HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Osha,and other regulations not enforced in Michigan(Was A Six Hour
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:53:52 GMT
 <1992Nov16.091254.9140@edinboro.edu> <1992Nov20.083508.9204@edinboro.edu>
Organization: Edinboro University of PA

In article <1992Nov20.083508.9204@edinboro.edu>, c663712c@edinboro.edu writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.091254.9140@edinboro.edu>, s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:
>> In article <BxBB3z.J7y@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>> In article <geujWi_00Uh7A2F1Em@andrew.cmu.edu> jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb) writes:
>>>>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 25-Oct-92 Re:Osha,and other regulatio..
>>>>by Ronda Hauben@cleveland.F 
>>>>> The deregulatory fever in the U.S. -beginning under Carter with the 
>>>>> U.S. airlines industry - has resulted in fewer airlines - higher
>>>>> prices, more plane crashes, etc.
>>> 
>>>   This is absolute nonsense.  I'm a fairly frequent flier and I have
>>>   no doubt the prices *I* pay are lower than before deregulation.
>>>   As for plane crashes, I would *love* to see the documentation
>>>   on that one -- plane crashes and fatalities in the US have 
>>>   been dropping steadily since deregulation, despite the fact that
>>>   the volume of air traffic has increased dramatically during that
>>>   time.
>> 
>> Let's not forget that many crashes were probably the result, directly or
>> indirectly, of Mr. Reagan's firing of the air traffic contrtolers.
>> USA
> 
>       Once again our supposively conservative minded individual Mr. Duffy,
> has thrown another political jab towards the Republican party.  Before I
> jump the gun though, I will give you the opportunity to elaborate on or
> better yet retract what you said.  
> 
>      According to people like yourself, the only thing Republican's haven't
> been responsible for this century would be World War II and Hurricane
> Andrew.  
> 
> I will eagerly await your post.
> 

Hello, when did I say "Republican Party?"  I said "REAGAN", sometimes I say
"BUSH", but I did not jump on the whole party.  I believe in the idea of
lower spending/lower taxes/less regulation (when less regulation makes sense),
but Reagan believed in lower taxes and HIGHER spending.  ditto Bush, but he
had to help pay for Reagan's party.

Bush failed (thankfully) in his miserable attempt to lower the capital gain
tax.  What would have happened to this money?  Would've wound up in the stock
market.  To get the economy going you need to give an incentive to buy
manufactured goods and services.  Giving a millionare a tax break is stupid.
What will he buy?  When the middle class has the money and can buy, THEN
investment will follow.

I think we should follow a plan similar to Jerry Brown's 13% flat/ 13% VAT
system.
  
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: galloway@cheshire.oxy.edu (Gregory Wayne Galloway)
Subject: Road Usage Fees
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:39:22 GMT

	I am currently researching the idea of implementing Road Usage Fees
in the United States.  This is not merely a system such as Turnpikes or Toll
Roads, but one which would electronically charge drivers for their use of all
public roads.  Such a system was experimented with in Hong Kong and Singapore,
and resulted in not only reducing traffic and pollution, but providing capital
which could be used to produce quality public transport.
	I want to know if it would be feasible to do something of the sort in
the US and specifically in Los Angeles.  I have already consulted my library
on the subject, but found the information there to be lacking.  Therefore I
would be very appreciative of any and all opinions, suggestions, and informationthat anyone would be willing to provide.  Please either email me directly at
galloway@oxy.edu, or post to the net.
	Thank you in advance

							Greg Galloway

Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa,alt.amateur-comp,misc.misc
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Subject: Re: Last Minute Write-in Candidate for US President
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 07:33:31 GMT

In article <adams.721935594@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Illinois has a solution for this already....if you write someone in, you
>are supposed to list their address on the ballot with the vote....
>
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558

Ron Daniels got several thousand votes in Illinois and I doubt any of them
knew his address. Those votes did officially count. He was a write-in
candidate (he was not on the ballot in Illinois).

What are the instructions for writing in candidates on the Illinois ballot?
Maybe they use such a tactic to discourage people from using the
write-in vote, though they count the vote even if you don't include the
address? Or is the address only for local (municipal) offices and part of
a local, not state, law?

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:8733 misc.invest:13891 misc.taxes:3595 talk.politics.misc:60675
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:57:13 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <37673@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>There seems to be some confusion about what "flat" and "progressive" taxes
>are. A flat tax is a tax where each individual pays the same percentage of his
>income. A progressive tax is where the rich pay increasing percentages of
>their income.

>As I said before, I think the flat consumption tax is the fairest--each 
>individual pays the same base amount for a good the same price, yet the rich
>will end up paying a higher dollar amount than the poor, unless they consume
>the same amount or less of goods and services. This system also does not
>tax savings, which is already taxed by our government's inflationary policies.

The problem with a flat consumption tax is that it becomes a de facto
regressive tax because more wealthy persons use a smaller proportion of
their income to purchase consumables.  Ie. a more wealthy person can
afford to put money away into savings or other investments, where
presumably there wouldn't be that consumption tax assessed, whereas
a poor person might use 100% of his income to pay rent and buy food.
Suppose the wealthy person only used 80% of his income to buy consumables,
then the wealthy person is effectively paying a lower percentage of
his income in taxes.

This is not to say that I have a solution to propose which would
be in fact just such a fair flat tax.  Unless, perhaps, we tax
only certain classes of consumables, like not taxing purchases
of food, for example.  This turns the problem around and makes it
a more progressive acting flat tax.

Maybe the better way would be a flat income tax with extremely few
(or no) exemptions.  

--D
-- 
+++ David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)  *** PGP key avail.! *** +++
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:25:34 GMT

In article <YqG=#k-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.204111.13497@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>|> In article <L2F=lS+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> Government spending is inherently political
>|> >and has no connection to return on investment.  The government
>|> >won't go out of business if it invests improperly, a private business
>|> >will.
>|> 
>|> I beg to differ. The timescales and mechanisms are just a little
>|> different, thats all.
>|> 
>
>How do you figure?  [ ... etc. ... ]

History. Unless you believe that no nation could ever have an
indefinite lifespan, would appear to be lots of evidence that improper
investment and stupid "business decisions" by governments (which
includes electing crooks, liars, snake-oil salesfolk and charlatans as
a our representatives) are guaranteed to terminate the existence of a
government.

Even the birth of the USA is rooted in just such mismanagement by the
British. 

So its probably just a matter of time. You might not want to wait.

-- paul

-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean; distorted
rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than articulated;
both-and rather than either-or; the difficult unity of inclusion
rather than the easy unity of exclusion.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Subject: i want a german stand
Reply-To: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 15 Nov 92 09:56:44 EST

In article <1992Nov10.231040.8808@kestrel.edu>, king@reasoning.com (Dick
King) wrote:

DK>If the reason our health stats look bad is poverty, rather than a pathology in
DK>our health care system, i would not want to "fix" it with a socialized medicine
DK>system, any more than i would want to treat a septic patient with a fever by a
DK>cool shower, even though that's an appropriate treatment for a heatstroke
DK>patient sharing a few superficial symptoms [feeling of weakness and high body
DK>temperature]

  A story that ran in our local (Hamilton, Ontario) newspaper last week
made some interesting comparisons of U.S. and Canadian health care.  It
was reporting on a conference, the annual meeting of the Health of the
Public group, held at McMaster University's faculty of health sciences.
Seventeen health science schools are involved in the Health of the
Public network; McMaster is the only Canadian one. 
  The main speaker, Dr. Gord Cuyatt, clinical epidemiologist and
biostatistician at McMaster, said, as summarized in the story: "...no
matter how you study it, Canada's health care system is better.  We
live longer -- with an average life span of 77.1 years against the
American 75.3 -- and have a lower infant mortality rate -- 7.9 baby
deaths per thousand, compared to 10.4 in the United States."
  The U.S. privately run system costs 13 per cent of its Gross National
Product, while Canada's costs only 9 per cent.  Administration accounts
for about 24 per cent of American health-care costs but only about 11
per cent in Canada.  
  "With Canada, we have the most socialized health-care system in the
world," he said.  The system is government-run; patients face no
deductible, no up-front payments and no pay-per-use medical costs.
  And of course everyone is covered.
  "There are some waiting lists in Canada," Dr. Guyatt said, addressing
the major criticism of Canada's system by American politicians.  
  "But there are no waiting lists for emergency surgery, some in urgent
surgery but most are for elective surgery."
  
 -- Ron
ronald.hands@canrem.com

 * DeLuxe2 1.21 #10218 * 
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:47:43 GMT

In article <m2F=Rj+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <56352@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>|> What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
>|> equivalent? 
>
>Perhaps the form originally espoused by Keynes himself?  I believe
>that Keynes claimed that *any* spending by government would be
>beneficial.  

Every Keynesian model I've seen distinguishes between government
investment and transfer payments.  This may not have been Keynes who
did this, but Keynesian economists certainly do.

>I think the example he gave concerned hiring workers
>to dig a hole to bury gold and then hiring people to dig it back
>up again.

I have yet to see evidence that Keynes proposed this seriously.
The excerpt Bret posted looked very much tongue-in-cheek, and I'd
love to see the three pages before and after that example.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:56:51 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <kbanaian.21.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>, kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
> In article <dfoster-171192134212@mac125.ils.nwu.edu> dfoster@ils.nwu.edu (David Foster) writes:
> 
>>You're leaving out the effects of the time value of money.  In general,
>>there
>>is an incentive to defer payment of taxes as long as possible because an
>>amount X today is worth more than the same amount X later (standard finance
>>theory.)
>>
>>I constructed the following hypothetical example to illustrate.  Suppose
>>two
>>people buy stock in the same company in 1976 for $1000, and the market
>>price of
>>that stock goes as follows:
>>
>>$1000          $2000          $2500
>>1976           1986           1992
>>
>>The capital gains tax rate is 23% in 1985 and 35% thereafter.  Investor A
>>holds until 1992, while investor B sells and rebuys his stock on Dec 31,
>>1985, and then sells in 1992.  Assume for simplicity the required rate of
>>return for these investors is 10%.
>>
>>In 1986, investor B pays $230 in tax while investor A pays none.  In 1992
>>investor A pays (.35 x $1500 =) $525 in taxes, while investor B pays
>>(.35 x $500 =) $175 in taxes.  Now consider, at the decision point in
>>December
>>1985, what the net present value of each tax payment stream is.  For 
>>investor A,
>>
>>0 + -525 x (1 / 1.1 ^ 6) = -296
>>
>>For investor B,
>>
>>-230 x 1  +  -175 x (1 / 1.1 ^ 6) = -329
>>
>>So, in NPV terms, the value of B's tax payments is greater than the value
>>of A's tax payments.  And this doesn't include the effect of additional
>>commission costs for B, which would increase the difference.  It's just
>>a hypothetical example, but I think it's probably not atypical.  (Check
>>the math, I think its correct.)
>>
>>Maybe many investors don't understand the value of deferring tax payments,
>>but their tax advisors certainly do.
> 
> It's perhaps impertinent to add that this is a function of the six year 
> holding period you have imposed.  Your example also implies that both 
> investors know the future price rise.  Uncertainty plays a role here, 
> something about "one in the hand ...".  I fear your calculation is indeed 
> atypical.

	Part of the assumption is that both think the stock will go up, and act
on that belief, thus the hold for A and they buy-back for B.
	For that scenario it works.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:11:44 GMT
Organization: Pitzer College

In article <dfoster-171192134212@mac125.ils.nwu.edu> dfoster@ils.nwu.edu (David Foster) writes:

>You're leaving out the effects of the time value of money.  In general,
>there
>is an incentive to defer payment of taxes as long as possible because an
>amount X today is worth more than the same amount X later (standard finance
>theory.)
>
>I constructed the following hypothetical example to illustrate.  Suppose
>two
>people buy stock in the same company in 1976 for $1000, and the market
>price of
>that stock goes as follows:
>
>$1000          $2000          $2500
>1976           1986           1992
>
>The capital gains tax rate is 23% in 1985 and 35% thereafter.  Investor A
>holds until 1992, while investor B sells and rebuys his stock on Dec 31,
>1985, and then sells in 1992.  Assume for simplicity the required rate of
>return for these investors is 10%.
>
>In 1986, investor B pays $230 in tax while investor A pays none.  In 1992
>investor A pays (.35 x $1500 =) $525 in taxes, while investor B pays
>(.35 x $500 =) $175 in taxes.  Now consider, at the decision point in
>December
>1985, what the net present value of each tax payment stream is.  For 
>investor A,
>
>0 + -525 x (1 / 1.1 ^ 6) = -296
>
>For investor B,
>
>-230 x 1  +  -175 x (1 / 1.1 ^ 6) = -329
>
>So, in NPV terms, the value of B's tax payments is greater than the value
>of A's tax payments.  And this doesn't include the effect of additional
>commission costs for B, which would increase the difference.  It's just
>a hypothetical example, but I think it's probably not atypical.  (Check
>the math, I think its correct.)
>
>Maybe many investors don't understand the value of deferring tax payments,
>but their tax advisors certainly do.

It's perhaps impertinent to add that this is a function of the six year 
holding period you have imposed.  Your example also implies that both 
investors know the future price rise.  Uncertainty plays a role here, 
something about "one in the hand ...".  I fear your calculation is indeed 
atypical.

--K. Banaian
Don't stop waiting for 1996.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:34:26 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <184339@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>In article <24021@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com
>(George Tucker) writes:
>|> >>Rich people are much less likely to be targets of violent crime.  They
>
>I always think its pretty clever to get all the poor people's children
>to venture thousands of miles from the homeland to engage in wars which
>do little more than protect rich-ist interests.  I think it's also
You are just jealous some poor kids get the travel opportunities.
The military is a great deal for some people.
 
>We hear the rich whine about having to pay for other people's schooling
>an whatnot, but I never hear them bitch about my having to pay for THEIR
>defense.  They say I benefit, too.  

Ah, it's the homeless person who uses the computers at Pyramid Technologies
at night.  Since you have nothing to lose, I doubt if you are paying
anything for anyone else's defense.  If you want to be undefended, why
not move to Bosnia or Somalia for awhile?  (No fair Costa Rica; they are
under the US umbrella.)

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:29:18 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Nov16.051341.24699@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <23978@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>>
>>>I think the rich should pay more taxes in some areas: it costs more in 
>>>policing to keep the rich at a comparative level of safety. After all,
>>
>>Rich people are much less likely to be targets of violent crime.  They
>>are also less likely to suffer a loss from theft.  Amounts are probably
>>larger, but that is not a State concern.  Rich people get more protection,
>
>Just where do you think the violence would move to, if the rich and middle
>class weren't paying for police service? If the very rich aren't victims
>of violent crime, why do they spend so much of their personal income
>on body gaurds, security systems etc.?

Violence related to poverty tends to take place where poor people are.
We had a similar situation in LA regarding riots, where the logical place
to burn was in the suburbs, but the places actually burned were in the
poorer sections of the city.  In that case there was no police "protection"
of anything because they were playing a risky political game.  The amount
of personal income spent on protection is not a
taxpayer concern, nor is it clear to me that the rich spend a higher 
percentage of income for protection than do the poor.

This does not imply that reducing violence is not a proper use of tax money
or anything like that, only that it is not a good argument for
progressive taxation.

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	"Innocence is irrelevant."
		Select two:	The Borg
				US Judicial System
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:56:03 GMT

jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:

>>>   The bottom line, for the reasons I mentioned in another post
>>>   is that a "level playing field" is a complete fantasy; it has
>>>   never existed and never will exist, nor is it clear it even
>>>   offers any lasting benefits.   
>>
>>The benefits from an undistorted price system are quite clear (in
>>theory at least).  One can easily make a case against the EC
>>agricultural policies on grounds of pure efficiency.  You don't need
>>any notions of "fairness" or of "level playing field."

>This is a common, but unsupportable, presumption among economists.

>See, any notion of 'pure efficiency' contains within it some judgement
>about 'fairness'.

I don't see this at all.  Pareto efficiency is a well-defined concept
that does not require any interpersonal welfare comparisons
whatsoever.  Where does "fairness" come into the definition?

>  Any question of efficiency must first answer the
>question 'efficient for what?'  and the 'for what' part must include
>ethical judgements.

I don't understand this at all.  What does the question "efficient for
what?" mean.  Can you give some definitions or examples, preferably
showing the implicit assumptions about fairness that I supposedly make
in my arguments against EC agricultural price supports?

Any discussion of policy must include some implicit vaLues.  After
all, we need some criteria for deciding on what is a good or bad
policy.  But a value judgement is not necessarily a statement about
fairness (whatever the latter is).

The implicit value judgement in the efficiency argument against price
subsidies is:

"All other things equal, it is better to give each person more of the
goods that they consume."

I do not see that pure efficiency arguments require any more than
this, however.  In terms of elementary concepts, the efficiency
argument says that it is possible (and implicitly desirable) to
increase the consumption level of every individual relative to the
status quo.  It is possible to do this because the price subsidies
prevent markets from moving producers to the world production
possibilities frontier.

I believe that I made it clear that this is a theoretical result.
Conceivably it is not workable in the real world.  But I do not see
any fundamental obstacles in the case of EC agricultural subsidies
except for the political ones.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Newsgroups: sci.econ