home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky or.politics:669 alt.politics.clinton:17349 alt.politics.democrats.d:610 alt.politics.elections:24030 ba.politics:7196 co.politics:2142 ne.politics:3031 nj.politics:756 ny.politics:276 talk.politics.misc:60570
- Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!tessi!eaglet!slipknot!robert
- From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
- Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
- Message-ID: <Bxuur8.7zs@slipknot.rain.com>
- Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
- Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
- References: <KxC=h9B@engin.umich.edu> <Bxop7r.so@slipknot.rain.com> <f+F=XA=@engin.umich.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:06:43 GMT
- Lines: 56
-
- 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
- ________________________________________________________________________________
-