Biden's Proposal to Empower IRS Rattles Banks

[applegrove]

Biden’s Proposal to Empower IRS Rattles Banks

October 11, 2021 at 8:42 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 68 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2021/10/11/bidens-proposal-to-empower-irs-rattles-banks/

"SNIP.......

“When the Biden administration looked for ways to pay for the president’s expansive social policy bill, it proposed raising revenue by cracking down on $7 trillion in unpaid taxes, mostly from wealthy Americans and businesses,” the New York Times reports.

“To help find those funds, the administration wants banks to give the Internal Revenue Service new details on their customers and provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600. That has sparked an uproar among banks and Republican lawmakers, who say giving the I.R.S. such power would be an enormous breach of privacy and government overreach.”

.......SNIP"

[PoliticAverse]

1. "with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600." - You're "wealthy" if you put in..

or take out $600/year?

Is this idea from the "how to lose the next election" playbook?

[applegrove]

2. It is worth it to stop corruption. Can you not see how insidious

it is all getting?

[harumph]

15. You're kidding right? Lots of people - very modest income people

have 600.00 annual deposits or withdrawals. This has got to be a typo in the NYtimes.

[cstanleytech]

33. Ya, what it should be changed to is more than 100,000 deposited or withdrawn but

one other change should though.
That change should be to include that all the names and social security numbers of every account holder must be reported to the IRS.
That would then give them the ability to look at people that try to hide their income by using accounts with multiple banks.

[SharonAnn]

3. It's OK with me. I have nothing to hide.

[cadoman]

29. agreed, now try doing a FOIA on any government agency...

...and see if they're as easy-going about coughing up their info as you just were.

[JohnQFunk]

4. Oh boo hoo trumping hoo. I say 𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐄 the head count at and budget for the IRS.

[jimfields33]

6. I think 600 is too low. That's about 300 million Americans

[MichMan]

7. Just think how many IRS agents will be required to monitor

[jimfields33]

8. It won't be enough and the ones they get will be severely

overworked.

[rockfordfile]

14. I agree

[questionseverything]

16. It's insane....$600?

Lotta expense to look at basically every checkbook

Hopefully Biden didn’t really consider this

[MichMan]

17. President Biden states it is his bill, so he must have agreed to it.

[Dawson Leery]

5. "The Elect Speak McCarthy Act of 2022".

Terrible idea. $600, wealthy? WTF?

[joetheman]

9. Renew taxing banks and lenders on the interest they collect and creditors for all kinds of fees.

[harumph]

10. $600.00??????

That's ridiculous. I'm sorry, that (if true) is so pathetically stupid - that you can just kiss the election goodbye.
Is the implication that $600.00 in deposits or withdrawals (Total annually) means you're suspect? They can just
fuck right off - it sound like a license for the IRS to go after average people - NOT THE WEALTHY.

[Scarlet Begalas]

32. $600

The IRS "goes after" people that don't pay their taxes. I don't see why you would have a problem with that.

[ZonkerHarris]

11. Really targeting the 1% there with that $600 threshhold. Hard pass.

[msongs]

12. sounds like they are avoiding the levels where actual mass theft occurs nt

[MichMan]

13. ACA had a provision requiring any business purchases over $600 be reported on a 1099

when it was passed in 2010. It caused much anger & criticism as soon as it was announced.
.
The same legislators that voted for it acted shocked that such a thing existed and voted quickly to repeal it just months later before it was to take effect.

That one only applied to business transactions and not every single person in the entire country. You would think they would have learned from their previous mistakes, but apparently not.

[spooky3]

18. That would mean nearly everyone who has their check direct

deposited would be affected. That affects low and middle income earners, not the ultra rich.

The people paid under the table (like Derek Chauvin’s wife) would still have ways to evade taxation.

[Wingus Dingus]

19. Total annual deposits/withdrawals more than $600--isn't that pretty much

everyone's bank account? Literally almost everyone needs to have their bank accounts examined to see if the IRS can shake us down for even MORE money? That's bonkers, who came up with this? This idea needs to be taken out back, shot, buried, and never spoken of again.

[MichMan]

21. Yes

[BobTheSubgenius]

20. Could that $600 be $300 deposited and $300 withdrawn?

Not the point, obviously. My question is...if you don't have $600 of activity in your bank account in a year, why would you even have a bank account?

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. I believe the amount has been revised to $10,000

Not surprised the NYT didn’t have the updated numbers- gotta keep the negative narrative going…

Edit:
Here’s the story with the revised amount.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-28/democrats-agree-to-10-000-limit-to-report-bank-accounts-to-irs

[MichMan]

24. It has already been $10,000 for single transactions for quite a number of years

Do you have a link to a reputable source stating it has been withdrawn and revised to $10K ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. I believe this is for any account that has a *balance* over $10k, not just transactions. Nt

[MichMan]

26. Do you have a link to a reputable source ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. See update in my original post. Nt

[MichMan]

28. Good thing it was changed and not already passed "as is"

It was undoubtedly the "negative narrative" that made them change it in the first place. Whomever came up with this in the first place needs to be fired

[MichMan]

23. Probably will mean the closing of many small community banks and credit unions

Probably will mean the closing of many small community banks and credit unions as they won't be able to hire enough staff to comply with all the additional reporting requirements and will likely face punitive fines.

[C Moon]

30. I suspect the GOPutin will be meeting in hiding places with CEOs

in an attempt to destroy our economy, before Biden gets his way.
They may well bring us lower than the 1930's.
Hell, that's what the nazi assholes used to take over Germany.

As such, I'm watching the latest strange cancellations of Dallas, Texas airlines Southwest with great suspicion.
I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this before the midterms.

[Demobrat]

31. I think they're talking about individual deposits and withdrawals over $600.

At least that’s how I read it when I saw an article a few days ago.

Right now banks have to report transactions of $10,000+. Pretty sure he’s considering lowering the amount to $600.

I could be wrong.

[slightlv]

34. I can't believe the $600 individual deposit or withdrawals

$600+ deposits would not be unusual for a paycheck.

And a lot of withdrawals for that amount could easily be for rent, etc.

I can't help but think they left off a 0 on that number. That would make a heck of a lot more sense. $600 is average citizen... not wealthy or even middle class! Heck, even my husband's Social Security check beats that amount, and believe me, it's one of the lowest I've ever seen!

[BlueLucy]

35. A lot of poor folks don't even have bank accounts.

I'm OK with this. I have nothing to hide.

[Demobrat]

36. I'm okay with it too.

I pay my taxes. Banks are squawking because it’s more work for them, not because they care about their customers’ privacy or anything else.

[BlueLucy]

37. It's a very progressive thing for Biden to do.

Biden is actually openly advocating for and trying to implement a lot of very progressive policies.

[DFW]

38. They will drown in their own paperwork

They'll never have the manpower to check out all deposits and withdrawals starting that low. The very controls they are trying to put in place will be rendered impossible to implement due to the sheer volume of transactions they will have to monitor. They should raise the level so that the data they are provided with can actually be made useful in tracking down tax deadbeats. Checking on every time someone gets a $1878.34 Social Security check will only provide a smokescreen for the ones who are really trying to hide something. Small banks will be discouraged from offering retail banking, which is often the only thing, e.g. in the town where my sister lives, between working people having secure funds and keeping cash in the house after the check cashing agencies have taken out their outsized cut. The figure seems to me to be poorly thought out. As another poster mentioned above, a zero is missing.