Should US Tax Collectors Get Reports From Banks About All Accounts Over $600? (msn.com) 190
An anonymous reader tipped us off to a proposed new U.S. policy which would require banks, credit unions and other financial companies to submit reports on most of their accounts to the tax-collectors at America's Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The reports "would break down the numbers to include physical-cash transactions per account, any transactions with a foreign account and transactions between accounts held by the same owner," according to the Arizona Republic newspaper. "The IRS wouldn't receive details on individual transactions but, rather, gross yearly totals."
America's treasury secretary reiterated that what's being proposed "is not reporting of individual transactions or anything of the like. And it would be a simple thing for banks and other payment providers to provide along with the other information they're already providing."
But the Arizona Republic notes the proposal is drawing some concerns — partly because it's been suggested it would cover any account with more than $600: Critics say this would burden financial institutions with new requirements and expose consumers and businesses to privacy incursions and possible data breaches. Supporters contend bank customers would face no new obligations while giving the IRS more information to pursue tax cheats, primarily among the wealthy. They hope to close a tax gap estimated at around $600 billion annually...
The $600 figure isn't set in stone. Some media reports have indicated it could be increased to, say, $10,000 — the level at which banks report transactions in an effort to combat money laundering. A Treasury summary of the plan indicated there would be no further recordkeeping or reporting requirements for individuals or businesses and that taxpayers wouldn't face any burdens at all. The Treasury also noted banks and other financial providers already have access to this information and already report interest income above $10...
About 15% of the money owed the federal government isn't collected, according to Natasha Sarin, a deputy assistant secretary at the Treasury Department... Just knowing the IRS would have access to some bank-account details might convince more taxpayers to pay what they owe.
The deputy assistant secretary argues there's a direct relationship between the information the IRS has and a taxpayer's voluntary compliance rate. "For ordinary wage and salary income, compliance with income tax liabilities is nearly perfect (1 percent noncompliance rate). In stark contrast, for opaque income sources that accrue disproportionately to higher earners...noncompliance can reach 55 percent...."
"Today's tax code contains two sets of rules: one for regular wage and salary workers who report virtually all the income they earn; and another for wealthy taxpayers"
America's treasury secretary reiterated that what's being proposed "is not reporting of individual transactions or anything of the like. And it would be a simple thing for banks and other payment providers to provide along with the other information they're already providing."
But the Arizona Republic notes the proposal is drawing some concerns — partly because it's been suggested it would cover any account with more than $600: Critics say this would burden financial institutions with new requirements and expose consumers and businesses to privacy incursions and possible data breaches. Supporters contend bank customers would face no new obligations while giving the IRS more information to pursue tax cheats, primarily among the wealthy. They hope to close a tax gap estimated at around $600 billion annually...
The $600 figure isn't set in stone. Some media reports have indicated it could be increased to, say, $10,000 — the level at which banks report transactions in an effort to combat money laundering. A Treasury summary of the plan indicated there would be no further recordkeeping or reporting requirements for individuals or businesses and that taxpayers wouldn't face any burdens at all. The Treasury also noted banks and other financial providers already have access to this information and already report interest income above $10...
About 15% of the money owed the federal government isn't collected, according to Natasha Sarin, a deputy assistant secretary at the Treasury Department... Just knowing the IRS would have access to some bank-account details might convince more taxpayers to pay what they owe.
The deputy assistant secretary argues there's a direct relationship between the information the IRS has and a taxpayer's voluntary compliance rate. "For ordinary wage and salary income, compliance with income tax liabilities is nearly perfect (1 percent noncompliance rate). In stark contrast, for opaque income sources that accrue disproportionately to higher earners...noncompliance can reach 55 percent...."
"Today's tax code contains two sets of rules: one for regular wage and salary workers who report virtually all the income they earn; and another for wealthy taxpayers"
That is how it works worldwide (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the IRS can't count. Every year I file my taxes, and they recalculate my return so they can give me extra money! I followed the rules, take my darn taxes, the country needs it!
First convince them their job is to actually collect the taxes. Then give them improved data access.
Re:That is how it works worldwide (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not so much that governments want every detail. It's that bureaucracies want reasons to exist, and managing the information to collect taxes is one of the most inevitable forms of bureaucracy. There are highly structured economies with effective bureaucracies for taxation, such as Japan, but they've avoided the insane complexity of the US tax code, trying to solve social issues by making exceptions or rejecting them. And they've eliminated 90% of the US tax industry of lawyers and accountants by having a more sane tax code, which presents sane tax bills which are almost always correct and more expensive to fight than to simply pay.
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:2)
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been suggested over and over, and people apparently never get the message: Consumption does not scale with income. Consumption taxes disproportionately hit the poor and middle class, not the rich. All it would do is give the very rich yet another hand-out to allow them to stay very rich.
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:2)
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Experienced the same. I've read reports recently that indicate the IRS is woefully understaffed, and able to perform vastly fewer audits and investigations than in the past... plausibly it has been found to benefit the rich and powerful if the organization has fewer teeth.
IMHO, since the reporting threshold has been US$10K for decades, the notification should be raised to account for inflation, not diminished to the point where my truck and credit card payments are necessarily of concern to the government.
Re:That is how it works worldwide (Score:4, Interesting)
the IRS is woefully understaffed
Joe Biden's $3.5T spending bill includes $80B in additional funding for the IRS.
That is about $650 per household.
Re: (Score:3)
the IRS is woefully understaffed
Joe Biden's $3.5T spending bill includes $80B in additional funding for the IRS.
That is about $650 per household.
Perhaps, but it doesn't appear likely to pass in its present incarnation... Biden and the Dem leadership are having significant difficulty getting even the Democrats in lockstep.
Re: (Score:2)
That, I assume is over 10 years, so about $65 per person annually or $130 per dual income family. Isn't that about what a tax preparer charges for a simple return (I don't know, all I know is what HR Block charges for their software!).
An important question is if that expenditure will yield additional collections in excess of that and those collections are not primarily the result of people just giving up on legitimate deductions etc because it's cheaper to pay another $1K than to hire someone to represent t
Re: Biden is Building Back Better... (Score:2)
Lol youâ(TM)re mixing up your conspiracy theories. The unvaccinated donâ(TM)t need to wait for build
Back better, they are already being forced out by state and local governments. And really they arenâ(TM)t creating that many vacancies.
Build Back Better will give money to small businesses and contractors, which leads to more spending and a better economy. Whatâ(TM)s better for the USA? Mega rich taking their profits and hiding them overseas, or taxation on profits which can be spent on bu
Re: (Score:2)
An understaffed organization will transit to AIs to determine the quality of the tax filings and potential misfilings and then fire most of the people working there so it's no longer possible to monitor the AIs for correctness.
And if the quality is the same as those AIs used for YouTube algorithms when it comes to monetization and DMCA strike logic as well as Facebook postings you will know that the result can go completely haywire and result in people ending up at the deep end of the shit pool.
Re: (Score:2)
They recalculate everyone's tax return, but they generally only actually check a) that you're reporting every piece of paper they send you or b) you've used the tax tables properly. To get a refund from that you either have to leave off a tax form that has higher withholding than your marginal rate, or you have to report $X in taxable income but use the $X+$Y line on the tax table to choose your tax liability.
So I'm curious about what you could do that would get this multiple years in a row.
Re: (Score:2)
This has never happened to me, so I suspect that, every year, you miscalculate your taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Places the "X" there and signs the electronic form that the tax authorities provides with their information about my incomes, taxes returned.
Re: (Score:3)
Do the wealthy sneak by $600 at a time?
The wealthy do tax evasion in plain sight (Score:2)
Re: The wealthy do tax evasion in plain sight (Score:3)
This will catch countless waitresses and waiters, bartenders, and anyone working "off the books".
We don't need 80K additional IRS agents to enforce the tax code among the wealthy - they are going after countless blue collar workers.
Re: (Score:2)
So the end result will be that the IRS will be flooded by noise transactions.
The $600 limit is to go after small "contractors" (Score:2)
Do the wealthy sneak by $600 at a time?
The $600 limit indicates the motivation. They are not going after the rich, they are going after the little guy.
$600 from some particular source is the limit where you have to report income. Lets say you have a local handy man come to your home to fix various things during the year. If you paid that handyman a total of $600 or more you have to report that to the IRS. The IRS will then ensure that the handyman declares that income on his tax return and pays taxes on it.
They are going after the little g
Bought a video card from a scalper, report to IRS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not a bad idea.
And why not do that already? It could create some interesting results.
Re: (Score:2)
They have all their assets in the form of shares and below the $600 is their coffee money.
Re: (Score:2)
The number being talked about is a yearly aggregate. So $600 moving through an account in a year is laughable. The number changing to $10000 is still pretty laughable (outside of subsaharan Africa or somewhere), but if they can trick people into thinking it's $10000 sitting in the account at any one time rather than $833 moving per month, or confuse people with the existing requirement of reporting $10k transactions, they can get fewer people making fun of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
I recall one case where a mid sized mom-and-pop restaurant had a pretty steady business and a fair amount of cash customers. As a result, most weeks they would have a bit less than $10K of cash to deposit and they did that once a week. The government made their life hell for awhile claiming that they were "structuring" -- yet there was no evidence that was what they were doing.
Once the IRS, or the government in general, decides to sink their teeth in they are very slow to back down in spite of overwh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to produce so much data that it will be useless.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to tell me that "in most countries" the national tax authorities ask financial institutions to specifically flag transactions of $600? It's easy to spend that much at a nice restaurant or, if you have a large family, something as mundane as groceries.
I'd love to see a reference to such a small amount of cash changing hands being given that level of scrutiny "in most countries." Take your time. I'll wait.
Best,
Re:That is how it works worldwide (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't work that way in the US.
Citizens have an express right to be secure in their effects and papers..
That includes banking information.
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatâ(TM)s more, what if you pay for a drug treatment center for a friend or spouse? It will look like it was for you. What if your employer is the US Military or government contractor? You know theyâ(TM)ll data mine it all. And how hard will it be for the IRS to crank out a list of all the people who donated to a specific party or cause?
In the United States we have an expectation of privacy (Roe vs Wade) and more importantly we have the 4th Amendment which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is akin to having a standing warrant on every citizen of the United States. It wasnâ(TM)t long ago where the Supreme Court said that the police can not force people to unlock their phones because everyoneâ(TM)s private data is on their phone. Your bank account deserves no less.
Re: (Score:2)
People should spend a little time thinking about what reporting all transactions to the IRS really means. Do you want to buy a firearm? The IRS will know. Do you want to donate to a political party? The IRS will know and know which party you donated to. Do you want to go to the doctor? The IRS will know. Do you want to go see a psychologist or psychiatrist? The IRS will know. Do you want to visit a drug treatment center? The IRS will know.
And? You are a buffoon if you don't think they don't already know this information already.
What if your employer is the US Military or government contractor? You know theyâ(TM)ll data mine it all.
Actually, they won't because that would be illegal. If it weren't illegal then it would be already be a wide-spread practice.
This is akin to having a standing warrant on every citizen of the United States.
No, it's not and you're being quite ridiculous about a change to the law that isn't going to have an impact on 99.9% of the population.
Re: (Score:3)
But this proposal doesn't suggest reporting any individual transactions that aren't already required to be reported.
"The IRS wouldn't receive details on individual transactions but, rather, gross yearly totals."
"Financial institutions would report the information on an expanded Form 1099-INT. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the forms would include one box for total deposits or inflows and one box for total withdrawals or outflows."
Note that this gives no additional information on who money is sent to o
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but the government has no business having access to your accounts. AT ALL.
Re: (Score:2)
This is akin to having a standing warrant on every citizen of the United States.
There is a particular authoritarian view that wishes to treat all citizens as potential criminals, so they say we need to gather information on what every citizen is doing, to prevent crime. This would be the law and order brigade, who put public order ahead of the well-being of citizens. For them, a well-behaved but miserable society would be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to buy a firearm? The IRS will know. Do you want to donate to a political party? The IRS will know and know which party you donated to. Do you want to go to the doctor? The IRS will know. Do you want to go see a psychologist or psychiatrist? The IRS will know. Do you want to visit a drug treatment center? The IRS will know.
My tax authorities know all of this about me and you know what happened? Yeah. That's what. Nothing. Somehow this doom scenario of the world ending because your data appears somewhere in some database along with 300million other people only seems to apply to America. Why is that? I mean there are countries immeasurably more corrupt and yet your big concern is the world's greatest democracy knowing you bought a 2nd amendment allowed item?
Actually something did happen everywhere else in the world: Filing a ta
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. It never will happen TO ME!
Until it does.
First the came for the Trade Unionists...
You don't give a government more power than you absolutely have to.
Because the only thing you can trust them to do is abuse it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ignorance?
How many times IN THE PAST CENTURY ALONE, have we seen out of control governments curette off rights.
"Oh it didn't happen to ME!"
Exactly who's the ignorant one here?
YOU are one of OVER SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE on this planet. If you're in the US, you're one of roughly 330 million people.
And you're looking at pushes towards ever greater government power and access with ever fewer protections for citizens.
But you, "NOPE! NOTHING TO SEE HERE!"
"As for trade unionists..."
WHOOSH!
Not not only simply didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Well - then you will make it work, just like the rest of the world did.
You ever hear of FATCA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATCA).
Since you americans force your laws onto the rest of the world, then you better apply those same laws to yourself.
If you do not, then you're fuckin' hypocrites.
Same goes for site blocking and many other things that you americans are forcing onto the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way in the US.
Citizens have an express right to be secure in their effects and papers..
That includes banking information.
Existing banking regulations has entered the chat
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way in the US.
Citizens have an express right to be secure in their effects and papers..
That includes banking information.
It DOES work that way for US citizens abroad, though. The US government already requires foreign banks, via the FATCA legislation, to report to them on US-held accounts. And citizens are likewise required to report their own accounts if they exceed an aggregate value of 10’000 USD.
Failure on either side results in significant penalties.
$600 = wealthy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you'll get out if this only applies after deduction of all your loans. Keep a $10k loan handy so that the $600 in the transaction account you have doesn't matter.
Check the fine print of the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
But why? How will it materially improve the lives of Americans? Why, when we see the ultra-rich paying effective tax rates far below the normal classes, should the IRS spend millions of dollars and force banks to spend millions and millions of dollars on what would seem to be an unconstitutional "general warrant" of my finances?
Re:That is how it works worldwide (Score:4, Insightful)
Other countries don't have a Constitution that specifically says the government has no business poking into our personal affairs without a just cause and a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Here, there is section 8 of the Constitution's Charter of Rights,
comes right after,
It is why I don't have to worry about cops taking blood if they think I'm impaired or border agents in the country stopping and searching me or show ID unless actually driving
Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score:2)
Why do you Americans put up with this? Don't you have some little phrase in your Constitution about being "secure in your papers", etc.? Just because records are now electronic, rather than on paper, doesn't give the government the rig
Re: (Score:2)
> That is how it works in most countries around the world. And so far the world has not ended. Business as usual across the board.
No it isnt and it certainly doesn't happen, like this, in the UK. And even if it does happen somewhere else, e.g. Spain, that doesn't make it right.
It's not people with a balance of $600 that we as a society have to worry about not paying taxes. Those guys are clearly just above the breadline. It's companies running loop holes to maximise profits for shareholders that are the
Re: (Score:2)
And so far the world has not ended.
Yes the world has ended... for tax accountants preying on those needing to file returns. In much of the rest of the world these things are auto reported to the tax authorities. I did my tax return in 2min a few weeks ago. Logged in online. Entered my unique tax identifier. Then glanced over the pre-filled information to see it was all there, added one deduction which wasn't, and hit send.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: No (Score:3, Interesting)
The middle class always gets squeezed.
The poor don't have anything worth taking.
The rich have enough resources to defend themselves.
And the middle class has enough that's worth taking but not enough to defend themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This will drive up costs for more Americans, since the government never does this right. Banking and tax preparation will cost everyone more.
How? In America it already costs more than anywhere else to prepare and file a tax return. When this was introduced in every other country the cost dropped, largely because tax returns became automated.
If you give up cash, this is what you get. (Score:3)
Told you so.
Re: (Score:2)
Told you so.
The ability to automate my tax return? Yeah you did tell me so. I couldn't get rid of cash fast enough. In other news the tax department knows I bought a vibrating prostate massager the other day. You know what happened? Nothing! Well not nothing, I had a raging orgasm like I've never had before, but outside of me and my wife precisely zero fucks were given.
It will be more than just totals for $600 accounts (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone believe the government *just* wants to get total breakdowns for these accounts and then they'll be content forever?
It's a step in what will ultimately be reporting of every transaction. Even now their argument is literally, "Well, we already monitor other stuff, so of course it's reasonable that we should monitor this, too - you've practically already agreed it's okay." What happens as they continue to apply that argument?
You can be for or against the government having such complete information about you, but now is probably the time to get the policies in place which shape how the data can be used.
This is the plan (Score:4, Insightful)
The plan here is for the IRS to count every dollar that enters your bank account as income. So, your paycheck, the cash you got from your yard sale, or selling your car... all will be considered income unless you come up with an exemption on your taxes.
You will have to justify any non-income inflows to your bank account, and provide documentation to prove that an inflow was not income in order to avoid paying income tax on it.
That's the only conceivable reason the IRS would want this information.
Re: This is the plan (Score:2)
The other credible reason is that they want to track and trace every purchase, $600 is just under the average firearm purchase. They could also use it to justify VAT, theyâ(TM)ll count the data, set a 20% transaction fee and then tell us how many trillions they can receive if they can just tax any $600+ transaction.
Itâ(TM)s time to move to cryptocurrency fast.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
$600 is the threshold for reporting income (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the only conceivable reason the IRS would want this information.
Then you have a very poor imagination because I have a many more ideas.
Re: This is the plan (Score:2)
The plan here is for the IRS to count every dollar that enters your bank account as income. So, your paycheck, the cash you got from your yard sale, or selling your car...
First, tracking and counting is reasonable, same as paying taxes for all kinds of income, not only paychecks.
That said, yard sales and used car sales don't generate income, they generate revenue. Whether or not you need to pay taxes for that should normally be a question of whether you make a net win. E.g. bought that car 2 weeks ago, and now sell for 3x its price? Pay taxes on the difference. Is this your family vehicle and you sell it for essentially its used car market value? No net gain, no taxes.
This i
Triple speak (Score:4, Insightful)
Today's tax code contains two sets of rules: one for regular wage and salary workers who report virtually all the income they earn; and another for wealthy taxpayers
I'll just leave $600 speak for itself. You never know maybe they plan on only 1%'ers having $600 in the bank in the next few years.
The deputy assistant secretary argues there's a direct relationship between the information the IRS has and a taxpayer's voluntary compliance rate.
Bugging everyone's homes will cameras and microphones would also increase voluntary legal compliance rate. Ends don't justify means.
Hard to come up with a worst justification for supporting this. If democrats don't want anyone voting for them they should just come out and say so.
https://home.treasury.gov/news... [treasury.gov]
Here is a novel idea for the IRS. Do your job.
Another novel idea for policy makers if you want more IRS revenue invest in the IRS. Don't pull billions from their operating budget and then make a play to collect even more data from EVERYONE without any legal showing to solve a problem of your own making.
Re: (Score:2)
"primarily among the wealthy" (Score:3, Insightful)
"more than $600"
No, nothing wrong with this picture!
Fourth Amendment (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
what's the -real- reason? (Score:2)
Wells Fargo and pals probably asked for this simply to add another hurdle that fintech startups need to jump over.
"Voluntary compliance" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago, I got pulled over by a cop because I had a busted headlight. He smelled wine on my breath (I'd just left a party - had maybe 1.5 glasses of wine in over several hours before that), so he asked if I would take a "voluntary" breathalizer test. When I asked "what happens if I decline this voluntary test?", he said "you lose your license and we immediately impound your car".
So, yeah, "voluntary".
If anyone cares about the rest off the story: being rather straight-arrow, I had no idea what to expect fr
No (Score:2)
It's creepy as f*ck, and should be treated as such.
I grow tired of these privacy nudists who are cool with others keeping tabs on their location, web searches and breast / penis size. If I wanted people to know any of the above, I'd take out a newspaper ad.
Re: (Score:2)
I earn €s & have never filled in a tax re (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I earn €s & have never filled in a tax (Score:2)
Exactly!
I stopped using free file fillable forms because I had manually enter every character from my W2. They already have my W2. All I should need to enter is my employer's ID number, my employee number, and they can use my SSN as a cross check. Boom, there is my W2 on their database.
MDFs. (Moron-dolt-fools)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a demonstration of compliance. They could just take the taxes that you owe. But they are making you jump through all of these hoops as a demonstration that you agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making sure the little guys declare all income (Score:2)
The US & Canada have an insane tax system. Why submit information to the IRS that they already have from workers' salaries from their employers? Is it an exam to find out who can or can't do accounting? How much pointless bureaucracy do you need?
Because not all income comes from salaries. If you have some side gig, a moonlighting gig, etc and over the year someone pays you more than $600 you are supposed to declare that income. This is all about making sure the little guys are declaring all their income.
Re: (Score:2)
Because not all income comes from salaries.
And yet other countries' tax systems seem to cope with this. People who are self-employed or have other sources of income, e.g. capital gains, do have to submit their income information. For everyone else, i.e. the vast majority, it's pay as you earn (PAYE) & tax rebates that are paid directly into your bank account or sent as a cheque in the mail if you prefer. The systems are computerised & automatically calculated. There's no need to receive & process mountains of dead tree forms under an ins
Re: (Score:2)
Why submit information to the IRS that they already have from workers' salaries from their employers?
Because many people are self-employed, so they have to declare their income to the IRS. I suppose the suspicion is that some self-employed people are not declaring all of their income. Mind you, if you want to do that kind of petty tax fiddling, you ask your customers to pay in cash, which never gets into the bank account, so slurping data from bank accounts is pretty pointless.
I own 1/2 a sailboat (Score:4, Insightful)
So last year a coworker and I went 50/50 on a sailboat, everything split down the middle. We bought a $12,000 boat, $6000 each. We track all our expenses via a google spreadsheet. When one of us has spent more than the other we "true up" so to speak and venmo over the balance. Several times it's been in amounts greater than $600.
My issue is that there is talks that all money that comes from paypal/venmo is going to be treated like income. CPA's I've talked to have told me the entire bill has them scratching their heads. I asked specifically, "How will I show the IRS this is a reimbursement, not income?" and all of them have told me, "I don't know."
This bill is just not as well thought out as it needs to be. Keep it at $10k, hell raise that to $20k.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I own 1/2 a sailboat (Score:2)
The end of banks as we know them. (Score:2)
Define a "bank" in this context? People lived without banks before, they can do it again. If people don't like the IRS snooping around their banking then they will find ways around it.
An example...
Growing up there was a point in which I realized my dad did not have a credit card. He ran a farm in the Midwest USA and so had to buy a lot of expensive stuff over the years. Once in a while the purchase would be big enough, like land, that he'd have to go to the bank for a loan. Most of the time the people
Taxation is theft (Score:2)
Finding additional money in your account that it claims to be entitled to is part of how the federal government has crafted is $3.5 trillion spending to cost $0. Don't worry, this sort of thing happens all the time. This is the same body who, when spending rises less in a given year than they'd planned for, refer to the reduction in additional spending as a cutback.
How /. can observe the nonsense at play, mathematical and otherwise, alongside the lack of value from the services provided for the non-destit
This is to go after small businesses (Score:2)
The $600 figure tells you all you need to know, they are going after small businesses who still deal primarily in cash, and the self employed.
Whoever is reporting this as a way to go after the wealthy is either completely ignorant or naive or is covering for the government by trying to make it seem like this is just to target the rich so that most people will ignore it and think it doesnâ(TM)t apply to them.
Shifting the beach, 1 grain of sand at a time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what you get when... (Score:2)
your leaders do not believe in any higher authority, and thus do not uphold oaths. An oath is a promise made with the invocation of a higher authority and the implication that SOMEBODY will be holding a violator accountable. With no higher authority, the oath is no more serious than any other garden variety promise.
If our leaders believed in the Constitution and took their oaths seriously, this policy would never have been proposed, given this little bit of inconvenient text:
"The right of the people to be
Re: (Score:2)
What's the probable cause?
Everybody is capable of committing crime. This seems to be enough for some politicians. And of course, it is much better to prevent a crime being committed, instead of catching the criminal after a crime has actually occurred.
Both ways (Score:2)
Of course this does not go both ways. How about that campaign reform that always receives lip service, but no actual traction at all?
If the government will see any amount over $600, is it not fair we the public see any campaign funds over $600? All spending, direct donation, Super PAC, whatever. No, I am not worried about the small checks you receive. But actual things like "speaking engagements", conferences at 5 star hotels, and the receipts for spending. Sending that expensive gift, spending time at that
This is such BS (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole "get the rich" thing is just pure BS. Does anyone really think that "the rich (funny how nobody ever actually defines that)" move their ill gotten gains around $600 at a time? Rich people use tax loopholes that are legal. They pay people that understand the tax code really well to exploit those loopholes. Those very same tax loopholes were passed into law by the same set of clowns proposing this new law. If you are looking for anyone to blame for the current tax code mess look no further than Washington DC. Republicans and Democrats alike.
