HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:08:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.072315.1702@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.021557.11240@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.035138.1468@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>>>If 3/4 of your income is paid in taxes, you need a new accountant.  Income
>>>taxes are higher in Europe.  Value added taxes more than make up for
>>>sales taxes.  The big unknown to me is what comparison they have to
>>>property taxes?  Anyone else know?
>>
>>Well, let's see if I can get close to the Taxpayer's Union number.
>>
>>Federal Income Tax		33.0%

  FIT is charged to adjusted gross income, so is not 33% of all income.

Jim Burris
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:18:35 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <adams.714753937@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:
>
>>In article 19765@toontown.uucp, ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>> >
>>>Are these polls inherently flawed, or are the American people
>>>really that fickle?
>> 
>>Nobody put political junkies pays attention to the election before labor day.
>>Therefore people's opinions are not well formed, and there are huge
>>swings in the space of a few weeks.  
>
>>By October things firm up and the moves are only a few points.
>
>Not to mention that national popular vote polls tell nothing about how the
>electoral college will turn out.  Individual polls in each state need to be
>conducted, and electoral projections made.  Why?  Because it's likely Bush
>could get slaughtered popularly, but still scrape by and win electorally...
>
While it is mathematically possible to lose the popular vote badly and still
win in the electoral college, it is hardly likely.  If Clinton were to win the
popular vote by say, 53-47, he would almost certainly win electorally.  The
times win the winner of the popular vote lost the elction are quite rare and
always with a very close popular vote.

However if the popular vote is close (51-49) then Bush may very well squeak
through electorally.  Why?  Because the electoral vote formula favors the
smaller states, so places like Mountain States and New Hampshire, Maine,
Vermont, etc. where the Republicans tend to do better have a disproportionate
electoral vote.  (This dispropoportion is due to the fact that each State has
one elector for each House member + 2 (for each Senator); the smaller you are
the more that 2 extra votes affects your proportion.  Essentially a State such
as Wyoming get about 3 times the vote they're "entitled" to proportionally,
while California gets a little less than their due.  I personallly think that
this is not a bad thing since it prevents the interests of small States from
being completely overwhelmed by the larger ones.  However it currently works to
favor Republicans.)

But if the popular vote is not close, the electoral vote will go to the popular
winner.  And the margin will be even bigger; i.e. if Clinton wins 55-45, he
will get well over 60% of the electgoral vote.  Check any almanac to see the
historical pattern.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: flax@mizar.docs.uu.se
Organization: Dept. of Control and Systems, Teknikum, Uppsala
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:18:44 GMT

In article <25475@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
|> As long as you subscribe to the view that the best form of defence is attack.
|> It's been thrashed out dozens of times how Israel instigated the '67 war, to
|> mention just one example, but you just don't seem to get it, do you. I
|> wonder if there's anything that *has* penetrated your skull. Why do you
|> bother debating when you've already made up your mind?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, 		+ Wherever you go, there you are
V{ktargatan 32 F:621	+
754 22 Uppsala, Sweden	+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Christian Coalition
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:12:26 GMT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US

In article <1992Aug26.154315.17751@terminator.cc.umich.edu> clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider) writes:
>In article <BtLK25.DBw@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>
>Pat, do you have a reference for this? Although with the hideous swerve
>to the religious right that the Repubs have made, I wonder just how long
>it will be before we have a theocracy in this country (a la Heinlein's
>'If this goes on...'

"How long" depends on how willing people are to fight it.  Are politicians
willings to stand up, especially in the Bible Belt, and decry the
Fundi-gelicals as being socially backwards regressive movements?  Are
they willing to be called AntiChrists, Atheists, Communists and the
like?  Are they willing to risk the condemnation of the _ACLU_ for
themselves impinging on freedom of religion?

Are people willing face accusations that they are standing against God
when they are really standing against a Government controlled by the
Church.  Wasn't that one of the many reasons we had a Revolution in this
country???

>Chris Weider
>Merit Network
>
-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:32:33 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

Jim Brownfield <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
>
>I also do not mean to pick on Canada (at least most of the time :-)), 
>and I appologize if some people have taken offense at my postings.
>However, American liberals have chosen the Canadian system as the
>main argument for American Nationalized Health Care (whether their
>proposals are like the Canadian system, or not).

This is a good point that Jim has made; many arguments presented for 
a National Health Service solution (Britain, Italy) by Americans have
been presented as "Canadian" just as accusations that we have a real
socialized medicine system.  People who read news from the Toronto
Globe & Mail (including, it seems, Consumers Reports) figure that its
news about Ontario's health policies over its insurance apply to all
parts of Canada -- whatever, this debate reflects a negative effect 
of traditional American lack-of-knowledge towards Canada (worse than
walking off a plane in Edmonton wearing a fur coat and earmuffs in
July ... (-;).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 22:06:48 GMT

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>	Forget it Gary, Brett's mind was made up the moment he saw Harel's
>name on the posting.

>	Providing him the facts will just confuse him.


Its very difficult to consider someone's "facts" as accurate or indeed
relevant when that poster has a history of distorting "facts" to support
his own personal political agenda.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:26:28 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

James L. Heilman writes:
>Yesterday, George "Santa Claus" Bush announced wheat
>export subsidies in South Dakota, relief for cotton
>farmers in west Texas, and the sale of F16 fighters
>to Taiwan in Fort Worth.  Things must be getting
>desperate for the man who promised to do anything
>to get re-elected if he's handing out goodies in 
>South Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a 
>democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and
>selling planes to the enemies of his bosom buddies,
>the butchers of Tianeman Square.
>

I don't think it is a signal of desperation, rather the opposite. Bush has
closed to withing 6-10 pts in most polls. I think this [Santa Clausing around
the country] is simply the next step in the campaign. (The only small dip 
ahead for him is the potential gaffes a live VP debate may hold, but prior 
to freezing in the headlights in 1988, the Danster had previously been 
regarded as very good in debate -- at least at the Senatorial level.) It
does appear that the GOP has written off California though. 

It is going to be an eyelash close election & although I've bet
on Clinton, it's an avowedly sentimental wager.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: jmw@angelo.amd.com (jmw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Neil Bush and our "Free" "Independent" press...
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:24:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA

From page *A10* of the SF Chronicle, for Thurs., 3 Aug
(reproduced without permission, but then "ten pages from the front" 
probably means that they consider the issue relatively unimportant):

	NEIL BUSH INVESTIGATION DEADLINE PASSES 

	Wasington -- The Justice Department has let a 15-day 
	deadline pass without filing a formal notice of a 
	preliminary investigation of Neil Bush's role in a Colorado
	banking scandal, according to an order entered by a 
	federal court.

	The three-judge court, which is responsible for the 
	appointment of independent counsels, issued the order
	in response to a request by Frank Mandanici, a New Haven,
	Conn., attorney.

	Mandanici asked Attorney General William Barr in July for an 
	independent counsel investigation of possible crimes by 
	the president's son in the collapse of the Silverado Savings
	and Loan in Denver.

	The law gives the attorney general 15 days after receiving 
	such a request to decide whether the facts warrant a 
	preliminary investigation to see whether an independent
	counsel should be named.   

	The attorney general is required to promptly notify the
	court of the commencement of any preliminary investigation.

	The three-judge panel, headed by Judge George E. McKinnon of
	the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, said in an order 
	dated August 24 that it had received no filings on the 
	matter. 

--
J. M. Wincn                           jmw@angelo.amd.com (408) YUP-BEER 
               Standard DISCLAIMER available on request. 
Be wary of a man who would orchestrate a war simply to secure his hold 
on a public office. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: me@aeroj.tamu.edu (My Account)
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:03:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.104248.3910@desire.wright.edu>  
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.154025.27348@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu  
(James L. Heilman) writes:
> > Yesterday, George "Santa Claus" Bush announced wheat
> > export subsidies in South Dakota, relief for cotton
> > farmers in west Texas, and the sale of F16 fighters
> > to Taiwan in Fort Worth.  Things must be getting
> > desperate for the man who promised to do anything
> > to get re-elected if he's handing out goodies in 
> > South Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a 
> > democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and
> > selling planes to the enemies of his bosom buddies,
> > the butchers of Tianeman Square.
> 
> 	Before frothing at the mouth, one should check their maps.
> 
> 	Taiwan is not the PRC.
> 
> Brett                                                      
>  
__________________________________________________________________________ 
_Before remarking about frothing at the mouth, one should
read carefully.  The phrase "the butchers of Tianeman Square"
to GB's bosom buddies, who are the leaders of the PRC.  As 
one who has driven past Tianeman Square in an automobile, 
I am well aware of my geography.

James L. Heilman
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42703 ca.politics:7214 ba.politics:4874
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Not Voting & proud of it?  Ronzone the clueless.
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:16:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug28.054342.17605@wolves.uucp> wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:
    >If you are so proudly a non-participant in the process, you
    >have no right to criticise the process. Even if you have a
    >philosophical opposition to the way that the system is set up
    >and run, if you fail to work within the system for its
    >reform, you have no right to criticize it.
    >
    >You've proved that you don't really think about what you are
    >saying several times over, this is just proof of it. -- G.

Let's hit this again.

So, I don't like the (now ex) USSR? I have to joing the USSR Communist Party
and become an apparatichik to change the system? Yeah, right.

I don't like Hitler, so in the 1930's I wouyld have had to become a NAZI
to make changes? Yeah, right.

Or maybe I don't like seeing students massacred, so I have to the join
the cadres of the PRC? Uh-huh, sure baby.

Or even better, I don't want tobe a rapist (non-participant in the process)
so I can't criticize rapists (no right to criticise the process)? Tell
me more.



Kind of co-opted and unhappy about it, eh? Don't worry, many people are angry
upon beginning to see their participation in an inherently immoral
process.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:17:59 GMT

Because of different needs for housing, purchasing patterns, graduated
rates, etc, a % tax rate number cannot be achieved.   A better way of
approximating one is to look at total government expenditures.  Roughly,
the Federal Budget is 25% of GDP, and the sum of state and local
spending is ~60% of the Federal, so that the total gov spending is
40% of GDP.  But due to the deficit, tax load is 35%.  Whether this is
sales tax, property, cigarette or FICA, it has to come out of somebody's
income. 

All you have to do is figure out how much of your income is exempt from
taxation, and how much of the national income is exempt.  Not that much
of either for the average person, as it turns out.

A study of some 40 cities came up with the highest non-federal 
tax rate of 14.7%. (Milwaukee, 1988)

The highest marginal tax rate?  Including the FICA your employer pays?

FICA         15%
FED          33%
State (HI)   10%
Property (1) 10.7%

Sum .687/1.075= 64% (to normalize for FICA you never see, paid directly)

Now out of the last dollar you earn, you are going to go out and buy
cigarettes, or whiskey, or gasoline.  Of course, you only have $.36 left
of the last dollar you earned, but you buy some dirt cheap rum 
(~70% BATF tax(2), and 8% sales tax) - value of rum received was equal
to (.36/(1+.08))*.3 = $0.10
That means your marginal tax rate was just 90%.

The total tax load is a much more meaningful figure.

(1) Based on a 4% rate on 100% assessment of all the house you can
afford on an 8% mortgage, 20% down.  Please volunteer higher local rates.
PITI ~ 25% of gross.

(2) Pretty much a guess.  I still have several bottles of 13 yr old hard
liquor.  What is the tax on a fifth, and the cheapest fifth out there?

-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
But I make a profit of 3 1/4 cents an egg by selling them for 4 1/4
cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for 7 cents an egg.
Of course, *I* don't make the profit.          Joseph Heller, Catcha 22
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Doogie H. gets mad (Was: Re: Ron Echeverri concocts a lie about Bush's
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:58:58 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <l8o714INN6i5@nunki.usc.edu>  rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.172234.3074@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsing
> >In article <1992Aug14.161857.39397@watson.ibm.com>
> >margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> )> [.. article from Clarinet ..]
> )> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee Monday
> )> overwhelmingly passed a plank calling for the adoption of a
> )> constitutional amendment banning all abortions.
> )>     The subcommittee on individual rights, good homes and safe streets
> )> voted 17-3 to approve the plank, which is essentially the same as the
> )> anti-abortion planks contained in the 1988 and 1984 platforms.
> )> ..
> )>     Although the subcommittee included a few members supportive of the
> )> Republicans for Choice, the majority endorsed President Bush's stance
> )> against abortions.
..
> Besides, i wonder what those two dots in the middle of Larry's post mean.
> Maybe he only pulled out the relevant stuff?

There were *three* dots in the middle of *my* post, and they're called
an ellipsis.  As you point out, they're there because I omitted two
paragraphs unrelated to this thread.  I guess Doug just can't *stand*
to quote something without omitting part of it.  :-)

(Doug recently learned about ellipses when he got chastised for quoting
something but omitting (without *any* indication that he had done so)
key parts, changing the meaning of the quote.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.171741.7029@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>Third, as others have already pointed out, every state in the union
>allows you to deduct the amount of federal income tax paid from your
>state taxable income.  All of these reduce the amount quoted above
>significantly.
>
Whoa!  Some states may exist in which federal income tax is deductible
from state income, but definitely not "every state in the union".  In
New York state, it is the other way around: some of your state tax is
deductible for Federal tax purposes, but NONE of the federal tax is
deductible for state purposes.  NYS wants FIRST crack at your money, and
if they can get away with it, I am surprised if there are no other states
that do the same!

Jens

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The Myth of Lesbian Safety from AIDS
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:01:03 GMT

In article <94916@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <12011@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>A continuing claim is that lesbians are at very low risk for AIDS.
>>The following summary suggests that the reporting schemes may be
>>unintentionally misleading people on this subject:
>
>If you had asked around, you would have found out that many lesbian
>women have been disputing exactly that claim for some time now.
>
>The medical establishment doesn't take them seriously.

Given that there hasn't been a single documented case of woman-to-woman
transmission without other co-factors like needles or men, there's not 
much of a reason for the medical establishment to take them seriously.

Women are just not effective transmitters of AIDS.  Padian's 1991 study
of woman-to-man transmission studied 72 couples where the woman was infected
and the man wasn't -- despite something like a total of 28,000 sexual contacts,
only one man became infected, and the circumstances of his infection make
it unclear whether he was actually accidentally infected by another man,
rather than his female partner.  More and more, it looks like only
{semen, blood} --> {blood} is a transmission route.


-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Cr*m*r again
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:11:02 GMT

In article <12129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

	[The original subject line was "The harassing phonecalls
can stop now!"]

>Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.

>Do I make myself clear?

	Yes.  You go onto the *.motss groups, threaten and harass
the people there, get asked to leave, don't., continue, and
every time someone *dares* to encroach on your universe, you
make other threats... let's see what have we already heard:

	* You'll start raising $$$ for Prop 9 in Oregon
	* You called the gov's office and encouraged inequal rights
		for gays/lesbians
	* You above threaten to mail stuff from soc.motss to Lou Sheldon
		ostensibly to have *.motss removed from USENET
	* Threats to turn people in as potential molesters
		if they didn't agree with your take on NAMBLA
	* Demands that all gay people leave any group of your
		choosing because it's "straight space"

	Seems to me the problem lies with *you*.  If you didn't
post to *.motss causing trouble all the time, I'm sure people
would ignore you.  Try acting like an adult for a while and see
if I'm not right about this one.  Hitting a dog with a stick will 
eventually get you bitten.

	I wonder what constitutes a harassing call to Cr*m*r.
I wonder if the supposed callers actually *said* "we're from the
computer...."  Given Cr*m*r's behavior on this medium, and assuming
his real persona islike his e-persona, I wouldn't
be surprised if people on here would have to *stand in line* if they
wanted to harass him...

	And who would really want to go out of their *way* to talk
to Cr*m*r on the phone?  There are ONLY 24 hours in a day - I'm sure
everyone has a hard enough time fitting things in they want/need to
do that "giving Cr*m*r a hard time" never makes it to the top of the
list...

BBC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc