Categories
Right Angle

Build Biden Bigger: Your Bank Will Show IRS Your Account Balance to Catch Tax Cheats

Is this a smart way to catch tax cheats so President Biden can get the trillions of dollars he needs to Build Back Better?

Build Biden Bigger: Your Bank Will Show IRS Your Account Balance to Catch Tax Cheats

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and Treasury Security Janet Yellen push Congress to force your bank to tell the IRS how much money you have on deposit — even as little as $600. Is this a smart way to catch tax cheats so President Biden can get the trillions of dollars he needs to Build Back Better? (Remember, his $3.5 trillion plan costs ‘zero dollars’.) Scott Ott has a word for this.

Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle create some 260 new episodes of Right Angle each year, powered by our Members. Those who join unlock access to comments, forums, backstage video content and become writers at our Member blog. Click the big green button above.

Video below hosted at Rumble.

Listen to the Audio Version

48 replies on “Build Biden Bigger: Your Bank Will Show IRS Your Account Balance to Catch Tax Cheats”

To go with this proposal, the IRS is planning a new, simplified tax form.
The proposed form will read as follows.

How much money did you make last year? $_____________.__

Send it in.

It’s ALL about control! Everything-vax mandates, mask mandates, travel restrictions, etc. Covid is just the context for the largest experiment in social behavior modification ever undertaken outside of Communist China. The left doesn’t care about Covid, they care about obedience training an entire populace. And believe me, they are taking note of the “compliant” vs the “non-compliant”. What we are seeing now is an expression of their confidence in the overall level of obedience they have attained so far. They are now raising the stakes by weaponizing the Justice Dept. against concerned parents (the unlawful detention of the Jan. 6th “insurrectionists” is just a test run), and the Treasury (to an even greater extent than now) against the middle and lower classes, primarily, but every American, to be sure. They are carefully gauging the level of pushback from the citizenry, and using that feedback to plan their next act of oppression. Make no mistake, if they could replicate what we are seeing in Australia, they would. In the meantime, they are content to let chaos reign until the pleas for assistance from beleaguered cities and states warrant the federalization of the police forces nationwide and the institution of martial law. Those jurisdictions that don’t comply will be slapped with frivolous lawsuits by the Justice Dept. and forced into consent decrees. Then they will come for the guns. For those who still believe in free and fair elections as the path to oppose and/or remedy these abuses, the same playbook will be used here. How long do you think it will take Merritt Garland, should the John Lewis Voting Act be passed, to sue every board of elections in a conservative area on charges of systemic voter discrimination? The result will be oversight of every state and federal election by radical far-left activists working for the Justice Dept., thus ensuring election fraud will be endemic. And don’t count on a Republican victory in 2022 to save us. First, I doubt the left will risk losing all that it has achieved and, second, Republicans in Congress have a proven track record of fecklessness and self-preservation. Should they win, they will glean whatever spoils they can, serve their corporate cronies, and lie to the American people about how hard they worked to reverse the damage and how they need the White House in 2024 to really get anything done–here’s where to send your check!
I may be crazy. I hope I’m wrong. I fear I’m not.

Bless your hearts, gentlemen. You’re forgetting that the Left works like a ratchet.
Step 1: Pass law #1: the IRS can automatically see the transactions of any account that has transacted over $600 in a year (not in a transaction, Bill, in a year).
Step 2: “People are asking to be paid in cash or with debit cards in order to skirt the law for undoubtedly criminal reasons!!!” Pass law #2: all employers are required to pay their employees via direct deposit into a bank account. (Because the IRS is already looking at the employer’s financial records, and the employer is responsible for complying with all the withholding tax stuff, they don’t want any trouble, and they will comply. Now, your account will qualify for law #1 as soon as you receive your first paycheck of the year — or at least your second).
Step 3: Tank the dollar and switch to an all-digital currency. It’s already been done in parts of Europe. Additionally, they’ve already gone a looooong way to making such a thing acceptable in the minds of most American consumers the past year and a half. Most of the registers at my local supermarket have signs saying they only accept cards as payment.
Step 4: Pass law #3: institution of negative interest rates. By this time, you must get paid directly into a bank account, your accounts are an open book to the IRS, and you cannot withdraw your money because there is no physical money and thus no such thing as a “withdrawal” anymore (not like it would matter much because the IRS saw the funds go into the account already, it just makes it easier on their end since they don’t have to argue with you about the “missing” money since it’s all there).

Next … require all monetary transactions to be coupled to one’s bio-metric data and/or a tattoo on one’s arm. Similarly track all movements. Next … Minority Report merged with The Hunger Games as a reality.
Prepare one’s mind accordingly.
I can do this all day.

Corporations launder taxes on individuals so they don’t directly see them on their paycheck, nonetheless they are paying them. Corporate taxes are a giant tax-laundering operation.

WOW Bill amazes me more every day! Great comments. Point is they already do this at the $10k level. I have personal experience with where that can go.
What they really want is a balance sheet on Americans. With enough of this data, they can figure out exactly where the money is. Do they need to go after retirement funds? Real Estate? Investment funds?… You name it. They want it…
In Brazil in the 80’s the government confiscated all savings of their citizens in a gamble to stop runaway inflation (its complicated). It didn’t work. Brazilians were quickly exporting their money into American Dollars as fast as they could for the same reasons. But boy did they tick a lot of people off.
These people need your money to enact their leftist plans. And they really need to know that at the interest rate I get on savings, banks aren’t much value to me any more. Except I might have interest in their safety deposit boxes soon.

I might have interest in their safety deposit boxes soon.

A subterranean bunker in your back yard may be more secure.

To the Red Light Cameras: there are a number of organizations that have been pushing back against them as unconstitutional, illegal and dangerous, and have been steadily winning in courts all across the country for the last several years. To no one’s shock, a lot of politicians that have been in favor of RLCs have received kickbacks from the companies that run them.

I have two words for these bureaucratic tyrants:

HELL NO!

There are other two word variations that readily come to mind, but I think my point is made.
The unfortunate fact of this contrarian position of ours is that the only way to avoid using banks in our modern economy is to wholly revert to barter. No business of any size will be able to transition to a cash-based business, so most who are employed by a business will need to use a financial institution to cash payroll checks, which are already reported to the IRS.
The question remains: how do we as citizens pull a John Galt on the government without an alternate economy?

“The question remains: how do we as citizens pull a John Galt on the government without an alternate economy?”

We don’t. We replace the tyrants. Hopefully at the ballot box.

The ballot box is a failure if the recent elections are a reliable indicator. They’ve been corrupted, and the process is too slow — allowing for the the corruption to spread faster than it can be corrected.

I said “hopefully.” We need to correct the corruption so that they function fairly and that people have faith that they function fairly.
The alternative is still not John Galt. It is still to replace the tyrants, but by other means…and building a “big igloo” is a messy, dangerous, and undesirable process, so we should devote all our efforts to straightening out the ballot box issues while we still can.

And when they require all employers to pay via direct deposit only? (Because, if they need to, they will, and 99% of the employers will comply since they’re already eyeballs-deep in IRS compliance and don’t want to end up in handcuffs themselves.)

Start with Biden. Demonstrate how this might work in practice. Let’s see every transaction. Maybe we would finally get to the bottom of the corruption in that family.

This, like so many other Leftist policies, assumes that everyone is a potential criminal.

If you own a gun or two, you’re a potential mass murdering shooter. Your guns need to be rendered ineffective.

If you own a car, you are a potential traffic law violator. So you’re a source of revenue for traffic cameras.

If you go to a school board meeting and what you say makes the school board members uncomfortable you’re a potential terrorist.

If you have a bank account you’re a potential tax cheat …

Etc. It’s all about elevating your criminal status from honest, peaceful citizen to something the Left can use as a lever against you. This enables them to label the activity they want to alter as criminal.

Heaven forbid you do commit an actual crime, such as trespass and vandalism. Then you will be elevated to an “insurrectionist” trying to overthrow the Government. As if some relatively minor and comparatively inconsequential misconduct were capable of seizing control of the United States of America. Which Potato Joe says your firearms, which were not present in the cited vandalism and trespass incident, are not sufficient to do and you need nukes to accomplish that.

Of course this elevation of criminality only applies to the political enemies of the Left. If you are doing their bidding you can literally get away with large scale violence and mayhem, including destruction of property, arson and murder. If some honest cop does happen to arrest you even the Vice President of the United States will help you get out of jail and prevent your prosecution.

It’s all about leverage to move the population in the direction that the Left desires. If they can’t buy your vote with entitlements paid for by someone else’s money then you will be criminalized and that used to move you.

Look for the levers, that tells you what you need to know about the forces arrayed against you.

… which will be the excuse for criminalizing vaccination refusal.

This is a particularly weird one too, there’s something else going on there.

About three weeks ago my vaccinated brother-in-law came down with mild (he was still pretty sick, didn’t need hospitalization though) COVID symptoms. He recovered normally. A couple days ago he went to the doctor and asked if there was any way to verify if what he had was COVID or not. The doc said that other than testing for elevated anti-bodies while he was symptomatic or within a couple days after that no, there was no way to know. Because the vaccine anti-bodies are indistinguishable from the natural antibodies generated in fighting off the disease.

This being the case then if the only real concern is a matter of public health, an anti-body test in a non-symptomatic person should be every bit as good as a vaccination record. Same result, different path.

Another friend of mine works for the government. He refuses vaccination. He got COVID and was very sick, hospitalized for a bit over a week. He’s recovered now, looks kind of gaunt and stretched a bit thin but otherwise back to normal. Yet the DOD office he works in is going to terminate his employment if he doesn’t get vaccinated by, I think, November.

This doesn’t make any sense and is exactly the sort of thing that feeds conspiracy theories.

My wife and I are living the “conspiracy theory,” because she will be fired from her current employment on October 15 for refusing to be jabbed with any of the experimental drugs. It is no longer a theory.

You and your wife are living out the part that doesn’t make any sense, like the example I cited about my friend who got COVID and has natural immunity but will still lose his job if he doesn’t get vaccinated too.

That’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s observable fact. The reason why that observable fact exists in the first place is what leads to conspiracy theories. The observable fact in itself is not a conspiracy theory.

Probably so.

I don’t understand why this requirement for vaccination for people who have testable, known immunity because they’ve already had COVID. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’ve heard some things that also don’t make any real-world sense.

Like the COVID shot will drastically increase infertility and thereby depopulate the world. If that’s the goal then letting in COVID ridden ignorant 3rd world illegal immigrants by the millions also makes no sense. One cancels out the other in logic.

Another is that Potato Joe and his buddies want to claim an amazing and astounding victory over COVID for election purposes. If that were so then it would seem to me that they would want to count every single case of immunity whether it comes from vaccination or exposure to and survival of COVID. Why not inflate the numbers as favorably as possible? Why not be “heroes” and get rid of COVID measures all together, claiming everything that can be done has been done and any further deaths are either unavoidable or are those who refused vaccination and “deserve what they got”?

Something else is going on here, I’m not sure what it is and I’m not prone to believe in conspiracies as a rule. Mostly because they never work, some blabbermouth somewhere steps up with proof of the conspiracy and then it’s no longer secret nor a conspiracy.

For an actual conspiracy to work there are too many elements in play to control all of them and it only takes one solid hit to blow that whole agenda out of the water.

Occam’s razor cuts conspiracy theory to shreds.

I’m sure you’ve heard that the difference between right wing conspiracy theories and the truth is about a year.

Oh? Which conspiracy theories would those be?

Did someone come up with undeniable proof of chemtrails being used for some ridiculous multinational global effort to cause gerbil stillbirth?

Has irrefutable evidence that the U.S. Government staged 9/11 for it’s own nefarious purposes been uncovered proving to all the world that the American leadership sacrificed thousands of innocent Americans to Baal?

Has a tiny atmospheric research station, now closed, called HAARP recently been shown to be an effective effort at global mind, weather and bowel control?

A couple episodes of TSL back, Bill said he’s going to do a series on conspiracy theories and why they’re BS. Maybe you should drop him a note and tell him which ones not to include in that programming? I’m sure he’ll appreciate the help.

There are more than enough silly right wing conspiracy theories to fill a book. None of which have been proven to be true in a year or otherwise. If that’s not the ones you’re talking about then we’re not talking about the same thing at all.

My grannies are already dead, and I am not compelled to care about theirs. In fact, those who are pulling the levers also don’t care.

… misconduct were capable of seizing control of the United States of America. […] you need nukes to accomplish that.

Don’t forget the F-16’s!

This is an unconstitutional idea, and I suspect it won’t ever be enacted. It’s been floated to the public and all the short comings of the idea are being hashed out in the media and social media. The expense and burden on the banks will be outrageous. And the amount of data will be overwhelming. There will be so much data that there arent enough government employees from all departments to actually look at it all. I also suspect this is a distraction to take people’s attention away from something else that is going on.

Karen, stick with the unconstitutional aspect of it. If you focus on the impracticality, you’ve ceded the argument. This should constitute an illegal search and seizure and a violation of privacy.

Karen didn’t “cede” anything. It’s not at all unreasonable to point out that not only is something illegal by way of being unconstitutional but that in addition to that deal-killing fact it’s virtually impossible or unattainably expensive to boot. It’s a double argument that reaches those who may not give a flying rat what the Constitution says, and sadly there are too many of those.

I’m a strict Constitutional literalist too. I get your point. Karen made two points. I get both of them too.

Whatever kills a stupidity is useful. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But it allows them to ignore the constitutional argument (like Lefitsts have been doing over everything for decades) and then focus on the practicality. Getting you to argue practicality is a trojan horse to give the appearance of assuming the validity/desirability of the overall goal. Even if it’s not what you intend, that’s the effect it has on most of those watching the debate, making it a bad rhetorical strategy. Then, the other side either gets to argue that their way is practical enough or to make a few minor changes and declare that the impracticalities are “fixed.” That’s exactly how we ended up with Obamacare, the Great Society, and so many other Leftist millstones that have been hung around our necks.

I think ACTS is correct in this. We cede NO argument until it is proven to be futile. Use them ALL simultaneously. Focusing upon one line of argument at the expense of others, because the others are potential distraction to be ignored, is doomed to failure. Take a lesson from the recent events with the Cartels and AK-47’s atthe southern border — distract at one point allowing illegal entrance at another. Take in the big picture and assign resources at key battles.

This kind of thing reminds me of the old critique of some Christians who are so heavenly minded they’re no Earthly good. If you’re arguing matters of faith with an atheist you’re doing the same thing as arguing Constitutional Literalism with someone who thinks the U.S. Constitution is a “living document”. In neither case are you ever going to get the other to grant credence to the things you (we) see as canonical and authoritative.

For one thing, the other side is already ignoring the Constitution to a large degree. They don’t see anything wrong with that. So you insisting on it solely as the legal basis for action and policy to them sounds like a dog barking, not a person talking.

Because what happens in real life in the real world is you say “You can’t do that, it’s un-Constitutional” and they say “Oh, well then we’ll just change the Constitution” and you both walk away thinking you’ve gotten your point across but you have not. You think they understand that they are constrained by the Constitution so they’re going to try to get an amendment passed or some other Constitutionally correct action. They think they need to come up with yet another “creative” interpretation to the Constitution.

There are TWO approaches for Constitutional Scholars–

The first and correct one is to study the Constitution with the goal of learning more and better understanding the original words and intentions of the Founders so that those principles can be correctly applied. This is the straight-forward, upright approach.

The second one is how Barack Hussein Obama and his ilk become “Constitutional Scholars” … They approach the Constitution with the goal of finding ways to either defeat the impediments it plants between them and where they want to go, or ways to defeat it outright and act regardless of the Constitution. This is the weaseldick approach.

The weaseldick approach is how the other side applies to the Constitution what you said – … the other side either gets to argue that their way is practical enough or to make a few minor changes and declare that the impracticalities are “fixed.” 

It’s incredibly naïve to think they won’t do that to the Constitution too. Of course they will. This is a battle for the soul of this country and ultimate power over the world. Do you think just because you wave the rule book under your enemies nose he’s going to just throw up his hands, give up and go home? Seriously?

Their mechanism for succeeding in this creative reinterpretation is the courts. If you lose there, they’ve got you and they get what they want. If it goes that far, they have an advantage because the courts are the single point of failure in our system. The founders never dreamed that the courts could be corrupted to the point of acting contrary to the Constitution while claiming to have correctly and creatively “reinterpreted” it.

Being in denial about this clear fact is sheer folly.

In the real world it’s very noble of you to stand on your principles and go down with the ship. When the enemy finds a way to sink your ship, down it goes with you and your sacred, unwavering principles aboard.

This is what my Dad used to call being “dead right”. You’re right, you’re in the right, and you are going to clutch the thing you see as right right up until it kills you and takes the rest of us with it.

You won’t do yourself, your progeny, conservatism or America a bit of good from the bottom of the ocean.

You don’t fight a war with only rifles or only fusion bombs, you fight a war to win using every arrow in your quiver. You deploy the weapons and weapon systems that work. You can be certain that your enemy is doing the same and in doing so he does not think he’s “ceding” anything to you. He knows he’s not.

Every weapon needs to be brought to bear against this kind of thing and deploying more than one weapons system isn’t “ceding” a damn thing to the enemy.

Just the opposite. It’s foolish to think you can win a conflict with one hand tied behind your back and wearing blinders.

Oh, right. I’m not saying we should argue constitutionality with them, I’m saying because they have completely discounted all constitutional arguments and means, it is pointless to argue with them at all.
Attempt to drag them before SCOTUS over every little thing — club them into submission with the rulebook (or at least have the referees do it, while that’s still a moderate possibility) — don’t let them have an inch for their agenda.
You’ll never convince them that they are wrong, so they simply must be prevented from enacting anything on their wishlist.
It’s true that we never will get them to accept a constitutional argument (we just need to flex the enforcement mechanism), but it’s equally true that arguing on their terms will lead our lightly-informed countrymen (which is most of them) to tacitly adopt all the Left’s foundational premises without even realizing it — and then they will vote them into even greater marjorities so they can destroy the enforcement mechanism, too.

If they really wanted to “close loopholes” this is not what they would do. What is a “loophole”? It’s called the tax code. So closing loopholes would be nothing more than simplifying the tax code. Institute the Fair Tax and the so-called dark money gets taxed.
This is really making things illegal so that everyone is a criminal when it’s convenient.

“If they really wanted to ‘close loopholes’…”
They don’t.
It’s not about that. It never is.

Correct! More loopholes are nothing more than additional shells to cover the lone pea in the game with the sole intent to confuse the observer.

This scheme reminds me of the other one they started floating several years ago, wanting to get control of all the 401(k) accounts out there, because it was billions of dollars (maybe more!) just sitting out there, out of reach. They made some headlines with that one by actually saying all of that out loud, and people got really worked up. It sort of faded out over time, but they’ve probably got the reboot of that idea ready to go in case this one would somehow manage to slip through.
It’s true, they really see us as their serfs. I won’t say employees, because at least as an employee we have some federal and state rights that give us some measure of leverage over abusive employers. In this case, they want us to shut up and keep working so they can spend the money. I still don’t think they’ll get away with this, at least not at this point in time, but things are definitely trending that way!

Leave a Reply