Conference 7.286::digital

    How about someone entering the article, or at least the highlights, for
    those remote individuals without access to the illustrious GLOBE?

    Here's the article from today's Boston Globe:
    
    Supporters of the November graduated income tax ballot questions
    yesterday rolled out their first radio advertisements, directly
    targeting Digital Equipment Corp. chief executive Robert Palmer for
    putting corporate funds into defeating the "grad tax."
    
    "One big spender is Robert Palmer.  While his company lost $2 billion
    and is laying off 20,000 workers, he's spending corporate funds to help
    his own bottom line," the Campaign for Guaranteed Tax Relief says in
    the first of four ads that will go after prominent Bay State chief
    executives by name.
    
    The 60-second spt starts Monday and will run all week in a media blitz
    that cost $12,000 to $15,000, sponsors said.
    
    Digital spokeman Dan Kaferle denounced the ads as "falsehoods and wild
    distortions....To reduce the debate on an important issue such as the
    graduated income tax to this type of vicious peronal attack is gutter
    politics at its worst."
    
    "Digital is opposed to the provisions because they are bad for the
    state and bad for the economy," Kaferle said.  DEC officials would not
    say how much they are donating to the campaign to defeat the grad tax.
    
    James Braude, chief sponsor of the graduated income tax questions, said
    his group will make a big issue of the use of corporate funds to thwart
    tax relief for the companies' employees and shareholders.
    
    Ballot questions 6 and 7, which establish a graduated income tax and
    set rates, would replace the current 5.95 percent tax on earned inocme
    and 12 percent tax on unearned income with three rates -- 5.5, 8.8 and
    9.8 percent -- with wealthier taxpayers paying at the higher marginal
    rates.
    
    Braude's group also torments Palmer in a recorded message on its
    24-hour 800-number telephone hotline, presenting a made-up conversation
    between actors portraying a greedy and befuddled Palmer and his
    assistant over the merits of the grad tax.

    How is the graduated income tax bad for Digital or its employees?
    
    I can see how one might assume that Digital is spending corporate funds
    to oppose an initiative because it's bad for Bob...  Very unflattering!

    The graduated income tax is bad for Digital employess because it is a
    wolf in sheep's clothing.
    
    Jim Braude of TEAM, the primary proponent of the Grad Tax is one of the
    most devious figures in the history of Massachusetts and thats saying a
    lot given some of the character we've seen in Mass.

    I don't know about the company spending money campaigning against it
    given the state of Digital's finances, but I do think they are taking
    the right side of the issue.  This proposal has been defeated several
    times in the past.  We have enough trouble trying to stem the "brain
    drain" around here, between layoffs and people fleeing to our
    competition, without raising the income tax even more on the more
    highly-paid and so presumably smarter engineers and managers.
    
    I probably have a chip on my shoulder this week because my group just
    lost yet another really good engineer to a competitor of ours, and
    even though we have signed reqs., we've gotten very, very few resumes
    for them and are having a tough time replacing even the folks we've
    already lost!
    
    /Charlotte
                                                        

    it was reported in the Worcester paper a few weeks ago that there were
    pickets outside of SHR complaining about Palmer's stand against the
    grad. tax.
    
    Proponents generally say that it will lower most people's taxes, only
    the very rich would pay more.  (I suspect that's why Palmer is
    targetted.)
    
    Opponents counter that it will lead to higher taxes for all, and they
    are proposing a flat tax that would limit gov't. growth.  Sorta like
    the 2 1/2 property tax limit.
    
    Mark 

    FYI
    
    I work in Shrewsbury and have seen no such picketers
    
    Don't know enough to agree or disagree, better start reading more
    
    I do think we should rally around Bob though, if he looks bad, we
    look bad, and it sounds like more of a sleazy personal assault on a
    vulnerable individual rather than an attempt to make a valid point.
    
    Jeff
    

    As an outsider looking in, I daresay that the relative benefits of this
    graduated tax scheme would depend upon where the income breaks
    are and what tax bracket the individual forming the opinion is in! :)
    
    As for Bob, I only "rally around" him when I believe in what he is
    doing.  I (personally) think that, given the state of our finances,
    Digital should be keeping its wallet out of politics at this time,
    unless the specific legislation directly involves our business and
    industry, i.e., regulating the industry in some way, or changing tax
    laws to eliminate some essential corporate deduction or something.
    
    Otherwise, I don't appreciate my raise (and several other people's!)
    going to defeat a tax law that *might* or *might not* benefit people
    like me.
    
    M. (who_was_born_and_raised_in_Taxachusetts!)
    

    I got a copy of the paper they were handing out just outside the
    SHR plant about a month ago.
    
    Stop in the office and give it a looksee.  I think he is WAY overpaid
    anyhow, so my opinion is a little 'jaded'........If he wants/needs
    to make a million a year, then let him GO PLAY BASEBALL!
    
    p/t
    

Digital has traditionally been against tax increases of any kind, because
regardless of how they come, they are often BAD for business in some way.

In this particular case, even if this proposal does impact only the "rich",
that will obviously be an impact that affects a portion of our actual and
potential consumer base, and it certainly won't have a positive effect on
our future revenues, particularly at the individual and mom-and-pop consumer
levels (not that we can compete effectively with others yet in this market, 
but this won't make expanding into it any easier).  It will also drive prices,
in general, up for everyone.  One of hundreds of examples - my four children
all now wear or will wear braces.  I can barely afford the cost of these
bloody things now.  The orthodontist makes ~ $ 150,000 a year.  This will
affect him.  He will raise his rates.  I will suffer.

I personally applaud Digital for being proactive and pro-business in politics.
The company can do a heck of a lot more than we as individuals can to stem off
some of this anti-business, anti-capitalism, let's take from the rich and give
to our favorite left-wing pork barrel crap.

Recognize where the liberal politico's in Massachusetts and across the country
stand regarding your opinion - they don't care what you think, even after the
majority of you tell them over and over again at the ballot that you believe
what they want is not good for you.   This is simply dirty politics, and
another example of how this crowd has absolutely no ethics whatsoever when it
comes to getting what they want.  You should all feel insulted that they
believe you are dumb enough to buy this propaganda and be manipulated over
and over again.

John

(who's not rich yet, but when he gets there, would like to have some of the
additional personal revenue to spend since I, and not the government, will
have earned it :-)

    If you look at the proposed rates, it's clear that it's an overall
    tax hike.  Yeah, the lowest rate at 5.5% is a piddling 0.45% lower
    than everyone currently pays, but it jumps up to far higher rates.
    
