Everyone ought to see a privacy interest in this sort of thing. The IRS does this, not because these folks have appreciable tax liability, but because they wan

Everyone ought to see a privacy interest in this sort of thing. The IRS does this, not because these folks have appreciable tax liability, but because they want a compliance environment that exposes anyone who _might_. There is nothing really new in this, the government requires extraordinary disclosures of everyone so it can verify their tax compliance. (The health law included provisions further extending reporting to monitor compliance of those we do business with, but I think the resulting fuss got these rolled back.) On the one hand, no one is in favor of tax evasion. On the other, at some point we might ask whether these disclosures threaten our liberties. Even if the IRS never abuses the information, the requirements set a precedent of government review adopted by other entities large and small. For example, you simply would not believe the intrusion powers of agencies enforcing child protection laws, or the flimsiness of the basis they require to use those powers. I expect the good sense of the electorate to protect us from real abuses, but I'm beginning to wonder where these disclosure requirements will end, and what their unintended effects might be.