FYI, Treasury's threshold to track bank accounts has increased from $600 to $10,000. (links)

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,446
17,957
1

A few comments if I may...
  1. Banks could give too $hits about your "privacy concerns." The ABA uses the tagline to stir up consumer sentiment against the proposal. Why. Because the requirement will cost them whether it's $600 or $10,000. Moreover, the "rounding figures to the nearest $1,000" is a non sequitur. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans difference; in fact, the additional programming effort will cost banks money.
  2. We keep hearing the intent is to make the rich pay their "fair share." In actuality, it will force small businesses out-of-business. Either that or it will stimulate the black market and barter economy. I know businesses which offer a discount for paying cash. Why. Because small businesses must evade taxes in order to survive! So instead of capturing the elusive 50% the IRS will end up with nothing.
  3. How then will the IRS justify the additional manpower when collection efforts fail. Well, it's going to crawl up your @ss and mine with a microscope! The very people Yellen claims will be unaffected. I move $10,000 between accounts all the time and I'm just a W2 and 1099R working stiff.
  4. It's going to encourage more people to go unbanked.
  5. Small depository banks, particularly those in rural areas, are going to close.
  6. Lastly, how can we believe the government is not naturally mendacious when it makes statements such as these...
Banks already report interest income over $10 on Form 1099-INT; this proposal would add a few lines to that tax document.

Some of the initial outrage at the Treasury proposal was focused on the $600 threshold. Coming after a new requirement, effective last year, for online sellers to report more than $600 of income to the IRS, that low figure created the impression in some quarters that the government is out to get middle-income taxpayers for innocent mistakes. Taxpayers can be excused for thinking that.

“You really need to be keeping good books and records of your business transactions.” To ensure you don’t overpay on taxes for any type of self-employment income, Greene-Lewis recommends keeping a thorough record of all your expenses — including things like purchases for your home office or website, supplies, and mileage for driving related to your business. “Whether it’s monthly, every couple of weeks or every quarter, I would definitely recommend that you track your income and expenses instead of waiting until tax time.”


Let's go after the gig workers.

Red Flag for Audit! Come down to your local IRS office. And be sure to bring a $hitload of paperwork because we have some questions for you.

Supporters of the proposal note that it doesn't actually require any new taxes — it merely allows the IRS to enforce the existing law. "We are all supposed to pay income taxes on our income," said Steve Wamhoff, director of federal tax policy at the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. "This idea that you have some sort of right to not tell the IRS about income you have — there is no such right. That doesn't exist."

You want to get existential on me. Then whatever happened to government by consent of the governed?! They act like we owe our existence to them rather than vice versa.

No, I'm afraid Yellen doesn't have a truth-telling style when it comes to government overreach.

I have income tax records going back to 1993. I suggest you do the same because a game of 20 questions is on its way.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,446
17,957
1
You know it's a bad proposal when even Democrats feel the heat

$600? Good riddance. Even $10k is dumb since those truly trying to dodge taxes will find a way around it.

Yep. Can't write a law without a loophole, right. This new rule will only prove onerous for those who already comply. Everyone else goes black market or hires more tax lawyers if they can afford it. Who gets squeezed. We do!
 

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,446
17,957
1
You do know that it's $10,000 per year, right?

I read $10,000 in total, not $10,000 per transaction. It will ensnare a boatload of people. But not to worry, it's just an "additional line" on your W2 or 1099X.

Red Flag! IRS Audit. Come on down for your appointment. And it will be an annual event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,328
36,244
1
It's still B.S. What business does the government have knowing my account balances? Financial institutions already report interest and dividend income as well as anything I sell.
 

BW Lion

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
5,213
6,399
1
It's still B.S. What business does the government have knowing my account balances? Financial institutions already report interest and dividend income as well as anything I sell.
It's "back door" means testing for......wait......wait.....wait......wait......SS Benefit Reductions/Eliminations. :cool:

The onus will soon be on an individual to prove they are eligible.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,328
36,244
1
It's "back door" means testing for......wait......wait.....wait......wait......SS Benefits Reductions/Eliminations. :cool:
There are already income related adjustments for Medicare. Some people pay $2k while others pay $6k. Some people pay virtually nothing because of add backs to SS.

Some people don't pay tax on SS benefits. Others pay 34%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues