Monitoring your Bank Transactions

Saw this “meme” on the Book of Faces, one of several:

The meme is wrong, actually. What’s being proposed isn’t reducing the reporting requirement from transactions of $10,000 or more down to $600. No, what’s being proposed is far, far worse.

What’s being proposed is reporting all transactions if the balance in the account exceeds $600 within some particular period (a year, I think).

So, let’s say you get paid biweekly. When you get paid, you deposit your paycheck in your bank account (either by Direct Deposit or going old-school with a paper check). Well, guess what? If you make a rather modest amount more than minimum wage then that deposit, even if the balance is zero on the day you make it, will put you over that $600 mark. That means the IRS would now have access to every transaction you make.

Every transaction. Every purchase you make using a debit card. Every check you write (or have the bank make if you use online banking). Every electronic funds transfer. All of it.

This isn’t quite as comprehensive in its totalitarianism as the “programmable” digital currency I described yesterday but it is bad enough.

I am trying to imagine a way this could possibly pass constitutional muster (I’m looking at you, Fourth Amendment), but, well, I also have difficulty with how “no fly lists”, “Civil Asset Forfeiture”, and Red Flag Laws pass Constitutional Muster. And yet, the courts have allowed them so the need to pass Constitutional Muster is…not so great as it would seem.

The Left isn’t even trying to hid their desire to run a totalitarian dictatorship. This is just one of many “wouldn’t it be great if…” things that have been coming out.

Does anybody not get it yet?

2 thoughts on “Monitoring your Bank Transactions”

  1. To quote Mark Steyn “Don’t you wave that Constitution at me!”

    The Constitution is dead. Any efforts by the courts to roll back this destruction will be met with actions by the Democrats to destroy the court itself. Court packing, impeachment, whatever. There is a reasonable argument to be made that John Roberts, in addition to being a slimy squish, is attempting to forestall those actions by not making sweeping rulings that do roll back the progressive state. I tend to think they are self serving as he wants to remain in power, but they have the same effect. If the SCOTUS had ruled Constitutionally over the past thirteen years, the Democrats would have added more justices. Instead we’ve gotten weak sauce. The mandate is a tax, the federal government can fail to enforce immigration law but the states don’t have the right to then defend their borders, the President can’t overturn an Executive Order by a previous President, the federal government can force states to let pedophiles into girls’ bathrooms, the States can take your property to give it to a private person who will use it “better”, etc. The list is endless and they are all patently and obviously unConstitutional.

    Like

  2. WordPress update.

    When a blog allows commenters to use their WordPress login, it is not enough that the user have a WordPress account. The user must create a “sub” account specifically for the blog in question. It is not easy to figure this out as the WordPress links and info just say “do you have an account? Then log in” but don’t specify that this is a “Writer in Black” account leaving you, the user, to be frustrated by the fact that you can’t seem to log in even though you have a WP account. Playing around I now have specific WP accounts to the four or five blogs who use it and where I routinely post comments.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: