mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (10/04/90)
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-soldenbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (10/04/90)
Comp.sys.mac.misc is not the appropriate forum, but it is where the original message was posted.... This is highly edited, but I have attempted to retain all the facts. See <4797@crash.cts.com>, by mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) for the full text. > 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.... > it appears that computers have been included as taxable products.... [at the rate of 10% of the amount over $1000.00] > 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:... No. No. Please don't. If I have to spend a couple of hundred dollars when I buy my next commputer, I don't care. What I do care about is the fact that every person owes about $2000.00 (yes two thousand dollars) per year in interest on the national debt. (national debt/population size * interest). Until the deficit goes away, we can't work on the debt. -- William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/05/90)
------ In article <6356@bgsuvax.UUCP>, denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes... [...] >> it appears that computers have been included as taxable products.... > [at the rate of 10% of the amount over $1000.00] >> 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:... > >No. No. Please don't. If I have to spend a couple of hundred dollars >when I buy my next commputer, I don't care. What I do care about is >the fact that every person owes about $2000.00 (yes two thousand dollars) >per year in interest on the national debt. (national debt/population >size * interest). Until the deficit goes away, we can't work on the debt. > Yes, please do! I'm sorry, but I work hard for my money. Maybe a "couple of hundred dollars" isn't much to you. It's a hell of a lot to me. I pay income tax. I pay sales tax if I buy computer stuff. That's enough. Before they start taxing computers, why don't they think about soaking the rich? (and if you think only rich people buy computers, dream on. Besides, a flat tax on computers is regressive: poor and middle income people would pay more proportionately than the rich). I mean look at the so-called budget compromise: they're going to stick it to the middle-class again: people with incomes in the $30k to $50 k range are going to see something like a 3.3% increase, while those with over $200k in income are going to see about a 0.3% increase: 1/10th as much! Besides the fact: if we make computers harder to buy (and believe me, 10% _does_ make a difference to most people), then fewer people will buy computers (or alternatively, buy fewer computers), fewer people will use computers, fewer people will buy software: thus a decrease in sales, something _real_ healthy for our current economy. And having fewer people use and learn about computers is _just_ what our country needs to remain competitive in the upcoming years. (Lest anyone miss it and flame me: I'm being sarcastic in the last couple of points). So: the reason this isn't in misc.politics or whatever: if you're interested in computers, and you feel we shouldn't be putting this massive tax on them: DO get in touch with your congressman/congresswoman. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
cw1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Cushing Courtney Whitney) (10/05/90)
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes >This is highly edited, but I have attempted to retain all the facts. See ><4797@crash.cts.com>, by mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) for the >full text. > >> 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.... >> it appears that computers have been included as taxable products.... > [at the rate of 10% of the amount over $1000.00] >> 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:... > >No. No. Please don't. If I have to spend a couple of hundred dollars >when I buy my next commputer, I don't care. What I do care about is >the fact that every person owes about $2000.00 (yes two thousand dollars) >per year in interest on the national debt. (national debt/population >size * interest). Until the deficit goes away, we can't work on the debt. come on, do you really think that the money they raise from this is going to ever even see the debt. It'll go into more funding for some other worthless government program. Also, the main complaint is that they are taxing a much larger number of computer purchases than any other products (how many people come in under $1000 when buying a computer). Personally, I do care if I have to spend an extra $200 when I buy my next computer, I'm a student and the $200 could go to more important things (like food!). I think that the government has shown us once again that they are worse with money than a 3-yr old with an allowance. I, for one, think that it's time they show some real reform on the budget before we give them more money
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/05/90)
In article <4797@crash.cts.com> mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) writes: >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 > >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. Would this apply to business purchases or only personal purchases? (I'm just looking for loopholes....) I think it is time for computer manufacturers to start selling computers in separate modules of $999 or less each... (Mac IIfx: Blank logic board $20 CPU $300 FPU $200 Other assorted electronics $<999 Installation (required) $The Rest Since installation isn't electronics, it isn't subject to luxury tax, right?) (or have they thought of this loophole already) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/05/90)
------- In article <1990Oct4.203906.3559@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... [...] >> >>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 [...] >> ELECTRONICS over $1,000 Fascinating. If I want to buy a $25,000 auto, I don't have to pay any additional tax. But if I were to buy a $1500 Mac Classic, I have to cough up $150 extra. This is BS. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (10/05/90)
Does anyone have any references on this proposed tax? (I'd like to investigate it a little.) +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Vincent Del Vecchio \ #include <stddisclaimer.h> | | Box 4834 \ #include <stdquote.h> | | 5125 Margaret Morrison St.\ BITNET: vd09+%andrew@cmuccvma.bitnet | | Pittsburgh, PA 15213 \ UUCP: harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!vd09 | | (412) 268-4441 \ Internet: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.203906.3559@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... ->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 [...] -> ELECTRONICS over $1,000 gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >Fascinating. If I want to buy a $25,000 auto, I don't have to pay any >additional tax. But if I were to buy a $1500 Mac Classic, I have to cough up >$150 extra. >This is BS. No perhaps it is a statement about what the US government thinks about pricing policies for computers :-) . You know perhaps paying $1500 for a Mac Classic is a bit like paying $35,000 for a Mazda 323. The quality is there, but value? More likely they are thinking televisions, VCR's, and stereos with this limit. In the computer realm the only pure "luxury" computers, games machines, come in well under this limit! -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (10/05/90)
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes ->No. No. Please don't. If I have to spend a couple of hundred dollars ->when I buy my next commputer, I don't care. What I do care about is ->the fact that every person owes about $2000.00 (yes two thousand dollars) ->per year in interest on the national debt. (national debt/population ->size * interest). Until the deficit goes away, we can't work on the debt. cw1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Cushing Courtney Whitney) writes: >come on, do you really think that the money they raise from this is >going to ever even see the debt. It'll go into more funding for some >other worthless government program. Well the debt won't just go away on its own you know. In 1982 the Hawke Government came to power in Australia. They inheritted foriegn debt of around M$50,000, and a deficit projected at M$15,000. In six years they wiped out that debt. It can be done. In the mean time the private sector debt has risen to M$100,000. Too bad they couldn't make everyone tighten their belts and save a bit of money for a rainy day. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
mrys@ethz.UUCP (Michael Rys) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.211107.21809@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >------- >In article <1990Oct4.203906.3559@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... >[...] >>> >>>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 >[...] >>> ELECTRONICS over $1,000 > >Fascinating. If I want to buy a $25,000 auto, I don't have to pay any >additional tax. But if I were to buy a $1500 Mac Classic, I have to cough up >$150 extra. > Ask yourself: - Which car brands cost more than $30,000? Ford, Chrysler, GM? No (ok, maybe some very top of the line cars)! But look at the successful companies in that range -> BMW, Mercedes, Rolls-Roys etc. -> European, ie non-US. - Who is going to buy jewelery for over $5,000? From where? You got it, the rich and if it is not made by a local goldsmith it comes from overseas. - Who sells the most HIFI, VCRs, Microwave ovens? Yeah, right- the Japanese. Now what do you think, Bush had in mind with this tax? I would suggest: 1. Increase Taxes without breaking his "Read it from my lips" word by not increasing income tax. 2. Therefore encreasing state income. 3. Increasing the import barrier to "balance" the trade flows. (What freemarket? There is no freemarket!) That computers are part of the electronics is just a "minor" coincidence which was not forseen - I guess - because they might have not heard that you can buy personal computers (or macs :-) nowadays. When they went to university they couldn't even lay hands on a pocket calculator - remember? But this gets of comp.sys.mac.* I redirect follow-ups to talk.politics.misc (which I don't read (I am a European, I don't have a congressperson to contact:-)) so reply personally if you want to start a discussion/flame war etc. with me. >Robert > > >============================================================================ >= gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = >= * all my opinions are * compute" = >= * mine * -Kraftwerk = >============================================================================ +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Rys, V. Conzett Str. 34; CH-8004 Zuerich; Switzerland | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | UUCP: mrys@ethz.UUCP or EAN: mrys@ifi.ethz.ch | | mrys@bernina.UUCP IPSANet: mrys@ipsaint | | Voice: +41 1 242 35 87 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ -- Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) (10/06/90)
In article <4797@crash.cts.com> mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) writes: >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 It was my understanding, based on newspaper reports of around October 1, that the budget proposal that was hammered out by the leadership did not include the tax on electronics, though it did include the other items mentioned. Now that the leadership's proposal has been rejected, there is the possibility that the tax on electronics may be restored, but I think it is unlikely that taxes will be added to the existing proposal this close to an election, with the prevailing winds blowing in the opposite direction. -- Dave Seaman ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (10/06/90)
In article <6150@ethz.UUCP> mrys@bernina.UUCP (Michael Rys) writes: >In article <1990Oct4.211107.21809@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchic\ ago.edu writes: >>------- >>In article <1990Oct4.203906.3559@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew \ T. Russotto) writes... >>[...] >>>> >>>>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 >>[...] >>>> ELECTRONICS over $1,000 >> >>Fascinating. If I want to buy a $25,000 auto, I don't have to pay any >>additional tax. But if I were to buy a $1500 Mac Classic, I have to cough up >>$150 extra. >> > >Ask yourself: >- Which car brands cost more than $30,000? Ford, Chrysler, GM? No (ok, maybe > some very top of the line cars)! But look at the successful companies in tha\ t > range -> BMW, Mercedes, Rolls-Roys etc. -> European, ie non-US. > >- Who is going to buy jewelery for over $5,000? From where? You got it, the > rich and if it is not made by a local goldsmith it comes from overseas. > >- Who sells the most HIFI, VCRs, Microwave ovens? Yeah, right- the Japanese. > >Now what do you think, Bush had in mind with this tax? >1. Increase Taxes without breaking his "Read it from my lips" word by not incr\ >which was not forseen - I guess - because they might have not heard that you c\ >buy personal computers (or macs :-) nowadays. When they went to university the\ > Well, I don't know what the papers are saying in CH, but the increased tax measures are from the oposition party (Democratic party). If Bush had his way, he would try to reduce taxes (which is more along the lines of Bush's (Republican) party). As a matter of fact, when this bill went up for a vote yesterday, it was soundly defeated by Bush's party so you are going to see some changes before it passes. Maybe the "luxury" (is a computer really a luxury in this day and age???) taxes will be removed in the final version. >But this gets of comp.sys.mac.* I redirect follow-ups to talk.politics.misc >(which I don't read (I am a European, I don't have a congressperson to contact\ :-)) that's OK, I'll just re-direct it back. :-) Cheers, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (10/06/90)
In article <14817@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes: >In article <4797@crash.cts.com> mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) writes: (lots of stuff about the surtax on computers over $1000) One poster mentioned that a possible motive for this surtax on "luxury" items like cars, jewelry, and computers is that those items above the price points at which the tax kicks in are foreign-produced. This is probably true for many of the non-computer items (and so far as computers are concerned, the best selling ones under $1000 -- Nintendos -- are Japanese-made). If this is a ploy to help American companies, I just have one question: What will the surtax on a Cray X-MP be? John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | |
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (10/06/90)
In article <5118@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >No perhaps it is a statement about what the US government thinks about >pricing policies for computers :-) . You know perhaps paying $1500 for a >Mac Classic is a bit like paying $35,000 for a Mazda 323. The quality is >there, but value? Excuse me? Are we talking about the same government who is headed up by someone who brags about using a typewriter and who sends _very_ uninformed FBI agents out to prosecute computer users/hackers???? No, I have to disagree with your claim. Rather, they see it as an easy target and wish to capitalize (hey, now THAT'S an idea!) on it. Perhaps they don't realize the power of electronic forums... and perhaps they'll make a few discoveries... Regards, -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (10/07/90)
In-Reply-To: message from denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP > What I do care about is the fact that every person owes about $2000.00 per > year in interest on the national debt. Yes, but like everything the government is doing to pay it off, it isn't doing the right thing (cutting government spending). Instead, it does idiotic things like impose a $5000 cap on jewelry (what??) but ridiculously low $1000 on electronic business equipment! While I agree with your concern, we need to make sure this kind of lunacy is not the method by which we pay off this national debt. You hurt the businesses of all sizes with this sort of tax. Hit the senators who are spending upwards to $5000 to by jewelry. 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
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP I don't owe $2K to ANYONE...I wasn't the one who decided to ring up the nation's VISAcard, and I don't think I should be penalized for some other peoples' short-sighted actions. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
nolan@tssi.UUCP (Michael Nolan) (10/09/90)
In article <4869@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP > > >I don't owe $2K to ANYONE...I wasn't the one who decided to ring up the >nation's VISAcard, and I don't think I should be penalized for some other >peoples' short-sighted actions. Well, if you haven't used an Interstate highway, flown on an airplane, visited a National Park, used the Internet, mailed or received a letter, etc., I'll recommend you be exonerated from your $2000. (Although it won't do you any good.) The fact is, WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!!!! And unless you've not gotten any benefit from our Federal government, or anything it supports/funds, etc., some of that debt has been used to pay for YOUR use of the infrastructure. (We've all heard the shopworn line about what benefit did we get from the space program, one answer being microcomputers.) Have you communicated with your congresscritters about their votes on budget matters? If you're like most Americans, probably NOT! For that matter, assuming you're over 18, are you a registered voter, did you vote in your state's primaries, and will you vote on November 6th. The majority of Americans will NOT vote next month, although the current budget snafu in Washington DC may increase the vote turnout, for a change. I hope somebody more connected will post the current status of the luxury tax, assuming the most recent Continuing Resolution passes and is signed. I agree that the tax as originally structured is unfair with respect to the computer industry. I spent a lot of time this weekend watching the House debate the budget on C-SPAN, and it was fascinating!! One caller said it was 'better than Disneyland'! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Nolan "Software means never having Tailored Software Services, Inc. to say you're finished." Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490 --J. D. Hildebrand in UNIX REVIEW UUCP: tssi!nolan (uucp links changing upstream, expect problems) INTERNET: nolan@pythia.unl.edu (if you can't get the other address to work)
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (10/09/90)
In article <4869@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > I don't owe $2K to ANYONE...I wasn't the one who decided to ring up the > nation's VISAcard, and I don't think I should be penalized for some other > peoples' short-sighted actions. This was my first reaction too. Then I thought about all the federal subsidies which reduce my cost of living (through cheap gas, etc.) and concluded that it's one reasonable way of looking at the national debt. That is, when we purchase subsidized commodities it's like "buy now, pay later." -- peace. -- Ed "Vote. Because it's the Right Thing."
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (10/10/90)
In article <4869@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >I don't owe $2K to ANYONE...I wasn't the one who decided to ring up the >nation's VISAcard, and I don't think I should be penalized for some other >peoples' short-sighted actions. > Do you vote? :-) More seriously, whether you like it or not, a large percentage of your tax dollars are going to pay the interest on your national debt. This is money that could be much better spent, don't you think? I applaud Bush for showing some balls and forcing congress to try and produce a realistic budget. 2 Trillion and counting... Eric
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/10/90)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: I don't owe $2K to ANYONE...I wasn't the one who decided to ring up the nation's VISAcard, and I don't think I should be penalized for some other peoples' short-sighted actions. by ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell): Do you vote? :-) More seriously, whether you like it or not, a large percentage of your tax dollars are going to pay the interest on your national debt. This is money that could be much better spent, don't you think? I applaud Bush for showing some balls and forcing congress to try and produce a realistic budget. 2 Trillion and counting... === A couple notes: 1) I heard on NPR today a figure of $13000 for every man, woman, and child to pay off the national debt. A bit more than $2K. :-) 2) Where were Bush's balls during his campaign? -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
tro@adiron.comp.sys.mac.misc (Tom Olin) (10/10/90)
In article <1035@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes:
I applaud Bush for showing some balls and forcing congress to try and
produce a realistic budget. 2 Trillion and counting...
I believe the national debt is at 3 trillion, not 2. Unless you're talking
about just the increase in the debt since 1980.
--
Tom Olin uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638
PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) (10/11/90)
In-Reply-To: message from wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu > Excuse me? Are we talking about the same government who is headed up by > someonewho brags about using a typewriter and who sends _very_ uninformed > FBI agents out to prosecute computer users/hackers???? Wait a minute there guy, don't you mean the Secret Service, not the FBI. Lately the FBI has been getting really mad at the unprofessionalism that the Secret Service has been exibiting with regards to the recent busts on hackers and such......in fact your assumption above is what the FBI is trying to avoid. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (10/13/90)
In article <474@adiron.UUCP> tro@adiron.comp.sys.mac.misc (Tom Olin) writes: >In article <1035@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: > > I applaud Bush for showing some balls and forcing congress to try and > produce a realistic budget. 2 Trillion and counting... > >I believe the national debt is at 3 trillion, not 2. Unless you're talking >about just the increase in the debt since 1980. Gosh, wasn't it Reagan who was talking about the 1 Trillion dollar national debt, and how he was going to stomp it out? I seem to remember him saying that if you stacked up 1 trillion dollar bills, they would stretch all the way (partway?) to the moon. I figure that the national debt is the government's sneaky way of establishing a credible space program. Heck, another couple trillion and we can just CLIMB the damn stack to Mars. :-) Eric