Biden admin backs down on tracking bank accounts with over $600 annual transactions

On the heels of the previous thread by Alphabetaone that touched on the topic, it really DOES seem like Joe thinks he can't lose enough. Let alone fast enough.

So, the gist of it is this:

The IRS would collect the total sum of deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts with more than $10,000 in non-payroll income.

Linky-dink

Sounds like a win, yeah? No more $600 in total inflow & outflow transactions reporting threshold!

Except, most folks are still doling out more than $10k annually for rent or mortgages. For example, our annual rent cost? Clears that $10 threshold in a snap.

"Ok, so what's your point, Nyiah? It says non-payroll income, duh, doesn't apply!"

AH-AH! Hold up.

We aren't the only normies out there with two bank accounts -- a credit union for debit purchases, and a traditional bank for bills & rent checks. In other words, one account will be golden as the income deposited in it is exempt, but the other one would be under scrutiny because of the transferring -- didn't end up in the traditional bank via a paycheck deposit, now did it?


I'm betting because people will see the mention of the paycheck exemption & assume their account(s) will remain unmolested by the IRS, that this as how they're going to try to ram it down our throats -- folks that either didn't combine their finances & thus consolidate accounts with the spouse, and people like us who have two of them to keep the disposable money & bill money totally separate slip through those canyon-sized cracks. This basically amounts to being punished for being responsible with your paycheck.

a reply to: Nyiah

I'm all for tax cheats paying their taxes since I have to pay mine however the stat that I saw recently shows the average citizen (based on a progressive earnings level) is about 90% tax-compliant which means most of the fraud happens at much higher earnings levels or on the corporate side.

That means digging in to your average person's banking habits will not yield an inordinate amount of lost revenue.

a reply to: Nyiah

If you're not cheatin', you're not tryin'.

Doesn't the Banks report $10,000 transactions anyway ?

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

This is about monitoring all transactions in accounts with a deminmis $10,000.

a reply to: Nyiah

I didn't need another reason to go straight to the Casino after
cashing my check. But if it can shore up my story I'm sure to
abuse it.

This is a violation of the 4th Amendment and any member of Congress who votes for this is in direct violation of the Insurrection Act.

For anyone to think that banks aren't running analytics on your transactions and reporting potentially fraudulent / illegal activity is naïve. My old boss had family in Israel and frequently wired them money...everything above board, just helping out with their living expenses. His transfers were frequently scrutinized.

In the context of big data, even at $600 wouldn't have been a significant volume of transactions and most banks are already likely using info like this for marketing purposes.

I suppose you could simply have multiple accounts used for non-payroll transactions in order to keep each under the 10k limit, but why bother. If you're running a side business, the tax advantages and write-offs will potentially exceed any tax liability anyway.

originally posted by: peter_kandra
For anyone to think that banks aren't running analytics on your transactions and reporting potentially fraudulent / illegal activity is naïve.

Correct. We work with all the major acquirers and issuers and their algorithms are far ahead of what the public sector (government) uses. What this does is compel them to share what data they have on a much lower transaction threshold.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly, it's people that make a butt load of money that don't pay. Now I'm all for claiming everything that is legal under the tax code and taking exemptions, but actively hiding income to avoid paying what you owe is another matter.

Also I can think of quite a few on up on the Hill that need to have every Transaction, Check, Donation, scrutinized by the IRS. I bet they would find a lot more tax dollars there.

originally posted by: TomCollin
Also I can think of quite a few on up on the Hill that need to have every Transaction, Check, Donation, scrutinized by the IRS. I bet they would find a lot more tax dollars there.

Since most of them are wealthy I would agree, that's usually where the vast amount of tax fraud comes from, people who have the resources to actively cheat the system. Average Joe American does not make enough to circumvent much in the way of taxes nor has the ability to pay others to funnel money away from being scrutinized.

Rent and house payments will soon become taxable I'm betting on. You'll have to report who you pay to just incase they don't report the income.

originally posted by: mikell
Rent and house payments will soon become taxable I'm betting on.

Huh? Landlords/property owners receiving rent payments are already considered to be getting taxable income.

They'll enact it, it'll pass and become law. It will be challenged and the SC will uphold it.

The Constitution works!

/sarc

a reply to: Nyiah

I knew that it was going to be many ways to keep tracking Americans incomes by the federal government, is all a lie, is always a way, what I wonder is why the need to track people money, regular people barely can keep their earnings in the bank after pay checks, due to bills and expenses.

Socialism is been pushed anyway the Fascist government can do it,

We need to clean this mother feckers out of the white house, their agenda was to take the government, screw the nation, kill the American dreams and install socialism but only but the population not for the ruling class.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That means digging in to your average person's banking habits will not yield an inordinate amount of lost revenue.

I propose they couldn’t give a rats ass about recovering revenue, probably a more nefarious reason behind this linked to the great reset.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
I propose they couldn’t give a rats ass about recovering revenue, probably a more nefarious reason behind this linked to the great reset.

I'm not someone who buys into that theory.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It doesn’t matter wether you do or not, the head of the WEF wrote a book on it. It’s all part of agenda 21/30. The world economy is # CBDC’s are coming and all transactions will be monitored and controlled in the resource based economy.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Monitoring banking activity has nothing to do with a 'reset'.

Big Red Herring from Democrats because the IRS already can monitor bank accounts and they already have their "specifics" lists of tax cheats.

It's easy to get court orders.

Plus that, anybody handling "taxable" dark income is already using cash and currency and gems 🎃