PDA

View Full Version : Tell us why anyone should agree...



kazoolaw
October 6th, 2021, 12:28 PM
to give anyone unfettered access to our banking information:

This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime.
Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf

And hire 80,000 new IRS agents.
And give an additional $80 billion to the IRS

In these proposals, who are the conspirators? Got $600? Apparently you are.

Chuck Naill
October 6th, 2021, 01:08 PM
This is a terrible way to post. Why should anyone have to work figure out what you want to discuss? Lazy!! 😝

kazoolaw
October 6th, 2021, 04:16 PM
Chuck,

Let me break down the topic/post for you.

The title is a question addressed to the reader: it asks the reader why anyone, specifically the reader, would want the IRS gathering all this detailed information about banking transactions.

The quoted language, with a link to a government document^^, provides the exact language to be considered.

The next two lines refer to further plans to grow the IRS' budget and numbers.

The last two lines tells the reader that the government thinks you are a conspirator and the target of enhanced information gathering.

Which brings you back to the focus of the original question, "Why would you agree to such an invasion of privacy?"

Not terrible, just a different format.

So Chuck, do you agree with these 3 proposals?

^^Unlike a number of posts in this Forum which contain no references for their assertions. Here, right from the horse's mouth

dneal
October 6th, 2021, 06:11 PM
It was clear to me. If anything, I thought you could have included more text from the section, or let the Chuck-type know where to look in the document since there are no cliff notes.

The purpose, for example is to collect taxes from the nefarious rich that seemingly hide their billions in multiple bank accounts of just over $600. Need all that reported to the IRS, don'tchaknow. Or maybe it's mom and pop shops that haven't been paying.


Current Law
Business income is subject to limited information reporting. Current information reporting of gross receipts exists for only certain types of revenue (from Forms 1099-MISC, 1099-NEC, and 1099-K), and there is no information reporting on total deductible expenses.

Reasons for Change
The tax gap for business income (outside of large corporations) from the most recently published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates is $166 billion a year.1 The scale of this revenue loss is driven primarily by the lack of comprehensive information reporting and the resulting difficulty identifying noncompliance outside of an audit. While the net misreporting percentage is only 5 percent for income subject to substantial information reporting, the net misreporting percentage for certain categories of business income exceeds 50 percent.
Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance.

Proposal
This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.

It will be interesting to see how this holds up under 4th Amendment grounds (and even 5th...). The scariest part is at the end.

"The Secretary would be given broad authority to issue regulations necessary to implement this proposal."

When the executive can write criminal and punitive code under "administrative rules" rolled up in volume after volume of CFR...

Chuck Naill
October 6th, 2021, 08:13 PM
I don’t agree or disagree until I know. I don’t have to agree or disagree just because you post. Say what you want to say .

dneal
October 7th, 2021, 04:05 AM
I don’t agree or disagree until I know. I don’t have to agree or disagree just because you post. Say what you want to say .

More projection, more distraction. I don’t think you even know what he OP is talking about. You could, with a little reading. You like to read, right?

ethernautrix
October 7th, 2021, 04:07 AM
I didn't know about this. Why such a low threshold?

dneal
October 7th, 2021, 04:36 AM
That's the key question. Maybe it is small business transactions they're losing $166B on. Seems odd they would want personal accounts reported too, or money moved between accounts. My wife and I have two joint accounts. One is primary and receives deposits, pays bills, etc... The other is a "household" account that gets money transferred from the primary each month. My wife uses it for groceries, dog grooming, "lotions, potions and powders", and whatever else she decides. Each account would be reported to the IRS.

The more nefarious minded (or dare I say "conspiracy theorists") have come up with all sorts of potential reasons. One is the obvious, they're Hoovering up everyone's financial data just like they do your phone calls and emails. Too much data to sort through, but on hand if they need it for some reason. When Joe was the #2 guy, the IRS was targeting GOP non-profits. Politico Timeline of IRS Scandal (https://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/timeline-of-the-irs-scandal-111185).

One more interesting theory is that this will drive the small local banks out of business because they won't be able to afford compliance, and the mega-banks can expand their business.

I don't know, and the reason isn't as important to me as the Constitutional problems. Are we secure in our banking information just like we're supposed to be in our houses, papers, etc...? (4th Amendment). In the past this information would be subpoenaed during an audit. The 5th Amendment issues are a little more nebulous. You don't have to incriminate yourself, but the bank is essentially doing that for you (if you're cheating on your taxes like the current President is accused of).

Hmmm, I wonder if they want to do it so it is easier to review future candidates' financials in depth. Surely the IRS wouldn't leak anything like that, would it?

The biggest problem is how Congress delegates it's authority to the Executive, allowing branches to "propose rules" and then enact them. That doesn't seem to be a problem, until you see how the EPA, for example, harasses the average citizen. I'm cool with stopping industry from polluting. I'm not so sure a federal bureaucrat should be telling a landowner that they can't dig a livestock pond, for example - and then fining the individual exorbitant amounts - through the "broad authority given" to the director of the EPA.

kazoolaw
October 7th, 2021, 04:52 AM
I don’t agree or disagree until I know. I don’t have to agree or disagree just because you post. Say what you want to say .

That's OK Chuck, get back with us if/when you know.

welch
October 11th, 2021, 02:10 PM
to give anyone unfettered access to our banking information:

This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime.
Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf

And hire 80,000 new IRS agents.
And give an additional $80 billion to the IRS

In these proposals, who are the conspirators? Got $600? Apparently you are.



Where did you find this snippet of a paragraph? The PDF is about 110 pages long. The table of contents suggests that the, or at least a, big deal is in the proposal to increase the corporate tax from 21% to 28%, and to impose a minimum corporate tax of about 15%. That moves the corporate rate back toward the rate before the Trump corporate tax cut, which was sold as a way to encourage more US corporations to bring their overseas money back to the US. If we tax them at a lower rate, argued Trump's treasury people, they might be kind enough to bring some of their money home from tax havens". They didn't.

Where is the paragraph, Kaz? Otherwise, I'm noy sure what you are warning about.

kazoolaw
October 11th, 2021, 02:18 PM
to give anyone unfettered access to our banking information:

This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime.
Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf

And hire 80,000 new IRS agents.
And give an additional $80 billion to the IRS

In these proposals, who are the conspirators? Got $600? Apparently you are.



Where did you find this snippet of a paragraph? The PDF is about 110 pages long. The table of contents suggests that the, or at least a, big deal is in the proposal to increase the corporate tax from 21% to 28%, and to impose a minimum corporate tax of about 15%. That moves the corporate rate back toward the rate before the Trump corporate tax cut, which was sold as a way to encourage more US corporations to bring their overseas money back to the US. If we tax them at a lower rate, argued Trump's treasury people, they might be kind enough to bring some of their money home from tax havens". They didn't.

Where is the paragraph, Kaz? Otherwise, I'm noy sure what you are warning about.


Page 88, under section titled INTRODUCE COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT REPORTING TO
IMPROVE TAX COMPLIANCE

welch
October 11th, 2021, 02:20 PM
OK, here is this:


Billionaires and Corporations
By Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks September 3, 2021, 9:24 am

Addressing Tax System Failings That Favor Billionaires and Corporations



Recent bombshell reports from ProPublica have confirmed what tax experts have long known and what many Americans have long suspected: Many of the country’s wealthiest people pay little or no tax because the U.S. system preferences income from wealth and offers the wealthy and corporations avenues to avoid tax that are not available to working people.1 These fundamental flaws in the tax code existed many years before the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) took things from bad to worse by giving massive new tax cuts to the highest-income Americans and largest corporations.2 These flaws have helped fuel the dramatic increase in inequality, leading to a less dynamic and less just economy.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2021/09/03/503398/addressing-tax-system-failings-favor-billionaires-corporations/


Green Book Proposals That Would Affect High Net Worth Clients:
Increase Top Marginal Individual Income Tax Rate for High-Income Earners. The top marginal income tax rate would increase from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income in excess of the top bracket threshold. For taxable years beginning January 1, 2022, this would apply to income in excess of $509,300 for married individuals filing jointly and $452,700 for single filers, and thereafter be indexed for inflation.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wealth-planning-2021-preparing-changing-tax-landscape

A collection of business articles about FY 2022 Revenue ("The Green Book"): https://www.jdsupra.com/topics/biden-administration/anti-inversion-regulations/

I just searched for "Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals". There are lots of articles.

kazoolaw
October 11th, 2021, 02:56 PM
Thoughts about having your $600+ transactions tracked?

"This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600." (emphasis added)

TSherbs
October 11th, 2021, 04:32 PM
... The table of contents suggests that the, or at least a, big deal is in the proposal to increase the corporate tax from 21% to 28%, and to impose a minimum corporate tax of about 15%. That moves the corporate rate back toward the rate before the Trump corporate tax cut....

yes, please, to both of these increases





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

welch
October 11th, 2021, 07:04 PM
Thoughts about having your $600+ transactions tracked?

"This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600." (emphasis added)


I don't care that much, Kaz. Remember that I was recruited from GEIS to SWIFT. In 2001, the FBI went through the bank accounts of the Saudi men who sent the airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Working back from these accounts, the FBI demanded that SWIFT turn over the details of the cross-border payments that fed about $500,000 to the terrorists so they could buy flying lessons, apartments, and food. The payments traced back to Al Qaeda bankers in Saudi Arabia, which is how the US knew that Bin Laden and buddies had done the attacks. This was revealed about 2006 in an article in the NY Times, which surprised none of us at SWIFT, by the way. We knew that the attacks had taken a lot of money and that any cross-border payment goes through SWIFT or it barely goes. By then or a year or two later, the Treasury Department had proposed that all "US-domiciled banks", meaning they do business in the US, report any payment entering or leaving the US. There had been a limiting amount, originally set to catch money-launderers, but Treasury found that no matter how small the limit, drug-runners and terrorists transferred a dollar less than that. Treasury threw out the limit, forcing every bank to report every cross-border payment, no matter how small, every day.

So cross-border is already here.

Is $600 realistic for payments that begin and end in the US? For payments not suspected of carrying drug or terror business? I doubt it. There are at least 1,000 banks in the US...SWIFT HQ in Belgium always told us that. There are about 250 million adults in the US, and while some might not have bank accounts, many will have more than one account. Corporations will have many more than one account at more than one bank. One corporation I knew received about a thousand balance reports every day from one bank, and that was far from its largest banking relationship.

My hunch is that the Treasury Department will find it inefficient and impractical to get bank reports on every person's every account transaction, but will use the bank reports to look at corporate cash movements. Maybe also at "high net worth individuals", meaning millionaires and billionaires. They've gotten some attention recently in "The Pandora Papers".

Bold2013
October 11th, 2021, 07:05 PM
Seems like this will hurt small business disproportionately

kazoolaw
October 12th, 2021, 01:16 PM
My hunch is that the Treasury Department will find it inefficient and impractical to get bank reports on every person's every account transaction, but will use the bank reports to look at corporate cash movements. Maybe also at "high net worth individuals", meaning millionaires and billionaires. They've gotten some attention recently in "The Pandora Papers".

You're OK with Treasury, and anyone they care to share with, where any transaction you make exceeding $600 goes to? Political contributions? Charitable contributions? Without regard to the increase costs incurred by the banks in reporting which gets passed down to the customers?

No thanks.

Chuck Naill
October 12th, 2021, 01:35 PM
Were you for or against the Trump Tariffs?

kazoolaw
October 12th, 2021, 02:33 PM
Chuck, I'd ask if you were for or against staying on task, but suspect you're voting "against."

Chuck Naill
October 12th, 2021, 03:33 PM
Can you answer?

dneal
October 12th, 2021, 03:55 PM
Chuck, I’ve seen goalposts moved - but the way you drug completely new ones into this thread is amazing.

Tariffs, no matter what administration proposed them, have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Chuck Naill
October 12th, 2021, 05:03 PM
Chuck, I’ve seen goalposts moved - but the way you drug completely new ones into this thread is amazing.

Tariffs, no matter what administration proposed them, have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

It’s whataboutthisim

TSherbs
October 12th, 2021, 06:22 PM
Can you answer?Who's on first?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

kazoolaw
October 13th, 2021, 03:27 AM
It's Chuck, being unable to justify the Biden administration's invasion of privacy, trying to deflect the discussion, thinking that no one will notice.

dneal
October 13th, 2021, 03:51 AM
“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

That’s not how our system works. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish probable cause in order to obtain a warrant or subpoena from a judge. This proposal turns that long established principle on its head.

Chuck Naill
October 13th, 2021, 07:08 AM
It's Chuck, being unable to justify the Biden administration's invasion of privacy, trying to deflect the discussion, thinking that no one will notice.


I have no need to justify. Perhaps that's your problem. You post something that you perceive I have some obligation to respond. Your mistake.

Just so you know, I am delighted Biden won. I'd do whatever a voter can do to prevent Trump from gaining office again. I say this as an orphaned Republican, as George Will so well discribes.

Chuck Naill
October 13th, 2021, 07:09 AM
“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

That’s not how our system works. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish probable cause in order to obtain a warrant or subpoena from a judge. This proposal turns that long established principle on its head.

So when it pleases you or suits your perogative you want our system to work? Ha!! :)

kazoolaw
October 13th, 2021, 08:00 AM
I have no need to justify.

Can not justify, defend, or find anything favorable about the invasion of privacy.

Chuck, you have no obligation to respond to the topic. Consider whether you have an obligation to remain on topic as you continue to deflect.

welch
October 13th, 2021, 09:12 AM
Seems like this will hurt small business disproportionately

Seems likely that the data will be collected from banks. Otherwise, it will be impossible to collect.

kazoolaw
October 13th, 2021, 09:15 AM
Not that there's a conspiracy, but there's been speculation that the increased costs will cause smaller institutions to fold. This is not an assertion of the correctness, just reporting loose talk.

welch
October 13th, 2021, 09:32 AM
Ah. Here is the section that worries Kaz, found, as he said, at Page 88. The first part seems to tighten reporting on business expenses. The last part adds reporting on crypto-currency trades, something that the crypto industry has screamed against. There is an enforcement paragraph in the middle, which Kaz quoted to begin this discussion:


INTRODUCE COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT REPORTING TO IMPROVE TAX COMPLIANCE Current Law Business income is subject to limited information reporting. Current information reporting of gross receipts exists for only certain types of revenue (from Forms 1099-MISC, 1099-NEC, and 1099-K), and there is no information reporting on total deductible expenses.

Reasons for Change The tax gap for business income (outside of large corporations) from the most recently published Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates is $166 billion a year.1 The scale of this revenue loss is driven primarily by the lack of comprehensive information reporting and the resulting difficulty identifying noncompliance outside of an audit. While the net misreporting percentage is only 5 percent for income subject to substantial information reporting, the net misreporting percentage for certain categories of business income exceeds 50 percent. Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance.

Proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,2 with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600.

Other accounts with characteristics similar to financial institution accounts will be covered under this information reporting regime. In particular, payment settlement entities would collect Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) and file a revised Form 1099-K expanded to all payee accounts (subject to the same de minimis threshold), reporting not only gross receipts but also gross purchases, physical cash, as well as payments to and from foreign accounts, and transfer inflows and outflows.

Similar reporting requirements would apply to crypto asset exchanges and custodians. Separately, reporting requirements would apply in cases in which taxpayers buy crypto assets from one broker and then transfer the crypto assets to another broker , and businesses that receive crypto assets in transactions with a fair market value of more than $10,000 would have to report such transactions.

The Secretary would be given broad authority to issue regulations necessary to implement this proposal.

The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Footnotes: (1 Computed from individual income tax business income, small corporations, and self-employment tax components.)
(2 Current income reporting by financial institutions would be expanded to all entities, including certain corporations. Interest payments would be included in the loan account reporting. Transferee information would be reported for all real estate transactions on Form 1099-S.)

welch
October 13th, 2021, 10:01 AM
Not that there's a conspiracy, but there's been speculation that the increased costs will cause smaller institutions to fold. This is not an assertion of the correctness, just reporting loose talk.

Reporting would seem a burden on banks without the IT staff to write the reports. I'm no longer close enough to have an idea how to capture the data, but the Fed's Automated Clearing House (ACH) ultimately carries every payment in the country.

Chip
October 13th, 2021, 12:48 PM
The notion that reports need to be written is quaint. Our bank already has a automated tracking system that flags transactions that seem "unusual" by standards to which I have no access. My credit card has been blocked unnecessarily as a result more than once. I also have to notify the banks when I travel or make a larger than usual purchase.

We gave money to my sister-in-law who hit a bad patch and had to file all manner of stuff to do a simple bank-to-bank transfer.

So it seems that the tracking system is already in place.

TSherbs
October 13th, 2021, 01:38 PM
My position is this: track as much revenue and income as is possible to make all the fuckers pay their share. It's a gross social injustice that the well_heeled with tax accountants and elaborate corporate setups get to reduce their tax burden (or hide illegal money). Fuck them.

That's clear, eh?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

kazoolaw
October 13th, 2021, 02:08 PM
Clear indeed: your share too.

dneal
October 13th, 2021, 02:39 PM
“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

That’s not how our system works. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish probable cause in order to obtain a warrant or subpoena from a judge. This proposal turns that long established principle on its head.

So when it pleases you or suits your perogative you want our system to work? Ha!! :)

More banal assertions with no substance. Try again.

Chuck Naill
October 13th, 2021, 02:46 PM
I don’t like that a person who owns a company can write off a $80k pickup and someone who doesn’t can’t.

It’s time either everyone or no one can write off stuff.

Chuck Naill
October 13th, 2021, 02:46 PM
“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

That’s not how our system works. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish probable cause in order to obtain a warrant or subpoena from a judge. This proposal turns that long established principle on its head.

So when it pleases you or suits your perogative you want our system to work? Ha!! :)

More banal assertions with no substance. Try again.
Why?

kazoolaw
October 13th, 2021, 03:19 PM
My position is this: track as much revenue and income as is possible to make all the fuckers pay their share. It's a gross social injustice that the well_heeled with tax accountants and elaborate corporate setups get to reduce their tax burden (or hide illegal money). Fuck them.

Talking these guys, right?
https://rb.gy/831cab

Chuck Naill
October 13th, 2021, 03:27 PM
Looks like a virus 🤭🤭🤭

TSherbs
October 13th, 2021, 03:45 PM
I don’t like that a person who owns a company can write off a $80k pickup and someone who doesn’t can’t.

It’s time either everyone or no one can write off stuff.Like Trump said, only suckers pay taxes

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Chuck Naill
October 13th, 2021, 04:04 PM
I don’t like that a person who owns a company can write off a $80k pickup and someone who doesn’t can’t.

It’s time either everyone or no one can write off stuff.Like Trump said, only suckers pay taxes

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

ROTFLMAO

dneal
October 13th, 2021, 06:24 PM
Ah. Here is the section that worries Kaz, found, as he said, at Page 88... *snip*

If only someone would have posted that earlier... (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35435-Tell-us-why-anyone-should-agree?p=338513&viewfull=1#post338513)

dneal
October 13th, 2021, 06:27 PM
“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

That’s not how our system works. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish probable cause in order to obtain a warrant or subpoena from a judge. This proposal turns that long established principle on its head.

So when it pleases you or suits your perogative you want our system to work? Ha!! :)

More banal assertions with no substance. Try again.
Why?

"Try again" was rhetorical, but "Why" is the question I often ask myself when I see the haphazard stuff you post.

So you tell us, Chuck. Why?

welch
October 13th, 2021, 08:28 PM
The notion that reports need to be written is quaint. Our bank already has a automated tracking system that flags transactions that seem "unusual" by standards to which I have no access. My credit card has been blocked unnecessarily as a result more than once. I also have to notify the banks when I travel or make a larger than usual purchase.

We gave money to my sister-in-law who hit a bad patch and had to file all manner of stuff to do a simple bank-to-bank transfer.

So it seems that the tracking system is already in place.

Most banks have software that pops out suspicious transactions. Consider it "reputational risk": no bank wants to be named as having held funds for a drug cartel. That's different. Reporting small transactions to the Treasury Department is a different thing. It might be possible to pull a copy of each transaction out of ACH.

Chip
October 13th, 2021, 10:23 PM
Consider it "reputational risk": no bank wants to be named as having held funds for a drug cartel.

They don't want to be named, but quite a few do it. Deutsche Bank seems to be a frequent offender and there are banks in London that actively court shady money. As long as it's big.

https://i.imgur.com/VAWaAy4.jpg

welch
October 16th, 2021, 02:19 PM
Well, yes, Chip. I was quoting a common saying in banking. It's why banks have "know your customer" software. All that is usually focused small accounts. All over the world, poor people travel to jobs and want to wire money home. Banks have wanted to get into the "wire it home" business, but often the customer "back home" has no bank account. As best I remember, that business was called Workers' Remittances, but I don't have much documentation anymore.

The other business is called Anti-Money Laundering (AML). That's pretty much what the name would suggest: a large piece of software by which a bank runs a "black-list" of known-bad "entities" and a "white-list" of the known-good.

All of that is involved in Electronic Bank Account Management (eBAM). My old company, SWIFT, developed the message standards by which banks operate an eBAM system. It is a tricky operation: banks want to open accounts electronically, as a way to reduce the staff-cost of having prospective customers open accounts at a bank brank, but banks, also, do not want to be found to have opened accounts for a collection of heroin suppliers hiding in the mountains of Southeast Asia. Greed meets caution.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBAM

Banks, though, may tolerate crooked deals if they are huge. See the sort of thinking that drove the world financial system off a cliff in 2008, as described by Michael Lewis in "The Big Short", or his essay, on which the book (and its movie) were based: "The End of Wall Street As We Know It": https://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~pel/misc/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom.html

welch
October 19th, 2021, 09:50 AM
The Post says that Democrats will modify the bill to focus more narrowly on rich people who make their money OUTSIDE of drawing a salary.


Senate Democrats on Tuesday will unveil a scaled-back version of a Biden administration proposal to crack down on wealthy tax cheats after conservative groups and the bank industry raised major privacy concerns, three people with knowledge of the coming announcement said.

Initially, the Department of Treasury and Senate Democrats had 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.

The revised version of the bank reporting proposal will also weaken its scope by exempting all wage income from counting toward the $10,000 threshold withdrawal, intending to ensure it applies to only larger account holders, the people said. The Biden administration has signed off on the changes and is expected to support the new plan, a potentially key source of new revenue to pay for Democrats’ multi-trillion-dollar economic package. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a matter not yet made public.

The Democratic Party listens to Kaz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/18/democrats-irs-bank-reporting/

Chuck Naill
October 19th, 2021, 10:52 AM
Lol!! $10,000 is nothing. The focus again is on middle class workers .

kazoolaw
October 19th, 2021, 11:02 AM
The Democratic Party listens to Kaz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/18/democrats-irs-bank-reporting/

>blush<

welch
October 19th, 2021, 11:51 AM
Lol!! $10,000 is nothing. The focus again is on middle class workers .

That is $10,000 from payments in or out, other than salary. See the Post article. Several things are already reported, such as dividends and payments from a 401K.

Chuck Naill
October 19th, 2021, 12:47 PM
Lol!! $10,000 is nothing. The focus again is on middle class workers .

That is $10,000 from payments in or out, other than salary. See the Post article. Several things are already reported, such as dividends and payments from a 401K.

I immediately thought of home sales.

TSherbs
October 20th, 2021, 05:59 PM
cowards

make the rich fucking pay

someone show some balls

our system is kind of sickening

Bold2013
October 20th, 2021, 08:00 PM
How much should the rich pay? Isn’t equal fair?

Is it wrong to use every legal means to keep money away from this government?

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 05:21 AM
What's "wrong" is that the system is rigged in favor of those with capital against those without. The laborer who has the bulk of her taxes taken out of her paycheck, has no other income, pays all of the other fees, duties, and taxes at exactly the same rates as the wealthy, has no opportunity or resources to reinvest or save or move or hide her paltry savings or defer taxes until a more propitious time...

is fucked compared to what the wealthy can use in the system as it is presently rigged.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Chuck Naill
October 21st, 2021, 07:26 AM
There is a reason Trump didn't release his tax reports. However, I do not blame those who can to right off losses, but when a business owner can write off an 80K pickup that is never used directly for that business and those without a business cannot, something is wrong. This is just one example. Seems like I read Jeff Bezos pays little or none.

Ironally, the blue collar supporters of Republicans seems to be fine with having to pay more than their fair share. Crazy. At least the white collars are whinning a bit.

dneal
October 21st, 2021, 08:04 AM
What's "wrong" is that the system is rigged in favor of those with capital against those without. The laborer who has the bulk of her taxes taken out of her paycheck, has no other income, pays all of the other fees, duties, and taxes at exactly the same rates as the wealthy, has no opportunity or resources to reinvest or save or move or hide her paltry savings or defer taxes until a more propitious time...

is fucked compared to what the wealthy can use in the system as it is presently rigged.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I agree that the system is indeed rigged, but I think where we diverge is in where the blame is laid - and how to correct it.

I know he's the new "boogeyman", and I hardly think he's a role-model for anyone or anything; but what Steve Bannon gets right is his "party of Davos" thesis. If he is to toxic of a personality to consider, then there also is the liberal Eric Weinstein who identifies them as the "kleptocracy".

In both cases, they discuss how the system is rigged. The 30,000 foot analysis is simply that the wealthy (business, banking and others) pay politicians through legal means to arrange the system to their benefit. The politicians profit from it. The media (and Victor Davis Hanson lays out clearly the "nepotistic" relationships) is part of it as well.

One can argue that we need to increase taxes on the "rich", but those same people pay the lawyers that write the bills (see: Big Pharma and Obamacare). Those same people fund campaigns. We cannot expect some moral revelation from within the corruption to correct it - just as the bill passed to stop the congressional equivalent of "insider trading" was lip-service and a charade.

Bold2013
October 21st, 2021, 08:32 AM
So Dneal who is the bigger problem, the politicians or those wealthy influencers?

kazoolaw
October 21st, 2021, 08:33 AM
cowards

make the rich fucking pay

someone show some balls

our system is kind of sickening

I think we agree: this law is aimed down to your and my level, not the rich.

What conceivable excuse justifies everyone, down to the level of those living on a monthly Social Security check, having their privacy stripped away? Are these the rich who should have to pay more?

I never want anyone, much less the IRS and other government agencies, the freedom to riffle through my check stubs and deposit slips^^ to know who I donate money to, where I shop, the size of my house payment. tuition I pay to private schools, payments for gun permits, etc.

The more complicated the tax code has become the more the playing field tilts to those who can hire tax accountants and lawyers to set up tax avoidance schemes.

^^Yes, archaic tech referred to intentionally.

Chuck Naill
October 21st, 2021, 08:37 AM
For me, I don’t want to be a disciple of anyone.
I remember listening to Rush and thinking he had the words of life, when all he was really about it complaining.

dneal
October 21st, 2021, 08:53 AM
So Dneal who is the bigger problem, the politicians or those wealthy influencers?

One could make an argument for either, depending on the criteria. I don't think it really matters at this point.

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 08:56 AM
@dneal I was not making a statement of blame, nor a fix. I was answering Bold's questions about "equal" and "fair."

My other comment was to suggest that the party in power lacked courage and principle on this topic. Your reply suggests that you agree. Just because I am not surprised (I am not: cowardice and avarice do not surprise me) does not mean that they shouldn't be called out on this.

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 09:01 AM
I am willing to sacrifice some privacy in my accounts for greater equity of the burden of taxation (and fees, etc). The poor are getting fucked worse than the damage some additional scrutiny of my accounts would cause me. In other words, I would take that hit for the team.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Bold2013
October 21st, 2021, 09:59 AM
I would not give an inch to the machine which caused/allowed this problem. When will we stop fighting each other and look at the bigger problems…

dneal
October 21st, 2021, 10:08 AM
@dneal I was not making a statement of blame, nor a fix. I was answering Bold's questions about "equal" and "fair."

My other comment was to suggest that the party in power lacked courage and principle on this topic. Your reply suggests that you agree. Just because I am not surprised (I am not: cowardice and avarice do not surprise me) does not mean that they shouldn't be called out on this.

Ok. I made my statement based on the thoughts that arose from your post. I'm saying the problem is bigger than "the rich" or any particular party taxing them at a higher or lower rate.

There are second and third order effects to the feel-good "get those fuckers" attitude from the AOC's, Bernie's and others of similar political bent. Not-"rich" people's 401k's and other retirement accounts are tied to the prosperity of the "rich".

Chuck Naill
October 21st, 2021, 10:38 AM
401K's are investments where the investor is free to move their funds. So, not entirely true that prosperity is tied to the rich. It is tied to our level of rish aversion.

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 01:04 PM
@dneal I was not making a statement of blame, nor a fix. I was answering Bold's questions about "equal" and "fair."

My other comment was to suggest that the party in power lacked courage and principle on this topic. Your reply suggests that you agree. Just because I am not surprised (I am not: cowardice and avarice do not surprise me) does not mean that they shouldn't be called out on this.

Ok. I made my statement based on the thoughts that arose from your post. I'm saying the problem is bigger than "the rich" or any particular party taxing them at a higher or lower rate.

There are second and third order effects to the feel-good "get those fuckers" attitude from the AOC's, Bernie's and others of similar political bent. Not-"rich" people's 401k's and other retirement accounts are tied to the prosperity of the "rich".Neither party taxes them enough, but the Dems have traditionally done better over the last 100 years.

Like the car industry, who cried that seat belt and airbag requirements would ruin the industry with costs that would make them less profitable (bullshit), I tend not to worry about higher taxes and their effects. Avarice and greed are so deeply ingrained that a higher tax does not bump the monied class out of wanting to work and make more and grow their businesses. Hardly! We just don't like taxes. But it does not deter the desire for more wealth. People who want more simply want more, no matter how much of it they get to keep (basically).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 01:07 PM
401K's are investments where the investor is free to move their funds. So, not entirely true that prosperity is tied to the rich. It is tied to our level of rish aversion.Have you seen the average savings for an American household of for? Have you seen the median income for a household of four? Let's not overstate what actual savings most people have in this country. It is shockingly little.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Bold2013
October 21st, 2021, 01:08 PM
I say we implement a simplified tax system to improve compliance. The eminent problem is the tax of inflation that will come and hit the middle class

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 01:13 PM
What's "wrong" is that the system is rigged in favor of those with capital against those without. The laborer who has the bulk of her taxes taken out of her paycheck, has no other income, pays all of the other fees, duties, and taxes at exactly the same rates as the wealthy, has no opportunity or resources to reinvest or save or move or hide her paltry savings or defer taxes until a more propitious time...

is fucked compared to what the wealthy can use in the system as it is presently rigged.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I agree that the system is indeed rigged, but I think where we diverge is in where the blame is laid - and how to correct it.

I know he's the new "boogeyman", and I hardly think he's a role-model for anyone or anything; but what Steve Bannon gets right is his "party of Davos" thesis. If he is to toxic of a personality to consider, then there also is the liberal Eric Weinstein who identifies them as the "kleptocracy".

In both cases, they discuss how the system is rigged. The 30,000 foot analysis is simply that the wealthy (business, banking and others) pay politicians through legal means to arrange the system to their benefit. The politicians profit from it. The media (and Victor Davis Hanson lays out clearly the "nepotistic" relationships) is part of it as well.

One can argue that we need to increase taxes on the "rich", but those same people pay the lawyers that write the bills (see: Big Pharma and Obamacare). Those same people fund campaigns. We cannot expect some moral revelation from within the corruption to correct it - just as the bill passed to stop the congressional equivalent of "insider trading" was lip-service and a charade.

We absolutely live in a kleptocracy. One of the greatest hoodwinks of modern history had been to convince Americans that this is fair and divine (just, and god-ordained). Every statement of "God bless America" is a reinforcement of this pernicious mythology upon the gullible and suggestible.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Empty_of_Clouds
October 21st, 2021, 01:47 PM
Quick question: In the context of this discussion, is the 'God bless America' sentiment tied to the Protestant ethic and the associated rise in capitalism? Asking for a friend. :)

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 04:57 PM
And Eurocentric racism, mon frere (my French friend said that)

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Bold2013
October 21st, 2021, 05:34 PM
What is racist now?

kazoolaw
October 21st, 2021, 05:44 PM
Quick question: In the context of this discussion, is the 'God bless America' sentiment tied to the Protestant ethic and the associated rise in capitalism? Asking for a friend. :)

No.

TSherbs
October 21st, 2021, 06:14 PM
What is racist now?European colonial history, mi amigo.

Chuck Naill
October 22nd, 2021, 06:10 AM
It is not racist to view what is going on in Haiti right now or it's history by being critical. It is racist to use it as excuse for why black people are no better than whites. This is because the focus is on skin color and ascribing value accordingly. Human nature and how wealthy and powerful people seems to live does have an effect on how those with less power and wealth must do to survive.

I've said this before, and something Dr. King said, "you don't tell a bootless man to pull himself up by his boots straps, that is exactly what many white American think. We look at the poor and those involved in gangs and think the historical collective "we" didn't play a role.

Deciding to think differently will be impossible for some because they will fail to ever self educated themselves and will settle for smug, easily digested stories of convenience from others. However, for those willing, there is a wealth of true histories. As more avail themselves of the truth, perhaps the US can get past their past.


When you consider the generational wealth of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and their use of forced labor, why would they ever be considered heros without false histories? Who would not benefit if you had their wealth, education, and opportunity. To think an African slave, simply by being emancipated can have the same outcome of a rich man with free labor, your are not thinking or worse, brainwashed. Or, more worse, just because you'd rather not believe it.

kazoolaw
October 22nd, 2021, 06:17 AM
Interesting thoughts Chuck.
How would you relate them to the topic of government harvesting your personal financial information?

Chuck Naill
October 22nd, 2021, 07:36 AM
Interesting thoughts Chuck.
How would you relate them to the topic of government harvesting your personal financial information?


I was more reponding to EOC's posts.