IRS $600 Bank Transactions

So progs, what about this little dilly?

Do we support it?

  • Yes, I support it
  • No, I am opposed

0 voters

Is it an invasion of privacy? Merited?

For those who pretend…

Come on, you know only the 1%ers have the lofty sum of $600 of transactions in their bank accounts in a year. Almost no one makes $150 a week, or more. Just stop trying to scare the poor huddled masses living in the lower and middle class.


We can thank the Dems and their voters for this new way to squeeze some pennies out of the poor. Congratulations. :clap:


Even the article in the OP says that the $600 proposal is not happening but I guess that doesn’t make a good head line.

The IRS already requires reporting of any account that earns over $10 interest is proposing to now also report accounts with $10,000 in transactions a year.

Why poll on something that isn’t happening?

Not as dumb as “Travis Scott was harvesting souls”, but still…

The interest is simply reported on a 1099int. The reporting only shows the interest received, not the transaction history of the account on which the interest was earned. And do the math on transactions equaling $10,000 annually. That represents $193 a week. That is less than the poverty level.

1 Like

It isn’t $600. The article in the OP is still trying to mislead people.

Pretty damn dumb.

I’d be reporting bi weekly pay to my account 26 times a year

We have heard stupid things before from politicians who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Not the first dumb idea, not the last.

Maybe we could start a dumb idea thread on the forum.

Common sense ain’t too common obviously.


“no one believe the article or anything you see/hear!!”

— the desperate left

1 Like

The bank would be reporting it. Not you.

I do think that a good case can be made that the threshold is too low and should be raised to above the average yearly transaction amount. I would likely come into agreement with you.

I do also appreciate the intent of the reporting in trying to see where the rich are skirting the tax laws because they don’t get a salary like you or I.

Every penny of money I make is reported by payroll to the IRS already. The same is not true of those who do not make their money selling their labor.

1 Like

The reporting applies not only to incoming but outgoing, it doesn’t say if it per transaction or ALL transactions totaled over a year.

So after a few months I will be reported after house and car payments and I hit the 10k limit.

You don’t see a problem with this?


Yes I do… that is why I said that a good case can be made that the the threshold is too low.

People do read what I write… right?

The IRS already knows what I make.

Why the redundancy?


1 Like

Hell 600 would trigger it from a single house payment. I was referring to the 10k limit, but that is irrelevant because you have no problem with the govt knowing how much I spend in a year.

This pathetic excuse about catching “tax cheaters” is just BS. They want to monitor our PERSONAL transactions now. Frightening that you agree on just the principle of it.

1 Like

It is for better tax enforcement by look at transactions of the wealthy who do not earn their money via wages.

As I said… the threshold is too low. But I understand what they are wanting to do.

Requires reporting is not under discussion

The proposal doesn’t monitor transactions but the total dollar amount of deposits and the total dollar amount of withdrawal.

Oh well, never mind then.

Centgov-splainin’ :rofl: