10 thoughts on “Does the IRS have a right to know when you send more than $600?”
US federal law already requires a person to report cash transactions of more than $10,000 to the IRS. So, the horse is already out of the barn, in terms of a “right to know” principle (the amount seems to be a less consequential issue). A different question comes to mind…how much authority should the IRS have to any personal information and under what conditions?
It seems to me there’s something of a difference between do they have a right to know (as in do they have a right to require you to report it and make use of the information) and do they have a right to surveil your every transaction so as to know.
The government has a right to know if I’m abusing my children — if they are able to find out by any legally accepted means, they are entitled to make use of that information, and certain people are required to report it to them if they have a well-founded suspicion. They don’t have a right to put cameras in my house.
Good distinction
True…it’s not just a simple “right to know”….that has already been established under our current laws. Given that, theoretically, “any” amount should be acceptable for the IRS to know. If so, what’s the acceptable authority and means to access the information required for them to know?
I think you’re asking why $600. Why not $1? There doesn’t seem to be any limiting principle here.
No, I’m not asking why $600. For me, the amount is not material because the government already has the “right to know”. My questions are…should there be limits on their “right to know” and the means they employ to know.
Have you heard the joke…
Man asks woman if she’d sleep with him for $10 million dollars. She thinks about it and says, “For $10 million dollars, I believe so.” Man then asks her if she’d sleep with him for $20 dollars. She exclaims, “What, do you think I’m some kind of whore!!!???”” He responds, “We’ve already established you’re a whore, now we’re just negotiating the price.”
If the government has the right to monitor $10,000 transactions, why not $600?
Who’s the whore in this analogy? 🙂
Well, the $10k reporting limit was allegedly to prevent money laundering.
I’d say the whore is anybody who is ok with the $10k limit.
Seems there wasn’t a great concern about the right to know till now. I wonder why?
US federal law already requires a person to report cash transactions of more than $10,000 to the IRS. So, the horse is already out of the barn, in terms of a “right to know” principle (the amount seems to be a less consequential issue). A different question comes to mind…how much authority should the IRS have to any personal information and under what conditions?
It seems to me there’s something of a difference between do they have a right to know (as in do they have a right to require you to report it and make use of the information) and do they have a right to surveil your every transaction so as to know.
The government has a right to know if I’m abusing my children — if they are able to find out by any legally accepted means, they are entitled to make use of that information, and certain people are required to report it to them if they have a well-founded suspicion. They don’t have a right to put cameras in my house.
Good distinction
True…it’s not just a simple “right to know”….that has already been established under our current laws. Given that, theoretically, “any” amount should be acceptable for the IRS to know. If so, what’s the acceptable authority and means to access the information required for them to know?
I think you’re asking why $600. Why not $1? There doesn’t seem to be any limiting principle here.
No, I’m not asking why $600. For me, the amount is not material because the government already has the “right to know”. My questions are…should there be limits on their “right to know” and the means they employ to know.
Have you heard the joke…
Man asks woman if she’d sleep with him for $10 million dollars. She thinks about it and says, “For $10 million dollars, I believe so.” Man then asks her if she’d sleep with him for $20 dollars. She exclaims, “What, do you think I’m some kind of whore!!!???”” He responds, “We’ve already established you’re a whore, now we’re just negotiating the price.”
If the government has the right to monitor $10,000 transactions, why not $600?
Who’s the whore in this analogy? 🙂
Well, the $10k reporting limit was allegedly to prevent money laundering.
I’d say the whore is anybody who is ok with the $10k limit.
Seems there wasn’t a great concern about the right to know till now. I wonder why?