We keep hearing about how Bezos and Buffett pay next to nothing in income tax. So why doesn't the government charge them with tax evasion? Because everything they do is perfectly legal. Ever wonder why the carried interest provision (the one that hedge fund managers use to pay far lower rates of income tax) isn't mentioned in this new law? Trump promised to remove this and so did Obama. Yet it remains. Every time someone tries to introduce legislation to remove carried interest it dies in the Senate. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer receives more money than anyone else from Wall St, that's why it never passes. He has been bought and paid for.
Instead this new law talks about a paltry $600. So if you sell a few things on eBay the IRS will find out about it and tax you. Or you have a garage sale. Or you buy an old car, fix it up and flip it. Make no mistake - this law is aimed squarely at the middle class. If this law were to have any impact on Bezos or Buffett or others like them you can be damn sure that it would never even make it to the Senate floor, let alone get passed.
This is a smoke screen. Trot out the "evil rich" that most people seem to despise and introduce a law that is allegedly conceived to make them pay their "fair share" (another vague term that nobody can seem to actually define). The rich, of course, play along with this charade because they understand that the true intent of the law is to soak the middle class not them. The middle class, not the rich, will get stuck with the bill for the new social program of the day. This is how it always works. Each and every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead this new law talks about a paltry $600
If I were given the job of increasing tax revenues by collecting taxes where they were not collected before, I would have to set the revenue gained against the costs of collecting that revenue. Say the tax on $600 were rated at 10%. That would yield $60 of gross revenue. That could easily be eaten up in admin just to pursue the taxpayer. Maybe it might be worthwhile if criminal charges were brought, yielding a large fine. But then all you are doing is adding costs, in the form of lawyer and court time. I am
Why $600 (Score:2)
Here in Canada, Statistics Canada wanted (Score:2)
For a few (Score:2)
FIX their systems FIRST (Score:3)
Fast forward to my 2019. Note that this is EXACTLY 7 years after the first incident described above. This also happens to be the standard IRS records retention period. I was again marked DECEASED and my account locked and frozen by the IRS. This time, however, I was getting a MUCH larger refund due to some extra withholding that I forgot to change. Also 2020 was the year we began COVID-19 problems. Again, I filed in mid March of 2020. I began checking the IRS's "Where's My Refund" web site in April or May, and when it showed no indication that they had even received my return I began trying to contact the IRS again. This time, however, due to COVID-19 there was nobody at the IRS that I could get in touch with at all. Finally, I reached out to my Congressman's office and they took over from me in getting in touch with the IRS Taxpayer's Advocate's Office. This was probably in July of 2020. Over the summer I had to resubmit all of my returns and other documents through my Congressman's office for forwarding to the IRS along with images of documents to prove I was still alive. It was not until June 2021 that I received a notice from my Congressman's office that I was again alive in the IRS view and that my account was unlocked, but still Frozen until an upper level manager could unfreeze it. Eventually on September 10, 2021 I got the notice that my refund check was being issued and I was to receive an extra $62 in interest for the delay. $62 interest on a large refund delayed over 17 months! The IRS was apparently not wanting to pay me interest on the time that their "System" considered me deceased. Using published data from the IRS I was able to calculate that the proper amount of interest for the size and lateness of my refund should have been about $400. I did get the check for the refund and the $62 in interest they calculated on Friday September 24, 2021. I have not yet cashed that check. We are still in discussions on the remaining interest I am owed.
Since the IRS has twice declared me deceased, although I was till paying withholding into my "Closed/Frozen" account, and I was never notified of this declaration, I think that ANY system changes at the IRS should be directed to just FIX THEIR DAMN SYSTEMS FIRST!
I still have no word on the status of my 2020 return filing, which I had to file on paper in March of 2021, since an attempt to file on-line informed me that I was still dead. This time I sent it with tracking and I have documentation that it was delivered.
Re: Socialism is grand (Score:2)
Unfortunately, your 100% right.
Re: No. (Score:2)
But then there is nothing to bribe people with when they try to get elected. Free handouts for all, isnâ(TM)t that how politicians get votes these days? Especially those on the left.