U.S. citizens and financial institutions are concerned about the Biden administration’s goals to get banks to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) aggregate inflows from a customer’s bank account annually that exceed $ 600. Mainstream media is reporting and Big Tech’s swarm of fact-checkers have said that some lawmakers are mischaracterizing the proposal.
Biden Administration’s $ 600 Tax Proposal Ignites Heated Debate and So-Called Fact-Checking
In May, it was reported that Biden’s IRS planned to add more staff and focus on cryptocurrency exchange. The accounts stemmed from a Treasury Department report, and the department’s officials projected that during the next decade it could net $ 700 billion from tax offenders. The following decade later, the Treasury expects the plan to net $ 1.6 trillion, and the Federal entity believes those estimates are conservative. At the time of writing, the tax proposal dubbed the “American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda” is still being debated.
So no one else thinks it’s odd the IRS wants to track bank accounts and transaction of $ 600 dollars or more to go after the 1%? Seems oddly misdirected. This is why #bitcoin
— Jason Nelson (@dragonwolftech) October 16, 2021
There’s a lot of confusion surrounding this proposal and if users post about it on Facebook, usually a fact-checker is assigned to the post that says lawmakers are mischaracterizing the rule. Twitter’s news feed says the exact same thing as it claims skeptics are conflating the definitions of the proposal in an attempt to say the IRS can view all transactions over $ 600.
“Most of the money [generated by the tax enforcement plan] —$ 460 billion—would come from the second big piece,” explains the Wall Street Journal. “That plan increases the government’s ability to see into a current blind spot—business income where there is no independent verification to the IRS, as there is for wages where W-2 forms go to workers and the government. Banks and payment providers would be required to report inflows and outflows from accounts each year, starting in 2023.”
So if I make 600 dollars from a garage sale and deposit that into the bank, will the IRS then ask to know where it came from? Will I be asked to pay taxes on that? This is a dangerous slippery slope. A major invasion of privacy.
— Brooke Tramble (@Brooke21181) October 13, 2021
Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, has been urging lawmakers to agree on the IRS proposal. “There’s a lot of tax fraud and cheating that’s going on,” Yellen explained to CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell. Furthermore, Yellen noted that the new requirement for financial institutions is “absolutely not” a way for the government to poke around into the financial affairs of average Americans.
Liberty Activist Asks: ‘Why Is the IRS Allowed to See Any of My Bank Transactions Without a Warrant?’
Yellen and Biden have continuously stressed that the goal is to have America’s billionaire-class accountable. Meanwhile, there’s a number of loud and vocal voices explaining that the proposal is intrusive.
“Whether it’s $ 600 or $ 10,000, the IRS has NO business monitoring your bank account,” Senator Michael Rulli tweeted on October 15. “For real though, it doesn’t matter if it’s $ 600 or $ 60,000 – why is the IRS allowed to see ANY of my bank transactions without a warrant?” liberty activist Naomi Mathew said the day before. Another Twitter profile “Juliesbac” exclaimed:
We should be completely flipping the script at this opportunity. Not only should the IRS not be able to look into $ 600 transactions. They need to be completely banned from looking at any transaction without a subpoena. They serve us. We don’t serve them.
The co-host of the broadcast “Breaking Points,” Saagar Enjeti, said that the “IRS is 3X more likely to audit someone making less than 25,000 than someone in the top 1%. The $ 600 dollar proposal would only give them even more ammunition to go after working-class Americans.”
Yellen should read the 4th amendment real slow:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” https://t.co/VYb73TlQWL
— David Asman (@DavidAsmanfox) October 9, 2021
Nancy Pelosi Says $ 600 Tax Proposal to Be Included in Reconciliation Bill, ‘Hold Billionaires Accountable’ Line Considered a Farce
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi explained that Democratic lawmakers plan to support Biden’s tax proposal. The new tax enforcement concept will be included in the Reconciliation Bill, Pelosi said.
“Yes there are concerns that some people have but if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes one way to track them is through the banking measure,” Pelosi told the media last week.
You can’t search my house without a warrant but you want to see all my bank transactions over $ 600?
Dear IRS, you are giving people even more reason to switch to crypto.
— Paul Puey (@paullinator) October 17, 2021
A political columnist from The Hill, Joe Concha, told his 113,000 Twitter followers that the “hold billionaires accountable” line Yellen and others are saying “will win [the] lie of the year.” Meanwhile, there are many who simply scorned the government for the new proposal as the financial rules are consistently broken by the elite.
“Can’t stop thinking about how the IRS wants to know what I’m doing with $ 600 while the Pandora papers literally exposed the shadow economy and tax evasion of billionaires,” one individual said last Wednesday.
What do you think about the debate over the new IRS proposal backed by the Biden administration and Treasury secretary Janet Yellen? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.