@metal-brain saidFantastic. I see you've graduated from not understanding anything you read to not understanding what you write, either.
All that will do is cause less people interact with the banking system and banks will have less reserves. If you really want to curb tax cheating you would want to end anonymous shell companies and trusts.
https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/fact-coalition-welcomes-introduction-of-bill-to-end-anonymous-shell-companies/
The parasitic elites don't want that to happ ...[text shortened]... none. They run government so they collect taxes. They don't pay them anymore than a king pays taxes.
You complain about "causing less people (to) interact with the banking system", and then don't realize you are proposing worse with "ending anonymous shell companies and trusts".
The banks can all fail, as far as I see, and then replace them with a banking system re-regulated from the ground up.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142511
@no1marauder saidthe 10,000 triggers IRS being able to examine your records, the threshold brandon wants to lower it to is $600
No it hasn't, you idiot.
Cash payments over $10,000 have to be reported, not total deposits and withdrawals accounts. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/irs-form-8300-reference-guide#:~:text=The%20law%20requires%20that%20trades,a%20Trade%20or%20Business%20PDF.
You can apologize for your abysmal ignorance any time.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142511
17 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidyou are the fool if you think if you report it the IRS doesnt examine your complete records.
Because you guys are liars or idiots. I ask Mott a question whether he would support a $10,000 rather than $600 limit as proposed in the House and he stupidly thought that was the law now. How can anybody reasonably debate such ignorance?
So I'll ask you; is it really the $600 limit that bothers you? Would you support the bill if the limit was higher? Or do you just object to catching tax cheats in general?
@mott-the-hoople saidGot it, you don't understand the proposal and prefer to be stubbornly ignorant.
the 10,000 triggers IRS being able to examine your records, the threshold brandon wants to lower it to is $600
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142511
@no1marauder saidOh I understand...it is a mechanism for the brandon regime to ruin almost anyone's life with the IRS. They will use it to go after political adversaries, they have a track record of this, this will lower it so they can go after average people.
Got it, you don't understand the proposal and prefer to be stubbornly ignorant.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12472
17 Oct 21
@mott-the-hoople saidWell, yes. You have a constitution-given right to run a mobster organisation in Chicago, and it is unfair that the IRS is used to stop you even if you've threatened or murdered all witnesses into silence.
the IRS. They will use it to go after political adversaries, they have a track record of this,
@no1marauder saidHa ha. You haven't read much AJoe! I'd support it if were in the Constitution. It's not. How can it possibly exist if it is not in the Constitution? And having a 'limit'? Biden and Bernie would have a limit, for god sakes, when it should not even exist? A laugher.
Because you guys are liars or idiots. I ask Mott a question whether he would support a $10,000 rather than $600 limit as proposed in the House and he stupidly thought that was the law now. How can anybody reasonably debate such ignorance?
So I'll ask you; is it really the $600 limit that bothers you? Would you support the bill if the limit was higher? Or do you just object to catching tax cheats in general?
Hey, do you support 80,000 agents hired to snoop into records of citizens? Suzianne told me you are a lawyer (she actually said attorney, a person who represents another, but I think she meant lawyer, a person who has been licensed to practice law, but I digress).
So, Could this amount to search and seizure? Just a thought. It aint right, Marauder. Do YOU support it? You will for purposes of forum arguments, your usual tack, but I am sure that you do not.
As for Mott, we conservatives get to typing so fast, thinking so fast, due to our always having a winning point to throw out there, that we miscue on occasion. He knew about law that you can put $9,999 in the bank unnoticed, but the bank has to report where $10,000 came from. A simple quick-think error. Its OK, libs love to correct obvious mistypes,......why, I type dont instead of don't a lot, because I am in such a hurry to help liberals see the light.
17 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidFederal laws requiring banks to record all transactions and to report various ones to the IRS were upheld in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974) with conservative judges voting that such laws were constitutional.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/21/
Ha ha. You haven't read much AJoe! I'd support it if were in the Constitution. It's not. How can it possibly exist if it is not in the Constitution? And having a 'limit'? Biden and Bernie would have a limit, for god sakes, when it should not even exist? A laugher.
Hey, do you support 80,000 agents hired to snoop into records of citizens? Suzianne told me you are ...[text shortened]... y, I type dont instead of don't a lot, because I am in such a hurry to help liberals see the light.
I have little doubt that the SCOTUS would uphold these proposals if enacted into law against a Constitutional challenge.
@no1marauder saidPlease don't confuse the issue by this link. The subject at hand is a NEW proposal to check accounts of every citizen, (and I guess illegal people!! Jesus) which have balances over $600. You absolutely go wild with links and your encyclopedic knowledge. Takes the fun out of everything. And we are not talking about what SCOTUS would do. You libs........................
Federal laws requiring banks to record all transactions and to report various ones to the IRS were upheld in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974) with conservative judges voting that such laws were constitutional.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/21/
I have little doubt that the SCOTUS would uphold these proposals if enacted into law against a Constitutional challenge.
17 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidYou're contending that the laws are unconstitutional and then laughably saying "we are not talking about what SCOTUS would do."! Are you so stupid that you don't know that the SCOTUS is the ultimate judge of what is constitutional or not - not Fox News or Newsmax or the other propaganda outlets you rely on?
Please don't confuse the issue by this link. The subject at hand is a NEW proposal to check accounts of every citizen, (and I guess illegal people!! Jesus) which have balances over $600. You absolutely go wild with links and your encyclopedic knowledge. Takes the fun out of everything. And we are not talking about what SCOTUS would do. You libs........................
The proposals require the reporting of the total of withdrawals and deposits of certain accounts. There is no logical difference from that and what was upheld in the case cited.
Stop your crying that I provide links showing your arguments are invalid.
17 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidCase? What case? I am of the opinion that this is a debate site, where people say What They Think.... Not what the Justices think. After all, half of American think they were 'thinking' incorrectly with Roe v Wade. So, to that end, they are 50% wrong. So trash that idea. How about asking people if they think it is OK for the govt to snoop into their personal business. Luckily for me, I am not offfeeeennded as are liberals when you say I am stupid. May I then say you are clueless, although a recent thread says that you should be offffeeennnnnded. What is it with you libs? And the lawyering stuff is tiresome, I myself am a retired lawyer, I dont even think about it when jehawing on this thing.
You're contending that the laws are unconstitutional and then laughably saying "we are not talking about what SCOTUS would do."! Are you so stupid that you don't know that the SCOTUS is the ultimate judge of what is constitutional or not - not Fox News or Newsmax or the other propaganda outlets you rely on?
The proposals require the reporting of the total of withdrawa ...[text shortened]... held in the case cited.
Stop your crying that I provide links showing your arguments are invalid.
Try to write like a human. Maybe throw in a little humor, might be good for the soul. You people are so so pent up, so angry. Relax, Marauder.
17 Oct 21
@mott-the-hoople saidCorrect. As an example, Acting Director Lois Lerner of the IRS later apologized for targeting (her word) many republicans, et al , et al, and for uprooting organizations with a hellish attack. All to no avail, and she, like every crook on both sides, has never been punished or fined.
Oh I understand...it is a mechanism for the brandon regime to ruin almost anyone's life with the IRS. They will use it to go after political adversaries, they have a track record of this, this will lower it so they can go after average people.