@mott-the-hoople saidThat's complete BS and you know it.
it has all to do with it...it is proven that democrats have weaponized the IRS., they will use this proposal to harm their opponents, thats it in a nutshell.
The proposal does nothing more than make it easier for the IRS to identify bank accounts with large amounts of money flowing through them. Then the agency can check to see if those amounts are consistent with the person's income as declared on their tax returns. If they don't match, then that might be a red flag for an audit.
That's it.
@no1marauder saidIf that's true then who can argue with it?
That's complete BS and you know it.
The proposal does nothing more than make it easier for the IRS to identify bank accounts with large amounts of money flowing through them. Then the agency can check to see if those amounts are consistent with the person's income as declared on their tax returns. If they don't match, then that might be a red flag for an audit.
That's it.
@no1marauder saidEasy. You let these totalitarians do this, thenit will be even more invasive and controlling next time.This bothers hell out of me,,,,,,,it doesn’t you? Are you a govt dependent? Don’t you want to be free? Your parents were freein 1959.. What happened?
Your "point" is asinine. These are economic transactions done with a bank, not something you are doing in your private residence. As already pointed out, almost everyone's income is already reported to the IRS by third parties, so what is the big deal about reporting your total deposits and withdrawals? This will only disadvantage those cheating on their taxes.
@no1marauder said“ The proposal does nothing more than make it easier for the IRS to identify bank accounts with large amounts of money flowing through them.”
That's complete BS and you know it.
The proposal does nothing more than make it easier for the IRS to identify bank accounts with large amounts of money flowing through them. Then the agency can check to see if those amounts are consistent with the person's income as declared on their tax returns. If they don't match, then that might be a red flag for an audit.
That's it.
again fool…$600 is not “large amounts of money”.
@no1marauder saidThat is NOT it. Such a statement means 'that is all there is'. There is going to be more, Marauder. Libs never stop.
That's complete BS and you know it.
The proposal does nothing more than make it easier for the IRS to identify bank accounts with large amounts of money flowing through them. Then the agency can check to see if those amounts are consistent with the person's income as declared on their tax returns. If they don't match, then that might be a red flag for an audit.
That's it.
@mott-the-hoople saidWhy doesn't marauder answer the question, ,,,if it is only to be applied to the accounts of the rich, why is it a measly $600?. Why do libs not answer questions?
“ The proposal does nothing more than make it easier for the IRS to identify bank accounts with large amounts of money flowing through them.”
again fool…$600 is not “large amounts of money”.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhy don't you ever read my answers? See my first post on page 7 of this thread.
Why doesn't marauder answer the question, ,,,if it is only to be applied to the accounts of the rich, why is it a measly $600?. Why do libs not answer questions?
You're being dishonest anyway; you'd oppose the proposal even if the $10,000 bank account average was adopted.
@no1marauder saidYes, I would oppose any move by the govt to snoop into the private affairs of its citizens. And why do you libs put a dollar amount on everything. If there is no probable cause, the govt should not snoop into the private affairs of its citizens.
Why don't you ever read my answers? See my first post on page 7 of this thread.
You're being dishonest anyway; you'd oppose the proposal even if the $10,000 bank account average was adopted.
Do you think such snooping is OK? Should there not be probable cause?
@no1marauder saidOh Marauder. I couldn't even bring myself to type hahahahaha
How can the government "ruin your life" just by the IRS having a record of your total deposits and withdrawals from your bank account?
@averagejoe1 saidHow much income you have isn't your "private affair" to the IRS, one of who's primary functions is the Constitutional one of collecting income taxes.
Yes, I would oppose any move by the govt to snoop into the private affairs of its citizens. And why do you libs put a dollar amount on everything. If there is no probable cause, the govt should not snoop into the private affairs of its citizens.
Do you think such snooping is OK? Should there not be probable cause?
@averagejoe1 saidThen I'll repeat the question to any non-idiots.
Oh Marauder. I couldn't even bring myself to type hahahahaha
@no1marauder saidExcuse me, is that a thread segue that you just typed? It is about income? Which, of course, must be reported to the IRS, as it is not a private affair. But this thread is about the '$600'.
How much income you have isn't your "private affair" to the IRS, one of who's primary functions is the Constitutional one of collecting income taxes.
Once again, I must remind posters such as yourself to stay on point so that we can discern a winner! If you segue from the issue, as you do by avoiding the "$600" issue, you are getting close to not winning!!!
We ain't writing about income. Even JIMM and Kev know that, and Kev, why, he aint even from around here.
@AverageJoe1
Did you ever respond with your position on Probable Cause. You think the snoop should be allowed without probable cause? You did attend a Con Law class, I presume?
@no1marauder saidthat answer was incorrect...the $50,000 would have allowed the IRS to investigate via the laws already in place. (10,000 reporting)
Why don't you ever read my answers? See my first post on page 7 of this thread.
You're being dishonest anyway; you'd oppose the proposal even if the $10,000 bank account average was adopted.