It wasn't an extreme example. It paralleled the lien filing situation. Both are instances where the government relies on voluntary compliance and punitive laws to govern a situation in our society. You are asking the government to be more preventative by spending more money and burdening business on the speculation that a promoter *might* exploit this. Four incidents over the last 4 years does not justify the cost, effort and time that would be needed to arrive at your solution.Burzmali wrote:Taking things to extremes to prove a point isn't a sound argument. Why bother enforcing anything? Since someone will always circumvent the system, it is cheaper to just to the bare minimum.
I think the issue is that Burzmali doesn't realize or understand the immensity of trying to solve the problem. In the private sector where you don't have to deal with laws, policies, special interests and politics, and only need a handful of people to make a decision, the solution is simple. And it can implemented with little fuss. So from his viewpoint, it doesn't make sense that the IRS doesn't take a pro-active stance. If I didn't have the bacgkground on the issues involved, I'd be probably be agreeing with Burzie.Demosthenes wrote:Why are you so hung ho on this particular scheme?
If the new centralized lien filing that is being proposed actually gets enacted by Congress, I think it would remove some of the potential problems that Burzmali has been pointing out.