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.


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.

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

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

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

  1. 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. Exactly my thoughts. This is some bs.

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

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

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

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

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

      1. 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....

    2. 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. 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. 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. "combined annual transactions to $10,000"

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

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

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

      1. $5K if you spend most of your income.

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

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

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

        2. Bingo. Progressivism boiled down to its essence.

      3. "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. 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. “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. 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. And all this time, you believed them.

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

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

          1. 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. "He can’t stand people ignoring him."

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

              1. If only....

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

            2. Sarc is so much nicer as a grey box.

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

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

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

        2. “Destroy the west”

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

          1. You are really stupid. Kill any rednecks yet?

            1. Why am I stupid?

              1. 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. Care to explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

        3. 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. "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
            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. 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. "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. "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. 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. The only legally acceptable response, anyway. For as long as free speech lasts.

          2. "Someone sounds crabby! Baby want a bottle?"

            Asshole wanna fuck off and die?

            1. "fuck off and die" 80 million and 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2. "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. 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. I asked how many rich bastards she had bagged.

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

          1. He said 'bagged', not 'balled'!

      2. 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. 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. 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. I wouldn’t use the word “honest.”

      3. That, Overt, is the plan.

      4. Or he'll just keep it all cash.

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

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

      1. And they can't fight back.

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

    5. Fuck off and die, Brandyshit.

      1. 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. "fuck off and die" 80,000,002

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

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

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

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

          1. 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. 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. 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. Only until automation catches up.

        2. 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. Of course they are!

    3. 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. 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. 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. 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?

        Yeah, these are the 1%

      3. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

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

            1. Just segregate the right people.

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

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

        You’re an idiot joe.

        1. 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.

  12. 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. Progressives truly are America’s worst people.

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

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

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

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

          1. 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. 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.

  13. 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. Nice. 🙂

      And phuck Phil Murphy!

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

        1. But the Jack & Diane signs are so cute! 🙁

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

              Jack has an uphill battle. 🙂

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

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

          1. Blind verse, but it'll do.

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

    3. ++

  14. "...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.

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

  16. 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. 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.

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

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

    2. 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. 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.

  19. 385 days to midterms.

    Looking forward to a complete wipeout.

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

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

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

        1. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh no!

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

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

  20. 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.

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

        1. 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.

  22. 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. 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.

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

    1. How about a muzzle?

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

        1. Sadly, still audible.

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

    1. Ask Brandyshit.

  25. thank you for sharing this information.

  26. 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. Even the Koch clan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2. Jo jo. Batwoman so no regrets.

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

  32. Less government and not more is always the best option.

  33. The deep state will come for your health records next.

  34. 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.

  35. 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. 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.

  36. thank you for sharing this information.

  37. 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.

Comments are closed.