Car licensing fees
Jay Maynard
In article <71233...@mdf.FidoNet> Sam.W...@mdf.FidoNet.Org (Sam Waring) writes:
>I've thus far refused to play the lottery. I think the Lege shoulda gone
>on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
>overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
>instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
>lottery.
Why is an income tax anything to be tolerated in Texas, let alone overdue? Not
having one is a major advantage Texas has in attracting business to the state.
I play the lottery exactly because I feel it should be encouraged, as the only
voluntary (and, according to libertarians, moral) tax around.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
Sam Waring
Well, the money from the lottery that you're talking about isn't new
revenue, as your post seems to imply. The revenue from that is going to
keep already-in-place programs funded in *current* levels, measured in
constant dollars. It's not a new cash cow. The Lege had several choices
before it last session: pass an income tax (which few outside Bob
Bullock were brave enough to advocate), pass a lottery, or crank up user
fees by a few thousand percent on all sorts of things and close some
exemptions in the sales tax (which they also did). The other possibility
they could have chosen was to crank up the sales tax into the 10% range.
That wasn't very popular politically, either.
I've thus far refused to play the lottery. I think the Lege shoulda gone
on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
lottery.
* Origin: The Finish Line (1:382/45.0)
John F. Haugh II
>on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
>overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
>instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
>lottery.
No, we don't need a state income tax. We need to legislature to obey
the state constitution which says that state spending may not grow faster
than the rate of growth of the state's economy. We need the legislature
to IMMEDIATELY stop adding new social programs whose sole purpose is
buying votes.
If you give politicians more money, they will spend it. The only solution
is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
--
John F. Haugh II | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 | "#138. Learn Spanish. In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh | more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org | it as their first language."
Eric Lee Green
> [Crossposted to, and followups directed to, tx.politics.]
>
> In article <71233...@mdf.FidoNet> Sam.W...@mdf.FidoNet.Org (Sam Waring) writes:
>>on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
>>overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
>>instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
>>lottery.
>
> having one is a major advantage Texas has in attracting business to the state.
>
> I play the lottery exactly because I feel it should be encouraged, as the only
> voluntary (and, according to libertarians, moral) tax around.
Well, I just paid $80 to register a car that is worth $400.
That is so ridiculously silly and stupid that it is hardly worth
mentioning. I'd much prefer paying that $80 in little drabbles year-round
than have to walk around all day with $80 in *CASH* in my pocket (Gawd!
Ever been in the Wards while carrying upwards of $100 in your pockets?!).
I won't mention the ridiculousness of having to go around to fifty
different places to handle transfering your license plates and drivers
license... so far, I've spent three afternoons on the task, and there is at
least one left (I have my plates now, so now and ONLY now can I transfer my
license).
By the way, the title on my car will say "Chevrolet four-door". Sheesh. Not
even the COLOR! Obviously DMV here can't do the trick they do elsewhere of
saying "well, he says a red Ford Ranger hit him, what are all the red Ford
Rangers registered in Harris County?". My Chevrolet is a CHEVETTE. WHich is
not on that stupid form. Neither is its correct weight. 3600 pounds dry?
Joke! (2600 pounds, maybe).
Yep, the county tax office definitely gave me a good ole' fashioned Texas
"Howdy." Strangely enough, it looked an aweful lot like the New York state
salute, which is done with the middle finger of the hand.
--
Eric Lee Green e...@elgamy.sccsi.com Dodson Elementary
(713) 437-6908 uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg Houston, TX
"Kids are kids, no matter what"
George Grimes
>
>No, we don't need a state income tax. We need to legislature to obey
>the state constitution which says that state spending may not grow faster
>than the rate of growth of the state's economy. We need the legislature
>to IMMEDIATELY stop adding new social programs whose sole purpose is
>buying votes.
>
>If you give politicians more money, they will spend it. The only solution
>is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
>--
George
Jim Pritchett
>
>
> Well, the money from the lottery that you're talking about isn't new
> revenue, as your post seems to imply. The revenue from that is going to
> keep already-in-place programs funded in *current* levels, measured in
> constant dollars. It's not a new cash cow. The Lege had several choices
> before it last session: pass an income tax (which few outside Bob
> Bullock were brave enough to advocate), pass a lottery, or crank up user
> fees by a few thousand percent on all sorts of things and close some
> exemptions in the sales tax (which they also did). The other possibility
> they could have chosen was to crank up the sales tax into the 10% range.
> That wasn't very popular politically, either.
Or, they could have reduced spending to match income. (Yeah, I know that is
heresy to the big government lovers out there...) By the way, the government
gets more money today than it ever has before. Why do they need more? Think
about it.
> I've thus far refused to play the lottery. I think the Lege shoulda gone
Smart move. You'll be richer for it.
> on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
> overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
> instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
> lottery.
We don't need an income tax here! We DON'T want an income tax here! If you
want an income tax, move to New York! Mario wants more suckers (taxpayers)
to fund the expansion of his empire.
Jim Pritchett
UUCP: rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
or utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Doug Andersen
> dav...@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>
> >Actually, it is a gambling tax. I choose to think of it as a Stupidity Tax,
> >a tax that I have been wanting to see for quite some time...
>
> No, it is an IGNORANCE tax. We have a public educational system that
> does a miserable job of educating people, and then we tax the people
> who have the random bad luck of not having had better opportunities.
> How enlightened.
Lighten up. Has it even occurred to you that people might be very
aware of the poor odds of the lottery but still enjoy playing it?
The idea that everyone who enjoys playing the lottery is ignorant
or stupid is off the mark.
(and yes, I've probably bought $10 worth of lottery tickets since it
started. BFD).
--
Doug Andersen
ha...@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
David L. Cathey
>I've thus far refused to play the lottery. I think the Lege shoulda gone
>on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
>overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
>instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
>lottery.
I think the "Lege shoulda gone on and had the collective balls to"
stop spending so much money. Income tax overdue? At the current federal
income tax rate plus 8.5% sales tax, plus excise taxes, plus oil taxes,
plus battery reclaimation taxes, plus tire taxes, plus property taxes, etc...
you think we are overdue for another tax? If you count it up, government gets
close to over 40% of ALL your money. Isn't that just more than enough?
New taxes aren't overdue, new politicians are...
I for one will not play the lorttery. However, I think that if they
were going to increase income, they chose the right way: Voluntary taxation.
Actually, it is a gambling tax. I choose to think of it as a Stupidity Tax,
a tax that I have been wanting to see for quite some time...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |INET: dav...@montagar.lonestar.org
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!texsun!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX 75026-0772 |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Janet M. Swisher
In article <1992Jul30.2...@montagar.lonestar.org>
dav...@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>Actually, it is a gambling tax. I choose to think of it as a Stupidity Tax,
>a tax that I have been wanting to see for quite some time...
No, it is an IGNORANCE tax. We have a public educational system that
Carter Bennett
>Lighten up. Has it even occurred to you that people might be very
>aware of the poor odds of the lottery but still enjoy playing it?
Agreed. A few months ago, my mother (who NEVER misses sending in a Clearing
House Publishers entry) was in the hospital. I went over to visit, and took
her two tickets at $1 each. We joked about them for a few minutes and there
were smiles all around. And when she scratched them, behold! One of them was
a two-dollar winner. We got a chuckle out of that. When she got better, I
hear she traded it for two more tickets. Both were losers, of course.
Since then, no one in the family has bought any more. But we sure did get
a kick out it ($2 worth, anyway).
Carter R. Bennett, Jr. - Scientist No matter where you go...
car...@scilab.lonestar.org ...tty!
KI5SR
Chris Winemiller
...
> I'd much rather buy a few lottery tickets and take
> that shot in a million(s) and have at least some hope of getting some of
> my money back, then pay a state inclome tax - of which I wouldn't get
> diddly squat back.
Stick around this state for a couple more years. You'll see a state income
tax anyway. (It greatly irritates me that Gov. Richards and others who
brought in the lottery had sold it as the "answer" to a state income tax.
The lottery only generates a drop in the bucket compared to the state's
budget. And, as I predicted earlier, the state is blowing part of this
"income" on TV advertising; I've already seen a number of expen$ive TV adds
promoting the blasted lottery. Your gov't at work --- to waste as much of
your money as possible.)
> It seems that every
> governmental body from the county level to the federal level is inherently
> wasteful.
And getting worse at every turn. As Haugh and others have stated: the only
way to bring gov't financing back into line is to _cut spending_, not raise
taxes. The more you give, the more they suck from you. Worse than
vampires, IMO.
Chris W.
> Obviously just my opinion,
>
> chris
(BTW, which "chris" are you? :-)
--
Chris Winemiller Internet: cwin...@keys.lonestar.org
UUCP : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
John Iacoletti
|> The lottery only generates a drop in the bucket compared to the state's
|> budget.
Yes, but as long as the net income is greater than zero, then it's
worth doing, unless of course the government increases spending to use
up this "extra" income.
|> And, as I predicted earlier, the state is blowing part of this
|> "income" on TV advertising; I've already seen a number of expen$ive TV adds
|> promoting the blasted lottery. Your gov't at work --- to waste as much of
|> your money as possible.)
The advertising costs are made up many-fold by increases in ticket
sales as a result of the advertising. People fall for slick ad
campaigns every time.
--
John Iacoletti IBM AWD Austin Internet: joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Faith: not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Ian Parberry
> close to over 40% of ALL your money. Isn't that just more than enough?
Observation: I lived in Australia for 12 years, and England for 13 years.
I have lived in the US for 8 years. Of the 3 groups, US citizens pay the
LEAST amount of taxes (try 60%), yet do the MOST bitching about it.
Believe me, we've got it easy here. I don't believe that the tax rate can
be lowered here without further degradation of services. Civilization ain't
cheap. Talk is.
____
Ian Parberry i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
"Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy
> By the way, the title on my car will say "Chevrolet four-door". Sheesh. Not
> even the COLOR! Obviously DMV here can't do the trick they do elsewhere of
> saying "well, he says a red Ford Ranger hit him, what are all the red Ford
> Rangers registered in Harris County?". My Chevrolet is a CHEVETTE. WHich is
> not on that stupid form. Neither is its correct weight. 3600 pounds dry?
> Joke! (2600 pounds, maybe).
Obviously, you missed the point. They don't care who hit you. The ONLY
purpose in those plate is to collect the tax. Many other things are
wrong on car registerations in Texas. The cops can find out if you have
an unpaid ticket in minutes but can't find find out the license number
or VIN on you car if it's stolen, given your name and address. The
weight/type/etc doesn't affect collecting taxes. The missing color info
is left over from the days when lots of cars got re-painted. I'm
curious where you found a state that's NOT that way. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
73, internet | l...@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154
-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo --------------
M. Otto, Virtual Prisoner of the VAX
my paycheck today, and in the envelope with my pay-stub was a little note.
I quote it here verbatim:
> NOTICE: Sept. 1 paychecks will include a one-percent pay raise.
> Last year the Legislature mandated that any additional revenues over and
>above those included in the current state budget be used first to give state
>employees a 3% pay raise. In September of last year, Comptroller John Sharp
>said that additional funds were available to make possible the first two-
>thirds of that 3% pay raise.
> Now, because Comptroller Sharp's office was able to get the Texas Lottery
>underway seven weeks early -- and ticket sales have exceeded expectations --
>Sharp is able to certify another increase for Fiscal 1992. Therefore, the
>August paycheck you receive on September 1st _will include the remaining 1%*
>pay raise_ authorized by the Legislature.
>* 1% of salary rate at August 31, 1991
The part I delineated with underscores was boldface in the original.
--
__ ____ __ ot...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
/|/| / / / / / / A virtual prisoner of the VAX // I'm sorry; my karma
/ |. /_/ / / /_/ at The University of North Texas \X/ ran over your dogma
Denton, USA
Doug Andersen
> Observation: I lived in Australia for 12 years, and England for 13 years.
> I have lived in the US for 8 years. Of the 3 groups, US citizens pay the
> LEAST amount of taxes (try 60%), yet do the MOST bitching about it.
think it's great that Americans still bitch about taxes. It means they
still have some fight in them.
> Believe me, we've got it easy here. I don't believe that the tax rate can
> be lowered here without further degradation of services. Civilization ain't
> cheap. Talk is.
you throw up your hands, it means you keep pushing.
I don't think the issue is whether or not you can keep the current service
level with the current tax level (obviously not, since we are currently
running a large deficit). The question is whether the government needs
to even be in the business of providing some of those services.
--
Doug Andersen
ha...@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
John F. Haugh II
>In article <1992Aug3.1...@mercury.unt.edu>, i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>> Observation: I lived in Australia for 12 years, and England for 13 years.
>> I have lived in the US for 8 years. Of the 3 groups, US citizens pay the
>> LEAST amount of taxes (try 60%), yet do the MOST bitching about it.
>
>England is hardly an example of a society that you want to emulate. I
>think it's great that Americans still bitch about taxes. It means they
>still have some fight in them.
One of my ancestors made certain she was outside of England when she died
to insure that her estate wasn't chewed up by the English tax system. There
were two things which forced my mother's family to come here - the first
was the horrid economic condition, and the second was the horrid treatment
of the Irish. The privatisation (note British spelling ;-) of England has
helped fix some of the former, while the later remains a serious problem ...
Chris Moller
|>> In article <71233...@mdf.FidoNet> Sam.W...@mdf.FidoNet.Org (Sam Waring) writes:
|>> >I've thus far refused to play the lottery. I think the Lege shoulda gone
|>> >on and had the collective balls to pass an income tax, which is far
|>> >overdue in this state, but since they didn't and passed a lottery
|>> >instead, the only way I can protest is by refusing to buy into their
|>> >lottery.
|>>
|>> No, we don't need a state income tax. We need to legislature to obey
|>> the state constitution which says that state spending may not grow faster
|>> than the rate of growth of the state's economy. We need the legislature
|>> to IMMEDIATELY stop adding new social programs whose sole purpose is
|>> buying votes.
|>>
|>> If you give politicians more money, they will spend it. The only solution
|>> is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
10-4, good buddy!! Now, all of you, remember that when you vote on all these
propositions to allow the legislature to stick their sticky paws into your
pockets even more deeply!
|>> --
|>> John F. Haugh II | Life's Little Instruction Book:
|>> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 | "#138. Learn Spanish. In a few years,
|>> UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh | more than 35% of all Americans will speak
|>> Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org | it as their first language."
--
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my | "Men are the only animals that
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot | devote themselves, day in and day
possibly represent its position. | out, to making one another unhappy.
| Its virtuosi are called altruists."
Christian H. L. Moller | -- H. L. Mencken
David L. Cathey
>> If you count it up, government gets
>> close to over 40% of ALL your money. Isn't that just more than enough?
>
> be lowered here without further degradation of services. Civilization ain't
> cheap. Talk is.
That assumes that the government SHOULD be providing the services
that it does. I think not. There are many services that I think the
government should drop. Several are the services that the legislators
have, that I don't, but I'm still paying for.
But hey, this is just me. If the tax base is falling because of a
poor economy, why the hell did Congress just let themselves get a nice big
raise? If I was a President of a company, and gave myself a big bonus at
the expense of laying off workers, the stock-holders would have kittens and
other domestic animals. Well, as a taxpayer and a voter, I consider myself
a stockholder in the U.S. Government, and think we ought to get a new
board of directors...
> ____
> Ian Parberry i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
> Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
> "Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
^- Obviously you understand where I'm coming from with a .sig like
that. Playing Devil's Advocate today?
Jim Pritchett
> In article <PPywoB...@keys.lonestar.org>, cwin...@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> |> The lottery only generates a drop in the bucket compared to the state's
> |> budget.
>
> Yes, but as long as the net income is greater than zero, then it's
> worth doing, unless of course the government increases spending to use
> up this "extra" income.
Oh, you don't have to worry about there being any extra income. The Governor
and the Legislature can be counted upon to continue their wild spending spree.
[...]
> sales as a result of the advertising. People fall for slick ad
> campaigns every time.
You mean like "Slick Willie" and Ross Perot? Most of their "advertising"
comes free from a willing and cooperative news media (and talk show hosts...)
Chris Winemiller
> In article <PPywoB...@keys.lonestar.org>, cwin...@keys.lonestar.org
> Chris Winemiller) writes:
> |> The lottery only generates a drop in the bucket compared to the state's
> |> budget.
>
> Yes, but as long as the net income is greater than zero, then it's
> worth doing, unless of course the government increases spending to use
> up this "extra" income.
You missed the point: the extra income is so little that the state gov't
will _still_ call for a state income tax. I believe you had stated the
opinion that the existence of the lottery would make the call for a state
income tax unnecessary. I think you'll find otherwise.
Chris
Ian Parberry
> Playing Devil's Advocate today?
There's at least one skeptic on the net. I salute you.
Let me continue to act as Devil's Advocate.
Here are my axioms.
1. We're paying very low taxes.
2. The money is not spent the way it should be.
3. There is waste and fraud.
I think 1 is self-evident from a comparison with other countries (not that
there aren't exceptions, of course). I don't think there's much to be done
about 2, since we all have different opinions about how the money should be
distributed. The real problem is 3. It's not that we hate to pay taxes,
it's that we hate to see our money frittered away.
Perhaps a certain amount of waste is unavoidable. I'll go even further
and conjecture that you'll spend more money reducing waste and fraud than
you would if you just put up with it.
Case in point: the lowest-bidder purchasing system in the State of Texas.
It is there to prevent waste and fraud . The cost? Running an immense
bureacracy to keep track of the bidding (centrally located in Austin to
keep things "fair"), and costs in purchase delays. The purchase of my
computer took several person-months of effort and slowed my research and
publication effort by over a year. By my estimate, the State of Texas
paid over $5K in my salary alone in processing the bid. My effectiveness
during the first year of my employment was cut by 25%. Therefore,
the cost in my salary alone (not counting bureaucrats) is around $20K.
All to purchase just $60K worth of equipment. All in the name of "saving"
money. Where's the savings? Phoooui.
So let there be a little fraud. I'm honest. Most people are honest.
The little fraud that actually exists may be cheaper than creeping bureaucracy.
(And when you catch 'em, hang 'em.) Let there be a little waste.
Keeping it is cheaper than trying to reduce it.
I'll say it again. This is a great country. The taxes are low.
The service is reasonable. People who complain about taxes without
going out and doing something about it are childish -- they don't realize
how good they've got it. Those who actually do something about it are
even worse -- they're costing us money.
Rod Troch
lrk> when lots of cars got re-painted. I'm curious where you
lrk> found a state that's NOT that way. :-)
New Jersey is on of those states. Our registrations not
only have the color of the vehicle but also the make and model.
Eg. CHEV CORVETTE GREEN
And the police (state, and most town) have the ability to run your
name and address and pull up the cars you have registered.
Rod
--
-----------
If you yell try : Rod Troch | Zeta Beta Tau - Kean College
internet : tr...@gandalf.rutgers.edu | (alumni)
: tr...@pilot.njin.net | happyHappy joyJoy
Brendan B. Boerner
>In article <1992Jul30.2...@montagar.lonestar.org> dav...@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>> If you count it up, government gets
>> close to over 40% of ALL your money. Isn't that just more than enough?
>
>Observation: I lived in Australia for 12 years, and England for 13 years.
>I have lived in the US for 8 years. Of the 3 groups, US citizens pay the
>LEAST amount of taxes (try 60%), yet do the MOST bitching about it.
>Believe me, we've got it easy here. I don't believe that the tax rate can
>be lowered here without further degradation of services. Civilization ain't
>cheap. Talk is.
I find this argument lacking since it seems to assume that one
can't/shouldn't complain about something if you can find someone else
worse off. Suppose my brother likes beating on me once in a while, by
this argument I shouldn't complain about it or take steps to stop it
because other people get beaten up worse, stabbed, strangled, shot,
etc, ... No thanks, I'll reserve the right to complain.
Later,
Brendan
--
Brendan B. Boerner Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboe...@novell.com MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
Ian Parberry
>In article <1992Aug3.1...@mercury.unt.edu> i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul30.2...@montagar.lonestar.org> dav...@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>> If you count it up, government gets
>>> close to over 40% of ALL your money. Isn't that just more than enough?
>>
>>Observation: I lived in Australia for 12 years, and England for 13 years.
>>I have lived in the US for 8 years. Of the 3 groups, US citizens pay the
>>LEAST amount of taxes (try 60%), yet do the MOST bitching about it.
>>Believe me, we've got it easy here. I don't believe that the tax rate can
>>be lowered here without further degradation of services. Civilization ain't
>>cheap. Talk is.
>
>I find this argument lacking since it seems to assume that one
>can't/shouldn't complain about something if you can find someone else
>worse off. Suppose my brother likes beating on me once in a while, by
>this argument I shouldn't complain about it or take steps to stop it
>because other people get beaten up worse, stabbed, strangled, shot,
>etc, ... No thanks, I'll reserve the right to complain.
You're being silly. That wasn't the point. Perhaps I wasn't being clear
enough: let me rephrase myself. I think we are at a local optimum as
far as the amount of taxes that we pay. My observations about other
countries (misinterpreted netwide) above amount to "hill-climbing".
Complaining won't get you out of a local optimum.
Your analogy is misguided. Clearly the optimum amount of being beaten
up is zero. If you're beaten up more than that, you have a right to
complain. If you pay more than the optimum amount of taxes, you have
a right to complain. I don't think that's true here. It is certainly
true in England and Australia, from personal experience.
Chris Moller
|>>
|>>
|>> In article <1992Jul30.2...@montagar.lonestar.org>
|>> dav...@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
|>>
|>> >Actually, it is a gambling tax. I choose to think of it as a Stupidity Tax,
|>> >a tax that I have been wanting to see for quite some time...
|>>
|>> No, it is an IGNORANCE tax. We have a public educational system that
Great! At long last, we seem to have found a way of taxing, and thereby
perhaps discouraging, something just about everyone thinks is undesirable.
As far as I'm concerned, this is an _enormous_ improvement over taxes that
impose ever greater penalties for being a productive, contributing, member
of society.
|>> does a miserable job of educating people, and then we tax the people
|>> who have the random bad luck of not having had better opportunities.
|>> How enlightened.
No bad luck about it. Ignorance is a self-imposed condition that can, with
moderate effort by those not too lazy to undertake it, be corrected with the
appropriate use of a library card.
--
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my | "There is no greater crime than to
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot | force a man to pay for something he
possibly represent its position. | does not want simply because you
| think it will be good for him."
Christian H. L. Moller | -- Robert A. Heinlein
John F. Haugh II
>You're being silly. That wasn't the point. Perhaps I wasn't being clear
>enough: let me rephrase myself. I think we are at a local optimum as
>far as the amount of taxes that we pay. My observations about other
>countries (misinterpreted netwide) above amount to "hill-climbing".
>Complaining won't get you out of a local optimum.
The problem here is that many of us don't believe that we are at that
local optimum level. For example, why do I pay extra money to prop up
the USPS when most of my mail is electronic or FedEx? My solution is
to privatise the USPS and take the tax savings.
Ian Parberry
>
>The problem here is that many of us don't believe that we are at that
>local optimum level. For example, why do I pay extra money to prop up
>the USPS when most of my mail is electronic or FedEx? My solution is
>to privatise the USPS and take the tax savings.
Playing Devil's Advocate again, how do you know that this will save money?
Perhaps you are just dithering around the optimum again. Does anybody know
the results from similar moves in other countries? If my memory served me
correctly, privatization of essential services was the primary algorithm
used by the Conservative governments in England and Commonwealth countries
in the 1970's. I don't remember any great tax savings. How much of your
tax goes to support the USPS? I must admit, I don't know. Are we talking
about $2, $20, or $200 per year per taxpayer? I don't have any hard figures,
but once again, I am skeptical of any claims of significant savings.
Does anybody know if there is any published analysis of how the taxpayers'
money is actually spent? Perhaps we could liven up this tired old
discussion with some real facts, rather than cluttering up the net with more
"we don't need no taxes" mother-and-apple-pie platitudes.
BTW, you probably read in the newspaper, as I did this morning, that the
USPS is revamping itself to save money. I might allow myself a modicum of
hope ...
Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy
> In article <a01XoB...@k5qwb.lonestar.org> l...@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn
>
> >an unpaid ticket in minutes but can't find find out the license number
> >or VIN on you car if it's stolen, given your name and address. The
> >weight/type/etc doesn't affect collecting taxes. The missing color info
> >is left over from the days when lots of cars got re-painted. I'm
> >curious where you found a state that's NOT that way. :-)
> >
>
> Just checked ye old registrations sitting around in the glove
> compartment. Florida. Georgia. Rhode Island. All have VIN and
> color on the registartion.
Texas has the VIN on the registration and supposedly you can determine
the original color of cars made after 1981 from that. The DMV files
can't cross-reference from your name unless it's been recently changed.
So if your car is stolen and you don't know the license, you should
always be sure you have had a recent ticket they can look up to get the
license number from. :-)
Danny Faught
>In article <21...@rpp386.lonestar.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>
>>The problem here is that many of us don't believe that we are at that
>>local optimum level. For example, why do I pay extra money to prop up
>>the USPS when most of my mail is electronic or FedEx? My solution is
>>to privatise the USPS and take the tax savings.
>
Isn't the US post office supposed to be more or less self-supporting? And
that's why they've raised the price of stamps so much--so those using the
service are the ones who pay for it?
--
Danny Faught da...@ponder.csci.unt.edu
Save this sig - I'll be famous someday
Eric Lee Green
> |>> who have the random bad luck of not having had better opportunities.
> |>> How enlightened.
>
> moderate effort by those not too lazy to undertake it, be corrected with the
> appropriate use of a library card.
The above statement shows YOUR ignorance, Mr. Moller.
You see, you assume that these people can *READ*. Which is a very big
assumption indeed.
I once volunteered for an adult literacy program. The director of that
program said that it was estimated that there were a quarter million people
in her area who could not read, and that all the adult literacy programs
in that area only served about 500 adults per year, due to the fact that
they had to run with volunteer labor and limited resources. I actually
tutored two people in how to read. In both cases, the cause of their
reading failure was not in anything they'd done or not done during their
school career -- rather, they'd never recieved adequate or appropriate
instruction. One was of a non-American background and spoke with an accent
that made phonics instruction impossible -- yet that's what he'd been given
in school. Another had difficulty hearing the difference between two
sounds, and probably needed auditory discrimination training to help him
learn how to "hear" language. He'd recieved nothing of the sort during his
school career. These stories were typical of the stories that I heard from
other tutors during our get-togethers. These stories are the biggest
indictment of our system of grade schools as is possible to tell.
Here in the Houston area, it is estimated that close to 20% of the
population lacks the sort of functional reading skills that would allow
them to go to the library and make use of a library card. That's close to a
million people, folks. And a lot of them are willing to do what they have
to do in order to learn how to read -- but nobody has the resources to do
it. If you're concerned, call the Volunteer Center for referral to an adult
literacy program in your area. They'll take you immediately. There is
generally a six-month waiting list for clients of such program, because of
lack of volunteers willing to help these people learn how to read. Are you
part of the solution, or part of the problem?
--
Eric Lee Green e...@elgamy.sccsi.com Dodson Elementary
(713) 437-6908 uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg Houston, TX
"Kids are kids, no matter what"
Eric Lee Green
>>local optimum level. For example, why do I pay extra money to prop up
>>the USPS when most of my mail is electronic or FedEx? My solution is
>>to privatise the USPS and take the tax savings.
> in the 1970's. I don't remember any great tax savings. How much of your
> tax goes to support the USPS? I must admit, I don't know. Are we talking
> about $2, $20, or $200 per year per taxpayer? I don't have any hard figures,
Actually, *NO* tax money goes to support the U.S. Postal Service. It is, in
fact, producing a profit -- which is then taken away from it along with
other monies to create a "paper deficit" which makes it appear that the
USPS is being subsidized by tax monies when, in fact, it is the other way
around.
If you don't want to support the USPS, don't use it. That's how it works.
The biggest problem, of course, is that there is currently a law
prohibiting competition in the first-class mail arena, so to that extent we
are "subsidizing" the U.S. Postal Service (by allowing it to charge prices
higher than an independent service would charge). I would suggest that in
the typical business, though, this isn't too big a problem. Bulk mail
advertisers, on the other hand, throw fits over the whole situation.
Peter da Silva
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
Gene A. Kennedy
> rbu...@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
>
> > In article <a01XoB...@k5qwb.lonestar.org> l...@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Ly
> >
> > >an unpaid ticket in minutes but can't find find out the license number
> > >or VIN on you car if it's stolen, given your name and address. The
> > >weight/type/etc doesn't affect collecting taxes. The missing color info
> > >is left over from the days when lots of cars got re-painted. I'm
> > >curious where you found a state that's NOT that way. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Just checked ye old registrations sitting around in the glove
> > compartment. Florida. Georgia. Rhode Island. All have VIN and
> > color on the registartion.
>
> Texas has the VIN on the registration and supposedly you can determine
> the original color of cars made after 1981 from that. The DMV files
> can't cross-reference from your name unless it's been recently changed.
> So if your car is stolen and you don't know the license, you should
> always be sure you have had a recent ticket they can look up to get the
> license number from. :-)
>
You have it exactly backwards. VIN's *prior* to 1981, on some
make cars, denoted the color. All VIN's after 81 are required to
conform to the federal standard and have no provision for
indicating the color of the vehicle. There is a way to find
registrations in Texas by name. You just go to the PRIVATE busness
here in Houston that buys the MVD computer tapes from the state
and then re-sorts the data by name. I hear the guy makes lot's of
money :-) Who says computers as a hobby can't pay :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
g...@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Haugh II
>Isn't the US post office supposed to be more or less self-supporting? And
>that's why they've raised the price of stamps so much--so those using the
>service are the ones who pay for it?
Yes and no. It is subsidized to a certain extent for "official business"
and of course, the franking privilege. But I believe that when it runs a
deficit, the government ponies up the difference and then plans a rate
increase. But it will continue to run a deficit (and we pay the shortfall
in federal taxes) until the rate increase is approved and goes into effect.
John F. Haugh II
>Perhaps you are just dithering around the optimum again. Does anybody know
>the results from similar moves in other countries? If my memory served me
>correctly, privatization of essential services was the primary algorithm
>used by the Conservative governments in England and Commonwealth countries
>in the 1970's. I don't remember any great tax savings. How much of your
>tax goes to support the USPS? I must admit, I don't know. Are we talking
>about $2, $20, or $200 per year per taxpayer? I don't have any hard figures,
>but once again, I am skeptical of any claims of significant savings.
Adam Smith says so.
Several hundred years of capitalism say so as well. It is simply the nature
of free enterprise (where "free" really does mean "free" ...) that continued
reductions in price and increases in quality appear when the free market is
allowed to be moved by Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Consider all of the taxpayer dollars that have been spent to "automate"
the postal service. Now, consider the 750,000 postal workers. Consider
the move from the rural areas to the suburban ones that have taken place
within the last 40 years. Now consider the cost of postage and how it has
outpaced inflation about 3 to 1.
>Does anybody know if there is any published analysis of how the taxpayers'
>money is actually spent? Perhaps we could liven up this tired old
>discussion with some real facts, rather than cluttering up the net with more
>"we don't need no taxes" mother-and-apple-pie platitudes.
Are you saying that we need more taxes, or just that you are tired of being
told that we don't need the federal government in the postal delivery
business? I'm not sure which part of this you object to - my claim that
free enterprise is more efficient or your disgust with my trying to lower
my tax bill.
>BTW, you probably read in the newspaper, as I did this morning, that the
>USPS is revamping itself to save money. I might allow myself a modicum of
>hope ...
Oh boy. I remember when there was the great claims that the ZIP Code was
going to save MILLIONS by allowing mail routing to be automated. Do you
know what the cost of a letter has done since then? So far as I can tell,
mail is STILL sorted the old fashioned way - they toss it up in the air,
and whatever lands in the mailbag goes with that carrier ...
David L. Cathey
> In article <1992Aug6.1...@novell.com> bboe...@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug3.1...@mercury.unt.edu> i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul30.2...@montagar.lonestar.org> dav...@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>>> If you count it up, government gets
>>>> close to over 40% of ALL your money. Isn't that just more than enough?
>>>
>>>be lowered here without further degradation of services. Civilization ain't
>>>cheap. Talk is.
>>
>>I find this argument lacking since it seems to assume that one
>>can't/shouldn't complain about something if you can find someone else
>>worse off.
>
> enough: let me rephrase myself. I think we are at a local optimum as
> far as the amount of taxes that we pay.
Okay, I'll grant that if we were at an optimum, then we shouldn't
complain. However, with all the goverment waste, I think we are not at
an "optimum" right now.
> ____
> Ian Parberry i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
> Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
> "Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
Dave Brennan
> Well, I just paid $80 to register a car that is worth $400.
> That is so ridiculously silly and stupid that it is hardly worth
> mentioning.
Really? I think the ridiculous part is that the car registration fee
is so expensive. Everywhere else I've lived it has only been $20, maybe
$30 per year. I spend too much time running around trying to take care
of this car/license stuff.
* First I went to get my license and they tell me that if I have a
car I have to go register it first. I shouldn't have told them I
had a car.
* Before registering the car I called ahead and found out that I
needed to have my car inspected before registering it and have
proof of insurance (about the only part which makes sense).
* I went to get my car inspected and they want to see my insurance.
Why I don't know -- I only wanted the damn thing inspected. It's
a good thing they only wanted to see a policy card from the company.
* I called the insurance company to switch my insurance over to Texas,
and luckily they didn't tell me to get a Texas license. I was also
lucky that I stuck with the same company who doesn't seem to care
about a NC ticket, which according to NC law can't effect my rates.
What I really wanted to do was get a "clean" Texas license before
switching the insurance just to be sure. My rates just about doubled
anyhow which really sucked.
* I finally got the car registered, if only because my NC registration
was expiring. I still don't have a TX license, but I've got until
September '93 for that :-)
I think I've sufficiently used up my bitching quota for the day.
--
Dave Brennan HaL Computer Systems
bre...@hal.com (512) 794-2855
Visit the Emacs Lisp Archive: archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:pub/gnu/emacs
Gayle Reeves - PRC C6609
From gsweat Tue Aug 11 09:52:02 1992
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 09:52:02 CDT
From: gsweat (Gene Sweat)
To: greeves
Subject: Re: Altek
Content-Length: 165
No mention between the Sun and the AC-41 controller...and its not in the box.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm m m m m m m m
Does it look like anything we mught have???
rgs
Showing proof of insurance to get your vehicle inspected and to renew your drivers
license and to renew your license tags does seem like alot - unless you have been
hit twice by uninsured motorists and have to go thru the agony of using your own
uninsured motorist insurance (which I shouldn't even need if everyone would obey
the law) to have your car repaired.
--
| Gayle Reeves |
| Internet: gre...@arco.com |
| |
| ARCO is not responsible for any opinions expressed within. |
Gayle Reeves - PRC C6609
|> lots of included stuff......
Please ignore the mail message at the first of my post. I am still trying to figure
out how it got there.
Gayle
fred j mccall 575-3539
>In article <1992Aug8.1...@mercury.unt.edu> i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>>Playing Devil's Advocate again, how do you know that this will save money?
>>Perhaps you are just dithering around the optimum again. Does anybody know
>>the results from similar moves in other countries? If my memory served me
>>correctly, privatization of essential services was the primary algorithm
>>used by the Conservative governments in England and Commonwealth countries
>>in the 1970's. I don't remember any great tax savings. How much of your
>>tax goes to support the USPS? I must admit, I don't know. Are we talking
>>about $2, $20, or $200 per year per taxpayer? I don't have any hard figures,
>>but once again, I am skeptical of any claims of significant savings.
>Adam Smith says so.
Well, actually, no he doesn't (unless you take a VERY simplistic view
of things).
>Several hundred years of capitalism say so as well. It is simply the nature
>of free enterprise (where "free" really does mean "free" ...) that continued
>reductions in price and increases in quality appear when the free market is
>allowed to be moved by Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Well, actually, no it isn't, unless you once again take a very
simplistic view of things. What will happen (assuming totally free
markets, no externalities or entry barriers, etc., etc.) is that
things will move to some local 'optimal' mix between cost and quality
of service. Note that the local optimum need not be the global
optimum (or the desired state).
>Consider all of the taxpayer dollars that have been spent to "automate"
>the postal service. Now, consider the 750,000 postal workers. Consider
>the move from the rural areas to the suburban ones that have taken place
>within the last 40 years. Now consider the cost of postage and how it has
>outpaced inflation about 3 to 1.
Consider the volume of mail moved and the subsidization of other
classes of mail by the cost of a first class stamp.
>>Does anybody know if there is any published analysis of how the taxpayers'
>>money is actually spent? Perhaps we could liven up this tired old
>>discussion with some real facts, rather than cluttering up the net with more
>>"we don't need no taxes" mother-and-apple-pie platitudes.
>Are you saying that we need more taxes, or just that you are tired of being
>told that we don't need the federal government in the postal delivery
>business? I'm not sure which part of this you object to - my claim that
>free enterprise is more efficient or your disgust with my trying to lower
>my tax bill.
Seems to me that what he's saying is that he'd like to see a few facts
injected into the discussion. Your reaction to that seems to show
that you would rather discuss it from ideology.
>>BTW, you probably read in the newspaper, as I did this morning, that the
>>USPS is revamping itself to save money. I might allow myself a modicum of
>>hope ...
>Oh boy. I remember when there was the great claims that the ZIP Code was
>going to save MILLIONS by allowing mail routing to be automated. Do you
>know what the cost of a letter has done since then?
And do you know what inflation, volume, etc. have done since then?
Not to say that your complaint isn't justified, but you once again try
to 'prove' things with a simplistic analysis. Do YOU have the actual
numbers for the impact of ZIP codes on mail delivery costs and on
speed? I don't.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred....@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Brendan B. Boerner
>Actually, *NO* tax money goes to support the U.S. Postal Service. It is, in
>fact, producing a profit -- which is then taken away from it along with
Hmmm, I read in the Austin American-Statesman yesterday (8/11/92) that
they were (or will be) running a $2 billion deficit. This was in an
article about how the new guy running the place has new ideas on how to
save money. One thing he's done is put on hold the plan to increase a
first class stamp to $0.35 in 1984.
>The biggest problem, of course, is that there is currently a law
>prohibiting competition in the first-class mail arena, so to that extent we
>are "subsidizing" the U.S. Postal Service (by allowing it to charge prices
>higher than an independent service would charge). I would suggest that in
>the typical business, though, this isn't too big a problem. Bulk mail
>advertisers, on the other hand, throw fits over the whole situation.
Really? I always thought they got nice discounts for mailing in bulk
as well as pre-sorting. Look at some junk mail sometime, you'll see
prices from $0.11 and up if memory serves.
John F. Haugh II
>In <21...@rpp386.lonestar.org> j...@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Consider the volume of mail moved and the subsidization of other
>classes of mail by the cost of a first class stamp.
Oh. I guess they didn't teach you about "Economies of Scale" when you
were getting that degree in economics.
This is how it works.
I spend $1B on sorting equipment which is utilized at a 50% rate because
there is low mail volume. When the utilization rate climbs to 60%, the
FIXED COST (You do remember those fixed costs, right?) amortized out per
piece of mail DECLINE.
The problem with the USPS has NOTHING to do with volume or subsidization.
It has to do with the letter carriers union which refuses to give up jobs
as automation attempts to replace people with machines. The socialists
will argue that this is evil - replacing people with machines is just
absolutely HORRIBLE - but the Japanese have been doing it for decades
and right now they are eating our lunch. It also has to do with being a
governmental agency. No business could ever maintain that rate of cost
growth without being a protected monopoly.
Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806
> I support the lottery because I like to gamble.
i like to gamble too
but i resent the fact that the texas state government has a monopoly on
lotteries.
what makes THEM so special?
i'd like to start "curt's lottery"
and i guarantee that the statistical value of a lottery ticket i sell
will exceed 45 cents on the dollar, (tx's lottery ticket value)
in effect the gov. is saying:
"gambling is immoral (except when we're the house)"
if legality and morality are disconnected, what happens to the
commoner's respect for law?
--
cu...@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality
My views are unrelated to those of IBM | Austin, TX
The Deficit is theft from the young by the old. Literally candy from babies.
Chris Moller
|>>
|>> There's at least one skeptic on the net. I salute you.
|>> Let me continue to act as Devil's Advocate.
|>> Here are my axioms.
|>>
|>> 1. We're paying very low taxes.
|>> 2. The money is not spent the way it should be.
|>> 3. There is waste and fraud.
|>>
|>> I think 1 is self-evident from a comparison with other countries (not that
Nothing self-evident about it. In fact, what is self-evident is that having
roughly half of of our respective incomes stolen by various levels of govern-
ment is utterly outrageous.
|>> there aren't exceptions, of course). I don't think there's much to be done
|>> about 2, since we all have different opinions about how the money should be
|>> distributed.
There are lots of things to be done about it. The current system to a very
large extent attempts to undertake -- and forcibly demand we pay for -- a
mathematical union of all the idiotic ways the politicians can think of to
spend other people's (our) money. How about considering a system that tries
to limit government activity to a mathematical intersection of these notions?
How about a system that splits the national budget into two groups, the those-
things-without-which-the-country-won't-survive group, and the maybe-nice-and-
maybe-we'll-do-it-someday-when-we-can-afford-it group? The first might have
stuff like the defense department in it, and would be supported by taxation;
the second would have everything not in the first group and be supported by
voluntary donations. Maybe everything should be by volunatry donation: after
all, if this is truly a democracy, the assumption is that the majority of the
population really wants the politicians to spend all this money, and would
voluntarily send the government 'n' thousand dollars a year.
|>> The real problem is 3. It's not that we hate to pay taxes,
|>> it's that we hate to see our money frittered away.
Wrong! _I_ hate to pay taxes, and not just because the polidiots waste most
of the money. Mostly it's because _I_ want to make the decisions on what to
support. I want to make the decisions on what charities my money supports,
on whether to reward artists for their efforts, on which research efforts to
help fund. I'm _very_ tired of having all these decisions wrested from me by
HUD, HEW, NEA, and the rest of the acronymic governent. If I want to support
a charity, I'll write a check to the Red Cross, or whoever; if I want to
help a starving artist, I'll by some of his/her work; if I want to support
some research, I'll mail a donation to the Free Software Foundataion. But
I want the decision to be made be _me_; not some oily, over-paid, geek in
Washington.
[...]
|>>
|>> I'll say it again. This is a great country.
|>> The taxes are low.
Wrong.
|>> The service is reasonable.
The "service" is excessive, inefficiently
applied, over-bearing, intrusive, frequently
unnecessary, and not infrequently detrimental
to the welfare of the public it is intended
to serve.
|>> People who complain about taxes without
|>> going out and doing something about it are childish -- they don't realize
|>> how good they've got it. Those who actually do something about it are
|>> even worse -- they're costing us money.
|>> ____
|>> Ian Parberry i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
|>> Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
|>> "Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
--
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my | "Hell hath no fury like a
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot | bureaucrat scorned."
possibly represent its position. | -- Milton Friedman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christian H. L. Moller My .sigs are randomly selected from
my .sigs directory, but this one is in
lovely apposition with Mr Parberry's.
fred j mccall 575-3539
>In article <1992Aug11.1...@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mcc...@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <21...@rpp386.lonestar.org> j...@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Consider the volume of mail moved and the subsidization of other
>>classes of mail by the cost of a first class stamp.
>Oh. I guess they didn't teach you about "Economies of Scale" when you
>were getting that degree in economics.
Yes. They also taught about situations (like widely distributed
systems) where 'economies of scale' don't necessarily apply. Get back
to me when you know how to do something than knee-jerk responses about
what free market competition and economies of scale do.
>This is how it works.
>I spend $1B on sorting equipment which is utilized at a 50% rate because
>there is low mail volume. When the utilization rate climbs to 60%, the
>FIXED COST (You do remember those fixed costs, right?) amortized out per
>piece of mail DECLINE.
Yeah, except you assume that you started with excess capacity. Bad
assumption. That's also not how 'economies of scale' work. They
don't rely (in those situations where they apply) on already having
excess capacity.
>The problem with the USPS has NOTHING to do with volume or subsidization.
Gee, what kind of machine can DELIVER mail? That's what letter
carriers do, right?
>It has to do with the letter carriers union which refuses to give up jobs
>as automation attempts to replace people with machines.
Gee, that's odd, since there have been repeated reductions in the
number of workers at the post offices as branches are consolidated,
etc. Enough so that they feel they can now lay off 30,000 MANAGERS
(you know, managers, the folks who manage the workers -- except there
aren't as many workers to manage, so they need less management?).
>The socialists
>will argue that this is evil - replacing people with machines is just
>absolutely HORRIBLE - but the Japanese have been doing it for decades
>and right now they are eating our lunch.
John, frankly, you wouldn't know a 'socialist' if one bit you on the
ass. Can we have YOUR definition of socialist? Since I've had so much
trouble in the past with you having your own proprietary meanings for
things, I figure we should hear your definition up front. Just as a
hint, though, socialism has nothing to do with whether or not you
'replace workers with machines' or not.
>It also has to do with being a
>governmental agency. No business could ever maintain that rate of cost
>growth without being a protected monopoly.
And no commercial business could provide us with the mail service we
get, either. Being a 'protected monopoly' in order to prevent 'cream
skimming' by commercial enterprises has nothing to do with cost
growth, either.
Ian Parberry
is too tempting.
In article <1992Aug12....@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> mol...@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>Nothing self-evident about it. In fact, what is self-evident is that having
>roughly half of of our respective incomes stolen by various levels of govern-
>ment is utterly outrageous.
That is not self-evident. Where is your figure of "half" from?
And exactly how is it stolen?
>There are lots of things to be done about it. The current system to a very
>large extent attempts to undertake -- and forcibly demand we pay for -- a
>mathematical union of all the idiotic ways the politicians can think of to
>spend other people's (our) money. How about considering a system that tries
>to limit government activity to a mathematical intersection of these notions?
I suspect that the intersection is the empty set.
>Wrong! _I_ hate to pay taxes, and not just because the polidiots waste most
>of the money. Mostly it's because _I_ want to make the decisions on what to
>support. I want to make the decisions on what charities my money supports,
>on whether to reward artists for their efforts, on which research efforts to
>help fund. I'm _very_ tired of having all these decisions wrested from me by
>HUD, HEW, NEA, and the rest of the acronymic governent. If I want to support
>a charity, I'll write a check to the Red Cross, or whoever; if I want to
>help a starving artist, I'll by some of his/her work; if I want to support
>some research, I'll mail a donation to the Free Software Foundataion. But
>I want the decision to be made be _me_; not some oily, over-paid, geek in
>Washington.
Once again, how much of your taxes goes to paying for this type of stuff?
How much tax savings will you gain by doing this? I don't think it is a
significant amount, but let's for the sake of argument suppose that it is.
I hope you realize that not all of us out here think the way you do.
I might go along with your system, but I would probably choose to send
my money in other directions. If you poll 1000 people, you may find 1000
different ways they'd like their money spent. So, your system will not make
many people happy. The naive solution is to let the individual taxpayer
choose, but of course the bureaucratic overhead for maintaining such a system
of choice could mean that it will cost more than the present system. Besides,
the average taxpayer is as thick as two short planks, and probably not capable
of making rational decisions on where their tax money goes (current company
excepted, of course).
>|>> The taxes are low.
> Wrong.
That's where you are wrong. Nobody on the net has been able to convince me
otherwise. From personal experience, they are low indeed.
>|>> The service is reasonable.
> The "service" is excessive, inefficiently
> applied, over-bearing, intrusive, frequently
> unnecessary, and not infrequently detrimental
> to the welfare of the public it is intended
> to serve.
Perhaps that is inherent in all forms of government. I've yet to see
a government of a large, diverse nation that is any different.
John F. Haugh II
> Yes. They also taught about situations (like widely distributed
> systems) where 'economies of scale' don't necessarily apply. Get back
> to me when you know how to do something than knee-jerk responses about
> what free market competition and economies of scale do.
into postal zones. This mail is then sent out to smaller and smaller
offices. This what the ZIP Code(tm) is all about. I won't tell you
want "ZIP" means, but it doesn't mean "Fast". It is an acronym.
It is a scatter-gather like system. Mail moves from smaller branches
to larger ones then back out to the smaller ones. Mail for New Jersey
is not sorted at the Bluebonnet station.
> Yeah, except you assume that you started with excess capacity. Bad
> assumption. That's also not how 'economies of scale' work. They
> don't rely (in those situations where they apply) on already having
> excess capacity.
That's quite correct, in general, and quite incorrect in this specific
case. The USPS =has= surplus capacity at this point in time. The USPS
has had surplus capacity for the last 20 or 30 years.
> Gee, what kind of machine can DELIVER mail? That's what letter
> carriers do, right?
There is more to DELIVERING mail than walking up and down the street.
> >It has to do with the letter carriers union which refuses to give up jobs
> >as automation attempts to replace people with machines.
>
> Gee, that's odd, since there have been repeated reductions in the
> number of workers at the post offices as branches are consolidated,
> etc. Enough so that they feel they can now lay off 30,000 MANAGERS
> (you know, managers, the folks who manage the workers -- except there
> aren't as many workers to manage, so they need less management?).
No, there are still just as many workers (all 750,000 or so ...). In fact,
there are even more than that as the USPS relies heavily on non-employees
that are hired as "contractors". We get our mail from a "non-employee"
that drives a car that isn't a mail truck.
> And no commercial business could provide us with the mail service we
> get, either. Being a 'protected monopoly' in order to prevent 'cream
> skimming' by commercial enterprises has nothing to do with cost
> growth, either.
Bullshit. All you have to do is define the rules properly. Start with
"No company may engage in the private delivery of mail unless
it agrees to accept all mail to and from all destinations for
a common amount."
"Cream skimming" is a bogus argument. UPS, FedEx, etc. all provide
service to rural areas. And they all do it for the same rate as to any
other address in the US. When I FedEx my parent's something in Folsom
(actually, 5 miles outside of Folsom, population 450), I don't get
charged extra. Where is that "cream skimming" you are talking about?
Patrick Taylor
>joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>> I support the lottery because I like to gamble.
>i like to gamble too
>but i resent the fact that the texas state government has a monopoly on
>lotteries.
>what makes THEM so special?
Perhaps because (theoretically at least) the money is for YOUR benefit.
It pays for the schools your kids go to, the streets you drive on, the
jails to house criminals that would otherwise be on your block, etc...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
- D Adams
- Patrick Taylor
Ericsson Network Systems
exu...@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
alternately, exu...@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
Jordan M. Kossack
- I've so far kept my lip zipped since my last posting. This response, however,
- is too tempting.
I know exactly how you feel. :-)
- >Nothing self-evident about it. In fact, what is self-evident is that having
- >roughly half of of our respective incomes stolen by various levels of govern-
- >ment is utterly outrageous.
-
- That is not self-evident. Where is your figure of "half" from?
- And exactly how is it stolen?
Well, I don't know how the figure of 1/2 was derived; It is less
than half for me. However, as to your second point, let consider a
situation where a bunch of thugs threaten you with personal bodily harm
if you don't give them x ammount of money. Now, if these thugs happen
to be poor, underpriviledged youths, it is considered stealing. However,
if the thugs happen to be IRS employees, the government sanctions the
theft. It is, nonetheless, theft.
steal: to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.)
without permission
- Once again, how much of your taxes goes to paying for this type of stuff?
All my income tax and all 14% of the social "security" tax.
- How much tax savings will you gain by doing this? I don't think it is a
- significant amount, but let's for the sake of argument suppose that it is.
A very large tax savings. That's why the Feds won't allow it.
- I hope you realize that not all of us out here think the way you do.
- I might go along with your system, but I would probably choose to send
- my money in other directions. If you poll 1000 people, you may find 1000
- different ways they'd like their money spent.
Fine. What's wrong with freedom?
- So, your system will not make
- many people happy. The naive solution is to let the individual taxpayer
Why won't it make many people happy? They will finally be able to
decide how to spend their own money, rather than having the Federales
force them, at gunpoint, to contribute to causes/projects that they may
find morally repugnant. To quote ATL, I thought this country was based
upon freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of your own religion,
to make your own decisions. That's baloney, cuz if I got to play by your
rules I'm being phoney.
If you mean that a volutary tax system won't make the THIEVES happy,
I'll have to agree with you on that point. On the other hand, I don't
give a rat's arse whether foiling their crime will make them unhappy.
Unlike a certain Republican candidate for governor, I don't think that
women (or taxpayers) should have to lie back and "enjoy it." I am, to
borrow a phrase, PRO-CHOICE when it comes to self-defense from predators,
regardless whether the predator is four-legged, two-legged or the gov't.
- the average taxpayer is as thick as two short planks, and probably not capable
- of making rational decisions on where their tax money goes (current company
- excepted, of course).
I guess we shouldn't allow "them" to vote either, huh?
- > The "service" is excessive, inefficiently
- > applied, over-bearing, intrusive, frequently
- > unnecessary, and not infrequently detrimental
- > to the welfare of the public it is intended
- > to serve.
-
- Perhaps that is inherent in all forms of government. I've yet to see
- a government of a large, diverse nation that is any different.
Perhaps the Federales should be limited by the Constitution.
Ooops. Let me rephrase that. Perhaps the Federales should obey
and be bound by the limits set upon them by the US Constitution.
Now, if we could just repeal the Sixteenth Amendment ...
--
kos...@taronga.com | "One has a moral responsibility
Jordan M Kossack | to disobey unjust laws."
+1 713 240 2073 | -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Eric Lee Green
>>fact, producing a profit -- which is then taken away from it along with
>
> they were (or will be) running a $2 billion deficit. This was in an
It could be a "will be" situation. Currently, the Post Office doesn't run a
"real" deficit, but it does run a "paper" deficit (caused by Congress
taking a portion of the money earned by them and applying it to "deficit
reduction").
>>The biggest problem, of course, is that there is currently a law
>>prohibiting competition in the first-class mail arena, so to that extent we
>>are "subsidizing" the U.S. Postal Service (by allowing it to charge prices
>>higher than an independent service would charge). I would suggest that in
>>the typical business, though, this isn't too big a problem. Bulk mail
>>advertisers, on the other hand, throw fits over the whole situation.
>
> Really? I always thought they got nice discounts for mailing in bulk
> as well as pre-sorting. Look at some junk mail sometime, you'll see
> prices from $0.11 and up if memory serves.
When you are mailing out 10,000,000 pieces of mail, the difference between
$0.10 and $0.11 is substantial.
Ben Gamble
|raise? If I was a President of a company, and gave myself a big bonus at
|the expense of laying off workers
... you'd be an American carmaker.
|the stock-holders would have kittens and
|other domestic animals.
Maybe.
--
Ben Gamble B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gam...@owlnet.rice.edu
Oh ye who go about saying unto each other: "Hello sailor":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
fred j mccall 575-3539
>In article <1992Aug13.1...@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mcc...@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Yes. They also taught about situations (like widely distributed
>> systems) where 'economies of scale' don't necessarily apply. Get back
>> to me when you know how to do something than knee-jerk responses about
>> what free market competition and economies of scale do.
>
>But the Postal Service is CENTRALIZED. Very large centers sort mail
>into postal zones. This mail is then sent out to smaller and smaller
>offices. This what the ZIP Code(tm) is all about. I won't tell you
>want "ZIP" means, but it doesn't mean "Fast". It is an acronym.
No, the Postal Service is not 'centralized'. If that were the case,
all mail would go to some mega-center in Kansas City or something. It
is 'regionalized' on both a large and small scale. As for this
'surprising' knowledge that ZIP is an acronym, so what? You have a
point?
>It is a scatter-gather like system. Mail moves from smaller branches
>to larger ones then back out to the smaller ones. Mail for New Jersey
>is not sorted at the Bluebonnet station.
Once again, you have a point? What you have described is a
distributed system, not a 'centralized' one.
>> Yeah, except you assume that you started with excess capacity. Bad
>> assumption. That's also not how 'economies of scale' work. They
>> don't rely (in those situations where they apply) on already having
>> excess capacity.
>
>That's quite correct, in general, and quite incorrect in this specific
>case. The USPS =has= surplus capacity at this point in time. The USPS
>has had surplus capacity for the last 20 or 30 years.
This is generally called 'planning', unless one is John Haugh III and
disagrees with the Post Office.
>> Gee, what kind of machine can DELIVER mail? That's what letter
>> carriers do, right?
>
>There is more to DELIVERING mail than walking up and down the street.
Once again, you have a point? In case you haven't figured it out,
much of the rest of 'delivering' mail IS automated. Or did you think
they went to standardized envelope sizes with charges for
'non-standard' envelopes just for the hell of it?
>> >It has to do with the letter carriers union which refuses to give up jobs
>> >as automation attempts to replace people with machines.
>>
>> Gee, that's odd, since there have been repeated reductions in the
>> number of workers at the post offices as branches are consolidated,
>> etc. Enough so that they feel they can now lay off 30,000 MANAGERS
>> (you know, managers, the folks who manage the workers -- except there
>> aren't as many workers to manage, so they need less management?).
>
>No, there are still just as many workers (all 750,000 or so ...). In fact,
>there are even more than that as the USPS relies heavily on non-employees
>that are hired as "contractors". We get our mail from a "non-employee"
>that drives a car that isn't a mail truck.
Sources and the number of 'workers' (as opposed to managers) per piece
of mail moved might be meaningful. Otherwise, an increasing load with
the same number of people is effectively a 'reduction'.
>> And no commercial business could provide us with the mail service we
>> get, either. Being a 'protected monopoly' in order to prevent 'cream
>> skimming' by commercial enterprises has nothing to do with cost
>> growth, either.
>Bullshit. All you have to do is define the rules properly. Start with
> "No company may engage in the private delivery of mail unless
> it agrees to accept all mail to and from all destinations for
> a common amount."
Congratulations, you just put everyone out of the letter business.
>"Cream skimming" is a bogus argument. UPS, FedEx, etc. all provide
>service to rural areas. And they all do it for the same rate as to any
>other address in the US. When I FedEx my parent's something in Folsom
>(actually, 5 miles outside of Folsom, population 450), I don't get
>charged extra. Where is that "cream skimming" you are talking about?
Well, first of all, FedEx doesn't do letters (because they aren't
allowed to), so your whole chain of argument is bogus here. It works
just like phone service, etc., John. I'd suggest picking up a good
book on the history of the phone company in this country (to include
all the litigation and breakup, start of services like MCI, etc.).
This is just more of your usual anecdotal 'Haugh Gwash', and as usual
it demonstrates nothing.
Brendan B. Boerner
>In article <1992Aug12....@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> mol...@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>of choice could mean that it will cost more than the present system. Besides,
Actually, let's not except current company. Would it then be possible
that you could decide that you have more of a claim to spend my money
as you see fit because your way is more rational? Suppose you think it
may be more rational to feed and house the homeless while I decide that
it is more rational for me to spend my money on quality stereo
equipment. Who gets the money and what is the justification supposing
you can't persuade me and I you?
>>|>> The taxes are low.
>> Wrong.
>
>That's where you are wrong. Nobody on the net has been able to convince me
>otherwise. From personal experience, they are low indeed.
Relative to other countries or in absolute terms? If relative, then
would you still consider taxes in the U.S. low if the average tax rate
were 75% while the rest of the world taxed @ 95%?
Chris Moller
|>> I've so far kept my lip zipped since my last posting. This response, however,
|>> is too tempting.
|>>
|>> In article <1992Aug12....@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> mol...@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
|>>
|>> >Nothing self-evident about it. In fact, what is self-evident is that having
|>> >roughly half of of our respective incomes stolen by various levels of govern-
|>> >ment is utterly outrageous.
|>>
|>> That is not self-evident. Where is your figure of "half" from?
|>> And exactly how is it stolen?
"Roughly half" is from a number of sources, but the only one I have here in my
office is a 1991 almanac which shows national "Tax Freedom Day" for 1990 as
occurring on 5 May, or about 34% of the year. Tax Freedom Day "is the day on
which the American taxpayer will have earned enough money to pay his 1990 total
taxes." The number, however, does not include indirect taxation such as cor-
porate taxes passed along to consumers as part of retail prices. As I recall,
Tax Freedom Day was a week or so later in 1992 than it was in 1990.
"Roughly half" is exactly that: "rough". But the number is _at_least_ a third
and, including the other factors, "half" seems perfectly reasonable. Or perhaps
perfectly UNreasonable.
As to "stolen", well, to start with, they threaten you with various sorts of
fines and imprisonment if you even try to refuse to pay taxes; maybe "extorted"
would be a better word than "stolen", but the effect is the same: money is taken
from the citizenry by force or threat of force.
[...]
|>> The naive solution is to let the individual taxpayer
|>> choose, but of course the bureaucratic overhead for maintaining such a system
|>> of choice could mean that it will cost more than the present system.
Considering the unbelievable quantity of data handled by the Federal IRS, as
well as all the state taxing agencies, I doubt if the overhaed would be sig-
nificantly greater than what it is now.
|>> Besides,
|>> the average taxpayer is as thick as two short planks, and probably not capable
|>> of making rational decisions on where their tax money goes (current company
|>> excepted, of course).
No argument there. From what I keep seeing in the news, the "average taxpayer"
may not be capable of _reading_, let alone making rational decisions. But the
current system doesn't seem to encourage governments to make rational decisions
either. What it does encourage is a process wherein politicians promise mira-
cles, deliver mediocrity, and at tremendous cost.
[...]
|>> >|>> The service is reasonable.
|>> > The "service" is excessive, inefficiently
|>> > applied, over-bearing, intrusive, frequently
|>> > unnecessary, and not infrequently detrimental
|>> > to the welfare of the public it is intended
|>> > to serve.
|>>
|>> Perhaps that is inherent in all forms of government. I've yet to see
|>> a government of a large, diverse nation that is any different.
Now, _that's_ depressing.
|>> ____
|>> Ian Parberry i...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
|>> Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
|>> "Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
--
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my | "The trouble with this country is
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot | that there are too many people
possibly represent its position. | going about saying, 'The trouble
| with this country is --'"
Christian H. L. Moller | -- Sinclair Lewis