Joe Biden Scales Back IRS Reporting Requirement After Republican Revolt

[mystery-ak]

Joe Biden Scales Back IRS Reporting Requirement After Republican Revolt

Sean Moran 19 Oct 2021

Democrats scaled back Tuesday their proposal to surveil Americans’ transactions over $600 after Republicans revolted against the proposal.

Treasury Department Secretary Janet Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair under President Barack Obama, and Senate Democrats proposed requiring financial institutions to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with more info on bank accounts with more than $600. in annual deposits or withdrawals.

Democrats’ new proposal would exempt all wage income from counting towards the $10,000 threshold to capture higher-income Americans. The proposal would help offset the cost of the $3.1 trillion infrastructure reconciliation bill, otherwise known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Democrats weakened the provision after Republicans, conservative groups, and industry lobbyists revolted against the provision, contending that the provision would enable the IRS to spy on Americans’ private information. Yellen has argued that the proposal would only help the IRS find tax evaders.

Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-GA), the chief deputy whip for House Republicans, told Fox News recently that the IRS proposal may violate the Constitution. He and other House Republicans have proposed a bill with 100 cosponsors to prevent the IRS from implementing this rule.

He said:

    Americans do not want the IRS snooping into bank accounts and spying on them. This is a constitutional issue. The federal government is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable search and seizure…

    It does not matter if the amount is $1, $600, or $10,000, Americans do not want the IRS snooping into their bank accounts.

    I introduced a bill on Friday to prohibit Secretary Yellen from implementing these rules and every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee and 100 other cosponsors stand ready to fight to the end of this. This is unacceptable, and we cannot have this in America.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/19/joe-biden-scales-back-irs-reporting-requirement-after-republican-revolt/

[mystery-ak]

I bet this is still buried in the Bill someplace...

[rustynail]

Two steps forward one step back.

[Bigun]

Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-GA), the chief deputy whip for House Republicans, told Fox News recently that the IRS proposal may violate the Constitution.

May??? Are you kidding me?

[Killer Clouds]

Why is reporting $600 unconstitutional but $10K is not? It seems to me any reporting by the bank to the government is unconstitutional.

[Kamaji]

I doubt very much that the original proposal violates the Constitution.

[Bigun]

I doubt very much that the original proposal violates the Constitution.

[Kamaji]

Requesting a bank's records is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the bank's customers.  The courts have already comprehensively dealt with this.  That argument will get you penalized for a frivolous tax protester argument.

[Bigun]

Requesting a bank's records is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the bank's customers.  The courts have already comprehensively dealt with this.  That argument will get you penalized for a frivolous tax protester argument.

What does that have to do with what the fourth amendment clearly says?

BTW: I'm fully aware of all the court's malfeasance.

[GtHawk]

If they really wanted to go after tax cheats as they say shouldn't they start with elected democrats starting with the resident of the White House and working down from there? Let's not forget some of the grifters that call themselves 'reverend'. Also I somehow doubt they will after greatest number of tax cheats in America because they are of the proper skin pigmentation.

[Kamaji]

What does that have to do with what the fourth amendment clearly says?

BTW: I'm fully aware of all the court's malfeasance.

Well, since you clearly know better than the courts, I don't think we have anything to discuss.

[Bigun]

Well, since you clearly know better than the courts, I don't think we have anything to discuss.

In this case, probably not!  You can continue to sit and take their crap if you wish but I will not.

[libertybele]

Requesting a bank's records is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the bank's customers.  The courts have already comprehensively dealt with this.  That argument will get you penalized for a frivolous tax protester argument.

So ... we should just let the IRS/leftists/marxists continue to take over the banking system?? 

I don't have all the answers, but I was flabbergasted when the teller at the bank told me about the $10,000.00 rule.  It is MY money not there's and I should be able to make bank transactions as I so chose. 

Most people have more than a $10,000.00 income  .... so this new fangled rule isn't to eliminate tax cheats (which they're never going to do) but to control the $$ of the common citizen, invoke yet another tax and to devalue and do away with the dollar.

Nope, I'm still for abolishing the IRS completely!

[Kamaji]

So ... we should just let the IRS/leftists/marxists continue to take over the banking system?? 

I don't have all the answers, but I was flabbergasted when the teller at the bank told me about the $10,000.00 rule.  It is MY money not there's and I should be able to make bank transactions as I so chose. 

Most people have more than a $10,000.00 income  .... so this new fangled rule isn't to eliminate tax cheats (which they're never going to do) but to control the $$ of the common citizen, invoke yet another tax and to devalue and do away with the dollar.

Nope, I'm still for abolishing the IRS completely!

If it's a takeover, it happened a long time ago.

Also, if the records belong to the bank, they are the bank's records, even if they happen to include references to transfers you made.  They are not private papers in that respect.

Finally, if one doesn't like the rule, one should be addressing Congress.

[libertybele]

If it's a takeover, it happened a long time ago.

Also, if the records belong to the bank, they are the bank's records, even if they happen to include references to transfers you made.  They are not private papers in that respect.

Finally, if one doesn't like the rule, one should be addressing Congress.

Gee, seems to me abolishing the IRS has been tossed around Congress for quite sometime. (Ron and Rand Paul ring a bell?)

The records belong to the person holding the account.

I hope everyone who has a bank account, mortgage, loan, brokerage account, etc., has a paper copy.  It's going to be too easy for your $$/account to just disappear or a mistake made, that you'll have to prove them wrong.

I've had errors happen in which I've had to prove that I was right and the bank had made a mistake -- luckily I had paper statements/copies to backup my claim.

[christian]

Not all that long ago, Obama used the IRS to attack opposition,illegally, not to mention attack a sitting President. You want that contemptible,tarnished, political biased stooge arm of the democrats to go after YOU?
INVASIVE Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, your privacy is canceled, only democrats enjoy that privilege, privacy,  now.
OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE, this is installing a totalitarian regime!
 

[libertybele]

Not all that long ago, Obama used the IRS to attack opposition,illegally, not to mention attack a sitting President. You want that contemptible,tarnished, political biased stooge arm of the democrats to go after YOU?
INVASIVE Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, your privacy is canceled, only democrats enjoy that privilege, privacy,  now.
OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE, this is installing a totalitarian regime!
 

@christian I'd say that for the majority of Briefers our eyes are wide open and we've seen what's happening now coming for a long time.

[mystery-ak]

More here

Democrats narrow scope of IRS proposal amid GOP attacks

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/577478-democrats-narrow-scope-of-irs-proposal-amid-gop-attacks

[christian]

I often do not speak to the wise, discerning, knowing, but to the uninformed, deniers, clueless, even when they are few in number.