HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:31:38 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
 <1992Dec14.215007.28192@csi.uottawa.ca>
 <1992Dec15.052506.18337@csi.uottawa.ca>
 <1992Dec15.170313.9431@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>

In article <1992Dec15.170313.9431@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:

>Universality as it has been come to be known in Canada means paying
>millionaires government pensions and family allowance cheques.  It
>means less money is available for the needy.

Universality to my mind means recognising that people with $1 million
a year and people with eight thousand a year have much the same needs.
Thus, to take the examples of of few social programs that really work:
millionaires get sick just like everyone else. Universal medicare
saves administrative costs and gives everyone a better health care
system, while making more money (the money hospitals save from only
having to deal with one insurer) available for the needy. The children
of millionaires get into drug abuse, just like the children of the poor.
Programs that keep kids off drugs benefit everyone: if we could reach
every person at risk for drug abuse, and redirect the money and potential
squandered, we would have no reason to worry about the deficit.

I could go on. Police protection, fire services: everyone needs them,
everyone uses them.

>A negative income tax is a targetted social program for the needy.

What ever you call it, it makes more sense than the jumble we have
now.

>negative income tax.  With it we can eliminate every other social
>program and its related bureaucracy, and turn UI into a European-like
>training fund completely.

If you mean we can eliminate every other redistributive social program
(welfare, etc.) you're right. If you mean the medical system, school
system, et al. you do not mean eliminate, you mean privatise. While I
see a great deal of virtue in eliminating bureaucracy (which is why I
support a negative income tax), I see little virtue in going from
government bureaucracy to commercial bureaucracy.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: Mario.Salamon@zoo.utas.edu.au (M. Salamon)
Subject: University of Guelph
Organization: University of Tasmania
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:11:00 GMT

Hello there,

I'd like to get into contact with the Zoology Department of the University 
of Guelph, Ontario.
Could anybody help me with an e-mail address??

Thanks. 
-Mario

Zoology Department
University of Tasmania
Australia                      e-mail: mario.salamon@zoo.utas.edu.au

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Canadian Culture Shock?
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:52:54 GMT

In article <BzI99F.Lr4@mach1.wlu.ca>, dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:

Indeed it would be a shock if any were in evidence in canada.

Laurence

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9537 can.politics:10941 talk.abortion:52468 talk.politics.animals:10451
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 09:40:07 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

todd@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:

> >>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
> >>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?
> >
> >No.  Not unless you could whisk that pesky fetus from real womb to
> >artificial womb until birth.  You're ignoring the nine months that can
> >change a woman's life.  I.e., screw up career, screw up health, screw up
> >plans...
> 
> So you put an individual's right to *exist* over some shitty career or
> plans.  Love your priorities there.  (WRT health, I already clarified
> that I do not oppose abortion when a woman's health is in danger -
> when it isn't, all she risks is stretch marks - it's vanity).
> 
> The flimsyness of your arguements almost speak for themselves.
> 


Your argument might carry some weight if YOU were the one carrying the 
pregnancy to term, Todd. You are advocating a fundamental interference in 
the lives of individual women, who have the right to decide for 
themselves where, when, and under what circumstances they choose to bear 
and raise children. It's NONE of YOUR business, nor that of the state.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:24:37 GMT

Note - I've changed this to be posted to soc.culture.canada only.

In article <TODD.92Dec17120535@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>
>I was laying in bed last night thinking about what I wrote in
>this post, and wanted to explain a little why I am doing this
>in soc.culture.canada.  
>
>According to Marvin Minsky, a pioneering AI researcher, "a culture
>is a set of ideas that fit together well".  This may seem simplistic,
>but it is a useful and realistic definition.
>
>I really believe that in Canada, our ideas are beginning not to fit 
>together well at all. I don't think I'm going to change many people's 
>ideas about abortion, really, but I'm arguing to show a fundamental 
>incompatibility in our society.  (If I really wanted to argue about
>abortion, there are over 1200 postings in the talk.abortion group...)
>You might say the failed constitutional bid is an example of our ideas 
>no longer "fitting together", just like golfers' ideas don't really fit 
>with Japan very well, or MacDonald's doesn't go down too well in India.

"You really believe"?  Based on what evidence?

Do you really believe that because some people are vegetarians and
pro-choice, the country is going to hell?  No doubt, there are some
people who match your stereotype - extreme animal-rights types who are
actually pro-abortion (and not merely pro-choice).  Are those typical?
Or should I respond by saying the country is going to hell by pointing
to inconsistent beliefs among some pro-life, pro-gun extremists?

Or do you simply mean that the ideas of some people in Canada don't fit
well with yours?  Guess what - the ideas of some people in Canada don't
fit with mine; I wouldn't want it any other way.  I value diversity over
conformity (and that, btw, is also my response to your further nonsense
about "fear of (my) mainstream white Canadian culture being Indianized"
. . .)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9381 soc.culture.british:17532 soc.culture.australia:36
From: Robert.Evans@cm.cf.ac.uk (Robert Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australia
Subject: Re: Prime Minister
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:36:24 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff, WALES, UK.

In article <Bz223w.Gp6.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh+@cs.cmu.edu (Nick Haines) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec9.205516.16259@maths.tcd.ie> dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
|> 
|>    [... good description of the prime-ministerial selection process ...]
|> 
|>    Back in the 18th Century, King George III imposed a Prime
|>    Minister, Lord Bute, on the country.
|> 
|> Wouldn't that have been a First Secretary of the Treasury, rather than
|> a Prime Minister? Or am I confusing my centuries? I thought in the
|> 18th C the FSotT was the key post?
|> 
|> Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Robert Walpole was the 1st British Prime Minister.  That was in the middle of the
18th Century (1742?).  George III used the royal prerogative to manipulate who
was PM.  His interference was said to have have contributed to the loss of the American
Colonies.
-- 
  Robert Evans, Department of Computing Mathematics,
  University of Wales College of Cardiff, Wales, UK.  +44 (0)222 874000 x 5518
  Robert.Evans@cm.cf.ac.uk                      (FAX) +44 (0)222 666182
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:01:20 GMT


---
Followups to talk.abortion, which is where this conversation
belongs.

In article <SMITH.92Dec18105808@gramian.harvard.edu>, smith@gramian.harvard.edu writes:
|It seems to me that unless a woman is inseminated by force,
|then she does have much choice in the matter.

A woman who has chosen to have sex has chosen sex, and nothing
else.  A woman who has chosen to have sex with birth control
has made it quite clear that she rejects pregnancy.  Do you
consider birth control failure to be insemination by force?

|Do you indeed suggest that an (undesirable) pregnancy achieved
|by ordinary intercourse is slavery?

Yep.  Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her
will is enslaving her.  My dot-sig quote is from a pro-lifer
who agrees.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:32:44 GMT

In <92350.133138SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.170313.9431@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:

>>Universality as it has been come to be known in Canada means paying
>>millionaires government pensions and family allowance cheques.  It
>>means less money is available for the needy.

>Universality to my mind means recognising that people with $1 million
>a year and people with eight thousand a year have much the same needs.
>Thus, to take the examples of of few social programs that really work:
>millionaires get sick just like everyone else. Universal medicare
>saves administrative costs and gives everyone a better health care
>system, while making more money (the money hospitals save from only
>having to deal with one insurer) available for the needy. The children
>of millionaires get into drug abuse, just like the children of the poor.
>Programs that keep kids off drugs benefit everyone: if we could reach
>every person at risk for drug abuse, and redirect the money and potential
>squandered, we would have no reason to worry about the deficit.

I guess most of you are too young to remember the days when there were
means tests for the OAS. What often occurred was that parents had to
sell or deed their homes to their offspring in order to qualify. Very
often, said offspring would take over the home and tell their parents
to find an appartment, which of course left no or little money for
food. Sure, it is inefficient to give the OAS to everyone regardless
of income, but there is nothing in the law that says rich people have
to apply for it (it is not automatic). Oh, BTW, some of that deficit
went to supporting the educational institutions you are attending and
a good chunk of it came out of my paycheck, but you don't hear me
bitching about it.

I have nothing against improving the operation of the government, and
one way of doing that is to get involved with the process and vote.
While living in Ottawa, I had the opportunity to get to know some
Members of the House and they were not all bad.

[.....]

Bob.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (Kyle Cassidy)
Subject: Re: Speciesism
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:42:52 GMT

>In article <07DEC92.14989363.0081@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>>
>>You quoted Singer as defining speciesism as "a prejudice or attitude
>>of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species
>>and against those of members of other species."  I don't see suffering
>>mentioned anywhere in this definition.  When one grinds a grain of
>>wheat into flour, one is surely acting in the interest of members
>>of _Homo_sapiens_ and against the interest of a member of _Triticum_
>>_vulgare_.  How does this fail to meet Singer's definition of
>>speciesism?  To coin a slogan -- "Milling is killing".
>>
>>Tom Box
>>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
>
singer mentions "one's own species", wheat isn't even in the same _kingdom_.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9360 soc.culture.african:7010
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: WHAT IS X-MASS??????????
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:19:30 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

X in XMAS is one of many universal abbreviations.

in XMAS, it stands for Christ, but...

I saw those:

xfr      transfer
xformer  transformer
xref     cross-reference
ex-wife  previous wife

So, you can do many things with the X.  It's up to you.