    I agree with BP that the effect of this tax change will be to drive
    skilled (and therefore reasonably-well paid) workers out of
    Mass., with the side effect of driving companies out too.
    
    The "Guaranteed Tax Relief" is no such thing.  It means significantly
    more revenue for the state - that is until enough people get fed up
    and leave.
    
    New Hampshire would probably love to see it pass.
    
    				Steve

	Why new business is not moving to N.H. in droves still 
	escapes me. (probably property taxes, but hey, I rent!!)

	I still can't figure out why so many companies/jobs are in Mass.

							mike

>Digital has traditionally been against tax increases of any kind, because
>regardless of how they come, they are often BAD for business in some way.

    Well put! After all, it only gives the government more money to
    spend and they will only go off and do stupid things like buy
    computers and services. The fact that the US government is
    Digital's largest customer of course totally irrelevant.
    
    Maybe we should get Palmer to start funding ad campaigns saying
    that we _refuse_ to sell to the government so they _can't_ spend
    the extra money that would come from higher taxes. After all,
    regardless of they come, they are often BAD for business in some
    way.

You actually believe that the folks behind this have spending the additional
tax revenue on computer products and services, purchased from Digital, on
their top ten list ?  NOT !!!

I am not "rich".  I struggle like everyone else.  This proposal would

(a) Increase my state tax between 50% to 75%
(b) regardless of where they put the break points now you KNOW what will 
    happen in (short) time.  Likewise for the rates once this 
    CONSTITUTIONAL roadblock is removed.

My strong advice is KILL it (as politically KILL any politico that voted 
for in it the first place).

Shelly

    Businesses don't move to NH in droves because the state has a
    rather high Business and Profits Tax, though it's probably still
    better than MA.  Lots of companies incorporate in Delaware to get
    favorable tax status.
    
    					Steve

So - those of you who oppose, as I do, the grad tax - what if we all sent
Mr. Palmer and Mr. Kaferle (both at MTS$"MLO::firstname lastname") letters
of support, and volunteered for a TV or radio ad that tracked TEAM's ads
and basically expressed support for the company's position and actions on
this, and personal opposition to the grad tax ?  And who knows, maybe we'd
start something else from this - a publicly visible, rejuvenated team
spirit !

John

    Re: 14
    
    Of course I dont believe that any new tax hike will automatically
    flow to Digital's coffers.
    
    My point is that sweeping generalisations are generatlly inane.
    No new taxes whatever is as probably as brilliant as saying
    new taxes whatever.
    
    Whatever standpoint you take I have serious doubts that Digital
    should be taking money it doesn't have to spend on an ad campaign
    to support whatever position.
    
    re roelof

    	To put it another way, if *no* money were taken in taxes, we could
    not only say goodbye to all the revenue we currently get from the
    public sector directly, we could also say goodbye to all the PC sales
    as games computers to the kids of public employees, the machines that
    process the credit card bills of those employees, ...   Digital's
    revenues would drop dramatically if there were no taxes.  I dispute
    that Digital's management has the information to judge the *right*
    amount of taxes that would suit the company best, so they should keep
    their fingers out.

    
    -.1 is shortsighted.
    
    doubtless the public employees would be better off creating
    wealth instead of consuming it, as would the ordinnary tax
    payer.
    
    

    
>    -.1 is shortsighted.
>    
>    doubtless the public employees would be better off creating
>    wealth instead of consuming it...
    
    So what are you advocating? Voluntary government? No government
    at all? I thought the anarchy movement went the way of the sixties...
    
    An interesting undertone to this thread is the difference between
    the creation of wealth vs the creation of well-being. Economic
    text books theorize and measure wealth not well-being (quality of life).
    
    In my experience, European societies tend to emphasize the well-being
    (quality of life) more than in the US. And conversely, the US tends
    to emphasize wealth more than in Western Europe.
    
    In a nutshell, business is primarily targetted for the creation of
    wealth, government is primarily targetted for the creation of
    well being. Of course, there is a major cross-over between the
    two since you can't have well-being without a certain amount
    of wealth and anybody who has wealth will use (some of) it to 
    create well-being.
   
    I think this is one of the reasons why taxes tend to be higher
    in Western Europe in order to provide more governmental support (nay 
    sayers: read interference) for the creation of well-being.
    
    I think it is also the same reason why you will, for example, see 
    very little inner city ghetto forming and abject poverty compared 
    with the US.
    
    re roelof
       
    
    

    Is it thrue that there is a budget forecasted for founding political 
    campaigns in all the countries where DIGITAL is settled ?
    We also have some tax problem here.

        There's something I'm not clear about here:  is Digital
        spending corporate funds to oppose the graduated income tax
        ballot question (as claimed in the Globe article)? 

        (Or is Bob Palmer opposing it as a private, albeit prominent,
        individual?)

        If the former (spending corporate funds):  would this be the
        same corporation that forbids the use of Digital facilities
        for discussions of the current Digital Credit Union election?

        (Obviously, if the latter, Bob has every right to his opinion
        and to make it known.)

        Bob

    
        Most of this discussion has been "Soapbox" material, where I'm 
        sure the discussion is going on as well.  The real question is: 
        "Should Digital, as a corporation, be spending some of its money 
        on political matters, money that it doesn't seem to have for 
        raises, rewards, benefits, and such".  Last time I checked, we 
        were still losing money and having an indefinite wage freeze. 
    
        That doesn't stop Mr. Palmer, or any of us, as private citizens, 
        expending time, effort and money on whichever side of the question 
        we support.
    
        So let's stop arguing about the merits of the proposed amendments 
        (tempting as it is) and ask whether Digital, as a corporation, 
        should be spending our money there.
    
    
        My direct answer:  NO, we should not be doing that.
    
    
        Peter
    

    Peter:
    
    no such discussion currently in Soapbox.
    
    Ron

    
    graduated  income tax is a mechanism by which MA legislature would
    be able to increase future taxes with ease. Now all tax hikes are
    apporved by both houses of legislature and the Gov. With graduated
    income tax in place, taxes could be increased merely by lowering
    the income threshold and increase taxes without any fanfare.
    
    Graduated income tax is the first step for implementing a tax system
    based upon the liberal concept of fair share tax. Guess who gets to
    decide what the fair share is? 

I think it's in Digital's best interests to oppose regulations and taxation
which would be harmful to it as a corporation.  

				Steve

    The Grad Tax not only changes the state constitution, but it lays the
    foundation for the state to pick us off - tax bracket by tax bracket.
    
    Current Situation:
    
    The state constitution states that there is a flat tax. Every time the
    politicians want to change the tax rate, it requires approval by both
    houses in order to pass. As a result, all citizens in the state get to
    vote on whether or not they want their taxes raised.
    
