October 20, 2021

"The initial version of the Democrats’ proposal would have required financial institutions to provide the IRS with two new figures every year..."

"... the total inflows and outflows for any bank account with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals, 'with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner.' The requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts at financial institutions. After Republicans raised concerns that the $600 minimum would sweep up almost all Americans, Democrats raised the proposed threshold to $10,000.... Republican senators including Crapo and Kennedy claimed that under the Democrats’ tax enforcement plan, the IRS would be snooping on the sensitive financial details contained in Americans’ bank records. The burden of proof is on the speaker, as we like to remind our readers, but in this case, no proof was supplied. In reality, the proposal is to monitor the total amount of money going in and out of any bank account with more than $10,000 of transactions in a given year, not the blow-by-blow of where and when people spend their money. And just before this GOP news conference, Democrats had curtailed their proposal to cover fewer Americans and to exempt all wages and federal benefits from the new requirements. These claims earn Three Pinocchios."

From "No, Biden isn’t proposing that the IRS spy on bank records" by WaPo Fact Checker Salvador Rizzo.

I don't see how you get "Pinocchios" when your criticism is undermined by causing your adversary to change their proposal! And I don't see why you get "Pinocchios" for failing to supply proof. The Fact Checker ought to come up with proof that the statement-makers knowingly said something false before assigning all those "Pinocchios." 

By the way, that headline screams partisan politics. When I clicked on that headline, I didn't think I was going to end up at a Fact Checker column. But they got my click, and I'm sure they got lots of other clicks, so I should expect more of this sort of thing in the future.

73 comments:

Dave Begley said...

Just leave us alone.

Tom said...

Maybe the fact checkers are complete bullshit. That’s my current assumption and the burden of proof is on the fact checker to prove to me they’re unbiased.

Achilles said...

Democrats are going full Nazi.

Corporate/Government alliances to deny livelihoods is straight out of 1930's Germany.

Prepare yourselves. The shelves are going to be empty in 2 months. Especially in Blue Urban areas.

There is a very high likelihood it will be hard to find food in supermarkets. Inflation is going to be astronomical.

Firing large percentages of a workforce is a bad way to start a winter.

Enigma said...

Yes. We now have a fact-checker bias chart!

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fact-check-bias-chart

Temujin said...

The bill would allow the IRS (and through them- every single entity in the Leviathan that is our Government) to examine your bank account if it accrues $10,000 over the course of a year. That's a nothing amount and would mean virtually anyone with a bank account is going to be monitored.

Is this the free nation we had just 10 years ago?

Why are people on the Left so fearful of living in freedom?
Why are they always so willing to turn over their lives to some monstrous bureaucratic machine? Why is that comforting to people on the Left and why is their own individual freedom such a burden for them?

This cannot stand. Nothing the Democrats are serving up should stand. And if they push this, they are pushing us closer to a massive pushback against this overbearing Government. They have grown too large, taken on far more than they are directed to do in our Constitution. What cannot go on will not go on.

Kai Akker said...

Facts aside.....

It seems very unfair for the Guvmint to require our banks to do all this extra reporting on inflows, outflows. Even though it would only cover the tiny fraction of the population who make more than $600 of withdrawals or deposits annually.

Why this concern for the top 1% or OK, 2 or 3%, whatever it might be?

What's wrong with requiring each individual taxpayer to supply these figures? That's much fairer and more reliable. If you have that kind of wealth, it should be your pleasure to track data for the Guvmint. I mean, remember, we ARE the Guvmint. Let's do our fair share. And of course do not omit the requirement to do all compilation and reporting with face mask on. Appropriate face mask.

Sebastian said...

"I don't see how you . . . I don't see why . . ."

Applies to all lefty rhetoric, doesn't it? You may not see how or why, but logic and good sense have nothing to do with it.

Mike Sylwester said...

Democracy Dies in Darkness!

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I don't see how you get "Pinocchios" when your criticism is undermined by causing your adversary to change their proposal! And I don't see why you get "Pinocchios" for failing to supply proof.

You're obviously not a media hack who's also a DemocRAT party operative.

s'opihjerdt said...

The most important part of a fact checker's job is deciding which facts should be kept in check.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Yep and the “reasons” explicated by Jan Yellen and Jen Psycho-Psaki made zero sense too— yet no factcheck for them!

gilbar said...

any bank account with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals,
Then Democrats raised the proposed threshold to $10,000....


Serious Question
Do any of you have direct deposit for your salary ? (Or, for that matter, Don't?
What happens to your paychecks? Deposited, Right? Then you right checks for your bills?
How many people in the United States, made MORE THAN $10,000 last year?
Did you?

Upshot, they wanted ALL Info, on ALL Americans; and then (later) changed it

Clyde said...

Is that any total of transactions that add up to $10,000? Because if you have direct deposit to your bank account, that almost certainly would include pretty much any American with a job, or even on Social Security. If it's transactions of $10,000 or more to trigger the policy, that would would affect a lot fewer people, but it certainly sounds like it's the former, and that means just about every American with a bank account will be spied on by the IRS, which would certainly seem to violate the Fourth Amendment.

rehajm said...

Jesus, where have you been? Fact checking columns do not exist to check facts…

Yancey Ward said...

The fact check is just an obfuscation of the orginal plan. The two new figures would have been required for 99+% of bank accounts given the thresholds, and the IRS can request the actual individual transactions themselves any time they choose if the totals can theoretically meet the statutory $10,000 for suspected cash transactions- they don't even need a court order for this.

Skeptical Voter said...

At the WaPoo you get Pinocchios by the score if you challenge the left.

Narayanan said...

so Republicans did not object to this provision on grounds of making IRS intrusive ! only how deep can the probe intrude

ReadDude said...

Just about anyone over the age of 18 will run $10K through their accounts in a year. The real concern I have with process is that it risks becoming the basis for a new form of civil forfeiture laws to steal people's money without due process. Structuring will be a thing here too.

MSB said...

Isn’t $10,000 annual inflow or outflow still capturing the vast majority of those who use bank accounts to deposit their earning? Full time 2080 hours at $8.25 an hour equals $17,160 annually.
MSB

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The business of arguing about Pinocchios instead of whether a proposal is good or bad policy misses the point.

For IRA accounts, the IRS already gets annual reports from your financial institution showing distributions, contributions, and year end account balances. Form 1098 reports how much interest you paid and your outstanding principal balance each year. Why not extend that level of scrutiny to other types of accounts? As far as privacy goes, the vast majority of us are already having our financial inflows reported to the IRS on W-2s and 1099s. And bank records aren’t entirely private, they are already subject to civil summons.

What types of tax cheats are they looking for? I noticed a new question on the Form 1040 this year, “At any time during 2020, did you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?” If you did not answer that question truthfully, you may find this new proposal uncomfortable, to say the least. It doesn’t worry me.

Narr said...

I recall reading, back in the '80s, a couple of books by a guy who had sussed out that what we really have is "Socialism for the Rich." That is, the system was structured to steer profits to private hands and debts to the public. Things like big sports arenas that make a few rich people richer and saddle the taxpayers with the costs.

Anyway, one of the things he reported was that even back then the banks were required to report transactions of more than $10k to the IRS. Sounded like a fair thing, given all the money laundering etc, and only affected rich people, right?

Oh hellll no. Because of the expense to the bank to sort the little from the big, they just sent the Feds everything.

Maybe he was merely anticipating, but I don't think so.

And as Prof has said many times, anyone who exists on the grid has given up almost all their privacy anyway.

PB said...

The proposal is intrusive enough that the IRS will get this information on most every american with a bank account. They're going to be computer-generating a lot of letters demanding payment for unreported income that isn't income, but the onus will be on the taxpayer to prove it's not income. this in no way can be considered an attempt to get millionaires and billionaires to come clean, and those people are already on the IRS radar.

What comes next is Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) where the government outlaws physical money and all crypto currency. This will enable the government to monitor your every transaction. It will be ripe for abuse and political pressure on individuals conducting transactions that aren't "favored". You buy guns and ammo? Maybe they'll red-flag you. Buy alcohol or tobacco products? They'll knoww.

This, also, is not about getting millionaires and billionaires to pay more, but to put the squeeze on individuals and exert control over their daily lives.

Quaestor said...

Salvador Rizzo ain't walkin' here. He's slithering, just like all the other wannabe reptilian overlords scribbling for the Democrats via The Washington Post.

Lance said...

“The IRS would have no way to monitor individuals’ transactions,” she said in an email. “Moreover, the modified proposal from Senate Democrats would exempt W-2 wages and federal benefits from the $10,000 threshold. (So for example, an account holder with $50,000 in wages but less than $10,000 in other types of deposits would not be covered.)”

That makes no sense. Do they expect each financial institution, from the biggest retail banks to the smallest credit unions, to distinguish wages and federal benefits from all other deposits? How can the IRS know it's accurate if they're not looking at individual transactions?

Big Mike said...

Has Janet Yellen or anyone else explained why in the Hell they need this information?

Jake said...

Yeah. It’s not a false statement. What bank account won’t be required to be reported even if it’s 10k? Moreover this is another regulation that will screw small institutions that don’t have massive compliance departments. To me it sure seems like spying so I could care less what the WP says about it. I think most people would agree regardless of whether individual transactions are not disclosed. Why is it the fed’s right to know how much comes in or out of someone’s bank account? Fuck big brother.

Critter said...

This fact checker is a good example of responding not to the criticism of the proposal but to a straw man of the criticism that is easy to skewer. Of course the proposal violates Americans' privacy. If they have their hands on aggregate inflows and outflows in your account, they know a LOT about you. They claim this is just to find illegal activities (drugs, etc.) that show large amounts of money flowing through accounts versus low incomes reported on taxes. But this jokiest shows how the banking information is intended to be run against our taxes, which further invades privacy. Add to that, if the target is drug dealers of large amounts of drugs, why on earth do you need a threshold of $600 or $10,000. Shouldn't they use a threshold of say $1 million? The proposal is just another example of how the government tries to trick us into accepting ever greater government control over our lives.

If they are so concerned about losing tax money because of illegal activities, why aren't they tracking those involved in illegal activities and doing a better job of it? And if they are concerned about losing money at the federal government level, why aren't they focused on the HUGE levels of fraud in Medicare/Medicaid, welfare and related government programs? Answer: bank accounts are for those with some independence from the government. Those receiving money from the government are already uinmder their control.

Big Mike said...

By the way, that headline screams partisan politics.

@Althouse, so you discovered that the Washington Post does partisan politics? Well bless your heart.

cubanbob said...

There is not legitimate reason for this proposal. What is the compelling state interest? Spending one's own money is in of itself lawful. The purchase may be unlawful but that is for the government to have probable cause to investigate. The current law is that depositing $10,000 in cash or more in one transaction is reportable to the IRS along with the depositor reporting the deposit. The current law also requires that any single transaction of ten thousand dollars in cash has to be reported. This in itself should be abolished. If the government has specific reason to think someone is involved in an economic crime it should get a warrant. Incidentally why in this Democrat proposal are government funding to individuals exempt? Welfare funds and public pensions are just as good as non welfare funds for criminal transactions. Let's go Brandon!

Rabel said...

Exempting wage and SS inflow does nothing if outflow will also trigger a report.

Amadeus 48 said...

"I don't see how you get 'Pinocchios' when your criticism is undermined by causing your adversary to change their proposal! And I don't see why you get 'Pinocchios' for failing to supply proof."

But you are not a political hack. If you were, it would all be clear, I am sure.

rehajm said...

In a sense, they could be correct- Biden isn't proposing the IRS spy on bank records. The IRS is there as the agent to collect the bank records for the gamut of other alphabet agencies to utilize to spy on Americans, specifically conservatives.

We know these agencies want to intimidate and shut down cash flows to political opponents- see the Obama administration. Since lefties don't completely own the courts they want legality so it won't impede their agenda.

tim maguire said...

"No, Biden isn’t proposing that the IRS spy on bank records, he's merely proposing that the IRS monitor most people's bank transactions, which is totally different"

Drago said...

"I don't see how you get "Pinocchios" when your criticism is undermined by causing your adversary to change their proposal! And I don't see why you get "Pinocchios" for failing to supply proof. The Fact Checker ought to come up with proof that the statement-makers knowingly said something false before assigning all those "Pinocchios."'

Because all of these far left/leftist/democratical "fact checkers" are the equivalent of our LLR's and are happy to lie about republicans/conservatives to advance the dem agenda.

Drago said...

Temujin: "The bill would allow the IRS (and through them- every single entity in the Leviathan that is our Government) to examine your bank account if it accrues $10,000 over the course of a year. That's a nothing amount and would mean virtually anyone with a bank account is going to be monitored.

Is this the free nation we had just 10 years ago?"

Just yesterday, yesterday, our very own pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck informed us that we needed to rid ourselves of quaint and weird notions of "individual liberty" in order to better serve the democratical run state.

It was clear he believes total capitulation to the dems is the way to "conserve conservatism".

DanTheMan said...

2+2=4

Three Pinocchios for me, as I did not supply any proof.

Misinforminimalism said...

The Party of the Little Guy sics the IRS on every waitress in the country who's dumb enough to put her tips in a bank. Nice.

Buy bitcoin (with the money you have left over after buying guns and ammo).

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

No monitoring. The only acceptable monitoring is monitoring congressional bank accounts. All of them. And their slimy children's bank accounts, too.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

No monitoring. The only acceptable monitoring is monitoring congressional bank accounts. All of them. And their slimy children's bank accounts, too.

Rabel said...

For the first time ever, I deliberately, intentionally and un-patriotically cheated on my income taxes this year.

Please tell us more said the federal man.

OK. If you receive an interest payment which is less than $10.00 your financial institution is not required to send a 1099 to either you or the IRS - but you still owe tax on the money.

I did not report my $6.00 interest payment from my Credit Union.

Last year I got a similar amount, but, not having a 1099, I reported it based on my year-end CU statement - because I believe in truth, justice and the American way and because I did not know then that the CU did not report it the the feds.

I know that now and used the lack of a 1099 an an excuse to cheat.

So come and get me, Joe.

PS - I will not tell you how much money you have to have in my CU share account to earn $6.00 in annual interest because you would think even less of me than you do now for being such a sucker.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Is it any wonder they (democrats and their hacks in the press) make up fake stories about Russian collusion?

The democrats are the new Soviets.

rhhardin said...

I buy everything from Amazon, they could just ask them.

Douglas B. Levene said...

The Democrats know they screwed the pooch with their initial proposal and so they are a mite sensitive to criticism of it, as demonstrated by Rizzo’s column.

Aggie said...

I'm sure the IRS will take on this additional work without any behavioral biases, without any thoughts of snooping, and without requiring a single additional bureaucrat appointed on the basis of their partisan affiliations.

Nearly anybody that pays bills is going to fall within the scope of these changes. The only people that won't are those who are already on the Federal Teat, buying their groceries with SNAP cards instead of bank debit cards, and paying their rent by proxy from Federal Housing allowances. The Feds won't need to monitor them, because they already know.

It's a disgusting over-reach and I'm sure we can count on Republicans to moan about 'muh Constitutional Rights' while just enough of them vote 'Yes' to get it passed.

cfs said...

Everything the government does has unintended consequences. Then they asked, "who would have thought THAT would happen?" However, people will find another way to manage their money. Yes, their paycheck may be direct-deposited (I believe they now say a paycheck or SS check will not be included in the $10,000 amount--but in order to determine that, they will still have to snoop), but people will find other ways to handle the rest of their money. Sell grandma's old buffet? Demand cash and use it to buy a money order to pay your light bill. Make $100 for repairing your neighbor's deck? Same thing.

This will reduce the amount of money deposited in the banks which will reduce the viability of those banks. Then, there will have to be a bank bail-out.

The destruction continues on schedule! Build Back Better!

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Althouse, the slowest red pill injestion in history. Will she ever manage to complete the dosage???

Brian said...

This measure is designed to capture unreported income. The "cash" heavy businesses, (restaurants, laundromats, contractors, etc.). The exemption for "wage income" is the tell. They already have that info from W-2 statements. If your depositing enough money in your account every year they want to know where your getting it.

This is designed to capture the "off-book" transactions.

I just don't see how it will work, unless at some point the IRS assumes money you deposit in your account is income and requires you to pay taxes on it.

One example of a problematic transaction? You bought a gold watch 10 years ago for $50,000. You sell it today for cash for $50,000. No gain so you don't own capital gains taxes. You don't want to keep $50,000 in your mattress so you deposit it in your bank account. Your bank records the transaction and sends the info to the IRS. The IRS thinks you made income, and comes back, saying prove you sold something (and what you sold it for!) or you owe us 22% Fed income tax on the 50k (and self employment tax, etc).

Or how about a parent gives their adult child $2,000 a month for living expenses. It will show as a $24,000 transfer to the child, the child will show a $24,000 deposit. Is it a gift? Gift tax. Is it income? Income tax.

Win over 10k gambling outside of a casino environment? Better find a reason for the sudden windfall.

Kai Akker said...

---This, also, is not about getting millionaires and billionaires to pay more, but to put the squeeze on individuals and exert control over their daily lives.

PB, noooo. Left Bank says it's fine with him or her. Get wit the program!

Kai Akker said...

---Has Janet Yellen or anyone else explained why in the Hell they need this information?

Of course, Big Mike. Try to keep up. Be-CUZ.

exhelodrvr1 said...

This will also require banks, CUs, etc to modify their software, and to add new reports/processes. All of which in reade their op expenses, which in turn affects all whouse their services.

Breezy said...

They need this info so they can send the IRS auditors to your door to collect the extra grand you didn’t send them for some reason. This is to make up the tax gap they need to pay for the Build Back Better Act that doesn’t actually cost anything. Remember?? But that’s not supposed to affect anyone earning less than 400k…. Sure.

And they want to spend $8B per year more for the IRS to do this work. $8 Billion. They make us pay extra for this “service”.

Xmas said...

Clyde said...
"Is that any total of transactions that add up to $10,000?...If it's transactions of $10,000 or more to trigger the policy, that would would affect a lot fewer people..."

Banks are already required to report any transactions over $10,000. That been the law for about 50 years (Bank Secrecy Act, 1970). They are also required to report if you have multiple transactions under the $10,000 amount but they think you're trying to avoid that $10K reporting limit.

wildswan said...

"with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals"

This financial reporting would include every American on Social Security and almost everyone whose salary is direct deposit. There's no SS under $10,000 a year and mighty few salaries. It's incredibly invasive. And to what end? So the government will know everything since it already has our social media and e-mails and phone calls. Then it will have financial data on everyone. And then it will selectively persecute. It's bad faith at the top.
It isn't about better government since .gov can't handle present government. The messes are piling up like a freeway crash in the fog. But .gov is hiding in the basement or in an addled brain or on parental leave or furtively abandoning allies and citizens in Afghanistan like the military and the CIA or just plain AWOL like Kamala from the border. And .gov wants to be in charge of more of your life. Really? Up-Chuckie Schumer with more power? Gas - more expensive? Groceries - not there to be expensive? Chicago's crime + San Francisco's streets + NYC's arrogance, all wrapped as Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, The Dei Trinity, while in the name of The DEI Trinitarian dogma, the black community is re-segregated and de-schooled without a word from BLM or the Masters of Compassion. NO.

Narr said...

Don't tell anybody I told you this . . . Everybody agree? OK listen up.

When I re-tahrd in 2015 I foolishly forgot to estimate and report the payout of several months accumlated leave. In theory then, I was overpaid SS that year to a pretty substantial four figure amount.

When I realized what happened I called the 800 number and eventually talked to a very nice lady who advised me that 1) it happens a lot, and 2) I should wait and as my annual taxes got filed the system would eventually catch up and an arrangement would be worked out--X months of no deposit, or Y months of 50% etc until they had been paid back.

I asked, "Can't I just write a check now and send it in?"

No? Oh MANnnnnn . . .

Too simple. So I waited. Seasons passed, and then years.

I'm still waiting. When they do catch up they'll probably add penalties and interest--assuming I don't get busted for Thoughtcrime in the 1st first.

The Old Narr's Home thanks viewers like you for your generous contributions.

Gabriel said...

In reality, the proposal is to monitor the total amount of money going in and out of any bank account with more than $10,000 of transactions in a given year

In other words every person who makes at least the 1997 minimum wage?

Yancey Ward said...

Shorter Left Bank of the Charles:

"This dildo we want to stick up your ass is only an inch wider and an inch longer than the previous one."

Gospace said...

In other words, even with the $10,000 annual limit- everyone in the United States paid by direct deposit, which is the vast majority of Americans.

Almost like the following words mean nothing:

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.

Balfegor said...

Even at $10,000 gross inflows/outflows, it would capture most peoples' accounts even exempting wages and federal benefits, simply because most people probably have gross outflows over $10,000 just with rent, gas, utilities, and food. I haven't seen the specific proposal Democrats have retreated to, but the original had "gross flow threshold," which I took as not limited to inflows. Really, I think you'd have to get to at least $50,000 to avoid catching the average person's account.

But frankly, capturing the average person's account was obviously the objective from the start -- you wouldn't set a $600 threshold if you were trying to catch billionaires cheating on their taxes. Even the original proposal states, in "Reasons for change:"

The tax gap for business income (outside of large corporations) from the most recently published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates is $166 billion a year.

And then it drops a footnote:

Computed from individual income tax business income, small corporations, and self-employment tax components.

That's who this proposal was supposed to catch: small businesses and the self-employed. The spin about billionaires was always just BS.

Paul said...

Once the IRS has their foot in the door (and hand in your pocket) it will just go on and on.. till ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE REPORTED TO THE IRS.

Their scheme is to tax the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY! Their 'this cost nothing' spending bill is a lie. They are trying to find anyway to pay for it... by squeezing money out of everyone.

We need a flat tax or just drop the income tax and have a national sales tax.

Way to much spying on us by the government now.

pacwest said...

The tax gap for business income (outside of large corporations) from the most recently published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates is $166 billion a year.

Estimates of the costs of Biden's immigration idiocy range from 100 to 200 billion a year (probably a lot more after 2021!). Whatever the hell this proposal is it ain't about fiscal policy.

Clawing back the graft from the Clinton and Biden families alone should cover the 166 billion. Add in Congress critters and you can eliminate the income tax.

Leora said...

$10,000 of deposits in a year is everyone with a full time job and almost everyone who collects Social Security or alimony/child support. It is a ridiculous level of surveillance. I doubt that it could pay for the cost in increased tax collections even while most of the cost is forced on private companies.

Jeff Weimer said...

I'm a government contractor, and I receive what is called "Per Diem" allowances when I travel. Those are tax-free, and any overages are mine to keep. Studying the "inflows and outflows" will show a non-taxed increase and thus increased scrutiny - for no reason. I may be unnecessarily audited and that is an imposition that I should not be subjected to.

This should be removed from the legislation, not changed to an amount that won't actually change anything. $10,000 is still too low - nearly everyone will be subject to it, just from pay, rent, and groceries alone.

Owen said...

Yancey Ward @ 3:07: “…this dildo…”

You owe me a new keyboard.

Chris Lopes said...

"pacwest said...
The tax gap for business income (outside of large corporations) from the most recently published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates is $166 billion a year."

Which won't even come close to patching the multi-trillion dollar whole Our Man Biden is trying to drill into the economy.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Yancey-

It's no ordinary dildo either. This wider, longer (but only slightly!) dildo has the ability to... spy... to know. A ChiCom drone for the colon. Internal government probe.

the large corporations and tech oligarchs who play nice with The Party - they get the old model.

I'm Not Sure said...

"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."

You know... IANAL and haven't considered any possible emanations or penumbras that might be contained therein, but that seems pretty straightforward. It's almost like the guys who wrote it had some recent experience with an overbearing government and said "enough".

Narr said...

The new model dildo has to be bigger to accommodate all the electronics, and Top Men--Top Men--are working now to miniaturize the attachments.

If only Trump hadn't drawn down the National Strategic Lube Reservoirs; we'll all be paying for his screwups for a long time.

Now bend over, citizen.




Bunkypotatohead said...

"The tax gap for business income (outside of large corporations) from the most recently published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates is $166 billion a year."

Biden wants to hire 87000 new IRS agents. The money to pay them has to come from somewhere. Maybe the agents will be paid commissions...the more they wrestle from your bank account, the more they get paid.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"In reality, the proposal is to monitor the total amount of money going in and out of any bank account with more than $10,000 of transactions in a given year"

Do you have a job? Then you're pretty much guaranteed to have more than $10k go in and out of your bank account each year, unless you're somehow managing to live an all-cash life

"the total inflows and outflows for any bank account with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals, 'with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner.'"

There's two possibilities here:
1; "Dear IRS: Mr CT took in $X and spent $Y". Which is nothing that provides any value to the IRS
2: "Dear IRS: Mr CT took in $X, from this source, and $Z from this source ... and spent $Y with this organization and $A with that one ...".

Which is what the GOP Senators said.

So, either the requirement is worthless, and so should not be done. Or the requirement is hideously intrusive, in which case it shoudl not be done.

In any event, the key point here is the GOP Senators are right, the Democrats ar wrong, and the WaPo "fact checker" is a lying political hack

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
The business of arguing about Pinocchios instead of whether a proposal is good or bad policy misses the point.

That's because everyone who isn't a totalitarian nut knows it's bad policy

For IRA accounts, the IRS already gets annual reports from your financial institution showing distributions, contributions, and year end account balances. Form 1098 reports how much interest you paid and your outstanding principal balance each year. Why not extend that level of scrutiny to other types of accounts?

Because it's none of the Gov'ts business.

We do not have to justify keeping our information out of your hands. You must justify why it is you should get any info.

Fascist

God of the Sea People said...

It is worth noting that $10,000 in 1970 is worth roughly $71,000 today. Not that I agree with this proposal in any way, but at least when the $10,000 reporting requirement was originally passed, it was a pretty substantial amount of value.

There has been a lot of talk about how inflation is a hidden tax. But it also slowly and inexorably lowers these kinds of thresholds that trigger government intrusion into your lives.

WA-mom said...

WAPO should get 10 Pinocchios for presenting this guy as an objective fact checker!
I wanted to see what Salvadore Rizzo, Washington Post Fact Checker, would look like. There's a photo with this review of Rizzo's book ‘Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth.’

Leora said...

Just responding to people in thread saying Republicans will vote for this. No Republicans will vote for this bill. It is being introduced as a budget bill so that no Republican votes are needed under special rules.