HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:03:15 EDT
From:         Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Great Napkin Conspiracy
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              J. Schledorn" at Apr 13, 92 10:07 am

>
> > Laffer's curve (aside from its apt name and the fact that its originator is
 n
> > shamelessly plugging Cadillacs) rests on several problematic assumptions.
> ...
> > 2) Fullerton has conducted analysis of the Tc and notes that is is near 70%
.
> > That is, the point at which taxpayers would seek to for go work and seek
> > avoidance is at a rate of 70% (most tax payers pay marginal rates much less
> > today than when Fullerton did this work in 1983).  Thus, it seems unlikely
th
> > marginal tax rates, under any candidate would approach the rates necessary
to
> > invoke any of Laffer's thesis.
>
> In fact, I can think of only one group of Americans who experience a
> marginal tax rate near this magnitude--welfare recipients.  Even the
> more "generous" plans involve an effective tax (loss of benefits) of
> at least 50 percent of their earned income.  Most are significantly
> higher.
>
> Thanks for the insight into Laffer's arguments.
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
> > PVF
>
 (Do Clinton's economic advisers use rolling papers?  Do Bush's use
> the backs of old veto messages?  Do Duke's use old bedsheets? :-)


Ironically, in fact this is the case.  As one (receiving welfare) chooses to
work more, and as the revenue from this outside work approaches the maximum
benefits + wages allowed, the excess is taxed--if one wishes to maintain
benefit payments--at a marginal rate of 100% (a negative tax).  That is, if the
>total allowed = $400/month (benefits set at $300) then every dollar I earn
over $100, I lose one dollar in benefits-->a 100% marginal tax rate for a base
greater than $400.  Talk about a faulty incentive system!  Indeed, from an
economic perspective, work has too high an opportunity cost in this scenario.

PVF
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:03:49 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

Jay:
>Since I am self employed, I pay 15.5% SE self employment tax.  This is in
>addition to my regular income tax rate of 28% (which is the braket I am in
>because I am sucessful, don't cheat on my taxes, and am married to a
>professional).

I think your original claim was that you paid 28% + 15.5% = 43.5% of your
income in taxes.  Disregarding all the weird stuff we're all taxed on, and
just looking at wages and SE income, your taxes are actually more like:
   28% (wages + SE) + 15.5% (SE), which is not the same as 43.5% (wages +
SE).  And you get to deduct half of your SE tax somewhere along the line.

I offer this merely as a possible reason why people are criticizing your
calculations -- it really doesn't address total tax burdens.  And, for the
record, I don't mind arithmetic mistakes (I make them all the time, myself)
.  What I do mind is insulting rhetoric.

On a different note, since you seem to know something about this:
according to international law (ha!), could the US invade Libya to remove
the two guys we want to try for the Pan Am bombing, using the same
rationale we did to invade Panama?  Honest question!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 12:38:12 CST
From:         Type Faster <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bombings in Britain

For once I agree with Jay.  I do think that the brits have little
reason to be where they are, but the Northerns are fighting over
what kind of christian you can be and I think that's stupid.

(this is about Ireland, in case you missed it)

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 11:26:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Jay's Taxes

> My wife makes 45K a year.  I took about 30K income from my business,
> sheltering the rest through legal means.
>
> That does not mean I paid 43.5% of 75K.  It does mean that I was in the 28% +
> 15.5% bracket.  It means that if I took 31K in profit from my company, I
> would have paid 43.5% of that next 1K in taxes.

You're forgetting that half of that 15.5% is a deduction.  You can't
count the income while forgetting to include the deductions (well,
most people can't  :-).

Is that what they mean by "worst case scenario?"

Best,
Peter (not really here, just picking up my paycheck)

> Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu

(Maybe you could take over the White House credit union, do something
about those delinquency rates  :-).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 08:23:29 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

Jay:
>2) It is impossibile for the campaign to pay the full cost of an incumbant
>president.  Would you have them pay rent to the white house?  Pay for the
>secret service?  With a person being both candidate and sitting president,
>there is simply no way to divide these things.  They should pay a rate that
>makes them compeditive with the other candidate.

Actually, I agree somewhat with you and KAT.  Of course an incumbent
president doesn't have to pay rent, etc.  But I *do* think that the current
system needs some revision, with more costs paid by the campaign than are
currently paid.  Air Force 1 may be allowable.  Quayle and four White House
bigwigs using a military jet and paying only first-class air fare is
suspect, in my view.

>As far as the salmon go, all I remember was an episode from Chinatown where
>we learned how important water is in CA.  The issue was simple - save one
>narrow species of salmon or keep the agricultural power of CA, which has many
>benefits, including the feeding of the starving in other countries.  It is a
>clear case of man v fish.  Which do you choose?

Well, as I responded before, this is *not* a clear case of man v. fish.  I
assume you no longer have the post, so I'll summarize:  (1) water issues
are complex (right, andy?); (2) biodiversity issues are complex; (3) I
question the extent to which the San Joaquin valley feeds the starving of
other countries; (4) I question the extent to which you are truly concerned
about migrant/immigrant farm workers.  I don't know the full story on the
salmon, but I do know that it's far more complex than you suggest.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:27:44 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
              10 Apr 1992 10:33:39 EST from <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>

From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>

> About a year ago I bought my truck. (Ford Ranger XLT, 1989)
> It had only 25K miles on it and I loved it.  Not a scratch on it.

> Well about 2 1/2 months after I bought it, I took it down to Ohio
> University in Athens, OH to visit a friend.  The day I left I wasn't
> even out of the city limits and a buck broad-sided MY TRUCK!  I was
> pissed!  I pulled over to the side and watched the dumb animal get
> hit again from a van going the opposite direction.

> It was still alive and got up and stumbed off the road.  A local
> pulled over to the side to check to make sure everyone was alright.
> He pulled his rifle out of his truck and started after it.  I tagged
> along (being the seasoned hunter that I am).  When we caught up to it
> I shot it... twice.  Nothing ever felt so good before.  I've killed
> `em before, but this was different.

> Call it hunting, call it a mercy killing (it was pretty messed up),
> or call it cruelty.  I don't care.  I did it and I'd do it again, and
> again, and again.

> -Greg    Bambi is dead!

I am curious, what would you have done if instead of a buck
a 2 year old child or a mentally handicapped adult had broad
sided your truck?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 09:36:08 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      hunters: who needs them?

I watched a very interesting program on wild america last night. The
program centered on the elk herd around Jackson Hole WY. As the number of
people living in the area has increased, the winter range for the elk
has been depleted by over 50%. I am willing to bet that a number of the
residents have no interest in hunting what so ever but have directly
contributed to the problems facing the elk.

Since there are no natural predators left, the elk herd tends to grow at
a rate that the surrounding area cannot support. Farmers and ranchers are
forced to feed the elk to save their hay supplies. The elk are confused
because their natural pathways have been removed by construction of housing.

Someone (KAT I think) said that the nonhunters are not responsible for the
plight of our native wildlife. I dispute this claim. Unless we start taking
a long range perspective of land usage, our wildlife will be non-existant
within another century. Hunters are not the problem. Loss of habitat and
overcrowding will remove these creatures from the earth. GHWB's plan to
save the wetlands (similar to the no new tax plan) should earn your vote
for a more environmentally conscious candidate.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:55:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: predictions for Tuesday

I've been ill again, so haven't done "pick the winner" for awhile, but here are
   my picks for the 4 contests tomorrow:
GOP- Bush will win all 4 contests by 60% or better of the vote.

New York- Clinton 36%, Brown 32%, Tsongas 27%
Wisconsin- Brown 41%, Clinton 38%, Tsongas 14%
Kansas- Clinton 44%, Brown 26%, Uncommitted 17%, Tsongas 8%
Minnesota- Brown 38%, Clinton 35%, Tsongas 14%, Uncommitted 10%

And preliminary guess for 3 November - Bush 51.4%, Clinton 46.5%, Others 2.1%

I personally feel that Bush cannot be beaten by this field of opponents, nor
by Mr. Perot, should he get on the ballot in a significant number of states.
I think his leadership stinks, but the sleaze and deception factor will
eventually put Governor Clinton down the tubes. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:50:43 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Andrew:
>If the reason that term limited elected officials have too little power
>is because they are in office too short a time, perhaps the
>answer is to increase the length of the terms.
>
>Personally, I believe that two terms for senators and six for members
>of the house (12 years in both cases) should be more than enough time
>for someone to make a difference.

Me, too.  I wonder what would happen also if we increased the term for
members of the house from 2 years to 4 or 6 -- so that the ratio of "time
spent doing the job" to "time spent campaigning for re-election" is
increased.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:44:00 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      one party control of both legislative and executive?

******************
I don't know if any of you saw Face the Nation yesterday or not, but  a
Republican Congressman made an interesting comment.
  "I don't think we will be able to get this country out of the mess it is in
unless we have one party wheter it is the Republicans or the Democrats
controlling both the legislative and the executive branches."
Any  thoughts?

-Renee
******************

   i would suggest that anyone thinking that should look at the last
time that both sides were controlled by one party. you'll hear a lot
about that time, soon, from george and company.

   the congresscritter mentioned was vin weber of minnesota, who will
apparently not run for re-election, due largely to a number of checks
he wrote that people didn't like.

rtf, who has written bouncy checks but paid for every one of them
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:23:53 -0400
From:         kirk raymond <GR8724@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      further response to 'give me sodomy...'

 i will now sum up both the point of my last post and the current
 debate about guns and killing with...

 Let's just say A**H**** Kill!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:40:56 EDT
From:         Lorin Kusmin <ARRBLK@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Greetings from the Twilight Zone

Just thought I'd say hi.  I just got a mail-order modem for my home PC,
and maybe when I get it set up, and get the software running to communicate
with our office 4381, I'll switch back to MAIL mode.  Meanwhile, I'm getting
more work done, while trying to keep up with election results everywhere.

                                   Regards,

                                      Lorin
**************************************************************************
"For many months my position was:  I'm for Clinton - just don't tell me
 anything about him.  More recently my position has been: Goddamit, I *told*
 you not to tell me anything about him."  - Michael Kinsley, in the April
 20th issue of The New Republic.
 *************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:20:57 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

>Given the budget deficit, I think we should try to maximise the revenue
>received through the tax system.

I'm going to have to revise my Jay-model; it didn't predict that
he thought that govt spending was about right.

>Certainly, there are other incentives built into the tax system, but they
>primarily have as a goal 1) makeing the economy prosperous (such as
>investment credits) or 2) saving the government money (such as deductions for
>charity).  Add to this some element of fairness, so that the tax burdern is
>distributed "fairly" and we have a tax code.
>
>I cannot think of any portion of the tax system that does not relate to the
>first two goals.

Really?  Excise taxes don't fit that model.

>There is a seperate question of whether we OUGHT to use the tax code to
>influence behavior that does not affect either the economy or government
>expenses.  Should racists pay a higher tax?  How about whites?

Clinton thinks that people who get student "loans" should pay higher
rates for life.

>This year, I apid 28% income tax plus 15.5% self employment tax, for a total
>of 43.5% in come tax.  Think about your annual salary. Now, imagine writing a
>check to uncle sam for 43.5% of it.

Umm, you get to deduct half of the self-employment tax, which reduces
the MARGINAL rate to 15.6 + 28 - (28 * 0.078) or 41.42%.  Then you
have to account for the difference between marginal and average rates.
(I also forget how the SS brackets work.)  I don't know what Jay's
state tax bracket looks like, but he probably also pays sales and
excise taxes out of taxed money.  Yes, he might get some deduction for
those taxes, but it would be surprising if his overall marginal tax
rate wasn't close to 50%.  All of this is really no different from
anyone else with the same income, it's just that they never saw the
half of the SS that they aren't income taxed on.

Of course, as a self-employed person, Jay can not pay for all of his
health insurance using untaxed income, while those who get theirs paid
by an employer don't pay taxes on the employer paid share.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:26:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>Yes, part of the hunting is killing.  Part of walking barefoot in
>wet grass at night is killing also.  That's just as "real".

    Difference-- hunters are trying to kill something, barefoot walkers
  are not.

>Yes, one can stalk without killing.  One can also "play basketball"
>without shooting, but it's a different experience.

    So, now you've said that the point of hunting is killing.  As a
  basketball player (in my spare time) I can safely assure you that if
  you are not shooting the ball, you are not playing basketball.  You
  may be playing WITH a basketball, but that's different.  Anyway, I
  think you just used a bad analogy.  I'm just curious as to whether
  a good one exists.

>Killing is the most expensive part of hunting, yet hunters are happy
>when they don't do it.  Given that, it is rather absurd to claim that
>they feel that it is either gratuitous or "the point".  Non-hunters
>views on the subject are irrelevant; they don't behave that way.

   I still REALLY don't understand you.  If killing weren't the point, I would
  think that hunters would go out and simply not use lethal means.  Can
  you explain how you come to believe that killing is not the point, given
  the fact that most hunters don't even consider not having the kill as
  a final outcome?  If you can explain it to me, I'll drop the subject--
  I AM interested.


         --G. Racz
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: UK Election
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:31:59 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

comrade Jay writes:

>If my calendar is right, this is the last chance to comment on the UK
>elections.  Any thoughts?

Yeah, I hope the Tories will beat Labour. I don't want to lose
my bet (conservatives most seats - 9/4 at London ladbroke). ;-)

Constantijn

-- 
"Uta'lom az ege'sz huszadik sza'zadot" La'szlo' Lugosi/Fero' Nagy

Constantijn Wekx
email should be addressed to: mad-2@kub.nl
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:40:37 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92041408055931@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
 > From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@GRENDAL.CORP.SUN.COM>
 > 
 > >>> Well, my point is that it is incumbancy itself that provides
 > >>> the advantage.  That the only way to remove the advantage is
 > >>> to invoke term limitation.
 > 
 > >> But not every advantage is unfair.  You don't want to remove
 > >> fair advantages, do you?
 > 
 > > Yes.
 > 
 > Why?


Because I am mean, unfair, and nasty.  Because when faced with a ballot
choice (say for circuit judge) where I know nothing about either the
incumbent nor the challenger I always vote against the incumbent.

Let's face it.  I simply don't like people who get into office and
stay and stay and stay and stay and stay and stay ...

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:19:43 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

[While Levinson's "The Embarrassing 2nd Amendment", Dec 89 Yale Law
Journal, is good, Cottrol and Diamond's "The Second Amendment: Toward
an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration", 80 Georgetown Law Journal 309
(Dec 91), also covers much of the same material as background for his
main topic and has a discussion of the 14th that would prove useful to
those in the fetus fracus.]

>>Nope.  Most people who buy guns for defense buy them with that purpose
>>in mind.  People who buy the very same guns for other purposes have
>>other purposes in mind.  Notice that the gun doesn't determine the
>>purpose.
>
>  I wish you'd stop playing withh definitions.  Admit it -- guns are d
>  designed to kill things.  From that fact, we can thhen begin a
>  discussion on gun control.

Why should I admit something that's wrong?  If your argument is based
on "facts" that aren't true, get a new argument.  If your position
requires such arguments, get a new position.

>>I'm not claiming an analogy.  I'm pointing out that the issue isn't
>>death, it is guns.  Death is merely an excuse that the "guns kill"
>>people don't actually care about in other circumstances.
>
>   Actually, thhere is a national campaign against drunk driving, which
>   I think was the point you made to begin with.

Yes, it's a campaign against drunk driving.  It isn't against cars.
(Occasionally it does become an argument against alcohol, but we know
what Prohibition does.)

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:15:30 EDT
Comments:     <Parser> E: "From:"/"Sender:" field is missing.
From:         Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <POSTMASTER@UCF1VM.BITNET>

From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM>
Subject:      Primary forecasts
To:           Politix <POLITICS@UCF1VM>


My predictions for tomorrow:

New York:   Clinton 44%
            Brown   29%
            Tsongas 19%   ("He's outa the ring, he's in the ring..!"

Wisconsin:  Clinton 40%
            Brown   40%
            Tsongas 12%

Minnesota:  Brown   43%
            Clinton 32%
            Tsongas 10%


And, cutting to the chase, my prediction for November 3, 1992:

CLINTON   54.0%
BUSH      44.0%
BRISBEN     .1%
Scattering 1.9%
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:45:56 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>I would like to say if this list, pertaining to
>its liberal content, is any indication where this country and our
>society is headed, I WANT OUT!

  Be my guest!  And, uh, don't slam the door on your way out, thanks.

                                              -Tim
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:30:45 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hunting

>>How about: Guns make it possible for assholes to kill each other.
>
>     Nice try, but assholes don't just kill other assholes (unless you
>  are saying that all living creatures are assholes, which is a defensible
>  opinion)

It turns out that they do in surprising numbers.  Wolfgang found that
the most common last words are along the lines of "come on sucker".
(Criminals have criminal acquaintances and reasons to take each other
out.)

Sherrill's "The Saturday Night Special" has an interesting discussion
of this.  (He's the most enjoyable writer in the field, but is very
dated and must be read critically.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU