HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: Houston, TX
	<DRG.92Sep9190543@bubba.ma30.bull.com> <6274@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:12:54

tarl@apache.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
 >drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
 >>It wouldn't be significant if food, clothing, shelter, education, and
 >>basic transportation were non-taxable.  Then it would only be
 >>"hurting" the poor on non-essential items.
[...]
 >Once you start
 >adding exceptions, it is very hard to persuade a congress to not add
 >more for themselves or their buddies.

How about a yearly rebate to everyone, then?  Everyone pays their 15%
(or whatever) on all purchases, and then once a year they get $2250
(or whatever) back.  Those who spend less than $15000 a year are then
tax free, and the tax becomes progressive again.

Figures used above are just examples.

--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"Notice how people who don't know what they're talking about tend
 to use personal attacks?"	-- Lon Stowell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin)
Subject: Re: LP PR: ballot petitioning completed!
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:08:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.162322.7808@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>
>>Just out of curiousity --- why do Libertarians need a petition drive? 
>>IS THERE SOME LAW that discriminates against smaller political parties?
>
>Yes. Most states have their legal code rigged to keep anyone but
>Democrats and Republicans off the ballot. Among other tricks used are
>states which state that only the two parties with the highest
>gubinatorial vote get automatic ballot access, states that say that
>only those parties that got more than 20% of the vote for some office
>get automatic ballot access, etc. There are a few states where these
>discriminatory rules don't exist, but they are in the minority; most
>of the country is rigged to keep any alternative off the ballot
>without the expenditure of substantial resources. Getting on the
>presidential ballot in all 50 states costs a vast amount of money;
>without heavy volunteer networks like the LP has, its a two million
>dollar proposition. Even with the LPs networks, its a half to three
>quarter million dollar proposition.
>
Not that I want to tell people in US how to run their lives, but have
these laaws ever been challenged in court? I mean conflict of interest
seems fairly easy to prove.
From: lakata@physics3.berkeley.edu (Mark Lakata)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Positions
Date: 14 Sep 1992 19:46:29 GMT
Organization: University of California Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep14.173437.7433@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes:
|> I'll respond to this one:
|> >2)  In light of the fact that nations such as Japan and Taiwan have
|> >    very good nationalised education programs, how can Libertarians
|> >    justify a more privitised education system.|> First, note that Japan and Taiwan are very homogenous societies and are much more|> like a bee colony than a society like ours.  Thus, from their point of view, |> nationalized education is workable and makes sense.  This is not the case in our|> society.  Thus the attempts we have made to provide public education have been
|>  
|> The public system we have is the welfare of education.  It promotes apathy and
|> malaise in the students.  A private system is preferable not only because of the
|> better education that it provides but because when people have to work to send 
|> their children to school they will be much more likely to take an interest in |> how well their child is doing.  Now, given the political reality of government
|> controlled education the concept of the voucher system is a good "half-way"
|> solution.  It already cost the government almost as much money per student to
|> provide a lousy public school education as the voucher program would cost (in
|> the voucher system, the government would give vouchers worth about $5000 to each
|> student which could be used to pay for private education.  This would have the
|> side benefit of creating more competition in the private school sector and thus
|> further improving the quality of education and lowering tuition).|> 
|> As a libertarian, I'm not against government support of education (in the form
|> of vouchers) because I believe that education is a public good from which 
|> everyone benefits.

Note that the argument that the government will save money with the voucher system
only if the number of people that switch from public to private equals the number
of people sticking to private school.  I've heard in some state (begins with an M), that
17% of the students attend private school, so at least 20% of the other 87% (=17%) would
need to switch from public to private for the government to break even.  It is unclear 
whether 20% of public school student parents could afford the cost of the private school
that the voucher doesn't cover (roughly half of $5000), or would realize the actual gains
that this $2500 is going to give their children.

I'm still for the voucher system, but I think in the short run that it will cost the
government(== taxpayers) more.  Eventually (if private schools are considerably better
than public schools) I think this won't be that much of a problem. 

-Mark
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:21:47 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Sep11.210214.12436@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu writes:

> So you want to encourage people to save their money and not buy
> things.  This is a sure way to halt a growing economy.

Tell that to the Japanese who because of extremely low capital-gains
taxes and no taxes on savings (if I remember correctly) save an average
of $70,000 per family.  Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South
Korea all have similar stories, and all are considered modern economic
'miracles.'


>   You want
> people to buy things.  This puts money back into the system where it
> can be used to make more jobs.  When people don't buy things, the
> manufacturers lay off employees.  The last thing I'd want would be a
> system where you get the best return on your money by stuffing it
> under your mattress and doing nothing with it.

I just subscribed to this group and I've resisted responding to 
the total economic bilge until it calmed down a bit.  But this 
particlular piece of Keynsian claptrap is at the heart of a lot 
of serious economic suffering in the U.S.

First off, people save money in order to spend it later, usually
on bigger items, like cars and houses.  It doesn't just disapper.
Second, money in the bank is not money under the mattress.  It is 
money made available for investments; investments like car factories.

There is a lot more to the story, but given the apparent attention 
spans of the posters so far, I doubt it's worth going into.

thant
From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Date: 11 Sep 92 06:06:36 GMT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA

It seems to me that most of the people running around these days calling
themselves "Libertarians" (e.g.  Libertarian Party, Self Governors,
Ayn Rand groupies, etc.) are really just timid and truncated Anarchists.
They oppose concentrated power in the form of "Big Government" but
seem blind to the need to oppose concentrated power in the form
of big business.  They spend their energies railing against taxation
and some of the Govt's more odious invations of privacy (WoD, etc.)
but ignore the tyranny of the workplace.  They even seem to have
fallen in love with the marketplace as if "Man is the measure of
all things" were replaced by "The market is the measure of all things"

This fits in with something I came across recently in "The Spanish
Labyrinth" by Gerald Brenen (1943):

     The word "libertarian was invented by Sebastien Faure in 1898,
     when the great anarchist periodical, _Revista Blanca_, was founded.
     Since at that time anarchist propaganda was forbidden, some other
     word had to be used to express the idea.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: amartell@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alex Martelli)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 20:09:08 GMT

wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie) writes (in alt.politics.libertarian):
	...

>NOT be encouraged during a recession.  An income tax does not discourage
>anything (especially a graduated or flat tax); people aren't going to stop making
>money 'cause the government is going to get some of it.


Income tax DOES discourage people from earning.  Example: a friend of mine
who had emigrated to Sweden at one point was offered a raise in salary;
given how little of that would actually have ended up in his pockets, he
asked instead for a "business trip" of three months in the USA (as a hidden
gift from the firm, with the understanding that he wouldn't actually be
doing any work).  A couple of years later he changed jobs, moving to
Germany, at a notable loss in nominal salary but a BIG gain in actual
disposable income -- here, you notice that this friend was not really
"discouraged from earning", but he WAS discouraged from continuing to earn
in Sweden (to the likely benefit of the Swedish economy) and encouraged
instead to go look elsewhere for greener pastures.  Any tax, if high enough,
WILL distort the pattern of economic activity, even if only by encouraging
brilliant unattached workers to go abroad; similar effects could be
imagined even for, by example, a "single tax" or land tax a la Henry George.

Tax on sales, added value, land, "unearned income", or whatever else, all
have, to lesser or greater extent, distorsive effect.  Maybe having many
small taxes would weaken the distortions wrt having a few larger ones, but
then collection costs may go up... no silver bullets!
--
Alex Martelli - preferred email alex@am.sublink.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.usa.misc,ba.politics
From: walden@ready.eng.ready.com (Eugene Walden)
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Organization: Ready Systems
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:35:57 GMT

[not sure who the original poster was, but...]

Just got this in the mail: 

Andre Marrou will be appearing: 

   Sept. 16th: 7:20-7:50 Channel 2, San Francisco
               3:00 KGO, San Francisco
   Sept. 17th: 10:00-10:50 KQED, San Francisco
               12:00 Rally, Justin Herman Plaza, San Francisco
               2:00-3:00 SF State
   Sept. 18th: 8:30-9:15 KRON TV 4, San Francisco

   - Eugene Walden (walden@gate.ready.com)
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:01:14 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <6370@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>Cars do produce smog. The fact that vegetation can produce smog as well,
>does not mean that car smog is irrelevant.

Your right, I do get on my high horse on this one.  I just get so annoyed
about some people who are so eager to bash Reagan that they are willing
to lie to do so.

BTW, here in Atlanta it has been shown that trees are the major source of
hydrocarbons.  

I apologize to the group for extending this thread and I will now drop it.

Peace.
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:39:51 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <420@asylum.UUCP> dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham) writes:
>ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
>>owe no taxes. Government should only provide those services
>>which cannot otherwise be provided, i.e. defense, police, and
>>the judiciary.

You forgot a biggie: commerce.  A national government must be involved
to establish inter-state commerce laws.  This is why New York can't
charge a tariff to bring things in from New Jersey.

By that same token, a government should pass laws regarding
international commerce.  When dealing with another nation, it takes a
nation to back up any regulations.

>I would argue that defense is best provided by a militia (i.e. armed
>citizens) not by the government.  From a pragmatic point of view of
>course, most people seem to want to be told what to do and such a
>defense would probably abdicate to the first group that came along and
>promised to make up their minds for them.

This works well until you get into foreign dealings.  Since a nation
the size of the USA is almost certain to be involved in international
relations, some national organization must defend it.  Local militias
(like the National Guard) will duffice for domestic affairs, but you
don't want them getting involved in national defense.  

At least I don't.

>Civil cases can be paid for by the people involved in the suit.

I believe they are already.  I know that frivolous cases are usually
paid for by the plaintiffs.

>I don't know about criminal cases though.  Can anyone enlighten me as
>to the libertarian theory for handling and funding criminal justice?

Wouldn't it have to be government-sponsored?  Probably on the state or
county level.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Some help for a tyro
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:42:44

I have seen that Libertarianism is based on the concept that
"Peaceful, honest people have the right to be left alone."

The sounds wonderful.

I have always wondered, though, how basic services are provided.
Privitization?  Picture this:

You just moved in your new house.  Comes a knock on the front door.
You open to find two gentlemen of a size to dwarf W. Perry.  

"We wanted to welcome you to the neighborhood and offer you the
services of our fire department.  We guarantee our service.  That is
we guarantee that without our service, your house _will_ burn down."

"Why, you can't do that!  That's extortion!  I'm gonna call the
police!"

"Let me help you out with that.  Here's my brother-in-law's card:
Guaranteed Police Protection.  Reasonable rates."

Etc., etc., etc.

What makes a Libertarian think that honest people living free would
work any better than "from each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs"?

PBY
young@erim.org
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: 33plato@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Larry Plato)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:57:16 GMT

wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie) writes:


>Well, one disadvantage with sales tax is that in discourages buying.  In times
>of recession, people may look at a slightly higher price and decide not to
>buy something -- let's just hold on to that buck.  This is exactly what should
>NOT be encouraged during a recession.  An income tax does not discourage
>anything (especially a graduated or flat tax); people aren't going to stop making
>money 'cause the government is going to get some of it.

>More important than what is taxed (these days, anyway) seems to be how those
>taxes are spent.  Is it too much to ask that the government not spend more than
>it makes?

>Just opinion.

>Wade
>wade@nb.rockwell.com

Yes it is true that a sales tax 'may' discourage buying, but it will encourage
savings.  The point is that by encouraging savings money will flood into
banks, even with the questionable banking practices of today marginal
reserve banker requires at least some deposits.  The increase in savings
will lower interest rates and the cost of credit, this will actually
stimulate the economy, of course the federal reserve controls the prime
and hence the economy so of course we need to eliminate the fed or at the
very least not let a private bank control our economy.  And make no mistake
about the fed is a very private bank!

Just an humble opinion, which is only my own
Plato

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life sucks, but it does not swallow
  33plato@sol.cs.wmich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: taxes
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:05:48 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:

>David Charlap (sp?) states that a reason to raise taxes is to pay for
>a service that everyone wants and needs.  Well if everyone wants and
>needs something, why do we need taxes to buy them?  You don't see
>people hoping that the government will raise taxes and use the money
>to make food free.  No, they just buy the food themselves.

Sounds almost like a definition of the free rider problem.  If we all
want something, and we must voluntarily pay for it, and I think it
will be paid for without me, I will tend not to pay for it.  (and so
will you and everyone else...)

--kyler
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:47:25 GMT

ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
>owe no taxes. Government should only provide those services
>which cannot otherwise be provided, i.e. defense, police, and
>the judiciary.

I would argue that defense is best provided by a militia (i.e. armed
citizens) not by the government.  From a pragmatic point of view of
course, most people seem to want to be told what to do and such a
defense would probably abdicate to the first group that came along and
promised to make up their minds for them.

Civil cases can be paid for by the people involved in the suit.

I don't know about criminal cases though.  Can anyone enlighten me as
to the libertarian theory for handling and funding criminal justice?

					Dave Bridgham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: 33plato@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Larry Plato)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:15:05 GMT

bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:

>>>>>> In article <1992Sep9.193301.4606@sol.cs.wmich.edu>, 33plato@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Larry Plato) writes:

<pro-sales tax stuff deleted>

basford writes . . .
 
<pro income tax deleted>

>Advantages:
>1.  It would eliminate the beauracracy to enforce/collect sales tax.
>2.  The IRS is already in place.
>3.  It would eliminate a burden on retailers and stimulate the retail
>    economy.
>4.  It is more progressive.

1 the burden to collect sales tax is less than to collect income tax
because 
a. there are less businesses than individuals
b. the sales tax is flat rate
c. the laws are much simpler (see b.)

2) point taken

3) true but not to the same extent (see #1)

4) who said progressive was good? but by the way, in the current sales
tax scheme, food and rent are not taxed, poor people spend a disproportionate
amount of income on food and rent.  This means that poor people will automatically be charged a 'lower rate' as a percentage of income, and if they can afford
durable goods then that is what they will be taxed on. I agree that the tax
on clothing and nescesities will still be disproportionate, but the value
of government and defense is related to a person's stake in society.
eg if the government protects a mansion it is provideing a more valuable
service than if it protects a hovel, although i feel the most valuable
service of government is protecting our freedom of opprotunity. eg
allowing us poor folks to compete in a free market.  So to get to the point,
yes it is progressive, not by beuracracy (eg tax brackets) but by category
eg we tax the items bought with 'disposable income'

remember that in order to get the flood of cash into savings we need a
strong motivater, with a sales tax a person who spends a lot pays more
but the people who save a lot 'get a break'

best regards
Plato
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many ways to die, some are less pleasant than others.
  33plato@sol.cs.wmich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: taxes
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:54:26 GMT

David Charlap (sp?) states that a reason to raise taxes is to pay for
a service that everyone wants and needs.  Well if everyone wants and
needs something, why do we need taxes to buy them?  You don't see
people hoping that the government will raise taxes and use the money
to make food free.  No, they just buy the food themselves.

As a general rule, if someone wants and needs something and has the
means to get it, they will do so.  Taxes create a middleperson who has
to be paid; therefore the price of the service goes up.  That strikes
me as the best reason why taxes should be eliminated.  If people want
a service to exist, then they will pay for it voluntarily.  If they
don't, then why are people in a democracy required to pay for it?

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep11.162656.3372@gtech.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:04:40 GMT

Sergio> == Sergio M. Pedro <smp@gtech.com> 

 Sergio> 	Operation Rescue most certainly does operate in big cities.
 Sergio> 	Can you say Albany, NY - Boston, MA - Providence, RI??

Brookline is not Boston.  OR doesn't picket much in Boston; they stick
to Brookline, where, surprise surprise, there's a smaller police force.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey)
Subject: Fairest Tax
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:58:47 GMT

With all this discussion on tax, I'm surprised no one has mentioned what
Jefferson called the "fariest tax":  a lottery.  What would be the pros
and cons of using a lottery to raise "tax" revenues.
 
                            Ken