Thank you for your comments and information -- if that is the sample of the long form -- who needs it -- I wouldn't even answer most of those questions just on General Principle. What is that information relevant to? I could understand travel to work if there was some intent to institute public transportation where there is little or none. It's too bad that there is no explanation as to the questions asked. The last census was supposed to have been poorly gathered -- information was not accurate to say the least. Someone made a comment regarding the race question which I would like to also address -- what you need to realize is that government subsidy and funds to communities are based on income and race and age composition and it will continue to be this way. A lot of this was instituted as a result of the sixties and the funding that was not available especially for blacks and native Americans -- school lunch programs for children of families that could not afford it, seniors in need of additional income through jobs, etc. etc. I have worked in the non-profit sector and applications for grants were based on target communities and their needs, and statistical information is needed for support funds to be granted. Original Message ----- From: <Outriggger@aol.com> To: <SWITZERLAND-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 11:36 AM Subject: [SWITZ] census forms > Give me this, I waited days upon days reading the comments of those listers > disappointed with the short census form. And their points were well taken, > one and all. > However, permit me to make an observation. Though not to make a point, I > leave that to the individual reader. > Yesterday I went to a meeting that, because of its nature, attracted people > from all walks of life. A very broad spectrum of the residents of my mid-size > community. Two hundred and six individuals were in attendance. It was an > interesting meeting and no one left early. Toward the end, the subject of the > census forms was brought up. A lively discussion followed, but entirely > one-sided. Essentially the same points were made that I have seen made on the > List. And almost everyone was disappointed with the census form itself, > especially since the taxpayers paid for it. Not my point, although I agree. > Now for my observation. Before even one person left, a show-of-hands was > asked to indicate how many received the short form. Then the long form. > That's when things really picked up! It seems that 189 people got the short > forms, and only 17 got the long. Of the seventeen receiving the long forms, > nearly every one was known to oppose government intrusion in our everyday > lives, known to oppose the federal government's assumption of rights reserved > for the states, and known to oppose the continued growth of big government. > Each of the 17 long-formers was adament about their right to privacy. So > what's so different about the two forms? I don't know. I've not seen the > short form. But here are some of the questions the government wants to know > about those who received the long form. > Question 21. Last week, did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? > Question 22. At what location did this person work LAST WEEK? > Question 23. How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? The choices > were: Car, truck or van; bus or trolley bus; streetcar or trolley car; subway > or elevated; railroad; ferryboat; taxicab; motorcycle; bicycle; walked; > worked at home; other. > Question 24. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST > WEEK? > Question 31. Income in 1999. > a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs. > b. Self-employment income. > c. Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from > estates and trusts. > d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement > e. Supplemental Security Income > f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare > office > g. Retirement, survivor, or disability persions > h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) > payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony > Question 32. What was this person's total income in 1999? > Question 38. How many bedrooms do you have? > Question 45. What are the annual costs of utilities and fuels for THIS house, > apartment, or mobile home? > Question 47b. How much is your monthly mortgage payment on THIS property? > Question 48. Do you have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS > property? > Question 50. What was the annual payment for fire, hazard, and flood > insurance on THIS property. > > What has this to do with genealogy? Plenty. Active measures are being pursued > in Switzerland and in Canada to restrict the public's access to vital and > personal records, which sharply curtail the activities of legitimate > researchers such as authors and genealogists. If this is made to apply to the > US in future years, the Federal Government will be the only one to possess > vital and personal records on individuals, and the possibility exists that > all vital and personal records accrued by the government will be adjudged off > limits to the public, including authors, genealogists and other legitimate > researchers. This, as in Switzerland, on the basis of personal privacy. > Genealogists should watch this trend carefully, and let their representatives > know when they feel the line is being crossed. If indeed it has not already. > One final note. The point was made at the meeting that perhaps those people > who value personal privacy also would be expected to avoid going to public > meetings such as this one. I think the point is valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== SWITZERLAND Mailing List ==== > Resource Site > http://www.rootsweb.com/~chewgw > >