Biden Administration proposal of more bank reporting to IRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All banking transactions should be reported to the IRS, regardless of amount.

If you aren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

What to worry about?

Additional transaction fees--as PP mentioned. Banking will become more expensive.
More cumbersome paperwork for consumers explaining transactions.
Many more audits performed on everyday people--requiring time, and possibly funds, for defense of simple and non criminal activity.

We just received a letter from IRS telling us that we had the right to appeal a "correction" in our taxes and that if we did not resolve it, we would be subject to investigation or something like that. Since IRS had not asked us for payment, we were confused. The "correction" was $8 in our favor. It took us internet research to find that they had sent out letters advising of "right to appeal" to everyone who had received a "correction letter." Tell me, who is going to appeal a "correction" in their favor? The letter sounded ominous and should not require research to put mind at rest.

Just think of all the things that could go wrong with this regulation, if passed.

I listened to Cspan on Saturday and heard the Congressional hearing with Janet Yellen and Powell. Her justification for this reg was less than stellar.

Banks already track all your account transactions. Last year I moved some money from an investment account into my savings account, and my bank called me the next morning wanting to invest it for me. This is not a cumbersome requirement for banks. It’s a simple data download.

And, the banking industry hates this law. They say it is an invasion of privacy, which it is.

I do believe this regulation has bipartisan support - AGAINST it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

How wouldn't they be flagged? The IRS has no way to know what the cause of those deposits are until it comes to audit the taxpayer. For all they know, that $400k you got in from a home sale is actually a huge untaxed bonus from your employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

How wouldn't they be flagged? The IRS has no way to know what the cause of those deposits are until it comes to audit the taxpayer. For all they know, that $400k you got in from a home sale is actually a huge untaxed bonus from your employer.

Because they aren’t stupid. They know that people get an occasional bump in their accounts from sales of assets and transfers from other accounts. There are not going to be people investigating one-off transactions in a reasonable range. Nobody wants to examine your life. You are not as interesting as you think. There will be algorithms looking for accounts with excessive cash transactions that look like money laundering and fraud. This is a simple regulation that is needed to catch criminals. Unless you sell your house to a money laundering oligarch for much more than its worth and kick back some of the overpayment, then your home sale will not raise alarms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All banking transactions should be reported to the IRS, regardless of amount.

If you aren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

What to worry about?

Additional transaction fees--as PP mentioned. Banking will become more expensive.
More cumbersome paperwork for consumers explaining transactions.
Many more audits performed on everyday people--requiring time, and possibly funds, for defense of simple and non criminal activity.

We just received a letter from IRS telling us that we had the right to appeal a "correction" in our taxes and that if we did not resolve it, we would be subject to investigation or something like that. Since IRS had not asked us for payment, we were confused. The "correction" was $8 in our favor. It took us internet research to find that they had sent out letters advising of "right to appeal" to everyone who had received a "correction letter." Tell me, who is going to appeal a "correction" in their favor? The letter sounded ominous and should not require research to put mind at rest.

Just think of all the things that could go wrong with this regulation, if passed.

I listened to Cspan on Saturday and heard the Congressional hearing with Janet Yellen and Powell. Her justification for this reg was less than stellar.

Banks already track all your account transactions. Last year I moved some money from an investment account into my savings account, and my bank called me the next morning wanting to invest it for me. This is not a cumbersome requirement for banks. It’s a simple data download.

And, the banking industry hates this law. They say it is an invasion of privacy, which it is.

I do believe this regulation has bipartisan support - AGAINST it.

F the banking industry. Of course, they hate any regulation because banks have been involved in every major financial fraud scheme in history. They would rather participate in the money laundering and fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

How wouldn't they be flagged? The IRS has no way to know what the cause of those deposits are until it comes to audit the taxpayer. For all they know, that $400k you got in from a home sale is actually a huge untaxed bonus from your employer.

Because they aren’t stupid. They know that people get an occasional bump in their accounts from sales of assets and transfers from other accounts. There are not going to be people investigating one-off transactions in a reasonable range. Nobody wants to examine your life. You are not as interesting as you think. There will be algorithms looking for accounts with excessive cash transactions that look like money laundering and fraud. This is a simple regulation that is needed to catch criminals. Unless you sell your house to a money laundering oligarch for much more than its worth and kick back some of the overpayment, then your home sale will not raise alarms.

If the IRS was actually that good, I wouldn’t get notices nearly every year claiming some mistake or other with my taxes, which invariably turn out to be IRS data entry errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

How wouldn't they be flagged? The IRS has no way to know what the cause of those deposits are until it comes to audit the taxpayer. For all they know, that $400k you got in from a home sale is actually a huge untaxed bonus from your employer.

Because they aren’t stupid. They know that people get an occasional bump in their accounts from sales of assets and transfers from other accounts. There are not going to be people investigating one-off transactions in a reasonable range. Nobody wants to examine your life. You are not as interesting as you think. There will be algorithms looking for accounts with excessive cash transactions that look like money laundering and fraud. This is a simple regulation that is needed to catch criminals. Unless you sell your house to a money laundering oligarch for much more than its worth and kick back some of the overpayment, then your home sale will not raise alarms.

If they are looking at accounts with a value at $600 or more they're looking at everything and everyone. The threshold is so low it's a joke. It practically sounds like they are going to hire IRS agents to look for pennies in your seat cushions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

How wouldn't they be flagged? The IRS has no way to know what the cause of those deposits are until it comes to audit the taxpayer. For all they know, that $400k you got in from a home sale is actually a huge untaxed bonus from your employer.

Because they aren’t stupid. They know that people get an occasional bump in their accounts from sales of assets and transfers from other accounts. There are not going to be people investigating one-off transactions in a reasonable range. Nobody wants to examine your life. You are not as interesting as you think. There will be algorithms looking for accounts with excessive cash transactions that look like money laundering and fraud. This is a simple regulation that is needed to catch criminals. Unless you sell your house to a money laundering oligarch for much more than its worth and kick back some of the overpayment, then your home sale will not raise alarms.

If they are looking at accounts with a value at $600 or more they're looking at everything and everyone. The threshold is so low it's a joke. It practically sounds like they are going to hire IRS agents to look for pennies in your seat cushions.

THIS!
I cannot believe pp is rationalizing this proposed regulation.
Like I said before....... I'm just going to transfer money multiple times between family members just to "f" with the IRS if this goes into effect. I would encourage everyone else to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

How wouldn't they be flagged? The IRS has no way to know what the cause of those deposits are until it comes to audit the taxpayer. For all they know, that $400k you got in from a home sale is actually a huge untaxed bonus from your employer.

Because they aren’t stupid. They know that people get an occasional bump in their accounts from sales of assets and transfers from other accounts. There are not going to be people investigating one-off transactions in a reasonable range. Nobody wants to examine your life. You are not as interesting as you think. There will be algorithms looking for accounts with excessive cash transactions that look like money laundering and fraud. This is a simple regulation that is needed to catch criminals. Unless you sell your house to a money laundering oligarch for much more than its worth and kick back some of the overpayment, then your home sale will not raise alarms.

Dp. You sound naive. If theyre looking at accounts $600+, of course they're going to flag a huge 400k transaction! Probably automatically too.

[Anonymous]

On your next trip to the ATM, imagine that Uncle Sam is looking over your shoulder. As if your annual tax filing wasn’t invasive enough, the Biden Administration would like a look at your checking account.

Charles Rettig, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, wants banks to report annual cash flows for ordinary account holders. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is promoting the plan, and the House Ways and Means Committee is debating whether to include this mandate in the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending bill.

Ms. Yellen says the reporting will help to catch wealthy tax dodgers. In a recent letter to the committee she said the plan would reveal “opaque income streams that disproportionately accrue to the top.” Treasury and congressional Democrats hope taxpayers will report income more accurately if they know the feds have their account information.

Yet the IRS plans to review every account above a $600 balance, or with more than $600 of transactions in a year. So every American with a job could get looked over. A group of 41 industry groups recently warned congressional leaders that the plan “is not remotely targeted” to detect major tax avoidance.

It’s also a privacy breach waiting to happen. Not long ago the confidential tax records of Jeff Bezos, Mike Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans were exposed by ProPublica. Whoever leaked or hacked those records committed a crime, but the IRS has revealed nothing from its promised investigation. Adding bank account info to the IRS trove would risk the disclosure of savings and spending information of political adversaries in the same way.

Twenty-three state treasurers and auditors signed a letter last month opposing the plan, calling it “one of the largest infringements of data privacy in our nation’s history.” Nebraska Treasurer John Murante says his state won’t comply if the reporting rule takes effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The banking industry cannot stand this proposal. It would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

And, smaller banks would have trouble with the bookkeeping.

This is stupid policy and will drive a perverse market response. People eventually won’t use banks anymore, or standard currency. It’s too burdensome. Nascent crypto, peer-to-peer and other forms of currency will be accelerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are looking at accounts with a value at $600 or more they're looking at everything and everyone. The threshold is so low it's a joke. It practically sounds like they are going to hire IRS agents to look for pennies in your seat cushions.

THIS!
I cannot believe pp is rationalizing this proposed regulation.
Like I said before....... I'm just going to transfer money multiple times between family members just to "f" with the IRS if this goes into effect. I would encourage everyone else to do the same.

LOL.. yea, my parents' social security is more than $600. C'mon, this is sooo stupid.

$60,000 I get.
more than x# trx per month in a personal account, I get.

But every single $600 transactions? That's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

It is said that this proposal is generating more calls to Congressional representatives than any other provision in the bill.

If true, it is hard to see how it survives, especially since the Administration has failed to explain how this information would be used to capture the cheating presumed to be going on. Yellen's answer was wholly unsatisfying.

[Anonymous]

It is truly remarkable the extent to which posters ITT trust the USG to do a fantastic, smash up job with an endeavor of this nature. We all know it'll just turn into a gigantic clusterf*ck that will exponentially increase paperwork/paper trails required, add huge amounts of needless bureaucratic inefficiencies, and add tons of needless costs. Hell, the IRS could barely manage to send out millions of tax refunds on time this year that arrived many, many months late, yet stupidly naive posters think the IRS will be capable of keeping track of every single $600 transaction by every single individual in the country. Can't wait until your tax refund from 2025 finally arrives in your bank account in 2048 because of the 'backlog' of auditing work required by the IRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is said that this proposal is generating more calls to Congressional representatives than any other provision in the bill.

If true, it is hard to see how it survives, especially since the Administration has failed to explain how this information would be used to capture the cheating presumed to be going on. Yellen's answer was wholly unsatisfying.

People are realizing that this proposal means more surveillance on everyday Americans and more intrusion into our daily lives.
Add to that - growing government by adding twice as many IRS employees........ Americans are fed up.

The more people are finding out what is in this disastrous bill, the more they don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is said that this proposal is generating more calls to Congressional representatives than any other provision in the bill.

If true, it is hard to see how it survives, especially since the Administration has failed to explain how this information would be used to capture the cheating presumed to be going on. Yellen's answer was wholly unsatisfying.

People are realizing that this proposal means more surveillance on everyday Americans and more intrusion into our daily lives.
Add to that - growing government by adding twice as many IRS employees........ Americans are fed up.

The more people are finding out what is in this disastrous bill, the more they don't like it.

I have nothing to hide, but what they are doing is a total waste of taxpayer $ and more bloated government. I don't mind increasing staff at the IRS to go after the big tax dodgers, but c'mon, $600 threshold is just ridiculous.