mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (10/04/90)
A thousand apologies if this has already been posted. Due to the irritating
Mac vs. Apple II debates by the Apple II hardliners, I've resigned to reading
only the headers for interesting messages here. Anyway, I'm digressing.
I received the following message from Ron Lichty on America Online and felt
the need to get the word out to the comp-sys-apple2 community ASAP.
-----------
Date: 90-10-03 04:32:43 EDT
From: RonLichty
Subj: Tax on computers!
To: KSUTHER, CecilFret, SteveAdept, MDavis, KennS, GRMORRISON
Item forwarded by Ron Lichty
Sub: new computer luxury tax
BACKGROUND ON NEW COMPUTER LUXURY TAX
In Washington, members of the Bush Administration, the House of
Representatives and Senate have been meeting in a budget summit to
negotiate a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit. They have been
considering various proposals to raise new taxes as part of package.
One item that should be of concern to the computing community is a
luxury tax on electronics products. While most of us in the computer
industry originally believed that the tax was aimed at high end TV's,
VCR's, Camcorders, and other consumer electronic entertainment
products, it appears that computers have been included as taxable
products.
HOW THE TAX WOULD WORK
The luxury tax is a 10% tax assessed on the value of the following
luxury items over the following threshholds:
Cars over $30,000
Furs over $500
Jewelry over $5,000
ELECTRONICS over $1,000
For example, if you purchase a personal computer that costs you $3,000,
you will have to pay a 10% luxury tax on the amount over $1,000.
Hence, in this example, you will pay $200 (10% of ($3,000-1,000)) in
addition to the sales tax when you purchase the computer at the
register.
APPLE'S POSITION
We at Apple Computer feel that extending this tax to cover personal
computers is preposterous. Computers increase the productivity of
workers, teachers and students. It is inappropriate to impose a
"luxury" tax on the tools which can boost American productivity. As a
nation, we must be prepared to manage our affairs in the Information
Age--an age in which computer equipment is not a luxury but a
necessity. Yet, the Congress and the Administration seem to be unable
to recognize the critical role computers now play in the lives of
millions of Americans.
In addition, the threshhold for computers is rediculously low. Only
high-end car models are over $30,000. Only a small percentage of
jewelry purchased is over $5,000. But for computers, $1,000 is the low
end of the market. Most computers sold exceed this amount. It makes
little sense to impose a luxury tax on a college student's investment
in a personal computer while exempting the purchase of a $5,000 Rolex
wrist watch.
GAME PLAN
If anybody is concerned about this proposal, telephone calls to
Congressional representatives and senators could be a critical help.
Interested persons should do the following:
- call their congressional representative's local office to
register their opposition to the proposed luxury tax on computers.
- ask their representative to voice their concerns to the
legislators who are negotiating in the budget summit.
- call members of the budget summit in Washington, D.C. to register
their opposition to the luxury tax:
Capitol Hill Senate: (202) 224-3121
Capitol Hill House: (202) 225-3121
White House: (202) 456-1414
PARTICIPANTS IN THE BUDGET SUMMIT
Rep. Tom Foley (D-WA)
Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO)
Rep. Leon Panetta (D-CA)
Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL)
Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-MN)
Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX)
Sen. George Mitchell (D-ME)
Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS)
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)
Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR)
Sen. Jim Sasser (D-TN)
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (D-GA)
Richard Darman (Director, Office of Management and Budget)
Nicholas Brady (Secretary of the Treasury)
John Sununu (White House Chief of Staff)
Roger Porter (Assistant to the President)
If people are interested in helping to beat back this proposal, time is
of the essence. It could be a matter of days, not weeks. A luxury tax
is very likely to be enacted. The question is whether or not it will
be extended to computers.
UUCP: crash!pro-sol!mdavis AOL, BIX: mdavis
ARPA: crash!pro-sol!mdavis@nosc.mil GEnie: m.davis42
INET: mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com ProLine: mdavis@pro-solsk2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth D. Kadesh) (10/04/90)
HAHAHAHA. Now they'll have to reduce the prices on their computers... :-) It just struck me as funny. -seth tHe mAd ScienTisT, and other carnations. sk2f@andrew.cmu.edu r764sk2f@CMCCVB and other stuff...
bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) (10/04/90)
In <4796@crash.cts.com> mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) writes: >Item forwarded by Ron Lichty >Sub: new computer luxury tax > >HOW THE TAX WOULD WORK >The luxury tax is a 10% tax assessed on the value of the following >luxury items over the following threshholds: > > Cars over $30,000 > Furs over $500 > Jewelry over $5,000 > ELECTRONICS over $1,000 > >For example, if you purchase a personal computer that costs you $3,000, >you will have to pay a 10% luxury tax on the amount over $1,000. >Hence, in this example, you will pay $200 (10% of ($3,000-1,000)) in >addition to the sales tax when you purchase the computer at the >register. > >APPLE'S POSITION >We at Apple Computer feel that extending this tax to cover personal >computers is preposterous. Computers increase the productivity of >workers, teachers and students. It is inappropriate to impose a >"luxury" tax on the tools which can boost American productivity. As a >nation, we must be prepared to manage our affairs in the Information >Age--an age in which computer equipment is not a luxury but a >necessity. Yet, the Congress and the Administration seem to be unable >to recognize the critical role computers now play in the lives of >millions of Americans. Much stuff edited out While I agree that the idea of a luxury tax on computers is not a good idea, I must tounge in cheek say that it appears the Congress is looking out for us Apple II folks. After all, the //e, the //c+, and the GS can all be purchased at street prices of under $1,000, so the tax would not affect them, as it would not affect many of the clones, and the new PS/1.. On the other hand (tounge in other cheek) it appears that all Apple is worried about is that the tax will apply to the machines they cherrish so much, The high end Macs, to which I say, if you need more power than a GS, then it appears the government feels you need a luxury item which falls into the same catagory as an auto worth over $30,000.. With all due respect to Morgan and Ron, both of whom I know and respect quite a bit, I suggest that we do not engage in the letter writing campaign, If Apple does not want to promote the sales and support of our machines, why should we go to bat to help them further their Mac sales. Support is a two way street, you help me, and I help you, so let Apple make their support plans known first. We already helped them by purchasing their products. They have a multi million dollar promotion campaign beginning in less than 2 weeks, and not a cent of it is earmarked to promote the Apple II market. -- bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (10/04/90)
>>> I suggest that we do not engage in the letter writing campaign...
How short-sighted of you. Do you think you will *never* buy another computer
which might cost more than $1,000? What if Apple releases an Apple IIGX for
$1,500 next week. How would you feel about your statements then. While
preventing such a tax would boost Apple's (and just about every other
manufacturer's) sales somewhat, the real winner would be computer users.
Do you really want to penalize someone because their computer needs do not
include an Apple IIc, Apple IIe, or Apple IIgs? This seems rather selfish
and saddens me. Ten years ago *I* was there for you supporting the personal
computer industry so that you could have an Apple II gs today. So were
hundreds of thousands of others. I ask everyone who reads this to continue
supporting the users of tomorrow. After all, someone who uses a PC is better
for Apple IIgs users than someone who does not use a computer at all.ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft) (10/05/90)
Well, this tax is a good reason not to buy your computer in a package deal; while overall the cost might be a bit more you avoid the tax. However, that's not going to help people who want to buy a mac or a next or something BIG... you could still buy a GS in pieces, no?
mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (10/07/90)
In-Reply-To: message from bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu Bob, You missed the whole point. (First, let me say that I've heard that the luxury tax on electronics has been eliminated -- heard, but not confirmed). The point is not "Apple Computer's Mac vs. IIGS". We're talking about the government doing such an illogical thing as imposing a luxury tax on business and productivity equipment with a low $1000 cap, yet allowing a $5000 cap on things like jewelry (granted, I'll bet senators will spend more money on jewelry for their wives than they will for new office equipment -- hence the very disproportionate caps). I wish this entire group would enlighten itself by getting off this ridiculous Apple (or Mac) vs. Apple II debate. It is so senseless. For issues like the luxury tax on ALL COMPUTERS, the Apple II community has this blind fixation on the Macintosh and Apple corporate as enemies. This permeates the discussion and lucid thinking SO BADLY that we can't even see the main issue involve in something totally different!! Go to a dealer. Buy a IIGS, extended RAM card (with with at least 2MB RAM), a 3.5" disk drive, a color monitor, software, and a printer--all you'd need for a productive system for your home, dorm, or office. You'd spend a lot more than $1000. Bet on it. UUCP: crash!pro-sol!mdavis AOL, BIX: mdavis ARPA: crash!pro-sol!mdavis@nosc.mil GEnie: m.davis42 INET: mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com ProLine: mdavis@pro-sol
tomk@pro-sol.cts.com (Tom Kelly) (10/07/90)
In-Reply-To: message from bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu I have to aggree about ]['s costing under the $1000.00. I am working on a ][e which comes well under the limit. As was stated Apple seems sold on pushing the high end Macs. Let them solve the coming problem the good old American way. Spend some of their profits (mostly earned in the past from the ]['s) to support the ]['s and the Mac profits to support their toy for those with FAT wallets in the defense against the proposed taxes. (I have always been annoyed that there were so few sources for ][ stuff at a reasonable price.)
joshuat@pro-sol.cts.com (Joshua M. Thompson) (10/10/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tomk@pro-sol.cts.com Well, a nice II system under $1000 isn't the majority. My IIGS system, not including my hard drive or TWGS, costed over $3000. Now that I have the TWGS, drive, and an extra meg of memory, it's more like $4000. Now that would be $400 in tax.