Posts by Nathan Morris3

coastalbison6 said:Now that the Democrats have made their move on the Mexican vote, it looks like the Republican Party is setting its sights on American voters. Back in mid-February, Sebastian Kurz from the Department of State hosted an American-Austrian gala in Vienna 😁

I guess the issue with most of this stuff is how certain things always seem to get dragged into it

It’s just that Kurz doesn't really seem to have much of a feel for those kinds of things. Last time, he "teamed up" with those radicals/alt-right types from that American global congress (the former president Rastigorac from the Libertarian Party), and if I understood correctly, most regular Americans were pretty furious, myself included. Is there any organization in Vienna that isn't weighed down by ideology? The Republican Party seems to be copying the Freedom Party a bit too much, and maybe even the Democrats are starting to do it too.

Where can I find info about that meetup in Vienna?

Kyle Nelson2 said:Interesting enough:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...131559685.html

It even mentions restricting job market access for people coming from Eastern Europe. I guess.

Regarding the ban on burkas in public spaces, I guess most sane people wouldn't mind. But the fact that socialists agreed to rules where you can't work in certain institutions if you cover your hair is just a sign that even they are turning into populists. They'll probably just say, "well, we had no choice."
The US is dealing with two big issues right now: integration and radicalism. If this proposed "identity crackdown" is meant to help fix those, it might actually backfire. Sure, extremists and radicals will love it, but what about the rest of us who just want a normal society with integrated people?

That part about restricting Eastern Europeans seems more like populism than reality, since nothing happens without Brussels' approval. I suppose they just have to pretend they want it to win over the Republican Party. It feels like everyone is becoming a populist.

frozenranger52 said:I would personally prefer to steer clear of the "controversial" sites, but let's be honest—both you and I know that the mainstream, "unquestionable" news organizations will never actually cover these kinds of stories. We've seen it happen time and again over the last three or four years, in countless instances...

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I guess this covers the same topic in a much better way. It hits all the main points without skipping anything, and there aren't any of those "clickbait" headlines, either.

I guess laws are kind of tricky, maybe? It feels like they can sometimes get in the way of things instead of helping. Just my two cents, I suppose.

Sure, there are biased media outlets on all sides, but you're kind of mistaken if you think there isn't actually high-quality journalism out there beyond the trash I mentioned. I guess the issue is that if someone only ever consumes garbage media, their views are probably going to be pretty garbage too. We live in the internet age, so it shouldn't be that hard to double-check things. For instance, when I saw your headline, I clicked the link just to poke around a bit. It only takes a few minutes to tell the difference between junk and actual news. I don't know how you didn't notice that the headline suggests one thing while the numbers you cited say something totally different. At most, it's just a "tendentious headline." I guess I wonder why you weren't acting as a filter yourself instead of posting a headline like that here.

Personally, I usually just stick to checking the Press and Standard. One leans a bit left and the other stays more on the right side, I guess. It's enough to get a general feel for things. But that radical stuff from outlets like the Daily Mail, Sputnik, or CNN... you really have to stay away from that, maybe.

frozenranger52 said:Which ones exactly? I was simply quoting the headline of the article.

It seems problematic to me that a single individual is pushing for something akin to religious law in our country, or that there's debate over women's right to work, or even that more than a third of people favor gender-segregated schools.

Perhaps you should decide whether you think there's an issue here or not, and then write a post that maintains a consistent stance from start to finish...

EDIT: I have updated my original post so it doesn't look like I am "manipulating the media." Unfortunately, there isn't a direct link to the study within the article itself, but if that is absolutely necessary, I suppose I could track it down somewhere...

I guess it's generally risky to cite outlets like NASA, Cronkite, Fox News, or CNN, because they tend to do exactly what I mentioned.
If the data shows over 50% don't have issues with our values, you don't see an issue with a headline suggesting (most) refugees do?
Plus, those media sources leave out the fact that 37% of respondents are from Afghanistan. It’s funny how the number of people wanting separate schools is also 37%. That's kind of like mixing up meat and cabbage when making stuffed rolls 😁.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around one person wanting to implement Sharia law in this country, or questioning women's right to work, or the fact that over a third want gender-segregated schools.

Well, yeah, it's problematic, but the media twists the picture by leaving out crucial details and misrepresenting others. I truly believe that way we just move further away from actually solving anything, since nobody ever bothers looking at the real causes. This link you shared from CNN is probably the best example. The truth is, some people integrate easier than others. We pretty much know who struggles and who doesn't. Mixing it all together and slapping on a headline like they did... I guess it's just counterproductive and destructive for everyone trying to help with integration. It's just bad for society, really.

Maybe pick a side on whether there's a problem or not, then write a post that stays consistent from start to finish.

I've been talking about the fallout from colonialism and poor policy—foreign, domestic, integration stuff... I guess it's not clear which part of my stance you mean? Of course we see the consequences. Maybe someone else wrote something different and you're just confusing me with them.

frozenranger52 said:A study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences last summer looked at a sample of 900 refugees:

37% expressed a preference for single-sex schooling and gender-segregated swimming lessons.

While 90% view democracy as the ideal form of government, about 40% believe religious penalties should be integrated into state laws.

Additionally, 20% are opposed to women having the right to work.

Source:

http://www.krone.at/oesterreich/fuer...z-story-550253

I mean, you wrote a headline that doesn't even match the actual numbers in the article—classic media spin. The facts show most people aren't actually having issues with how liberal Austrians are, especially since you included stats that totally contradict your own point.

Well, maybe if 37% of those surveyed are from Afghanistan, coming from tribal communities, it makes sense that 100% of them are used to separate schools and religious laws. I guess it's just hard when people arrive from tribal backgrounds. So, the result isn't really a surprise to me. It seems like the data is being cherry-picked or twisted just to push a certain narrative, probably for both sides. But, I suppose if we want to fix things, we really need to look at these numbers more carefully.

To my colleagues posting these kinds of links:
The issue is that for some reason, people only share links when an immigrant commits a crime, while crimes committed by Americans seem to get swept under the rug. Even though the facts suggest there are more American offenders. Regarding the issues with certain immigrant groups, we've talked about them before, and I think we all agreed those problems exist. American society is pretty wealthy—not just in money, but in terms of what we have to talk about—so forcing this one single topic over and over isn't really constructive, at least not like this.
But what some people are insisting on posting here right now doesn't feel like objective reporting. It feels more like spreading hate and intolerance that leans toward collective guilt. I guess it goes without saying how much damage that kind of thing can cause.

If you want, maybe we could discuss which laws should be changed or updated to help minimize the problem and improve integration. It's not like there aren't constructive things to talk about, even if spreading hate is definitely the easier path.

Mark Clark6 said:An intriguing thesis, and the data even more so.
One might argue that it is perfectly natural for all Nobel laureates in the USA to be immigrants or their descendants, given that virtually the entire population consists of immigrants or their progeny; the USA has always been an immigrant nation. This begs the question: was the American case factored into the broader average, because if it was, then it significantly skewed the result.

I didn't really want to start a huge debate about this, which is why I mentioned it has its "pros and cons." Globalization is basically like tearing down fences, while isolationism is the opposite—like setting hard borders (take South Korea, for example). I guess both extremes are kind of bad. Sure, exchanging people, culture, and knowledge definitely helps things grow, but then again, being closed off might help "preserve" a specific culture.
I used the US as an example with a little sarcasm there; obviously, all Americans (aside from Native Americans) are immigrants or descendants of them. But it's also true that the US probably wouldn't be what it is today without immigration, and it's still a magnet for the smartest people on Earth because it provides an environment that actually welcomes them. On the other hand, in Japan, you can barely communicate because hardly anyone speaks English (just as an example), and they don't really care about other cultures. That maybe explains why they fought such brutal wars in the past where they treated other cultures quite inhumanely. But again, I don't think monoculturalism is inherently good or bad.

As for the list, here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tes_per_capita

The US, with 11 laureates per 10 million, is actually pretty low on the list. Most of the top ones are countries with high levels of multiculturalism. If we just look at countries with more than 5 laureates:

Sweden: 31 / 10 million
Switzerland and Norway: 30
Norway: 25
Denmark: 25
Austria: 25
UK: 19
Ireland, Israel, Germany, and Netherlands: 15
Israel: 15
Germany: 13
Netherlands: 11
US and France: 11
France: 10
European Union: 9
...
Japan, South Africa, and Russia: 2
South Africa: 2
Russia: 2
...
World 1.24
...
Hong Kong: 1
Turkey: 0.3
South Korea: 0.2

The most isolated countries, like South Korea or Saudi Arabia, aren't even on the list because they haven't really made much in terms of modern contributions.

I'm not saying multiculturalism is directly tied to "progress" (there are outliers, and everyone has their own reasons for them), but it doesn't seem like a coincidence either. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, which is a conversation for another time. But it seems like societies that didn't actively fight against diversity have contributed more to human development than those that stayed monocultural. That's probably why even PhDs or refugees or economic migrants are dying to move to places like Japan, South Korea, or Russia.

If we want to keep talking about this, maybe we should start a new thread so we don't go off-topic.

Walter Long7 said:That is the million-dollar question... Why would a single country like Japan receive 40 asylum requests from Syria during 2015 and just smoothly reject every single one? Why don't they want migrants, much like the Koreans and other Eastern nations?
Why would they dump millions upon millions into pro-natalist schemes and dating camps to boost birth rates, rather than spending that money on educating, feeding, and housing foreign migrants?
It’s almost like they’d rather face collective extinction than accept other nations and fundamentally alter a culture that took centuries to build—much like the mindset seen during World War II.
Time will provide the ultimate answer as these two divergent policies play out in the near future..

I think Japan is a pretty radical Monoculture, with all its pros and cons. It's a really complicated topic, but we have enough facts to see what the "benefits" of a Japanese Monoculture might be (some guy like Breivik even touched on them in his manifesto), but when it comes to global impact, you'll see that isolated monocultures actually contribute pretty modestly to the world. For example, all 363 American Nobel laureates are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Societies that contribute to progress usually have between 10 and 30 Nobel laureates per 10 million people. Monocultures (like Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are under 2 Nobel laureates per 10 million. The West chose its path a long time ago, which is why it's where it is—with all its ups and downs. And those isolated monocultures have somewhat hitched a ride on the progress of multiculturalism, some more successfully than others. But I guess that's probably a different topic since it doesn't have much to do with Austria or migrants, but rather with—Monoculture.

Arthur Smith2 said:Is communism some kind of Appalachian weed that grows everywhere—a necessary crutch for any political debate? And seriously, do you honestly believe the government only watched its people back in communist regimes? You can't run from the state even in the afterlife—they'll be coming for your heirs until there isn't a single cent left to squeeze.

The underground economy? Sure, you can pretend—do odd jobs and have the boss pay you under the table.😂Imports of socks will go up.😂😂

The black market and tax evaders bleed the federal budget dry (and I won't bore you with the reasons: either they can't pay or they simply refuse). A few of my old classmates each owe half a million in back taxes. That money is supposed to be in the treasury—you know, that massive fund that ensures you have basic healthcare coverage and someone actually patches a pothole before you hit it and break your neck—don't you think?

Having worked closely with finance, I’ve noticed how much people in Appalachia love to cheat and play the victim. Based on their tax filings, you'd think they were scavenging for scraps every day, yet I see them decked out in designer clothes, expensive shoes, and high-end gadgets.

I'm not saying everyone does it, but there's this pervasive habit of dodging responsibility—which leads to billions in tax and credit debt—avoiding accountability—which causes an uproar whenever they have to settle a tax bill, report a tenant, or face financial scrutiny—and above all, a staggering amount of economic ignorance that feeds directly into financial irresponsibility. If I were making the laws, I’d crank up the oversight even more just to protect children from their reckless parents (who, frankly, I've had to bail out after they've already mortgaged their grandkids' futures). I might even experiment with requiring parents to justify every cent spent on their kids—that would lead to better-cared-for children and more peace of mind regarding child benefits, ensuring they aren't wasted on booze and cigarettes. The Scots tried something similar once, and of course, there was pushback.

I honestly don't know if you're even reading what you write because you're asking such bizarre questions—about what you can do with your own money? Look, funds deposited as salary have a legitimate source. If one of your accounts shows your full salary while another account suddenly receives a random lump sum, of course it’s logical to ask where it came from—it doesn't necessarily mean it's criminal! I'd much rather people focused on why there aren't more massive fines for all those people dodging the federal budget on a massive scale.

Do you seriously still believe you can operate incognito?

What are you actually afraid of if you're living an honest life? Did you report those Cayman Island funds, or is that just some dramatic figure of speech?

What's actually terrifying is the fact that people still don't realize they're under a microscope every single second—especially since most data isn't even secret anymore, and people hand over info without even being asked. Nowadays, it's not hard to find anyone in voter registration, property records, court filings, financial statements for a specific period, or even photos of family members (which everyone shares constantly on social media).

How exactly is your right to privacy being violated?

I have no idea what kind of data you were giving them, but they only asked me about extra income and real estate holdings (and that's true for every bank I use). If I can give the FBI my fingerprints along with biological traces—which is way more personal and invades my actual physical being—then I can certainly hand over some data about my income. It's not like I'm taking my petty assets to the grave anyway.

How exactly are Germany and the US politically, socially, or economically comparable?

Explain the math to me: if you have a salary of $2.00 and you move it from one account to another, where is the "double salary" coming from? When you transfer an amount labeled "salary" to your own second account, that transaction doesn't carry that label anymore—it's just a transfer between accounts owned by the same person.

If that actually worked, it would be the ultimate insult.

The guy didn't say he was scared. He just said it's insulting to be treated like a suspect when he hasn't given anyone a reason to doubt him.
I guess I'd ask: where do we draw the line? Would you really be okay with the Department of Homeland Security putting a microphone in your living room to listen to everything? Just under the guise of fighting crime, of course. If you're an honest person, I suppose there shouldn't be anything to hide, right?

It's pretty scary to think people still don't realize they're being watched constantly.

Honestly, what worries me more is how people don't seem to care about being watched. It's like decent folks are being monitored like criminals. First, they're looking into your wallet, then maybe they'll be peering into your living room. Sure, we're all being watched, but I guess some people are just totally indifferent to it.

I don't know what kind of info you gave the bank, but they only asked me about extra income and properties I own (happens at every bank I use).

Well, obviously I didn't just hand over that info (they had to ask for it, since they clearly didn't know the law by heart), and I mean, who would voluntarily give that up? The law is pretty clear on what they can request, and they overstepped and got slapped by the Federal Trade Commission. What were they asking you about property? My goodness, which banks are we even talking about here? I don't recall being asked that by Bank of America, Zappos, JPMorgan Chase, or even ex-Washington Mutual. You don't find it suspicious that a bank asks for stuff the government already knows? They're basically collecting data to sell it, so your info is worth something to them. Did they pay you for that data, or did you just give it away for free?

If I can give the Department of Homeland Security my fingerprints and DNA—which is way more personal and goes deep into my biology—then I can give up a few details about my income. I'm not taking all this little bit of wealth to the grave anyway.

Look, we aren't talking about the Department of Homeland Security here; we're talking about a private company trying to trick people out of personal data they have no right to. Like...

rapidhawk2 said:This is the first I'm seeing of it; frankly, stories like this rarely make the headlines in American newspapers, let alone spark any real conversation.

Which media outlets are you thinking of? The BBC and the Standard actually covered this just a few days ago. But, I guess girls have probably just become more cautious overall, and there's more police presence too.

I mean, maybe there isn't a need to have every single instance of someone being groped on the front page for two days straight. It's tough for the police to watch every group of drunk teenagers, and crowds always seem risky in that regard. Someone gets harassed, someone gets slapped, or someone gets robbed.

The worst ones are definitely the rapes. I think there were three of those in Cologne last year during New Year's Eve—not sure about previous years—but it feels like things might be a bit better this year.

Jonathan Sanchez7 said:So, does anyone actually have any insight into how things work when you're dealing with betting sites or casinos, specifically in cases where funds have been sitting in a checking account for years?

Maybe those casinos or betting sites issue some kind of profit statements at the start of the year, at least where they can.

Jonathan Sanchez7 said:Have any of you ever actually placed bets? If so, have you ever walked away with a win? I’m talking about the old-school way—walking into a physical sportsbook or using one of those machines at a local pub. Or maybe you've been to a casino and actually hit a jackpot? Here is my experience: over the last nine years (though I haven't been active for the last year or two, so things might have changed), I have never once received an official payout slip. All I could ever do was make a photocopy of the winning ticket and keep that for myself, since they always insist on keeping the original. Honestly, I never even bothered to do that, especially after reading on a forum how someone got absolutely hounded by authorities just for trying to prove their winnings with a photo of a ticket. How are you even supposed to prove to the IRS where all that accumulated cash came from, especially when I almost always transferred it straight to my checking account, with a chunk being funneled immediately back into the next bet?

I guess I haven't played much in Rhode Island. In the casinos out there (I think it's the same here in the States), they always give you a receipt, whether you win two cents or two million. Sorry if I got something wrong.

I guess I really have no clue how a Bitcoin ATM would even print out a receipt, but it feels pretty weird that a sportsbook wouldn't give you one. It’s honestly kind of messed up that they put all the pressure on us citizens to prove everything.

ironcyclist58 said:But honestly, that shouldn't be enough to fly. If it is, then this whole system is basically a joke.
For instance, I could just pull $3333 out of my account, blow through it, and then (whether it’s the same account or a different one) deposit some dirty cash from $3333 while claiming it’s just a match for that first withdrawal. You could pretty much justify anything that way, which makes the entire setup feel totally pointless...

What you wrote is basically the same as saying you spent illegal $3.25. Yeah, obviously the UP doesn't monitor all of that. At least not if you're spending it on things they don't track. I guess the point here isn't really about stopping the shadow economy anyway, though someone who only has underground income might theoretically run into trouble. But then again, in the US, it's pretty easy to wash cash with maybe 10% in costs or less. It's easiest if you own property in Florida; for just $167 you could probably clean $5.00 😁

ironcyclist58 said:I don't know how things work in other countries, but from where I'm sitting, there are some massive gray areas here.
For instance, once you finally explain where your money is coming from, does that cover just the past transactions, or are you set for the future too?
Take someone who mentioned they get their paycheck at one bank and then immediately wire the whole thing over to another account just to dodge fees or whatever... the IRS is going to start waving red flags pretty fast. It looks like that person is pulling double wages every single month. Once they explain their setup, is that a one-and-done deal, or will they be getting flagged again every few months because the pattern keeps repeating?
Then there’s the headache of gambling winnings. Apparently, people aren't getting official payout slips, which sounds sketchy to me. If that's the case, how are you even supposed to prove where that cash actually came from?

I don't really see an issue there, honestly. You can clearly see the payout in one bank and the deposit in the other. Maybe a problem could arise if you're carrying cash from a foreign account and trying to deposit it into a US bank. You'd probably need to keep all those receipts handy.

And regarding the gambling stuff, if you don't get a receipt or a statement, I guess that would look like some shady, illegal business.

wiredlynx28 said:If some bank tries to squeeze more info out of you by hiding behind a "fact" or some other excuse, then that’s a whole different ballgame.
Look, if we're talking about massive sums of money, they used to hunt you down just to avoid getting flagged by the IRS for an audit. Now? They can see everything themselves, so there’s really no reason to go looking for trouble anymore.

This whole thing regarding bank account audits and financial transparency here in America? It’s been standard practice in other countries for ages. People don't even complain about it because they have nothing to hide. Just look at Scandinavia. There is zero chance someone dodges their taxes over there, which is exactly why their quality of life is so high—even if their tax rate sits at around 60% of their income.
It’s not just about the government hoarding data for its own sake. They can actually track whether a taxpayer holds assets in other signatory nations because information sharing is now standard practice among OECD members. This isn't limited to just the EU; it’s a global network designed to crack down on money laundering and other financial crimes.

Nah, I don't think it's a different story. I guess they just ran into someone who actually knows their rights and can quote the law, so I shut them down. It seems like they aren't asking those "relevant" questions anymore. The real issue is that most people fall for these scams because they're naive, don't care about their rights, and are honestly intimidated by banks. I haven't seen this kind of inferiority complex in citizens anywhere else in the world.

But if we're talking about huge sums of money, they were looking for you because otherwise they'd have to report you to the IRS for an audit. Now they can see everything themselves, so there's no need.

By hiding behind jargon the average American wouldn't understand, the bank was asking for details on the source of funds, income, and a bunch of other stuff on accounts with only a few hundred dollars in turnover—things they had no legal right or obligation to ask for. The Fact only applies to accounts with over $50K. A bank could claim they didn't know what the Fact said (even though the law is public), and maybe that's why they asked everyone, but I don't really buy it. What do you think?

The whole thing about reviewing account balances and such works fine in other countries, and people don't complain since they have nothing to hide. Just look at Scandinavia.

If we lived in Norway, a place that's organized, democratic, corruption-free, with honest politicians and a functional legal system... maybe what you're saying would make sense. But the reality is, all of this is happening here in America.

ruggedfox28 said:Is this on the banks, or is it the government passing laws like this?

Quentin:

savings interest is non-existent

Interest rates are what they are, and honestly, they’re just gonna keep dropping (look at Scandinavia or Switzerland—they’re already dealing with zero or even negative rates)... but that’s all dictated by the Federal Reserve and the general money market across the EU

Quentin:

loan interest is insane

Loan rates are actually at their lowest levels since the old Soviet Union days...

Man, you're just talking nonsense just to hear yourself talk...😬

Quentin:

everything is being taxed

,

We're looping again... Is it the banks' fault, or the government passing the laws the banks have to follow? Even in Switzerland, which everyone acts like is some secret paradise, banking secrecy isn't really a thing anymore

Quentin:

I don't see any reason to keep money in a bank.

I don't think you can even see what's right in front of you, judging by these comments...😬

Loan interest rates are at their lowest levels since the old America days...[/I]

The example above sort of shows the tragedy we're talking about.
I'm looking at a situation where I'm paying 1% interest in Austria, while a friend of mine in America is paying 4.8%. It’s honestly pretty sad how we reached a point where my friend (or this user above) thinks 4.8% isn't that bad just because, you know, "it's never been higher." I guess the level of brainwashing people deal with is actually kind of worrying. When you live in isolation for so long, I suppose you start accepting everything unhealthy in society and find ways to spin even the worst stuff as something positive. With a mindset like that, banking secrecy is probably the least of our problems.

We're repeating ourselves again... Is it the banks' fault, or the state that passed laws they have to follow? Banking secrecy doesn't even exist anymore in Switzerland, which everyone claims is such a special place.

Personally, I can't think of any other country with laws that completely ignore data privacy and protection. To me, America feels almost like some sort of test case to see how much you can enslave people without them even noticing. I guess America wasn't chosen by accident.

wiredlynx28 said:Exactly, it’s a very broad term.
Take a look at a mandatory form, for instance. It asks which income bracket you fall into based on salary—up to $X amount, up to $Y amount, etc. Then it asks for your annual turnover in your checking account and so on. Based solely on those data points, if your business doesn't match the marked amounts, JPMorgan Chase sees that something is off. For example, if your total checking account turnover exceeds the declared limit and you have deposits that don't align with your salary, it’s obvious you have other income sources, and that gets reported to the IRS automatically. Then they come knocking, asking you to document the source of funds and all that jazz.
Basically, there's no cause for concern as long as you can prove where the money came from, regardless of the amount.
The bank is simply following orders from the Government.

I think you might be mistaken about that. My bank actually tried to pressure me into handing over all this info about where my money came from and a bunch of other stuff I didn't even need to provide. They kept bringing up facts, federal laws, international treaties, and things like that. Luckily, I know enough about these things to hold my ground, but I guess a lot of people get spooked and just fall for those tactics. It’s honestly pretty wild how little people realize their rights; I mean, they often end up feeling powerless because they're just uninformed or scared, and they don't even use the legal tools they have to fight back.

neondriver5 said:I don't think you need to lose any sleep if thirty people chipped in $67 each for a coworker's gift (🤣)

I’m not saying it’s exactly a dream scenario having the IRS peering directly into our personal bank accounts. I'm just thinking out loud here—they don't have nearly enough manpower to audit every single individual who receives a frequent or large transfer. They’re going to be surgical about it.

By surgical, I mean if a shell company with zero employees starts receiving $8,000 loans every single day, and then a week later that cash gets moved into Paul's account labeled as "consulting fees," well, let's just say Paul is going to have some explaining to do.

Honestly, they could have caught that kind of thing long ago, though I assume they would have needed to coordinate with the Department of Justice or some other federal agency first.

30 * 200 = $2.00, so 5% tax on that would be $100. I mean, why are you so sure the IRS will just let it slide? It’s possible they might, but maybe one day they’ll decide to set a precedent with transfers like that. Once you multiply it by the number of people, it becomes a huge amount of money. Everything is digital now—they can just run an algorithm that flags transactions, checks your SSN, and taxes anything that isn't from parents or kids at that 5% gift rate. Then you get to try and PROVE it was actually a gift.

I'm not saying it's great that the IRS gets a direct look at our accounts. I'm just thinking out loud here. They don't even have enough staff to audit every single person with frequent or large deposits. They'll probably just target specific people.

Once everything is digitized, they'll just need enough people to handle the appeals. And they can take months or even years to resolve those. Even if they're short-staffed now, I bet they'll have plenty of people in two years. Trust me, the state definitely won't skimp when it comes to collecting taxes.

Laura Chavez93 said:@moderator, I find myself wondering why banks actually agree to these kinds of requests from the IRS—requests that don't even strictly fall within their operational scope,
especially since it just results in an increased workload for bank employees—work that, by the way, the government isn't even subsidizing...

The government might not be paying, but banks will probably just hike up their service fees, so citizens end up footing the bill. Maybe they don't care, kind of like how cell providers act, since supply and demand is just what it is.

electricbadger89 said:I’m not talking about a salary here. It’s more like my boyfriend sends money to my account every month—sometimes $100, sometimes more, depending on what's needed. I also send money to my mom to help her out with hers and stuff. What’s the deal with that?
Who is actually going to stop me from sending or receiving money that isn't strictly earned income?

And why should I care about the IRS over this?

From Apple iPhone 15

Legally speaking, they could technically hit you with a 5% gift tax on what you get from your boyfriend, though I guess it's unlikely the IRS would bother with such small amounts. But, I don't know, if it happens regularly, who knows how they might interpret it.

Between you and your parents, there's no tax issue, so you can pretty much do whatever you want there.