HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:36:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: flat tax

In article <dmeyers.722289433@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>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.

  If the government's policies are so inflationary then how come the 
  M2 dropped at the end of this summer?

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

  Absolutely.  As I've said before, this is simple, easy, and 
  consistent with the definition, above, of a flat tax as "a tax
  where each individual pays the same percentage of his income."

  Honestly I don't know why there isn't more support for the idea.
  As a practical matter the rich will pay a higher percentage than
  they do now, because rich people are now able to take advantage of
  massive deductions.   As has been pointed out before, in terms of
  % of income paid in taxes:   Perot  <  Bush  <  Clinton  <  *me* !

  The poor make out because all the flat tax schemes proposed have
  huge exclusions at the bottom -- in most flat tax schemes you pay
  nothing below $15K-20K.  The middle class will probably end up
  paying similar $ amounts to what they do now in a revenue-neutral
  model, just because that's where the bulk of income tax revenues
  come from, but even they benefit by the vastly simplified process
  of filing a return (essentially a postcard).  


---peter
From: c663712c@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Osha,and other regulations not enforced in Michigan(Was A Six Hour
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:35:08 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher J. Conrady     c663712c@edinboro.edu                   
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

"DUCK SEASON! WABBIT SEASON! DUCK SEASON! WABBIT SEASON!"
"Would you like to shoot him now or wait 'til you get home"
"SHOOT HIM NOW!, SHOOT HIM NOW!"
BANG.
"Your Disthpicable.."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dfoster@ils.nwu.edu (David Foster)
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Followup-To: sci.econ,misc.invest,misc.taxes,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Institute For The Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:42:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.202148.24943@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
>  
> 
> >	Holding costs you nothing.  
> 
> Brett, that's 100% false.  If you have $1000 in capital gains, and the
> tax goes up from 23% to 35%, holding on to the stock costs you $120.  
> Period.  
> 
> Remember, all you have to do is sell and buy within five minutes.  Then
> you've "realized" the capital gains in the year with the lower tax rate.
> Yes, you pay two extra commissions.  But for a large number of people,
> especially long-term investors, who'd been holding onto stocks since
> the days when the Dow was below 1000, that tax gain is going to outweigh
> the cost of the exta commissions.
> 

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.

- D Foster
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:54:04 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Keywords: 

In article <1689D8423.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <BxIDKt.Isy@apollo.hp.com>
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>  I have repeatedly asked various people who think I'm
>>  being too pessimistic to name the areas or industries
>>  where they anticipate growth in good-quality jobs.
>>  What would you advise a college freshman to major in
>>  today?   What would you advise a laid-off autoworker
>>  to seek training in?
>>
>>  Invariably, answer came there none.

>I would agree 100%. I recommend re-reading E. F. Schumacher's 1973 classic,
>"Small is Beautiful" to see how thoroughly ignored he has been and how our
>failure to see the error of our economic policy has brought us to the state
>we now are witnessing. In my opinion, unless we reverse course our people are
>doomed to downward mobility (rapid) as corporations seek the cheapest labor
>on the globe for all tasks they can't figure out how to automate. What I wonder
>is when all the masses have been reduced to poverty, who will buy the productio
>n output generated by the giant multinational corporations? How will US real es
>tate hold its value when laid off workers have to default on their mortgages an
>d can't pay the high rents now so prevalent? ...and so forth. Any ideas?
>

Corporations are leaving because of high taxes and regulations here in 
the US. If someone in Washington would wake up (HA) and see this, they perhaps
could reverse the trend. Once again, capitalism gets the blame for stupid,
bad governmental policies which lead to instability in the market.

On the subject of where someone should find a job, consider this:

If the economy were allowed to flourish without the government pulling 
massive amounts of capital from it, or passing stupid laws like the minimum
wage law, or giving unions the power to push up nominal wage rates,
there would be plenty of jobs for those who needed them. Also, where
did all the workers displaced from the horse-and-buggy industries find
more jobs? The jobs would be out there is we had a free market.

Personally, I would advise college freshman to major in some computer
related field (like me.)

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)









Xref: sparky sci.econ:8760 alt.activism:18985 soc.culture.usa:8598 alt.amateur-comp:223 misc.misc:3839
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa,alt.amateur-comp,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Last Minute Write-in Candidate for US President
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:54:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:

>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?

If a write-in campaign is being conducted, the candidate needs to file with
the board of elections.  Takes something like 10 signatures to do it.  The
point being that two people then cannot claim election.

I haven't seen a case where the law was used to disqualify a winning
write-in.  In the case of Ron Daniels, he was, IMHO, well enough known that
it was clear who the votes were for.  He was running a national campaign.
If someone wrote in 'Steve Adams' that wouldn't be real clear, but if they
wrote in "Steve Adams, XXXX St, Aurora" that would be very clear.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:10:09 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <24021@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com
(George Tucker) writes:
|> 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,

Actually rich people (property owners) need more protection in many ways.

I consider myself to be "flexible", resourceful, and fatalistic.  If an
"enemy" every did actually wage some kind of war against my home turf, I
could be gone in a heartbeat, or worse, I could just die.  I'm willing
to take that chance.  But property owners who are geographically stuck,
like corporations, and huge estate owners apparently don't have those options.

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
pretty clever for the entrenched, immovable rich manage to get people
like me to kick in tax money for the weapons and armies which, because
of my fatalism, don't do me a damned bit of good.  

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.  

Bullshit.

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:56:01 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

In article <BxB4ME.9BC@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>    
>   I think US policy is stupid and indefensible on 3 counts:
>                                  
>   
>   1.  The entire world economy is very shaky just now; the last
>       thing it needs is a trade war.   We should all be trying 
>       to INCREASE the volume of world trade.
> 
   The problem is everyone wants to increase it by EXPORTING and not
   buying anything in return.

> 
>   2.  France, et al, are democracies.  Their voters have made it
>       clear that they WANT some of their tax money to be used for
>       agricultural subsidies.   What the US is, in effect, saying
>       to the EC officials is that they should ignore the wishes of
>       their own voters and instead follow OUR dictates.  This
>       sounds "imperialistic" to me.  I don't see how we can 
>       morally justify this while at the same time allegedly trying
>       to promote democracy around the world.
> 
   Can you say "special intrests", "farm lobby?"  These are just two
   of the groups that restrict various AMERICAN imports/production
   Examples include: sugar, tobacco, peanuts.  Is there no reason to
   believe France has the same "farm lobby" type problem in their
   country.  Do you live in the USA?  If so, you pay 10X the world
   price for sugar.  Do you, as a voter, want it that way?

> 
>   3.  If French taxpayers are willing to subsidize MY purchase
>       of canola oil, in effect taking money out of their own 
>       pockets and putting into mine, why should we/I object? 
>       In doing so they are conducting a transfer of wealth to
>       the US economy.   They are also providing the motivation
>       necessary to encourage US oil-seed makers to become more
>       efficient, lower their prices, and so forth.   It sounds
>       like a net win.    

Yeah, like the Japanese subsidised Americans who purchased Toyotas,
Hondas, Nissans, etc.  Look at what happened to the auto industry.
Local farms, no matter how big, will not withstand subsidation like
that.  How can they compete with the resources of a whole nation?

 
>    3b.  While the US may be protecting some jobs in their oilseed 
>         industry, they are threatening jobs in other industries.
>         Specialty food and wine importers, restaurants, etc in
>         the immediate term, and just about any industry you can
>         name if this spins out of control.  
> 

I'm all for sacrificing a few $4.25/hr restaurant jobs in the near-term.
With the savings from US farm subsidies in the long term, we propably
could make up all the lost income in a year or too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free trade.  When you find it, I'll 
renounce my citezenship and come live with you in fantasyland :-)  Every
country has its special intrests that must be dealt with, each in the
way most approiate for that country/situation.

Shawn Duffy
Edinboro University of PA
USA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:30:35 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <56352@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
|> In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
|> >of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
|> >the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
|> >and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
|> >the economy going that spending more money.
|> >
|> 
|> What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
|> equivalent? Under Reagan/Bush government expenditures for arms and
|> interest on the debt and on federal employees all rose sharply, while
|> the government did not buy much of value of the productive economy:
|> bridges, roads, educations, ... IMHO, if one goes on a spending binge
|> and emerges having purchased junk, one is in a significantly worse position
|> than someone who purchases valuable items.
|>  

Some people have argued that the boom we had was a classic Keynesian
boom, I assume that you disagree?  If so, there must have been something
else that caused the economy to grow under Reagan and stop under
Bush.  I will certainly agree that not all spending is equal.  I
do not believe, however, that government can spend money 'better'
than the private sector.  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.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest,misc.taxes
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:51:41 GMT

In article 5632@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Go ahead.  I doubt whether you'll convince many people that incurring
>two commisssions is better than holding in the face of an *eventual* increased
>tax bite.  And then, only if gains are larger than losses for that year.
>
is there some assumption that cap. gains are limited to corporate stocks?
or is this discussion meant to apply to anything which can appreciate in
value?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: dbailey@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (David R. Bailey)
Subject: Good intro econ texts?
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:41:33 GMT

Could anyone suggest a good economics text which is
introductory but nonetheless at an appropriate level for
the scientifically- and mathematically-aware?

Email please, I'll post if I get a few replies.

Thanks a lot,

Dave Bailey
dbailey@icsi.berkeley.edu
From: fichtenbaum@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Help with CPS
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:29:03 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

Does anyone have experience using the 1990 March CPS?  I may have a 
problem with my data.  There is supposed to be a unique identifier
for household, family and person records which is five characters
in length begining in field 2.  This means that there should be a
minimum of 3 lines with the same household id.  When I look at the
data each household id is different.  Any suggestions

Rudy Fichtenbaum
Department of Economics
Wright State University
Fichtenbaum@desire.wright.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 09:52:22 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

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?  If a politician approves a spending plan which
benefits his district at the expense of taxpayers nationwide, how
is the politician going to be punished?  The people who elected
him think he's great for bringing 'jobs' to their area.  The 
majority of the people footing the bill aren't in his district
and can't vote him/her out of office.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:53:57 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <56352@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
|> In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
|> >of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
|> >the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
|> >and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
|> >the economy going that spending more money.
|> >
|> 
|> 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.  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.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943