From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:10:43 GMT

In <1992Nov5.222023.8102@island.COM>, Guido Marx writes:

>In article <27219@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>>whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>>If your FSLIC example is the best you can offer (it's wrong by the way
>>>as insurance only goes up to $100,000 deposits) then forget a).
>>
>>The statutory limit is $100k but in practice the regulators have often
>>had depositors of amounts greater than that covered in full or large
>>part, & I don't remember any cases where people were completely cut
>>off at the $100k ceiling (I'm sure if there are some, I'll hear about it
>>here).  The idea is to keep confidence in the banking system, & rigid
>>adherence to the limit mite not be the best idea.

>I remember a case of a black-owned bank in Harlem failing.  In that
>case, they just shut the bank and paid depositers only up to the
>$100,000 limit.  Many of the depositers with more than 100K were local
>charities (I know a local church had about 300K).  The moral of
>the story is if you are going to keep more than 100K in a bank,
>make sure that it is a bank where the depositers have a lot of
>political pull.  IMHO, since this is all taxpayer money, if they are
>going to insure SOME deposits over the limit, they should insure
>ALL deposits over the limit.  My preference would be that they NOT
>insure deposits at all, failing that they should ONLY inusure up to
>the $100,000 limit.

Agreed.  It all comes down to whose Congresscritter has the clout to get the
pork for their district.  People often say that federal funding is the only
way to make it *fair* for the people like those in Harlem.  It doesn't work
that way.  That's why federal funding, which leads to pork barrel spending,
should be abolished, their corresponding taxes cut, and give the freedom for
the states to implement their own programs if they want them.

>>This is not really the case -- the top rate is 31%.  Middle class folks
>>have a top marginal rate of 28% or less, typically.  We used to have
>>a complex progressive tax structure.  It's history.

>This is FALSE !!!   For the middle class the top marginal tax rate is about
>42 %.  Before people get all bent out of shape, I am calculating this
>by including FICA (yours and your employers "contribution").

Good calculation.  The "total employment cost" is determined by your employer
is determined by your salary PLUS your benefits PLUS government mandated
spending per employee.  The 7.65% that your employer pays would most likely be
in your paycheck if they didn't have to pay the FICA tax (I hate Social
Security...).

Let's see...here's my line on marginal tax rates.  This is how mine actually
is:
            28.00% federal tax
            13.27% FICA (that's (.0765 + .0765) / (1 + .0765 + .0765)  )
             8.00% CA state tax
             1.25% CA state disability insurance (paid off in October)
        ------
            50.52% total marginal tax rate

However, the actual number is lower because the 9.25% of state taxes is
dedcutible.  That actually makes the federal burden 25.41% (I recover 28% of
the 9.25%) and the total burden 47.93%.  Ouch.

Fortunately these are only *marginal* tax rates...


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6755 talk.politics.theory:4741 sci.econ:8464