Conference back40::soapbox

    
    if grandad was still alive he would tell him, " Steve, you buy
    president's, not run for them"

Well,  he's got a lot of money.  If nothing else,  this makes him harder to
bribe than the run of the mill politico.  I doubt if he will be making
condo deals with ADM.  

A flat tax and social moderation make him appeal to the midstream of
voters.  These issues make him vastly disliked by the real estate industry
and the Radical Religious Right,  respectively.

A major negative to me is he has no experience at governing.  


Phil

>A major negative to me is he has no experience at governing.  

Then again, that might be his strong suit.

    .1 brings up an interesting point.  

    One of the local radio talk show hosts had a segment on yesterday
    morning about whether or not we wanted a president that "bought the
    election" with their own money?  What he forgot to mention was that all
    candidates have to "buy" the election, the question is who's money is
    it.

    Personally, I would rather have a candidate spend their own money to
    "buy the election" than to have another candidate who was bought by
    someone else do a proxy buy of the election.

    -- Dave

A man of unknown leadership ability, no political experience, supporting a 
poorly defined and likely deceiving tax plan explaination, has a good 
campain manager, and lacks any substance in his public persona.

Yuk.

Not a man to be put in this countries highest position of authority.

Doug.

    I think Steve Forbes has some very good ideas, and if he is not savaged
    by the rest of the Republicans he can have areal chance at winning.
    
    I think that the media will start going after him and making a big
    issue out of his finances and start a real class warfare thing going. 
    They, og course, will not bother with any of his ideas other than to
    lambast him for any benefit he may gain.  Now of course, a lot of
    regular folks are going to gain too, but as long as a rich guy like
    Steve Forbes benefits, then it's bad and Forbes is a bad guy.
    
    The media is going to be real interesting to watch on this.  They gave
    Perot a pass since he went after Bush, but Forbes is a mainstream
    Republican and the media will not let that go unchallenged.  And
    actually Forbes has less money than Perot.
    

    .5
    
    Were you talking about our current resident of the White House with
    that reply.  No, couldn't be since you didn't mention crook, morally
    bankrupt and you obviously equate Arkansas to real government
    experience.
    

    
      I don't mind the ideas, either.  But nix to neophytes - run for
     a lower office first.  In DC, they chew up and spit out rookies.
    
      Talk just isn't enough, no matter what is said.
    
      bb

re: Doug

>A man of unknown leadership ability, no political experience, supporting a 
>poorly defined and likely deceiving tax plan explaination, has a good 
>campain manager, and lacks any substance in his public persona.

Actually, regarding the leadership quality, is he not the CEO of a successful
publishing venture?

And, oddly, doesn't that read like a description of Rawss?

    .4
    
    I would prefer that each candidate receive an identical amount of money
    from the fund that you can designate on your tax return, and that no
    candidate be permitted to spend a penny more than that amount.  Let's
    put the election on a level playing field, huh?  As it is, the richest
    candidate stands a good chance of winning simply by virtue of being
    able to pay for more and better mudslinging.

re: ACISS1::ROCUSH

>    Were you talking about our current resident of the White House with
>    that reply.  No, couldn't be since you didn't mention crook, morally
>    bankrupt and you obviously equate Arkansas to real government
>    experience.
 
   No. Clinton had a track record of leadership and public service, however,
   the people, and the press, ignored it. He is still a liar if not
   intentionally than pathelogically, either way he's YUK too.

re:  MOLAR::DELBALSO

>Actually, regarding the leadership quality, is he not the CEO of a successful
>publishing venture?

Running an established business you inherited is nothing like being
the CIC, and leader of the executive branch. Anyone can be successful when
success is handed to them

>And, oddly, doesn't that read like a description of Rawss?

Not at all similar. Ross is a self made man, Steve is living off his fathers
successes. (That doesn't make Ross any more desireable than Steve btw)

Doug.

    RE: .11

    I believe that there currently is a limit on the amount of money that
    the presidential candidates can spend after the primaries?  I vaguely
    remember hearing (NPR?) about how Bush was nominated/accepted his
    nomination shortly after midnight so that the monies spent on the "day"
    he was nominated wouldn't count against the total.  

    The amount spent in the post-primary election is subsidized by the
    feds and the Demoncrat and Replubican candidates have the same amount
    to spend during the general election.

>    Let's put the election on a level playing field, huh? 

    The problem with the government artificially creating (or trying to
    create) a level playing field is that the KKK or neo-nazi's would then
    be able to get as much air time as the Republican and Democrat
    candidate.  I don't think this is what you want.

    A partial solution that has been put in place is limiting the amount
    that an individual can contribute to a campaign (I believe the limit is
    $1000).  The loop-hole was the ability to pool the individual
    contributors money given to a candidate so that a group (PAC) would
    have more influence by donating in one large chunk.  Perhaps PACs
    should be done away with.

    Assuming you do have the feds, and only the feds, finance presidential
    candidates, you still won't have a level playing field.  I can donate
    20 hours of my time working for candidate X but that won't equal to
    even 20 minutes of a big name star working for candidate Y.  No matter
    what you do, you will have inequalities on the playing field.

>    As it is, the richest
>    candidate stands a good chance of winning simply by virtue of being
>    able to pay for more and better mudslinging.

    In California we've had two attempts (and I can only think of one now,
    Huffington) of someone trying to "buy the election."  Both times the
    person was defeated.  Even though a self-financing candidate may have
    more money to spend, people for some reason seem to like candidates
    spending PAC money instead.

    -- Dave

> Anyone can be successful when success is handed to them

Arguable, though not necessarily here.

    When I see his adds, he reminds me of the Staypuff Marshmallow
    figure from Ghost Busters.  When he's smiling he looks demonic, and
    when he's not he looks like a Frosty the Snowman candle that's been
    left in the sun.  He election platform idea is half baked as well.  
    A flat tax is a bit like Family Values; sounds good if you don't 
    look at it too closely.  Although, I'm sure it will appeal to those
    GOPAC poster children who follow the road to frugal self sufficiency,
    unless it effects themselves.

>    When I see his adds ...

    I would think watching anybody doing arithmetic would be boring.

    -- Dave

I can't help but think he is the equivalent of a republican FatBoy Teddy Kennedy
with many of the negative attributes which got Clinton elected.

    A sign of the times I guess. It could cause some division though.

    Z    When I see his adds, he reminds me of the Staypuff Marshmallow
    Z    figure from Ghost Busters.  When he's smiling he looks demonic, and
    Z    when he's not he looks like a Frosty the Snowman candle that's been
    Z    left in the sun. 
    
    Who cares?  The only thing I care about is the substance of his ideas.
    Are you the type of person who thinks the most important thing about a
    marriage is how well the reception went?
    
    -Jack

 I think Steve Forbes is kinda funny looking and I can't imagine electing
 a funny looking guy as president.





 Jim

  .20  yes, i've drawn better looking stick people.

    
    	That's why Ross Perot lost in '92.
    

    
    Ross Perot lost in '92 because Di has drawn better looking stick people?  
    Wow, the things I learn in Soapbox.
                      
    

    
    	Politics is really tricky, Deb.
    

    What percentage is Forbes recommending for the flat tax?
    

    All of us, I think.

>         -< Flat tax could kill folks barely in "middle class" range >-
>
>    What percentage is Forbes recommending for the flat tax?
    
17%... but that is after the personal deductions for yourself, spouse, and
kids...

I would venture to say it'll hurt the richest more, as any loopholes they
currently use will be gone.

For an example of a 17% flat tax (not Forbes', but Dick Armey's which looks
very similar in concept and is also 17%) check out the following www page.
It's got the sample tax return form (it could fit on a postcard):

	    http://www.townhall.com/atr/flatcalc.html

/scott

    
    << Politics is really tricky, Deb.
    
    iffen I were you Shawn, I'd explain it to deb, so that she could
    understand.

>I would venture to say it'll hurt the richest more, as any loopholes they
>currently use will be gone.

Except Forbes' plan doesn't tax unearned income.  Skip and Buffy who live
off the interest and dividends from Daddy's fortune wouldn't pay a penny.

    
    	Mark, it's getting quite monotonous explaining things to Deb.
    	Someone else is going to have to take over for me.
    

    RE: .25

>         -< Flat tax could kill folks barely in "middle class" range >-

    How so?  With Forbes' plan for a family of four, the first $36K
    wouldn't be taxed at all and every dollar above 36K would be taxed at
    17%.  Compare that figure with what is currently being paid to the
    feds.

    The real problem with his plan is that the rate would need to be
    closer to 22%.  Forbes admits that his plan would bring in about $40B
    less than the current plan during its first year.  Some estimates put
    the figure closer to $200B (the $200B figure doesn't account for
    changes to the economy based on the reduced tax).

    RE: .29

>Except Forbes' plan doesn't tax unearned income.  

    The concept is that taxing unearned income is a double taxation.  A
    corporation pay a tax on their profits, distribute the profits to the
    shareholders who then pay a second tax.  The solution to the double
    taxation problem is to either eliminate the corporate tax (political
    suicide) or eliminate the unearned income tax.

    I forgot which conservative commentator made the comment that Forbes
    either has to explain this better (because it isn't a simple concept)
    or scrap the idea.

    -- Dave

Regardless of the unearned income argument, Forbes' version of the flat tax
would totally eliminate all the Federal income tax currently paid directly
by Skip and Buffy, and it wouldn't increase the amount paid indirectly.
So it's incorrect to say it would hurt the rich more than the middle class.
This, of course, assumes that most of the income of the rich is unearned.
I don't know if this is the case.

Since Forbes' tax would also eliminate deductions for mortgage interest
and property tax, it would probably reduce residential property values.
Since it eliminates deductions for charitable contributions, it would
probably reduce them as well.

    
    
    Wait a minute Gerald...
    
    I got a question about this "unearned income" thing...
    
    How is Skippy and Buffy's "allowance" any different than what you give
    your two kids? (begging the obvious assumption...)
    

     RE: .33
       
>    How is Skippy and Buffy's "allowance" any different than what you give
>    your two kids? (begging the obvious assumption...)

    The gist of what Gerald's saying (if I may be so bold) is that daddy
    made a fortune and died.  He left that fortune to two kids who have
    never done an honest days work in their lives and now they get to enjoy
    the interest off the fruits of daddy's labor tax free.

    -- Dave

It's not their allowance.  It's income from their investments.  I don't see
your point.

BTW, my kids are a little young for an allowance (3 and almost 2).

Presumably Daddy paid income tax on it prior to departure?

    
    So?
    
    Wasn't there an inheritance tax involved when he croaked??
    
    

>    Wasn't there an inheritance tax involved when he croaked??
    
I don't know much about estate tax, but I suspect if Daddy was clever, he
would have avoided it.  I also suspect that Forbes is opposed to estate taxes.

    
    re: .35
    
    > It's income from their investments.
    
    Sorry Gerald... I guess I missed seeing that in your reply...
    

    RE: .32

>This, of course, assumes that most of the income of the rich is unearned.
>I don't know if this is the case.

    Of course the big loser in a flat tax will be the H.R. Blocks of the
    world.  

    Throwing numbers into the mix, for the 1994 tax year:

                     Taxpayers with                Net Capital Gains
      Income         Capital Gains           Amount          Average Gain
      Bracket       Number      %           ($ bil.)    %    per return
    -----------    ----------  -----        --------   ---   ------------
    $  0K-$ 30K    2,707,000   34.6            $9.2    9.2     $3,399
    $  30-$ 50     1,486,000   19.0             6.9    6.8      4,643
    $  50-$ 75     1,425,000   18.2             8.4    8.4      5,895
    $  75-$100       814,000   10.4             7.5    7.5      9,214
    $ 100-$200K      898,000   11.5            15.0   15.0     16,703
    over $200K       502,000    6.4            53.1   53.0    105,777
    -----------    ----------  -----        --------   ---   ---------
    Total          7,832,000  100.0          $100.1  100.0%    12,781

    Source:  IRS, as reported in National Review, January 29, 1996, page 16.

Do you have any figures on other unearned income like interest and dividends?

>    Of course the big loser in a flat tax will be the H.R. Blocks of the
>    world.  

And, hopefully, the IRS. Personally, I think a flat tax is a great way
to expedite the gutting of a bloated, oppressive Federal agency.

>    Throwing numbers into the mix, for the 1994 tax year:
>
>                     Taxpayers with                Net Capital Gains
>      Income         Capital Gains           Amount          Average Gain
>      Bracket       Number      %           ($ bil.)    %    per return
>    -----------    ----------  -----        --------   ---   ------------
>    $  0K-$ 30K    2,707,000   34.6            $9.2    9.2     $3,399
>    $  30-$ 50     1,486,000   19.0             6.9    6.8      4,643
>    $  50-$ 75     1,425,000   18.2             8.4    8.4      5,895
>    $  75-$100       814,000   10.4             7.5    7.5      9,214
>    $ 100-$200K      898,000   11.5            15.0   15.0     16,703
>    over $200K       502,000    6.4            53.1   53.0    105,777
>    -----------    ----------  -----        --------   ---   ---------
>    Total          7,832,000  100.0          $100.1  100.0%    12,781
>
>    Source:  IRS, as reported in National Review, January 29, 1996, page 16.

This is a superb example of misleading statistics.  At first glance, the
average family in the 0-30K bracket had a capital gain of $3,399.  Of course,
most people in this bracket don't own any equities or real estate, so that's
impossible.  What it really means is that of the few people in that bracket
who had capital gains (2,707,000 out of how many?), the average was $3,399.

    RE: .41

>Do you have any figures on other unearned income like interest and dividends?

    Unfortunately, I don't.

    RE: .43

>This is a superb example of misleading statistics.

    Assuming that your assumption is is correct, then it is misleading only
    in that the one column could use a longer label.  I'll admit that I'm
    not sure whether your interpretation is correct or not.  Before she
    kicked the bucket, my grandmother's taxable income was between $20 and
    $30K.  Nearly all of it was from capital gains.  However, I think
    you're probably right.  The "average gain of return" probably should
    read "average gain of return for returns containing capital gains".

>What it really means is that of the few people in that bracket
>who had capital gains (2,707,000 out of how many?), the average was $3,399.

    Actually, you're misreading the chart even more than you think; small
    nit, where you say "of the few [sic] people", "people" should read
    "returns".  An individual return may represent more than one person.

    -- Dave

    re a few back
    >Steve Forbes is an outsider
    
    BINGO!
    
    that's why i am going to vote for him! i just don't have any faith on
    the "insiders" who beleive that the way to run a government is to shut
    it down for weeks on end.
    

    >I'll admit that I'm not sure whether your interpretation is correct 
    >or not.  
    
     Of course it's correct. It seems completely straightforward to me- and
    not at all misleading.

    Forbes is against the estate tax.  I am too though I do not have a
    stake in a $1.5bil inheritance to worry about :-/.

    He did a pretty good job on Nightline last night!

    I think the first thing that has to be considered in any tax plan, and
    I am not 100% behind a flat tax since it is subject to change at will,
    is that we must start from the point that any tax revenues to the
    government come from my hard work.  That being the case then before the
    government can take the first penny of my labor they need to have an
    overwhelmingly justifiable case to take my money.  So whether the rate
    is 1% or 50%, it is my money and no one has any right to it but me.  If
    the government wants to spend money they need to justify it and explain
    why I need to be an indentured servant to the government  as opposed to
    working for my future and that of my family.
    
    Also, this whole argument about unearned income is ridiculous. 
    Opponents love to play class warfare and talk about the the heirs of
    truly wealthy people who make their money off of investments as opposed
    to going to work every day.  Well the simple fact of the matter is is
    that there are very few people who fit into this category.  The reality
    is that the majority of everyday folks would gain tremedously by this. 
    Anyone who puts money away will benefit by not having the income from
    their investments taxed.  As was stated earlier, the government gets to
    double dip on investment or intrest income.  First they tax the
    organization that pays the interest and then taxes the recipient. 
    Those who are trying to take responsibility for their future apparently
    to our liberal friends here are terrible folks.  I do not want to ever
    take a $ from the government and am working as hard as I can to prepare
    my own retirement fund.  It would seem to me that if I can get a return
    that builds that fund faster and larger, and remains untaxed, then I
    will not be dependent on the government.  This is not what the
    Democrats and other liberal control types want.  They do not want a
    population that is independent and self-reliant, they want a group that
    needs the government every step of their life.
    
    I'm not sure Steve Forbes is the best candidate for President, but so
    far he is head and sholders above Clinton and most of the other
    Republicans.
    
    The envy and class warfare is the only thing that limits a rational
    discussion of a better tax system.
    

    .19
    
    <<The only thing I care about is the substance of his ideas.>>
    
    I don't usually care what the candidate looks like but Forbes goes
    beyond the limit.  Each time I see his adds I expect him to whip
    off his latex mask and say "Aha!".  How can you take something
    seriously when the messenger makes you laugh before he's even said
    anything.  To a certain extent, yes, looks do matter.  If I find
    him a hoot then the president of France, Germany, UK and Russia 
    probably would as well, and the Middle East would crack their sides
    every timee he opened his mouth.  Apart from that, the flat tax idea as he
    proposes it is the biggest hoot of all.

    .45
    
    Why would you have more faith in an inept amature than an inept
    professional?    

    >> The envy and class warfare is the only thing that limits a rational
    >> discussion of a better tax system.
    
    You've got that right, and beyond that, class envy seems to be
    an issue concerning Forbes' acceptance at all.  I was fairly stunned
    to hear someone (the names will be changed to protect the guilty)
    a few days ago snarl "He's a rich man, with a rich man's ideas!"
    
    Wow.  Just when you think you know someone... :-)
    
    Chris

    
      I completely disagree with Jack Martin.  I barely care any more
     what a prex candidate says he believes.  The key question for this
     unique office is, "What have you done."  Talk is cheap.
    
      bb

>    anything.  To a certain extent, yes, looks do matter.  If I find
>    him a hoot then the president of France, Germany, UK and Russia 
>    probably would as well, and the Middle East would crack their sides
>    every timee he opened his mouth.

Two words: Warren Christopher.

.53 has it exactly correct.

	Like Kennedy, he inheritted his wealth and position in life (he did not
   earn it). Like Kennedy, he is above any effects his tax plans (or any other
  position) might have. 

  Is he a patriot running for president with a goal of fixing what's broken? or
  a millionaire able to win the post by destroying the competition rather than
  debating the issues. Has he talked about any other issue besides taxes?

  Does he have any qualification in foreign policy or the military to justify
  his position as CIC?

  Least qualified of the bunch I think.

  Doug.
   

    
    " To a certain extent, yes, looks do matter. "
    
    A sad but true reflection of our times, perhaps explaining the
    the Clinton presidency.

>> 632.50 by TOOK::GASKELL 

>>  Each time I see his [ads] I expect him to whip
>>  off his latex mask and say "Aha!".  

	aagagagagag!  i know exactly what you mean. ;>

    
>    A sad but true reflection of our times, perhaps explaining the
>    the Clinton presidency.

	ngah.  you think he's good looking??  eesh.

    
    
    >>    A sad but true reflection of our times, perhaps explaining the
    >>    the Clinton presidency.
    
     >       ngah.  you think he's good looking??  eesh.
    
    	NO! I think you're good looking.
    
        Forbes is one strange looking person, no doubt about that. 
    	It just doesn't affect my decision when voting.
    
    					Hank

>    	It just doesn't affect my decision when voting.

	neither does it mine, my dear.

    >> A sad but true reflection of our times, perhaps explaining the
    >> the Clinton presidency.
    
    Absolutely; look at the gender split in the '92 election.
    Perot didn't elect Clinton, folks... women did.
    
    
    >> Two words: Warren Christopher
    
    I'd bet that Pixar could do a lot for Warren Christopher.  Increase
    the number of animation control variables, do some surface smoothing,
    yes... maybe even a few blinking lights like the ones on Buzz, just
    to let us know he's functioning.
    
    Chris

    
    >Perot didn't elect Clinton, folks... women did.
    
    Now wait...wait...wait.  You can't say that women only voted for
    Clinton because they think he's good looking, that's ridiculous and
    insulting.                                   
    
    If I remember correctly, women are more likely to be democrats than
    republican.  Right?  So more vote democrat.
        

            |Absolutely; look at the gender split in the '92 election.
            |Perot didn't elect Clinton, folks... women did.
    
            and that's precisely why i'm for taking the vote away
            from women.  let's face it - they're shallow and they
            don't know what the real issues are.  voting is 
            strictly a hormonal thing for them.

    >                -< Many women think Slick is a "hunk" >-
    
     He really needs a nose job. He's starting to Pinocchio.

    Jimmah Carter ran on the theme that he was not a Washington insider;
    what did he accomplish WHILE he was president?
    

    re: .62, .63
    
    Obviously not all women voted for Clinton, and not all who did
    vote for Clinton voted for him because of his "looks", but if
    you look at the numbers, a substantially higher percentage of
    women voted for Clinton than men.  Many exit polls and analyses
    at the time reported that many thought he "looked presidential".
    
    I don't care, myself, but the numbers and the interviews speak for
    themselves.  Looks do matter, which was the point.  They don't
    matter to everybody, but they do matter.  If a women was running
    for president, you can also rest assured that many men would be
    evaluating her appearance.  Fact of life, like it or no.
    
    Chris

If the past is any indication, it doesn't matter if someone is rich, poor,
republican, democrat, ugly, good looking or what. If his or her goal is to 
be president of these United States, he or she is a person who can't be 
trusted. This may sound cynical but IMO a person who is looking to produce
values for themselves and society is in business. A person who wants to live
off the value of others, with little to no effort or value production, runs
for political office.

    For those who get hung up on the "looks" department, just remember
    one of the all time greats was downright spugly, namely honest Abe.
    That beard wasn't there just 'cuz he was too lazy to shave...

    re: Honest Abe
    
    Pre-Television.  In today's world, Lincoln wouldn't get past
    city mayor, if he could get that far.
    
    re: looks in general
    
    My notes here have obviously been misinterpreted... the issue is
    the importance of looks in a candidate.  Women are just as influenced
    by presidential looks as men are by, say, first lady looks.  A fair
    amount of barbs have been tossed by men at Hillary's looks, for
    example.  Both genders are guilty of this.  What's the problem in
    pointing out that some women are as much influenced by a candidate's
    appearance as some men are?
    
    Sheesh... go pick on Eric... :-)
    
    Chris

    >one of the all time greats was downright spugly, namely honest Abe.


Bwhaahahahahahaha!! {cough}

    Will Americans really vote for a man who owns a castle in France?
    Who's never so much as served on a school board?
    
    The more I listen to Forbes, the more convinced I become that his
    entire campaign is one huge intellectual fraud -- a melange of
    Reaganish cliches and a tax plan that gives a whole new meaning to
    "greed."
    

    >Now wait...wait...wait.  You can't say that women only voted for
    >Clinton because they think he's good looking, that's ridiculous and
    >insulting.                                   
 
     I don't think that anyone said that all women only voted for him
    because he's good looking or even that most women only voted for him
    because he's good looking. I think that the claim was that a
    non-infinitesimal number of women voted for him because he charmed them
    with his looks and smooth talking. I don't find this unbelievable.
    Which is not to say that the fact that women tend to be more democratic
    than republican had no effect, or even that it didn't have a bigger
    effect. But it would be interesting to compare the demographics between 
    the 88 and 92 elections, to see how the female vote went. Maybe they
    voted in the same proportions. Maybe fewer women than men were pulled
    from the two major party candidates to Perot.
    
     My anecdotal evidence supports the notion that some women voted for
    Clinton because he was "a nice looking man." I wouldn't care to
    extrapolate this to cover the entire female voting population, but it
    seems that the phenomenon exists.
    
     I do, howver, understand the defensiveness on the part of the female
    voters here who undoubtedly were more circumspect with their votes.

    What we really need to test this is a good-looking Republican
    running against an ugly Democrat.  Maybe we can rig the primary
    results.
    
    
    >> I do, howver, understand the defensiveness on the part of the female
    >> voters here who undoubtedly were more circumspect with their votes.
    
    I don't... I wasn't talking about them, clearly.  I mean, does anyone
    in here make it obvious that appearance is their primary factor in
    judging a person?  I was simply pointing out what one would think
    is an obvious and well-known aspect of human nature.
    
    Oh well, can't please everybody.
    
    Chris

I just ran the numbers through 3 different Dick Armey flat tax forms on the
web.

I got three different answers to the same numbers ....

Hmmm ....

    For starters Clinton and her husband have got to go! They are both
    liars to the core and the press and Hollywood are coddling him, not
    because of who he is but because he is a liberal, as are they. Softball
    city during press conferences and when his staff is interviewed by the
    press.
    
    Bob Dole cannot be elected, that will never happen. He feels it is owed
    to him much like Ted Kennedy did during the 70's and 80's. Dole like
    Kennedy must except the fact that he is an elder statesmen and stay put
    or go home because Clinton will whipe him all over floor. He will bring
    out the mean sprit of Dole sooner rather than later as Bush did during
    the N.H. primary of 92.
    
    Bob Dole is simply unelectable. 
    
    So are the rest, except maybe Steve Forbes and that is only because
    Jack Kemp is not running.
    
    To the class envey croud I can only say that anybody who runs for
    president is rich whether they earned it or inherited it. Clinton was
    worth $338K when he ran, now its over 1M. Not bad for a guy who never
    owned a house or held a private job and that $338K was really Hillarys
    anyway and now she does not have any earned income other than selling
    short on pharmicutical companies when threating to take over the health
    care industry. (and the press let her slide on that!)
    
    Dole and the others are worth millions too so why the attack on Forbes.
    
    Steve Forbes has done well and taken very good care of his families
    assets and that is not to be enveyed but admired. Most inheritances are
    squandered.
    
    Steve Forbes is a solid, principled person with a vision of the future
    that is pro groth and pro family and reduced government. He is no Ross
    Perot or Clinton.
    
    Any way you slice it a flat tax will cut YOUR tax bill. The flat tax
    bills being floated by Dick Army or Forbes call for taxes on about the
    first 36K of your earnings. Who in the "middle class" or below has more
    than 36K worth of deductions on their schedule A form amoung us
    including your mortgage interest and property taxes.
    

    
    
    >They are both liars to the core 
    
    Now... now... if you can't say something nice...
    

    
    	... OPEN SOAPBOX and vent?
    

    
    
    Vere's the vent??
    

    
    	Over th'air?
    

>    Kennedy must except the fact that he is an elder statesmen and stay put
		  accept
>    or go home because Clinton will whipe him all over floor. He will bring
				      wipe
>    To the class envey croud I can only say that anybody who runs for
		  envy
>    owned a house or held a private job and that $338K was really Hillarys
								   Hillary's
>    short on pharmicutical companies when threating to take over the health
	      pharmaceutical
>    Dole and the others are worth millions too so why the attack on Forbes.
									   ?
>    Steve Forbes has done well and taken very good care of his families
								family's
>    assets and that is not to be enveyed but admired. Most inheritances are
				  envied
>    that is pro groth and pro family and reduced government. He is no Ross
		 growth
>    than 36K worth of deductions on their schedule A form amoung us
							   among

>>    To the class envey croud I can only say that anybody who runs for
>		  envy
			 crowd

>>    short on pharmicutical companies when threating to take over the health
>	      pharmaceutical
					    threatening

Why is the song "dreamer" by Supertramp playing in my mind .....

    Be thankful it isn't playing in your buttocks.

 ZZ    Reaganish cliches and a tax plan that gives a whole new meaning to
 ZZ    "greed."
    
    Class envy.  Next!

    I blew the spelling on a few words, sorry Notes has no spell checker
    like other tools I use. I just type away and hope for the best,  you
    know then spell check it. I thought we were informal here. But those
    who poked fun at my spelling must be liberals as they never attack the
    substance of thoughts, only the person.
    
    Also, correction on the 36K flat tax part, this would be the exempt
    portion of your earnings from tax's, above that would be subject to the
    flat tax.
    
    Now go check last years schedule A, and see if your deductions were
    greater than the ~36K not subject to tax. If they were lower than you
    win under the flat tax. If they were greater than ~36K than you must
    have 2 or 3 jobs because we do not make that kind of money here at
    Digital!!
    
    For those of you who fill out a short form and do not use the schedule
    A, your the biggest winners of all!
    
    Now then, for those who dislike "rich" or perceived (SP) rich people I
    can only say that I have never seen a "poor" person start a business,
    hire people, buy computers and services, meet a payroll, pay tax's or
    buy Digital stock.
    
    Most people are richer than they think. Wealth is composed of many
    things 2 of which are your state of mind and assets, both of which only
    you can control.
    
    (spell checking not done as I have a Honeywell keyboard and all the
    keys are "D")
    
    regards, Mike.  

    re: .51
    
    i can't say that there is much of a difference between an inept amatuer
    and an inept professional these days, especially when it comes to
    politics, so no, a lack of political expereince on forbes' part is not
    an issue to me. what have some of the so called professionals done for
    us lately? 
    if POLITICAL experience was such a prerequisite to become
    president, or to run for the office, then we would have to discount
    such people as perot, buchannan, eisenhower, washington, grant, etc. 
    
    as for being rich, so what. does anyone REALLY believe that if dole,
    grahmm and the rest had the kind of bucks to spend on the campaign that
    forbes has that they wouldn't use it?? yeah, right.  

    ban assualt spelling corrections.

RE: 632.86 by SCASS1::TERPENING

> Spell check this

Sure.  Try this:  Hit the Do key (or PF1 7) and type spell.


Phil

> I thought we were informal here.

See topic #342. Then tell me how you like coming off like the author of the
basenote.

> But those who poked fun at my spelling must be liberals

It's clear that you don't pay attention very well.

> as they never attack the substance of thoughts

Why would I have attacked the substance of your thoughts? I agreed with them.

    He took umbrage with the spelling of your thoughts is all.

    re: .89
    
    That only works if the system you are using has the spell checker
    software installed.  I believe that software has been retired for a
    long time and the kit is no longer available on the net.
    
    Some of us are out of luck.
    
    Bob

    It is really interesting to see the folks attacking Forbes focus on his
    looks and his wealth.  Other than that they have absolutely nothing to
    say about the fact that he can probably be a very solid occupant of the
    White House.
    
    Even those who talk about a lack of experience seem to be very
    selective in this criticism.  Bill Clinton was a governor of one of the
    smallest states in the country, had a state legislature made up of
    members of his own party and never was involved any sort of
    international negotiations.  Now when these things were brought up
    during the campaign, particularly when he was compared to Bush, his
    appalling lack of experience was ignored.  Now for some reason these
    same folks want to make an issue out of Forbes experience.
    
    The concept of a flat tax, or any change that cuts federal revenues,
    deserves serious discussion and not the knee-jerk class warfare
    responses seen so far.  As I've said before, I would much prefer a
    consuption tax, but this is at least going in the right direction.
    

    
    What I like about Forbes is his pitch against any tax money for
    political campaigns. Who needs to subsidize the pols?
    
    Of course, this may give a *slight* advantage to people with $25
    million of their own money to spend...

    What Forbes wants to do is prevent taxation on investment and interest.
    
    Steve Forbes makes no salary at the magazine.  Steve's stipend comes
    from the interest of the business.  Hence he pays no taxes.
    
    -Jack

    .54 
    
    At least Warren Christopher doesn't look like a fatter version of
    Fire Capt. Bill (Jim Carrey).  Warren just needs a little chin
    job and a face lift.  
    
    .65
    
    >>Jimmah Carter ran on the theme that he was not a Washington insider;
        what did he accomplish WHILE he was president?<<
    
    It's not what Jimmy Carter did while in office, it's what he didn't do.
    He didn't get us into the middle of a middle east war--he left that to
    the professional war makers, in the shape of Bush.  
    
    Insiders will block outsiders at every move if it looks like they might
    make real change.  That's something that's on all insiders agenda, 
    regardless of party.
    
    
    
    Let us remember that government office is a JOB, a way of earning a 
    living for these people.  And no matter how much money daddy leaves
    them, none of them do it for free--Oh that I wish they would.

    
   > Let us remember that government office is a JOB, a way of earning a 
   > living for these people.  And no matter how much money daddy leaves
   > them, none of them do it for free--Oh that I wish they would.

    I believe (but cold be wrong) that Ted Kennedy does not take a
    government salary.
    
    ed

    .96
    
    Your grasping at straws is truly laughable.  You keep trying to make up
    facts about Reagan and Bush and really don't even attempt to get the
    facts right.
    
    Your lastest pathetic attempt, claiming that Carter was clean as the
    driven snow and those bad Republicans were totally responsible for
    getting us into the Gulf, is anther transparent  and wrong assertion.
    
    Just to let you know, Mr. Carter - international incompetent that he
    was - set the stage for the instability in the Mideast which gave Iraq
    and Iran the nerve to become outlaw nations.  He made the US appear to
    be a weak-kneed country that would not oppose terrorism, even against
    it's own citizens.
    
    This environment, created and fostered by Carter, led directly to
    Iraq's beleif that they could do anything they wanted, including
    invading a sovereign nation, and the US and the rest of the world would
    do nothing.  Also, if you think he intended to stop with Kuwait you are
    even more clueless than you appear.
    
    That having been said, both Reagan and Bush ended up cleaning up the
    mess created by CArter and the liberal Congress created over decades of
    abuse.  You may not like it, but then you don't really seem to thave
    much difficulty ignoring reality or making up the facts to fit your
    prejudices.
    

    Ronnie and George couldn't clean up the local lavatory if they teamed 
    up.

    Forbesian Snarf!

    RE: .98

    Obviously Gaskell must be talking about a different Jimmy Carter than
    the one that was President of the United States.

    Let's see, what were Jimmy Carter's accomplishments as president:
        --  52 American hostages held in Iran for 444 days
        --  after weakening the military, especially in the maintenance
            department, he sent a rescue team in to crash and burn in the
            desert
        --  20+% prime interest rate (how many people can afford a mortgage
            like that?)
        --  an inflationary recession (theoretically impossible until he
            did it)

    Yup.  Carter makes a wonderful EX-president.

    -- Dave

      re: .71
    
      I'm not saying I back Forbes, but why is a flat tax greedy?
      I don't understand!
    
    						Tony

More Carter:
 
   -- Releases top-secret military info to the press (F117 as an example)
   -- Alerts USSR minister to US bugs in limos
   -- Boosts spending to fix mistakes in first 2 years
   -- Establishes the largest deficits to date of over 50 billion
	(Remember Mondales speach on why deficits aren't a bad thing?)
   -- Leaves the next president with a nasty foreign policy mess
   -- Leaves the next president with a growing deficit
   -- leaves the next pres with double digit unemployment and interest rates

   What a gem he was ...

   But at least I could respect him. Can't say that for Clinton ..

      re: .93
    
      I prefer a consumption tax too.  Flat or consumption can essentially
      do away with the IRS and a lot of accountants.  These people can
      find jobs that better contribute to society than a self-perpetuating
      govt./private sector marriage whose best interests are served the
      more people feel a need to seek taxation assistance.
    
      The added benefit I see for consumption is that people are not
      penalized for saving and it is occupation-neutral.  You can make 
      money dealing cocaine, distributing weapons, running gambling
      cards, pimping prostitutes, or sustaining a manufacturing process.
    
      Either way, you automatically pay as you spend.  I have this feeling
      that people who make their money in seedier ways will still choose
      to spend it.
    
    							Tony

      On president's looks...
    
      My ma recently took a history course and her professor felt
      that Jefferson was far and away the best president we ever had.
    
      He also felt he would be unelectable today as he had a lisp.
    
      What does that say???

  it muth thay thomething.

      re: -1
    
      I had to laugh!!
    
      You could have tried your thpell thecker though!!

    He could speak Welsh.  Gets my vote.

    re:89, Thanks, I did not know that.
    
    

    re: 90, thanks!
    

    re: 93
    
    Clinton had international skills while in Arkansas, remember the Mena
    airstrip and the Columbian drugs/CIA flights??? HUM??
    
    You wrote a nice article.

    
    I'm still trying to figure out the real implications of Forbes'
    flat tax. For a working stiff like myself, I think I would benefit,
    especially since I do not own a home (in a traditional sense) and being
    a small-time investor, removing the double-dipped tax is very
    appealing.
    
    Then I looked again at some the emerging details. No tax on "unearned
    income" is a double-edged sword. If I could liquidate all "real-stuff"
    and simply live off the interest and capital gains from these
    investments, then it appears that I'll be taxed less. I believe this is
    the KEY argument that leads to the so-called "class warfare" arguments
    here. Would it truly be fair if your inherence-derived income is
    totally non-taxable? It is also tru that the wealthier one is, the more
    options one has to shelter from taxes. With Forbes' plans, that task
    would simply be much simpler.
    
    Having said that, I do relish the possibility that the IRS would be
    diminished. I want April to be less traumatic. I would like to be able
    to do my own taxes - it's too complicated right now. 
    
    Regarding the so-called benefit of the mortgage interest deduction,
    I've learned my lesson that this is actually a scam! Think about it,
    for every dollar you get back, you would have to already spend another
    two dollars (if you're in the 33% bracket). On top of that, one cannot
    count on real-estate appreciation to reclaim whatever downpayment you
    had sacrificed as equity anymore. Home-buying in the US is a horrific
    scam. We're so completely brainwashed that this is a major chunk of
    the American dream.
    
    Well, I wish there is a source of complete honest unbiased,
    non-pontificated information about his proposal, warts and all.

    .112
    
    The whole argument around exempting dividends and interest is
    propbasbly one of the best ways to encourage savings and preparing for
    the future.  The problem arises when you get the class warfare machine
    fired up and focusing on those who obtain a majority of their income
    from such sources.  Personally I couldn't care less if someone pays no
    tax, there are enough of them already and keeping the present system
    doesn't eliminate it.  Exempting my interest and dividends is a real
    boon for me as well as all middle class folks in the country.
    
    Also, dividends are presently taxed twice si8nce a company has to pay
    dividends out of after tax revenues and then the person who receives
    the dividend has to pay tax on it.  That is wrong and should be
    eliminated.  If you want to tax the dividend, then make it deductible
    by the business paying it.
    
    You can watch this debate develop and it will be nothing but another
    example of demonizing those who are wealthy and trying to dip your hand
    into their pocket.  You can call whatever you want, but it is wrong and
    penalizes success.  I would love to be in a position to leave a huge
    estate to my kids so that they will have a much better life than I had
    and I can see no reason why they should be attacked because they are
    the beneficiaries of my hard work.  I would rather see it go to them
    than confiscated through taxes to support a socialist government that
    accepts every debasement and holds non-producers up as role models.
    

    it's funny when there is nothing of substance to attack, his detractors
    attack him personally

    -1 common behavior in here as long as there is a majority.

    .112
    
    The real implications of Forbes' flat tix are that people making less
    than about $25,000 would see a slight benefit.  People from about
    $25,000 to about $60,000 would see relatively little change.  People
    making from about $60,000 to about $100,000 would see an increase in
    their taxes, often several thousand dollars' worth of increase.  People
    making over $100,000 would see a falling-off.  People who are very
    wealthy and whose entire income comes from interest and dividends would
    pay ZERO tax.
    
    Net result?  The tax burden will be borne, even more heavily than it now
    is, by the middle class.
    
    Oh, yeah, there's one more thing.  Price Waterhouse did a computation
    that shows Forbes' flat 17% will fall far short of balancing the
    budget.  It would require 23%.

    RE: .116

>    The real implications of Forbes' flat tix are that people making less
>    than about $25,000 would see a slight benefit.  People from about
>    $25,000 to about $60,000 would see relatively little change. 

    Hmmmm.  From everything I've heard or read (without having read the
    actual proposal), for a family of four the first $36K would be exempt. 
    How did you arrive at your $25K figure?
    
>    Price Waterhouse did a computation
>    that shows Forbes' flat 17% will fall far short of balancing the
>    budget.  It would require 23%.

    Forbes' own projections show a $40B drop from current revenues.  

    -- Dave

    .117
    
    I said ABOUT.  My deepest apologies for not remembering the right
    number.

    Forbes isn't a politician. He's a politician wannabe.

    .120
    
    He's thrown his hat in the ring, he's a politician.  He may be a novice
    politician, and he may be a lousy politician, but he's just as capable
    of lying as every other politician.  And just as credible.

    .122
    
    Dave, I'd say there's a rather gaping hole between $40B and $200B. 
    Somebody isn't telling all the truth, which I find unacceptable, or
    else somebody doesn't KNOW all the truth, which I would find rather
    terrifying.  We've already seen 3+ years under a prez who really does
    not understand how to run a government.  You want another four years of
    it, likely even worse as a total newbie tries to learn the ropes?  I
    don't.
    
    I tend to trust Price Waterhouse.  The difference between the 17% and
    23% figures argues for a shortfall a whole lot closer to $200B than to
    $40B.

    Gee Dick, your perfectionist nature seems to be making you overly
    defensive for having been wrong on the 25/36K number.

    I don't know who I'm going to be voting for yet.  As usual, it'll
    probably turn into who I'm voting against (which gives me a much wider
    selection ;^).

    In the back of my mind I still want the tough talking, straight
    shooting, no-nonsense Jeane Kirkpatrick.  But alas, she's not running.

    -- Dave

    Read the letter to the editor from Dick Armey in the Wall Street
    Journal.  It is his contention that the Treasury estimate of $200B
    shortfall is quite flawed.  Rather than running a case run through the
    IRS data, the Treasury Dept used average estimates for everything. 
    They also used interchangeably the average deductions per american who
    uses deductions, and average deductions per american - thereby grossly
    overestimating the deduction load.

    Forbes also depends on a large increase in economic growth to increase
    total receipts.  He projects a $40B deficit in the first year gradually
    disappearing as the economy takes off.  The Treasury department under
    Rubin projects a deficit of $200B (assuming no cuts in government and
    zero additional growth resulting from the Flat Tax).  

    Independent economists place the number between the two (assuming 17%).
    A revenue neutral number is expected to be in the range of 20-21%
    depending on the assumptions used.

    /jim

    .125
    
    > as the economy takes off.
    
    Buying stock in skyhooks, are we?

    >The difference between the 17% and 23% figures argues for a shortfall 
    >a whole lot closer to $200B than to $40B.
    
     Except you're using a derived number to prove a given. 

    RE: .125

>    The Treasury department under
>    Rubin projects a deficit of $200B (assuming no cuts in government and
>    zero additional growth resulting from the Flat Tax).  

    Is that $200B budget deficit?  Or a $200B deficit from current
    revenues?  If it's budget deficit how does that differ from the current
    system which is running at roughly $200B deficit?

    -- Dave

I understood the reports to say that the Forbes plan would increase
the current deficits by as much as $200B.

Either way, he ain't getting my vote ...

    .2> A major negative to me is he has no experience at governing.
    
    that's actually a plus in my book.  Also, he does have experience
    running a large operation.  It's not like he was the mail-room flunkey
    or something.
    
    	Skip

    Having basically inherited the operation from his very successful
    father, it is difficult to gauge how meritorious that position is. Is
    it talent or simple nepotism?

    
      There's a poll out that he has pulled close to Dole in New Hampshire.
    
      bb

    Channel 9 last night had Forbes at 29%, Dole at 24%, the rest were 
    in the single digits.

> Is it talent or simple nepotism?

Well, he could have, but hasn't, run it into the ground.

That says something.

.134        
    
    Forbes does have name and face recognition.  I would recognize him anywhere.
    
.98

Not that I am saying I am making anything up, but if I were, thenI would
    have to say:
    
    please excuse me for "Making up the facts to fit your prejudices", that's 
    what happens when you read these notes, it's catching.

No politician is "Pure as the driven snow".  I think it's impossible for 
the political animal to be so.  Carter suffered from not having spent
a time in the CIA and hadn't learnt the fine art of complete cover-up and
whitewash.  As for Reagan/Bush clearing up Carter's mess, I agree with note 
.99 (nice one GIROUARD_C), they couldn't clear snow if they were paid to; 
also, they were too busy covering up their part in the delay of the hostage 
release and all those bogus economic endeavors, like trickle down economics, 
to do any cleaning up for Carter.  If you want to start comparing Democratic 
presidential bungles with Democrat presidential bungles then look to your 
Republican walls before you do, and be prepared to dodge flying glass.

As for cleaning up after Democratic congresses, it seems to me that Clinton 
has done a credible job of stopping the GOPAC gang from gutting our economy.
Why couldn't Reagan/Bush stop all the so called tax and spend if they didn't
agree with it?


    

    
    
    Yup, the Clinton's really cleaned up the travel office, eh?  Recent
    auidit shows that it's a bit wirse than before he fired Dale and ruined
    the man (to pay back political favors).
    
    
    You guys are a riot,
    

The pole showing forbes ahead of dole was a pole of independant voters and is
not representative of the general voting population.


Wouldn't it be nice if the media could be complete in its reporting ...

Doug.

 >   Yup, the Clinton's really cleaned up the travel office, eh?  Recent
 >   auidit shows that it's a bit wirse than before he fired Dale and ruined
 >   the man (to pay back political favors).
 
 a BIT worse? Travel spending in this cabinet exceeds the limits of any two
 admins before Clintons and they can't account for hundreds of thousands of
 dollars! Even the dems in congress are peeved!

 Where is the FBI, independant investigators, Hillary!!!

 What fools continue to support such incompetance and abuse of political power.

 Doug.

 It occured to me tonight who Steve Forbes reminds me of..years ago Wierd
 Al yankovic did a video called "I'm Fat", a parody of MJ's "I'm Bad"..
 Forbes looks (facial view anyway) like the fat guy in the video.  I can
 never vote for him now.




 Jim

    Now we're getting somewhere! Finally, something tangible!

 He's doomed now..wait 'til it gets out.




 Jim

    .135
    
    Hey, nice "make upa fact" note.  If you remember Tom Foley claimed that
    the congress had to investigate Bush for his role in the "hostage
    delay" because there was no evidence.  He pushed as hard as he could to
    make this an issue for the '92 campaign and found NO evidence of any
    delay in releasing the hostages by either Bush or Reagan, though he
    tried as hard as he could.  Even after all of the facts came in he
    continued to claim that the delay took place.  Now you want to make a
    blanket statement that something already proved, several times, never
    took place, actually happened.
    
    As far as your juvenile attempts to rewrite history, the economic
    policies of reducing taxes and freeing investment provided one of the
    longest and largest growths in the economy ever.  Tax revenues almost
    doubled in eight years and more people moved into the middle and upper
    classes than ever before, with the possible exception of the post-WWII
    boom.
    
    As for your condemnation of Reagan's inability to reign in spending, I
    believe that most noters have fully faulted Reagan for going along with
    Democratic spending during his administration.  The deficit resulted
    not from reduced tax rates, but increased spending.  If the Democrats
    really thought that a balanced budget was important they could have
    reduced spending.  They had almost twice as much money during the
    Reagan years but that still wasn't enough to satisfy their appitities
    for bigger government.
    
    At least get your facts right before you make a statement, or do you
    feel that facts only gert in the way of your personal agenda.
    

    -1 doesn't seem to stop Mr. Da Tomato Head. i'm sure once he gets 
       wiff of the travel stuff he'll attach himself to it like the
       parasite he is. only so many hours in a day you know.
    
       i wonder if he can tell the difference between Ted Kopel and David
       Brinkley yet?

    ...and Rocush, please tell us the advantage and benefits we have
     received from that myopic economical strategy.
    
    please, take you time...

    .142
    
    Talk about rewriting history to suit your bias -- Hail to the master!
    
    Both Reagan and Bush shipped horses in mid stream on the abortion
    issue.  Used the pro-choice stand to get elected on the state level,
    then ditched that in favor of anti-choice for the presidential election.
    That's two faced sleezeness of the worst kind.
    
    

    
    
    Article in today's Times about Forbes and the only government program
    he was involved in.  Seem that spending in the program went through the
    roof with him in charge.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    re: .145
    
    >Both Reagan and Bush shipped horses in mid stream 
    
    They might have shipped the horses to the stream first, but what they
    probably did after that was switch horses... seeing as how Reagan
    probably weighed a little more than Bush and his horse was really
    tired.
    
    hth
    

RE: 632.75 by SCASS1::TERPENING

> Any way you slice it a flat tax will cut YOUR tax bill.

Did anyone ever stop to think that this can't be true for everyone?  If
you collect the same amount of taxes,  and some people pay less,  some
people must pay more.  Sure,  if you collect less,  everyone can pay less, 
but that's true even if you don't have a "flat tax".

The first order impact on the economy for any type of taxes is the total
taxes collected,  including borrowing or printing money,  which have the
same first order effect on the economy as direct taxes.  It's the total
spending that matters.

The second order impacts are somewhat more interesting.  If we were to tax
one type of income at 95%,  as the UK did in the 1960's (That's one for you
and nineteen for me,  because I'm the taxman),  not only will the Beatles
sing about you,  but there will be a lot of effort to avoid getting that
kind of income.  If we tax fuels based on carbon content,  we will reduce
the amount of CO2 we produce.  If we tax dividends at a higher rate than
interest,  companies will issue more debt.  All of these impacts will
change the way the people do things.

The question of what taxes should we,  as a people.  decide to have,  comes
down to what second order impacts we want.

I think that we do not want any marginal tax rates over 50%.  We do have
such rates for working people on Social Security now.  Marginal rates over
50% tend to create large shifts in people's behavior.

I think that we want somewhat higher rates on higher incomes.  Taxing the
working poor is counterproductive.  We don't get much in taxes,  and we get
more people on welfare.  Forbes's "flat tax" isn't flat.  It is a
progressive income tax with two brackets:  0% and ~xx%,  with the dividing
line between rates set to exempt up to "the middle class",  and with the
rate set to collect the amount of money needed.  He suggests 17%,  which
would require large amounts of other new taxes,  or very significant
spending cuts,  meaning entitlements,  meaning Social Security.  Does he
propose doing so?  Also,  the definition of income does not include
interest,  dividends and capital gains,  another interesting issue I will
not discuss in this reply. 

A national sales tax is also a worthwhile alternative,  as long as some
basics are excluded,  such as food.  Excise taxes above this on alcohol, 
tobacco and fuels are also a good ideas,  each for different reasons.


Phil

    Thud. Evidence of actual thought. One can only wonder why this is such
    a rare event.

RE: 632.149 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

It's likely to be followed by a dozen notes calling me a Slick Loving
Liberal.  I'm not sure why I bothered.


Phil

    .144 .145
    
    Gee, let's see about that "myopic economic policy".  On an absolutely
    personal basis I had my tax bill reduced by 25% during the Reagan
    administration.  The first reduction was 10%, the next year was an
    additional 10% and then, giving in to Democrats the third year
    reduction was 5% instead of 10%.  That put more money in my pocket and
    helped me to pay my kids college tuition as well as allow me to start
    saving for my retirement.  That seems to be real, fundamental change
    that helped me personally by allowing me to keep more of what I work
    for.  If that's a myopic policy I would like to see more of it. 
    Remember across the board, tax revenues went up, charitable giving went
    up and every wage earner paid less taxes as every tax bracket was
    reduced.  The deficits you want to pin on Reagan were made up of
    increased spending and MANDATORY increases, not reduced taxes.  So if
    you want to criticize direct it to increased spending not reduced
    taxes.
    
    As far as a change in positions on abortion, I guess I fall into that
    category as well.  Years ago I was very strongly pro-choice and was
    probably even more strident than most arguments I've seen here.  As I
    saw the original concept of limited abortions expand to anyone, at any
    time, under any circumstances, no parental notification, etc I changed
    my position.  Particularly when I began to really think about the
    concept of human life and how abortion has led to a devaluation of all
    human life.
    
    You may criticize Reagan and Bush for changing their opinions on
    abortion, but since I changed my opinion based on what I saw
    happanening, I don't really see any inconsistency in them changing
    their opinions.
    

    
    	Actually, reductions of 10%, 10% and 5% only total 23.05% and not
    	25%.
    

RE: 632.152 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448"

And ignore the hidden taxes that funded the growing budget deficit.


Phil

>    Thud. Evidence of actual thought. One can only wonder why this is such
>    a rare event.

>             <<< Note 632.149 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>    Thud. Evidence of actual thought. One can only wonder why this is such
>    a rare event.

	it's not rare.  perhaps you're not paying attention?

>perhaps you're not paying attention?
    
    Then again perhaps not.

>It's likely to be followed by a dozen notes calling me a Slick Loving
>Liberal.  I'm not sure why I bothered.
    
    My experience has been that it simply gets ignored by most, and
    attacked by a few knee-jerkers.

    Re .148:
    
    >> Any way you slice it a flat tax will cut YOUR tax bill.

    > Did anyone ever stop to think that this can't be true for everyone?
    
    Did you ever start to think it could be true for everyone?
    
    > Sure,  if you collect less,  everyone can pay less,  but that's true
    > even if you don't have a "flat tax".
    
    Gee, and right afterwards you admit it can be true.  How does the
    clause "but that's true even if..." change the fact that it is true? 
    How can you write that it can't be true and then immediately admit it
    can be true?
    
    > The question of what taxes should we,  as a people.  decide to have, 
    > comes down to what second order impacts we want.
    
    Aw, you got close and just missed it!  Another way the flat tax claim
    can be true is that, by cutting everybody's taxes, the economy could
    grow, lots of people would make more money, and then they would pay the
    government more.  Nobody whose income were unchanged would pay more
    dollars, and nobody would pay a higher percentage, yet more taxes would
    be collected.
    
    It is easy to prove this MUST be true in some situations:  If the tax
    rate is 0%, the government will collect no taxes.  If the tax rate is
    100%, the government will collect no taxes because nobody will bother
    to make any income.  Between 0% and 100%, the government will collect
    some taxes.  There must be some rate x% at which this collection will
    be the maximum.  If the current rate is above x%, then the government
    is not collecting the maximum.  So LOWERING the rate to x% will
    INCREASE the amount of taxes collected.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Anyone who's critical of Forbsey suffers from class envy, donchaknow.
    
    

RE: 632.158 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> It is easy to prove this MUST be true in some situations:  If the tax
> rate is 0%, the government will collect no taxes.  If the tax rate is
> 100%, the government will collect no taxes because nobody will bother
> to make any income.  

Tax rates over 100% exist in Italy.  The reason why Italy still collects 
on these taxes is that tax cheating exists.


> Did you ever start to think it could be true for everyone?

Where do I go to get a free lunch,  again?  TANSTAAFL!


> Another way the flat tax claim can be true is that,  by cutting
> everybody's  taxes, the economy could grow, lots of people would make
> more money, and then they would pay the government more. 

If this was true,  then even without a flat tax,  we could cutting
everybody's taxes and grow the economy and make more money and collect more
taxes.  To the extent that there are effective marginal tax rates above
about 50%,  this can be true.


Phil

    Re .160:
    
    > Tax rates over 100% exist in Italy.  The reason why Italy still
    > collects on these taxes is that tax cheating exists.
    
    Marginal tax rates over 100% or total tax rates over 100%?  Please give
    a citation to further information.
    
    >> Did you ever start to think it could be true for everyone?

    > Where do I go to get a free lunch,  again?  TANSTAAFL!
    
    There are such things as free lunches.  Life is not a zero-sum game.
    
    > If this was true,  then even without a flat tax,  we could cutting
    > everybody's taxes and grow the economy and make more money and collect
    > more taxes.
    
    Once again, what is the point of the phrase "then even . . ."?  It
    doesn't alter the fact that the claim could be true.  It's not a
    rebuttal.
    
    > To the extent that there are effective marginal tax rates above about
    > 50%,  this can be true.
    
    What does 50% have to do with it?  The x% maximum-tax rate could be
    above or below 50%.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    RE: .150  You like the attention? ;')

RE: 632.161 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Marginal tax rates over 100% or total tax rates over 100%?

Total tax rates over 100%.  Here is how a taxpayer might react in a 100%
tax rate environment:

1) I can't be honest.  I would have nothing to live on.

2) I can't report no income,  or the tax collectors will know I'm lying.

3) The tax collectors don't know exactly how much I'm making,  or exactly
   how.  (Why?  cheating on taxes is traditional,  and everybody helps
   everybody.)

Therefor if the tax rate is 100%,  I should report enough income (ie pay
taxes) to not draw the interest of the tax collectors,  but of course,  not
too much.


> Once again, what is the point of the phrase "then even . . ."?

The point of this is to bring to your attention that a tax cut AND a change
in the tax law are two different changes.  If you propose the second,  and
claim that the first is the reason it will work,  why not propose the
first,  first?

As for TANSTAAFL,  not all lunches of equal quality are the same cost. 
Some are more better than others,  and some are bad deals even if they
were free.  But none are free.


Phil

    Re .163:
    
    > Here is how a taxpayer might react in a 100% tax rate environment:
    
    You omitted possibilites, such as not having any income.  This could be
    done by living off savings (if the 100% tax applies to the wealthiest
    people, this is feasible) or only engaging in activities that do not
    produce any taxable income (farming for oneself or bartering).
    
    Anyway, this does not negate the point made.
    
    > The point of this is to bring to your attention that a tax cut AND a
    > change in the tax law are two different changes.
    
    Say it anyway you like, it doesn't change the fact that the claim can
    still be true.
    
                                                
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

The real reason I may not be voting for Forbes is, under his management
of Radio America he increased his executives salary by $20,000 to $40,000
ABOVE the salaries of peers in other branches of government.  The budget 
doubled under his management and he spent money like water.  He is so rich he 
probably views $40,000 as pocket change.

Now, leaving the real topic behind, once more dear friends down the rat hole.

.151

>>I had my tax bill reduced by 25% during the Reagan
    administration.  The first reduction was 10%, the next year was an
    additional 10% and then, giving in to Democrats the third year
    reduction was 5% instead of 10%.<<

I know, and we are paying for it still!

>>I don't really see any inconsistency in them changing
    their opinions.<<

When they did it within such a short space of time it is inconsistency.  This 
was no ideological change of heart, it was a blatant totting for votes.

And how you can trumpet the value you put on human life when you have 
consistently devalued to rights of the poor, young and old, is a wonder.

    .165
    
    Your ability to ignore facts is indeed a thing to behold.
    
    The fact that my tax RATES were reduced has nothing whatsoever to do
    with the deficit and national debt.  Total tax revenues doubled in less
    than eight years, I do not know of any other period in time where this
    happened.  What you are paying for is the inability of the Democrats to
    control spending and their penchant ot dictate mandatory increases,
    whether they were justified or not.
    
    Also your last statement is idiotic and juvenile.  Please identify
    anywhere that I indicated that I devalued the lives of the poor,
    children, etc.  Your stupidity has reached a new level and indicates a
    clear propensity to make up any facts you want without basing them on
    any solid foundation.
    
    You truly are a person in the Clinton mode, say anything you want,
    whether it is a blatant lie or not because character doesn't matter to
    you.
    

    
    
    RE: .166  It's all they have left.  Try and paint physical
    conservatives as "mean spirited" and "uncaring".  Just as I 
    would not say that the dems don't care, I know this to be false,
    the majority of the libs do care, it's just that they think the 
    answer is through government.  Now, I'm sure Phillip will bring up me
    calling slick, "slick" and a "piece of dog crap".  This is true to be
    sure and it's because I believe the man is nothing but self serving and
    doesn't really care or "feel are pain".  There are a lot of dems who I
    think care very much.  One of them is Mario Cuomo and another is Bill
    Bradley.  There are many others.  
    
    The thing is, the experiment of the great society has been an abysmal
    failure, look at crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, the status of our
    schools.  The power has to go back closer to the people, back to the
    state and local levels.  To a place where people can have more input. 
    If I live out of the DC area, it is much easier to get to my state
    capitol than it is to get to Washington DC and make my voice heard.
    
    
    Mike

RE: 632.166 by ACISS1::ROCUSH

> The fact that my tax RATES were reduced has nothing whatsoever to do
> with the deficit and national debt.  Total tax revenues doubled in less
> than eight years, I do not know of any other period in time where this
> happened.

Sigh.  I can think of a lot of short periods with much larger increases in
total tax revenues over much shorter times.  At the start of World War Two, 
for example.  And because tax rates increased.


Phil

RE: 632.167 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy"

Mike,  if you say that "I believe the man is nothing but self serving" I
have no problem with this.  While others might disagree,  this is a factual
statement about what you believe.

Endless "Slick this",  "Billery that" is just noise.


Phil

    
    
    He brought the name slick willie with him from Arkansas, Phil.  I
    didn't pin the moniker on him.  I've also done some informal talking to
    people from Arkansas who have relocated to our area.  Granted, not too
    many people, around 4 or 5.  Each one I asked about Clinton and what
    they thought of him (these people were in Arkansas when Clinton was
    Gov).  Not one of them had anything favorable to say about the guy. 
    When speaking with them, I asked them what they thought of him without
    any set up, or letting on what my leanings were.  Not one favorable
    response.  That, along with all the other stuff we've heard about, has
    been a contributing factor of my opinion of the guy.  I usually call
    him slick, not billery.  I think this best describes the guy.  
    
    Mike 

    .151 ahhh, so economic policy is all about you is it? 
    
         i'm very happy for you.

RE: 632.164 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." 

> it doesn't change the fact that the claim can still be true.

Nor does it change the fact that the argument for the claim is not logical.


Phil

    Re .172:
    
    >> it doesn't change the fact that the claim can still be true.
    >
    > Nor does it change the fact that the argument for the claim is not
    > logical.
    
    That doesn't make any sense.  What do you mean the argument for the
    claim is not logical -- whose argument?  I see notes where you
    complained the claim could not be true.  I do not see notes where you
    objected to any argument anybody was giving for the claim.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

I don't know if this has been discussed at all. But, does it matter to anyone
that Steve Forbes grew up in a home with a gay father?

    re: .174
    
    No.
    
    Bob

I was also thinking about that.  What's his position on gay issues (gay rights,
gays in the military, AIDS research funding, etc.)?

    According to a CNN poll in New Hampshire late yesterday forbes leads
    Dole amoung the general public!!
    
    Dole cannot be elected and Forbes is the only Republican who can beat
    Clinton!
    
    I live in Texas and travel to Arkansas often and knowbody has a good
    word to say about his time in Arkansas. My next door neigbor who moved
    from Little Rock to Dallas told me he went after the minority/poor vote
    to win the govenors races.
    
    I was in Little Rock the day before he left Arkansas to go to D.C.  to
    be sworn in and watched him give his last Arkansas press conference and
    when asked why he was cutting down on medicade spending in the state be
    blaimed the big bad Republican president ( Bush)...The next day in D.C.
    he gave a speech about the need to rein in spending on
    Medicare/Medicade. Slick or what!

    
    
    
    I thought AIDS research wasn't a gay issue......
    
    
    Doesn't matter to me whether he grew up with a gay father.  I'm glas
    the old guy was happy....

>    I thought AIDS research wasn't a gay issue......

Isn't an organization call "Gay Men's Health Crisis" focused on the issue?

>> The fact that my tax RATES were reduced has nothing whatsoever to do
>> with the deficit and national debt.  Total tax revenues doubled in less
>> than eight years, I do not know of any other period in time where this
>> happened.
>
>Sigh.  I can think of a lot of short periods with much larger increases in
>total tax revenues over much shorter times.  At the start of World War Two, 
>for example.  And because tax rates increased.

    An increase in the tax rates also significantly drops the amount of
    disposable income.  

    WWII was definitely a unique situation where you had the entire country
    mobilizing for war.  The deficits ran up during WWII would have been
    crippling if it weren't for the fact that our major world competition
    had comparatively minimal manufacturing capabilities left after the
    war.

    You will also find economic growth periods greater than the '80s. 
    That's why the term largest _peace time_ economic growth is used.  It's
    amazing what you can do to the unemployment rate when you draft able
    bodied young men looking for work and ship them off to Korea or
    Vietnam.

    -- Dave

      re: .158
    
      Yes, I have thought of that oftentimes as well.  Clearly, 0 and
      100 are minimums implying the maximum is somewhere in between,
      and further implying that the insistence that we must raise
      the tax rate in order to bring up revenue (without ANY acknowledgment
      of the above) is tatamount to intellectual incompetence.
    
    						Tony

RE: 632.173 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

Your claim is that a flat tax would lead to an economic boom because tax
revenue would fall.

A flat tax could raise more revenue than a non-flat tax.

Therefore your argument is not logical.


Phil

As I noted in 632.148,  Forbes is proposing to not tax interest,  dividends 
and capital gains on individual taxes.

This subject is a potential minefield.  IMNHO our goal should be to have a
reasonable and fair proportionment of the total tax bill,  without undo
incentives or disincentives.  Many other possible goals can be proposed.
Of course,  we might try to do social engineering or give political favors
to friendly interests.  Let's not,  ok?


To attempt to plot out a course to a fair tax code,  we need to carefully
work out the course of income and make sure that it's not taxed more than
once,  as dividends are today,  and to make sure that income is not
avoiding taxation,  as some types of income do today.  If we tax some types
of income twice or fail to tax others,  we then distort the incentives to
work and to invest.

Let us start with interest.  For fairness sake,  leave all current debt
with the same tax status it has today:  no windfall profit or losses.  If
interest is not taxed to an individual,  then interest expense should never
be deductible from personal or corporate taxes.  This change would remove
a lot of the mainly destructive incentives to corporations to load up their
balance sheets with debt.  Notice that the income to a corporation would be
taxed once,  at the corporation,  and never again.

Under current tax law,  dividends are taxed twice,  once as corporate
profits and again when paid to individuals.  Forbes's tax plan would remove
this double taxation,  as would making dividend payments deductible from
corporate taxes.

Capital gains are much more complex.  Some capital gains should be taxed. 
If a person or a corporation buys and sells tomatoes,  junk iron or what
ever,  they should be taxed as a business on their profit.  This should be
true regardless of how long the junk iron has been rusting in the back
yard.  Inflation increases the dollar price without increasing the value of
an investment.  So a fair tax code will attempt to tax only the real change
in value.  Also notice,  that as a business,  capital losses should be
deductible from profits.

If an individual owns shares of a corporation,  and the corporation increases
in value because of profits that the corporation has paid taxes on,  this 
part of the capital gain should be exempt from taxes.  


Phil

In an interview on Tuesday, Steve Forbes said that he does not believe 
that acid rain in New England is caused by power stations in the Mid 
West. That more acid rain is caused by natural occurrences 
(I believe he referred to plants) than comes from smokestacks.  

Do I sense another environmental president in the making? ;>)

    The acid rain New England receives comes mainly from Canada.  They are
    not regulated like the US is and it's been a problem especially in the
    lakes regions of New York.
    
    

... and in the Appalachians.

The string of mountains that separate NC from Tennesse have been
particularly hard hit. 

The top of Mt. Mitchell, highest peak in the East, is basically dead with
Mt. Laconte not far behind. The scene is reminiscent of when Mt. St.
Helen's blew its top.

TTom

    re .185
    
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Glenn, quit it with that evil Canadian laugh!

      re: .184
    
      It is possible that you may have actually said something I
      concur with.
    
    						Tony

>                          -< Shaking In My Boots... >-

	think how _she_ must feel.

    
    	Don't worry, Tony ... I for 1 won't tell anybody.
    
    	That'd be enough to ruin someone for life.
    

    i believe that scientists have recently determined that sea plankton
    (which gives off a sulfer based gas) is also a major contributor to
    the greenhouse situation.

RE: 632.192 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C

> i believe that scientists have recently determined ...

Important if true.  

Do you have a source for this?


Phil

    
    
    	Ban sea plankton!!
    
    

| <<< Note 632.192 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

| i believe that scientists have recently determined that sea plankton (which 
| gives off a sulfer based gas) is also a major contributor to the greenhouse 
| situation.

	And just think of what it is doing to those poor toll collectors at the
Ted Williams Tunnel!

    Well as of this point, Steve Frobes definitely gets my vote.  I just
    completed my taxes and find, for the first time ever, I owe more than
    was withheld.  Now I claim 0 deductions during the year and file with
    3.  this should always insure that, even using standard deductions, I
    should never have to pay additional taxes.
    
    If I use the 17% rate that Forbes is talking about I would be receiving
    a $2400 refund as opposed to owing $900.  this is a net difference of
    $3300.  That is a real benefit for the middle class.  Also, it is quite
    simple to compute and took me all of about two minutes to prepare.
    
    Now folks can complain about "the rich" getting a break on this tax
    proposal, but I can see an across the board advantage for every middle
    class tax payer.  It would seem to be a rather simple excersie for
    anyone to figure.
    

    Re .182:
    
    > Your claim is that a flat tax would lead to an economic boom because
    > tax revenue would fall.
    
    Huh?  Where do you think I wrote that?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Steve Forbes has been broadcasting LOTS of ads in a NH blitz.
    
      I have not heard one aimed at Clinton.  They are all aimed at
     Dole, Gramm, Alexander, etc.
    
      bb

 I heard one this morning that included a tape of Ronald Reagan telling
 us what a great job Forbes did as chairman of Radio Free Europe (?).



 Jim

    Toronto Globe & Mail has an editorial today lamenting quality of
    Republican field.  Describes Forbes as " unelected single-issue
    plutocrat."
    
    -Stephen

    I wonder if Forbes' popularity has crested. The nearer we get to the
    actual primary, the more people are likely to consider Forbes in a more
    serious light. It's one thing to express dismay over the field or give
    a "throaway" pseudo-vote to some random poll taker. But when you
    actually vote, I think you tend to be just a bit more circumspect.
    
     Frankly, I'm a little disappointed at the quality of the campaigning
    so far. It's as if issues aren't important. Is NH on the brink of
    becoming politically unimportant, or is this a sign of an even further
    lowering of political campaigns?

    .198
    
    > I have not heard one aimed at Clinton.  They are all aimed at
    > Dole, Gramm, Alexander, etc.
    
    Would you expect otherwise?  This is the primary, not the presidential
    election.  Forbes has to beat Dole, Gramm, Alexander, etc., before he
    gets to take a shot at Clinton.  Be patient.  I'm sure the mud he'll
    dredge out of his personal moral cesspit to throw at Clinton will be on
    a par with all the mud that the candidates have been slinging around so
    far.

    
    
    Then I wonder why slick is up there stumping.......
    
    

    Keeping his name before the public.

>    	Ban sea plankton!!
    
Save the whales!

    >Then I wonder why slick is up there stumping.......
    
     Trying to steal the repub candidates' thunder.

    
    	Nuke the gay whales!
    
    

Nuke the unborn gay whales!

	NUKE THE WHOLE BLODDY GAY WORLD! Opps...nevermind...

    Nuke the unborn gay whales for Jesus!

    Nuke the unborn Latino gay whales for Jesus! (pronounced hay-zues)

RE: 632.201 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> Frankly, I'm a little disappointed at the quality of the campaigning so
> far. It's as if issues aren't important. Is NH on the brink of becoming
> politically unimportant, or is this a sign of an even further lowering of
> political campaigns?

Regardless,  that is a good reason to vote for Lugar.  


Phil

    |Trying to steal the repub candidates' thunder.
    
    ya know, it's really kind-a ironic.  they have more 
    control of the government than they've had in the last
    40 years...the house is theirs...they are poised for 
    a power sweep!!  now all they need is the presidency!!
    and look at the freak show of candidates they come up 
    with!!  that's the best they have to offer??!  that's 
    the best they can come up with???  dole. forbes.
    alexander.  buchanon.  etc.  

    there was a special on TLC yesterday on different activity and its
    effects on the ozone and acid rain and such...
    

    
    	It's
    
    	Nuke the unborn gay baby whales for Jesus.
    

RE: 632.214 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C

> there was a special on TLC yesterday on different activity and its
> effects on the ozone and acid rain and such...

What are you talking about?


Phil

    I support Steve Forbes. I am tired of the whole political circus.
    Lets give this outsider a try.
    
    I don't think people should worry too much about his tax plan. It could
    very well end up like Bill Clintons healthcare plan.
    
    Paul
    

    .217
    
    Forbes has contributed mightily to the circus.

    
    Re .200
    >Describes Forbes as " unelected single-issue plutocrat."
    
    Gee...If I vote for Forbes it will be because he's the only candidate
    (that I am aware of) who wants to scrap the social security system as
    we know it (in addition to my dislike of many of the other candidates).
    
    						Ed
    
    

    Phil, the show was looking at the condition of the atmosphere as
    influnced by things like CFCs and volcanic activity hth.

    .190
    
    <<think how _she_ must feel.>>
    
    
    That's small beer!  I have more serious problems to deal with...I may 
    now find myself marching beside members of an Association of Christian 
    religious who have pledged to pressure their Congressmen to protect the 
    environment, not trash it.  Oh the humanity.......!

RE: 632.220 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C

I still don't have a good idea as to what you are talking about.


Phil

    -1 i give up...
    
    Chip

    Here, allow me to help.  This is the Steve Forbes note.  Now, Steve is
    in the publishing business and they use an extraordinary amount of
    paper, publishing that capitalistic rag with his family name on it and
    we all know the paper industry is notoriously dirty from an enviro
    standpoint using a lot of nasty chemical most of which are V.O.C.s and
    ODSs which could point to Mr. Forbes as being a large contributor to
    the ozone hole problem.  Given that, I am with Phil in that I have no
    idea what you are on about as this is the Forbes note and your replies
    seem to be more appropos to the Hole in the Ozone note.  Just IMO. 
    HTH, Phi Kappa Gamma, XYZ, yadda, yadda, yadda.

| <<< Note 632.223 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

| -1 i give up...

	Can we frame this? I'm sure we'll never see it again.... ;-)

    -1 please, and forward me a copy :-)

Caught a program while channel surfing last night. I think it was noghtline.
They were talking about Forbes and his campain, and how he paints with
a broad brush and never tells the whole story, which is to his
advantage. 

They covered several of his commercials and showed how they were at the
least misleading, and at most deliberately deceiving. (I was happy I 
wasn't the only one to see this).

They brought this to Forbes attention and his response was - "everything is
fair game".

I interpret this to mean that he thinks its ok to lie in order to get elected.

They also covered his flat tax, which is a lie in itself (IMHO). But it might
get him elected.

Doug.

I read in this morning's paper that Forbes has passed Dole in the polls.

| <<< Note 632.228 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Fugitive from the law of averages" >>>

| I read in this morning's paper that Forbes has passed Dole in the polls.

	Well, the speed limit did go up to 65 in NH, and Dole never really even
did 55....

    naw, i think he meant "passed" Dole. man, that Forbes must have one
    hell of a colon...

    
    	I could imagine him uttering a loud exclamation after it happened.
    

    d-Ole?

    
    RE .227 - Doug,
    
    In my opinion, nothing tops the Dole ad featuring Steve Merrill and
    the flat tax. This is not just misleading as many of Forbes' ad
    have been, this one is outright wrong.
    
    The ad claims that a "typical" family would see their taxes go
    up by $2000 under Forbes' plan. Well according to the govenment,
    median family income in N.H. is just over 36K, and the median family
    consist of 3.5 people. Given the exemptions proposed in the Forbes
    plan, this "typical" family would pay almost nothing. It seems
    that the people who authored the report admit they failed to take
    the exemptions into account.
    
    This ad lost any slim chance that Dole would get my vote.
    
    					Ed
    
    

   >	It seems
   > that the people who authored the report admit they failed to take
   > the exemptions into account.

   There is a BIG difference between actively trying to deceive for
   manipulation and repeating the claims of a flawed report.

   However, I would hope that a correction would be made public (but it
   will never happen).

   But yes, I find myself slipping further away from Dole as well.

    Did my 1040 sunday nite, I'd lose about $600 on the so-called
    "flat" tax, using figures on 17% and a 13K personal deduction
    off the top.
    
    

    
      New Hampshire is crunch time for Steve.  He can afford to be
     first (obviously), or close second to Dole.  Third or worse will
     be a disaster.
    
      bb

When will it be safe to listen to commercial radio again?

    
      Not till after, is my guess.  Daddy died with DEEP pockets.
    
      bb

    See today's Globe for a Broder column delivering a well-deserved
    bashing of Forbsey and his antics.

    .227  Fyfe,
    
    You beat me to it :-)  I watched a report put together by independent
    pollsters who monitor all the candidates.  Report indicated that
    Forbes' ads were by far the most negative and *misleading* of all 
    named candidates.
    
    The next evening I caught an interview with Phil Gramm.  PG said
    a error in one of Forbes' TV commercials was brought to his attention.
    Gramm said he immediately contacted the Forbes camp, faxed them copy
    of PG's vote (area of inaccurate info).  PG said he expected to see
    the ad retracted and perhaps an apology given.  Gramm said not only
    has there been no response from Forbes or his people, but the air
    time of the ad containing incorrect data has been quadrupled!!
    
    IMO Forbes is attempting to buy the election.  For those of you who
    would vote for him because he is not a Washington insider or political
    maven, may I remind you that Jimmy Carter also ran on the same theme.
    Personally I think Carter is much more honest than Forbes, however he
    was still an ineffective president.
    
    

    It looks like my response .197 has successfully shown .182 to be
    without merit.  Phil Hays completely misrepresented my position, making
    up out of whole cloth a statement which I in no way supported.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

632.158 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Another way the flat tax claim can be true is that, by cutting
> everybody's taxes, the economy could grow, lots of people would make more
> money, and then they would pay the government more.  

    RE: .241

>    IMO Forbes is attempting to buy the election.  

    In this day and age everyone trys to buy the election.  The question is
    whether they are using their own money or someone elses.  If it's not
    their own money then you have to wonder who (if anyone) has bought the
    candidate.


    I read that Forbes came out against the balanced budget ammendment. 
    When pressed, he said that he would favor it if a super-majority was
    required to raise taxes.

    I've always critized single issue voters, but it looks like I may
    finally become a single issue balanced budget voter ... Forbes doesn't
    look too good.

    -- Dave

    Re .244:
    
    .244> .158> > everybody's taxes, the economy could grow, . . .
                                                 ^^^^^
    .182> Your claim is that a flat tax would lead to an economic boom . . .
                                        ^^^^^
    
    You confused a description of possibilities, in .158, with an assertion
    that _one_ of those possibilities _would_ happen.  "Could" and "would"
    are very different, and your mix-and-match logic isn't logic at all.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Suppose a family of four with an income of $30,000 pays $1500 under
    current tax law.  Suppose family of four with an income of $30,000 pays
    $1000 under flat-tax law.
    
    Since the people have more money, more of it is either put into the
    stock market or into banks, which then invest it in other way, or spent
    other ways in the economy.  Also, more money is invested and used for
    economic benefit because of the marginal tax rates -- with a tax law
    that doesn't tax dividends and gains, it becomes better to invest in
    stocks, so some people do that even with money that isn't just
    additional money they have from the decreased tax.
    
    As a result, the economy improves.  As a result, suppose the same
    family of four then has an income of $35,000, so they pay $1850 under
    the flat-tax law.
    
    Now it is true that this family is paying more dollars in taxes than
    they would have without the flat tax law.  But it is true that:
    
    	the family of four pays less dollars in taxes than they would
    	if they had the same $35,000 income under the old tax law,
    
    	if they had the same income they would have had in the old
    	economy instead of the increased income, they would pay less
    	dollars in taxes under the flat-tax law than they would
    	under the old tax law,
    
    	with their new income, they have more dollars for themselves
    	under the flat-tax law than under the old tax law,
    
    	even if they had the same income as before, they would still
    	have more dollars for themselves under the flat-tax law than
    	under the old tax law, and
    
    	in the new economy with the flat-tax law, the government is
    	receiving $1850 from this family instead of $1500 it would
    	get under the old law with its economy.
    
    In conclusion, it is entirely consistent and possible that a
    reduced-rate tax law can increase government revenue while decreasing
    the tax each person would pay if their income did not change (which is
    of course what all the television ads and media reports use as an
    example).
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

To: libernet@dartvax.dartmouth.edu

This may be of interest to some:

In alt.economics.austrian-school, ipi@i-link.net (IPI) wrote:

 Headline: How About a 13% Flat Tax?
 Lewisville, TX: Friday, Feb. 2, 1996
 
 A report issued today in electronic format demonstrates that it is possible 
 to design a revenue-neutral 13% flat income tax.
 
 The report, which will not be released until Feb. 9 in print, is entitled 
 _Which Tax Reform Plan? Developing Consistent Tax Bases for Broad-Based Tax 
 Reform_, and is Policy Report #135 issued by the Institute for Policy 
 Innovation, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy "think tank" based in 
 Lewisville, Texas.
 
 The authors of the report are economists and former Treasury Dept. officials 
 Gary and Aldona Robbins, John M. Olin and Bradley Senior Research Fellows of 
 the Institute for Policy Innovation.
 
 The report is a detailed computation of the tax bases for such tax reform 
 plans as the Flat Income Tax, the National Sales Tax, and the USA Tax 
 (proposed by Senators Nunn and Dominici). It is important to compute the tax 
 bases for each plan separately, as each plan will tax different areas of the 
 economy.
 
 Once tax bases have been established, it is possible to solve for the 
 necessary tax rate in order to arrive at a revenue-neutral tax plan. The 
 report finds the following:
 
 -Flat Income Tax
 
 *With no exemptions or deductions, the plan is revenue neutral at 13%
 *Giving back 20% of revenues in the form of exemptions and deductions, the 
 plan is revenue neutral at 17%
 
 -National Sales Tax
 
 *With no exemptions or deductions, the plan is revenue neutral at 20%
 *Giving back 20% of revenues in the form of exemptions and deductions, the 
 plan is revenue neutral at 25%
 
 -USA Tax
 
 *With no exemptions or deductions, the plan is revenue neutral with an 
 individual rate of 18%, and a businessrate of 11%.
 *Giving back 20% of revenues in the form of exemptions and deductions, the 
 lan is revenue neutral with an individual rate of 23%, and a business rate of 11%.
 
 This report performs static analysis, and makes no attempt to estimate the 
 economic growth effects of the various plans. Dynamic growth effects will be 
 estimated in a later study.
 
 The report is available in both Adobe Acrobat and HTML formats at the Website 
 of the Institute for Policy Innovation:
 
 www.ipi.org
 
 The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a non-profit, non-partisan 
 public policy think tank. IPI maintains an aggressive presence on the Web, 
 using its Website to distribute both Acrobat and HTML versions of all of its 
 Policy Reports, Issue Briefs, Economic Scorecards, and IPI Insights 
 (bimonthly newsletter).
 

RE: 632.247 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Since the people have more money, more of it is either put into the
> stock market or into banks, which then invest it in other way, or spent
> other ways in the economy.  

Unless government spending is decreased,  the government will be borrowing
more money out of the money markets.  If 100% of the reduction in taxes
from everyone goes into the money markets (banks,  stocks,  repaying or
avoiding debt,  etc),  it all cancels out.  No effect,  short term or long
term.


If less than 100% of the reduction in taxes goes into savings and
investments,  people are borrowing more and/or saving less so as to
increase current consumption at the cost of the future.  An economic boom
today,  an economic hangover soon.


If the increased savings match the increased investment,  but from
different people,  income and consumption patterns will change,  but the
totals will cancel out.

Only if more than 100% of the tax reduction goes into savings will there be
a positive long term impact.  The best way to do that is to reduce marginal
rates and reduce the deficit by reductions in spending and/or increases in
total taxes.

There is no free lunch.


Phil

 ZZ   There is no free lunch.
    
    So instead of America eating the glorious food Tobin has to offer,
    can't we brown bag it for a year or so!?

Phil has it correct. 

A flat tax will do nothing for the economy or the people if it increases
the deficit. The country has been asking for a balanced budget since Carter
was president. The flat tax WILL NOT improve the current fiscal hemmoraging.

Steve Forbes is mating two philosophies here buying the votes of fiscal
conservatives with a flat tax that increases the deficit.

He has the wrong focus. I can support any tax plan that addresses the
deficit and debt NOW, not later on some high-in-the-sky possibility that the
economy will improve enough to address it. If that takes a flat tax of
say, 23%, then go for it. We can drop the rate AFTER the debt is elliminated.

It is disturbing that so many hawks would fall for this.

Now, compare the Forbes plan to the Repubs plan, where you get direct
tax cuts (no gimmicks) and a balanced budget in 7 years. Why? Because
the spending side of the equation is addressed in the budget.

Has Mr Forbes ever said anything beyond the ellimination of SS that addresses
the spending side?  Not that I've heard.


Doug.

 I'm really getting tired of this Forbes guy..all the ads on TV/radio,
 and every day I get home and there's something in the mail from him.
 



 Jim

    There's always 1-800-USA-BEAR.

Saw on a news program how Forbes sent a fax to the Dole camp correcting 
them on some erroneous information in their ads. He said he expected
a response, and got none; the ads to be pulled, they weren't, and a public
correction/retraction, which they didn't do.

He then lambasted the Dole campaign for deliberate lying.

What a hypocrite!!!! Dole sent the Forbes camp a fax correcting them 
on his voting record. They quadrupled the erroneous ads anyway, no retraction.

What an <r.o.> this man is. 

This is the worst republican lineup I can ever remember :-(

Doug.

.251
    
    You're right about the flat tax.  As proved by past tax cuts,
    the rich, the main beneficiary of those cuts, didn't fuel a boom in
    the economy by spending it, they saved it and got richer. 
    
    On the other hand, you don't have to cut Social Security, Medicade 
    or Welfare to balance the budget.  Some one needs to do a complete 
    audit of Government spending and track down the waste and fraud; 
    then you wouldn't need to wait 7 years to balance the budget.

    In 1984 the late J. Peter Grace and columnist Jack Anderson 
    formed Citizens Against Government Waste.  They tracked 
    down more than $433,518,000,000.  Thanks to their 
    suggestions and intervention they saved the tax payer a lot 
    of bread. But, they observed, that multibillion-dollar 
    savings barely skimming the top scum off the waste.  

    I would be very interested indeed to know how much of our 
    tax money is spent, and how much is wasted.  My guess is
    that it could be as much as a 50/50 split.

                                 

re: .179, Gerald

>>    I thought AIDS research wasn't a gay issue......
>Isn't an organization call "Gay Men's Health Crisis" focused on the issue?

???

Why would the fact that a Gay-oriented organization has focus on an issue
make it "a gay issue"?

Aren't there sufficient other_than_Gay-oriented organizations focusing on it
to assuage any such concerns?

    I think the comment about Forbes not focusing on a balanced budget is
    interesting.  He is the only one who has come out and clearly stated
    that there must be fundamental change to Social security with an
    ultimate phase out and people providing their own retirements.  Not one
    other candidiate, on either side, has taken this difinitive of a stand.
    
    I seem to recall a lot of people claiming that eliminating welfare
    won't do much to balance the budget as it represents a minor portion of
    the budget.  NOw here's a guy who goes right after one of the highest
    expenses of the budget and no one pays any attention.  I just keep
    hearing that this is a plan to help the rich and screw the poor.  Well,
    as I said earlier, I am by no means among the rich, as defined by
    Clinton, but Forbes tax plan save me $3000.  That seems like a real
    benefit to all people.  I couldn't care less if someone benefits more
    than I do as long as I have the same rules and opportunites.  Under
    Forbes plan I sure do.
    

    >He is the only one who has come out and clearly stated
    >that there must be fundamental change to Social security with an
    >ultimate phase out and people providing their own retirements.

    First off, he is not the only candidate to talk about dealing with SS.
    Different candidates have different ideas, that's all. Changes to
    SS have been takng place, in steps for many years now, but the job
    isn't finished yet. Forbes adds little or nothing to this dabate.

    >I seem to recall a lot of people claiming that eliminating welfare
    >won't do much to balance the budget as it represents a minor portion of
    >the budget.

    We must be getting our information from different sources then.

    >NOw here's a guy who goes right after one of the highest
    >expenses of the budget and no one pays any attention.
   
    Stating a position is not the same as putting forward plan that can
    be examined and critiqued. This is exactly how Clinton got elected.
    Please demand more from your candidates.

    >I just keep
    >hearing that this is a plan to help the rich and screw the poor.  Well,
    >as I said earlier, I am by no means among the rich, as defined by
    >Clinton, but Forbes tax plan save me $3000.  That seems like a real
    >benefit to all people. 

    It saves me over $5K, so what! You may benifit short term, but that 
    $3K gets added to deficit/debt and helps NOBODY! He is not addressing
    the core problems in the federal budget. He is buying votes without
    impunity just as the dems have been doing for decades.

    Forbes positions, without detailed plans, are irresponsible even in the
    best of circumstances. I'm not saying his ideas should not be explored,
    just that there are good and bad implemetations of good/bad ideas (See 
    Clintons health care plans as an example), and we have not a clue about 
    how Forbes thinks all these "wonderful" ideas should be implemented.

    He is saying what you want to hear, but not telling you what you need
    to know.

    Doug.

    
      Apparently spooked at rumors that he peaked too soon, Forbes is
     pouring millions into big chunks of NH media time.  Word is, he
     will be airing whole half-hours of repetitive Infomercials at all
     hours this week.  The cacophony of other candidates advertisements
     might be overcome by sheer volume, and Steve can expend in
     quantities nobody else can match, without even blinking.
    
      Also, the squalid nagativity in the Granite State GOP primary is
     not just Steve's - Bob Dole is returning the favor openly, and so
     is Alexander.  We may be down to four candidates by the end of next
     week.
    
      bb

>      Also, the squalid nagativity in the Granite State GOP primary is
>     not just Steve's - Bob Dole is returning the favor openly, and so
>     is Alexander.

	yes, and meanwhile Lamar is claiming he's not slinging any mud.
	hoho.  i don't like that guy.

    .259
    
    Please identify what changes have been made to the SS system that have
    reduced the ever increasing funding requirements and at the same time
    tie more people inextricably into this failed system.  Forbes has
    presented a clear system for protecxting those currently receiving the
    benefits and how to let those who are younger opt to alternatives.  It
    is a fairly simple and effective program.
    
    He has not just made statements, but has backed them up "how to's" 
    Unfortunately not too many people have paid attention.
    
    Also, one of the basic tenets of his program is that the budget will be
    reduced to reflect reduced taxes.  His SS program change was one of the
    ways he would reduce the budget, as well as others.  He has done a
    fairly decent job, in a limited sphere to to show how a tax cut, flat
    tax can be implemented without adding long-term growth to the deficit.
    
    The only thing he hasn't said, and I believe he will, is that any
    shortfall in a given year will result in corresponding budget cuts. 
    How many people support his current position on SS and how many will
    support further cuts in federal spending?  I don't think you will find
    very many.
     

  >  Please identify what changes have been made to the SS system
 
  Smaller increases, taxing of SS for higher income folks. These aren't
  major changes, but they are changes, and more are coming a little 
  bit at a time. (The rest of the paragraph was jsut a loaded question).

   >He has not just made statements, but has backed them up "how to's" 
   > Unfortunately not too many people have paid attention.

   Great!  What are they? (And yes, I've been paying attention, I've been
   actively looking for this info and haven't found anything beyond his
   grossly under-defined flat tax program.)

  > Also, one of the basic tenets of his program is that the budget will be
  >  reduced to reflect reduced taxes.
  
  No kidding! Outside of this mystical SS changes, what budget items would
  get cut to address the $181B his flat tax would add to the deficit (thats 
  on top of the current deficit of over $150B).

  When he starts talking about how to deal with $350b worth of deficits (beyond
  statements like "a flat tax will allow the economy to grow and absorb the
  deficit") then perhaps we can start taking him seriously. The devil is
  in the details and he not giving any.

   >He has done a
   >fairly decent job, in a limited sphere to to show how a tax cut, flat
   >tax can be implemented without adding long-term growth to the deficit.
  
   He has spent more time misrepresenting his chief competition than he has
   discussing detail. I've yet to hear ANY detail, see ANY plan. But if they
   do exist I'd be happy to consider them.

   And whats this about "any long term growth to the deficit" stuff! I want
   NO MORE GROWTH PERIOD. I want it dealt with NOW! I want to see a plan that
   begins a process of reduction with a defineable result, and then I want
   it implemented. How does Mr. Forbes intend to balance the budget? Where 
   is the plan that includes his tax program, budget cuts, and complete budget
   analysis (CBO?)?

   Face it. Either he hasn't got it, or isn't showing it. On the other hand, the
   repubs do have it, have shown it, put it up for debate, and are currently
   acting on it. How does Mr. Forbes intend to influence the current
   republicans in congress given their distant positions? Can he influence 
   congress? Do we want him too?

  > The only thing he hasn't said, and I believe he will, is that any
  >  shortfall in a given year will result in corresponding budget cuts. 

   Hmmm, does this sound familiar to anyone? It should ....

   >How many people support his current position on SS and how many will
   > support further cuts in federal spending?  I don't think you will find
   > very many.
  
   How can you support what you can't see? There is ample support for cutting
   the federal budget quite deeply. More republicans in congress will insure
   that it happens. 

   Doug.

    
      Forbes is in big trouble after his poor fourth in Ia.  It's
     make-or-break for him in NH.
    
      bb

    
    	Maybe he'll get a sloppy second in NH.
    

    He pulled a no-show last nite in NH, mebbe he's facing the same fate
    as Gramm?
    
    Maybe he needs to learn about economics, for his $13 mill, he pulls
    10% in Iowa, whilst Alan Keyes spends $3000 and gets 6%. That's 
    $500 /% vs. $2.16M /%. Hmmm.....
    

According to a NY Times article reprinted by the local rag, Forbes has 
hired a certain Thomas Ellis as a_adviser.

Ellis is director of the Pioneer Fund that promotes the notion that 
whites are genetically superior to blacks. Activities include urgint the 
U.S. to give up on the idea of integration because the Fund declared the 
idea of "raising the intelligence of blacks" was not going to happen.

Ellis is a long time advise to Jesse Helms and helped Helms defeat Harvey 
Gantt, who's black, with a_ad that showed white hands crumpling a 
rejection letter while a voice complained about losing out to a less 
qualified minority.

Forbes has also hired others from what remains of the Congressional Club 
who originally helped elect Helms to the Senate as well as the junior 
N.C. senator, Lauch Faircloth.

TTom

	Flat Tax (17%)
	Elliminate the DOE
	New SS option take from current SS tax
	others ...

	He was on a call-in-and-ask-questions type show this weekend. 
	He softballed most of his answers not offering any specifics
	beyond the "Big Picture" stuff he puts in his ads. When asked how
	he would deal with the DEBT/DEFICIT and how his tax plan
	fits in, he avoided a real answer (cause he doesn't have one)
	and tap danced for 5 minutes and then changed the subject.

        As far as I can tell the man doesn't have an original idea in
	his head. All his 'positions' were already put on the table
	by other repubs.

	He appology for the negative campaining was pathetic and 
	disingenuous.

	Basically, he has brought nothing new to the discussions of 
	the problems this country faces, diverts our attention from
	the truely important, and just parrots our disdain
	for the past/present political climate.

	His only redeming value is the money he is pumping into the
	economy.

	Doug.

    Re .249:
    
    > Unless government spending is decreased,  the government will be
    > borrowing more money out of the money markets.  If 100% of the
    > reduction in taxes from everyone goes into the money markets (banks, 
    > stocks,  repaying or avoiding debt,  etc),  it all cancels out.  No
    > effect,  short term or long term.
    
    Oooh, nice try, but no cigar.  Money is not a zero-sum game.  It is not
    even a closed system.  The money market is international, so bond
    offerings can garner money from people who do not pay taxes to the
    United States government.  Furthermore, where the money goes will still
    change.
    
    This can be seen because your statement amounts to a claim that all
    that matters to the economy is how much money the government consumes,
    not where it gets it from -- taking it from taxes or the money market
    is the same.  But that's just plain silly.  Clearly the economy would
    be very very different if the government only taxed people with incomes
    under $30,000 than if it only taxed people with incomes over $100,000,
    even if the amounts collected in either case were the same.
    
    For example, what happens when people suddenly have more take-home pay? 
    Sure, they invest what they can.  Do they run right out and buy
    government bonds?  Some will, but many people will be more aggressive. 
    They will buy stocks.  This can fuel corporate growth.  Now, those
    companies have to manage their cash too.  Some of what they have gets
    used to buy equipment, some gets held in reserve to pay bills while
    revenues fluctuate, et cetera.  What do they do while holding onto that
    cash?  They might end up investing it in government bonds, so the
    government does indeed get the same amount of money.  But now the money
    is working to the advantage of the corporation, which uses it to
    produce and grow.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    For example, what happens when people suddenly have more take-home pay? 

They spend it.

    Forbes comes in 4th. says he will not pull out of the race.
    
    one political comedian said that Forbes does not appear to be fully
    formed. :-)

    
      Stick a fork in him.
    
      bb

In Iowa he said he had a 4-3-2-1 stragety. In NH last night, he said 4'th was
a good finish and he's right on target.

I hope he's done ...

Doug.

	Forbes said it is only the 2nd inning.....so he has 7 more to go! 

I was pleased to see Joan Rivers in Forbes' campaign last evening. I would
have taken her for a Democrat if I'd had to guess.

I'm surprised.  Most of her income is earned (techically speaking).

RE: 632.269 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> The money market is international, so bond offerings can garner money 
> from people who do not pay taxes to the United States government.  

Right.  By borrowing money from outside the country,  we could increase
comsumption spending and live better now.  Also known as the trade deficit.
We export IOUs,  we import goods.  Sounds like a good plan,  for short 
term improvement.  It might even work out in the long term,  if we
increased productive investment by enough...  

    
> This can be seen because your statement amounts to a claim that all
> that matters to the economy is how much money the government consumes,
> not where it gets it from -- taking it from taxes or the money market
> is the same.  But that's just plain silly.  

That is not my claim.  The first order impact on an economy is how much
VALUE the government consumes.  Money is a way of keeping accounts.  If you
are required or offer to build a road,  serve in a military unit,  fight a
fire,  or write code for the government without pay,  then the government
is consuming value with no money changing hands.  

There are clearly second order impacts.  If you need examples,  try reading
some of my earlier notes.


> For example, what happens when people suddenly have more take-home pay? 

First order answer is that they spend it.


> Sure, they invest what they can.  Do they run right out and buy
> government bonds?  Some will, but many people will be more aggressive. 

The total amount of government bonds sold must be equal to the total amount
of government bonds bought.  Fuzzy thinking can be corrected by putting
down numbers,  and making sure that the sums that must balance do balance.


Phil

    Re .277:
    
    > Right.  By borrowing money from outside the country,  we could
    > increase comsumption spending and live better now.
    
    Bzzzt, wrong!  Sure, borrow the money and consume it, and you'll be
    digging the hole deeper.  But nobody suggested that.  We're talking
    about using the money for investment (or to replace money displaced to
    investment).  That's called "leverage," and it is a way to tremendously
    increase profits.  Borrow the money from outside the country at 6%,
    build businesses that make 20% profits, and you'll make a killing.
    
    >> This can be seen because your statement amounts to a claim that all
    >> that matters to the economy is how much money the government consumes,
    
    > That is not my claim.
    
    I did not say it was your claim.  I said your statement amounts to that
    claim -- meaning if what you wrote were true, a logical consequence is
    that government consumption is all that matters.
    
    > Money is a way of keeping accounts.
    
    Then where did twenty billion dollars disappear to between January 8
    and January 15?  The Wall Street Journal prints statistics on the total
    money supply, and it changes from day to day.  The economy is not a
    double-entry accounting system that always balances.  Money can be
    created and destroyed.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

RE: 632.278 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Sure, borrow the money and consume it, and you'll be digging the hole 
> deeper.  But nobody suggested that.

That is what is happening now.


> a logical consequence is that government consumption is all that matters.

"Most" .NEQ. "All"


> The economy is not a double-entry accounting system that always balances. 
> Money can be created and destroyed.

Sure.  rather than selling bonds,  the government can (and does) just
create money.  Ever hear of inflation?  If the government sells bonds, 
someone buys them.  In either case,  value comes out of the investment
markets.


Phil

    
      But, Phil.  When an earthquake hits California, isn't wealth
     destroyed ?  When a crop is harvested, or a new computer designed,
     isn't new wealth created ?  If not, then how did wealth ever come
     to be ?  Do you really think there is a law of conservation of
     value ?  I think this is a discredited Marxist idea, isn't it -
     that total wealth on Earth is a constant ?
    
      bb

    Re .279:
    
    > That is what is happening now.
    
    So what's your point?  That we should not embark on plan X, which is
    good, because we are currently doing Y, which is bad?
    
    > Sure.  rather than selling bonds,  the government can (and does) just
    > create money. . . . In either case,  value comes out of the
    > investment markets.
    
    I wasn't talking about just printing money.  Value, not just paper, can
    be created and destroyed.  You do not have to take value out of the
    investment market in order to get more value.  Put money into creating,
    building, and producing, and you will have more value when you are
    done.
                  
    Consider simply how one can use the resources one has.  The resources
    can be consumed, in which case value is destroyed.  Or the resources
    can be used to build, in which case value is created.  Tax policy can
    reward people more (by comparison to existing policy) for consuming or
    it can reward people more for building.  Thus, tax policy WILL affect
    the total product of our society.  Any argument that taking the money
    from one place instead of another will have no such effect is totally
    without merit.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

RE: 632.280 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"

>  When an earthquake hits California, isn't wealth destroyed ? Do you
> really think there is a law of conservation of value ?

Of course not.  Where did you get the idea that I thought that value is
constant?  I'm saying that government spending doesn't create value out of 
thin air.  This is not to say that government spending can't create
something of more value than it's cost.  An example of this is Columbus's
voyage.  While he didn't find what he was looking for (a common result of
trying something new),  he did find something of vast value to Spain.  


Phil

RE: 632.281 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> So what's your point?

"Plan X" .EQ. "Plan Y"

Cutting taxes without cutting spending in this 1980's produced a
consumption boom,  and changed the US from a creditor to a debtor.

Why would repeating this now do anything but produce another consumption
boom and increase the debt?  Just digging the hole deeper,  right?


> Thus, tax policy WILL affect the total product of our society.  Any
> argument that taking the money from one place instead of another will 
> have no such effect is totally without merit.

Cutting taxes without cutting government spending reduces investment.  Or
causes inflation,  which reduces investment.  If you want to increase
investment,  cut spending and raise taxes.

This is not to say that the current tax code is ideal:  there are several
points where there are disincentives to creating value by investing or 
by working.  


Phil

>"Plan X" .EQ. "Plan Y"

Are we back to chromosomes? Is this why Forbes is so violent?

    Re .283:
    
    > Why would repeating this now do anything but produce another
    > consumption boom and increase the debt?  Just digging the hole deeper, 
    > right?
    
    Wrong.  If you cut taxes on consumption, then people will consume, and
    you will dig the hole deeper.  But if you cut taxes on investment, then
    people will invest, and the hole can get shallower.
    
    > Cutting taxes without cutting government spending reduces investment.
    
    That is false.
    
    > Or causes inflation,  which reduces investment.
    
    Inflation could be caused, but the investment returns can outweigh it.
    
    > If you want to increase investment,  cut spending and raise taxes.
    
    Cut spending, fine.  But how can raising taxes increase investment? 
    Who is going to say "Oh, boy, I have less money, so I'll invest it!"?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

RE: 632.285 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> If you cut taxes on consumption, then people will consume, and you will 
> dig the hole deeper.  But if you cut taxes on investment, then people will
> invest, and the hole can get shallower.

Reagan tried this.  Big cuts in taxes on capital gains,  right?  It didn't
work the first time.  Why would it work now?


>> Cutting taxes without cutting government spending reduces investment.

> That is false.

Always?

People get extra money,  they usually don't invest all of it,  right?

All of this extra money must come from the government borrowing money or
printing money.  When the government borrows money,  it crowds out other
investments.  If someone buys government bonds,  then they can't put the
money in a bank,  which might loan it to a semiconductor plant to buy new
equipment.

If the government prints money,  it causes inflation,  which is a tax on
investments.  You are against taxes on investments,  right?


Phil

>Reagan tried this.  Big cuts in taxes on capital gains,  right?  It didn't
>work the first time.  Why would it work now?

 But it did work. Problem was, much like the lack of oversight in the
 banking deregulation, their were no controls put in place to control
 spending increases. Some folks blame Reagan for this as well  ...

RE: 632.287 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do with

>> Reagan tried this.  Big cuts in taxes on capital gains,  right?  It
>> didn't work the first time.  Why would it work now?

> But it did work.

Economy boomed,  right.  Look at why.  Look at the amount of borrowing from
overseas.  The US went from a creditor to a debtor.  Anyone can live well
for a while by going deeply into debt.


Phil

    Forbes didn't look too bad on C-Spam last night.  
    
    Of course, he didn't look very "presidential", either.  He couldn't
    keep his left hand still (he raised and lowered it on each syllable, it
    seemed), and he would give this little "cat who pee'd in your shoes" smile
    after making a good point.
    
    He needs to work on his body language.
    
    
    -steve

    |He needs to work on his body language.
    
    tap dancing lessons would be good.  maybe even ballet.

    He certainly can't pasa DObLE.

    Can he pass a stone?

    patsy stone?  fabulous, sweetie darling.

    
      Forbes won the Diamond State, and because it was winner-take-all,
     got all 12 delegates.
    
      bb

>> But it did work.
>
>Economy boomed,  right.  Look at why.  Look at the amount of borrowing from
>overseas.  The US went from a creditor to a debtor.  Anyone can live well
>for a while by going deeply into debt.
>>
>
>Phil


NSS ; And the money borrowed to initiate this boom could have easily been repaid
had the increases in spending been kept to a reasonable rate! 

	Forbes pulls ahead of Dole with the delegates. Buchanan is 1st.

    I thought Dole and Forbes were tied with 17!

    Dole has 16.
    
    CNN put up a slide with an error for much of the weekend (they
    were saying that Dole had 16, but the slide showed Dole with 17
    along with Forbes having 17.)
    
    Dole is definitely in 3rd place with 16.

    
      If Forbes does actually win Az, it will change things.
    
      If the Presidency were restricted to Billionaires by Constitutional
     Amendment, I'd certainly prefer Stevie to Rawss...
    
      bb

    Stevie has won Az (all delegates). however, i don't believe this will
    change anything once the dust settles. makes it interesting, though.

    So Steve as now taken two states, Buchanon 3, and Dole maybe two?
    
    This is shaping up to be an interesting year.
    
    meg

    
    
			  (__)
                          ($$)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |FORBES|| \ 
                 *  ||W----||  WE WON!!!
                    ~~     ~~  
    

    
      At $4M for 39 delegates, the nomination will cost $100M.  Still
     chump change for SF.  Taking no matching funds, and no contributions,
     the Supremes having ruled that Congress cannot subject him to any
     election finance laws, he's free to buy any amount of neg ads.
    
      Actually, mebbe $100M of neg ads is the best theory on beating Sliq.
    
      The man is walking target practice.
    
      bb

	I thought he changed and isn't running a negative campaign anymore?

    
    re: -1
    
    	yeah, right. :)
    
    

    Hey,
    
    One pundit here suggested that for 350 million we should deliver the
    republican delegation of CO to Forbes.  This would give him all our
    votes and the denver Bronco's can build a new stadium.  
    
    wonder if Forbes is a bronco fan?

    Do we have 900 delegates to deliver, though?  :)
    
    (If not, he could run out of money a lot faster if every state
    wants a new stadium, too.)
    
    If he doesn't make it this time, then I think Bill Gates should
    give his wife the Presidency as a birthday present in 4 years.
    (He's got BILLIONS AND BILLIONS - he could build lots of stadiums
    with that much money!)

    suzannne
    
    the estimate was that Forbes spent 500/vote for each vote he got in IA. 
    given that we could easily afford the stadium, as long as the RP is
    willing to make a one-candidate ballot.
    
    meg

    Maybe that'll be his new campaign slogan...vote for me, I'll build u a
    Stadium.
    
    Lot better than Nixon's "Secret Plan" to end the VietNam War.

    Forbes is wasting his own money, nothing wrong with that.
    The other candidates are just jealous they can't do the same.
    
    ...mind you its a lot of money to waste on a publicity stunt,
    wich is all that this is...get some name recognition for the
    real race in 4 years. (President Clinton will almost certainly
    be re-elected ;-)
    
    Just how much is Forbes worth anyway ?
    Did he inherit, or made his own fortune ?
    
    Are all those millions is is campaining with just pocket change
    or a significant fraction of his wealth.
    
    Gil

    
      Steve Forbes inherited in excess of $1B when Malcolm died.
    
      bb

           <<< Note 632.306 by CSC32::M_EVANS "cuddly as a cactus" >>>
    
   > wonder if Forbes is a bronco fan?


    I'm sure Mr. Forbes knows a bad investment when he see it so 
    I doubt it. If he wanted to back a loser, he could just 
    endorse Dole.

    daryll

I at least admire Forbes for the fact that he's willing to spend sagans
of his own money on expenses to campaign for the principle that he wishes 
to not be required to allow the government to take similar amounts from 
him via unfair taxation laws.

I'm quite fond of the concept that it's more desireable to throw your own
money in a toilet and pull the handle than it is to surrender it to an
oppressive government agency under penalty of law. Yes I am.

	To add to what Jack said, I think it's great that he doesn't have to
follow gov guidelines and can spend as much as he wants.

	Dole bitches about him spending 4 million in Arizona. Gee, you've only
been in office for how long now? You're only one of the most vocal GOP out
there. 

	Dear old Pat...he has been on the tube for years now, and what, he's
complaining about the money issue? Be real. 

	Btw, what ever happened to Newt being so vocal? He's so quiet now. And
what happened about the contract? There is no talk about it.



Glen

    
      Glen - of course, Newt and everything but prex candidates is
     now page 2 material.  Yesterday, when asked what he was doing,
     Newt said he had a long talk with Clinton, maybe encouraging,
     that he would try again but didn't have much hope.  "I guess we
     have to wait for a president who will sign things," said Gingrich.
    
      bb

    Lacking data ... to make informed decesions...makes me MAD.
    
    Personaly I think that candidates should be required to write 
    a resume (their are applying for a job after all) for public
    distribution.
    
    Included should be a section, were they explain why they think
    they will do a good job, and a description of their plaform and
    major proposals (backed with real facts and numbers).
    
    TV adds and sound bytes ... are by their very nature not very
    informative (worse as pointed here already) they are often 
    misleading.
    
    gil

    My husband got a mailing from the Steve Forbes campaign yesterday
    and the envelope said "CHECK ENCLOSED".

    I told my husband, "Hey, they said he was paying for votes - here's
    the check for your vote!"  :)

    Actually, the check is from Steve Forbes' bank account and the payee
    is also Steve Forbes.  He asks for a check from us (TO HIM) and says
    he will match it with a check from him (TO HIM).

    A new slant on the 'matching funds' idea ("You write a check to me,
    and I will write a check to myself with matching funds.")

    Pretty weird.  :)

    Sounds like it is in the category of laundering or floating checks to
    me.
    
    The bottom line is Forbes is losing some of the primaries.  Therefore
    it stands to reason he is not buying votes.  

    ...or at least he's not always buying enough votes to win.  :)

    Touche!

      Glen,
    
        I think you raise a good point.  Visibility is fo some worth.
        Everyone knows who Dole is.  That is worth something.  Its 
        something he has that others do not.  And this something he
        has is of benefit to him (usually!).
    
        Its not just money.
    
    						Tony

    The Malcolm Forbes estate was worth slightly under $1B.  Steve got
    about 35% (which was actually stock in the Forbes publishing Corp.)
    Inherited cash was actually pretty low.

    He has since expanded the company, and started several new ventures
    (Forbes Media Critic, and a Multi-Media Company).

    He is estimated to be worth between $400-$450M.  He is pledging to
    spend up to $40M of his own, which represents about 1-2 years of income.
    The Wall Street Journal has speculated that he is heavily invested in
    Muni's and other income deferral schemes, and that is why he won't
    release his tax returns. Ross Perot is also heavily invested in Muni's
    and his effective tax rate was around 6%.

    /jim

    My theory is that the Forbes candidacy is, more or less,
    his mid-life crisis.
    
    Bored at the office, lots of bucks, can't hurt circulation, so why not?

Munis don't defer tax liability (unless they're discounted, in which case
there will be capital gains when they're redeemed).

    Not having followed this weekend's presidential activity, is 
    Steve-O-Rooney still in the lead, or has Dole surpassed him
    with his recent victories?

As of yesterday AM Dole is the front runner according to the media.

    What about Bob?

    Beverly?

    Baby steps.  

    Well, this AM Dole guy sounds like a Johnny Come Lately to me. I can't
    believe he's the front runner.

    
      Jack Kemp came out for him yesterday, which may help upstate.
    
      He's spent over $1 million on ads.  "Flat tax, flat tax, flat tax..."
    
      bb

    Kemp's endorsement was not a glowing "He's the guy!" type of thing he
    wanted.  Kemp hedged and after much consideration chose Forbe's over
    Dole.  He couched it in such a way that is sounded almost like half an 
    endorsement.  Endorsement-lite.

    I'm disappointed that Kemp endorsed Forbes. I thought I liked Kemp, but
    I know I don't like Forbes. Curiouser & curiouser.

    
>      Jack Kemp came out for him yesterday, which may help upstate.

	I find Kemp's involvement in this interesting.  I mean the strategy
	behind it.  Earlier, he was saying that none of the candidates was
	his cuppa tea exactly, so he was unwilling to endorse (not
	being a one-issue guy, presumably.)  I wonder how long he's been
	planning to play this (sort of) trump card for Forbes though, and
	what, if anything, has influenced the decision other than the flat
	tax.

re .333:

Forbe's?  Somebody give that man a Ronco Apostrophe Remover ASAP.

re .335:

Forbes and Kemp are buddy-buddy from way back.  Kemp got upset at Dole for
attacking the flat tax.

| <<< Note 632.332 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| Jack Kemp came out for him yesterday, 

	Ya mean Steve was scared to do it on his own? 

| which may help upstate.

	Does upstate have a large gay population?

    
      Well, heard on the nooz he withdraws today.  Spen 25-30 M of
     his own.  Chump change, but word is that he feared hurting the
     magazine by looking ridiculous if he continued too long after
     it became obvious he couldn't win.
    
      He's going to endorse Dole, who will make ingratiating noises.
    
      bb

 I always enjoy how these guys call each other names in the early going,
 then when they get out, endorse the front runner with glowing tributes.



 Jim

    <-- I noticed that, too.

re: .339 (Jim)

> I always enjoy how these guys call each other names in the early going,
> then when they get out, endorse the front runner with glowing tributes.

It's called "Sheep's Lullaby."  What's really scary is how effective it is.

\john

Study: Flat-tax proposals could be costly to small
farmers


Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net
Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (Mar 30, 1996 8:33 p.m. EST) -- Farmer Jones is deep
in debt and has half as much land as his neighbor, Farmer Smith. The
last thing someone would propose is to raise Jones' taxes and cut
Smith's, right? Wrong.

A study of 70 sample farms around the country concludes that flat-tax
proposals could do just that.

Large farms and producers with low debt could save thousands of dollars
if the current tax structure were scrapped in favor of a single tax rate,
according to the study by Texas A&M University.

But smaller farms and farmers with high debt loads could actually see
their taxes increase due to higher employment taxes and the loss of the
tax deduction for interest expenses.

At moderate debt levels, 56 percent of the sample farms would see lower
federal income and employment taxes under a flat-tax plan, the study
said. But at high debt levels, 71 percent of the farms would have their
taxes increased.

"The flat tax clearly would be unfriendly to family size farmers. ... As
they learn more about it they'll find it doesn't have much appeal," said
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a former state tax commissioner.

The flat-rate plans proposed by House Republican Leader Dick Armey
and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes would greatly
simplify the tax system.

But they would eliminate popular tax deductions for home mortgages,
charitable and business interest expenses -- a major issue for many
farmers.

"This is going to be a benefit for the very wealthy who already have the
cash," said Vern Hoven, a tax expert who analyzed Forbes' flat-tax plan
for Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

Hoven studied tax returns of four sample Iowa farms, based on data from
1,100 producers, and concluded that most of the state's growers would
face large tax increases.

The flat-tax plans would allow the immediate write-off of business
investments -- letting farmers, for example, deduct the full cost of a
tractor in a single year. But the proposals could increase employment
taxes -- Social Security and Medicare -- and the plans would do away
with a tax credit used by low-income people, including many farmers.

A farmer's Social Security and Medicare taxes would differ under the
flat tax because of the changes in the way income is calculated.

Although Forbes' campaign withered, there is still public interest in tax
simplification, and Armey is expected to continue pushing his plan next
year.

"It's not whether it will happen," Forbes said recently. "It's just a matter
of when it will happen."

The Texas A&M study assumed a single tax rate of 18 percent. Armey's
plan would start the flat rate at 20 percent and drop it to 17 percent. The
farms analyzed in the study exist only on paper but they are designed to
be representative of crop and livestock farms in major production areas.

At moderate debt levels, six of the eight wheat farms in the study would
have lower income and employment taxes. At high debt levels five of the
farms would see tax increases.

A 4,000-acre wheat farm in North Dakota with moderate debt would
see its federal tax bill slashed from $16,570 to $5,730 under a flat tax, the
study said.

But a 1,600-acre wheat farm with high debt would have its tax bill rise
from $3,610 to $4,240, the study said.

A 2,150-cow dairy farm in California would cut its tax from $739,970 to
$394,620, assuming a moderate debt load.

But a 190-cow farm in Wisconsin would see its taxes rise, regardless of
debt. At high debt, the taxes would increase from $11,040 to $20,480, the
study showed.

There were 10 feed grain farms sampled. At moderate debt, three would
have higher taxes. At high debt, half would see tax increases. Taxes on a
heavily indebted 800-acre farm in Nebraska would more than double,
the study found. By contrast, a Nebraska farm that's twice as large with
moderate debt would cut its taxes by a third.