Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'm all for busting those small evaders who are the ones that complain the wealthy, who pay the vast majority of individual income taxes in this country, should pay their fair share when those small evaders are criminally not paying their fair share and justifying their action by saying they don't have as much money as someone else.
I'm a fairly exceptional net-positive tax payer......I get what you are saying. However, the best guess I've seen says it'll cost banks more in enforcement and reporting that the IRS will net. That's a bad bet.
IRS enforcement and collection per these small depositors will cost more per collected dollar than other tax dollars.
Except to neo-Marxists and socialists it's not the government's business to drive up costs without good reason/some cost rational net-payback in one form or another. In other words significantly damaging models that currently work fine for very little payback isn't rational.
You haven't given evidence of the cost per dollar collected so it's just your assumption. Enhanced reporting drives voluntary compliance as shown on the IRS's tax gap report.
No business is immune to additional regulation and their business model must adapt or perish. Has nothing to do with being neo-Marxist or Socialist. That's reality.
Again, $110 billion is far from "very little payback". It is the largest component of the tax gap.
You haven't given evidence of the cost per dollar collected so it's just your assumption. Enhanced reporting drives voluntary compliance as shown on the IRS's tax gap report.
No business is immune to additional regulation and their business model must adapt or perish. Has nothing to do with being neo-Marxist or Socialist. That's reality.
Again, $110 billion is far from "very little payback". It is the largest component of the tax gap.
Penalizing business activity without good financial reason is straight from the Karl Marx playbook.
I'm a fairly exceptional net-positive tax payer......I get what you are saying. However, the best guess I've seen says it'll cost banks more in enforcement and reporting that the IRS will net. That's a bad bet.
I'm a substantial net-positive taxpayer myself. That's irrelevant.
Haven't seen any estimates of bank costs. I'm sure it's very similar to what the brokerages were saying when basis reporting was first implemented. Somehow they still make money, and they've cut their trading fees.
$110 billion (and remember that's back in 2013, I can only imagine the number is substantially higher now) is a good financial reason. You can debate it until your blue, it's what the primary issue is. The gig economy is trying to build itself on skirting the employee classification requirements and information reporting requirements, and indirectly the tax laws. An industry that is built on illegal behavior is not an industry that deserves to be saved.
So the alternative would be re-defining the employee/employer relationship, mandatory withholding on all nonemployee compensation or enhanced information reporting. Of the 3, the last one also provides additional insight into potential abuses from the non-gig economy so that seems like a logical place to start.
I'm a substantial net-positive taxpayer myself. That's irrelevant.
Haven't seen any estimates of bank costs. I'm sure it's very similar to what the brokerages were saying when basis reporting was first implemented. Somehow they still make money, and they've cut their trading fees.
$110 billion (and remember that's back in 2013, I can only imagine the number is substantially higher now) is a good financial reason. You can debate it until your blue, it's what the primary issue is. The gig economy is trying to build itself on skirting the employee classification requirements and information reporting requirements, and indirectly the tax laws. An industry that is built on illegal behavior is not an industry that deserves to be saved.
So the alternative would be re-defining the employee/employer relationship, mandatory withholding on all nonemployee compensation or enhanced information reporting. Of the 3, the last one also provides additional insight into potential abuses from the non-gig economy so that seems like a logical place to start.
DEBT DEBACLE
There have been NO DOLLARS circulating since 1933.
"Dollar bills" are IOUs (debt) denominated in dollars, but have a minus value until redeemed.
And if all the gold in the world was coined, pursuant to law, it would only amount to $118 billion dollars *US*.
. . . . .
So exactly what was lent to CONgress to rack up owing $28+ Trillion DOLLARS (not dollar bills)?
Only gold and silver coin are lawful money. And any debt over $118 billion is FRAUD.
. . . . .
Oh spit. Clause 4, 14th amendment, USCON.
A balanced budget amendment would be a disaster. What is congress going to do, raise taxes to 90% on everyone because of a war? Everyone talks about "my budget has to balance, so should government", which is a ridiculous statement. Unless you pay cash for everything, you run deficits at some point. As long as you can pay the interest, you can have deficits as large as you want.
I am certainly aware that passing a balanced budget amendment today would be catastropic if implemented. I also agree that it doesnt need to be perfectly balanced since money may be needed to be raised for large projects. However, the government isnt us, it exists to provide us with some basic services. There is no need for a government to have such a large role as to put us on the hook for that much debt or grow itself so much that its role is disproportionately large.
Anyway, I think we can all agree that a debt ceiling helps accomplish nothing but raise money for politicians. So it should be eliminated and replaced with something more thoughtful and useful.
That sounds reasonable but I am off the Yellen Train after hearing her try to justify passing the law that would require banks to provide account information on anyone with transactions and/or balances of more than $600. What school of fascism did she attend?
That's not the worst of it, its the fact that she said that is how they were going to hold Billionaires accountable - by monitoring $600 transactions. Really??? Ms. Yellen, Stop being obtuse and tone deaf. It destroys any credibility you may have had.
Information reporting doesn't raise anyone's taxes. They should be paying already.
I think one thing that is being overlooked is the fact that giving the government more access to your info can open up more problems in the future if the government makes more things illegal. A lot of our protections exist to protect us from government overreach. Where today you may say "they should be paying anyway" you may not agree with what the government uses this information for in the future. Also, a lot of people do not agree with many things that are considered today to be illegal and worry that further government access could uncover some of these "illegal" activities. Some people believe that our protection is more important that the government's ability to squeeze every dollar they can out of us.
What we are doing is unsustainable, and any reasonably intelligent person can see that. At this point, it's only a matter of time before total economic collapse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
