Manchin says IRS snoopin won't be in final Biden bill (loans, accountant)
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.
Things like property taxes alone could be $15k+. If you're self-employed and have large credit card bills, that's easily mid 5 figures.
And AFAIC the less snooping the IRS is allowed to do the better. Frankly reporting requirements should be banned and the IRS should never be allowed anywhere near our financial data absent a warrant.
Presumably, 99% of the middle class is paying those things like property taxes out of their W-2 income, so that wouldn't trigger the reporting requirement.
I didn't read the entire proposal but I would assume there was a provision in there for the SE income to be used in lieu of W-2 in determining the reporting threshold.
There never was a proposal to have every individual transaction over $600 reported. The proposal was to have the aggregate inflows and outflows for the year from bank accounts with over $600 of transactions reported.
You bought the misinformation that was pushed to beat back this proposal.
This is still the same thing because it's an aggregated total report of all your transactions and it's an invasion of privacy. IRS will have the data that shows who you send money to and that can be used to trace or look at behavior or relationships.
It's a serious violation of privacy and it has nothing to do with income taxes. Because the requirements are already set that any income from securities or earned income from employment must be reported so this type of policy is invasion of privacy.
This is still the same thing because it's an aggregated total report of all your transactions and it's an invasion of privacy. IRS will have the data that shows who you send money to and that can be used to trace or look at behavior or relationships.
It's a serious violation of privacy and it has nothing to do with income taxes. Because the requirements are already set that any income from securities or earned income from employment must be reported so this type of policy is invasion of privacy.
I had $127,565 and $124,682 of inflows and outflows in my account. Who did I send money to?
Reporting individual transactions were never part of the proposal.
Give me a break - never said it was but still TOO INTRUSIVE. Since we don't work (retired) and every account has $10K, every single account me or my DW have would be under this oversight if it went forward. You continue to try and defend a bad idea by claiming not that bad - bad is bad - very happy it is likely going away.
Give me a break - never said it was but still TOO INTRUSIVE. Since we don't work (retired) and every account has $10K, every single account me or my DW have would be under this oversight if it went forward. You continue to try and defend a bad idea by claiming not that bad - bad is bad - very happy it is likely going away.
I'm not trying to defend anything, I couldn't care less if this becomes law or not. What I was pointing out was the misinformation that was pushed so people thought the proposal was something it wasn't.
I'm not trying to defend anything, I couldn't care less if this becomes law or not. What I was pointing out was the misinformation that was pushed so people thought the proposal was something it wasn't.
I never said what you "corrected" - that would seem to be defending. You are so worried about misinformation that you incorrectly claimed I put out misinformation - that is defending - not just correcting.
This thread is in economics, not politics - should be about the implementation, not the politics which is what you are doing when saying not so bad - the policy is bad whether $6, $600, or $10K. The bottom line is it is intrusive.
I never said what you "corrected" - that would seem to be defending. You are so worried about misinformation that you incorrectly claimed I put out misinformation - that is defending - not just correcting.
the original post I responded to did, sorry if I carried that through to your post responding to where I corrected that information, that brought up the irrelevant point that the proposal originally started at $600.
I'm not trying to defend anything, I couldn't care less if this becomes law or not. What I was pointing out was the misinformation that was pushed so people thought the proposal was something it wasn't.
Sorry. That's hard believe as you've been playing the pro- side of this for weeks.
Sorry. That's hard believe as you've been playing the pro- side of this for weeks.
I don't really care what you believe.
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.