SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Conservatives
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
Tom Clarke
To: D. Long who wrote (28177)4/13/2014 2:43:49 PM
From: DMaA1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) of 124681
 
Apparently he hasn't paid the fees in 20 years. Is there any legal principle that a claim that isn't pressed for a given time loses validity?

Also, (not a legal argument but interesting) the fee originally (as I understand it) was to pay for range improvements. He stopped paying the fee when the Feds stopped investing in improvements.

And related but not exactly on this specific topic, it seems like with the news about the feds going back to the children of people whom they claim were given too much in SS payments 20-30 years ago, there is a conscious effort on the feds part to grab every single buck they can get their hands on no matter how long ago the "debt" was incurred nor how tenuous the evidence is. And in the case dinging the children for the debt of the parents, the policy can even be unprecedented.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News