@DollarAfterDollar said:
First, this will never get included in any final bill.
Second, in reality, how many transactions does the average American engage in monthly?
Third, I think only people with something to hide need to be concerned.
I could care less if the government wants to know that I spent $3,000 for a vacation reservation.
I see these points in a different way; first it is being included as part of a larger bill. The government fed or local have learned that they can sneak stuff like this in under the radar so to speak with larger bills to camouflage it. Not that long ago the local state wanted to raise taxes to pay for a new sports stadium, failed several times. Then they tied it to a larger bill that included a bunch of new soccer and baseball fields for the kids, boom passed the first time. Bet you can guess what did get built and what has not been.
Second there are still a great many jobs such as day labor, landscaping, and on where the workers are paid each day in cash. If those individuals are using a bank account this will stick out and is the very type of activity the feds want to find. Granted most of those in these jobs are not using a bank account but some may.
Third as has been pointed out everyone should be concerned with government over reach, everyone.
And in your vaca example most people pay for such items via an electronic transaction, I doubt that sandals or airbnb even have the abilities to accept 3K in cash. Also the feds are less interested in withdrawals but rather with cash deposits which may signal unreported income or some type of laundering effort.
They are probably mostly concerned with inferring transactions in and out of cybercurrencies. But the blanket oversight does raise constitutional concerns. Typically, an investigator would be required diligently present evidence to a judge to secure a warrant to peep into accounts. In the unlikely event that lobbyists do not adequately pressure legislators to kill it, it will be immediately challenged in court.
@TurtleCat said:
I think it would take the government quite a while to use the data they would get in any meaningful manner.
I am a BI developer that regularly programs applications which can sift through billions of records of data and turn it into useful information. Creating an application to automate this is common in today's big data world.
@TurtleCat said:
I think it would take the government quite a while to use the data they would get in any meaningful manner.
I am a BI developer that regularly programs applications which can sift through billions of records of data and turn it into useful information. Creating an application to automate this is common in today's big data world.
Agree. It would be very simple. If you've got income of $50k and deposits of $100k, the flag goes up.
As the noose tightens, eventually it'll drive a lot of people out of USD and into other forms of money. Maybe that is the end game.
If the USD is the medium of exchange and people feel uncomfortable using it for some types of transactions then those people will find another way to transact.
the solution is simple but will require people to cooperate and be patient.
I just sold a few coins via the BST where I accept PayPal but also will accept a Personal Check. the convenience and speed of PayPal can be replaced by a mailed check which will arrive/clear within 5-10 days. with new reporting laws I may start to require payment by Personal Check only. additionally, I will cease using "wired money transfers" from anyone/anything and just ask for a check that I can cash.
it's not like this is the first time our Uncle has passed reporting laws that need to be lawfully skirted to avoid the intrusive nature of Government. who here has gotten around the $10k limit??
@keets said:
the solution is simple but will require people to cooperate and be patient.
I just sold a few coins via the BST where I accept PayPal but also will accept a Personal Check. the convenience and speed of PayPal can be replaced by a mailed check which will arrive/clear within 5-10 days. with new reporting laws I may start to require payment by Personal Check only. additionally, I will cease using "wired money transfers" from anyone/anything and just ask for a check that I can cash.
it's not like this is the first time our Uncle has passed reporting laws that need to be lawfully skirted to avoid the intrusive nature of Government. who here has gotten around the $10k limit??
The personal check wouldn't help unless you take it to a check cashing place. It can't go through your account.
I read that this was NOT going to happen, at least not at the $600 mark...bumped up to $10K
"...proposed requiring financial institutions to provide the Internal Revenue Service with additional information on bank accounts with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals."
"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."
@keets said: it was intended to apply to the total of all transactions going into and out of accounts.
does that include a cashed check that isn't deposited??
Don't know.
edited to add... the last time I did that (maybe 5 or 6 years ago), the bank wanted my account number anyway. I don't know what would have happened if I didn't give it to them.
It's not known what threshold would trigger an audit, but what a potential mess. Many people have joint accounts, or many individual accounts. Who will get credited for the deposits? How will transfers be traced from account to account.
I have a couple business partnership accounts that pays my PC, The PC makes distributions to me. I transfer funds into several accounts (investing, saving, retirement, custodial account...) I'm far from a big shot and it would be a mess if I'm audited.
I don't hide income so I'm only considered with the potential hassle. If anything, this will make me never transact in cash. I rarely do anyway, but I want the electronic record to ensure I can account for absolutely everything.
@nags said:
It's not known what threshold would trigger an audit, but what a potential mess. Many people have joint accounts, or many individual accounts. Who will get credited for the deposits? How will transfers be traced from account to account.
It's not about tracing transfers (yet, anyway). The proposal is to add up all transactions in and out of individual accounts and report the accounts where that total is above a certain threshold.
I believe it was $600 per transaction. Now it’s $10,000 for the year. I do enough buying and selling I easily move more than that around per year. I would say a lot of people on here probably do.
This is already done now in practice, but higher amounts and more limited transactions but anyone who has tried to take out cash from the bank of 5000 or more knows this is already being reported, now the limit is less but Imo it is meaningless to the average Joe.
@Che_Grapes said:
This is already done now in practice, but higher amounts and more limited transactions but anyone who has tried to take out cash from the bank of 5000 or more knows this is already being reported, now the limit is less but Imo it is meaningless to the average Joe.
Disagree. At $600, anyone with a bank account would have been involved. Even at $10k aggregate, most people with Bank accounts can hit the threshold. $10k in inflows and outflows is not excessive for a middle class wage earner. For a lot of people, just paying mortgage and taxes from their checking account will hit the threshold.
Here is portion of a news article regarding this issue…
“Under the revised plan, which is backed by the Biden administration, banks would be required to provide data on accounts only with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $10,000, rather than the $600 threshold that was initially proposed. The reporting requirement would not apply to payroll deposits for wage and salary earners or to beneficiaries of federal programs such as Social Security.“
If I’m reading this correctly once your deposits or withdrawals for the year exceed $10,000 the bank would be required to report it.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Here is portion of a news article regarding this issue…
“Under the revised plan, which is backed by the Biden administration, banks would be required to provide data on accounts only with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $10,000, rather than the $600 threshold that was initially proposed. The reporting requirement would not apply to payroll deposits for wage and salary earners or to beneficiaries of federal programs such as Social Security.“
If I’m reading this correctly once your deposits or withdrawals for the year exceed $10,000 the bank would be required to report it.
This proposed change to the program is smoke and mirrors.
Exempt payroll deposits? So what. That money has to get paid out to cover bills, so everyone will be caught up in the $10,000 annual threshold.
@pmh1nic said:
Here is portion of a news article regarding this issue…
“Under the revised plan, which is backed by the Biden administration, banks would be required to provide data on accounts only with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $10,000, rather than the $600 threshold that was initially proposed. The reporting requirement would not apply to payroll deposits for wage and salary earners or to beneficiaries of federal programs such as Social Security.“
If I’m reading this correctly once your deposits or withdrawals for the year exceed $10,000 the bank would be required to report it.
That's my understanding which is why almost all middle class people will hit the threshold. Even if they exempt salary deposits, as has been indicated, you still withdraw that money or use it to pay bills.
Again, I don't really care that much. But any suggestion that this will only apply to the rich is inaccurate, not to mention irrelevant. A lot of the tax avoidance is in lower income groups. A 2012 study showed that 85% of nannies either underreported or failed to report.
@keets said:
with that new description it sounds like virtually every account will be reported so our Uncle will have access to every account in America.
@keets said:
with that new description it sounds like virtually every account will be reported so our Uncle will have access to every account in America.
Ironically, a lot of the unreported income belongs to people who don't use banks at all.
All they need to do is close 2 loopholes on 50 billionaires and they can leave the 50 million hard working people alone, breaking rocks to make a living.
Let us not be so naive …. While the working class debates the meaningless details above - Big government operatives are designing a system to track every movement & transaction you make. That data/information will be used as a weapon against “their” enemies and yes this includes the “average Joe”. The CCP is a model of this…
Comments
anything can push the price of silver and gold up or down , and will this supposed rule affect things we will just have to see
Check out my coins for sale at the link below mid-priced (read carefully)
** https://photos.app.goo.gl/VLi1NBeJuE7UTkCE7**
I see these points in a different way; first it is being included as part of a larger bill. The government fed or local have learned that they can sneak stuff like this in under the radar so to speak with larger bills to camouflage it. Not that long ago the local state wanted to raise taxes to pay for a new sports stadium, failed several times. Then they tied it to a larger bill that included a bunch of new soccer and baseball fields for the kids, boom passed the first time. Bet you can guess what did get built and what has not been.
Second there are still a great many jobs such as day labor, landscaping, and on where the workers are paid each day in cash. If those individuals are using a bank account this will stick out and is the very type of activity the feds want to find. Granted most of those in these jobs are not using a bank account but some may.
Third as has been pointed out everyone should be concerned with government over reach, everyone.
And in your vaca example most people pay for such items via an electronic transaction, I doubt that sandals or airbnb even have the abilities to accept 3K in cash. Also the feds are less interested in withdrawals but rather with cash deposits which may signal unreported income or some type of laundering effort.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
They are probably mostly concerned with inferring transactions in and out of cybercurrencies. But the blanket oversight does raise constitutional concerns. Typically, an investigator would be required diligently present evidence to a judge to secure a warrant to peep into accounts. In the unlikely event that lobbyists do not adequately pressure legislators to kill it, it will be immediately challenged in court.
An update : https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/biden-admin-backs-down-on-tracking-bank-accounts-with-over-600-annual-transactions/ar-AAPINEh?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
I am a BI developer that regularly programs applications which can sift through billions of records of data and turn it into useful information. Creating an application to automate this is common in today's big data world.
Agree. It would be very simple. If you've got income of $50k and deposits of $100k, the flag goes up.
Maybe they have finally had it with the non-reporting flippers.
Collector, occasional seller
As the noose tightens, eventually it'll drive a lot of people out of USD and into other forms of money. Maybe that is the end game.
If the USD is the medium of exchange and people feel uncomfortable using it for some types of transactions then those people will find another way to transact.
Its the "one" that should be avoided unless you identify as a predator or parasite.
Not to mention the non-reporting collectors. How many people report their BST sales?
This has been dropped in final negotiations.
Largely because of banking resistance.
the solution is simple but will require people to cooperate and be patient.
I just sold a few coins via the BST where I accept PayPal but also will accept a Personal Check. the convenience and speed of PayPal can be replaced by a mailed check which will arrive/clear within 5-10 days. with new reporting laws I may start to require payment by Personal Check only. additionally, I will cease using "wired money transfers" from anyone/anything and just ask for a check that I can cash.
it's not like this is the first time our Uncle has passed reporting laws that need to be lawfully skirted to avoid the intrusive nature of Government. who here has gotten around the $10k limit??
The personal check wouldn't help unless you take it to a check cashing place. It can't go through your account.
As of Tuesday, they changed the threshold. When did they drop it entirely?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-bank-reporting-democrats-11634658560
Don't those places charge a fee?
Yes. Which is why I'm not sure there's an easy way to continue to avoid reporting per @keets suggestion.
[I report everything, so I don't care. ]
I thought the new law change applied to wired funds??
No. Any activity.
Nope, it was intended to apply to the total of all transactions going into and out of accounts.
$600 is dropped. Now $10K.
I read that this was NOT going to happen, at least not at the $600 mark...bumped up to $10K
"...proposed requiring financial institutions to provide the Internal Revenue Service with additional information on bank accounts with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals."
"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."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/18/democrats-irs-bank-reporting/
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
it was intended to apply to the total of all transactions going into and out of accounts.
does that include a cashed check that isn't deposited??
Don't know.
edited to add... the last time I did that (maybe 5 or 6 years ago), the bank wanted my account number anyway. I don't know what would have happened if I didn't give it to them.
I consider that a change not a "drop", but gotcha.
Probably.
There's also a separate $600 individual transaction reporting that was being discussed.
Just report everything you're supposed to report and you'll be fine.
It's not known what threshold would trigger an audit, but what a potential mess. Many people have joint accounts, or many individual accounts. Who will get credited for the deposits? How will transfers be traced from account to account.
I have a couple business partnership accounts that pays my PC, The PC makes distributions to me. I transfer funds into several accounts (investing, saving, retirement, custodial account...) I'm far from a big shot and it would be a mess if I'm audited.
I don't hide income so I'm only considered with the potential hassle. If anything, this will make me never transact in cash. I rarely do anyway, but I want the electronic record to ensure I can account for absolutely everything.
It's not about tracing transfers (yet, anyway). The proposal is to add up all transactions in and out of individual accounts and report the accounts where that total is above a certain threshold.
I believe it was $600 per transaction. Now it’s $10,000 for the year. I do enough buying and selling I easily move more than that around per year. I would say a lot of people on here probably do.
This is already done now in practice, but higher amounts and more limited transactions but anyone who has tried to take out cash from the bank of 5000 or more knows this is already being reported, now the limit is less but Imo it is meaningless to the average Joe.
What I find funny about it, even at the 10K limit even folks below the poverty level that use a checking account will likely surpass 10K in a year!
Disagree. At $600, anyone with a bank account would have been involved. Even at $10k aggregate, most people with Bank accounts can hit the threshold. $10k in inflows and outflows is not excessive for a middle class wage earner. For a lot of people, just paying mortgage and taxes from their checking account will hit the threshold.
Here is portion of a news article regarding this issue…
“Under the revised plan, which is backed by the Biden administration, banks would be required to provide data on accounts only with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $10,000, rather than the $600 threshold that was initially proposed. The reporting requirement would not apply to payroll deposits for wage and salary earners or to beneficiaries of federal programs such as Social Security.“
If I’m reading this correctly once your deposits or withdrawals for the year exceed $10,000 the bank would be required to report it.
This proposed change to the program is smoke and mirrors.
Exempt payroll deposits? So what. That money has to get paid out to cover bills, so everyone will be caught up in the $10,000 annual threshold.
That's my understanding which is why almost all middle class people will hit the threshold. Even if they exempt salary deposits, as has been indicated, you still withdraw that money or use it to pay bills.
Again, I don't really care that much. But any suggestion that this will only apply to the rich is inaccurate, not to mention irrelevant. A lot of the tax avoidance is in lower income groups. A 2012 study showed that 85% of nannies either underreported or failed to report.
with that new description it sounds like virtually every account will be reported so our Uncle will have access to every account in America.
That is the idea.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
the laughable part is that it's supposed to capture taxes from the rich.
Ironically, a lot of the unreported income belongs to people who don't use banks at all.
Are you sure?
Indeed, very laughable. The 'Rich' are writing the bill.
If its 10K annually, which is still frickin' ridiculous then we are all in the $10,001 club.
Unbelievable.
Yup.
No big deal unless you don't report income or get very generous cash gifts from Grandma.
I wonder if they will make it illegal to have multiple accounts to avoid the limits like laddering withdrawals.
All they need to do is close 2 loopholes on 50 billionaires and they can leave the 50 million hard working people alone, breaking rocks to make a living.
Let us not be so naive …. While the working class debates the meaningless details above - Big government operatives are designing a system to track every movement & transaction you make. That data/information will be used as a weapon against “their” enemies and yes this includes the “average Joe”. The CCP is a model of this…