    With the Grad Tax Passed:
    
    The constitution is changed. Lawmakers get to decide:
    
    	o How many tax brackets there are
    	o What the tax rate in each bracket is
    	o They get to do this without changing the state constitution.
    
    As a result, they could put forth legislation which alters the tax rate
    for individuals earning between 20,000 and 32,000 a year from 7% to
    11.5%. All other tax brackets remain unchanged. The people earning
    between 20 and 32K a year would all be up in arms ... the rest of the
    population would be less concerned because it doesn't affect them.
    
    Next year they go after the 32,000 to 40,000 bracket, and so on. If
    they find there are enough people in a certain tax bracket to create a
    threat, they can just slide the bracket up or down so that the number
    of taxpayers was small enough to ensure passage.
    
    The small business community has already recognized this as being an
    "anti-business" proposal, as do a number of other business leaders. It
    will have a very negative effect on the Massachusetts economy in the
    long run and I don't mind if BP spends a little bit of our corporate
    cash to help defeat this disgusting piece of legislature. The amount
    contributed has not been released, but I doubt we are thowing millions
    of dollars at the issue.
    
    If individuals are interested in helping defeat this, they should
    contact Citizens for Limited Taxation -- I believe they are located in
    Boston.
    
     

    	If the legislation is not clearly discriminatory against Digital
    then it is in Digital's best interests to let other companies fight the
    battle. Unless it is the government's intent to kill the computer
    industry we can only really be harmed with respect to our competition,
    and the more they pay to fight the legislation the better for us.
    
    	No car manufacturer wanted the cost of including seat belts in the
    design stage of a new car, but for most of them it was not a
    competitive disadvantage to be forced to do so.

    What's good for Digital, or any other corporation, is not necessarily
    what's good for everybody else. 
    
    --bonnie

    Any time more money goes into the Government wasteland and out of
    people's pockets it is not good for any company.  Digital should
    fight.  
    
    PS All graduated taxes are unfair to everyone.
    
    Dennis

>                   <<< Note 3371.3 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                                  -< Hmmm... >-

>    How is the graduated income tax bad for Digital or its employees?
    
Because it applies to those who create wealth and jobs - either corporations
or anyone with money.  They leave the state, they shelter their money - anything
to hide it from taxes (as they should).

How many tax 'reforms' will it take for people to figure out that they are 
always tax hikes?  

Anyone who feels that 'descrimination, in any form, is bad', ought to realize 
that graduated taxes are highly descriminatory.  The 'Get the rich' sentiments 
in Washington (and Boston) are class warfare designed to polarize and separate 
society.  So much for peace and harmony....


steve

>>GLDOA::POMEROY

>>    PS All graduated taxes are unfair to everyone.


Shouldn't that read 

All taxes are unfair to everyone.

In the UK, we've had graduated taxes for ages.. the rates are:

25% up to a certain figure (dependant apon Marital Status, etc..)

40% beyond that.

The one time they tried to impliment a flat-rate tax.. (Everyone over
18 paid...) there were riots.


David

    As Steve pointed out in .32. The graduated tax is purposed on a "get
    the rich" mentality, like being industrious and acquiring wealth, the
    american dream?, is evil and bad. The fewer tax brackets AND loopholes,
    the less incentive to "shelter" income. I have used "the system " in
    the past to pay no income taxes. Am I saying this is fair? NO!! I used
    the system that was in place at the time. Had I not used all the
    deductions/loopholes available I would havve paid 42% between state and
    federal taxes. TRhis does not appear to be fair either. With the fewer
    tax brackets and accompanying fewer allowable deductions my taxes have
    been fairer. This does not mean I like them, but if you want government
    services you have to pay for them.
    
    		IHMO
    		Ray

    
    Hmmm...these replies make we wonder how you people feel about the
    graduated U.S. tax (the one you pay every year to the Internal Revenue    
    Service). Would you be happier if Welfare benefits were taxed at the
    same rate as billionaires' earnings?
    
    Maybe we should go back to the days of NO income tax???

> <<< Note 3371.35 by MUZICK::WARNER "It's only work if they make you do it" >>>
                                    -< ??? >-
    
>    Hmmm...these replies make we wonder how you people feel about the
>    graduated U.S. tax (the one you pay every year to the Internal Revenue    
>    Service). 

	Simple - it's unfair.


>    Would you be happier if Welfare benefits were taxed at the
>    same rate as billionaires' earnings?
    
	Why should we discriminate against anyone in this country?  
	Where's the incentive for the economically disadvantaged to move up,
	when they find out they're going to pay big $ in taxes?  And no 
	exclusion for capital gains?  Why invest?  If I thought our corrupt
	government could administer a flat tax, I'd suggest it.  Even a VAT
	has some merit, but it would surely be punitive and misapplied in this 
	country.
	

>    Maybe we should go back to the days of NO income tax???
	
	And virtually no government "services"? - sign me up! ;-)


steve

Re: .35

Welfare benefits aren't taxed at all, as far as I know.

My personal preference would be for a flat federal tax with few, if any,
deductions.  The problem we have now is that our tax structure is being
used as a form of social engineering which is why it's as complicated as
it is.

The US tax rates are much simpler now than they were in years past, though
we've started to add new, higher-rate brackets again.  A graduated tax
system removes incentives to achieve.

					Steve

re: .37

>A graduated tax system removes incentives to achieve.

Yeah, if i had to struggle by on a mere 60% of a $500000 annual income
versus being able to get a much larger 90% of a $20000 income, i'd sure
have no incentive to achieve the higher income! ;^)

But as somebody said, this whole tax discussion belongs in SOAPBOX.  As
for spending Digital money to favor or oppose various proposed laws, i
imagine that's a time-honored tradition of corporations anyhow.  As long
as whatever we spend does not materially impact the bottom line, who cares?

- paul

    again,
    the discussion is should Digital be spending money (that could
    go into your and my pockets) on an ad campaign that does not
    directly affect Digital. And a related question is: _is_
    Digital spending money on this? Facts, anyone?

Re: .39

But it DOES affect Digital.  If the graduated tax passes, it will make it
difficult for Digital to recruit or retain employees in Massachusetts.
Now in the current climate one might think Digital would be all for that,
but I imagine BP is a bit more far-sighted than that.  The tax is bad
for business.

					Steve

    the Globe article says that Digital is spending money to defeat the
    grad. tax, but not how much.
    
    Mark

    
    
    
    	The main fear people have with the Graduated Income Tax, is that
    Beacon Hill will be able to raise taxes at will by bumping one bracket
    at a time.
    
    	First it will be the highest bracket, with the rallying cry of,
    "Make the ultra rich pay their fair share." The middle & lower classes
    will won't complain because "It don't effect us!".
    
    	Then the next year they will go after the next tax bracket.
    
    	It is a classic Divide-and-Conquer strategy. And Jim Braude and
    T.E.A.M. are already playing that game with the "Bob Palmer spending
    corporate funds" tactic. 
    
    	Its a red herring, ignore it. Concentrate on the real issue.
    
    	And BTW, Digital as a Massachusetts corporation has as much right
    to attempt to influence public policy as Jim Braude, T.E.A.M. and the
    Public Employee Union (which are major financial contributors to
    T.E.A.M.)!
    
    JimH
                                                                  
                             

>Re: .39
>
>But it DOES affect Digital.  If the graduated tax passes, it will make it
    
    
    I deliberately used the term _directly_ affects Digital. A million
    and one things affect Digital. By the same token, Digital could
    start campaigning against abortion because it reduces the potential
    buyer population - talk about introducing a real rathole...

    (Sorry to take this further down the rathole....)

    RE .42
>        And BTW, Digital as a Massachusetts corporation has as much right
>    to attempt to influence public policy as Jim Braude, T.E.A.M. and the
>    Public Employee Union (which are major financial contributors to
>    T.E.A.M.)!


    I believe there is another question on the Mass ballot which will
    prevent any corporation (perhaps just those registered in Mass) from
    spending any corporate money on political advertising or giving money
    to any political group without a proxy vote of all shareholders. In fact
    I think the question says that a separate proxy is needed each time
    the corporation wants to donate or spend money.

    Can anyone out there confirm or clarify this?

    		Ed_who_escaped_from_Mass_many_years_ago

    RE: .41
    Actually, I believe I read that Digital had spent about $60,000 for
    this.
    
    
    tony

    Reading this string creates the impression that Digital is an,
    exclusively, Massachusetts company.
    
    I'd like to remind us all that this isn't the case.  Digital may have
    its headquarters in Mass. but it operates and pays taxes in many
    countries around the world.
    
    So, please will someone tell us non-Mass employees what the global
    significance is of this tax change.
    
    Once you've answered that question, would you like to comment on the
    concept that "people get the government they deserve", even in
    Massachusetts.

    
    	A question of ethics ?
    
    	Who within the Corporation has the authority to decide what
    political contributions will be made; and how large they will be ????
    
    	When you have this answer surely you then have the right to lobby
    that person with your views as to any such contribution.
    
    	
    	On a personal note ... the moneys I earn for the Corporation I do
    not wish to be used for any foreign political cause.
    
    	
    			Bob

    	
>    On a personal note ... the moneys I earn for the Corporation I do
>    not wish to be used for any foreign political cause.
    
    My sentiments exactly...and from where I stand (ehh, sit) 
    this _is_ a foreign political cause.
    
    re roelof	
    

re: .47,.48

But unfortunately nobody's asking us how we "wish" the moneys to be spent.
Compared to some of the other brainless stuff that we've blown much bigger
bucks on, it seems like a case could be made for spending this money based
on potential impact of tax changes to our bottom line.  We are a multinational
corporation and we probably spend money in numerous countries where our stake
is high enough to influence economic policies that might affect our earnings
(and i'm just talking about the money that is spent LEGALLY).  I may or may
not agree with the cause Digital is promoting/opposing, but it seems defensible.

People usually discuss taxation and nationalistic issues from emotion, bias
or principle (depending on your level of agreement with them ;-)), which in
most cases have nothing to do with operating a business rationally and making
money on a sustained (vs. short-term) basis.  Again: this topic seems better
suited to SOAPBOX, where people can mouth off at will based on emotion etc.

								- paul

    Roelof,
    
    I don't feel that Digital can afford not to be involved in the politics
    of countries that it does business in.  If Digital wishes to continue
    to be a multinational company, then it must be a player in "foreign
    political causes."
    
    Mark

>    Roelof,
>    
>    I don't feel that Digital can afford not to be involved in the politics
>    of countries that it does business in.  If Digital wishes to continue
>    to be a multinational company, then it must be a player in "foreign
>    political causes."
    
    ...which _directly_ affects the company. Note that I don't disagree
    with the above but it must show clear relevance to Digital business
    practices. For example, supposing a decision were made here that
    all computers made by US computer companies with names starting
    with a D had to pay an additional 50% tax then I would absolutely
    support any Digital campaigning.
    
    I agree that any pro/con discussion of the tax issue itself belongs
    in SOAPBOX. Discussion on Digital political campaigning IMHO rightly
    belongs here. My contention is that the tax law does not specifcally
    target Digital business practices and should be as such out of the
    scope of Digital political campaigning.
    
    re roelof

re Note 3371.51 by HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R:

>     My contention is that the tax law does not specifcally
>     target Digital business practices and should be as such out of the
>     scope of Digital political campaigning.
  
        It makes it harder to attract and keep highly-paid vice
        presidents.

        Bob

    
    My point is simple (rather like me)  are we an Electronic Company or a
    Political Party in whatever country.
    
    How would we feel if Clinton or Major or some other politician publicly
    said we don't like ********  Corporation so we are campaigning
    to stop you the public buying their product and will use Political funds 
    to acheive this aim.
    
    

    you are naive to believe that there can be such a separation.  I would
    not wish to restrict the Company's leaders from lobbying in this way,
    whether in the Commonwealth of Mass. or in other "foreign" places.
    
    Mark

In the course of an eleven year sojourn with Raytheon I received several
printed brochures from Corporate that were intended to influence my vote.
As I recall, though, they were always in reference to National elections.

Art

    	In Chile, ITT owned the PTT, which was not only valuable in itself,
    but gave them a vote on CCITT committees as a national representative.
    
    	There are strong rumours that they used their funds to have the
    democratically elected president assasinated in order to prevent
    nationalisation of the PTT. If so, the use of their money was very 
    effective.
    
    	Even if we accept that use of company funds for this sort of
    purpose is moral, in this case I doubt if the company is getting value
    for money.

    
    re: 3371.53
    
    you obviously are not familiar with the issue or the facts.
    the graduated income tax is a proposition on the MA ballot
    placed there by a group of people who support more government
    spending. it has nothing to do with local/state/federal govt.
    if approved by the voters, the change will be incorporated in
    the state constitution. essentially, it is one group of people
    (mostly state government employees union) for graduated tax
    versus an opposing group of people (mostly business groups
    including Digital) and has nothing to do with governement. 
    your example of Clinton or Majors is way off.

RE: -.1 and other previous replys:

I think anyone who reads this notes string can become very familiar with the
pros and cons of this issue, and it appears to me that the facts (never mind
the socio-political commentary I entered earlier, which in my mind is fact but
debatable) are - THIS WILL BENEFIT NO ONE ON THE HOOK TO PAY TAXES in the state
of Massachusetts, sooner or later. 

There were several replies that pointed something important out that many
others who I talk to also pointed out - a fundamental tactic being used here is
divide and conquer - them (or in this case him) vs. you.  It's a classic lefty
tactic.  Baloney !  Don't buy it.  It won't do our company or us as individuals
any good, and it is basically PROPAGANDA !

A side comment - why don't we in Massachusetts continue to pursue Weld's idea
of privatizing government services, and take it one step further - vote to get
direct government involvement out of anything that's not virtually unanimous at
the ballot and instead - those who believe in the particular issue requiring
funding can organize/contribute to resolving that issue on a private level ? 

Another side comment - if the "goverment" is going to spend money on computing
capbility - then why the @#$@U#$ can't I dial directly in, through a toll-free
800 number, and vote, either by voice or through PC client software, on the
various issues that congress is considering.  The technology is there, pretty
inexpensive, relatively speaking.  Is someone afraid that the American public,
and in particular the supposed silent marjority will speak up.  Sorry, I
digressed, and advocated something productive and neutral that might require
tax dollars.  Let's bring political decisions back to the people who pay for
them in hard-earned tax $ ! 

A final comment - I personally oppose this graduated income tax proposal.
This is not Digital talking, this is me.  I am not rich, I am a working
schmuck.  I voted against this already, and if it comes up for vote again,
as others have pointed out, I will more than likely vote with my feet, and
move somewhere else.  Is that clear enough ?

Regards,

John (who believes that anyone who says that this issue should be moved
to another conference is at best a little too bureacratic, and at worst could
be trying to subvert dissenting opinions through banishment - and that would not
be a very good sign at all - this is an issue that could impact Digital as a
whole :-).

re .55  At a company like Raytheon I'd think they always wanted you to vote
	for the most defense consious candidates.  IMO there's nothing wrong
	with an attempt at self-preservation.
	
	Not to sound cliche but I'm thankful we're not getting all the 
	government we're paying for...
	
Scott

    ...two issues constantly intertwine.       
    
    Issue (1) is: ;are you for or against a graduated income tax
    ballot which apparently is under discussion in the state of MA.
    Now personally, I don't live now in MA., I probably won't ever
    live in MA. and as such I don't have an opinion one way or the other,
    other people may have and that's great for them. My slant is that
    this issue, along with American Pie and Motherhood are more suited
    to SOAPBOX but that doesn't mean to say that if some people feel the
    need to expound on it (or American Pie or Motherhood) here. Well...expound.
    
    Issue (2) is the one that I'm far more interested in and that is
    under what circumstances should corporate officers be spending
    corporate funds for political purposes. Now, note, we're NOT talking
    personal lobbying here or private donations we're talking about taking
    _corporate funds_ to pursue political goals which may or may not
    be helpful to Digital.
    
    My point is (and I'm running the risk of repetition) is that this
    area is fraught with risk and if you're not extremely cautious
    you open yourself to attack either in terms of mixing personal
    and corporate gain or in terms of trying to subvert the political
    process. My criteria would be that a corporate officer should be
    prepared to back any donation with an argument how it directly
    affects business interests and not just how it _could_ affect Digitals
    interests. The separation is therefor not one of metriculation but
    of intent. 
    
    If the corporate officers don't do this then they expose themselves
    to attack. That this isn't a theoretical expose is proved by the
    very fact how this string started in the first place: an article
    in the Boston Globe. In this case, the corporate officers (or
    their friends) stand to personally benefit from a political stand
    which is being funded by corporate funds. 
    
    It indicates political naiveness at best no to expect to be attacked
    and when you are there's no way you can take the high ground
    on this. Just look at Digital's reactions to the allegations:
    "gutter politics at its worst" and you can see that the company
    has been forced into the defensive. 
    
    Of course it is gutter politics at its worst, and my point is that 
    Palmer should have had the good sense not to get into the gutter in 
    the first place and certainly his political advisors (if he has any) 
    should have warned him. 
    
    By supporting a position _using corporate funds_ - once again, I'm not
    talking about personal lobbying or private donations here, Palmer 
    has just as much right to freedom of speech as you or I - where he 
    (and/or his friends) stand to gain personally he has opened himself to 
    attack. Subsequently he _is_ attacked. And I guess that we can now 
    all stand around, wring our hands, and moan what a bad place the world 
    is that it would actually dare question the noble motives of the 
    corporate officers.
    
    re roelof
    
    Again here's the article in the Boston Globe, if you read it in
    the light of the discussion that has taken place then it becomes
    an interesting commentary on the political process. A sort of
    Politics 101 :-)
    
    
    "Supporters of the November graduated income tax ballot questions
    yesterday rolled out their first radio advertisements, directly
    targeting Digital Equipment Corp. chief executive Robert Palmer for
    putting corporate funds into defeating the "grad tax."
    
    "One big spender is Robert Palmer.  While his company lost $2 billion
    and is laying off 20,000 workers, he's spending corporate funds to help
    his own bottom line," the Campaign for Guaranteed Tax Relief says in
    the first of four ads that will go after prominent Bay State chief
    executives by name.
    
    The 60-second spt starts Monday and will run all week in a media blitz
    that cost $12,000 to $15,000, sponsors said.
    
    Digital spokeman Dan Kaferle denounced the ads as "falsehoods and wild
    distortions....To reduce the debate on an important issue such as the
    graduated income tax to this type of vicious peronal attack is gutter
    politics at its worst."
    
    "Digital is opposed to the provisions because they are bad for the
    state and bad for the economy," Kaferle said.  DEC officials would not
    say how much they are donating to the campaign to defeat the grad tax.
    
    James Braude, chief sponsor of the graduated income tax questions, said
    his group will make a big issue of the use of corporate funds to thwart
    tax relief for the companies' employees and shareholders.
    
    Ballot questions 6 and 7, which establish a graduated income tax and
    set rates, would replace the current 5.95 percent tax on earned inocme
    and 12 percent tax on unearned income with three rates -- 5.5, 8.8 and
    9.8 percent -- with wealthier taxpayers paying at the higher marginal
    rates.
    
    Braude's group also torments Palmer in a recorded message on its
    24-hour 800-number telephone hotline, presenting a made-up conversation
    between actors portraying a greedy and befuddled Palmer and his
    assistant over the merits of the grad tax."

    I'll be 54 years old next month.  I moved to MA in 1989.  Before moving
    here I had NEVER paid a State Income tax... I'd lived in Texas for 20
    years and in California before that... and there was no state income
    tax in either place (though, obviously, there is now one in Calif)
    After moving to MA I immediately wondered "what do the residents of
    this state actually GET for having to pay this tax, that the residents
    of Texas do NOT have?"  My conclusion is this: They get a BIG STATE
    GOVERNMENT.  And that is all.  (Even Texas' is too big... but on a
    per/capita basis is FAR smaller than MA.  Why, even Calif. has a
    smaller state government per/capita)
    
    So, no surprise here... I am AGAINST ANY STATE income tax!  
    
    tony

    	How do these contributions fit in with the Company policy on
    cutting expense or Revenue generation ???????
    

Folks, like it or not, there are a lot of people in Massachusetts who are in
favor of the graduated tax, and a bunch of them work for Digital.  This means
the company is spending money to defeat a proposal that is supported by a bunch
of its own employees.

The statement that a graduated tax will make it harder to attract and retain
employees of various types is debatable.  Proponents of the proposal state that
it is revenue neutral and a tax break for the middle class, which is an
attraction.  If you choose not to believe that, fine, but that doesn't mean
that nobody can believe that.  Then there are a bunch of people who LIKE the
idea of a graduated income tax, and would find that concept itself an
attraction.  You may not like the idea, but that doesn't mean everybody feels
that way.  (We're talking about Massachusetts, McGovern's state in '72.)

The proposal does not affect Digital as a company, it only affects people
employed by Digital in its largest area.  Digital came out in favor of NAFTA,
and certainly there are people who work for Digital who opposed NAFTA, but
NAFTA does directly affect Digital, so I personally consider the position
reasonable.  So would a position by Raytheon on defense funding.  The grad tax
is another matter.

How would you like it if Digital came out in FAVOR of the grad tax, on the
grounds of a tax break for the majority of its employees?  How about a position
on gun control, or on abortion, or on education funding, on the grounds of
maintaining an ability to attract and retain employees in Massachusetts?  What
if the company position was antithetical to yours?  Would you defend its right
to support that side of the issue?

						Brian

    
        Re:  .63
    
        Thanks for a most sensible note, to the point in question, 
        cogently argued, well-presented.  Truly an uncommon application 
        of common sense.
    
        Peter
    

    I agree with those that say the debate here should be about whether
    Digital should spend its money on political campaigns.

    I say Digital management has the right to spend money any way they
    want. This includes spending it trying to promote or defeat any
    political issue they choose. It is always possible for shareholders
    to prevent such spending. If there is enough input from shareholders
    about such spending, the board of directors can always stop it.

    As a shareholder, I support managements attempt to defeat this question.

    What I find more interesting is that the press and others jump on
    Palmer for spending company funds to defeat a question whose passage
    will cost them personally. Why isn't there any mention of the public
    service union officers who are spending union funds trying to pass
    the same question when the passage of that question could lead to
    more money for those same union officers?

    					Ed    

Excerpted from note .2:
    
>    Ballot questions 6 and 7, which establish a graduated income tax and
>    set rates, would replace the current 5.95 percent tax on earned inocme
>    and 12 percent tax on unearned income with three rates -- 5.5, 8.8 and
>    9.8 percent -- with wealthier taxpayers paying at the higher marginal
>    rates.
    
Now if that doesn't sound like the clincher "...with wealthier taxpayers paying 
at the higher marginal rates".  Who are the big losers here?  The _wealthier_ 
BP, board of directors members, higher level execs, etc.....  Fight it (higher 
taxes) with all your heart Mr. Palmer and company!

"TAXachussettes" indeed.  All of America, and the world for that matter, have 
the right to fight to keep the larger part of their income.  Yes, even the 
wealthier; because without the wealthy, there would be no venture capatalists 
and entreprenuers creating *_meaninful_*, good-paying jobs.  The alternative 
option is Russia's older model:

		Pretend to pay the workers for government-created jobs
		and the workers will pretend to work.  But then everyone
		will be "equal" (yeh, right!).

Now his use of corporate funds to fight for a personal gain??  I'm not sure 
anyone could prove or disprove that he is indeed thinking of his own, and rich 
friends', self interests.

For a state that boasts as the home of the Kennedy clan, a state that carried 
McGovern, and let Dukakis run amok entirely too long, I'm not sure that a 
majority of Mass residents (if the majority would favor such a tax structure) 
speak for a sound cross-section of America.  Anyone favoring such a gratuated 
tax structure is prematurely writing themselves off as never being able to be 
in a higher tax bracket in the future.  If a majority of digital employees in
Mass. favor this, I could understand, because our (all too often) pay freezes
paint a bleak picture of ever having a *chance* of getting into that higher
tax bracket.  Even without the pay freezes, remaining a "worker bee" at any 
corporation limits your propensity to earn a 6 or 7-figure paycheck.

I'm glad the proposition is only in Mass (this time) where the "taxation
without representation" originated.  I believe that it could be again fought 
under "...without proper representation..."

Political commentary over...
                                                                    

    questions:
    
    who are the "wealthy"?  where do you make the cross-over from one rate
    (say 5.5% to the higher 8.8% and then to 9.8% (if those are actually
    the rates))?
    
    second question... under whose authority, and under what circumstances
    would the "state" be able to merely adjust the cross-over points? 
    could they not "up" the revenue targets by easily (and frequently)
    LOWERING the cross-over points?
    
    tony

re: .-1

(These aren't necessarily authoritative answers, but . . . )

>    who are the "wealthy"?  where do you make the cross-over from one rate
>    (say 5.5% to the higher 8.8% and then to 9.8% (if those are actually
>    the rates))?

Radio commercials claim that "a family making less than $102K per year will
pay less". I'd assume that's the critical cutoff.
    
>    could they not "up" the revenue targets by easily (and frequently)
>    LOWERING the cross-over points?

Bingo!

I haven't any opposition to DIGITAL opposing this tax measure, but I question
whether or not it's a wise use of our already limited funds. The recent WSJ
article questioning some of the moves we've been making lately doesn't set
any better in light of this expenditure, not to mention which, I'd think
we could get a whole lot more benefit by trying to convince employees to
vote against the measure than by shuttling dollars off to some PAC.

-Jack

    	In the two states in which I have worked (U.K. and France) there
    has always been graduated income tax for as long as I can remember.
    At one time the top band in the U.K. was 80% - Bob would have seen only
    20% of his pay rise, and the government the other 80%.
    
    	As far as taxes are concerned, governments are elected on two
    points:
    1) What level and type of service do you as a voter want them to
    provide? Do you want more or less money spent on roads? hospitals?
    military weapons? ...   This determines the total amount of money the
    government has to raise.
    
    2) Given that they have this amount of money to raise, should it come
    from the lottery, land taxes, income taxes, ...  The amount has been
    fixed, now we have to see who pays.
    
    	During the  time I have been in France my tax has gone up, and then
    down again. It went up when the percentage tax on the higher band that
    I was paying was increased by one government, and then it went down
    when a later government increased the boundaries for that higher band
    so I was no longer paying tax in that band at all. The net result is
    that with inflation adjustment I am probably paying less tax than 10
    years ago. The graduated tax just gives the government a little more
    flexibility on from whom it raises its money.
    
    	If you voted for a party that promised to only use the state
    lottery for taxes then it would only be inveterate gamblers that paid
    tax. If it was all on sales tax then people who lived frugally for
    years and then moved abroad with their savings would pay little while
    inveterate spenders would bear the brunt of the tax. Inflation of the
    currency is the way a government taxes savings usually....
    
    	When you vote it is a two-dimensional decision, first how much tax,
    and then from whom.
    
    	From my position as an employee I am not interested in whether
    jobs move out of Massachussets. It might mean more work and people
    in Valbonne, though I doubt this would be the effect. From my position as
    a shareholder I object to my money being spent in this way and my
    guess is that the majority shareholders are no more keen than me -
    aren't they mostly New York banks and trust funds? Why would they be
    interested in a Massachussets income tax law?

re Note 3371.69 by PASTIS::MONAHAN:

        You're being far too rational for this debate -- such an
        approach is seldom effective in current U.S. and
        Massachusetts politics.

        (After all, how could someone associate a ballot question
        with "taxation without representation" -- but a recent note
        did just that!)

        Bob

    As further support to .70's contention:

        At the same time that there are two ballot questions relating 
        to a graduated STATE income tax in MA, there's a candidate for 
        the position of U.S. Senator from Massachussetts who is 
        promising to push for a flat FEDERAL income tax, if elected.  

    See personal name above.

    According to WBUR, Digital contributed $50K.
    
    				Steve

    A more recent Globe article pointed out that the unions spending money
    for political causes do so after a vote of their membership.
    (That is what a union spokesman said, anyway.)
    
    Corporations spend money on political causes _without_ any stockholder
    vote. 
    
    If I were given a chance to vote whether or not Digital should spend
    money on this cause, no matter which side, I would vote NO, because of
    the corporation's financial position. (On the other hand, NAFTA
    _directly_ affected Digital's ability to do business in Mexico, and
    this might have been worth the money. I'd have to see an analysis of
    the expected sales in Mexico, though.)
    Note that on the grad tax issue, I don't think Digital should spend
    money FOR EITHER SIDE of the question.

    Would you seriously consider requiring a stockholder vote for $50K?

A few points:

I don't think there is anything improper about Digital contributing money to
oppose the ballot question.  There are plenty of other precedents: a well-known
pizza company contributed money to a pro-life organization some years back; a
well-known ice cream company contributed money to an organization whose sole
purpose is to put my wife's company out of business; a number of companies
contribute to environmental organizations; and so on, I'm sure.

I don't like Digital taking a stand opposite my personal view on the matter;
however, I think I'd rather them quietly contribute a relatively small amount
of money than send a mail message or publication urging Massachusetts employees
to vote against the measure (if I had to choose one option).  (Actually, I'm
not sure whether I'd be more bothered or less bothered if a notice were
distributed explaining the contribution and the company position on the
matter.)

There is another bill that would ban corporate contributions to political
organizations.  If it passes, I believe it would make contributions such as the
50K in question illegal.  (As well as the contributions from the unions.)

Regarding unbalanced coverage: there HAS been coverage of the money spent by
public employee unions, etc., to support the bill.  I've heard about it a few
times on the one radio station I listen to, WBUR.  Why the opponents of the
bill are not making much of an issue out of the contributions, I don't know,
but you certainly can't expect the supporters to point fingers at themselves.
In any event, Digital is not the only company or organization being discussed
regarding contributions to one side or the other in this issue.

						Brian

    Re 68:

    Hi Jack. If they claim that breakeven occurs at 102K, then the
    change in brackets will be quite a bit less. Assuming no deductions,
    and no "unearned - 12%" income, then I think the 8.8% bracket
    would have to start at about 88K for a family. 

    Of course, I suspect the people doing the estimates would assume
    that most families with 102K would have some 12% taxable income.
    This would mean the 8.8% bracket would begin at a lower level.


    re .74

    This is exactly what question 1 on the Mass ballot would require.

    RE .75

>There is another bill that would ban corporate contributions to political
>organizations.  If it passes, I believe it would make contributions such as the
>50K in question illegal.  (As well as the contributions from the unions.)
 
    If you are talking about question 1 then I think you're slightly off.
    First I believe it applies only to corperations. Unions can still give 
    as much as they want (without consulting members). Also, corperations will
    be allowed to give, but they they must first conduct a vote of shareholders.
    


    					Ed    

    Re: .70
    
    Bob,
    
    I want to help you in clarifying your thought in comment to a note I
    posted:
    
    Go back and read your reply and what you replied to (.66).  Contrary to
    popular democratic beliefs, ballot measures are still not necessarily a
    majority of *effected* voters. Especially when taking into consideration the
    (somewhat immeasureable) percentage of citizens whom don't, won't, or
    can't cast a ballot.  The accepted legal, constitutional, and otherwise 
    traditional measurements of whether or not something passes in a vote
    (.50+), or in the House of Representative (.67 I believe), still does
    not speak for the same percentages of the working stiffs that would be
    effected with such a sweeping referrendum.
    
    Although I know we'll never see it in our lifetimes, but to have
    "proper representation" of something affecting so many people, I would
    move to ammend such ballot measures that in order to pass, it would need
    the same percentage as there were those effected by the vote.  That is,
    for something such as this graduated income tax, the passing percentage
    would be a that of the working-aged people or other populus effected
    by the vote (100%) minus the unemployment rate of the state, county, or
    city sponsoring the ballot.  Of course there would be some mathmatical
    adjustments, but the mesaure would have closer to a 75-to-85% of yes 
    votes in order to pass.
    
    This would be a much clearer form of "proper representation", but then
    I've never been too good at "polysci"; besides I'm not too sure our
    U.S. political leaders could handle the math necessary to figure out a
    more viable alternative (other than 50/67%). But I know I wouldn't want my
    future income lowered by the bleeding-heart of the sick, lame, or lazy
    uninformed, or "career unemployeed" citizen that may be the ones voting
    against "what's best" for the working citizen.  Do you?
    
    The bottom line of this conference is whether or not it's "proper" for
    Mr. Palmer to give funds to a political cause.  If it's something like
    this I'd vote "HELL YES!"  If he's only dumping $50K toward it??  It
    could save a citizen at least that much over their working life, not to
    mention what it could save corporations employing those people.  All
    too many people are jumping on the "against-big-corporate-structure"
    band wagon.  The corporations of the world need all the tax breaks a
    government can legally give them.  It's a simple argument: tax them
    more, they'll employ less--pure and simple.
    
    Like the saying goes, "I love my country, I just don't trust it's
    government".
    
    Jesse               

re Note 3371.77 by SWAM1::SEELEY_JE:

        > This would be a much clearer form of "proper representation", 

        I'm pretty sure that those who threw the tea in the harbor
        had a far less complex idea of what was lacking when they
        demanded representation.

        > but then I've never been too good at "polysci"

        OK -- you've convinced me.

        Bob

    Re; .70, .71, etc.
    
    	Very logical, but I fear not what the taxpayer wants to hear 
    	at this time.  I believe the the (ignored) message to Congress 
    	and the Executive has been, "Make the tough choices - you have 
    	the revenue budget (we don't want more taxes), figure out what 
    	services you can afford to provide, and OBTW make sure that 
    	service X is included and issue Y is addressed!"  Sounds a little 
    	like life doesn't it - when was the last time you got a raise 
    	because you wanted a new car or a different house/apartment/abode?
    
    	The real problem (my view) in Mass is that everyone who holds a
    	40 hour a week job is considered "rich".  The attitude of many
    	in the graduated taxes movement is only slightly different
    	than the old socialist credo, "Give according to your abilities,
    	take according to your needs."  It just doesn't sit well in a 
    	system which values and rewards individual contribution (or 
    	maybe we don't anymore).  
    
    	(BTW - IMHO the real losers in the proposed system are married 
    	couples without kids where both hold good jobs.  They obviously
    	don't need all the money they make!)
    
    		Bill
    

    re: .78
    
    Bob,
    
    I believe society would benefit from some constructive commentary
    rather than your personal "notes bashing".  I have seen no sensible
    comments from you on this topic, or in this conference for that matter.
    This conference is filled with literally hundreds of your replies, with
    few-to-none bearing any substance--you must have entirely too much 
    time on your hands.  
    
    It's your type and attitude that toss serious disscussions into rat holes.
    Therefore I'd be more than happy to entertain your comments off-line and
    attempt to logic with you one-on-one.  This would spare the readers of this
    topic any further of your sarcasm, cynacism, rhetoric (your's and
    mine), or otherwise negatively slanted prose.
    
    Best Regards,  Jesse

re Note 3371.80 by SWAM1::SEELEY_JE:

>     This conference is filled with literally hundreds of your replies, with
>     few-to-none bearing any substance--you must have entirely too much 
>     time on your hands.  
  
        You are right on one count -- this note is #500!

        (However, don't be too impressed:  my first was written in
        1985, which amounts to about one note per week.)

        Bob

	The graduated income tax constitutional amendment (Ballot
	Question 6) and the law setting income tax rates (Ballot
	Question 7) are a blank check.  Together, they give the
	Massachusetts legislature the right to dip into our pockets
	whenever it wants and for how much it wants.

	Do you trust Senate President Billy Bulger and his cronies? 
	If you do, vote yes and *everyone* will soon be paying more in
	state income taxes.  If you don't trust them, vote no.

	The proponents of Questions 6 and 7 are very clever with
	their propaganda.  They say that if voters say yes to both,
	state income taxes will immediately go down for 92% of taxpayers.
	I have no reason to doubt this.  What the proponents do *not*
	say is that the legislature can change the rates *initially*
	set by Question 7.  In other words, Question 7's rates are
	indeed a good deal for almost all taxpayers; it's the *later*
	rates that will eventually negatively affect everyone.  Note
	.28 is worth rereading for more details.

	Personally, I generally support a graduated income tax in
	states that choose to have an income tax.  It's fairer than
	a flat-rate tax.  I even voted for the graduated income tax
	in Massachusetts the last time it was on the ballot (1972?).
	I've changed my mind because I've seen what Billy Bulger and
	his buddies have done to Bay Staters in the last 20 or so
	years.

	The money behind T.E.A.M (Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts?)
	comes largely from public employee unions.  No doubt they see
	passage of Questions 6 and 7 as pouring an unlimited supply of
	water (our taxes!) into a trough that they can drink from for
	their paychecks and pet projects.

	By the way, if you're really interested in the distortions,
	half-truths, and general bullbleep of the pro-6 and -7 folks,
	call their toll-free number.  It's 800-6767-YES and their
	verbal garbage changes almost daily.
	
	Bottom line -- Questions 6 and 7 ask you to trust the
	Massachusetts legislature with your paycheck.  I don't, and
	I'm voting no.

	Marll

	P.S. I think that Digital's spending $50K to defeat Questions
	     6 and 7 is entirely appropriate and in the best long-term
	     interest of all its Massachusetts employees.

    
    MA legislature is in the tank with organized labor. State laws
    require private contractors to pay union established rates even  
    to non-union workers for state projects. usually, these rates are
    1 1/2 or higher than the going rate. an obvious sweetheart deal
    for labor and use of public money to buy union votes.
    
    garduated income is nothing but another tax and spend scheme.
    we need it like a hole in the head.
    
    btw, Digital is among 12 corporations, which includes HP and NYNEX, 
    that contributed 50K for opposing prop 6. few others like Bradlees
    and Stop & Shop cotributed 100K. Digital is part of the MA business
    community and has an obligation to get involved in public policy isues.
    

    I agree that digital should not be spending money in mass
    politics.  The money should be spent moving operations out
    of mass.

    As I've learned more about the proposed grad-tax question, I can see
    Digital's problem.  With an increased tax on six-figure incomes,
    Digital would find it hard to recruit new vice-presidents 8^)

    .86
    Why does this not agree with your opinion of Mitt Romney who has never
    done anything quite as deep as the wild slashing we've seen at Digital?
    
    Typical response.

Tweet!!!!

re: the last two,

Let's keep this Digital related.  Please try and keep your SOAPBOX discussions
in SOAPBOX.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL