What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Meanwhile, while we are distracted by the "pandemic"...

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
I sent a form letter sponsored by small banks of america to my senator. The bank is concerned about the excessive burden extra IRS reporting will create for them. I'm concerned as well, because extra reporting always causes extra paperwork for me as well.

My senator's response:

View attachment 539029

The full text of his response:



My Reply:



There can be no mistake that those in power intend to milk every last one of us for everything they can. Monetarily, it's already a negative sum game considering how many extra people will they have to hire to monitor the citizens to this degree: That alone will blow the budget for any meager amount they may be rubbing their hands together hoping to eek out of us.

They refuse to even consider reducing their spending, but instead scheme on ways to collect more in taxes. The plan will affect every single business and every single non-government employee.
Okay, I've just looked into this. It's not what I thought it was.

And just as a side note, the House Democrats have hacked this suggested new reporting requirement out of the Biden Administration's budget proposal. Biden is the one who is pushing this. With the House trying to kill it, may be dead in the water already.

So let me try to explain what this is about.

This is not a situation where your bank has to report to the IRS every time you move more than $600 in or out of your account. That's what I thought it was, but it is not.

The requirement is that your bank has to report the total amount of money you moved in or out of your account for the past year. They do not report individual transactions. So if you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece over the course of a year, they don't tell the IRS you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece. They tell the IRS you deposited $48,000 into your account over the past 12 months. They also report the total of how much you took out over the past 12 months.

This is an annual reporting requirement. This requirement applies to any account which has more than $600 in it, or has moved more than $600 in and out over the past 12 months.

Also, this requirement does not target 99 percent of us for auditing. It only targets those who earn more than $440,000.

Apparently, some rich people have found a way to cheat the tax system by continuously moving their money across several bank accounts in some kind of shell game.

Biden is going after the 1 percenters who are tax cheats.

The bank is still going to have to report your total transactions, too, but the IRS isn't going to audit you unless you are in the 1 percent.


Some links:


Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts.

"It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating," he said.

Marr said setting a low threshold of $600 would make it harder for tax dodgers to set up multiple accounts and avoid having the activity in those accounts reported to the IRS.



From the Treasury department: Investing in the IRS and Improving Tax Compliance

A key component of this initiative is the provision of a sustained, multi-year stream of funding. Altogether, the proposal directs roughly $80 billion to the IRS over a decade to fund an array of priorities—including overhauling technology to improve enforcement efforts, which is more effectively implemented with the assurance of a consistent funding stream. This investment will also facilitate the IRS hiring and training auditors to focus on complex investigations of large corporations, partnerships, and global high-wealth individuals. The President’s proposal directs that additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes, rather than Americans with actual income of less than $400,000.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
You don't think her age was a pre-existing condition and her real cause of death?
She was 64. Not 100.

Good god, man. How deep does your stupid go?
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
17,018
Reaction score
9,594
Points
1,140
Okay, I've just looked into this. It's not what I thought it was.

And just as a side note, the House Democrats have hacked this suggested new reporting requirement out of the Biden Administration's budget proposal. Biden is the one who is pushing this. With the House trying to kill it, may be dead in the water already.

So let me try to explain what this is about.

This is not a situation where your bank has to report to the IRS every time you move more than $600 in or out of your account. That's what I thought it was, but it is not.

The requirement is that your bank has to report the total amount of money you moved in or out of your account for the past year. They do not report individual transactions. So if you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece over the course of a year, they don't tell the IRS you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece. They tell the IRS you deposited $48,000 into your account over the past 12 months. They also report the total of how much you took out over the past 12 months.

This is an annual reporting requirement. This requirement applies to any account which has more than $600 in it, or has moved more than $600 in and out over the past 12 months.

Also, this requirement does not target 99 percent of us for auditing. It only targets those who earn more than $440,000.

Apparently, some rich people have found a way to cheat the tax system by continuously moving their money across several bank accounts in some kind of shell game.

Biden is going after the 1 percenters who are tax cheats.

The bank is still going to have to report your total transactions, too, but the IRS isn't going to audit you unless you are in the 1 percent.


Some links:


Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts.

"It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating," he said.

Marr said setting a low threshold of $600 would make it harder for tax dodgers to set up multiple accounts and avoid having the activity in those accounts reported to the IRS.



From the Treasury department: Investing in the IRS and Improving Tax Compliance

A key component of this initiative is the provision of a sustained, multi-year stream of funding. Altogether, the proposal directs roughly $80 billion to the IRS over a decade to fund an array of priorities—including overhauling technology to improve enforcement efforts, which is more effectively implemented with the assurance of a consistent funding stream. This investment will also facilitate the IRS hiring and training auditors to focus on complex investigations of large corporations, partnerships, and global high-wealth individuals. The President’s proposal directs that additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes, rather than Americans with actual income of less than $400,000.
You're doing pretty good tonight.:D
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
Okay, I've just looked into this. It's not what I thought it was.

And just as a side note, the House Democrats have hacked this suggested new reporting requirement out of the Biden Administration's budget proposal. Biden is the one who is pushing this. With the House trying to kill it, may be dead in the water already.

So let me try to explain what this is about.

This is not a situation where your bank has to report to the IRS every time you move more than $600 in or out of your account. That's what I thought it was, but it is not.

The requirement is that your bank has to report the total amount of money you moved in or out of your account for the past year. They do not report individual transactions. So if you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece over the course of a year, they don't tell the IRS you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece. They tell the IRS you deposited $48,000 into your account over the past 12 months. They also report the total of how much you took out over the past 12 months.

This is an annual reporting requirement. This requirement applies to any account which has more than $600 in it, or has moved more than $600 in and out over the past 12 months.

Also, this requirement does not target 99 percent of us for auditing. It only targets those who earn more than $440,000.

Apparently, some rich people have found a way to cheat the tax system by continuously moving their money across several bank accounts in some kind of shell game.

Biden is going after the 1 percenters who are tax cheats.

The bank is still going to have to report your total transactions, too, but the IRS isn't going to audit you unless you are in the 1 percent.


Some links:


Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts.

"It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating," he said.

Marr said setting a low threshold of $600 would make it harder for tax dodgers to set up multiple accounts and avoid having the activity in those accounts reported to the IRS.



From the Treasury department: Investing in the IRS and Improving Tax Compliance

A key component of this initiative is the provision of a sustained, multi-year stream of funding. Altogether, the proposal directs roughly $80 billion to the IRS over a decade to fund an array of priorities—including overhauling technology to improve enforcement efforts, which is more effectively implemented with the assurance of a consistent funding stream. This investment will also facilitate the IRS hiring and training auditors to focus on complex investigations of large corporations, partnerships, and global high-wealth individuals. The President’s proposal directs that additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes, rather than Americans with actual income of less than $400,000.

I hope you are correct and they shut that down ($600 per check reporting). Besides, even a SMALL business owner has to move at least a quarter million through the banks if they want to be viable at all.

I can't imagine having to answer to every piddly little $600 check that got auto-paid or my secretary wrote. The burden would be to the point where whole departments of people at the small bank AND at the small business would have to be hired and funded through that small business...At least if they wanted to run their operation above the table like most do. If it did go through, it would drive more and more businesses either under the table or bankrupt.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
I hope you are correct and they shut that down ($600 per check reporting). Besides, even a SMALL business owner has to move at least a quarter million through the banks if they want to be viable at all.

I can't imagine having to answer to every piddly little $600 check that got auto-paid or my secretary wrote. The burden would be to the point where whole departments of people at the small bank AND at the small business would have to be hired and funded through that small business...At least if they wanted to run their operation above the table like most do. If it did go through, it would drive more and more businesses either under the table or bankrupt.
The banks already have a $10,000 reporting requirement. They would probably have some geek in their IT department open up the existing reporting software and tweak it to $600.

That would ensnare a whole lot more accounts though. A shitload more.

As for the House: Yellen, IRS Push Democrats to Require Banks to Report Taxpayers’ Annual Account Flows

House Democrats didn’t include a bank account reporting provision in their tax bill, declining for now to adopt a Biden administration proposal.


Sorry. I should have included that in my previous post.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
20,732
Reaction score
4,181
Points
290
Location
Washington State
Okay, I've just looked into this. It's not what I thought it was.

And just as a side note, the House Democrats have hacked this suggested new reporting requirement out of the Biden Administration's budget proposal. Biden is the one who is pushing this. With the House trying to kill it, may be dead in the water already.

So let me try to explain what this is about.

This is not a situation where your bank has to report to the IRS every time you move more than $600 in or out of your account. That's what I thought it was, but it is not.

The requirement is that your bank has to report the total amount of money you moved in or out of your account for the past year. They do not report individual transactions. So if you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece over the course of a year, they don't tell the IRS you deposited 24 paychecks of $2000 apiece. They tell the IRS you deposited $48,000 into your account over the past 12 months. They also report the total of how much you took out over the past 12 months.

This is an annual reporting requirement. This requirement applies to any account which has more than $600 in it, or has moved more than $600 in and out over the past 12 months.

Also, this requirement does not target 99 percent of us for auditing. It only targets those who earn more than $440,000.

Apparently, some rich people have found a way to cheat the tax system by continuously moving their money across several bank accounts in some kind of shell game.

Biden is going after the 1 percenters who are tax cheats.

The bank is still going to have to report your total transactions, too, but the IRS isn't going to audit you unless you are in the 1 percent.


Some links:


Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts.

"It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating," he said.

Marr said setting a low threshold of $600 would make it harder for tax dodgers to set up multiple accounts and avoid having the activity in those accounts reported to the IRS.



From the Treasury department: Investing in the IRS and Improving Tax Compliance

A key component of this initiative is the provision of a sustained, multi-year stream of funding. Altogether, the proposal directs roughly $80 billion to the IRS over a decade to fund an array of priorities—including overhauling technology to improve enforcement efforts, which is more effectively implemented with the assurance of a consistent funding stream. This investment will also facilitate the IRS hiring and training auditors to focus on complex investigations of large corporations, partnerships, and global high-wealth individuals. The President’s proposal directs that additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes, rather than Americans with actual income of less than $400,000.
Thank you for the legwork here. I did not do my own due diligence and I should have.
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
The banks already have a $10,000 reporting requirement. They would probably have some geek in their IT department open up the existing reporting software and tweak it to $600.

Well, ok. That's great great. Now multiply that times 50,000 customers. Hmm, hold on, more like 500,000 customers for a small bank hoping to expand. Oh, wait, what? Now the Fed wants more details on a certain account? Or...10 percent of the business owners want a duplicate to double check something and it has to be notarized for court evidence?

Na. Having to detail each $600 transaction or over would GRIND just about any bank or business to a FULL STOP.
That would ensnare a whole lot more accounts though. A shitload more.

As for the House: Yellen, IRS Push Democrats to Require Banks to Report Taxpayers’ Annual Account Flows

House Democrats didn’t include a bank account reporting provision in their tax bill, declining for now to adopt a Biden administration proposal.


Sorry. I should have included that in my previous post.

Let me guess: g5000 works for the state?
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
Thank you for the legwork here. I did not do my own due diligence and I should have.
You better keep digging, the only legwork I see is more like "oh, quick! look over there! it's a rabbit"
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
20,732
Reaction score
4,181
Points
290
Location
Washington State
You better keep digging, the only legwork I see is more like "oh, quick! look over there! it's a rabbit"
I see at least one fundamental distinction that is a huge deal. The OP makes the claim that this is a per transaction thing when it seems that it is an annual reporting requirement not of individual transactions but just total amount of activity. That makes a massive difference and makes it even less intrusive than the 10,000 requirement that already exists. While I would not necessarily say I agree with the collection of that data, it is far less alarming than if they were tracking all transactions themselves.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
Well, ok. That's great great. Now multiply that times 50,000 customers. Hmm, hold on, more like 500,000 customers for a small bank hoping to expand. Oh, wait, what? Now the Fed wants more details on a certain account? Or...10 percent of the business owners want a duplicate to double check something and it has to be notarized for court evidence?

Na. Having to detail each $600 transaction or over would GRIND just about any bank or business to a FULL STOP.
Did I not say in the very next sentence, "That would ensnare a whole lot more accounts though. A shitload more."?

What is your problem, Sam?!?


Let me guess: g5000 works for the state?
:auiqs.jpg:

It's fun watching you tards manufacture bullshit in real time. You never seem to tire of it. Very Trump-like.
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
I see at least one fundamental distinction that is a huge deal. The OP makes the claim that this is a per transaction thing when it seems that it is an annual reporting requirement not of individual transactions but just total amount of activity. That makes a massive difference and makes it even less intrusive than the 10,000 requirement that already exists. While I would not necessarily say I agree with the collection of that data, it is far less alarming than if they were tracking all transactions themselves.
Wow. 37 posts in 2 days, FA_Q2. Is that a record?

Seriously. I don't know what you do for work (I'm guessing not running a business), but this proposed requirement is ridiculous. I hope they don't really go through with it, but it sounds like the socialists in charge are taking it seriously. Even though they will loose money in the process...It's all about control to them.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
You better keep digging, the only legwork I see is more like "oh, quick! look over there! it's a rabbit"
I gave you the links, fucktard. No red herrings.

Tell me where I was wrong. I'll wait here, you ungrateful little bitch.

You know, you made an honest mistake. I held nothing against you for it. I even admitted to making an erroneous assumption myself, which is precisely why I looked into it to make sure I was not in error. I try to be very diligent in investigating my assumptions.

That's what honesty and integrity are about.
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
I gave you the links, fucktard. No red herrings.

Tell me where I was wrong. I'll wait here, you ungrateful little bitch.

You know, you made an honest mistake. I held nothing against you for it. I even admitted to making an erroneous assumption myself, which is precisely why I looked into it to make sure I was not in error. I try to be very diligent in investigating my assumptions.

That's what honesty and integrity are about.
Jesus. Good example of why I quit drinking, right there.

The treatment is easy. Just stop.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
Jesus. Good example of why I quit drinking, right there.

The treatment is easy. Just stop.
Where was I wrong, dipshit?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
Jesus. Good example of why I quit drinking, right there.

The treatment is easy. Just stop.
I thought recovering alcholics lived by the credo "To thine own self be true" and when they are wrong, promptly admit it.
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
I thought recovering alcholics lived by the credo "To thine own self be true" and when they are wrong, promptly admit it.
Wouldn't know. I've never been an alcoholic.

You might be correct in your posts, links and whatnot. I can't say you are wrong. Does that help?

All I know is I don't like what I'm seeing going on with our federal government. Too many things are not adding up, with what little information we get.

It's beyond a "Democrat" or "Republican" thing. It should be concerning to all who live here and are forced to follow what the federal politicians say. Our government clearly does not trust the people. Why should the people trust the government?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
Wouldn't know. I've never been an alcoholic.

You might be correct in your posts, links and whatnot. I can't say you are wrong. Does that help?

All I know is I don't like what I'm seeing going on with our federal government. Too many things are not adding up, with what little information we get.

It's beyond a "Democrat" or "Republican" thing. It should be concerning to all who live here and are forced to follow what the federal politicians say. Our government clearly does not trust the people. Why should the people trust the government?
I trust the federal government about as far as I can throw Trump.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
This new proposed reporting requirement is intended to catch rich tax cheats.

Ronald Reagan used to frequently say that high taxes incentivize cheating.

We could easily solve that problem. First, eliminate tax expenditures, with the possible exception of the EITC. The EITC is probably the only tax expenditure which has been proven to increase productivity.

Next, decrease taxes on productivity and replace them with taxes on consumption. That's why I favor the Fair Tax. We should eliminate income taxes altogether and replace them with the Fair Tax.

You can't cheat the Fair Tax. It is way too easy to cheat the income tax.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,158
Reaction score
17,930
Points
2,180
You might be correct in your posts, links and whatnot. I can't say you are wrong. Does that help?
Yes, thank you. Not a lot of people would do what you just did. That means a lot to me.

I am sorry I lost my temper. I haven't slept in three days. I am having the worst insomnia in decades.
 
OP
Samofvt

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Reaction score
235
Points
168
Yes, thank you. Not a lot of people would do what you just did. That means a lot to me.

I am sorry I lost my temper. I haven't slept in three days. I am having the worst insomnia in decades.
Melatonin. At least 15 mg. Some people need double that ;-) Available at your local Walgreens or Kinney's. It's non-habit forming and over the counter. Also aids in immunity, so some of them say. IDK.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top