General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBiden's Proposal to Empower IRS Rattles Banks
Bidens Proposal to Empower IRS Rattles Banks
October 11, 2021 at 8:42 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 68 Comments
https://politicalwire.com/2021/10/11/bidens-proposal-to-empower-irs-rattles-banks/
"SNIP.......
When the Biden administration looked for ways to pay for the presidents expansive social policy bill, it proposed raising revenue by cracking down on $7 trillion in unpaid taxes, mostly from wealthy Americans and businesses, the New York Times reports.
To help find those funds, the administration wants banks to give the Internal Revenue Service new details on their customers and provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600. That has sparked an uproar among banks and Republican lawmakers, who say giving the I.R.S. such power would be an enormous breach of privacy and government overreach.
.......SNIP"
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)or take out $600/year?
Is this idea from the "how to lose the next election" playbook?
applegrove
(118,880 posts)it is all getting?
harumph
(1,919 posts)have 600.00 annual deposits or withdrawals. This has got to be a typo in the NYtimes.
cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)one other change should though.
That change should be to include that all the names and social security numbers of every account holder must be reported to the IRS.
That would then give them the ability to look at people that try to hide their income by using accounts with multiple banks.
SharonAnn
(13,781 posts)cadoman
(792 posts)...and see if they're as easy-going about coughing up their info as you just were.
JohnQFunk
(411 posts)jimfields33
(16,071 posts)MichMan
(12,001 posts)jimfields33
(16,071 posts)overworked.
rockfordfile
(8,709 posts)questionseverything
(9,666 posts)Lotta expense to look at basically every checkbook
Hopefully Biden didnt really consider this
MichMan
(12,001 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Terrible idea. $600, wealthy? WTF?
joetheman
(1,450 posts)harumph
(1,919 posts)That's ridiculous. I'm sorry, that (if true) is so pathetically stupid - that you can just kiss the election goodbye.
Is the implication that $600.00 in deposits or withdrawals (Total annually) means you're suspect? They can just
fuck right off - it sound like a license for the IRS to go after average people - NOT THE WEALTHY.
Scarlet Begalas
(28 posts)The IRS "goes after" people that don't pay their taxes. I don't see why you would have a problem with that.
ZonkerHarris
(24,286 posts)msongs
(67,478 posts)MichMan
(12,001 posts)when it was passed in 2010. It caused much anger & criticism as soon as it was announced.
.
The same legislators that voted for it acted shocked that such a thing existed and voted quickly to repeal it just months later before it was to take effect.
That one only applied to business transactions and not every single person in the entire country. You would think they would have learned from their previous mistakes, but apparently not.
spooky3
(34,517 posts)deposited would be affected. That affects low and middle income earners, not the ultra rich.
The people paid under the table (like Derek Chauvins wife) would still have ways to evade taxation.
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)everyone's bank account? Literally almost everyone needs to have their bank accounts examined to see if the IRS can shake us down for even MORE money? That's bonkers, who came up with this? This idea needs to be taken out back, shot, buried, and never spoken of again.
MichMan
(12,001 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,573 posts)Not the point, obviously. My question is...if you don't have $600 of activity in your bank account in a year, why would you even have a bank account?
Fiendish Thingy
(15,696 posts)Not surprised the NYT didnt have the updated numbers- gotta keep the negative narrative going
Edit:
Heres the story with the revised amount.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-28/democrats-agree-to-10-000-limit-to-report-bank-accounts-to-irs
MichMan
(12,001 posts)Do you have a link to a reputable source stating it has been withdrawn and revised to $10K ?
Fiendish Thingy
(15,696 posts)MichMan
(12,001 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,696 posts)MichMan
(12,001 posts)It was undoubtedly the "negative narrative" that made them change it in the first place. Whomever came up with this in the first place needs to be fired
MichMan
(12,001 posts)Probably will mean the closing of many small community banks and credit unions as they won't be able to hire enough staff to comply with all the additional reporting requirements and will likely face punitive fines.
C Moon
(12,225 posts)in an attempt to destroy our economy, before Biden gets his way.
They may well bring us lower than the 1930's.
Hell, that's what the nazi assholes used to take over Germany.
As such, I'm watching the latest strange cancellations of Dallas, Texas airlines Southwest with great suspicion.
I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this before the midterms.
Demobrat
(9,030 posts)At least thats how I read it when I saw an article a few days ago.
Right now banks have to report transactions of $10,000+. Pretty sure hes considering lowering the amount to $600.
I could be wrong.
slightlv
(2,866 posts)$600+ deposits would not be unusual for a paycheck.
And a lot of withdrawals for that amount could easily be for rent, etc.
I can't help but think they left off a 0 on that number. That would make a heck of a lot more sense. $600 is average citizen... not wealthy or even middle class! Heck, even my husband's Social Security check beats that amount, and believe me, it's one of the lowest I've ever seen!
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)I'm OK with this. I have nothing to hide.
Demobrat
(9,030 posts)I pay my taxes. Banks are squawking because its more work for them, not because they care about their customers privacy or anything else.
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)Biden is actually openly advocating for and trying to implement a lot of very progressive policies.
DFW
(54,477 posts)They'll never have the manpower to check out all deposits and withdrawals starting that low. The very controls they are trying to put in place will be rendered impossible to implement due to the sheer volume of transactions they will have to monitor. They should raise the level so that the data they are provided with can actually be made useful in tracking down tax deadbeats. Checking on every time someone gets a $1878.34 Social Security check will only provide a smokescreen for the ones who are really trying to hide something. Small banks will be discouraged from offering retail banking, which is often the only thing, e.g. in the town where my sister lives, between working people having secure funds and keeping cash in the house after the check cashing agencies have taken out their outsized cut. The figure seems to me to be poorly thought out. As another poster mentioned above, a zero is missing.