| > Literally in the next paragraph it invalidates your point How so? The quote you just pasted includes what I already quoted - specifically that the IRS does not receive details on individual transactions. Here's another article that explores this and the common misrepresentation of the proposal as well [0]. Your bank already tracks your purchases. They must do so to know how much money you have now, and how much you'll have after you make a purchase. That would not change. They also cannot see what you do with your cash - that will also not change. The thing that seems new (and again, still potentially concerning, but also potentially reasonable), is that gross totals will be shared. > It is exactly tracking purchases. Whether it's disguised as "tax data" or "purchases" the fact is they know it. Splitting hairs is exactly what they want you to do to distract you from yet another incursion into our right to privacy. Given two scenarios, one in which a full list of your individual transactions are sent to the IRS, and one in which aggregate inflow/outflow data is provided to the IRS, are you really arguing that these are the same, or that distinguishing between them is splitting hairs? Another framing would be that this is looking for an accurate representation of what's actually going on. How would you distinguish some hypothetical future policy that involves actually tracking/sending individual purchases from this one that does not do such a thing? But this all feels like a conversation of dubious value since we're discussing an article that talks about a proposal that hadn't yet been finalized at the time of writing. I'm not saying there aren't things to ask questions about there, but I am saying that getting the details right matters. - [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/29/fac... |