? Sure, all you have to do is apply...
and prove that you qualify.

How do you qualify? You have to prove you're a citizen of the UCAS. How do
you prove that? Your parents were citizens, or you were born in the UCAS.

Gee, don't know who your parents are (or they can't prove citizenship)?
Don't have a birth certificate? Well, tough luck, chummer, you don't qualify
for citizenship. You look like an Indian to me, so we'll just deport you
over to the S-S Council lands. They don't want you? Well, that's their
problem. If you're real lucky, you might be able to fill out this temporary
visa application form, get legal residence long enough to qualify, and then
get a SIN.

Okay, you now qualify. Here's your brand spanking new SIN. Does this give
you a job? Heck, no, you get an entitlement to 90 days of welfare, but
you've still got no skills and can't afford to gain any, anyway. If you're
lucky, they might be hiring grunt workers at the factory across the road.
Free accomdation? Get real, chummer. Better go sleep in that trash can
again.

Oh, and if you've got cred, in cash or a certified credstick, you don't have
to pay street index if you don't want to, anyway. It's just that you have to
worry about legalities ("Gee, Ma, do I qualify to get a permit?"). If you
can get to a store, you can buy anything legal with no street index. Of
course, if you're a squatter in the Redmond Barrens, the nearest supermarket
where you can buy things might be a little far away, so you pay the street
index.

>In my campaign, having a SIN definitely has its advantages. If a PC or NPC
>wants to go get a real one, they know it's not going to be fast, free, or
>easy.


Getting a REAL SIN shouldn't be hard. Getting one you can use, that isn't
your real one, shouldn't be fast, free, easy, or cheap. Fake IDs are always
expensive.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 18
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:35:20 +1000
Justin Pinnow writes:
>> But then perhaps all stores require a SIN to do shopping which I
>> doubt ..
>
>Actually, that's exactly how I run it in my campaign. If you're SINless,
>you're a criminal by definition. Since most folks in society don't like
>criminals hanging around where they work and shop, you must provide ID
>(i.e. a SIN) to get into said establishments. This generally involves
>waving your sin in front of a scanner on the way in or whatever....very
>brief, and it doesn't really verify that your SIN is legit, it merely
>recognizes the type of chip used in a SIN. It's like using a keycard
>nowadays that you wave in front of a scanning plate. Fast and easy to
>fool. At checkout time, however, it's a different story. When you go to
>pay for anything, your SIN is checked with the appropriate level SIN
>verification system. Thus, while even a Rating 1 fake SIN will get you
>into Radio Shack, you might not be able to buy anything there.


Geez, no-one takes cash, or a certified credstick, in your campaign? What
bloody good are they, then? None. So why would the black market people
accept them? Answer: they wouldn't.

>Higher up establishments might have human security at the door (over rated
>bouncers) to ensure a higher level of appearance of security.
>
>IMO, that's what Street Index is all about. If you don't have a SIN, you
>MUST buy your gear, utilities, etc. through the black market in one form or
>another. When you do so, you incur Street Index. If you walk into the
>local mall and buy something, you MUST have a SIN (valid or otherwise) and
>don't pay Street Index because you bought it legally.


But sometimes Street Index is less than the retail price, anyway... :)
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:44:01 +1000
Justin Pinnow writes:
>> Crimes committed against SINless people are still crimes, just like
>> today. If you shoot an illegal immigrant, you're still committing
>> murder. The problem is, unless you're caught standing over the corpse,
>> or you go on a rampage bloody enough to attract attention, the case
>> stays at the bottom of an overworked detective's in-tray.
>
>True. Or, more likely, the case is very quickly closed - thus not leaving
>more work for later.


Unsolved crimes are not closed until the statute of limitations expires on
them. If they are leading nowhere, Lone Star will assign them to someone
(often fictional) and forget about it. If a break appears, then that someone
will look into it, but until then they forget about it. That's not the same
as "case closed".

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 20
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:53:40 -0500
> From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
> Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 7:35 PM

> Justin Pinnow writes:
> >> But then perhaps all stores require a SIN to do shopping which I
> >> doubt ..

> >Actually, that's exactly how I run it in my campaign. If you're
SINless,
> >you're a criminal by definition. Since most folks in society don't like
> >criminals hanging around where they work and shop, you must provide ID
> >(i.e. a SIN) to get into said establishments. This generally involves
> >waving your sin in front of a scanner on the way in or whatever....very
> >brief, and it doesn't really verify that your SIN is legit, it merely
> >recognizes the type of chip used in a SIN. It's like using a keycard
> >nowadays that you wave in front of a scanning plate. Fast and easy to
> >fool. At checkout time, however, it's a different story. When you go
to
> >pay for anything, your SIN is checked with the appropriate level SIN
> >verification system. Thus, while even a Rating 1 fake SIN will get you
> >into Radio Shack, you might not be able to buy anything there.

> Geez, no-one takes cash, or a certified credstick, in your campaign? What
> bloody good are they, then? None. So why would the black market people
> accept them? Answer: they wouldn't.

No no no. ;) It's not that you need to spend money from your bank
account, it's just that you need a SIN to purchase anything legally.
Basically, it's like requiring ID to purchase anything....regardless of how
you pay for it. So, if you wanted to, you could have your SIN scanned at
the register but pay in certified cred without a problem. The point is to
keep "SINless scum" out of the legit business establishments.

> >Higher up establishments might have human security at the door (over
rated
> >bouncers) to ensure a higher level of appearance of security.

> >IMO, that's what Street Index is all about. If you don't have a SIN,
you
> >MUST buy your gear, utilities, etc. through the black market in one form
or
> >another. When you do so, you incur Street Index. If you walk into the
> >local mall and buy something, you MUST have a SIN (valid or otherwise)
and
> >don't pay Street Index because you bought it legally.

> But sometimes Street Index is less than the retail price, anyway... :)

Sure, but that's for stuff that's easy to get on the streets. MOST stuff
is actually more expensive once Street Index is factored in.

Justin
Message no. 21
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:55:17 -0500
> From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
> Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 7:44 PM

> Justin Pinnow writes:

> >True. Or, more likely, the case is very quickly closed - thus not
leaving
> >more work for later.

> Unsolved crimes are not closed until the statute of limitations expires
on
> them. If they are leading nowhere, Lone Star will assign them to someone
> (often fictional) and forget about it. If a break appears, then that
someone
> will look into it, but until then they forget about it. That's not the
same
> as "case closed".

Correct. My point was simply that when it comes to crimes against the
SINless, cases might very well be closed faster because they are not as
heavily researched. More assumptions will be made, etc. After all, the
SINless don't pay the LS cops' salaries. SINless are second class citizens
at best.

> .sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

Justin
Message no. 22
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:24:57 GMT
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:34:40 +0000, Stefan wrote:

> > > I am beginning to realize that most of the previous SIN threads can be
> > > "clarified" by asking FASA a simple question:
> >
> > > "Do SINless pay taxes?"
> >
> > A lot of the questions on this thread (sort of) on pg 86 of Shadowbeat.
> > Basically, no SINless do not pay taxes, and yes that is a crime. Therefore,
> > a SINner paying a SINless must use a fence (using rules in SR, pg 188).
>
> Well no SINless pay taxes on income but they still pay taxes on the
> stuff they buy like food and cloths ... nobody gets of from that ...
>
> But then perhaps all stores require a SIN to do shopping which I
> doubt ..

Again, this depends on how you interpret the use of certified credsticks--
being the only credstick a SINless person could use. If their value can be
reduced a little bit at a time like a modern day Phone Card, then YES,
stores do not require you to possess a SIN to make purchase. If not...



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 23
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:25:02 GMT
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:28:03 -0500, Jeremiah Stevens wrote:

> >
> > IMO, that's what Street Index is all about. If you don't have a SIN, you
>
> > MUST buy your gear, utilities, etc. through the black market in one form or
> > another. When you do so, you incur Street Index. If you walk into the
> > local mall and buy something, you MUST have a SIN (valid or otherwise) and
> > don't pay Street Index because you bought it legally.
>
> Except that street index applies to everything, not just items bought on
> the black market.

Where does Shadowrun state this?

> First, most legal items have SIs of 1 or less, maybe 1.5
> or 2 for more uncommon items. It is only *illegal* items that have high
> street indexes, and those could not be bought in a store. In fact, those
> are precisely the types of things one would not use a SIN to buy.

This makes prefect sense today in modern North America. A TV that you buy
at a legitimate store will cost more than the same model sold out of the
back of a van. The same reasons why not all people in Shadowrun's era buy
stuff this way (ie: illegal merchandise) is exactly the same as why people
today don't.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 24
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:25:08 GMT
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:58:38 -0500, Wordman wrote:

> >If it was so easy to get a SIN, there wouldn't be the masses of SINless
> >people there are in SR. I mean, hell, if I had to choose between some nice
> >friendly police officer having me sign a few papers saying I owe the
> >government money or eating out of a trash can and worrying about where I
> >will sleep next, the choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Having a SIN
> >means I could get a legit job and actually get a place to live with real
> >bonafide utilities. Even if the government took half of my paycheck every
> >month, that's half more of a paycheck than I was getting before. Not to
> >mention that street index doesn't have to be paid anymore if I don't want
> >to...I can get my stuff legally now.
>
> Good point. I think that FASA's view of SINless is unrealistic, partly for
> the reasons you site, but mostly because a SIN gives government and
> corporations a degree of control over citizens.
>
> An extreme example: suppose to get a SIN you had to supply a DNA sample.
> Ritual magic considerations aside, knowing everyone's DNA pattern would
> make most crimes much easier to solve.

It also brings to mind the successful "OJ defense"...



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 25
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:25:15 GMT
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:35:20 +1000, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Geez, no-one takes cash, or a certified credstick, in your campaign? What
> bloody good are they, then? None. So why would the black market people
> accept them? Answer: they wouldn't.

I never figured actual "cash" was used any more in Shadowrun due to the
relatively increasing ease at which it can be counterfeited. Coupled with
the fact that the world today is already considered pretty much a "cashless
society" and you can begin to predict the lack of use of hard currency 60
years down the road (at least in a fictitious future).

As for why black markets still accept cash? They're ILLEGAL! They *can't*
make business transactions using legal credsticks without tipping off the
local authorities. So it's back to chickens and goats.

Our referee uses/stole two forms of physical currency for his campaign:
"Red House Hours" and "Black Market Grams". The former is based on
the
current sprawl rates for brothels, while the latter is based on an
equivalent quantity of a particular (unknown) drug. If you really want,
you can trade them back in for what they represent (just like with modern
currency and silver/gold), but you can also trade them amongst the
community (again, just like with modern currency). Yes, both forms of
currency can be counterfeited, or their base value adjusted, but what can
you do-- you're dealing with organized crime!



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SINs and taxes (or, "Oi! Anuva SIN thread over 'ere!), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!