Large deposits to my account

Look, I know they’ve been relentlessly hounding this guy while he’s just trying to work on the platform.
It’s nothing but pure harassment, honestly—it’s exactly like when you're getting grilled by some overzealous CBP agent at the border while someone else is busy smuggling eight kilos of blow right under their noses.

The real kicker is how selective these laws actually are. You’ve got officials justifying their entire paychecks by busting regular people, meanwhile, the big-time gamblers are out there laundering and stealing just like they always have.

Then you end up in one of those ridiculous situations where a bank teller looks you dead in the eye and asks why you're dropping a massive chunk of change, like $xx,xxx, into your account all at once.

Like, wtf? It’s not my fault I suddenly came into some cash...

James Rogers53 said:Yeah, the IRS is going to ask—if not anywhere else, then definitely when you file your property tax returns.

Well, that's what an audit is for, rather than an automatic shutdown.
That kind of behavior—keeping cash under a mattress—isn't exactly common for anyone under 60 or 70, unless they're total paranoiacs. You can probably justify it to the IRS fairly easily.
But for every one of those eccentrics, there are at least ten people who made their money under the table. It might be "benign" off-the-books work, but it could just as easily be a drug dealer.

Naturally, people working under the table won't like that, so they'll trash the government, the tax collectors, the banks, or anyone who disagrees with them—invoking privacy rights and all that...
Because, honestly, if you earned the money legitimately, there shouldn't be any reason to care if the IRS asks where it came from. It's the same as not being bothered by a border check because you know you aren't a thief, a criminal, a smuggler, or on the FBI's most wanted list.

Just because someone keeps cash on hand doesn't mean they're old-fashioned or shady; sometimes they just don't want to get eaten alive by bank fees.

redseal3 said:Just because someone keeps cash on hand doesn't mean they're old-fashioned or shady; sometimes they just don't want to get eaten alive by bank fees.

Exactly. Honestly, I don't even get what the point of a bank is anymore, other than being a state-sanctioned robbery operation.

The whole idea was supposed to be that banks give you a reason to keep your money there by paying you interest, then they use that capital to make their own moves.

But nowadays? Banks barely offer any interest at all, and instead, they just bleed their customers dry with all these ridiculous service charges.

I mean, seriously, these vultures actually charge you for account maintenance. Give me a break—don't "manage" my account for me, I can use an Excel spreadsheet just fine.

What’s next, a butcher charging you a fee just to slice the meat?

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how their audit process works, but word is they scrutinize every single data point when justifying expenditures. If someone claims funds went to a specific individual, they cross-reference with that person, verify statements, and go through the whole drill.

And regarding the necessity of banks—let’s be real here. Do you honestly think Americans could maintain this lifestyle if we didn't have massive credit lines, stacks of credit cards, overdrafts, installment plans, mortgages, and auto leases?
Based on average incomes, I highly doubt it.
Maybe a few people could manage, like those of you who have significant savings and can live solely off your salary, but for over 90% of Americans? No way.

Yeah, butchers charge for meat cutting too 🙂
Are there actually people who think they don't?

If your butcher starts tacking on extra fees just for cutting the meat, find a new butcher.

My bad—I thought I was talking to someone who actually understands how retail business models work.
Look, butchers don't charge you a separate line item for the cutting service; they just bake the labor cost right into the final price per pound you see at the counter. It’s just their way of pricing things to maximize their margins.

Banks operate on a different, more complex logic. They prefer unbundling everything—they figure they'll pull in more revenue by charging separately for account maintenance and wire fees rather than rolling them into one single transaction fee.

wiredlynx28 said:It’s not 105k dollars, it's 105k pesos 👍
Basically, any amount that doesn't line up with your paycheck gets flagged.
If someone is pulling in, say, 4 or 5k a month—which is pretty standard for an average American worker—but they're suddenly dropping huge sums on purchases that don't match that income, they're absolutely going to trigger an IRS audit or a probe into where that cash actually came from.
At the end of the day, if the money was earned legally, you won't have any problems.

Are you being serious right now, or just joking?

I mean, how does it make sense that some famous guy—someone who we know for a fact cleared over $20 million net, and honestly, he's such a cheapskate too—gets slapped with a massive tax penalty just because he spent maybe $2 or $3 million in a single year? Like, that's money he probably made years ago... so why would they care?

rowdypilot19 said:Are you being serious right now, or just joking?

I mean, how does it make sense that some famous guy—someone who we know for a fact cleared over $20 million net, and honestly, he's such a cheapskate too—gets slapped with a massive tax penalty just because he spent maybe $2 or $3 million in a single year? Like, that's money he probably made years ago... so why would they care?

They just want to collect their cut; control is the whole point.
Nowadays, there's a tax on pretty much everything.
If you have legally earned cash sitting overseas, you're required to declare anything over $10,000 whenever you cross the border, including the equivalent value of any other currencies.

So, are you basically implying that someone who’s usually rubbing elbows with the highest levels of government here in the States had trouble proving they actually brought their own cash into the country?

Look, lady—or miss, I guess—I’m talking about the guy everyone knows as The Brand. I mean, surely you have an idea of who I’m getting at.

Of course, the man legally moved his money into the US, and he’s already poured it into several different ventures, but... well, the IRS decided to be a real genius about it and claimed there was no proof of where the income came from. It’s wild. Suddenly, something like $2 million—or maybe it was even less, though it could have been upwards of $15 million—becomes this massive issue.

I’m not pointing fingers at any one individual here; I’m just speaking in generalities 👍

That’s exactly my point, honestly... damn it, I mean, when you see case after case where it's proven those rules don't actually matter. Like, at the end of the day, the IRS can just basically do whatever they want, whenever they feel like it.

I’m not entirely sure which specific case you’re talking about or who the player is, but if they actually had proof of where the money came from, the IRS wouldn't be breathing down their neck. Just because someone could account for $20 million doesn't mean they can magically explain away an extra $300k... I don't see how those two things even connect. If I have receipts for $15,000 but the tax man finds another $3,000 I can't account for, obviously I'm getting hit for that missing three grand. There's no logic in thinking the first amount somehow justifies the second...

So, we’re talking about Pelé here, and honestly, it wasn't even a matter of him having this massive windfall... it's more like he just spent it all. 😁

I'm lost here. Are you trying to say those 15 million were dirty money too, or that both the 15 and the 2 were totally legit... I just don't see how those two numbers even connect.

The IRS was breathing down their necks because they claimed there was this huge gap between what was earned and what was actually spent.

It’s like, if you pulled in $10 million back in 2002, you aren't supposed to just go out and spend it in 2018 or something. I guess that's how they see it.😵

Sure, you can try, if you've actually got the proof. The real headache with these situations is that we only ever hear one side of the story—the taxpayer's. We never get the IRS's perspective because tax investigations are strictly confidential, and they aren't allowed to leak any specifics...

James Rogers53 said:My bad—I thought I was talking to someone who actually understands how retail business models work.
Look, butchers don't charge you a separate line item for the cutting service; they just bake the labor cost right into the final price per pound you see at the counter. It’s just their way of pricing things to maximize their margins.

Banks operate on a different, more complex logic. They prefer unbundling everything—they figure they'll pull in more revenue by charging separately for account maintenance and wire fees rather than rolling them into one single transaction fee.

Sorry, I thought I was dealing with someone who at least finished high school.

If you buy 8 pounds of meat, whether it's a whole roast or pre-sliced, the total comes out the same.

That doesn't fly with banks. Seriously, explain to me what an "account maintenance fee" even means in the 21st century? Where exactly are they "maintaining" my account?

Timothy Davis3 said:Sorry, I thought I was dealing with someone who at least finished high school.

If you buy 8 pounds of meat, whether it's a whole roast or pre-sliced, the total comes out the same.

That doesn't fly with banks. Seriously, explain to me what an "account maintenance fee" even means in the 21st century? Where exactly are they "maintaining" my account?

Off the top of my head, it basically boils down to things like server maintenance—you know, paying to rent space on cloud servers to keep the whole Bank of America system and all its software running. Then there’s the massive payroll for an entire army of IT pros constantly updating banking apps or buying third-party software just so we don't lose our minds when using an ATM. Plus, there's the legal headache of sending out statements, whether that's printing them at a Chase branch, mailing them to your house, or hitting up your email or one of those hundreds of digital channels...

..those are just three examples, and there are plenty more depending on what the customer actually cares about... honestly, I feel like anyone with a high school diploma could figure out what "managing an account" entails in the 21st century... 😉

ruggedfox28 said:Off the top of my head, it basically boils down to things like server maintenance—you know, paying to rent space on cloud servers to keep the whole Bank of America system and all its software running. Then there’s the massive payroll for an entire army of IT pros constantly updating banking apps or buying third-party software just so we don't lose our minds when using an ATM. Plus, there's the legal headache of sending out statements, whether that's printing them at a Chase branch, mailing them to your house, or hitting up your email or one of those hundreds of digital channels...

..those are just three examples, and there are plenty more depending on what the customer actually cares about... honestly, I feel like anyone with a high school diploma could figure out what "managing an account" entails in the 21st century... 😉

I mean, how is it that in Canada, where the fees are a little higher, it can be totally free🤷
and you get everything—internet banking, mobile apps—all for nothing, whereas at JPMorgan Chase it used to cost around $7.00 everything

granted, BMO only offers that for a single year before you need to maintain a balance of over $4,000, but tangerine offers it indefinitely

I think everyone else has conditions similar to BMO