Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

IRS

Dems Try To Pass Off $10,000 IRS Reporting Threshold as Merely Going After the 1 Percent

Proposed IRS surveillance now limited to non-wage net annual transactions of $10,000 and above. Which is still ridiculously low and intrusive.

Matt Welch | 10.19.2021 12:39 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
ElizabethWarren | BONNIE CASH/UPI/Newscom
(BONNIE CASH/UPI/Newscom)

As telegraphed last week, Democrats on Capitol Hill, facing loud criticism, have today upped the proposed new IRS reporting threshold on bank accounts from $600 in combined annual transactions to $10,000, according to the Washington Post.

Negotiators on the controversial proposal, which is being tucked into the multi-trillion-dollar social spending bill that Democrats will attempt to push through with a party-line majority, also say that wage income will be exempted, though how financial institutions (which are the entities being tasked with notifying the IRS) make that determination is unclear, as is much about the whole application of the American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda. "Exactly which accounts should be subject to the new rules has been the subject of a fierce debate," the Post notes. Federal benefits such as Social Security checks will also reportedly be exempted.

President Joe Biden, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), and far too many overcredulous news organizations have portrayed this expansion of federal financial surveillance as (in the Post's lead-paragraph description) a "proposal to crack down on wealthy tax cheats."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Oregon), in a prepared statement for today's threshold-change, asserted that "the main reason Republicans have latched on to this issue as the one to lie about every day is because they know their tax agenda is a political loser," and that "the American people overwhelmingly want to ensure mega-corporations and billionaires pay their fair share, so Republicans have largely given up on their tired-trickle down arguments."

But the people most likely to have their transactions newly calculated for the IRS each year are not millionaires who scatter their holdings across 100 different $10,000 accounts, but rather freelancers, small business owners, immigrants, and anyone paid/gifted banked cash exceeding four months' worth of minimum wage work in New York. If I paid my 13-year-old $100 a week to babysit my 6-year-old, and she turned around and spent all that money at Brandy Melville, her bank may be obliged to report her deposit/withdrawal sums at the end of the year.

I say "may" because, again, the details of this are being hashed out behind closed doors.

The Biden administration has expressed exasperation at the pushback—"This is about making sure the top 1 percent can't evade $160 billion per year in taxes," Treasury Department spokeswoman Alexandra LaManna complained to the New York Times last week—but a look at Treasury's own wishlist-verbiage makes it obvious that this measure is designed to boost compliance among the lower 99 percent:

Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance.

This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.

Other accounts with characteristics similar to financial institution accounts will be covered under this information reporting regime. In particular, payment settlement entities would collect Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) and file a revised Form 1099-K expanded to all payee accounts (subject to the same de minimis threshold), reporting not only gross receipts but also gross purchases, physical cash, as well as payments to and from foreign accounts, and transfer inflows and outflows.

Similar reporting requirements would apply to crypto asset exchanges and custodians. Separately, reporting requirements would apply in cases in which taxpayers buy crypto assets from one broker and then transfer the crypto assets to another broker, and businesses that receive crypto assets in transactions with a fair market value of more than $10,000 would have to report such transactions.

Emphases mine. Raise your hand if you qualify for the dragnet.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board rightly worries, banks (as well as all other financial institutions) "would bear the cost of reporting each of more than 124 million U.S. accounts, which might require new software and additional staff. Customers could count on these costs showing up in higher user fees." When the IRS deputized foreign financial institutions to cough up information about their U.S. clients abroad a decade ago, millions of Americans were kicked out of their accounts.

The IRS itself acknowledges that "the United States enjoys a relatively high and stable voluntary tax compliance rate." But in order to maintain the laughable fiction that "the cost of the Build Back Better Agenda is $0," our already-intrusive, Fourth Amendment-busting federal access into personal financial affairs has to be vastly expanded into a—their words!—"comprehensive financial account information reporting regime." One that no doubt will have less-than-ironclad data security.

Those who value their financial privacy, and are not rich enough to afford the kinds of professional tax-minimization services this enforcement measure will fail to curb, are advised to keep their transactions in cash. If the Biden administration gets its way, they might not have any choice.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Illinois' Gerrymandered Congressional Map Is a Window Into America's Political Dysfunction

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

IRSTaxesSurveillanceJoe Biden
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (233)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

    Tell me that it is 1MM in account flows, and then MAYBE I will believe that this is really all about going after the greedy rich people. Otherwise, these people are just full of shit. It is about taking control of our money and doing away with physical currency.

    1. Lord of Strazele   4 years ago

      Exactly my thoughts. This is some bs.

      1. Overt   4 years ago

        I don't think even you know what your thoughts are, Strudel.

        https://reason.com/2021/10/19/california-seizes-1-2-million-dangerously-untaxed-marijuana-plants/#comment-9165586

      2. JimboJr   4 years ago

        Unfortunately for you, the plan was always to go after middle and lower classes. If you spent 1 second actually looking at the math (not your strong point)

        But you fell for the "trust us, we wont come for you, we just want the rich!", you thought they truly wouldnt come after your sorry ass bank account.

        Grab your ankles, dimwit

        1. Kungpowderfinger   4 years ago

          Whatever agreed upon “threshold” they decide, the monitoring process will be established and they’ll do whatever the fuck they want to whoever the fuck they want for any amount, as per past practice.

          Kind of like how The Patriot Act was meant for “terrorists”. What is so hard to understand about all this eventually being used against the middle class, with exemptions being issued to favored/connected groups?

          1. Ann D. Flores   4 years ago

            These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.ghj Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

            Just visit this website now…… READ MORE

            1. mpercy   4 years ago

              Well, you'd definitely be subject to the proposed scrutiny...

          2. Sevo   4 years ago

            "...What is so hard to understand..."

            When you rely on shitlord's 'intelligence', it's gonna have to be all single-syllable words.

    2. Homeforemost   4 years ago

      Love planting at home? Check out our guide on Best Time of the Day to Plant Flowers 2021 Plant Flowers

  2. Quo Usque Tandem   4 years ago

    The 1%? Please. Who do you think the milk cows are on this farm? If they took all of the income of all the 1% they are still well short of paying for their proposed entitlements.

    Yes, those expansions of the federal budget/ deficit that will supposedly cost $0.00 because of something something synergistic benefits smoke and mirrors MMT.

    1. American Mongrel   4 years ago

      Further...
      The top 0.00025% have 20% of wealth. Thats ~60% of the vaunted 1%'s wealth (32% of all)

      1. Luara   4 years ago

        SPECIAL REPORT: At Last...A Diet That Works. Here's How A Local 04 Mom Stumbled On To Secret Diet Used By Rachael Ray To Lose Up To 27 lbs. In 1 Month! Dr. Oz Is Calling It "#1 Miracle Fat Burner In A Bottle.... http://www.Fitapp1.com

    2. Don Nico   4 years ago

      QUT,
      They will never admit that, even though the only way to pay for the spending spree is to raise the taxes on the working class.

    3. Carl_N_Brown   4 years ago

      Sieze Bloomberg's total assets and redistribute the (paper fiction) sum to 300,000,000 Americans.
      How many Happy Meals would that buy at MacDonald's?
      Don't worry, next week another billionaire's assets could be siezed and redistributed to the hungry masses.
      Oh, wait, Bloomberg is Daddy Warbucks to the Dem progressive machine. He deserves exemption for Goodthink, don't he?

      The goal boys and girls is to put all Americans under control of an all powerful Federal Government. Increase costs for everything. Institute runaway inflation through Federal policies, increase the cost of everything, then make the Federal government under one party over all the only source of relief to those who show most fealty to their masters.

      "Those who value their financial privacy ... are advised to keep their transactions in cash."

      Government printed currency is good only as long as the government recognizes it. The only way to get a stranglehold on the average American's wallet or purse is to recognize only electronic transactions under the watchful algorithms of Big Computer. A scifi staple is the spectre of a supercomputer in control of nuclear ICBMs developing artificial intelligence and going paranoid. I think the real fear ought be this proposal to monitor everyone's banking transactions. They came for guns, now they come for money, next they come for lawyers. Be afraid, be very afraid.

      1. Trifrozion   4 years ago

        I prefer the Michael Malice idea of seizing the endowment of every college to cover reparations. That way enemies of freedom will kill each other.

  3. Bubba Jones   4 years ago

    "combined annual transactions to $10,000"

    Anyone who spends $10k per year will fall under this provision?

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      So your food and utilities. Eating and keeping warm are the hallmarks of tax-evading billionaires.

      1. Bubba Jones   4 years ago

        They seem to be claiming that they will exempt cash flow equal to your wages. Which means that the bank will need to know your wages, and will need to feel confident that they won't be held accountable for underreporting.

        That's not how this will go down. Once the bank builds a system for reporting, they'll just report on everyone.

        That's what we do for open payments in pharma. Rather than guess whether we were under the $100 aggregate reportable limit, we track every $5 cup of coffee and report it to the feds.

    2. Overt   4 years ago

      Do you get direct deposit and earn more than $10k a year?

      1. Minadin   4 years ago

        $5K if you spend most of your income.

        1. TangoDelta   4 years ago

          Ding! Winner! This exactly.

          Seems the "rich" now earn anything more than about $100 per week. By that standard you are among the elite rich who can afford the cost of living in such wonderful & expensive places like Mongolia, Cambodia, Kenya, or Rwanda. Put another way, you pretty much need to be par at best in Somalia since they are not rich but definitely upper middle class by this definition.

          Let's not forget that many of the direct pay debit cards also count, you don't actually need a traditional bank account.

  4. Bubba Jones   4 years ago

    "After a backlash, the new proposal will instead require the provision of additional information for accounts with more than $10,000 in annual deposits or withdrawals, a measure Democrats have been considering for weeks but have not formally endorsed, the people said."

    Who spends less than $10,000 a year in rent and food?

    1. Lord of Strazele   4 years ago

      Deposits and withdrawals added up? Why withdrawals at all? Wtf. I'm not with the Dems on this one. They need to make it 100k or more or just don't do it.

      1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

        If it is really about the 1%, then make it a million.

        Lot's of people have 100K in account activity annually. But a million? Not so much.

      2. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

        So long as you are excluded it’s ok, right?

        1. JimboJr   4 years ago

          God forbid he have skin in the game to pay for all the shit he wants everyone else to pay for

          1. HorseConch   4 years ago

            I agree. They should not make him pay a penny for it.

        2. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

          Bingo. Progressivism boiled down to its essence.

      3. Sevo   4 years ago

        "They need to make it 100k or more or just don’t do it."

        Shitlord: "I'm fine with it so long as it doesn't apply to me!"

      4. Fk_Censorship   4 years ago

        So you're saying let's scrap the 4th amendment altogether, but let's squabble over the threshold. Surveillance without a court warrant appears to be ok with some here...

        1. mpercy   4 years ago

          “Well,” says the gentleman, “just for the sake of our argument, suppose I offered you $1000—would you spend the night with me?” The lady, smiling coquettishly: “Who knows—I might very well!” The gentleman: “Now suppose I offer you $10 for the night?” The lady: “But what do you think I am?” The gentleman: “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

      5. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

        Without existing evidence of a crime, what business does the government have naming anyone’s privacy? This is some serious Stalinist bullshit right here.

        If this passes, the government will need a hard reset. Purging the current corrupt version.

      6. Brian   4 years ago

        And all this time, you believed them.

  5. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

    Everyone who voted for Biden because Trump was just too crude and distasteful to be president, needs to line up for a kick in the cunt.

    Everyone who voted for Biden because Trump was somehow secretly racist and authoritarian, needs to line up for a kick in the head.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

      Or Ilya Somin (IIRC) who said he would vote for Biden because Trump spent too much.

    2. Brandybuck   4 years ago

      Anyone who voted for the douche instead of the turd sammich needs to line up for a kick in the cunt. Goddammit, we now have a douche in charge instead of a turd sammich! Waaah!

      1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

        Did ML say "You wanted this" or something similarly stupid? Got the turd on mute. Know what? Never mind. I really don't care.

        1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

          If you didn’t care you wouldn’t mention it.

          1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            He needs me to know he's "muted" me to punish me.

            Sarcasmic is the consummate attention whore, and it absolutely destroyed him when Ken and soldiermedic muted him for trolling. He can't stand people ignoring him.

            That's why he tells everyone whose offended him that they're "muted" every chance he gets. He thinks that he's hurting us.

            1. Quo Usque Tandem   4 years ago

              "He can’t stand people ignoring him."

              True of every troll ever. Being ignored literally kills them.

              1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

                If only....

                1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                  Lol, it's okay sarc. Here's your attention.
                  Happy now?

            2. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

              Sarc is so much nicer as a grey box.

              1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                He's my favorite lolcow. I'm never muting him.

                1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                  I'm just not replying him for a week because it will drive him even more insane.

                  1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                    I like replying to him because I know he's still peeking, and it drives him absolutely nuts that he can't reply directly.
                    So he has to be all round about and awkward and it's just the most hilarious thing to watch.

                    1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

                      Ditto for 1099s. It’s easier, and acceptable in the system, to report all payments to a vendor rather than just those $600 or more annually.

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Except it's not douche versus turd sandwich you prevaricating cunt.
        It's turd sandwich versus the fucking forces of hell.
        Quit pretending that the Democrats are merely a mirror image of selfish and greedy Republican idiots. It's obvious to everyone by now that they are evil totalitarian psychopaths who seriously want to destroy the West.

        Anyone who pulls the "both sides" horseshit after witnessing everything that the Democrats have done over the last six months, is either a niave idiot or something much, much worse.

        1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

          Amen. The same idiots think one short day of trespassing and vandalism is worse than a summer of Burn Loot Murder with government complicity.

          1. Sevo   4 years ago

            Brandyshit wanted a real daddy-figure. And got one.

        2. KillAllRednecks   4 years ago

          “Destroy the west”

          Code for “us whites feel threatened. Things aren’t like they’ve always been.”

          1. Ignore me!   4 years ago

            You are really stupid. Kill any rednecks yet?

            1. KillAllRednecks   4 years ago

              Why am I stupid?

              1. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

                To begin with, you had to ask. Second, every damned thing you write. Third, your bias informing your positions versus you thinking through and coming to hold opinions. And that;s just the surface.

                1. SaveAllRednecks   4 years ago

                  Care to explain why you think I’m wrong?

                  I’m biased, but you’re objective as fuck? Sure, whatever.

        3. justme   4 years ago

          exactly right ML. all democrats hate america and openly want to destroy it. even if they don't know it -- they do. at this point the only viable solution is to split the country.

          1. mpercy   4 years ago

            "even if they don't know it"

            Asked by reporter vis-a-vis the $3.5T bill pending, "So do you think you need to do a better job of messaging? And going forward, how do you sell this, if ultimately you have to...[unintelligible]?\"

            Pelosi: Well, I think you all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you. Because every time I come here I go through the list [gesturing]
            Family medical leave
            Climate
            Uh uh the issues that are in there
            But it is a vast bill, it has a lot in it, and we'll have to continue to make sure the public does...but whether they know it or not, they overwhelmingly support it.

        4. Mr. Bing   4 years ago

          You said it brother. They are nihilists, and think they will be in charge after they bring the country down. But the Chinese won’t need them to run their satrapy. Too bad Reason didn’t support Trump, who actually loves America

      3. Sevo   4 years ago

        "Anyone who voted for the douche instead of the turd sammich needs to line up for a kick in the cunt. Goddammit, we now have a douche in charge instead of a turd sammich! Waaah!"

        Infantile asshole tries to justify his bullshit.
        Get fucked with a rusty garden rake, TDS-addled piece of shit.

        1. Jbtvt   4 years ago

          "infantile"

          Because everyone knows the adults in the room say "Get fucked with a rusty garden rake, TDS-addled piece of shit."

          Someone sounds crabby! Baby want a bottle?

          1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            It's pretty much the only reasonable response to the authority-whores and totalitarian-simps who post excuses and apologetics for this fascist horseshit.

            1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

              The only legally acceptable response, anyway. For as long as free speech lasts.

          2. Sevo   4 years ago

            "Someone sounds crabby! Baby want a bottle?"

            Asshole wanna fuck off and die?

            1. Its_Not_Inevitable   4 years ago

              "fuck off and die" 80 million and 1.

              1. Sevo   4 years ago

                Thanks to all three of you. Jbtvt (newby) seems to be a lefty apologist or some lame whiny bastard not willing to look at the historical statements.
                Or some fucking sock.

      4. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

        You stupid faggot. Neither Trump nor any of his predecessors ever did anything like this. So fuck you and your phony ‘both sides’ bullshit.

        You’re welcome to burn with your prog masters.

    3. Fk_Censorship   4 years ago

      Everyone who counted votes behind closed doors also needs a good kick to the cunt.

    4. Butler T. Reynolds   4 years ago

      Agent Trump delivered the presidency and both houses to the Democrats. Everyone who supported narcissist Trump deserves a kick in the cuck.

  6. Catch33   4 years ago

    So I guess I'll just have to do 111.1111111 $9000 accounts instead......

  7. Brandybuck   4 years ago

    So basically, you're privacy as a poor person goes out the window if you sell your used car for cash. Or more get too much in gross receipts from your bacondog stand. Or pay for a twelve month apartment lease.

    The point of this bill isn't to catch rich tax cheats, as rich tax cheats have obvious options to avoid this. No, the point of this bill is to track the financial activities of the lower and middle classes, as well as all small businesses.

    1. Lord of Strazele   4 years ago

      Or you and your wife have separate checking accounts and you move money between them for whatever reason.

      1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

        Now you begin to understand why there's so much hatred for Dems?

        1. Don Nico   4 years ago

          Hey, they only want your money and to have their nose in your knickers. WHat could possibly be wrong with that?

    2. Overt   4 years ago

      "the point of this bill is to track the financial activities of the lower and middle classes,"

      I pay my yard guy $120 a month. He probably does about 70 houses like ours each week...Plus periodic fixes or landscaping. He probably clears less than $10,000 per month gross revenue. From that he has to pay 2 or 3 other guys (likely under the table). He has to buy supplies, fuel and maintenance for his 20 year old, used pickup truck. He probably clears $50k per year- in a state where the median household income is $75k.

      This stuff is to catch him. Not just to force him to pay taxes, but to pay his workers minimum wage so they get taxed, and to do full accounting for his business so he can prove how much he did or didn't earn. This will of course increase his expenses to the point he has to charge me $250 a month, and I will probably ditch him to pay the local landscaping company for our neighborhood $200/mo.

      This is how centralization happens.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        Equity.

      2. ErictheRed   4 years ago

        Spot On.

        Years ago I was acquainted w an IRS auditor, and in my naivete, I asked how many rich bastards she had bagged. She disabused me of that notion quickly to tell the same story Overt her lays out.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

          I asked how many rich bastards she had bagged.

          So your question wasn't... sexual in nature?

          1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

            He said 'bagged', not 'balled'!

      3. cup of joe   4 years ago

        If he's pulling in 50k a year tax free that's unfair to the honest people that pay their taxes. 50k tax free is getting pretty close to median income after taxes.

        I'd imagine this would end up sweeping a lot of illegal immigrants. Or employers of them.

        1. Zeb   4 years ago

          I doubt that guy isn't paying any taxes. His employees may not be, but that shouldn't be his problem. Nor should their immigration status.

        2. Overt   4 years ago

          I’m won’t disagree that he should be paying taxes. (And I don’t know whether or not he does properly disclose his taxes). But catching lawn care guys named Jesus is not how this provision is being sold is it? And if Lizzie Warren admitted that this snooping was to punish blue collar workers, she wouldn’t get nearly the support, would she?

        3. Brian   4 years ago

          I wouldn’t use the word “honest.”

      4. Don Nico   4 years ago

        That, Overt, is the plan.

      5. perlhaqr   4 years ago

        Or he'll just keep it all cash.

      6. You're Kidding   4 years ago

        What’s so bad about that? If his illegals want to be honorably recognized and respected in this society, they must also act honorably and play by society’s rules. Plus, they’ll get FICA, UI and WC coverage as well. I may not agree with all of that but, I can work to change it. Avoiding by being underground is no different than the supposed billionaires hiding their money.

        Your selfish need for a cheap Jose to mow your lawns because you haven’t got the balls to make your lazy assed kids do it is no reason to try and take advantage of so called immigrants by forcing them to hide in the shadowed fringes of our society.

        1. renad   4 years ago

          There is nothing honorable about forcing people to cough up money to a bloated central government at the point of a gun.

    3. Carl Cameron   4 years ago

      That's where the money is. Fucking poors and proles need to cough up their fair share.

      1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

        And they can't fight back.

      2. You're Kidding   4 years ago

        Well, certainly not the money for these ridiculous proposals. But your not too far off the mark actually. You might be surprised by how much total taxable income is passed amongst the lower earning class amongst us and their much better off employers.

    4. Quo Usque Tandem   4 years ago

      As I stated above, the milk cows; gotta keep herd on 'em.

    5. Sevo   4 years ago

      Fuck off and die, Brandyshit.

      1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

        No, savor the moment of buyer's remorse more fully. You can hear the collective uncorking of wine bottles across the nation if you listen carefully.

      2. Its_Not_Inevitable   4 years ago

        "fuck off and die" 80,000,002

    6. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

      It isn’t even really about the money. That is incidental. The real goal is complete control and the integration of totalitarian policies like this into the forthcoming social credit system. Just like China.

      The democrat party is now an absolute existential clear and present danger to our constitutional republic. They need to go, now.

  8. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

    I have to laugh at the naiveté of the Framers who thought simple language in the Constitution would somehow keep government small and limited. Makes you wonder how they managed to win independence with such gullibility.

    1. SMP0328   4 years ago

      They also thought a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Constitution did not say the federal government could violate individual rights. Then the Anti-Federalists pointed to the Necessary and Proper Clause.

      The Founding Fathers' view of the federal government they were proposing was like that of a loving mother who can't imagine her baby doing anything wrong.

      1. NOYB2   4 years ago

        The Founding Fathers proposed an economic union of mostly independent states and they were crystal clear about that.

        They weren’t naive about what could happen, but they believed that ultimately, that was the responsibility of subsequent generations. You can’t blame them for our failures.

    2. Overt   4 years ago

      At the end of the day, all it takes is enough people not caring. You could have the Constitution saying "Thou shalt not provide for public education" and the right justice could figure out how to say our current schools aren't ACTUALLY public.

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

        The major defect in the Constitution, as I see it, was no people's veto or state nullification. There should be a way for ordinary people to summon a jury to decide if a law is wrong or incomprehensible, with no appeal; if the just votes it out, it is out, immediately. There also needs to be a way for 1/4 of the states to throw out a law.

        And there need to be serious repercussions for politicians whose laws are thus thrown out.

        Minorities need to be able to protect themselves from democracy.

        1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

          That's what the Senate was for, before the 17A.

          1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

            It wasn't good enough. The only power the states had was to choose a new Senator. They need the power to nullify individual laws.

            1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

              That's what the Judicial branch was for. But then they adopted a policy of "deference."

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

                No it wasn't. The Judicial branch was only to detect unconstitutional laws. What is lacking is a way to get rid of laws, period.

                1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

                  Yeah. Hence the saying "If you don't like the law, change it" as in amend. Repeal? It's like a foreign concept.

                  1. Zeb   4 years ago

                    A great innovation would be making repeal of a law much easier than enactment. Problem now is that you have to get the same kind of support for repeal as for enacting a law. And repealing laws doesn't get votes like promising everyone a pony does. Which I guess is what thingy is getting at.

                  2. Carl_N_Brown   4 years ago

                    The Volstead Act was repealed by a Constitutional amendment.

                    The Virginia 1924 Racial Integrity Act was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in 1967. Last I read, the verbiage is still on the books, just not enforced. I suspect a lot of laws declared unconstitutional are still on the books in a lot of states.

                    Then there's the Federal 1937 Marihuana Tax Act getting less and less respect as more and more states legalize both medical and recreational use of reefer madness.

            2. NOYB2   4 years ago

              Since the powers delegated to the federal government were so limited, there wasn’t any need. It was only the unconstitutional expansion of federal powers after the Civil War and in the 20th Century that caused these issues.

        2. Quo Usque Tandem   4 years ago

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2019/11/11/the-risk-is-minimal--justice-scalia-on-the-need-for-a-convention-of-states-to-restrain-federal-power/?sh=db5b9ba45fb6

        3. Smack Daddy   4 years ago

          During prohibition they couldn't get juries to convict which rendered the 18th amendment useless. However' going through the IRS's court system is a totally different animal.

    3. NOYB2   4 years ago

      The language lasted for 200 years, through massive social and technological changes. That’s enormously successful. But if the vast majority of people decide they want to live in a progressive/socialist welfare state, no Constitution is going to stop that.

    4. siliconflux   4 years ago

      In defense of the Founders they were keenly aware that no single document could prevent all government tyranny. They even wrote about this specifically. That's why the final and last safeguard is an armed populace.

  9. sarcasmic   4 years ago

    I'm thinking that a lot of this has to do with the gig-economy or whatever you call it. They're going after Door Dash drivers, not millionaires.

    1. Overt   4 years ago

      DoorDash already reports all your earnings as an "independent contractor" via federal forms, don't they? If they didn't file those forms, they wouldn't be able to claim those fees as expenses against their own hundreds of millions of dollars.

      This is more likely to get Crypto speculators and your standard under the table wage earners- nannies, lawn mowers, house cleaners, contractors and food servers (tips).

      1. Cronut   4 years ago

        This is EXACTLY to get the under the table earners. And the people who pay them in cash.

        This is what happens when you wreck an economy this bad. People start working under the table for extra cash that they don't report. They can't catch the workers because they don't deposit the money, so they'll find them by tracking the people who pay them.

        1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

          Given that we won't recieve SS by retirement as it'll be spent soon, I am not seeing a reason to pay so much in taxes. Cash is nice.

        2. Smack Daddy   4 years ago

          This is about weening us off of cash, digital transactions are easier to track.

          1. Smack Daddy   4 years ago

            Once we are forced onto a digital system, your life can be destroyed at the push of a button. The left will come at you sideways, when they say this is about taxes, you have to start thinking about how else they mean to use it as well. It is never just what they say it is.

      2. sarcasmic   4 years ago

        Right. Like when I was a waiter I'd claim 10% of my sales to the IRS instead of the 20% I was earning. Just enough so that the $2.35/hr wage covered taxes, leaving $10 paychecks.

        I've been looking for a second job. The problem is taxes. My income is high enough that any new income will be taxed at close to 50% between state and federal. I'd be happy to wash dishes for $15/hr cash. But not if I have to fill out a W4.

        This scheme is to catch people like me.

        1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

          My income is high enough that any new income will be taxed at close to 50% between state and federal.
          But you are still willing to wash dishes. Now that is some funny shit right there.

          1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

            Only until automation catches up.

        2. Don Nico   4 years ago

          If you live in CA it is pretty easy to get to 50% as soon as you remember to add FICA and medicare taxes.

    2. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

      Of course they are!

    3. Carl Cameron   4 years ago

      They already lowered the gig worker/payment app reporting from $10k a year to $600 and that was after they made 3rd party market facilitators collect sales tax on your sale of personal property in the secondary market and 1099 you for anything over $600.

    4. Muzzled Woodchipper   4 years ago

      Don’t forget trying to skim cash from the secondary sales market, which is about to die a bloody death.

      People who buy/sell “stuff” as a hobby (guns, guitars, cars, etc) are about to start getting taxed at income rates for all those sales.

      So I buy a guitar from the store. I pay sales tax. The store pays corporate tax.

      A few months later, I sell that guitar (at a loss, no less) in order to buy a different one. The state gets sales tax (again), and now a private seller selling a USED guitar to a private buyer in order to fund a different guitar will have to pay taxes at INCOME TAX rates.

      It’s going to be unaffordable to sell anything online or with payment services like PayPal or Venmo. It’ll be back to Craig’s List and cash only, which is a major step backwards.

      It’s a fucking scam all the way, and absolutely a tax on the poor and middle class.

      And it’s absolutely an intrusion. No one should have access to the kind of financial information they want.

      Man, fuck Democrats.

      1. Overt   4 years ago

        One of the main ways I have been acquiring crypto is through PayPal/Zelle transactions. It is difficult to track but this work will make it that much easier. They can see me send 600 to some guy and they can see a transaction on the blockchain for essentially the same amount. They now know who both accounts are.

      2. RabbitHead   4 years ago

        And if you play any gigs with those guitars, they will come after you for the proceeds at income tax rates, unless you form an LLC and keep a complete set of books.

        Hobby quilting, but you sell a couple?
        Sell a few craft objects at the farmers market?
        Fix up old motorcycles?
        Mow lawns?
        Clear snow?
        Babysit?
        Tutor?

        Yeah, these are the 1%

      3. NOYB2   4 years ago

        It’s going to be unaffordable to sell anything online or with payment services like PayPal or Venmo. It’ll be back to Craig’s List and cash only, which is a major step backwards.

        Yellen and others have been talking about abolishing cash altogether, replacing it with their own digital cash.

        Crypto may be the only option, and only if you never convert it to USD.

      4. ThomasD   4 years ago

        Yep. I used to build custom tube amps. Which can bring in a pretty fat check at sale. But when you consider component costs, and time & effort, they are actually a loser. I did it mostly for the fun, and the check usually only funded the next build or two.

        If I were still in it, this sort of reporting would have ended it.

  10. eyeroller   4 years ago

    I don't think the rich are playing a lot of games with secretly sneaking unreported money into bank accounts.

    This proposal might catch some "tax cheats", but they probably won't be rich people.

    1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

      At least the argument of so many small time tax cheats that they’d pay their “fair share” if only the rich did will be negated.

  11. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    Glenn Greenwald throws a bucket of ice water on the "bowf sidez" argument about authoritarianism. Hint, it ain't the Republicans who are the problem here.

    1. Reshufflex   4 years ago

      (Not so) stunning data. Somewhere Goebbels is laughing.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        And waving a rainbow flag.

        1. Smack Daddy   4 years ago

          Rainbow flags are racist, because all the colors are segregated.

          1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            They call segregation "anti-racist" nowadays, grandpa.

            1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

              Just segregate the right people.

  12. Ragnarredbeard   4 years ago

    If they just reformed the tax code, they could eliminate a lot of the tax cheats with real money. But notice how they aren't floating that.

    1. Cronut   4 years ago

      Lol. They'll never do that. They'll continue to bicker about marginal rates, which won't make one bit of difference. No rich person is going to pay the top marginal rate, unless his accountant and lawyer suck.

    2. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

      Yep! We can literally see how the rich hide their assets thanks to the Pandora papers, yet none of the 'leaders' seem to be interested in closing THOSE loopholes.

    3. cup of joe   4 years ago

      That's the real bullshit.

      A lot of the uber wealthy tax cheats are basically doing stuff that's legal or hidden on the boundaries that would require too much legal time that the IRS doesn't go after them.

      It's absurd that someone owning enough assets they can take loans for spending against those assets, basically let the interest match the general stock gain, and pay zero taxes on that ever. Then when they die the basis gets stepped up on death. While a hard working doctor gets fucked with super high income taxes. And the gas station attendant pays more than the billionaire.

      1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

        You’ve never refinanced your house and peeled off some cash?

      2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   4 years ago

        It’s really incredible that there are people out there who really believe this kind of nonsense.

        You’re an idiot joe.

        1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

          More than you know. At the level of wealth he’s talking about, they can’t pas off assets to their heirs tax free with a stepped up basis.

          It’s great that we debate such policies but, both side lie and exaggerate and truth gets completely lost in the process. And taxes of all stripes are the worst.

  13. Chumby   4 years ago

    No.

  14. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

    This measure is designed to boost compliance among the lower 99 percent"

    After seeing the logic of the Patriot Act (originally meant to target Al Qaeda), used by the Biden administration to target parents for opposing their local school boards, it really shouldn't be surprising to see them sic the IRS on everybody. So long as the Democratic party is dominated by authoritarian and socialist progressives, the Democratic party will remain the greatest threat to our liberty and capitalism. Supporting libertarianism and opposing the Democratic party are now one in the same thing--no both sides about it.

    1. Chumby   4 years ago

      Progressives truly are America’s worst people.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        But they're all we've got! Moderate Republicans are in short supply!

    2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 years ago

      One of the very first uses of the patriot act was to prosecute a young woman who had reluctantly accompanied her parents on a cruise for calling in a bomb threat on the boat to get it to turn around so she could see her boyfriend.

      The idea that government agents will follow the spirit of a law is pure idiocy. Ron Wyden served 16 years in the House and 25 so far in the Senate. He knows damn well he is lying.

      This is the shoring up of a dam before the flood. They expect massive disobedience to whatever is coming next.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        "They expect massive disobedience to whatever is coming next"

        This. It's why the establishment has gotten so hyperbolic in absolutely everything.

        I wonder if Reason and Cato will finally realize the nature of the monster they've been petting, or if they'll keep pretending everything is okay?

        1. NOYB2   4 years ago

          I wonder if Reason and Cato will finally realize the nature of the monster they’ve been petting, or if they’ll keep pretending everything is okay?

          They're getting their cut, what do they care?

      2. Fk_Censorship   4 years ago

        Man, that boyfriend must have been mad hung...

      3. siliconflux   4 years ago

        Bingo. And this is real reason Democrats wildly expanded the involuntary military draft last month because it sure as hell isn't the growing storm in the Pacific.

    3. Overt   4 years ago

      "After seeing the logic of the Patriot Act (originally meant to target Al Qaeda), "

      Never forget that Biden largely wrote the Patriot Act. It was full of measures that had been designed after the Oklahoma Bombing. It's lineage is 100% an attempt to counter domestic terrorists.

      1. Smack Daddy   4 years ago

        The patriot act should not even exist, all acts, and laws are inferior to the amendments in the constitution. It will take a lot of waking up for the American people before the federal government will follow the rules that govern them.

        1. ThomasD   4 years ago

          "all acts, and laws are inferior to the amendments in the constitution."

          LOL, that ship sailed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

            I’d disagree. The “New Deal” was years ahead of the CRA in grooming the American people to accept the federal government as the benevolent mother to us all.

    4. CE   4 years ago

      The Patriot Act was always (and primarily) about tax evasion. We had to keep better tabs on money transfers and accounts to prevent people from funding terrorism. But oh by the way, we can also keep better tabs on people trying to use foreign tax shelters.

  15. Unicorn Abattoir   4 years ago

    A friend of mine bought a red Cherokee from Elizabeth Warren. When he ran a title search on the vehicle, it turned out to be a white Suburban.

    /I stole this joke

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

      Well done.

    2. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

      Nice. 🙂

      And phuck Phil Murphy!

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   4 years ago

        Jack's run such a bad campaign I have to wonder if he's a false flag.

        1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

          But the Jack & Diane signs are so cute! 🙁

          1. Unicorn Abattoir   4 years ago

            Diane Allen is a major asset in South Jersey. I haven't seen anything from her in this campaign. My voting demo remembers when she was a news anchor in Philly.

            1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

              I remember her when she was an anchor in Philly. She did Ok in her debate with Oliver.

              Jack has an uphill battle. 🙂

        2. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

          A little ditty 'bout Jack and Diane
          Two American kids doin' the best they can

        3. Chumby   4 years ago

          Jack and Jill went up the hill,
          each with a buck and a quarter.
          Jill came down with two fifty.

          1. Sevo   4 years ago

            Blind verse, but it'll do.

    3. Chumby   4 years ago

      She’s noisy, frequently steers in the wrong direction and bad on economy. But enough about Warren.

    4. Quo Usque Tandem   4 years ago

      ++

      1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

        +++

  16. BYODB   4 years ago


    "...and far too many overcredulous news organizations have portrayed this expansion of federal financial surveillance as (in the Post's lead-paragraph description) a "proposal to crack down on wealthy tax cheats."

    When a bunch of news organizations lie in lockstep, it's how you can tell which outlets are outright mouthpieces for the government. Calling them news organizations is rather like calling Pravda a news organization.

  17. Enjoy Every Sandwich   4 years ago

    Well, duh! Everybody knows that tax-cheating millionaires use Christmas Club accounts to hide their ill-gotten gains.

  18. CE   4 years ago

    It's mostly about making sure anyone with a windfall in crypto pays the taxes (i.e. the government gets its cut).

    Because banks already report transactions over 10K (Know Thy Customer).

    And smaller transactions too, because you might be "structuring" your 10K transaction if you have 2 or 3 transactions of 4 or 5K.

    1. NOYB2   4 years ago

      The new law isn't about reporting transactions over $10k, it's about reporting any accounts that have more than $10k at any time during the year, plus the influx and spending associated with such accounts.

  19. RedPilledConservative   4 years ago

    Anyone who believes this isn't about tracking everyone has their head in the sand...

    Very, very few people don't have $10k in " ... combined annual transactions ... " !!!

    1. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

      +1`

    2. CE   4 years ago

      a.k.a. "3 monthly rent payments in California"

  20. mjs_28s   4 years ago

    This is clearly designed to track the masses and not large tax evaders.

    When you announce exactly how you will track certain crimes the actual big fish will change their behavior and not get caught.

    Again, this is about gathering data on as many people as possible under the veil of just going after the tax evaders.

    This will end up being a headache for people explaining innocent transactions (likely with the help of their CPA or lawyer at $225 per hour that they will never get back for the IRS' mistake) that get flagged which then gets the IRS whores nothing but wastes resources and money on the IRS side.

    1. CE   4 years ago

      If you hire 87,000 new IRS agents, you gotta give them something to do. You think there are 87,000 billionaires to go after?

      1. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

        AOC does. But then, she’s really fucking stupid.

    2. Overt   4 years ago

      Yes. It isn’t necessarily about catching you now. Maybe next year you embarrass a politician with a question at a town hall that goes viral? We’ll be prepared to have all your transactions reviewed by authorities and potentially leaked to the press. Did you pay $200 to someone busted for prostitution? Support the wrong NGO? It is all knowledge.

      1. Don Nico   4 years ago

        Maybe, Overt. But it is far more likely that this is a way to increase taxes on the working class without an overt increase in rates.

  21. Union of Concerned Socks   4 years ago

    385 days to midterms.

    Looking forward to a complete wipeout.

    Pelosi already knows she's gone. Nancy's career is over in '22.

    1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

      I hope she gets protesters every day for her private life. They can eat ice cream at her.

      1. Fk_Censorship   4 years ago

        I initially read that as "they can eat ice cream off her". And my imagination took a turn for the worse.

        1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

          Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh no!

    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Looking forward to a complete wipeout

      Lol, if they even let them happen, they'll be so heavily fortified that they'll be nonsensical.
      Democracy in the West is finished.

      1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

        Do you ever look at Quora?

        According to many Europeans, Australians and Canadians there, they are democracies and the U.S. is not.

        They usually point to their “democratic” health care systems and abolishment of personal gun ownership compared to the U.S. as “proof”.

    3. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

      Amd the dems will become massively more radical with her retirement. Plus. I doubt we can wait another year to act.

    4. NOYB2   4 years ago

      Looking forward to a complete wipeout.

      With Democrats in bed with big tech, legacy media, and big city governments, there is little chance of that. 2016 was a glitch, they are not going to let that happen again.

    5. justme   4 years ago

      yea time to vote her out. waiting for her death isn't working.

  22. Angler   4 years ago

    Mexico did this a decade ago due to income tax evasion. What did it do? It cratered the banks. All the self employed stash their money under their mattress. It is nearly impossible to get credit for personal or small business loans because there simply aren't enough deposits.

  23. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

    So, again, the gov't says "fuck you" to small businesses.

    More importantly, it's none of their fuckint business, get a damn warrant with a specific target and scope. ANY of their numbers, $600 or $10,000 or a million, is an unacceptable intrusion in privacy.

    1. Weigel's Cock Ring   4 years ago

      So anyone who gets more than $10,000 total deposited into their bank accounts over the course of the year is eligible. In other words almost every person in the entire country over the age of like 22 or so.

      1. Overt   4 years ago

        And if it doesn’t get all of them now, just wait until Universal Badic Incomes (bank account required) become a thing!

        1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

          And if this or that doesn't work, they'll bring out the other and bundle something into a must-pass bill.

          So deeply disgusted.

  24. Jerryskids   4 years ago

    So glad to see so many members of the commentariat here smart enough to realize that this has nothing to do with going after the rich but all about going after the middle class who pay their lawn guys and baby sitters and weekly maids cash under the table. The rich who don't pay their "fair share" are paying exactly what the law requires them to pay, the law that they themselves bribed the government to pass. As OBL constantly reminds us, it's all bullshit that somehow the government is the enemy of the rich, they're both in on the scam. It's us schlubs that can't afford tax attorneys and don't have complicated sources of income that wind up taking it in the shorts. And this time will be no different.

    1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

      Actually, nailing the middle class for participating in income and employment tax evasion schemes doesn’t really bother me. They have it coming as much as the rich and the companies that hire illegals do.

      Equitable application of our law is an important starting point if we want to work to modify or eliminate them. Anything less results in the divisions we see today and wastes all the energy that could be used for change into civil battles that accomplish nothing.

  25. Sevo   4 years ago

    Just noticed: An even larger mask would begin to make Pelosi less ugly.

    1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

      How about a muzzle?

      1. Sevo   4 years ago

        And a burka.

      2. Don Nico   4 years ago

        I thought that was what Lizzie was wearing in the photo.

        1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

          Sadly, still audible.

  26. Brian   4 years ago

    Thank god Trump can’t veto any of this, amirite?

    1. Sevo   4 years ago

      Ask Brandyshit.

  27. VISHYAT TECHNOLOGIES   4 years ago

    thank you for sharing this information.

  28. Liberty Lover   4 years ago

    The Democrats are going after the 99%. The 1% will never be taxed, as they contribute heavily to Democratic election coffers. It is all smoke and mirrors, with the intention to screw you.

    1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

      Even the Koch clan?

  29. NOYB2   4 years ago

    Democrats are in bed with the 1%: from ACA to tax reforms, the Green New Deal, government spending, immigration policy, stimulus packages, MMT, their programs are designed to impoverish average Americans and transfer trillions to the ultra-wealthy.

    1. Ignore me!   4 years ago

      I just have to wonder why? The ultra-wealthy don't need the extra scratch. Their power is practically limitless as it is. Evil doesn't begin to explain this level of vindictiveness. It's vicious hatred of anyone without a foundation named after them.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 years ago

        Fear. Rentseeking. Most of the ultra-rich don't earn their money, they inherit it. They use their wealth to get their kids and the sycophants that support them jobs with giant salaries and little responsibility to keep their dynasties going. They use that 'experience' to get and keep high rank jobs in the government and academia in the hands of fellow elites.

        They fear people who actually produce and earn. So we get wars, grossly inflated public health and climate scares, ever more intrusion into our finances and so many laws that we can't possibly know them all let alone obey them. If we push back, they have everything they need to discredit and punish the offenders.

        What I don't understand is how people like Bill Gates can join with them. Zuckerberg, I get. The guy was always a douchebag and being one of the elite was exactly what he wanted. But Gates built something real and is participating in a system that will inevitably destroy his legacy. The People's Republic of Western States will never hold Gates up as a founding hero (a continent named after a European map maker is racist).

        1. NOYB2   4 years ago

          Most of the ultra-rich don’t earn their money, they inherit it.

          That is absolutely false. The majority of the ultra-wealthy in the US built their wealth, they didn't inherit it.

          What I don’t understand is how people like Bill Gates can join with them.

          Both Gates and Zuckerberg are ruthless businessmen. But between them, Gates is technologically less competent and the software the company put out under his leadership (MSDOS, Windows 3 to Windows ME) held the industry back by many years. He missed the boat on several important technologies. Neither Gates nor Zuckerberg will be remembered for any kind of worthwhile technical contributions.

        2. You're Kidding   4 years ago

          Gates has been too busy trying to cover his tracks in the latest revelations about his behaviors at work and time with Epstein.

      2. NOYB2   4 years ago

        The ultra-wealthy aren't the primary driver. For the most part, they built a successful business and they are just doing whatever it takes so that their business survives and thrives. If politicians are willing to subsidize and regulate, businesses have no choice but to participate because otherwise they will become uncompetitive.

        The problem is with Americans, their expectations of government, and the people they vote into power these days. Americans are getting the government and economy they voted for and they deserve, and it's only going to get worse.

        1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

          True but, Americans don’t understand this. They’ve been conditioned to accept Big Brother for the last 120 or so years.

  30. tlapp   4 years ago

    The correct answer is no reporting. If there is evidence of criminal activity get a proper warrant for information.

  31. Duelles   4 years ago

    So require retirees to withdraw money from IRAs or 401 Ks and then have them surveilled by the IRS. Biden et al = assholes.

    1. Echospinner   4 years ago

      That was always the deal. That money is tax deferred not tax free. I borrowed from it when we moved to make the down payment on the new house until the transfer on the old was finished. You had a limited time to put it back. I trusted the sale. My advisor was worried. It worked.

      Investing in life now. Market is back up. That is good.

      I am not yet retired. The 401k was always meant to be spent.

    2. You're Kidding   4 years ago

      That has been true all along. Every IRA transaction is reported already. Ask me how I know.

  32. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   4 years ago

    As a voter who despised both donald trump and joe biden, this short time with joe biden as president has made me long for the disaster that was the trump presidency rather than the colossal disaster of the biden presidency.

    It's like a choice between toxic and caustically toxic. Both may be fatal, but with joe biden it's going to hurt much more. With trump the corporate media hounded trump, but with biden the corporate media are simply sycophantic scheels.

    1. Butler T. Reynolds   4 years ago

      This is a result of Republicans voting for Trump in the primaries in 2016.

    2. Echospinner   4 years ago

      Jo jo. Batwoman so no regrets.

  33. Butler T. Reynolds   4 years ago

    Agent Trump is telling his lemmings that they should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans who won't kiss his ring.

  34. VexaGame   4 years ago

    Wow amazing

  35. tommhan   4 years ago

    Less government and not more is always the best option.

    1. Echospinner   4 years ago

      Amen

  36. Truthteller1   4 years ago

    The deep state will come for your health records next.

  37. B G   4 years ago

    Imagine the amount of time involved with trying to get $2.5Million into tax-aviodant accounts in transactions of between $600-1000 at a time...

    Bezos would probably have to have a double-digit staff of people moving his money around all day every day to shield just the portion of his annual net-worth growth that doesn't consist of unrealized capital gains.

  38. NOYB2   4 years ago

    Bezos would probably have to have a double-digit staff of people moving his money around all day every day to shield just the portion of his annual net-worth growth that doesn’t consist of unrealized capital gains.

    You can be sure that Bezos has a double digit accounting and legal staff managing his personal fortune, and he doesn't care.

    And he doesn't put his money into "tax-aviodant accounts", he keeps it in a large number of corporations and holding companies, quite openly, quite legally, and quite tax-minimizing.

    Imagine the amount of time involved with trying to get $2.5Million into tax-aviodant accounts in transactions of between $600-1000 at a time…

    $2.5 million is middle class retirement savings. People with that little money don't have the ability to avoid taxes, and the new law will screw them with scurrilous accusations and audits by the IRS.

    1. You're Kidding   4 years ago

      I might be in that boat. But, so is Bezos and everyone else. There are no real, tax avoidance schemes other than illegal ones. There are many tax deferral schemes and, they are legal. This is what you get when tax law is used to influence social policies as well as collect tax revenue.

      Al Capone was a tax avoider. And look what happened to him.

  39. VISHYAT TECHNOLOGIES SEO INDIA   4 years ago

    thank you for sharing this information.

  40. NM Dave   4 years ago

    The truly "rich" don't cheat by moving $10k around. This is an inconsequential amount of money, even to an upper middle class person. They do develop questionable tax shelters, but most of them are voted on and passed by a congress that is bribed to do the will of the wealthy. For Yellen and Pelosi to pretend this is about anything but going after smaller taxpayers is absurd.

  41. annaspa   4 years ago

    “Great share!”

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!