Title: DOGE Cryptocurrency Requests Access to IRS Taxpayer Data
Post: The popular cryptocurrency DOGE is making headlines once again, this time for seeking access to highly sensitive taxpayer data at the IRS. This bold move has sparked controversy and raised concerns about privacy and security. With the increasing popularity of digital currencies, the debate over their role in government operations is more relevant than ever.
DOGE’s request for access to IRS taxpayer data has brought attention to the potential risks and benefits of cryptocurrencies in the public sector. While some argue that digital currencies offer increased transparency and efficiency, others worry about the security implications of sharing sensitive information with a decentralized network.
As a SEO and marketing specialist, it’s important to stay informed about current events and trends in the cryptocurrency world. The debate over DOGE’s access to taxpayer data is a reminder of the complexities and challenges that come with integrating digital currencies into government systems. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story and join the conversation about the future of cryptocurrencies in government operations.
The popular cryptocurrency Dogecoin, known for its meme-inspired logo featuring a Shiba Inu dog, is making headlines once again. This time, it’s not for its skyrocketing value or celebrity endorsements, but for seeking access to highly sensitive taxpayer data at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
In a bold move, Dogecoin advocates are petitioning the IRS to allow the digital currency to access taxpayer information, claiming that it could help streamline the tax filing process and improve transparency. However, critics argue that this would pose a major security risk and potentially compromise the privacy of millions of taxpayers.
The debate over whether Dogecoin should be granted access to taxpayer data is sure to continue, with both supporters and detractors voicing their opinions. Stay tuned for updates on this controversial topic. #DOGE #IRS #taxdata #cryptocurrency
Budget 2025 brought unexpected cheer to a large section of middle-class taxpayers who opt to file their returns under the new tax regime. Thanks to generous rebates announced, individuals earning up to ₹12 lakh an annum will not be required to pay any tax on incomes from sources such as salary.
They will, however, have to pay taxes at special rates on other incomes such as capital gains. For instance, capital gains on earnings from the sale of equities held for less than one year is 20 per cent and for those held for longer, it is 12.5 per cent. Similarly, earnings from the sale of other movable and immovable properties will be subject to capital gains tax at appropriate rates.
The sharp reduction in tax liability was made possible by a rejig of tax slabs under the new tax regime, the introduction of a new slab and enhanced rebates. For a person with an annual income of ₹12 lakh, the tax liability goes down from ₹80,000 at present to nil due to these changes. Those earning ₹20 lakh annually will see their tax liability fall from the current ₹2.90 lakh to ₹2 lakh. For those earning more, say annual income of ₹24 lakh, the tax liability will fall by ₹1.10 lakh from the current ₹4.10 lakh.
Rates, slabs under old tax regime unchanged
What is clear is that the government wants more people to shift to the simplified new tax regime from the old tax regime. The Budget did not make any changes to the tax rates or slabs in the old tax regime.
Taxpayers opting for the new tax regime are not allowed to claim deductions or rebates for rent paid for a house and investments in social security instruments such as life insurance, public provident fund and pension. Those filing their returns under the old tax regime can continue to claim those benefits. However, with the rejig of tax slabs and enhanced rebates, most taxpayers may find shifting to the new regime beneficial.
The new tax regime now has seven slabs following the introduction of a 25 per cent tax slab for incomes between ₹20 lakh and ₹24 lakh. The lowest slab of nil tax is for income less than ₹4 lakh. Under the old tax regime, income of up to ₹2.5 lakh, net of reduction and rebates, is exempt from tax. Income falling between ₹2.5 lakh and ₹5 lakh is subject to 5 per cent tax, that between ₹5 lakh and ₹10 lakh is taxed at 10 per cent and income above ₹10 lakh, at 30 per cent.
The government recently announced new income tax slabs in the Union Budget, which will come into effect from the next financial year. This move aims to simplify the tax structure and provide relief to taxpayers. But how much will you actually save or end up paying under the new tax regime? Let’s break it down.
Under the new tax slabs, individuals have the option to choose between the existing tax regime with deductions and exemptions or the new tax regime with lower tax rates but no deductions and exemptions. The new tax slabs are as follows:
Let’s consider an individual with an annual income of Rs 10 lakh. Under the existing tax regime, with deductions and exemptions, the tax liability would be around Rs 1.12 lakh. However, under the new tax regime, the tax liability would be Rs 75,000, resulting in a saving of Rs 37,500.
On the other hand, if the individual’s income is Rs 20 lakh, the tax liability under the existing regime would be around Rs 4.22 lakh. Under the new tax regime, the tax liability would be Rs 3.12 lakh, resulting in an increase of Rs 1.10 lakh.
It is important for taxpayers to evaluate their individual circumstances and choose the tax regime that is most beneficial for them. Consulting a financial advisor or tax expert can help in making an informed decision. Overall, the new income tax slabs aim to provide relief to taxpayers and simplify the tax structure, but the actual impact on individuals will vary based on their income levels and deductions.
Boston taxpayers are now expected to fork over $100 million as part of the city’s public-private plan to rehab White Stadium to house a pro soccer team, the latest cost increase to be revealed in a project that continues to draw strong opposition.
The city’s half of the project, which swelled from $50 million to $91 million late last year, has grown again, to “roughly $100 million,” Dion Irish, Boston’s chief of operations, testified at a Wednesday City Council hearing that was held days after demolition work began at the 75-year-old stadium in Franklin Park.
While Irish said the city’s goal was to keep its taxpayer-funded portion of the project to that latest estimate, he wouldn’t rule out further cost overruns. He pointed to a public bidding process for construction that may change the final cost. Final bids for a new fire station in the Seaport, for example, tacked on a few million dollars to that project, he said.
“I would not venture to say a lot more money,” Irish said, when City Councilor Erin Murphy posited that the Wu administration “may choose to spend a lot more money” to fulfill its commitment to the tear-down and rebuild project.
Murphy, prior to making that statement, asked whether the city administration had determined a limit for what it was willing to spend on the project, and if there was an amount that would cause it to walk away from the public-private partnership with Boston Unity Soccer Partners, which owns the new pro women’s team.
“We have now said we can come up with $100 million,” Murphy said. “Just like any responsible person, anyone who runs their home budget, at some point you have to say, that’s great but I can’t afford it, so I’m going to have to say no.”
Mayor Michelle Wu drew criticism last month for saying that the city was committed to paying for its half of the project, “no matter what it costs” to taxpayers, after the city’s tab ballooned to $91 million.
Boston Unity, an all-female ownership group that includes Boston Globe CEO Linda Pizzuti Henry as an investor, will now pay more than $100 million, pushing the cost of the project, initially estimated at $100 million, to more than $200 million, Wu administration officials said at the day’s hearing.
The city’s new cost for White Stadium’s rehab appeared to catch councilors and community members off-guard. The revelation drew immediate criticism from opponents, including the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to stop the project over claims that the city and Boston Unity are illegally privatizing public trust land.
Irish denied privatization, saying that the new stadium would be owned by the city and Boston Public Schools, which would share use with the new soccer team, a tenant subject to a 10-year lease agreement. Critics say, however, that BPS football teams would be displaced for much of their season.
“Boston taxpayers are being asked to pay through the nose to build an oversized professional sports complex for the benefit of a few millionaire sports investors,” Jean McGuire, a 93-year-old community activist and former School Committee member, said. “The fact is, we were never asked if we wanted a professional sports and entertainment complex in our park.
“Community members’ concerns about public access, transportation impacts and countless other issues are being ignored, all in a mad rush to demolish White Stadium in order to meet the soccer stadium’s desired opening date,” she added.
The new National Women’s Soccer League team is expected to take the pitch in spring 2026 — leading to questions at the day’s hearing about whether the tight deadline may lead to further cost overruns.
An updated project timeline presented by Wu officials at the hearing shows demolition work, which began this week, is set to continue for the next two months. Construction would take place for the rest of this year and continue into 2026. The NWSL schedule typically begins in March.
Further complicating matters for the team, as mentioned in a November court filing by Boston Unity following the plaintiffs’ push to move back the March 18 trial date — which was denied by a Suffolk Superior Court judge — are the delays to construction brought on by the pending lawsuit.
“Clearly this is a transparent ploy by the plaintiffs to ‘delay, delay, delay,’ — a tactic, which if sanctioned by this court, they know would be fatal to the singular element required for Defendant BUSP to bring a professional women’s soccer team to Boston — a constructed and operational White Stadium at the start of 2026,” the investors said.
The tight turnaround led to questions from Councilor Brian Worrell around whether the city had a contingency plan in place should the team back out, to finish construction.
Should the deal fall apart after work has already started, Diana Fernandez Bibeau, Boston’s deputy chief of urban design, said the city would be able to pull from an escrow account and put those funds toward construction activity.
Boston, per legal agreements, has a corporate guarantee of $45 million to cover stadium expenses, if the team chooses to “walk away,” Fernandez Bibeau said.
Worrell also asked whether the city was equipped to cover annual maintenance expenses, should the new women’s pro team fold within 10 years. The team contributes $2 million annually for maintenance, per the terms of the lease.
Some community members, on the other hand, said the new soccer team may become successful to a point where they outgrow White Stadium, which will have roughly 11,000 seats compared to other NWSL venues with at least 24,000, and thereby later choose to move to a bigger facility.
Critics have contended that the women’s team should share use with the New England Revolution at a new stadium in Everett, and White Stadium should be renovated as a high-school-only facility for BPS student-athletes and the public.
The Emerald Necklace Conservancy, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, released a report that estimated a scaled-down high school facility rehab would cost the city just $29 million, an amount dismissed by Fernandez Bibeau as “unrealistic,” given the scope of work.
“In the long run we would have the operational costs to bear on our own,” Irish said. “We would not have the rent payments or the revenue sharing as well as the community benefits fund as well as the money contributed towards the Franklin Park Action Plan.”
Construction workers prep the area around White Stadium for demolition activity, Wednesday. (Staff Photo By Stuart Cahill/Boston Herald)
Originally Published:
The Boston taxpayer tab for the controversial White Stadium rehabilitation project has once again grown, now reaching a staggering $100 million. This comes as a shock to many residents who were already concerned about the rising costs of the project.
Originally estimated to cost around $50 million, the project has faced numerous setbacks and delays, leading to the ballooning budget. Critics have pointed to mismanagement and poor planning as contributing factors to the cost overruns.
Despite the high price tag, city officials are standing by the project, citing the importance of preserving the historic stadium and providing a modern facility for the community. However, many taxpayers are questioning whether the hefty bill is worth it.
As the debate over the White Stadium project continues, one thing is clear – the burden on Boston taxpayers is only growing. Stay tuned for more updates on this controversial and costly endeavor.
Tags:
Boston taxpayer, White Stadium rehab, controversial, $100M, taxpayer tab, Boston news, city spending, stadium renovation, public funds, Boston controversy
