Bank account curiosity question

[Henro]

I see the IRS could possibly start looking at people that have greater than $10K move through their bank accounts, I assume on an annual basis?

Who in today's world does not have that amount move through their accounts annually?

I may misunderstand this, but with social security alone we exceed this amount.

Are we exceptional? I don't think so, but if so lucky us.

Am I missing something?

PLEASE do not make this political. No need to wake up Mr. K! LOL.

Just wondering if I am missing something...

 

[Fordtech86]

Deal in crypto much?

 

[ctfjr]

It's my understanding that banks have to report transactions >= $10K

 

[RCW]

I don’t think the average person or family needs to worry about the IRS and personal bank transactions.

That said, if you report a household income on your income tax return of $70,000, but move $1.7MM through your checking account, someone might ax you to ‘splain…..

 

[Henro]

I don’t think the average person or family needs to worry about the IRS and personal bank transactions.

That said, if you report a household income on your income tax return of $70,000, but move $1.7MM through your checking account, someone might ax you to ‘splain…..

I probably don’t understand what I read recently. Hence the reason for my question. Nothing to hide here. Just a somewhat normal person trying to figure out what the meaning of changes might be.

No crypto currency’s or things like that here. Doubt there are any worries either. But curiosity is something I can’t seem to reign in…

just that the mention of a $10K trigger point caught my attention. Seems like that would cover just about everybody…or at least 95% of everybody.

Seems to miss the target if looking for the “bad” guys…

edit: I also realize that transactions of $10K are reported to the IRS. BUT I think the proposed changes are different.

 

[Fordtech86]

I probably don’t understand what I read recently. Hence the reason for my question. Nothing to hide here. Just a somewhat normal person trying to figure out what the meaning of changes might be.

No crypto currency’s or things like that here. Doubt there are any worries either. But curiosity is something I can’t seem to reign in…

just that the mention of a $10K trigger point caught my attention. Seems like that would cover just about everybody…or at least 95% of everybody.

Seems to miss the target if looking for the “bad” guys…

edit: I also realize that transactions of $10K are reported to the IRS. BUT I think the proposed changes are different.

I think what you may be reading about recently has to do with IRS cracking down on crypto exchanges as those can avoid tax reporting.

 

[Bmyers]

Is this what you are referring to?

It's going to get harder to avoid reporting income from online sales (cnbc.com)

 

[jimh406]

I’m not sure why you asked a question about a very invasive government overreach by one party, and you don’t think it’s political. This is move by those who believe in big government.

But, you are right, almost everyone who actually works is going to be invaded, and you can guess only one parties accounts will be “inspected” and prosecuted.

 

[dlsmith]

I’m not sure why you asked a question about a very invasive government overreach by one party, and you don’t think it’s political. This is move by those who believe in big government.

But, you are right, almost everyone who actually works is going to be invaded, and you can guess only one parties accounts will be “inspected” and prosecuted.

Yep, the guilty parties.

 

[torch]

you can guess only one parties accounts will be “inspected” and prosecuted.

I am curious. Are Americans required to provide their political affiliation as part of the eBay user agreement? Do you have to include a copy of your voting record with each income tax return? How exactly will this targeted taxation be accomplished otherwise?

It sounds to me that the IRS is catching up with all the drop-shippers and others that have turned eBay sales into a business while avoiding all income taxes. Are you suggesting that only persons of one particular political stripe would be engaged in this activity by nature?

Are you upset because you personally will be caught and have to start paying tax on your earnings, or are you a law abiding taxpayer upset because others will have to pay their share too?

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I’m not sure why you asked a question about a very invasive government overreach by one party, and you don’t think it’s political. This is move by those who believe in big government.

But, you are right, almost everyone who actually works is going to be invaded, and you can guess only one parties accounts will be “inspected” and prosecuted.

HA! Your party is run by the king of tax cheats.

 

[jimh406]

I am curious. Are Americans required to provide their political affiliation as part of the eBay user agreement?

It’s pretty easy to tell what someone’s party affiliation is given their actual names, and the fact that legal political donations are public.

 

[torch]

It’s pretty easy to tell what someone’s party affiliation is given their actual names, and the fact that legal political donations are public.

Very few voters actually contribute cash to a specific candidate. Of those that do, the vast majority give small amounts at fundraising events that do not require individual receipts or make "soft" donations to PACs and parties with similarly lax reporting requirements. Of the recorded campaign contributions, something like 400 families contribute over 1/2 of the money to candidates in US federal elections. I suspect very few of those made their fortunes discretely selling stuff on eBay.

 

[jimh406]

I suspect very few of those made their fortunes discretely selling stuff on eBay.

You apparently aren’t on ebay very much to think that the majority of those selling a lot aren’t actually businesses. I think you need a new source of misinformation.

 

[BigG]

It has been the standard for a long time that a bank transaction of $10,000 got reported to the government. In this new 3.5 Trillion dollar bill they want to lower the amount of any transaction of $600 or more must be reported by the banks to the IRS.

 

[torch]

You apparently aren’t on ebay very much to think that the majority of those selling a lot aren’t actually businesses. I think you need a new source of misinformation.

No, I think the IRS thinks the majority ARE businesses. That's kind of the point. Some of the businesses are paying the taxman, and the IRS thinks every one of the businesses should be paying the taxman.

 

[jimh406]

No, I think the IRS thinks the majority ARE businesses. That's kind of the point. Some of the businesses are paying the taxman, and the IRS thinks every one of the businesses should be paying the taxman.

Actual businesses already pay taxes. You can make the assumption that every one with a bank account is a crook while letting all known criminals free, but seem backwards to people with a working brain. Mine works, I’m not sure about those who are making these “plans”. As noted, the other more sinister reason is more plausible. It will be unequal prosecution focusing on political opponents.

 

[jimh406]

HA! Your party is run by the king of tax cheats.

Nope, I’m not in the President’s party.

 

[Fordtech86]

@Henro needs to post a link to what he is reading before starting his post. Like usual he doesn’t want to inject politics but posts threads about politics with no reference.

So what are you referring to @Henro ?

Remember the rules you keep constantly trying to preach

 

[torch]

Actual businesses already pay taxes.

How do you define "actual business"? If by definition, an "actual business" pays taxes, then what do you call an operation that sells items or services for profit but does not pay taxes on those profits? How about an operation that has a brick storefront and pays taxes on the portion of in-person sales, but also has a virtual storefront and doesn't pay taxes on those sales?

Double-entry bookkeeping wasn't invented recently or used exclusively by adherents of any particular political party. The Pharaoh's architect had deals that were "off the books".