HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:00:03 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

>Where non-universal programs come into play, such as welfare, I do
>support a negative income tax system, by the way. Free social
>workers from supervising (and degrading) the people who need welfare
>to stay alive after an economic disaster, and leave them only people
>who need supervision (such as chemical dependents).

   Ok, I have now heard the phrase "negative income tax" one time too many 
and have to ask what it actually means.  I would naturally assume that it 
involves a massive overhaul of the tax system since a large once a year 
income tax cheque would be a terrible substitute for a monthly welfare 
cheque.

  Let me kick it off with a proposal for a negative income tax scheme, and 
you can tell me if it is at all what you had in mind.  I have very little 
knowledge of economics, so the numbers I cite would need some adjustment 
to make the books balance.  We start by having the government deposit some 
basic amount into a bank account of every SIN number in the country once per 
month (perhaps $500), plus every child provides an additional amount to some 
SIN number.  We then have one flat income tax rate (perhaps 40%) which is 
automatically deducted from every pay cheque given in the country and is 
split between the federal and provincial governments.  There would no longer 
be a T-anything slip.  A few computer operators could replace the majority 
of the people working for Revenue Canada, UI, student loans, Welfare....  
The system would of course mutuate over time to accommodate all the people 
who fell through the cracks, but over the short term it represents a vastly 
simplified method for trying to achieve our present social goals without 
having to put anybody into special social classes.

   Once again, is this what you had in mind, and if not, what is?


===================================================================
  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
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9556 can.politics:10961 talk.abortion:52512 talk.politics.animals:10467
From: delorme@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lisa DeLorme)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:32:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec19.164006.27083@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
> I've known quite a lot of mothers over the years.
>None of them ever died in childbirth.
>
>-- 
>Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available


Sorry, anecdotal argument just does not cut it. Let me give you an example:
I know many residents of Oakland, California, none of them have ever been 
murdered, therefore, this talk of record murder rates this year must be
non-sense.

See what I mean?


-- 
Lisa DeLorme                            
delorme@garnet.berkeley.edu           
DOD #363/ 80 KZ250, (mouse bike), 82 KZ440
                    Hey, I'm finally an acronym: DBNI  (Double bike, no income)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australia
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Prime Minister
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:24:11 GMT

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?

First LORD of the Treasury.

Still is the top job, the Prime Minister IS First Lord of the Treasury.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:31:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.001825.29404@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <92350.174611SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>
>>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...           

do you mean by this that the government would pay dollar-for-dollar
every dollar under $15,000? so that if i earned $9,000, the government
would pay me $6,000?

is that the concept behind a "negative income tax" system?

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: Chris.Freehill@launchpad.unc.edu (Chris Freehill)
Subject: Free Trade Agreement/Work Permits
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:08:58 GMT


	Recently I posted a request asking for information on U.S. citizens 
obtaining work permits for Canada.  Unfortunately I've lost  the responses,
so I can't follow up on these responses.
	Could somebody answer (or provide some info. on) the following:
1.   Is the position of Research Assistant exempt from getting Employment
   Center approval under regular immigration laws?
2.   What about under the free trade agreement?
3.   Doesn't the free trade agreement still have to be passed?
4.   What effect or influence does educational background play in
     these decisions (in my case a BSEE and an MSEE)?


           Any information you can provide will be greatly 
appreciated.
                     Thanks.

                            Chris
                            free@wafer.ee.lsu.edu 
                  
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: todd@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<TODD.92Dec18120557@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec18.055554.32254@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:57:06 GMT


Well, I read all of this with as open a mind as is possible for
me, and have to say that it was enlightening.  It is good to
hear a medical opinion for a change.

Yet at the same time, I'd like someone to write in and say what
health effects happen to the fetus during abortion.

Todd Law

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,misc.talk.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:34:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.195746.22035@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar) writes:
>------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>>  bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett)
>
>>> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>>> Since English IS, despite the allegations of Denis et al, one of the two
>>> official languages of Canada, in which Quebec is still a part of, there
>>> is no valid reason the Quebec government should continue to do this.
>
>> Quebecois will dispute your assertion that Quebec is a part of
>> Canada.
>
> Then, by all means, let Quebec separate - with ALL (and only) the
> land with which she entered confederation in 1867, as well as her
> accumulated per capita share of the (not insubstantial) national
> debt.
>
> Soon reality will come home to roost; and economic (trade) realities
> will force her to become at least bilingual  -  and eventually,
> probably anglophone.  Do you think that Quebec's current standard
> of living and official (de facto) unilingualism will survive without
> all the coddling by Ottawa and the tolerance of long-suffering
> taxpayers from the "Anglo" provinces?
>
>Hjalmar
>-------

The problem with that kind of limited mind behaviour is that this reflects
Quebec bashing.

Why limit to 1867?  Why not take the land limits of 1765?  Because the
limits of 1867 will hurt more and are just irrealistic.

Why take only the debt and not the assert?  And why take only debt per
capita while the assert includes some investment like the wheat commission.

-- 
  \_\    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: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:27:48 GMT

In article <schuck.724638431@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>Just for thought:
>
>In Canada, if you kill a baby 1 hour *before *it's born, and the 
>mother approves, it's called an abortion.

Bullshit - that just doesn't happen.  Try using real arguments instead
of ludicrous strawmen, if you want to be taken seriously.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:39:45 GMT

> = todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>> = Steve Novak:
>>> = Earlier Todd:

>>>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...

>So you put an individual's right to *exist* over some shitty career or
>plans.  Love your priorities there.  

A fetus not an individual while living inside the woman and sapping her
resources, so I have no idea what your point is.  Maybe you need a biology
text to help you out.

And..."shitty career"?  Your lack of compassion and realism concerning the 
woman involved shows you haven't even thought things through, Todd.

>The flimsyness of your arguements almost speak for themselves.

Ditto.  

Thanks for reminding me how fruitless it is to be nice to pro-lifers
with no world view outside their slammed-shut minds.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Cuban cigars
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:23:31 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Please email me if you're in Canada and you would be able to get me (in the
USA) some top-quality Cuban cigars.  It would be a Christmas present for my
friend who like cigars and is a big fan of Castro.  He would totally flip if
I could get him some.
                                                      Kai Alexis Price
P
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9383 can.politics:10763 talk.abortion:52017 talk.politics.animals:10250
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:19:59 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <viking.724414940@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>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
>special attention to the 9th, 10th,  and 14th amendments.

This may come as a surprise to you, Dan, but the United States
Constitution does not apply in Japan, where Todd is, nor in
Canada, where Rosemary is.  Nor do most people accept that
U.S. Constitution = Universal Truth.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Canadian Culture Shock?
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:35:58 GMT

wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes:
>
>If Chris is going to be covering contemporary Canadian politics, he
>would do well to familiarize himself with recent developments and
>debates relating to Quebec's status within (or possibly outside) 
>Canada, the rights of native Canadians, the Canada-US Free Trade 
>Agreement, the Goods and Services Tax (GST), reform of the federal 
>Senate, and the recent emergence of the Reform Party and the Bloc 
>Quebecois on the national political scene.  Despite the recent 
>rejection of the "Charlottetown Accord" in a nationwide referendum 
>last October, the question of Quebec autonomy is unlikely to go 
>away anytime soon.

Also, Canadian political ideas are a little different the American
orthodoxy, especially libertarianism which is quite common on USENET.
I'm not meaning to knock libertarianism (I enjoy it at least as a
school of criticism; no fun if everybody agrees) but I do think that
there are certain European values in Canadian society that make us a
little different from American society (e.g., getting medical care is
not equated to level of ownership of a VCR --- but still, nobody gets
a private hospital room unless they can pay for it (i.e., like a VCR)).

There is an interesting thread I'd like to direct him to over in
Talk.politics.misc called "Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)".
On the left, we have some Canadian moderate conservatives, or as you
say in America ... socialists! (-;

[Just a joke; the thread is interesting especially for those who are
fixated on the Reform Party as throwbacks to the villains of Dickens'
time ... I've met liberal Republicans from Long Island who'd make the
Reformers look like Trudeau-ites.]

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:44:48 GMT


In article <TODD.92Dec18123853@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:
 
>"Maybe I'll get rid of it.  Afterall, it will affect my career
>for a while, and worse, it might leave stretch marks, and I won't
>look so good in a bikini.  Yes, that's what I'll do."
 
Hard to argue with pro-lifers who are so willing to supply women
with real problems such arguments.  Have you by any chance ever 
talked to a woman facing an un-wanted pregnancy Todd?
 
This is not just a thought experiment.  If you have not, I'd
advise you to get out, meet, talk and especially listen to
real women facing real problems.

>Todd Law
 
Dan King
 
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 20:41:58 GMT

>In article <craigen.46.724514935@ace.acadiau.ca> craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (
DOUGLAS CRAIGEN) writes:>>   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.  
>
>I gather that you've never been involved with payroll accounting...
>You would NOT suggest "monthly" if you had.
>
>If the job of reporting were done on a "monthly" basis, there would
>essentially be twelve times as much verification work required.
>(Well, maybe only 10 times as much.  But still a LOT more work.)
>
   
   If you read the dislaimers I gave to get this discussion going, I don't 
claim to be an economists etc, and I don't actually take any position on 
whether a negative income tax would be a good idea, because I was never able 
to figure out what people were talking about before.  That one comment in 
"Social Programs" finally drove me over the edge to try directly to find out 
what people mean by this phrase, starting with an interpretation of what I 
thought they might mean.  The first replies said "yes that is approximately 
what we mean", but all subsequent replies which have contained any details 
have led me to suspect that what they mean is a lot more complicated than 
what I suggested.  The amount of work involved for an employer in making up 
a pay cheque in my original proposal would be something as simple as "here 
is the total amount, we give 60% to the employee and 40% to the 
government".  It doesn't sound that complicated to me, but then what do I 
know?  How about if we forget about my proposal.  What I would really like 
to see is details from someone who supports the idea and who presumably 
knows what they are talking about.  The vagueness of the discussions so 
far still hasn't gotten me anywhere.
   

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

  FOR RENT - signature file space
             (reasonable rates)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 18 DEC 92 14:40:04 GMT

In a previous article, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) wrote:
>Just for thought:
> 
>In Canada, if you kill a baby 1 hour *before *it's born, and the 
>mother approves, it's called an abortion.

Can you name me one single case where someone did this?  I don't believe this 
sort of thing happens.  It's not called abortion, it's called fantasy.

>In Canada, if you kill a baby 1 hour *after* it's born, and the
>mother approves, it's called murder.
> 
>There is no fundamental physical differences between the babies in the
>two cases.

In the first case the "baby" is inside a woman's body.  In the second case it 
isn't.

				.... Heather.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9561 can.politics:10964 talk.abortion:52515 talk.politics.animals:10470
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:15:08 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <1h2hnhINN6jt@agate.berkeley.edu> delorme@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lisa DeLorme) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.164006.27083@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>
>> I've known quite a lot of mothers over the years.
>>None of them ever died in childbirth.
>
>Sorry, anecdotal argument just does not cut it. Let me give you an example:
>I know many residents of Oakland, California, none of them have ever been 
>murdered, therefore, this talk of record murder rates this year must be
>non-sense.
>
>See what I mean?

But the POINT is, how are the "statistics" relevant to actual decision
making?

In Oakland, the murder rates may be at record levels, but if the rate
is low enough, then the fact of the rate being at a "record high"
isn't the most important datum when weighed against other
considerations when deciding whether or not to live there.

In practice, the "mugging rate" is probably more important to the
average person on the street than the "murder rate," since that's much
more likely to affect him/her.

Murder rates in Ottawa are pretty much at a "historic high".  Since it
has only a tiny proportionate effect on the population at large, most
people don't consider it a particularly important factor in the
running of their lives.

In criticizing my "anecdote," you seem to be criticize my (admittedly
weak) attempt to use statistics.  My "mother count" isn't enormous on
a national scale, but there is at least a LITTLE statistical validity
to a sample size of about a 100.  After all, statistics are
essentially a scientific way of evaluating "anecdotal evidence."

I'm afraid I don't have any national statistics on the rates of
death/serious impairment resulting from pregnancy.  If you have some
specific numbers, I'd welcome hearing them.

What I object to is the idea of trying to make policy based primarily
on the existence (as opposed to the existence AND prevalance) of
events that are unusual and rare.  This does seem to be the case for
death at childbirth.  The recent post that described a large number of
"dangers" of pregnancy did not provide any context for the use of the
information by presenting the prevalance of the various problems.

Had it presented the likelihood of some of those problems, it might be
useful in determining whether to have children or not.  Outside of
that context, it represents little better than propaganda.

-- 
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