HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:21:55 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.173442.27836@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia
Jazanoski) wrote:

> Wrong. Businesses must also pay social security tax on salary to their
> employees. They match the $$ each employee pays.  There are other taxes 
> (at least states imposed), but I can't recall the details. I'm
> sure anyone here that is self-employed can fill in the details.
> Anyway, the point Tim was making is that life is just one big tax cycle.

State taxes are a whole different matter, but you are correct on social
security (which is untouched in this plan as well).

> This tax scheme is only going to create an even wider gap between
> the have and have-nots. And in this picture, we (engineers) are in
> the middle and closer to the have-nots. The difference between your
> $80K salary (or whatever) and the poverty level is a lot smaller than 
> the difference between your salary and Ross Perot's, or others that 
> will benefit from this scheme is a BIG way.  The richest 5% of 
> Americans own/control the majority of our $$ resources.  It's really 
> appalling.  (I'll try to get exact figures). 

I doubt it.  This plan helps me (saves me $1000 if it was in effect last
year) money, and probably will save you money unless the government is
already subsidising your house (which I am against) loan.  Without
deductions everyone's taxes go down except those at higher incomes.

> That's why sales tax is a regressive tax plan; poor people pay a larger
> percentage of their income on sales tax.

It should be equal for everyone, giving everyone the same fair rate and
ensuring that all of us pay.  Progressive tax rates are punitive.
 
> Even everyone's favorite billionaire, Ross Perot, admitted that
> big wealth is created/accumulated through non-earned income activity. 
> By the way, Ross earned over $1 Million A DAY in unearned income.
> If we stop taxing that money, where will the tax revenues come from??
> (although I'm sure Ross avoids paying as much taxes as possible)

We don't need that money: we SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY.  Again in unison: WE
SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY. 

You folks keep thinking that somehow we are all going to die if we cut
taxes.  We are not.  We have to also cut spending.  Have to.  We spend too
much money.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 15:11:04 GMT

In <1992Sep15.004413.27761@microsoft.com>, Bob Sarver writes:

>Also, cite three examples of homosexuals "trying to involve
>the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
>private".  Hint:  non-religious employment and for-profit rental
>situations are not private situations.

They aren't?  Why not?  If the government isn't involved, then it's a private
situation.  Period.  Please tell us how you define "private."  I'll be sure to
tell Webster to add a new definition of the word in the next edition.

Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"'Tis a sad day when people stop relying on themselves and look to Washington."
-- Tim Irvin, 9/15/92
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: HERSCHENSOHN: Right To Life
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:15:46 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN COMMENTARY
RAbortion and the Right-To-LifeS

It is often asked why so many who generally oppose federal government
impositions would want the federal government involved in the issue of
abortion.  We donUt.  The federal government became involved in this with
the Roe v. Wade decision which prohibited the States from making their own
choice through their elected legislatures.  I want Roe v. Wade to be
overturned for a number of reasons: Constitutional, emotional and moral.

First, in the constitutional issue.  Roe v. Wade did not make abortion
legal as so many believe.  What Roe v. Wade did in 1973 was make it illegal
for a State to make its own decision.  Instead of interpreting a law, the
Supreme Court of 1973 made its own law and then said the law it had just
made was constitutional.  The decision took away power from the States that
had been granted to them previously under the Tenth Amendment, and the new
decision put the law-making ability into the lap of the court that created
intricate legislation, mandating different rules for different trimesters.

On an emotional level, the visuals of the pre-born are just overwhelming. 
Further, a good friend of mine became the father of a baby that was born
within the second trimester, and today, some four years later, that child
is strong and healthy and, it seems to me, glad to be alive.

And third is the moral issue.  I donUt know when human life begins.  Nor
have I ever met anyone who has scientific evidence of the moment that life
begins.  We can all agree that it begins some time between conception and
the ninth month.  But does life begin at the moment of conception or does
it begin on Day 7 or Day 36 or Day 95 or Day 142 or Day 210 or later? 
Since no one seems to know, of course we should veer towards the side of
life.  I believe that is only logical and common sense.

What has brought me to this conclusion more than anything else was a series
of discussions I had with leaders of both sides and the weakness of the
major argument used by the pro-abortion advocates: It was that a woman
should have the choice to do what she wants with her own body, but a woman
does not have four arms, four legs, four eyes, four ears and two hearts. 
Cannot we all agree that there is another body involved?

(From Bruce Herschensohn Commentary exerpts)


--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5092 ca.politics:7506
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:13:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
: 
: Total abolition of taxes on interest from savings and other financial
: accounts
: Total abolition of taxes on dividends
: Total abolition of the personal capital gains tax
: Total abolition of the federal estate tax

Notice that this makes the idle rich pay absolutly no taxes at all!
The only category of income tax left is Earned Income.  Using this
approach, someone who makes Millions of dollars on various investment
income pays $0 in income tax.  I don't necessarly believe that the rich
should be taxed more heavily than everyone else, but they should pay
something.

I would also like to point out that the federal estate tax is only
charged on estates larger than $600,000 dollars.  Again, this is
something that would benifit the very rich.

It is clear that Herschensohn is interested in a tax break for the very
rich and putting that burden on us working stiffs.
-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:09:30 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <26139@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) wrote:
> 
> Rick Eames writes:
> >will *never* send my kids to school here.  They are TERRIBLE.  And money is
> >NOT the solution.
> 
> What are the results you want to see but are not seeing now, & how
> do you get them ("the solution") without money?

I will pay a TON of money to send my kids to schools where the *majority*
of the money goes to the students and NOT administrators making $90,000 a
year.  We are top heavy with administrators.  I would also like to see the
following:

1) Pay teachers more.
2) Make teachers work ALL year, just like the rest of us.
3) Make teachers stay up to date.
4) Perhaps make teachers rotate so they don't get bored with what they 
   teach.
5) Schools should be all year.
6) Experiment with different methods of teaching.  Try to get away from the
"sit in your chair and listen to me speak" method of teaching.
7) *Require* parents to get involved.  Make them take a couple of their
vacation days with their kids in school.  If they don't, charge them (tax
them).
8) Have students in upper grades "teach" children in lower grades.  They
could be teacher's aids.  This helps them learn to help others.  It also
refreshes them on topics they may have put out of their minds.

That's just a couple of ideas.
--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5265 ca.politics:7732
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 01:15:54 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Bad From: address, Michael Friedman.
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Because income is not income.  Consider, for example, dividends.  Are
>they really income?  Yes?   Well, in that case what about a stock split?

I think you could make a point, that the IRS sometimes makes an
issue of too, that there is some non-monetary "income" involved
when people barter goods.  However, a stock split is not ordinarily
a change in your equity -- you don't gain some value -- is it?
Isn't it just a reconfiguration of the same pie?  You now have 4 shares
worth $0.25/ea, instead of 1 worth $1.00.   Maybe it makes trading
a little easier.  Yes?  No?

>What exactly is the difference?  Why should one be considered income
>but not the other?  I would argue that dividends are not income.  They
>are merely the conversion of value in one form - a stock - to value in
>another form - money.  If you do tax it then you should allow a

Wait a minute -- I think you're confusing something here -- a stock's
trade price is based on how much income it produces, its dividend
rate, among other things, no?  You're not pumping value out of the 
stock by taking a dividend, not directly.  [Of course there are cases
where that does happen -- I'm not sure about the laws on that, tho.]

>but not the other?  I would argue that dividends are not income.  They
>are merely the conversion of value in one form - a stock - to value in

This conversion takes place when _you sell the stock_.

>decrease in the value of the stock to offset any income in the form of
>dividends.  

A lot of people feel that it is wrong that capital gains are taxed with
no regard to change in the value of money over the years.  I'm not sure
if that's the point you're trying to make or not (I think it isn't, tho).
If not, dividends are not a function of stock price, tho stock price has some
relation to dividend rate, and so I just can't see how I can agree with
your statement.  You should already have paid taxes on dividends &c by
sales time so they're not involved in totting up of the capital gains 
or losses.

>>it to me.  Why tax it again?
>I tend to agree. 

I think it is pointless to say something that is income, isn't, so
therefore we shouldn't tax it.  It's just confusing & mildly
irritating.  If youse have some different _income tax policy_ you'd
like to sell us all on, why not go for that instead of trying to wire
up some trick definition of income that no one, or no majority, will accept?
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Domestic GI Bill
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:18:11 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.175541.28224@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
> Reagan killed most accessable financial aid to undergraduates; 
> in the early-mid 80s Guaranteed Student loans were only guaranteed
> for households earning less that $30K and few assets.

Reagan cut off the kids of wealthy families; outside of California 
and a few other overheated parts of the U.S.) $30K/year
is a decent income.  Even in California, $30K/year for a family
income is at least lower-middle class and below.

Yeah, Reagan doing his best to screw the poor -- by taking away
the rich kids ride on the gravy train.  Liberals disgust me.

> Patti Jazanoski

You left out a step:

> By the way, the whole GI Bill is pretty interesting:
Government financial aid to college students drives up the
demand for colleges, and...
>   College expenses go sky-high.
>   Cut financial aid of students.
>   Offer GI Bill aid to students.
>   Get a willing volunteer army of lower-middle class students.

Government money always comes with strings attached -- like
draft registration.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Vote 'Your Name' for office
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:33:20 GMT
	    <=7wn#d.phil@netcom.com>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <=7wn#d.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.231459.13811@morrow.stanford.edu>
GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

>>Writing in [your own name] has the same impact as not voting.

>So, even if I convinced 51% of the voters to write me so I could start
>dismantling the State (at least in CA), it would be ineffective.

What's your plan, then? If you're going to eliminate the morally evil
system of voting, how will we govern ourselves?
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5348 ca.politics:7826
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:33:55 GMT
Reply-To: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.82

Guido Marx writes:
>>from estate taxes, because I see it as _stealing_ from me -- my taxes
>>would be reduced accordingly if you paid what I see as your fair share.
>
>HAHAHAHAHA.  Are you really going to argue that income tax rates are going
>to be cut if this increase in the inheiritance tax is passed ?  This 

I believe we are discussing the Herschensohn tax proposal, yes?
Go back & read how the tax rates were to be decided once his program
was in place.

>If his parents GAVE it to him, then it is indeed his money.
If they gave it to him, he didn't inherit it.  It's a different
process.  Gifts are also taxable under some circumstances -- if
I remember rite, it's amounts over a floor level, $10k?

If it is his money, then it can't be taxed.  If it isn't....

>he might use) shrink.  As for me, I would also like the government to 
>pare itself down quite a bit.

Then work to cut it down before dropping out of the system at
everybody else's expense.

>  At any rate, IMHO we can run a perfectly
>fine government without raping people who have just lost a loved one.

Since I'm being "raped" [sic] every month when my paycheck is issued,
your emotionally-charged metaphor does nothing to convince me I
should go along with this scheme.  Feel free to cover someone else's
inheritance tax with _your own_ money, tho.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: swami@tcs.com (Venkates Swaminathan)
Subject: Who IS Clyaton Cramer?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:32:08 GMT

I'm new to this newsgroup, so maybe this is a silly question.

Who is Clayton Cramer, and why are his views on gays and lesbians the subject of
so much of the debate on ba. politics? Is he someone really important or
influential?


Swami
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:34:10 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <95610@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >The fact is that abnormal situtations such as this have to
    >potential to occur. What if a cabal of heterosexist pigs
    >controls the major companies (including the banks, which
    >might be used to obtain small business loans) in a small
    >town. The town is small enough for everyone to know something
    >about everyone else's sexual orientations. The big cheeses
    >decide to prohibit hiring gays, or giving them loans, for
    >that matter.
    >
    >It would be nice to have a government which would stand up
    >for individual rights over group rights for a change.

Uh, what you've just described is a democracy. If this "cabal" of yours
is so powerful, all it has to do is call an election, or just write and pass
some laws.

Once you've accepted the principle that a group of people can get together
and coercively interfere with another group of people, you're fucked.

Which is why I say that it doesn't matter whether its two or two million
people that get together to conspire to steal my property or interfere with
my rights -- it's still wrong.

Of course, you forgot to mention what a cabal of homosexual pigs would do
if I opened (or tried to) a trendy bar/eatery in the Castro district.
Somehow, I think the cabal would decide not to patronize me, no matter
how good the food or eats were, just because I'm not one of them. And thus,
I'd be out of business.

And that's just the way the world works.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:47:44 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <athos-070992130625@kip2-12.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
|> 
|> 1) Pay teachers more.
Agreed.

|> 2) Make teachers work ALL year, just like the rest of us.
Agreed.  Although this will not play well in rural areas where the
children stay home to reap the crops.

|> 3) Make teachers stay up to date.
Sounds good, although how to do you wish to enforce this?

|> 4) Perhaps make teachers rotate so they don't get bored with what they 
|>    teach.
Sounds good.

|> 5) Schools should be all year.
Read #2 above.

|> 6) Experiment with different methods of teaching.  Try to get away from the
|> "sit in your chair and listen to me speak" method of teaching.
How about New Math? :-)  I think that teaching could be improved
but I'm not sure I've met many people in education I would trust
to improve it.

|> 7) *Require* parents to get involved.  Make them take a couple of their
|> vacation days with their kids in school.  If they don't, charge them (tax
|> them).
Nice idea, but it won't work.

|> 8) Have students in upper grades "teach" children in lower grades.  They
|> could be teacher's aids.  This helps them learn to help others.  It also
|> refreshes them on topics they may have put out of their minds.
|> 
Ahh, you mean like in English public schools?

I think not.

Later,
George

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Who IS Clyaton Cramer?
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:53:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.203208.18002@tcsi.com>, swami@tcs.com (Venkates Swaminathan) writes:
> I'm new to this newsgroup, so maybe this is a silly question.
> 
> Who is Clayton Cramer, and why are his views on gays and lesbians the subject of
> so much of the debate on ba. politics? Is he someone really important or
> influential?
> 
> Swami

I'm not important, and I doubt that I'm very influential.  The
problem is that the gay community refuses to shun groups like the
North American Man-Boy Love Association.  Narrow-minded bigot that
I am, I think that this says something unpleasant about the
homosexual community.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5249 ca.politics:7702
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:53:53 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

First off, whoever is cutting out attribution lines... don't.  I wrote
the stuff that Mike Helm quoted.

In article <athos-110992102904@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <26222@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) wrote:
>> Mike Friedman wrote but someone deleted the attribution line....

>> >As for the rest, it really isn't clear to me at all why income from
>> >savings accounts and capital gains should be taxed.  As for the estate
>> >tax, don't you think it is a bit unreasonable to even tax death?

>> Well, why not?  You can't take it with you, as far as I know.
>> Income is income -- why do we include some & not others from
>> taxation, if we are going to tax at all?  

Because income is not income.  Consider, for example, dividends.  Are
they really income?  Yes?   Well, in that case what about a stock split?
What exactly is the difference?  Why should one be considered income
but not the other?  I would argue that dividends are not income.  They
are merely the conversion of value in one form - a stock - to value in
another form - money.  If you do tax it then you should allow a
decrease in the value of the stock to offset any income in the form of
dividends.  

>Income, to me, is money you *earn*.  If my dad leaves me the money he saved
>up his entire life, I find it OBSCENE that the US Government sees fit to
>take a chunk of it.  My dad EARNED it, PAID taxes on it and has now given
>it to me.  Why tax it again?

I tend to agree. 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:22:52 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <92255.50298.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>,
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote:

> June often writes here.  I don't know many people looking forward to having
> Boxer or Herschensohn.  These are two extremists.  Many Democrats despise
> Boxer and many Republicans despise Herschensohn.  Ms. Genis could (and IMHO,
> should) benefit from the general distaste many have for both candidates.  But
> you'd never guess that judging by the media reporting!  June has my vote.

'Tis a sad day indeed when believing in the intent and letter of the US
Constitution gets you labeled as an extremist.

I suppose it goes a long way to proving that people just aren't being
educated as well as we would like.

*sigh*

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.