1. |
UNSUB (mind) |
2 sor |
(cikkei) |
2. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
42 sor |
(cikkei) |
3. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
54 sor |
(cikkei) |
4. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
48 sor |
(cikkei) |
5. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
17 sor |
(cikkei) |
6. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
28 sor |
(cikkei) |
7. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
21 sor |
(cikkei) |
8. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
35 sor |
(cikkei) |
9. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
89 sor |
(cikkei) |
10. |
Re: Wealth tax (mind) |
34 sor |
(cikkei) |
11. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
25 sor |
(cikkei) |
12. |
Re: Political criminals (mind) |
15 sor |
(cikkei) |
13. |
wealth tax (mind) |
98 sor |
(cikkei) |
14. |
wealth tax (mind) |
5 sor |
(cikkei) |
15. |
Re: wine/kings (mind) |
12 sor |
(cikkei) |
16. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
57 sor |
(cikkei) |
17. |
Re: Wealth tax (mind) |
46 sor |
(cikkei) |
18. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
46 sor |
(cikkei) |
19. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
31 sor |
(cikkei) |
20. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
74 sor |
(cikkei) |
21. |
Re: wealth tax (mind) |
26 sor |
(cikkei) |
22. |
MET TOZSDE II BET index ertekek (mind) |
32 sor |
(cikkei) |
23. |
MET tozsde anailzis (mind) |
134 sor |
(cikkei) |
|
+ - | UNSUB (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Please take me off the list.
Thank You
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994 16:00:16 -0700 > said:
>
>This is. Whether this was true in 1801 or not, is it still true in a
>modern welfare state? And I suppose the comparison of rich vs middle class
>might be more interesting.
>
--Okay. I thought I had made this clear in my earlier posting. Let
me try again:
Economic inequality by any standard economic measure is increasing
even in the advanced welfare states of Western Europe.
Got that?
Economists and social policy wonks have made a good living for the
last forty years by trying to account for the phenomenon. I can give
you a reading list if you want, but briefly, Titmuss in 1958 attributed
some of the problem to the uncontrolled growth of three forms of welfare:
fiscal welfare (tax breaks), occupational welfare (fringe benefits), and
social welfare (social benefits). Benefits to the working classes and the
poor are more than offset by fringe benefits to the middle and upper classes,
and the tax laws are such that they benefit the larger taxpayers more than
the smaller ones. This situation has been reaffirmed in a series of
recent articles by Adrian Sinfield of Edinburgh, a review of the welfare
state published under the editorship of John Hills by a team at the London
School of Economics, a collection of economic articles by Osberg, and God
knows how many others. In the popular press, Susan Dentzer's piece,
"The wealth of nations" (4 May 1992, U. S. News, p. 54) cites the third
annual report of the United Nations Development Program to the effect that
income disparities have more than doubled over the past 30 years.
Abrahamson, writing in the Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare explains
that even in welfare states, the gap widens because THE BENEFITS TEND TO
FLOW UPWARDS.
The reasons for this phenomenon are many. They have been known for
at least forty years. T
>> Do not they use more of the nation's resources? Has that
>> changed?
>
>That's the question, and quoting authority from 1801 may not be enough
>to settle it.
>
>--Greg
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994 16:00:16 -0700 > said:
>Charles writes:
>
>> Do not the rich still get more benefit from the protection
>> of society?
is it still true in a
>modern welfare state? And I suppose the comparison of rich vs middle class
>might be more interesting.
--I think that you got most of the answer to this in a fragmentary posting.
I hit the wrong key and transmitted before I was finished. But the short
answer is that yes, economic inequality has been increasing for the past
thirty years. I can give you a whole bibliography on this, because I am
working on an article with the working title "Why has the welfare state
failed to end poverty and inequality?" I will not copy the entire paper
into this posting, but the bottom line is that the welfare state was not
designed to deal with poverty directly, but was primarily aimed at
reducing the tension between the working class and the entrepreneurial
class. It worked, more or less, up until the oil embargo of 1973. Even
when it worked, the benefits tended to flow upward, because the benefits
are tied to income. The question of "Who benefits?" is also influenced
by the matter of who know about them and who chooses to use them. An
example is state-provided day care in Scandinavia. Yuppy families
with two employed parents tend to be the biggest users, not the unemployed
poor mothers who are raising their children alone.
>
>
>> Do not they use more of the nation's resources? Has that
>> changed?
>
--The point of citing Smith is simply that the obvious fact that life
is better if one is rich is hardly a new idea. In the U.S. in 1990,
the date of the last census, the average per capita income of the
richest 20% of the population was $87,137 per year. That of the poorest
20% was $7,195, a ratio of 12 to 1. Now, who is going to use the
most resources, rich or poor?
--I really don't know why this is so hard to understand, Greg. Did you
really believe that the welfare state had successfully redistributed
income and wealth? It has not!
--I expect that the myth of the Welfare Cadillac, a well-known urban
legend, has more influence on people's minds that truth. There are
about 4.7 million households in the U. S who receive AFDC per year.
If each family got a new Welfare Cadillac every three years, nobody
would be happier than GM, since they only sell about 200,000 per
year now. After the doctors, lawyers, and pimps get theirs, very
few are left for the rest of us, although I managed to get one last
year myself! Actually, it was a program car and not a new one.
Will this answer your question?
Charles
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994 20:37:52 -0700 Joe Pannon said:
>
>Is this still true? It seems that the prisons are full mostly with the
>not-so-rich whose cases must have gone through the courts.
>Then consider the huge welfare load: that is also for the benefit of the
>poor, not the rich.
>
--Do you seriously contend, Joe, that more is spent defending poor
criminals than is spent on corporate attorneys, deeds, business law,
environmental suits and so on? And if we ended AFDC tomorrow, it would
only save you 2.2 cents of every tax dollar--and most of that is in
non-cash benefits that goes to service providers, not directly to
AFDC recipients. The total cost of AFDC grants is about 20 billion
per year, about .9% of all federal, state, and local taxes. That's
a huge welfare load?
>Let him use the much cheaper public transportation then.
>
--He does, where it exists. No Metro in many places though, nor
buses either.
>I had the impression that Social Security was not a general tax, but a
>retirement scheme. Do the rich get more out of it after retirement than
>the poor as compared to what they paid into it? I doubt it.
--Let me erase your doubts. Benefits are tied to income. The higher
the pre-retirement income the higher the benefit. Add to this the fact
that death rates are lower for higher income people, so that they live
longer and receive more in the long run. I am not objecting to this,
just pointing it out.
>I just know for myself that I'm going to get far more out of my private
>pension into which I am paying far less than my SS tax is.
>>
--Then you are luckier than most of us. And I am relieved to hear that
you have a fully-funded pension scheme. Many private pensions are
underfunded. I have a good one, too, that is fully funded. But my
Social Security check is about 40% of my retirement income, which is
typical.
>What does this all have to do with Hungary, anyway?
>
--Nothing. But I was asked the original question by a Hungarian. On
several occasions, I have raised the same question: "What has this to
do with Hungary?" Sometimes, the answer comes back: "Don't use this
to duck the question." What am I to do? I will welcome your advice.
Charles
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Charles writes:
> Economic inequality by any standard economic measure is increasing
> even in the advanced welfare states of Western Europe.
>
> Got that?
Yes.
And this increase is proof that the rich get "a larger share of the
state's protection and [use] a larger share of the state's services"?
Is that right?
--Greg
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Charles writes:
> --The point of citing Smith is simply that the obvious fact that life
> is better if one is rich is hardly a new idea.
As is it better if one is blonde, young, and in good health. Should we
adjust our tax codes appropriately?
> In the U.S. in 1990,
> the date of the last census, the average per capita income of the
> richest 20% of the population was $87,137 per year. That of the poorest
> 20% was $7,195, a ratio of 12 to 1. Now, who is going to use the
> most resources, rich or poor?
And this consumption is proof that the rich get "a larger share of the
state's protection and [use] a larger share of the state's services"?
> --I really don't know why this is so hard to understand, Greg. Did you
> really believe that the welfare state had successfully redistributed
> income and wealth? It has not!
No, I want a defense of the statement that the rich get "a larger share of the
state's protection and [use] a larger share of the state's services"; and
one which differentiates "state" and "society".
--Greg
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 08:25:58 -0700 > said:
>
>And this increase is proof that the rich get "a larger share of the
>state's protection and [use] a larger share of the state's services"?
>
>
>Is that right?
>
--To the extent that they have more goods to protect, yes. Are you willing
to argue that most of the government exists to serve the needs of the poor?
Does it? The Securities and Exchange Commission is a social agency? The
Federal Reserve System? The military is there to prevent outside attacks
upon the ghettos and slums of America? My brother-in-law, Ghengis Khan,
agrees with you even as he writes his advertising expense off his business
income, negotiates a contract for some city business, and claims a business
deduction when he picks up the check at lunch. I, evidently, am a prospective
customer. Who arranges for these things? The Welfare Rights Organization?
Get real!
Charles
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 09:10:11 -0700 > said:
>Charles writes:
>
>As is it better if one is blonde, young, and in good health. Should we
>adjust our tax codes appropriately?
>
--Well, I'd be inclined to give redheaded women a break, but not blondes.
>And this consumption is proof that the rich get "a larger share of the
>state's protection and [use] a larger share of the state's services"?
>
--Sure. The only way that they can do this is in a stable country with
a modern banking and legal system where the money is sound and the army
keeps out invaders.
>
>No, I want a defense of the statement that the rich get "a larger share of the
>state's protection and [use] a larger share of the state's services"; and
>one which differentiates "state" and "society".
>
--Easy. Most of the government's services are used by the better off. The
worse off use very little of the federal dollar. How many poor farmers get
subsidies? The highway system wasn't built in order to provide roads for
the poor, but for business. In the 19th century, the large land grants
to railroads were not provided to benefit farmers but to help guys who
wanted to rent railroad cars to grain buyers. This isn't so difficult.
really, unless you are thinking that social welfare is the only thing that
governments do.
This hasn't much to do with Hungary, beyond noting that among Hungary's
problems is the lack of a stable currency, a modern banking system, and
a pro-business government in the Western sense. Hungary is catching on,
by some indications at least, but it will take at least twenty years.
Charles
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 13:07:40 -0700 > said:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 08:25:58 -0700 > said:
>> >
>Let us just say, then, that our standards of proof are different. :-)
>
--I doubt that anything would convince you, since I believe this is
an ideological argument. What evidence would you consider?
>As I said, I think the proper comparison is with the middle class.
>
--Which is shrinking. Now, I would grant that the welfare state benefits
the middle class more than it does the poor. Again, that's easy (to me,
difficult for you) because most entitlements go to middle-class people, e.g.,
Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance (because the poor rarely
get it) and Workers' Compensation (because the poor are not regularly
employed.) The same phenomenon has been observed in Sweden and the U.K.
I'll give you references if you care to read them. Try George and Wilding's
Ideology and Social Welfare or John Hills' The State of Welfare. For Sweden,
Marklund's article "The decomposition of social policy in Sweden in the
July 1991 issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare.
>
>
>I think you will find greater discrepancies and inequalities of income
>in poor, unstable countries without modern banking and legal systems.
>
--Depends on the country. But we were talking about Western welfare states,
not LDCs, weren't we. Supposedly, in such states, inequalities were to be
reduced. They have not been reduced.
>> --Easy. Most of the government's services are used by the better off.
>
>The "better off". Middle class?
>
--The non-poor, the shrinking middle class included.
>
>A few reliable statistical breakdowns could stifle this whole thread.
>
--Okay. But this is going to annoy a lot of people on this list.
Let's take 1990, the date of the last census, O.K.? Let's see what
the poor get. My figures come from the Statistical Abstract of the
United States 1993. The 1994 edition wasn't out the last time I went
to the federal bookstore in Birmingham, so this will have to do.
The total expenditure for Public Assistance in the U. S. was
$145,642,000,000. Here's where it went:
Medicaid $75,357,000,000 (This includes medical care for the
poor aged and AFDC recipients)
SSI 17,230,000,000 (Means-tested program primarily for
aged poor and handicapped. There have
been some really outrageous abuses here.
Food Stamps 16,254,000,000 (Another means-tested program. There have
been abuses here, too, but some have been
corrected.
Social
Services 2,753,000,000 (Welfare system employees other than health
care providers covered under Medicaid)
Other 8,234,000,000 (Includes housing subsidies, work-training
and a bunch of other odds and ends)
General
Assistance 6,726,000,000 (About 40 states have these programs, left
over from pre-1935 days. No federal funds
involved. All state money, distributed on
a means-tested basis.)
AFCD grants 19,078,000,000 (This is money that the poor actually get
their hands on.)
All this comes to about 6 1/2 cents of every tax dollar spent. That
includes state and local expenditures as well as federal funds.
Very little of this cash actually gets into the hands of the poor. Most
goes to vendors.
>> How many poor farmers get
>> subsidies? The highway system wasn't built in order to provide roads for
>> the poor, but for business.
>
>Yes, and business is known for hiring masses and masses of "the rich".
>
--No, business is known for producing wealth. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm not a socialist. I believe that market systems are the best ways to
distribute goods and services. But the point is that most government
spending goes to people other than the poor. If you want to say that
most goes to the middle class, I won't argue. But personally, I'd rather
be rich. What's the point of being rich if you don't get more services?
Charles
|
+ - | Re: Wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
29-Sep-1994 Charles writes:
>Lets take 1990, the date of the last census, O.K.? Let's see what the
poor get. My figures come from the Statistical abstract of the United
States 1993...The total expenditure for Public Assistance in the U.S.
was $145,642,000,000. Here's where it went:
>Medicaid $75,357,000,000 (This includes medical care for the poor
aged and AFDC recipients)
>SSI 17,230,000,000 (Means-tested program primarily for aged
poor and handicapped. There have been some
really outrageous abuses here.
Some comments on the above:
Biggest, fattest "cow" here is Medicaid! This is "used" by the "better
off?!"--How do you figure? Do you suggest that health providers be made
to treat the indigent without compensation for their time and expenses?
Would you?
Second fattest cow is SSI--Wow! are there ever abuses and they are not
in the past and become worse as we go on. The only way to avoid the
worse abuses is to make it [SSI] available only to U.S. citizens or
those who have resided in the U.S. for 25 years or more.
The total value [based on Charles' figures] which actually goes to the
"needy" is @$60,000,000,000 in rough figures (money, food,
shelter,and services other than health care) and some does go to those
who probably aren't actually needy--but not much.
Hungary can learn from this!
Bob...az arpadhoni
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Charles wrote:
> I was asked the original question by a Hungarian. On
> several occasions, I have raised the same question: "What has this to
> do with Hungary?" Sometimes, the answer comes back: "Don't use this
> to duck the question." What am I to do? I will welcome your advice.
My advice is to drop the topic which I follow myself immediately.
Frankly, I find most of your arguments on the level of that often heard
one which goes something like this: "The US has only 6% of the world's
population, but uses 20% of the world's resources." Therefore we are
made out the bad guys of the world. This may be true for all I know,
but I consider it demagogic because it does not address the relevant
question how much of the world's output that 6% produces. For if we
find out that we also produce about 20% of world's total output, the
resource consumption does not look that bad. Of course I know Americans
are pretty wasteful people, but not in the ratio that the 6%/20% example
indicates.
Statistics can prove almost anybody right. We obviously are looking
at them differently which makes this discussion an exercise in futility.
So why don't we just agree that you like Hungary and Hungarians, eh? ;-)
Bailing out,
Joe Pannon
|
+ - | Re: Political criminals (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Greg remarked about Sandor Rajnai:
>He may have cooperated with the CIA, as a price for entry, or earlier in his
>career. Sheer speculation, of course; but it wouldn't've been the first
time...
I think it's far more likely that he MADE his prisoners confess that
they were CIA agents even if they weren't.
Rajnai wouldn't be the first communist criminal finding refuge in
Israel. Just remember Solomon Morel. (G. F. should like this one. ;-)
BTW, how do we know that he REALLY died and was buried as reported?
Joe
|
+ - | wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Charles,
No, my reply was not directed towards Eva. It was directed toward anyone
on this list who would support higher taxes (both property and higher
income tax rates) on the rich.
Adam Smith was a human being - no more. His work has influenced
western civilization but that does not mean that he somehow had an
insight into truth that should take precedence over other beliefs.
We finally live in an age where even religious leaders are questioned
albeit they at least base their faith on the supernatural. How can you
assume that the idealogy of a man who's main justification was his own
world view should contain any more authority than the belief of, say,
a priest? Has it ever occurred to you that Adam Smith's opinions are
simply not shared by a lot of other people (or entire cultures and
civilizations as a matter of fact)? The fact that a now dead white male
once upon a time felt that the rich should contribute more to society
simply because they are rich is no logic at all.
Socialist policies have never improved the economy of a country in the
long term. You may feel that redistributing the wealth of the rich is
somehow just to the poor who are currenlty alive, but the only true
benefit that the poor can obtain from the rich are jobs and an investment
in industry (and the technology involved).
Reply to:
From: Charles >
>"In an article entitled "Media Watch", Eva Balogh mentions with disapproval
>that Gyula Horn has raised, as a trial baloon, the notion of a "wealth
>tax". <etc...>"
>
>Aside from the unfortunate fact that a lot of hu"lye people agree with
>you, on what logic do you base the idea that the rich should pay a
>disproportionately larger share of taxes?
--I'm not sure of whom the question is asked, but certainly not Eva
Balogh, since she disapproves of a wealth tax. I was one of those
in the discussion, though, so I would like to stick in a comment.
I don't think that anybody suggested that the rich should pay a
disproportionate share of taxes, although I think that Tibor from
Canada did suggest that a wealth tax was a good idea, given what he
called the "dismantling" of social benefits in Western Europe.
I disagreed with him on this last point. Western Europeans are
not dismantling their social benefit structure. They have reduced
the growth of what in America are called "entitlements." The
universal benefits haven't been increased. Instead, more benefits
are means-tested, and more co-payment is required from those who
are able to pay. This makes good sense to me.
But back to the original question. Actually, Adam Smith suggested
that the rich should pay a disproportionally larger share of the
tax! His rationale was that they should do this because they got
a larger share of the state's protection and used a larger share
of the state's services. For example, the rich use the courts more
than the poor, primarily for business law purposes.
Smith's general principles on taxation are contained in Book V of
*The Wealth of Nations*, a book that is cited often, but evidently not
read very often.
Actually, in America, the rich pay a disproportionally low amount of
the taxes. Although they pay higher marginal rates of income tax, most
taxation is regressive. Two quick examples. There are flat-rate taxes
on petrol or gasoline. A man making $10,000 a year pays the same tax
per gallon as a man making $1,000,000,000. It behooves the poor man to
drive as little as he can, since the tax per gallon means more to him
than it does to the millionaire. Second example. Social Security taxes
are 7.65% of income up to a cut-off of about $67,500 (this year). The
man making $10,000 pays 7.65% of his income toward Social Security. The
man making a million pays 7.65% on his first $67,500--but nothing after
that. On whom does the burden fall most heavily?
Well-to-do people also get fringe benefits that are not taxable or are
tax-deferred. While I do not think that the rich should pay a
disproportionate amount of the taxes, as does Smith, I would argue that
the accent on taxation should be toward progressive taxes and away from
regressive sales, excise, and value-added taxes so that the rich would
pay a proportionate amount of the taxation.
In Hungary, a lot of people made money under the Communists. I once
discussed this with a young woman at Etvos Lorand. I jokingly asked,
"But surely no one got rich under Communism?" She looked at me with
an arch smile and replied, "Surely you are not that naive!" Her
argument was that people close to the administration had many
opportunities to make a great deal of money, which ostensibly now
reposes in a Swiss bank. There was some knowing talk on the street
about how to get hold of some of this for investment in Hungary. The
problem was that if it were invested, everyone would know for sure
who had profited under the Communists.
Sorry this got out of hand and is too long, but it's 6:00 a.m. and I
got carried away.
Charles
------------------------------
|
+ - | wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Charles,
"People on the right" do not all use the same arguments. Just because
I come to a conclusion that agrees with someone who quoted Adam Smith,
does not mean that I myself quoted Adam Smith.
|
+ - | Re: wine/kings (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
I've been sent this off-line:
***
Tokaji Aszu is considered a desert wine today but regal households served it
as a wine to drink in the Middle Ages. I've read in a book about the wines
of Tokaj that more than 1 liter per head was consumed at royal feasts! I
find this amazing and were it not for the credibility of the source, also
hard to believe.
***
--Greg
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Charles writes:
> >Let us just say, then, that our standards of proof are different. :-)
> >
> --I doubt that anything would convince you, since I believe this is
> an ideological argument. What evidence would you consider?
Gee, how about something relevant to both legs of the assertion that
the rich get "a larger share of the state's protection and [use] a
larger share of the state's services".
Something tending to show that a marginal rich person actually increases
government expenditure more than a marginal not-rich person
(in either absolute or relative terms) would be ideal. :-)
If it's to be taken as a given that police protection of a $1,000,000
house is a ten times larger share of protection than that of a
$100,000 house, then there's little point in debating the first leg
of the assertion.
(I'm of course only guessing that one policeman guarding one house
is some people's idea of the basic unit of protection, instead of
the value of the house, but that, I think, is another, even more
abstract question.) :-)
> Again, that's easy (to me, difficult for you)
Oh dear, you aren't one of the "there-are-no-stupid-questions, only-
stupid-questioners" types, are you?
> --Depends on the country. But we were talking about Western welfare states,
> not LDCs, weren't we.
Yes, and levels of inequality don't establish that the rich use a
larger share of the state's services.
> >A few reliable statistical breakdowns could stifle this whole thread.
> >
> The total expenditure for Public Assistance in the U. S. was
> $145,642,000,000. Here's where it went:
OK, we now have figures for one category of spending on the not-rich.
Unfortunately, the challenge is to prove A is greater than B; and to
do that we need to measure both A and B.
I'm sorry if challenging an economic belief by asking for hard evidence
has exasperated you. I just think that if it's so obviously true, it
ought to be easy to show. :-) For all I know someone already has...
To conclude, I think the assertion that "the rich" use a greater portion of
the state's services is as yet (in this forum) unproven and may well be
unprovable anywhere even if true.
*I* think the reason the state charges the rich higher rates is because that
is what the market will bear, and I don't have a problem with that.
--Greg
|
+ - | Re: Wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 20:53:03 -0400 bob hosh said:
>
>>Medicaid $75,357,000,000 (This includes medical care for the poor
> aged and AFDC recipients)
>
>>SSI 17,230,000,000 (Means-tested program primarily for aged
> poor and handicapped. There have been some
> really outrageous abuses here.
>
>
>Some comments on the above:
>
>Biggest, fattest "cow" here is Medicaid! This is "used" by the "better
>off?!"--How do you figure?
--I didn't say that. Those figures were supposed to show what the
poor got, not the better off. Please reread the posting.
Do you suggest that health providers be made
>to treat the indigent without compensation for their time and expenses?
>Would you?
--Before Medicaid, doctors used to treat the poor for free. And, yes,
I have written off fees for people who couldn't afford my services on
many an occasion. I would rather have made a fee, but sometimes one
has to pay some dues to the human race. My brother, who was a practicing
physician for forty years, used to write of about 20% of his books every
hear. Doctors don't do that anymore, especially since Medicare and
Medicaid.
>The total value [based on Charles' figures] which actually goes to the
>"needy" is @$60,000,000,000 in rough figures (money, food,
>shelter,and services other than health care) and some does go to those
>who probably aren't actually needy--but not much.
>
--Remember, Charles said wearily, really tired of this whole argument, the
needy do not get their hands on 60 billion. Most of that goes to providers,
people who provide services to the needy. If you want to make it harder to
cheat the system, you'll need to hire even more people to check up on the
fraud.
>Hungary can learn from this!
>
--I've been one of the first to point out that this has nothing to do
with Hungary. I see that there are several more postings on this thread.
I hope this will be the last night of it.
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 20:34:18 -0700 > said:
>Charles writes:
>
>> >
>> --I doubt that anything would convince you, since I believe this is
>> an ideological argument. What evidence would you consider?
>
>Gee, how about something relevant to both legs of the assertion that
>the rich get "a larger share of the state's protection and [use] a
>larger share of the state's services".
>
>Something tending to show that a marginal rich person actually increases
>government expenditure more than a marginal not-rich person
>(in either absolute or relative terms) would be ideal. :-)
>
>If it's to be taken as a given that police protection of a $1,000,000
>house is a ten times larger share of protection than that of a
>$100,000 house, then there's little point in debating the first leg
>of the assertion.
>
On the advice and counsel of Joe Pannon, I am bugging out of this
discussion. You are undoubtedly correct. It is better to be poor
than rich. There is no advantage to being well-off. In America
everyone is treated equally well. The police will arrest a rich
person as easily as they will a poor person. The police patrol
poor neighborhood with the same kindness and consideration that they
do anywhere else.
>Oh dear, you aren't one of the "there-are-no-stupid-questions, only-
>stupid-questioners" types, are you?
>
--The point was that you didn't like my argument. I thought it was clear.
You don't. Might as well stop there.
>
>OK, we now have figures for one category of spending on the not-rich.
>Unfortunately, the challenge is to prove A is greater than B; and to
>do that we need to measure both A and B.
>
--On the advice of Joe Pannon, I will not present B. It has nothing
to do with Hungary.
--Consult Osberg's recent (1991) edited book entitled *Inequality and
Poverty* I also referred you to several other sources. People are
tired of this thread, I'm afraid.
Charles
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 19:45:45 -0700 Joe Pannon said:
>
>My advice is to drop the topic which I follow myself immediately.
After I reply to tonight's postings, I will do so.
>Frankly, I find most of your arguments on the level of that often heard
>one which goes something like this: "The US has only 6% of the world's
>population, but uses 20% of the world's resources." Therefore we are
>made out the bad guys of the world. This may be true for all I know,
>but I consider it demagogic because it does not address the relevant
>question how much of the world's output that 6% produces. For if we
>find out that we also produce about 20% of world's total output, the
>resource consumption does not look that bad. Of course I know Americans
>are pretty wasteful people, but not in the ratio that the 6%/20% example
>indicates.
>
--I agree with your example. We produce more than anybody, so it is
perfectly natural that we should use more resources to do it.
>Statistics can prove almost anybody right.
--Not if everyone follows the rules of statistics.
We obviously are looking
>at them differently which makes this discussion an exercise in futility.
>So why don't we just agree that you like Hungary and Hungarians, eh? ;-)
>
--I will take your advice.
Charles
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 22:30:29 EDT Sipos Gyorgy said:
>No, my reply was not directed towards Eva. It was directed toward anyone
>on this list who would support higher taxes (both property and higher
>income tax rates) on the rich.
>
>Adam Smith was a human being - no more. His work has influenced
>western civilization but that does not mean that he somehow had an
>insight into truth that should take precedence over other beliefs.
--Look. Somebody asked me to give one reason for asking the rich to
pay higher taxes. I cited Smith, the patron saint of capitalism.
Most conservatives cite Smith as if he had an insight into truth
that should take precedence over other beliefs. I was asked for
a justification. I gave one. Now I'm getting flamed for simply
doing what I was asked.
How can you
>assume that the idealogy of a man who's main justification was his own
>world view should contain any more authority than the belief of, say,
>a priest?
--I wouldn't ask too many priests to act as authorities on ecoonomics.
Conversely, I wouldn't ask Smith to administer communion.
Has it ever occurred to you that Adam Smith's opinions are
>simply not shared by a lot of other people (or entire cultures and
>civilizations as a matter of fact)? The fact that a now dead white male
>once upon a time felt that the rich should contribute more to society
>simply because they are rich is no logic at all.
>
--See above. I was asked for a justification. I gave one.
>Socialist policies have never improved the economy of a country in the
>long term. You may feel that redistributing the wealth of the rich is
>somehow just to the poor who are currenlty alive, but the only true
>benefit that the poor can obtain from the rich are jobs and an investment
>in industry (and the technology involved).
>
--I absolutely agree. I never said otherwise. I am not and have never
been a member of any socialist or communist party. My brother was a
sergeant in a tank outfit in the Second World War and got the Bronze
star and the Purple Heart. I am a loyal American and have voted
Republican most of my life. Jeez.
>But back to the original question. Actually, Adam Smith suggested
>that the rich should pay a disproportionally larger share of the
>tax! His rationale was that they should do this because they got
>a larger share of the state's protection and used a larger share
>of the state's services. For example, the rich use the courts more
>than the poor, primarily for business law purposes.
>
--This was the comment that started it all. And for those who came in
late...Please read it very carefully. I said that I did not agree with
Smith, didn't I?
>Actually, in America, the rich pay a disproportionally low amount of
>the taxes. Although they pay higher marginal rates of income tax, most
>taxation is regressive. Two quick examples. There are flat-rate taxes
>on petrol or gasoline. A man making $10,000 a year pays the same tax
>per gallon as a man making $1,000,000,000. It behooves the poor man to
>drive as little as he can, since the tax per gallon means more to him
>than it does to the millionaire. Second example. Social Security taxes
>are 7.65% of income up to a cut-off of about $67,500 (this year). The
>man making $10,000 pays 7.65% of his income toward Social Security. The
>man making a million pays 7.65% on his first $67,500--but nothing after
>that. On whom does the burden fall most heavily?
>
>Well-to-do people also get fringe benefits that are not taxable or are
>tax-deferred. While I do not think that the rich should pay a
>disproportionate amount of the taxes, as does Smith, I would argue that
>the accent on taxation should be toward progressive taxes and away from
>regressive sales, excise, and value-added taxes so that the rich would
>pay a proportionate amount of the taxation.
>
|
+ - | Re: wealth tax (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 20:34:18 -0700 > said:
>Charles writes:
>
>larger share of the state's services".
>
>Something tending to show that a marginal rich person actually increases
>government expenditure more than a marginal not-rich person
>(in either absolute or relative terms) would be ideal. :-)
>
--Wealthy farmers get high subsidies for not farming. Marginal farmers
do not. It is not uncommon for people to buy farms and then not farm
them. There was a prominent senator (I don't want to get sued) a few
years ago who got about $200,000 for not farming. Small farmers cannot
get such subsidies. Each gentleman farmer who does that increases your
taxes to pay for it. Is there a university with an agriculture college
near you? See if you can ask an agricultural economist about this
example. The press has reported the subsidies given to the tobacco industry
while trying to convince people not to smoke. I don't believe in
government subsidies, but Uncle Sam does. Tax breaks exceed 65 billion
in 1994. Add up the figures on p. 334 of the Statistical Abstract of
the U.S. for 1993. Also look at p. 332. Agricultural outlays totalled
67 Billion in 1993. You paid for that. Small farmers didn't get very
much of it.
--On the advice of Joe Pannon, I resign as this week's target. This
has gotten far away from Hungary.
|
+ - | MET TOZSDE II BET index ertekek (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
Nap Januar Februar Marcius Aprilis Majus Junius Julius Augusztus
1 2075,76 1810,97 1795,22 1555,8 1434,11 1495,55
2 2189,94 1805,05 1606,01 1550,5 1508,24
3 2037,52 1810,61 1606,93 1537,56 1537,65
4 1939,45 1802,85 1605,58 1432,27 1541,86
5 1707,18 1620,65 1428,38 1561,41
6 1229,44 1724,91 1620,78 1420,9 1420,9
7 1249,23 1829,66 1811,02 1434,48 1438,48
8 1883,97 1810,07 1737,27 1441,76 1441,76 1580,05
9 1921,43 1799,33 1619,22 1608,92
10 1268,87 1844,74 1811,28 1625,41 1623,84
11 1285,49 1855,02 1848,88 1732,66 1614,85 1448,12 1654,2
12 1305,03 1717,39 1611,92 1442,85 1433,64 1671,61
13 1342,4 1684,62 1605,23 1452,52 1452,46
14 1384,33 1897,04 1676,17 1437,39 1451,37
15 1931 1696,44 1454,3 1463,2 1674,58
16 1967,9 1881,22 1598,28 1466,72 1673,35
17 1400,6 1966,29 1875,33 1584,01 1677,81
18 1418,83 1895,82 1869,36 1700,79 1567,28 1469,29 1682,56
19 1447,1 1649,14 1556,27 1470,97 1679,57
20 1497,94 1636,41 1455,94 1466,19
21 1552,12 1896,58 1623,45 1446,89 1470,94
22 1883,97 1842,97 1622,84 1437,84 1472,85 1685,45
23 1811,47 1827,98 1441,56 1699,25
24 1583,66 1811,25 1831,45 1568,95 1451,7 1702,5
25 1575,94 1793,81 1619,39 1619,39 1563,78 1470,21 1704,05
26 1619,41 1619,97 1567,45 1472,81 1699,57
27 1719,32 1617,31 1563,09 1453,92 1493,24 1695,17
28 1812,89 1795,78 1824,72 1616,31 1440,43 1493,72 1693,59
29 1820,61 1595,26 1427,46 1497,33 1692,07
30 1814,98 1567,27
31 1942,49 1792,86 1555,45
|
+ - | MET tozsde anailzis (mind) |
VÁLASZ |
Feladó: (cikkei)
|
___MAGYAR ELEKTRONIKUS TOZSDE____________________________HU-ISSN_1216-0229
copyright 1994. IV. evfolyam /volume
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I. INFORMACIOK
HAVI ar 1000 Ft-ban (MONTHLY price 1000Ft)
_________________________________________________________________
RESZVENYEK | 7. honap | 8. month | 9. honap |
Stock | max. price | maximumar | close price |
-------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|
<Agrimpex>bem 18.000 17.100
<Agrimpex>nev 18.000 17.100
<Aranypok> 10.009
<Balaton> 9.700 7.750
<Bonbon>
<Csemege> 16.000 18.000
<Csopak>bem 0.690 0.650
<Csopak>nev 0.690
<Danubius> 1.160
<Domus> 1.400 1.200
<Dunaholding>bem 23.500 30.000
<Dunaholding>nev 23.500
<Egis> 2.200 2.705
<Fotex> 0.409 0.411
<Fonix>
<Garagent> 2.200
<Goldsun> 1.300 1.075
<Global> 1.550 1.415
<Globus> 2.245 2.350
<Graboplast> 1.400 1.255
<Hungagent>bem 1.500 2.000
<Hungagent>nev 1.500
<Ibusz> 1.465 1.555
<Inter-Europa> 15.100 13.300
<KontraxI> 0.250
<KontraxT> 0.300 0.150
<Konzum> 0.725
<Martfu>sor 3.210 4.120
<Muszi> 0.150 0.100
<Nitroil> 16.000
<Novotrade> 5.300
<Panflax> 0.500 0.520
<PanPlast> 1.350 1.300
<Pharmavit> 7.010
<Pick> 6.600 8.020
<Primagaz> 2.400 2.900
<Skala-Coop>S 2.000 2.450
<Skala-Coop>T 2.650 2.850
<Soproni>sor 4.900 5.000
<Styl> 2.600 2.835
<Sztrada>bem 3.500
<Sztrada>nev 3.500
<Terraholding> 0.450
<Zalakeramia> 2.350 2.800
<Zwack> 4.400 6.050
Karpotlasijegy 0.580 0.455
Megjegyzesek: (Note)
A GOPHER szolgaltatas frissites alatt...
A BET modositotta a Bevezetesi es Forgalombantartasi szabalyzatot.
Technikai problemak voltak a szamitogeoes rendszerrel. Tulterheles
miatt lefagyott.... :-)
II. ANALIZIS
Augusztus ho jellemzoje a likviditas es az arfolyamok novekedese
A reszvenyszekcio 2,6 szeresre novelte a forgalmat juliushoz
viszonyitva. a BET indexe 13% -kal (200 ponttal) nott.
Augusztusban 51 milliard forint ertekben kerult uj kibocsatas.
111 papir (39 reszveny, 27 kotveny, 25 kincstarjegy, 19 befektetesi alap
es Kp. jegy) -ra lehetett kereskedni.
A brokercegek ertekpapir forgalmabol a BET ( tozsdei es tozsden kivuli)
a BET 27 % -kal reszesedett. A brokerek a kereskedes 79% -at az
automatikus kereskedesbe vont papirokkal vegeztek.
A zugbrokerek kisebb aktivitast mutattak a BET elott, szamukra tovabbra is
a Karpotlasi jegy erdekes, a tozsdei arfolyam alatt 20-30 forinttal adnak
kevesebbet, de rogton fizetnek.
A legnagyobb arfolyamnovekedest a DUNAHOLDING erte el. Ez a papir talan a
maganbefektetok kedvence, de most nem ok vasarolhatnak, hanem
informacioink szerint a ceg sajat szamlara vasarolja a papirjait.
Az elso felevet jelentos eredmennyel zarta gazdalkodasi eredmenye
600 ezer forint, P/E erteke jelenleg 10 koruli.
Jelentos tulajdon hanyadott szerzett az IBUSZ Rt. -ben, Igy a Dunaholding
kozvetlen szakmai tanacsadasaval folyik az IBUSZ Rt. racionalizalasa, e
tevekenysegeert a Dh tovabbi tulajdonjogot szerez az IBUSZ Rt. -ben
Dunaholding Rt.
1024 Bp. Ady Endre u.19.
Budapest, 1251
Pf.63.
Tel.:115-4095
Fax.:135-2746
Dr. Tam s Istv n
eln k-vez rigazgat"
Jegyzett papir
Alap!t s ve:1989 (800 mFt)
Tev kenys g: P nz gyi tan csad s..
Holding
A t zsdei bevezet s ve:1991
Alapt ke: 1700 mFt
A t rsas g t rzsr szv nyeinek sz ma: 170.000 db
-n v rt ke: 10 eFt
Kibocs t si r (1991) : 38.000 Ft 380 %
Ad"zott eredm ny 1990 326.1 mFt oszt.: 40 %
1991 708.0 mFt 40 %
1992 -676 mFt 40 %
1993 508.0 Mft 40 % saj t t ke: 3.447.746 eFt
Egy r szv nyre jut" eredm ny: 2990 Ft
Megjegyz s: 11. h t<reza03>, k zgy l s 17. h t<reza05>, 94.08 h" <reza408>
A BET index ertekek kulon file -ben...
ORCZAN, Zsolt
foisk. docens
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
M M EEEEE TTTTTTT 1994. IV. volume /evfolyam.
M M M M E T HU ISSN 1216-0229
M M M EEEE T HUNGARIAN ELECTRONIC EXCHANGE
M M E T ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
M M EEEEEE T BUDAPEST,Pf.311. H-1536.HUNGARY
Kiado/Publisher: dr.Orczan, Zsolt L.
Foszerkeszto/ Editor Orczan, Csaba S.
Megrendeles lemondas cimen sub MET-TOZS
MET_____________________ __________________MET
|
|