My personal preference is to consider Arianism, from Arius, a catholic
priest living about 300 or 400 AD.  He said Jesus was just a human like
you and me.  He was an heretic for that.  But, if Jesus was just a human,
then, we can do so many things 'cause we are human too.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Ope'rateur de "Racines du Que'bec" (514) 922-9636 BBS/Genealogie
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.211950.9531@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>>> J H Woodyatt writes:
>
>>>Good catch there, Mr. Law -- she almost got away with asserting the
>>>radical notion that pregnant women have rights instead of simply
>>>`convenience.'
>
>>[serious part]
>>Of course, pregnant women have rights, I really respect that, but
>>so do the unborn. 
>
>No, the unborn really have no rights.  You just want them to.  In fact,
>your statement limits the rights you'd afford pregnant women to...exactly
>what rights would you give them?
>
>>Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?
>
>No.  Not unless you could whisk that pesky fetus from real womb to
>artificial womb until birth.  You're ignoring the nine months that can
>change a woman's life.  I.e., screw up career, screw up health, screw up
>plans...

Career?!? Plans?!? (Health I can understand...). As a person who almost never
made it to the post-natal part, I'm glad my mother decided to put off her
career, plans, etc. in favour of my *life*.

So is she.



-- 
TJ Doran  	              |"There you stand like a duck in a thunderstorm
TJDORAN@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca | again... Aren't you ever going to understand?" 
                              |                         - W.A. Mozart
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:58:24 GMT

	For the record, my apologies at not noting the cross-posting to
the Canadian groups and talk.abortion; my mistake, and my blame.

	Now then, who cross-posted this all over the net?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:08:55 GMT

>>Then we have escalating taxes, in which the more you make, the greater
>>proportion of it you pay. A negative income tax would have to use a
>>similar model to this, because the rate have to go from positive to
>>negative at some point. (Replacing the basic personal exemption with
>>a refundable tax credit would only partly hide the process).
>>
>
>No...you can have a negative income tax and a flat tax...you just
>assign a sufficient personal exemption (and basic exemptions for
>dependents).  Say, for an individual, the first $15,000 is tax-free
>and then the flat tax is 25% of every dollar after than...if you
>earn less than $15000 or X dollars, the government pays you the
>difference...           

   This all sounds good to me, but I fail to see why every scheme that has 
been posted that gives any details (and it is the details of people's 
schemes that I am the most interested in) seem to be centered on an annual 
basis.  If we have a simple enough policy, there is no reason why it 
couldn't be automatically conducted on a monthly basis by the bank 
computers.  These annual schemes are the pits for anyone whose income 
fluctuates, as I am sure many low incomes do.  We already have had for years 
a scheme where you typically don't get a good portion of your income til 
April of the following year, and that after begging for it with a pile of 
forms.  Some of the recent initiatives are even worse.  For example, I 
have been working as a Sabbatical replacement and have been making good 
money.  Job postings for next year don't look very good and I expect my 
income to drop a lot.  My present child-care etc benefits are based on the 
low income I had finishing off my Ph.D. so they are high.  By the time my 
income drops, they will be based on my present high earnings, and will be 
quite low.  If we are going to overhaul the system, lets make it respond 
more quickly to a person's present needs.

===================================================================
  Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
  Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150

  "Just because you've reached mature womanhood doesn't mean you
   have to throw yourself at a dork!"
       - Corky to Murphy Brown concerning a physicist
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 05:25:06 GMT


As a sort of "side comment", it's interesting that many of those that
seem to dislike the "universal" social programs are the same ones that
like the idea of major reforms to the income tax system, ala "Negative
Income Taxes."  After all, what is more universal than Income Taxes?

A Negative Income Tax system would in fact be (to steal a line) "The
Mother of All Universal Economic Social Programs."

Quote of the day: "There ain't no universal social program as
universal as a Negative Income Tax system."

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Moving to Canada
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 01:34:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.010043.1@vxdesy.desy.de> godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>What's so boring about it?  The people.

Come on, now. Don't generalize. Please, be specific.
Which group or category of people was boring, in your opinion?
Have you watched a Bare Naked Ladies (the band) in concert?
They certainly are not boring.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: kspeicht@kilcom1.ucis.dal.ca (Kevin F. Speichts)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:06:38 GMT

>From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
>Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:22:20 GMT

>todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:

>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>2.  There is more involved in the abortion question than right to life, there
>>>      is also the question of the rights of the pregnant woman.
>>                                    ~~~~~~
>>"rights" should read "convenience".
>        Bullshit.  Read your United States Constitution, and pay
                        ^^^^^^

	I'm not quite sure ... please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't 
think that the US Constitution applys to Canadians or Japanese individuals.  
I believe it only applys to Americans.


>special attention to the 9th, 10th,  and 14th amendments.  Unless
>specifically stated as a concern of the Federal government, all
>other rights exist to the states or to the people.  The trouble
>is that you need to get the Supreme Court to agree that a right
>to abort actually exists.  I suggest the Right to Life covers this,
>but we may not like the interpretation by the Court.
>        In any event, it will be a very tough and expensive case
>to pursue, hence many similar laws are not contested.

> Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
> ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
> "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
>  written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >