From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2002 #458 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Sunday, November 3 2002 Volume 2002 : Number 458 The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Today in History: November 3 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] [none] ["William Chavez" ] Re: JMDL Digest V2002 #444 ["William Chavez" ] 3rd world sweatshops (njc) ["flopit" ] L.A. Conversation, NJC ["Laurent Olszer" ] those songs you really just **love** ["flopit" ] Re: U.S. Politics/Judy Collins NJC [colin ] Chunnel NJC [colin ] Re: Travelogue [Jerry Notaro ] Re: those songs you really just **love** NJC ["jeff t." ] Re: U.S. Politics/Judy Collins NJC [dsk ] RE: Travelogue in UK ["Bill Pearson" ] Re: U.S. Politics/Taxes... NJC (long) [dsk ] Re: U.S. Politics/Judy Collins NJC [dsk ] Re: U.S. Politics/Taxes NJC A tax break... [dsk ] Re: Travelogue in UK ["joe farrell" ] NJC Re: those songs you really just **love** [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Joni Birthday Special On Internet Radio Monday [jrrose ] Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) [Michael Paz ] Re: NJC Re: those songs you really just **love** ["mack watson-bush" Subject: [none] >On another Judy note: Someone mentioned an album with her on solo piano >that's available on her website. I looked, but wasn't able to tell >which >one it might be. Can someone tell me the title? The Judy album that just has her own compositions being sung by her and a lonely piano as accompaniment is called "Voices". It also has a booklet that gives Judy's own lengthy reflections on what inspired each song. Lastly, sheet music is provided for the piano arrangements performed on this CD. The whole package and concept behind this effort is incredible and should not be viewed as yet another annoying Judy compilation album (and she has got a few). I would hate to call this an UNPLUGGED album (even though that is what it basically is)just because I would hate to lump it with all the other umplugged efforts out on the market. This is obviously not an effort by an artist to cash in on acoustic versions of hit songs previously released. I love many unplugged efforts but lets face it, money is the big thrust behind most of them. This effort is just too "classy", too "classical" to be lumped with anything mainstream or "pop". The piano arrangements are soooo intricate yet do not come across as overdone. I have seen Judy perform a lot of these songs in concert and her head is tilted back to allow the voice to flow and the fingers are dancing over the keys with little visual attention. She just FLIES!!!!!!!! A partial song list off the top of my head: Since You've Asked, My Father, Holly Ann, Houses, Secret Garden, Albatross(magnificent), Song for Judith, Trust Your Heart, etc...A notable exception was "Nightingale" which has excellent lyrics. Probably its inclusion would have seemed like a repetition since, unlike this song, all the others were originally recorded with orchestral or pop arrangements. I still would have liked to have seen it included for the sake of having all of Judy's important piano "gems" on one disk. I have only seen this offered for sale at Barnes and Nobles. Even the B& N without a CD section will carry it in the song book section, despite the fact that this is primarily pushed as a CD. The sheet music portion is a huge piece of paper that is carefully folded down to the size of a CD size jewel case. The music print is smaller than the usual songbook size. More of an old classical presentation. It is still available on her website. _________________________________________________________________ Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 06:24:33 -0500 From: "William Chavez" Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2002 #444 >I am a witness that this government under Bush and Giuliani did not do >enough to protect us. I usually try and stay away from political comments but hear goes. I'm definitely not a big Bush fan but I hope you're not insinuating that Clinton would have done any better in preventing 9-11. I don't think any president could have prevented 9-11. While both presidents may have some positive points, for the most part they both suck in my opinion. I don't intend to hurt anybodies feelings with that comment but its just my honest opinion. Will _________________________________________________________________ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 17:30:25 -0800 From: "flopit" Subject: 3rd world sweatshops (njc) theres been a lot of discussion lately about 3rd world sweatshops. i had a dead keyboard so i couldnt respond earlier. as someone who lives in a 3rd world country all i can say is bring them on!! the more industry that starts up here, the more jobs & more foreign income we generate. and while the salaries/wages paid may seem ridiculously low by the standards paid in the usa, and are in fact low for anyone to survive on here, the fact is that there are thousands and thousands of unemployed who would jump at the opportunity of any kind of regular income. rather struggle to survive on a low salary than starve on no income.... the sight of a queue of a hundred pluis people at the side of the road waiting for the opportunity of one days casual work really brings it home how desperate people are here. recently the car manufacturers have cottoned on to our low labour costs, good technical and management skills, and started to move production out here. we now produce all the worlds right hand drive 3-series bmws, as well as a whole slew of toyotas and vws for export - this has had an enormous benefit on our economy and currency. so, hell, yeah, bring the induzstry here, we'll take all we can get.... ron np - giselle hawkins - magdalene laundries (nice one giselle!!) question - the song prior to this - "amos moses" performed by who & when & available where?? one of those songs i loved for years buit never seemed to get hold of... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:26:37 -0000 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: L.A. Conversation, NJC > From: "Yael" > Subject: LA-peeps, hanging today? NJC > > hi friends! > i'm in los angeles (which is why i haven't been responding to the > political discussion, but i've been reading and enjoying it) If I were to take your post out of context and let my meanness loose, I would add that in 10 years in L.A I didn't have 1 single political discussion. The only topics at parties were sports, money, and what a great time someone had doing whatever... Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 19:07:25 -0800 From: "flopit" Subject: those songs you really just **love** so weve seen the postings about desert island discs & favourites of this & that what about those songs you just absolutely love & adore... the ones that sound like an old friend,, that cause that sudden rush of pleasure when they start,, that have you cranking up the volume, and hitting the repeat button. the songs that feel like coming home here i go in no specific order (other than joni first since this is her list :-) ***amelia - shadows & light my first joni album, still my favourite album of all time, & this song is probably the greatest song written in the last 50 years. a true classic. ***god must be a boogie man - shadows & light an intensely personal song to me. one that spoke volumes to me & touched me in a truly deep way during one of the worst periods of my life, an intense depression, when i came so close to suicide i shudder to think about it ***shadows & light - shadows & light are we seeing a pattern here?? getting the impression i love this album?? youre right... :-) ***don juans reckless daughter - don juans reckless daughter ok - i havent got totally to grips with this song - only had it a short while - but im looking forweard to a long & intense relationship with what is probably the 2nd greatest song of the last 50 years. fecking brilliant!!! ***michelle shocked - memories of east texas - from short, sharp, shocked simple, striking, brilliant, full of surprising depth for such a simple song. all about growing up in an east texas town - mirrors some of the comments ive heard on list from people growing up in texas. a song every person who feels theyve been broken to the mould can identify with. ***michelle shocked - if not here - from deep natural one of michelles gospel numbers. this is one of those songs for switching down the lights, turning up the music, and just purging youself to "a burden shared, is only half a trouble i knew youd care, i knew youd understand a burden shared, is only half a trouble joy thats shared, is joy made double joy thats shared, is joy made double" with a lovely, liquid, flowing melody, beautiful guitar work - what a beautiful song... ***michelle shocked - winter wheat - kind hearted woman (commercial release version) dark, brooding, morbid, but ultimately triumphant. a great but overpowering album - not sure why i love this album so much. perhaps i just keep reading something into the "what would make a man, make a promise he cant keep" line... ***fairground attraction - find my love (not sure which album - only got a best of ) the tale of the break up of my marriage a couple of years ago. my ex absolutely adored "perfect" off this album - io only had ears for "find my love".... go figure ***joan baez - ellas danzan solas (cueca sola) off diamonds & rust in the bullring one of my favourite of joans albums - live in spain with some really classy musicians & a great atmosphere. & this powerful song by sting. i always thought joan sounded far, far better in spanish than she ever did in english. ***second chapter of acts - he loves me (not sure which album) one of the most powerfully emotional vocal performances ive ever heard anywhere. lead singer annie herring just channels absolute love & purity on this song. ssshhheeeewwww drained & purged by the end of this song - never fails ***mary chapin carpenter - family hands - from hometown girl like so many people i got started on mcc via the wonderful stones in the road. just a stepping stone to discovering her other albums - esp this one which is now one of my all time favourites. this song is just so great. mary's voice just gets down deep in side of me in a way no other ever has. as her guitarist john jennings once said - "mary's voice is an invitation to intimacy" "and the spoken word wont heal you, like the laying on of hands, the warm & loving ones, that raised you to a man" ***janis - try well - actually - i could have puicked almost any of janis' songs. a part of my grwing up - i neverf lost my tyaste for, or found anyone that could come close to janis ***patty larkin - brazil im a new convert to patty - but totally hooked already - her music is just so absolutelyt addictive - and this is my favourite of hers so far. ***bob dylan - simple twist of fate simple flash of brilliance - damn - i love this one... ***vera lynne - lili marlene - off hits of the blitz a childhood song that stuck with me my whole life. the composer of this beatiful song (i forgethis name) died just recently. i have no idea what else he ever wrote - but i love this one actually - i could go on all night - theres just so much music out there with so much meaning. i just subbed to a local rock music newsletter. one of their features is a listing of the local top 5 from 30, 20, 15 & 10 years ago. i could remembre & sing snatches of every song from 30 years ago!! i mean - i was only 10 at the time!!! i guess music just never fades out of your blood.... ron np - mcc - come on home ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:26:41 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: U.S. Politics/Judy Collins NJC re tax: i was working out our finances the other day(john's salary mainly!) and worked out he pays 20,000 pounds per year in taxes! Out of 54,000 salary. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:32:28 +0000 From: colin Subject: Chunnel NJC I found out some interesting info redarding the Channel Tunnel, which we have just used again to drive to Brussels. It is 36 miles long. The walls are 10mtrs thick and steel reinforced. It zig zags and goes up and down and it also leaks(deliberately so). the train travels thru it at 90 miles an hour. One can feel the up and down movement and also ears may 'pop' like on a irplane. however, I was very surpised to learn how fast we were travelling. We also talked about the possibilty of a terrorist attack. It is considered very small. Mainly becasue terrorist organizations are contacts in both UK and France. The Chunnel is the fastest way in or out of the UK. Apart from that, bombing the Chunnel would not have much affect in terms of economics etc. For me it is certainly beats the airplane or boat for getting across the channel. Not that I could take my car on a plane! - -- bw colin TANTRA LHASA APSO (reg 1982) colin@tantra-apso.com http://www.tantra-apso.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 14:04:17 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: Travelogue Merk54@aol.com wrote: > Jerry, > > Can you give us a little more details? Is it entirely like BSN, or does she > get a little more experimental with the orchestra? Any stand out cuts from > your perspective? > > While I like BSN, I will be a little disappointed if she didn't kick it up a > notch with this one. No notch has been kicked up. In fact, there is a sameness to all the tracks. The orchestra boxes her in, too confining, it does not free her. When Joni is in control of her accompanying music, there is magic between her two instruments. But that is just my opinion. On the plus side, there is Joni singing her songs, and the recording is engineered beyond perfection. Audiophiles, take note. There is a sure Grammy nomination for the recording. Hits: You Dream Flat Tires Judgement of the Moon and Stars For the Roses Sex Kills Refuge of the Roads Borderline Circle Game Dawntreader The Last Time I Saw Richard Near Hits: Love Sire of Sorrow Trouble Child Hejira Chinese Cafe/ Unchained Melody Misses: Otis and Marlena God Must Be a Boogie Man Be Cool Just Like This Train Cherokee Louise Borderline Big Misses: Amelia Woodstock Slouching Towards Bethlehem Again, I am only giving my opinion in comparison to Joni's original recordings and subsequent performances of these songs. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:10:37 -0800 From: "jeff t." Subject: Re: those songs you really just **love** NJC Hi Ron I enjoyed reading your list as some of those same tunes affect me similarly. Thought I'd send along the following: "Surely the favourite song of soldiers during World War II, Lili Marleen became the unofficial anthem of the foot soldiers of both forces in the war. Original German lyrics from a poem The Song of a Young Sentry by World War I German soldier, Hans Leip *22.9.1893 in Hamburg, 6.6.1983 in Fruthwilen, near Frauenfeld (Thurgau), Switzerland who wrote these verses before going to the Russian front in 1915, combining the name of his girlfriend, Lili (the daughter of a grocer), with that of a friend's girlfriend or by a wave given to Leip, while he was on sentry duty, by a young nurse named "Marleen" as she disappeared into the evening fog. His poem was later published in a collection of his poetry in 1937. The poems caught the attention of Norbert Schultze (born 1911 in Braunschweig, died 17.10.2002), who set this poem to music in 1938. Schulze was already rich and famous before the success of The Girl under the Lantern, who awaited her lover by the barrack gate. His operas, film scores, marches and tunes for politically inspired lyrics were successful. In 1945 the Allies told Schultze to forget about composing but he got back to it in 1948. The tune had a rocky road. The propaganda secretary of the Nationalist-Socialist party, Joseph Goebbels didn't like the song, he wanted a march. Lale Andersen didn't want to sing it and the DJ who was supposed to get it on the charts also gave it two thumbs down. Recorded just before the war by Lale Andersen (Eulalia Bunnenberg), the song sold just 700 copies, until German Forces Radio began broadcasting it to the Afrika Korps in 1941. The songs was immediately banned in Germany, for its portentous character, which did nothing to slow its spread in popularity. After the German occupation of Yugoslavia, a radio station was established in Belgrade and beamed news, and all the propaganda fit to air, to the Africa Corps. Lieutenant Karl-Heinz Reintgen, the director of Radio Belgrade had a friend in the Africa Corps who had liked the tune. He aired Lale Anderson's version for the first time on 18. August 1941. General Feldmarschall Rommel liked the song and asked Radio Belgrade to incorporate the song into their broadcasts, which they did. The song soon became the signature of the broadcast and was played at 9:55 pm, just before sign-off. After the song was broadcast there was no holding it back. The Allies listened to it and Lili Marleen became the favourite tune of soldiers on both sides, regardless of language. The immense popularity of the German version spawned a hurried English version, supposedly when a British song publisher named J.J. Phillips reprimanded a group of British soldiers for singing the verses - in German. One irate soldier shouted back : "why don't you write us some English words?". Phillips and a British songwriter Tommie Connor soon had an English version in 1944. Anne Sheldon's English hit record started the songs popularity with the Allied countries. Vera Lynn sang it over the BBC to the Allied troops. The British Eigth Army adopted the song. It was sung in military hospitals and blasted over huge speakers, along with propaganda nuggets, across the frontlines, in both directions. Marlene Dietrich featured The Girl under the Lantern in public appearances, on radio and "three long years in North-Africa, Sicily, Italy, in Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, in England," as she later recalled. An RCA US recording, by an anonymous chorus in June, made it to No. 13 in 1944. It hit the US charts again in 1968, the German charts again in 1981 and the Japanese charts in 1986. The song is said to have been translated into more than 48 languages, including French, Russian and Italian and Hebrew. Tito in Yuogoslavia greatly enjoyed the song. Lili Marlene is easily the most popular war song ever. Its theme of dreaming for one's lover is universal. Why is the song so popular? The last word goes to Lale Anderson : "Can the wind explain why it became a storm?" _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:25:33 -0500 From: "Christopher Treacy" Subject: Travelogue I've only gotten through Disc One, but I've got to say that I think Joni's 'bumped it up a notch' for sure. There is a variance in the size of the orchestra, moving between a smaller/mid-sized ensemble (Otis, Flat Tires, Boogie Man) to the larger, more BSN-like sound (Amelia, Stars, Roses), and I truly feel that this makes a huge difference in whether or not the tracks succeed. I do agree that the orchestra confines Joni to some degree rather than freeing her, but thus far I've enjoyed Travelogue much more that I did BSN. It's interesting the way we all perceive things differently; I like the way the larger more lush sound lends itself to 'Amelia' and I particularly enjoy the revamped 'Otis' with a sort of quirky and plucked sound (staccato?). Jerry's right on about the production value - sonically, the disc is AMAZING, and I'm listening to .wav converted Mp3s, so the real thing must be FIERCE. Disc OneHits:Otis and MarlenaAmeliaFlat TiresTrouble ChildBoogie Man Disc OneNear Hits:Judgement M/SSire of SorrowFor the RosesLove Disc OneMediocre/Misses:WoodstockBethlehem Can't wait to get on to Disc two later tonight!-ChrisNP: Best of Jerky Boys (comic relief) --- Christopher Treacy--- ctreacy1889@earthlink.net--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 15:08:28 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: U.S. Politics/Judy Collins NJC colin wrote: > > re tax: i was working out our finances the other day(john's salary mainly!) > and worked out he pays 20,000 pounds per year in taxes! Out of 54,000 > salary. That's about a 37% tax rate, which is what the highest rate is here. A few years ago I designed a graphic presentation comparing the tax rates of different countries, and the U.S. rates were very low compared to those in other industrialized countries. There's also the VAT you have to pay. I'm assuming that's a sales tax, and it's very high there, into the double digits. I think that's the worse kind of tax because it hits the poorest people the hardest. People with more means can often find ways around such taxes. Here, by having a purchase delivered to a friend in another state and then picking it up later, a person can avoid paying the NY state sales tax, not that I ever do that because it's more trouble than it's worth since I'm not usually buying high-priced items. So I pay the sales tax on all those lower-priced items I buy without even thinking about it. When I order anything from England over the internet I'm always shocked at how much the VAT is. I don't have to pay it, and I sometimes wonder if items would be cheaper, even with the added shipping costs, if I bought them and sent them over compared to someone buying them there. It's not a good sign when even people outside of the country are thinking there must be some way around that outrageous tax. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:03:21 -0000 From: "Bill Pearson" Subject: RE: Travelogue in UK Hi Joe, OK, I thought you knew something I didn't, but amazon uk don't have it listed or hadn't up to Friday and tower uk are shipping from the US(they say that on the cd page) They also still list 'Coyote'as being on it. JERRY! Has your advance got Coyote on it? I nearly got my hands on a promo copy but someone else offered $50 for it, yeah, right! $50 for 2 CDRs - I think not! The seller did send me some photos though and it wasn't listed on that, no artwork, just printed CDRs and white printed track list but strangely all bearing the Reprise logo. I will be speaking to 3MV tomorrow for presales and check again but 'not scheduled' usually means NO release date. For example a US release I got for the shop on import nearly 2 months ago is released UK in Jan. likewise the Tom Petty and Tracy Chapman both fairly big releases, were released US six weeks before UK, and I've had the Me'shell Ndegeocello for months now, it finally comes out Monday in the UK. It's happening a lot with Warner product recently. But to be 'not scheduled' at all is very worrying indeed. Let's hope that changes soon Bill - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 16:48:11 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: U.S. Politics/Taxes... NJC (long) Brenda wrote: > > On 2 Nov 2002 at 19:16, dsk wrote: > > > So guess who's going to be paying more taxes soon? > > It won't be the wealthy. They may pay a larger dollar amount but it's > > usually a much smaller PERCENTAGE of their earnings than middle-class > > people pay, and the Republicans would like that percentage to be even > > smaller. > > According to the Congressional Budget Office the top 1% of taxpayers pay the > highest total effective federal tax rate (percentage) among all groups: > > http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11 > > And it has been that way for every year that is listed (since 1979). The only tax > which that groups pays a lower rate is "social insurance" or payroll tax. The top 1% > has paid in the neighborhood of 2% while most everyone else pays around 9%. > > Is there some analysis I'm missing here or some source that states otherwise? Good find, Brenda. That chart is interesting to me for several reasons. For one thing it makes clear what kinds of taxes different economic groups pay: the poorest paying the highest percentage of sales (excise) tax; the middle groups bearing the highest burden for Social Security; and the highest income bracket paying the most corporate tax. I'm glad to see that the sales and payroll taxes haven't gone up in Bush's tax plan (yet), and it does look like the 2000 tax break was evenly distributed among economic groups. As one example of the point I was trying to make (that Republicans do not always give the middle class a tax break, as they claim to do), I looked through the info on that government site and before my mind got numb from all the details, saw that the last time the Republicans were in office, the highest tax rate went way down and Social Security taxes were raised three times, and hit self-employed people especially hard. Oh, yeah, I remember that now. When I was free-lancing during the 80s, after those changes, I no longer paid just the Social Security taxes an employee would pay (I think it was around 7%); I also had to pay what an employer would pay (also around 7%), so as a free-lancer my Social Security taxes were doubled, and to make it even worse, that was tax on the gross amount earned, so none of my expenses could be taken into account. That's hardly an incentive for entrepreneurship, which is supposedly so highly prized by the Republicans. I doubt that Reagan said much about that tax change. Anyway, back to your chart... it certainly looks like the people with the highest income (top 1%) pay the highest percentage of tax (32.7%). I don't think it's quite that clearcut, though. These are estimates, so within every group there will be some variation in the amount actually paid by individuals. (Just as an aside, it's hard to believe the middle economic group only pays around 17% in taxes.) So to look a little closer at that seemingly solid 32.7%: for one thing, taxes from higher income earners usually include taxes on capital gains, and there's considerable leeway regarding those taxes since people can choose when to sell their assets and so can pay the tax when it's most favorable for them. I think it's a much lower rate than personal taxes. There's no such flexibility when it comes to a worker's payroll taxes. My other thoughts are that the 32.7% tax is on the person's money that the government knows about. Sending money to offshore banks and not reporting it is one way to avoid paying taxes on all of it. Money is deposited in a bank in the islands, and the person can use an ATM card at any bank to withdraw whatever cash they need and the transactions can't be traced. From what I've read that's being done a lot these days. I'm not a financial planner or a millionaire so I don't know all of the ways wealthy people lower the amount of taxes they pay. From the little I do know, tax-free bonds, setting up trusts, giving to charity, and investing in failing businesses are common, and all perfectly legal, as is the scheme involving exchange funds that I read about recently in the NYTimes. I'll put that in another message since it's a long article and probably won't interest most people, but a couple of the paragraphs relate directly to this discussion: "... no revenue would be raised by closing exchange funds because 'the class of investors [people with $5 million or more] engaging in swap funds' would find other ways to avoid the tax." and "... the Bush administration 'is not for or against swap funds, but we are against taxes on capital gains in general and so we will not take any action against the funds.'" And people wonder why Republicans are seen as pro-business and giving advantages to the wealthy? Usually it's the well-to-do who pay capital gains taxes and if that rate is lowered (or ideally from a Republican's viewpoint, abolished), where does the needed revenue come from? I don't get the impression that wealthy people who have a lot of extra cash because of lower capital gains taxes are investing most of it in U.S. factories or businesses, which is the rationale behind lower capital gains taxes. If they were, at least the money, in theory, would be floating around the U.S. economy, by U.S. workers in those factories or businesses making a salary, which enables them to be consumers and to pay taxes, thus returning some of that money to the economy. (I'm speaking generally here; I'm sure that some individuals are investing their money in U.S. factories/businesses.) As another aside, one way that having money invested in factories in other countries hurts this economy is that the results of those investments primarily benefit the investor who's getting more return for the amount of money invested, and also benefits workers who are not spending their money in this country. Both of those can be seen as good things. I don't have any judgment on that other than to point out those effects of most of the investing being made in factories and businesses overseas these days. Those effects may be offset by the lower cost of some items here as a result of that overseas investment. Anyway, my original point wasn't to claim I knew exactly what percentage the wealthy pay, although I stick to my idea that in reality it's probably a smaller percentage of their true worth than a working middle class person pays, even though the dollar amount would be larger. Mostly, I was bothered by the Republicans pushing the repeal of the death tax in their campaigns as though abolishing that tax will benefit everyone. That's just not true. And it's not always true that just because the Republicans are in charge, working people will have lower taxes. Maybe yes, maybe no. It's certainly not as simple a situation as the Republicans claim it is and that so many voters think it is. Republicans are relying again on that "lower taxes" myth to get votes from the people they're least likely to help in my opinion. And before anyone accuses me of Republican bashing, I also think that the Democrats have their own set of myths that need to be looked at closely, but those are mostly in the "we'll help everyone" area. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 16:51:30 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: U.S. Politics/Judy Collins NJC dsk wrote: > > colin wrote: > > > > re tax: i was working out our finances the other day(john's salary mainly!) > > and worked out he pays 20,000 pounds per year in taxes! Out of 54,000 > > salary. > > That's about a 37% tax rate, which is what the highest rate is here. After looking at the chart of U.S. tax rates, I see that 37% is much higher than the highest rate here. Oh, my... Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 17:10:48 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: U.S. Politics/Taxes NJC A tax break... A Tax Break for the Rich Who Can Keep a Secret New York Times September 10, 2002 By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON When most Americans sell stock they must pay taxes on their profits by the following April 15. But a few Americans are delaying taxes on their stock profits for years or decades - - or, in some cases, never paying at all. It's all perfectly legal - but only if you have $5 million of stocks and bonds. And only if you promise to keep it secret. It's one example of how the tax laws currently grant certain favors only to the very wealthiest. The deals work this way: Executives and investors with $5 million of stocks and bonds contribute at least $1 million of their stock in a single company to a pool into which others in the same situation contribute their own shares. In return they receive shares of a partnership that owns the pool. When they are ready to withdraw from the pool, the partnership gives them not their original shares or cash but instead shares of a variety of stocks held by the pool. As a result, someone with too much money in one stock can quickly diversify into a more balanced portfolio. But unlike other investors, who have to pay taxes on profits when they sell a stock, no taxes are owed on the profits of the shares contributed to the pool. If investors stay in the pool for seven years, the stocks they get when they withdraw their investment do not incur the tax on investment profits that other investors must pay. Only if the investors then sell the various stocks they received from the pool are they supposed to pay taxes. Those taxes are by law owed on their investment profits all the way back to the time they bought the stock that they put into the pool. But cheating is easy because the investors can merely report only the profit made since they took back the stocks from the pool. An Internal Revenue Service auditor would have to know about the pool, and do a lot of work, to determine the full profit made on the original stock contributed to the pool. The Eaton Vance mutual fund company in Boston and the Goldman Sachs investment house are by far the biggest operators of investment pools based on this tax avoidance technique, with at least $18 billion of stocks in what are known in the investment business as exchange funds or swap funds. Smaller exchange funds are operated by investment firms that include the Bessemer Trust, Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lynch and the Salomon Smith Barney brokerage unit of Citigroup. To get in on these tax avoidance deals, investors must sign statements promising never to disclose the terms to anyone except their financial advisers. But the confidential offering for one such deal was provided to The New York Times by one investor and separately by two Washington tax experts to whom the document was leaked. They said they were offended by tax avoidance available only to the very rich. ... Fewer than one in 1,900 Americans qualify for exchange funds according to current rules, said Professor Edward Wolff, a New York University expert on wealth. The exchange funds are but one of a variety of techniques available only to the very wealthy to delay or escape taxes on their investment profits. Other techniques include certain kinds of insurance and offshore trusts. ... Some years ago the exchange funds came to the attention of Representative Richard E. Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat. He introduced legislation to stop them. But the legislation never went anywhere. Eaton Vance, in a report to Mr. Neal last year, said its exchange funds "are not tax shelters" and "benefit our markets and our society" because they provide "risk reduction that otherwise would not be achieved." ... No one knows how much exchange funds cost the government in taxes because no official study of their costs has been made. But the Eaton Vance and Goldman Sachs exchange funds alone represent as much as $3.6 billion of deferred capital gains taxes at current rates. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, without any supporting data, has written Mr. Neal to say that no revenue would be raised by closing exchange funds because "the class of investors engaging in swap funds" would find other ways to avoid the tax. Mr. Neal said he pressed Mark A. Weinberger, who until recently was the chief tax policy official at the Treasury Department, about why the Bush administration would not shut down exchange funds as loopholes, which the administration had said it opposed on principle. Mr. Weinberger, the congressman said, replied that the Bush administration "is not for or against swap funds, but we are against taxes on capital gains in general and so we will not take any action against the funds." Mr. Weinberger, who has returned to the Ernst & Young accounting firm, and is now its vice chairman, said that he recalled making much less-definitive remarks, but did confirm that he said that the administration had not developed a position on exchange funds. A Treasury spokeswoman, Tara Bradshaw, said the Bush administration was not currently considering any action on exchange funds and therefore had no policy position on them. ****** End of article. I've left some paragraphs out so if anyone wants the entire article, let me know and I'll send it privately. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:52:44 -0000 From: "joe farrell" Subject: Re: Travelogue in UK Hi Bill, The 'not scheduled' news is very worrying for UK fans. Hope for better news soon, please let us know of any info you get on the release date. Regards, Joe. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Pearson To: 'joe farrell' Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: RE: Travelogue in UK > Hi Joe, > > OK, I thought you knew something I didn't, but amazon uk don't have it > listed or hadn't up to Friday and tower uk are shipping from the US(they > say that on the cd page) > They also still list 'Coyote'as being on it. > > JERRY! Has your advance got Coyote on it? > > I nearly got my hands on a promo copy but someone else offered $50 for > it, yeah, right! > $50 for 2 CDRs - I think not! > The seller did send me some photos though and it wasn't listed on that, > no artwork, just printed CDRs and white printed track list but strangely > all bearing the Reprise logo. > > I will be speaking to 3MV tomorrow for presales and check again but 'not > scheduled' usually means NO release date. For example a US release I got > for the shop on import nearly 2 months ago is released UK in Jan. > likewise the Tom Petty and Tracy Chapman both fairly big releases, were > released US six weeks before UK, and I've had the Me'shell Ndegeocello > for months now, it finally comes out Monday in the UK. It's happening a > lot with Warner product recently. > But to be 'not scheduled' at all is very worrying indeed. > Let's hope that changes soon > > Bill > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:49:33 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: NJC Re: those songs you really just **love** Hi Ron, I could go on & on, of course, as could all of us here I'm sure, but I'll tell you some of mine: Joni - Hejira: as good as it gets The Left Banke - Walk Away Renee: A perfect bittersweet pop song, even when I was a wee lad listening to the radio this song moved me in inexplicable ways. Tom Waits - Somewhere: his version of the West Side Story gem just puts all of his work in perspective. But really & truly, anybody's version of this song will open me right up. Loggins & Messina - Time to Space: I get totally lost in this one Bruce Springsteen - Jungleland: a classic rock & roll deliverance symphony Ani Difranco - Pulse: so intimate, personal, and haunting Slaughter on Tenth Avenue: One of the first pieces of music I heard that really put me in a mood, that could change my mood with a listen. Me'shell - Bitter: The entire record, actually - there's not a false moment on it, it makes me feel so vulnerable. War - All Day Music: Not just because it fits me (I always like to have music around me), but it has that "Aaaah" factor when you hear it that makes you feel good and alive. Aretha Franklin - Daydreaming: has that same "aaah" factor... That's enough for now - thanks for the question. Bob NP: Willie Nelson, "Someone to Watch Over Me" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:01:15 -0600 From: jrrose Subject: Joni Birthday Special On Internet Radio Monday Hi,my name is John Rose and I just joined the list! I'll be celebrating Joni's 59th birthday(11-7-43) by playing lots of her music on this week's "Hidden Treasures" show. The show is broadcast tomorrow(and every Monday) from 12-4 PM CST at http://uicradio.ws/ . You can request your favorite Joni songs by emailing me at jrrose@uic.edu or calling 312-413-2191 during the show. I hope you can join me! Listen to "HIDDEN TREASURES OF ROCK 'N' ROLL", some of the best music you've never heard,every Monday on the net from 12-4PM CST at http://uicradio.pages.uic.edu/! ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:03:18 -0800 From: Michael Paz Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) Or ANYTHING else for that matter..... Paz (recovering from Voodoo Festival where Adam and the Crows sang BYT and I missed it to leave before the other 60,000 people tried to get out of there) on 10/31/02 1:57 PM, Murphycopy@aol.com at Murphycopy@aol.com wrote: > Mary writes: > > << Murphy, for his trouble, should receive two free copies of Covers #736. >> > > Thanks, Mary! Covers #736 is the one I've been waiting for! I just don't want > a 148 year-old Bob Muller to lick the envelope! > > --Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 19:03:30 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni Birthday Special On Internet Radio Monday In a message dated 11/3/2002 7:00:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, jrrose@uic.edu writes: > Hi,my name is John Rose and I just joined the list! Hi John, and welcome to the Jonilist! I'll put in a request for "A Strange Boy", since I am one, sort of... :~) Looking forward to hearing more from you. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:16:20 -0800 From: "Brenda" Subject: Re: U.S. Politics/Taxes... NJC (long) On 3 Nov 2002 at 16:48, dsk wrote: > Brenda wrote: > > > > On 2 Nov 2002 at 19:16, dsk wrote: > > > > Anyway, back to your chart... it certainly looks like the people with > the highest income (top 1%) pay the highest percentage of tax (32.7%). > I don't think it's quite that clearcut, though. These are estimates, > so within every group there will be some variation in the amount > actually paid by individuals. (Just as an aside, it's hard to believe > the middle economic group only pays around 17% in taxes.) > > So to look a little closer at that seemingly solid 32.7%: for one > thing, taxes from higher income earners usually include taxes on > capital gains, and there's considerable leeway regarding those taxes > since people can choose when to sell their assets and so can pay the > tax when it's most favorable for them. I think it's a much lower rate > than personal taxes. There's no such flexibility when it comes to a > worker's payroll taxes. > I think you should take a look at the methodology as it may address these issues to an extent you might find useful. > My other thoughts are that the 32.7% tax is on the person's money that > the government knows about. Sending money to offshore banks and not > reporting it is one way to avoid paying taxes on all of it. Money is > deposited in a bank in the islands, and the person can use an ATM card > at any bank to withdraw whatever cash they need and the transactions > can't be traced. From what I've read that's being done a lot these > days. Being done more by whom and where did you read it? It seems like people at all income levels find ways to avoid reporting income. It's just the amounts that they hide (and the way that they hide it) may be different. > > I'm not a financial planner or a millionaire so I don't know all of > the ways wealthy people lower the amount of taxes they pay. From the > little I do know, tax-free bonds, setting up trusts, giving to > charity, and investing in failing businesses are common, and all > perfectly legal, as is the scheme involving exchange funds that I read > about recently in the NYTimes. Here's a question - are all of these things attributable to law that was enacted by a Republican administration or a majority Republican Congress? I'd imagine it would take someone who knows the tax code and it's evolution to answer that, but I have a suspicion the answer wouldn't be so simple. Don't you think Democrats have participated in creating the legislation that allowed for these tax breaks? And if they were unhappy with them, hasn't there been some point where the legislature was under Democratic control and they could have gotten rid of them? (All except the exchange funds, because based on that article that appears to be something altogether different - anyone, no matter how much money they have, can buy tax-free bonds, setup a trust, give to charity and invest in failing businesses. Given Pitt's new problems this week, it seems like exchange funds have the potential to become a hot issue in a hurry.) > > Anyway, my original point wasn't to claim I knew exactly what > percentage the wealthy pay, although I stick to my idea that in > reality it's probably a smaller percentage of their true worth than a > working middle class person pays, even though the dollar amount would > be larger. If you don't mind my asking - what do you base this belief on? I'm not asking that you know the exact percentage, but your original statement was a fairly broad claim: that it is a "much smaller percentage." Which makes me wonder - is this just your gut or did you somewhere along the way read something that had a verifiable basis for the claim? And if you won't believe the CBO, what will you believe? > > Mostly, I was bothered by the Republicans pushing the repeal of the > death tax in their campaigns as though abolishing that tax will > benefit everyone. That's just not true. And it's not always true that > just because the Republicans are in charge, working people will have > lower taxes. Maybe yes, maybe no. It's certainly not as simple a > situation as the Republicans claim it is and that so many voters think > it is. Republicans are relying again on that "lower taxes" myth to get > votes from the people they're least likely to help in my opinion. > > And before anyone accuses me of Republican bashing, I also think that > the Democrats have their own set of myths that need to be looked at > closely, but those are mostly in the "we'll help everyone" area. > Well according to the LA Times, in this campaign season a number of Democrats seem to be running on "lower taxes" as well: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2AE12452 BTW - I'm not interested in any bashing of either side; I just don't think that it's so easy to say that one side is responsible when both sides have actively participated in creating the system with which we live. Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:37:28 -0600 From: "mack watson-bush" Subject: Re: NJC Re: those songs you really just **love** Bob wrote: > > I could go on & on, of course, as could all of us here I'm sure So right Bob but so fun to do. Maybe we should do it alphabetically. lol Phoebe Snow-Poetry Man So sweet, so 70's. Wistful longings at the time for that poetry man. Bruce-Jungleland Who can possibly argue with that one Bob? Pure excellence from start to finish. Stylistics-Betcha By Golly Wow Thought for the longest time as an adolescent that the lead was a female. Barbra-The Way We Were Like butter, to borrow a definitive phrase. Bee Gees-How Deep is Your Love? Perfect recording in every way. Missy-So many, so many. Happy Endings. Barry Manilow-You Oughta Be Home With Me Yes, I like Barry. Very much. Bette Midler-Do You Wanna Dance? Do ya, do ya, do ya? RLJ-Company No, not like you. Billy Joel-Scenes from an Italian Restaurant Didn't we all have our own italian restaurant? Janis-A Woman Left Lonely Angst like no other. Aretha-Until You Come Back To Me Right Bob. aaaaaah!!!!!!! Maybe it is true what has been said. Lost in the 70's. lol Mack ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:35:35 -0800 From: Michael Paz Subject: Re: Joni Birthday Special On Internet Radio Monday Hi John Welcome to the list. I will tune in tomorrow and listen to you at my office. I'd like to put in a request for Love from Wild Things Run Fast one of my faves of all time and one that I am currently working on again for live performance with Christina and Jack (other list members here in New Orleans). Best of luck. Tell us more about your show. Best Paz on 11/3/02 4:01 PM, jrrose at jrrose@uic.edu wrote: > Hi,my name is John Rose and I just joined the list! I'll be celebrating > Joni's 59th birthday(11-7-43) by playing lots of her music on this week's > "Hidden Treasures" show. The show is broadcast tomorrow(and every Monday) > from 12-4 PM CST at http://uicradio.ws/ . You can request your favorite Joni > songs by emailing me at jrrose@uic.edu or calling 312-413-2191 during the > show. I hope you can join me! > > Listen to "HIDDEN TREASURES OF ROCK 'N' ROLL", some of the best music you've > never heard,every Monday on the net from 12-4PM CST at > http://uicradio.pages.uic.edu/! > ! ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2002 #458 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)