From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:06:43 GMT

In article <f+F=XA=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
||>The potential for catastrophe had not lessened in the 70's but the value
||>of money used to measure someone's net worth had.
|
|I disagree that the potential for catastrophe had lessened in the 70's.  For
|one thing, there were many more savings opportunities available that were
|not in existance [sic] in the 30's.  Second, we weren't in a depression, the
|level of confidence in the banking system was not particularly low.  The
|best thing the legislators could have done was simply leave the limit
|where it was and let inflation erode it away.  Private insurance should
|have been encouraged to take up the slack.

Your first sentence is convoluted, but I think I understand what you mean.
We seem to be arguing apples and oranges here.  The question was whether
deposit insurance is STUPID.  I said no, but that federal funding of it in
light of federal bank deregulation is.  Now you, as a counter to my argument,
suggest replacement insurance, which is what I've already suggested two or
three times.  Which side are you on?

|||Corporate taxes should be abolished, therefore tax breaks would be pointless.
||
||So that we can all incorporate as individuals and thus avoid paying any
||taxes?  Dream on!
||
|||Even if you incorporated, you would still have to draw a salary or
|||take a dividend if you wanted to spend money on non-business items.
|| 
||Why?  If my corporation owns my house and car, and my corporation has to pay
||no taxes, then I don't have to justify corporate spending for business
||expenses, because I don't have to worry about deductions, or profits,
||because regardless of what the balance sheet looks like, my corporation has 
||to pay no taxes.  I can pay myself a modest salary (low enough to avoid 
||paying income taxes), and then charge my living expenses to the corporation,
||because the corporation doesn't have to justify it.  It pays no taxes.
|
|The IRS could easily pass regulations regarding what it consider to be
|'de facto' compensatation [sic].  Corporations could be required to file
|information about compensation based on IRS rules.  The corporation
|could pay your living expenses but the IRS may require the corporation
|to declare that expenditure.  If you didn't report it on your personal
|form, you would be guilty of tax evasion.  If the corporation didn't
|report it, it could be guilty of fraud and it's officers (you) fined
|or imprisoned.

Yes, the IRS could do that, but if you think we have big government now,
wait'll you see what enforcement bureaucracy and big brother attitudes
administration of those rules would entail.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

Epitaph of a Waiter
By and by,
God caught his eye.
--David McCord
________________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky or.politics:659 alt.politics.clinton:17328 alt.politics.democrats.d:599 alt.politics.elections:24006 ba.politics:7180 co.politics:2128 ne.politics:3020 nj.politics:748 ny.politics:268 talk.politics.misc:60538