sms wrote:

> The most recent federal tax cut caused an estimated loss of $275 billion
> in revenue. So it was about 11% of the total spent on "welfare." This is
> according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
>
> There are other tax cuts at the state and local level as well.

It's classic that Steve, the consummate politician, never talks about the
infinite times taxes were raised... but the rare times they're lowered.

A lowered tax rate, to politicians like Steve, is the most horrid thing
imaginable.

Politicians like Steve harp on the _one_ tax cut, and never on the infinite
times that taxes are raised.

Why?
I don't know why.
--
I suspect politicians won't stop raising taxes until it's well over 100% of
your income (and if you don't think that's possible - think about it and
you'll get why that's the case for people like me where my taxes are well
over my income).

On 2022-05-08, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The US mainly serves big business.
>>
>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>
> Whatever it is the US provides people it's not welfare. It's a joke.

Hey now, wait a minute... The GOP firmly believes corporations are
people, and they get welfare in spades! Checkmate, suckers!

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2022-05-09, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-08 6:56 p.m., Jock wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 10:40:26 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-08 4:19 p.m., Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whatever it is the US provides people it's not welfare. It's a
>>>> joke.
>>>
>>> And compared to the largesse that the rich and big corporation gets,
>>> it's a pittance.
>>
>> Bullshit it is.
>>
>>> It's just hidden in the fact that they get their largesse in the
>>> form of not paying much in taxes.
>>
>> More mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
>>
>> What taxes big business pays is passed on to their customers, stupid.
>
> You need to reexamine your thought processes, dude.

"Jack" (Rod Speed) isn't even from the Unites States, so you can excuse
his blind ignorance. He's a roo fucker from some podunk village in
Australia. He doesn't know shit about American welfare or the wealth gap
here.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2022-05-09, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your are a mindless bigot.

Projection from a roo fucker in Australia.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the constitutional
>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely
>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data from a
>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government abusing
>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>
>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>
>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>
>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>> business.
>>
>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>
> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>
> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?

I haven't actually thought about it. But since ALL taxes are passed on
to their customers, a case might be made for just that.

Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
dividends, which are then taxed to the receiver. Anything the receiver
buys with the dividends has (in Kalifornia) a 10%+ a sales tax added.
If he buys a house, he pays property taxes on it forever.

Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.

--
Cheers, Bev
"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person
or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even
possibly incurring losses." -- C.M.Cipolla

On Mon, 09 May 2022 23:10:15 +1000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2022-05-09, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-08 6:56 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 10:40:26 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-08 4:19 p.m., Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever it is the US provides people it's not welfare. It's a
>>>>> joke.
>>>>
>>>> And compared to the largesse that the rich and big corporation gets,
>>>> it's a pittance.
>>>
>>> Bullshit it is.
>>>
>>>> It's just hidden in the fact that they get their largesse in the
>>>> form of not paying much in taxes.
>>>
>>> More mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
>>>
>>> What taxes big business pays is passed on to their customers, stupid.
>>
>> You need to reexamine your thought processes, dude.
>
> "Jack" (Rod Speed) isn't even from the Unites States, so you can excuse
> his blind ignorance. He's a roo fucker from some podunk village in
> Australia. He doesn't know shit about American welfare or the wealth gap
> here.

Easy to look at the stats, fuckwit. And we aren't even discussing the
wealth gap.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 03:03:11 +1000, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the
>>>>>>>> constitutional
>>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely
>>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data
>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government abusing
>>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>>
>>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>>> business.
>>>
>>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>>
>> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>>
>> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?
>
> I haven't actually thought about it. But since ALL taxes are passed on
> to their customers, a case might be made for just that.
>
> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
> dividends, which are then taxed to the receiver. Anything the receiver
> buys with the dividends has (in Kalifornia) a 10%+ a sales tax added. If
> he buys a house, he pays property taxes on it forever.
>
> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.

Problem is that there is no viable alternative, most obviously with
income tax and sales taxes and property tax in spades.

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

>
Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
dividends, which are then taxed to the receiver. Anything the receiver
buys with the dividends has (in Kalifornia) a 10%+ a sales tax added.
If he buys a house, he pays property taxes on it forever.

Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.
>

What makes it the same money? Taxes are based on income
or spending. If you make money, you pay taxes, then if you pay
me, I pay taxes. Interestingly, it works best with deep social
alienation. If a plumber and an accountant use each others
services, they both pay tax. But if they're friends there's
no payment, thus no tax.

Your description of business leaves out a lot of details. Apple
makes iPhones with virtual slave labor, stashes their money
offshore to evade taxes, then gouges you on the price. There's
no connection between their costs/taxes and your cost. If you're
an AppleSeed then you'll beg Timmy Cook to vacuum your wallet,
which he'll happily do, while he pays lobbyists to keep Congress
on his side so that he can cheat everyone involved, from the
help to the customers.

Dividends? Maybe. Many companies have growth stocks that
don't pay dividends. If you get a dividend then that's money
you made from your investment. Sales tax funds state services.
Property tax funds your public works, schools, libraries, etc.
You make it sound like your taxes are just stolen money.

You could argue this all day, but if you remember the 60s and
70s you know that there was a time when taxes were far more
proportional. Individual tax rates went as high as 90%, in order
to prevent the development of more Rockefellers and J Paul Gettys.
The result was a massive middle class and an income differential
between CEO and worker that was fairly small. A janitor could buy
a house and raise a family. What changed?
Reagan and the buyout of both sides of Congress, leading to
gradual changes that allowed the superwealthy to appear again,
so that now a few own most of the wealth, and the salary differential
between CEO vs worker is about 350 to 1, vs 15 to 1 in the 60s.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/american-chief-executive-pay-wages-workers

When Ben and Jerry started their ice cream company I think they
committed to keeping the difference from top to bottom at 9 to 1.
The 350 figure is not even top to bottom. It's top to average. Today
even the upper middle class struggle if they live on one paycheck.
In the 70s those same people would have easily paid for their kids'
college, owned a house and vacation cottage, and saved for
retuirement, all on one salary. (Though of course they wouldn't really
need to save for retirement. The husband would have had a retirement
plan through his company.)

All that... and yet you feel bad for businesses?

On Tue, 10 May 2022 06:53:26 +1000, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote:

> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>
> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
> dividends, which are then taxed to the receiver. Anything the receiver
> buys with the dividends has (in Kalifornia) a 10%+ a sales tax added.
> If he buys a house, he pays property taxes on it forever.
>
> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.
>>
>
> What makes it the same money? Taxes are based on income
> or spending. If you make money, you pay taxes, then if you pay
> me, I pay taxes. Interestingly, it works best with deep social
> alienation. If a plumber and an accountant use each others
> services, they both pay tax. But if they're friends there's
> no payment, thus no tax.
>
> Your description of business leaves out a lot of details. Apple
> makes iPhones with virtual slave labor,

Bullshit.

> stashes their money
> offshore to evade taxes, then gouges you on the price.

The prices on the competitive Samsung stuff is no lower.

> There's
> no connection between their costs/taxes and your cost. If you're
> an AppleSeed then you'll beg Timmy Cook to vacuum your wallet,
> which he'll happily do, while he pays lobbyists to keep Congress
> on his side so that he can cheat everyone involved, from the
> help to the customers.
>
> Dividends? Maybe. Many companies have growth stocks that
> don't pay dividends. If you get a dividend then that's money
> you made from your investment. Sales tax funds state services.
> Property tax funds your public works, schools, libraries, etc.
> You make it sound like your taxes are just stolen money.
>
> You could argue this all day, but if you remember the 60s and
> 70s you know that there was a time when taxes were far more
> proportional. Individual tax rates went as high as 90%, in order
> to prevent the development of more Rockefellers and J Paul Gettys.

That wasn't the reason for those income tax rates,
those don't have to show any income at all and
Musk still doesn't,

> The result was a massive middle class and an income differential
> between CEO and worker that was fairly small.

Because the CEO wasn't getting his remuneration as income.

> A janitor could buy
> a house and raise a family.

Still can.

> What changed?

Nothing much.

> Reagan and the buyout of both sides of Congress, leading to
> gradual changes that allowed the superwealthy to appear again,

There were plenty of new superwealthy in the 60s.

> so that now a few own most of the wealth,

That's bullshit too with the pension funds.

> and the salary differential
> between CEO vs worker is about 350 to 1, vs 15 to 1 in the 60s.

> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/american-chief-executive-pay-wages-workers

Just because some fool journo pig ignorantly claims something...

> When Ben and Jerry started their ice cream company I think they
> committed to keeping the difference from top to bottom at 9 to 1.
> The 350 figure is not even top to bottom. It's top to average. Today
> even the upper middle class struggle if they live on one paycheck.

BULLSHIT.

> In the 70s those same people would have easily paid for their kids'
> college, owned a house and vacation cottage, and saved for
> retuirement, all on one salary. (Though of course they wouldn't really
> need to save for retirement. The husband would have had a retirement
> plan through his company.)
>
> All that... and yet you feel bad for businesses?
>

On 05/09/2022 01:53 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>
> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
> dividends, which are then taxed to the receiver. Anything the receiver
> buys with the dividends has (in Kalifornia) a 10%+ a sales tax added.
> If he buys a house, he pays property taxes on it forever.
>
> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.
>>
>
> What makes it the same money? Taxes are based on income
> or spending. If you make money, you pay taxes, then if you pay
> me, I pay taxes. Interestingly, it works best with deep social
> alienation. If a plumber and an accountant use each others
> services, they both pay tax. But if they're friends there's
> no payment, thus no tax.
>
> Your description of business leaves out a lot of details. Apple
> makes iPhones with virtual slave labor, stashes their money
> offshore to evade taxes, then gouges you on the price. There's
> no connection between their costs/taxes and your cost. If you're
> an AppleSeed then you'll beg Timmy Cook to vacuum your wallet,
> which he'll happily do, while he pays lobbyists to keep Congress
> on his side so that he can cheat everyone involved, from the
> help to the customers.
>
> Dividends? Maybe. Many companies have growth stocks that
> don't pay dividends. If you get a dividend then that's money
> you made from your investment. Sales tax funds state services.
> Property tax funds your public works, schools, libraries, etc.
> You make it sound like your taxes are just stolen money.
>
> You could argue this all day, but if you remember the 60s and
> 70s you know that there was a time when taxes were far more
> proportional. Individual tax rates went as high as 90%, in order
> to prevent the development of more Rockefellers and J Paul Gettys.
> The result was a massive middle class and an income differential
> between CEO and worker that was fairly small. A janitor could buy
> a house and raise a family. What changed?
> Reagan and the buyout of both sides of Congress, leading to
> gradual changes that allowed the superwealthy to appear again,
> so that now a few own most of the wealth, and the salary differential
> between CEO vs worker is about 350 to 1, vs 15 to 1 in the 60s.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/american-chief-executive-pay-wages-workers
>
> When Ben and Jerry started their ice cream company I think they
> committed to keeping the difference from top to bottom at 9 to 1.
> The 350 figure is not even top to bottom. It's top to average. Today
> even the upper middle class struggle if they live on one paycheck.
> In the 70s those same people would have easily paid for their kids'
> college, owned a house and vacation cottage, and saved for
> retuirement, all on one salary. (Though of course they wouldn't really
> need to save for retirement. The husband would have had a retirement
> plan through his company.)
>
> All that... and yet you feel bad for businesses?

Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
government(s) they will waste it. I'm not going to play the
who's-the-biggest-victim game; I assume that companies have reasons for
paying dividends rather than investing the money in one way or another
and assume that if these was less tax there would be more dividends. I
certainly don't get my money's worth for the taxes we pay, and the more
tax paid the worse the bargain.

Yeah, life was better in the 50s. OTOH, we have better tech now.

--
Cheers, Bev
"It is never fallacious to properly cite Donald Knuth in
lieu of providing your own argument." --Sun Tzu

On 5/9/2022 4:37 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> Nope, not at all.  I just know that if you give money to the
> government(s) they will waste it.

Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
phone service for poor people, etc..

Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that are
much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of shares.

sms wrote:

>> Nope, not at all.� I just know that if you give money to the
>> government(s) they will waste it.
>
> Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
> roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
> research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
> phone service for poor people, etc..
>
> Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that are
> much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of shares.

It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.

I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g., some
pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright criminal).

There is only one way to reliably stop government waste, which is, oh, I
don't know, five times that of corporate waste (it's huge whatever it is),
which is to not give government the money in the first place, IMHO.

Taxes will never stop rising, even when they're well over 100% of your
income (as they are for mine).

As Will Rogers said, Thank God you never get as much government as you pay
for.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the constitutional
>>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely
>>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data from a
>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government abusing
>>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>>
>>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>>> business.
>>>
>>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>>
>> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>>
>> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?
>
> I haven't actually thought about it. But since ALL taxes are passed on
> to their customers, a case might be made for just that.

So you're happy for a handful of individuals to hoard the majority of US
personal wealth? That money comes from your pocket. Nowhere else. It
benefits no-one. Not even them as they've no hope of spending it within
their lifetimes.
https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

Even if taxes were directly passed on, which they're not, the effect on
individual customers is negligible, but could release billions back into
the economy.

> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
> dividends,

Not always. Profits are distributed as bonuses to staff and also hoarded by
the company as a cash pile. Apple for example has more cash reserves than
the GDP of most countries.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/02/apples-cash-hoard-is-147-billion_n_4028576.html

> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.

Nonsense. Taxes are charged on transactions not money.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>>> Nope, not at all.  I just know that if you give money to the
>>> government(s) they will waste it.
>>
>> Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
>> roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
>> research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
>> phone service for poor people, etc..
>>
>> Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that are
>> much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of shares.
>
> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.
>
> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g., some
> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright criminal).

LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again. What most people call
government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what* the
government chooses to spend on.

It's exacerbated by such a polarised society as the US where states spend
so much time and money trying to counteract the federal government for
purely ideological reasons.

> There is only one way to reliably stop government waste, which is, oh, I
> don't know, five times that of corporate waste (it's huge whatever it is),
> which is to not give government the money in the first place, IMHO.
>
> Taxes will never stop rising, even when they're well over 100% of your
> income (as they are for mine).

Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly low.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the
>>>>>>>>> constitutional
>>>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely
>>>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data
>>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government abusing
>>>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>>>> business.
>>>>
>>>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>>>
>>> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>>>
>>> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?
>>
>> I haven't actually thought about it. But since ALL taxes are passed on
>> to their customers, a case might be made for just that.
>
> So you're happy for a handful of individuals to hoard the majority of US
> personal wealth?

That hasn't happened. The absolutely vast bulk of
wealth is in fact in pension funds and mutual funds
owed by almost everyone except those whose entire
income is welfare handouts and illegals.

And yes, I am happy that those who have come up
with something most want to buy or use, end up
with vast amounts of personal wealth, because
that encourages others to attempt the same sort
of outcome, which benefits almost all of us.

> That money comes from your pocket. Nowhere else.

Wrong, as always. The absolute vast bulk of the personal
wealth of the stinking rich does in fact come from the
massive hike in the stock price, not from what we have
paid for their products or services.

> It benefits no-one.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

It benefits those who find the products or services
useful and with plenty of those you don't even have
to pay for the services they provide, most obviously
with facebook, twitter and countless other free services.

And plenty like Gates use lots of their wealth to fund all
sorts of ventures which mostly do benefit lots of people.

> Not even them as they've no hope of spending it within their lifetimes..

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

Just because some fool claims something...

> Even if taxes were directly passed on, which they're not,

Of course they are.

> the effect on individual customers is negligible,

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

> but could release billions back into the economy.

Those billions aren't piled up under their beds, stupid.

>> Businesses are taxed on profits. The profits are distributed as
>> dividends,

> Not always.

They mostly are.

> Profits are distributed as bonuses to staff

Not very much of their profits are.

> and also hoarded by the company as a cash pile.

How unspeakable...

> Apple for example has more cash reserves than
> the GDP of most countries.

BULLSHIT.

> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/02/apples-cash-hoard-is-147-billion_n_4028576.html

Just because some fool journo claims something...

>> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.

> Nonsense. Taxes are charged on transactions not money.

Wrong, as always, with income tax, capital gains, death dutys etc etc etc.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:03:01 +1000, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
>>>> government(s) they will waste it.
>>>
>>> Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
>>> roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
>>> research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
>>> phone service for poor people, etc..
>>>
>>> Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that are
>>> much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of
>>> shares.
>>
>> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.
>>
>> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g., some
>> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright criminal).
>
> LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again. What most people call
> government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what* the
> government chooses to spend on.
>
> It's exacerbated by such a polarised society as the US where states spend
> so much time and money trying to counteract the federal government for
> purely ideological reasons.
>
>> There is only one way to reliably stop government waste, which is, oh, I
>> don't know, five times that of corporate waste (it's huge whatever it
>> is),
>> which is to not give government the money in the first place, IMHO.
>>
>> Taxes will never stop rising, even when they're well over 100% of your
>> income (as they are for mine).
>
> Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly low.

Not possible even if his income is increadibly low unless he
didn't put aside enough to pay the taxes on his income when
it was high and it is now very low say due to covid etc.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:16:02 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:03:01 +1000, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> sms wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
>>>>> government(s) they will waste it.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The government will spend it on silly things like defense,
>>>> roads, bridges, schools, police, Medicare, Social Security, parks,
>>>> research, airports, Reagan's USF (universal service fund) to provide
>>>> phone service for poor people, etc..
>>>>
>>>> Corporations will spend that money that used to pay for things that
>>>> are
>>>> much more sensible, like stock buy-backs to drive up the value of
>>>> shares.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.
>>>
>>> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g.,
>>> some
>>> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright
>>> criminal).
>>
>> LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again. What most people call
>> government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what* the
>> government chooses to spend on.
>>
>> It's exacerbated by such a polarised society as the US where states
>> spend
>> so much time and money trying to counteract the federal government for
>> purely ideological reasons.
>>
>>> There is only one way to reliably stop government waste, which is, oh,
>>> I
>>> don't know, five times that of corporate waste (it's huge whatever it
>>> is),
>>> which is to not give government the money in the first place, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Taxes will never stop rising, even when they're well over 100% of your
>>> income (as they are for mine).
>>
>> Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly low.
>
> Not possible even if his income is increadibly low unless he
> didn't put aside enough to pay the taxes on his income when
> it was high and it is now very low say due to covid etc.

Or with substantial property taxes and fuck all income.

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

| Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
| government(s) they will waste it.

Maybe you should write to Biden and tell him you
want a gun, 3 books, and a new driveway for those
taxes you paid toward military, education and
infrastructure. But if you do, then don't expect anyone
to pick up your trash, fill your potholes, or keep
Putin off your lawn. Those services are only for citizens.

Chris wrote:

>> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.
>>
>> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g., some
>> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright criminal).
>
> LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again.

Chris,
You're the one who faked you had a PhD, not me.
So cut the crap about opinions vs facts.

FACT:
The John Oliver video at time point 975 said it was about the 4th amdmt.
OPINION:
It's about the 4th amendment.

It's _you_ who needs to separate the two.

> What most people call
> government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what* the
> government chooses to spend on.

This is why I ascribe a higher IQ to you than to many of the other iKooks.

That is a valid opinion on your part, and one that I would tend to agree
with, given Steve clearly vented about a single tax cut as if it hurt him
personally, while my observation was that Steve doesn't complain about the
myriad rises in taxes that preceded (and will follow) that one tax cut.

> It's exacerbated by such a polarised society as the US where states spend
> so much time and money trying to counteract the federal government for
> purely ideological reasons.

Again you exhibit observational abilities unlike that of the typical iKook.
In the US, I observe we are polarized in two fundamental artificial ways.
1. The states reserve any power not expressly given to the feds, and,
2. The Democrats & Republicans artificially form respective platforms.

They actually agree more than they disagree, but it doesn't sound like it.

For example, the Democrats will break any law they can if the end justifies
the means that there will be _more_ Democrat voters, while the Republicans
break any law they can if the end justifies the means that there will be
_fewer_ Democrat voters.

Fun fact: Nobody aims at laws to increase/decrease the # of Republicans.

> Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly low.

While I've paid multiple times my income in AMT alone, what I'm talking
about is something the tax lovers like Steve always try NOT to talk about.

I'm talking total taxes, including the insane property taxes in California.

The problem is people like Steve have figured out that they can use the
Government as a weapon, and that's why they need your money to use against
you.

To people like Steve, laws are meaningless; they only want to use the
government as a weapon to make others do what _they_ want them to do.

Since what they want is rarely logical nor reasonable, they use force.
Just watch.

Mayayana wrote:

>| Nope, not at all. I just know that if you give money to the
>| government(s) they will waste it.
>
> Maybe you should write to Biden and tell him you
> want a gun, 3 books, and a new driveway for those
> taxes you paid toward military, education and
> infrastructure. But if you do, then don't expect anyone
> to pick up your trash, fill your potholes, or keep
> Putin off your lawn. Those services are only for citizens.

The problem, as I see it, is the huge waste in government.
If 20% of your money goes to what your words state, I'd be surprised.

On 10/05/2022 14:54, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> It would be interesting to find out the exact percentage of gov waste.
>>>
>>> I suspect it's well over 80% of the money is wasted outright (e.g., some
>>> pension plans like that of San Jose or the LIRR are downright criminal).
>>
>> LOL. You're confusing fact with opinion again.
>
> Chris,
> You're the one who faked you had a PhD, not me.
> So cut the crap about opinions vs facts.

LOL. YOu pretended that reading books means you have multiple degrees. I
offered to show my certificate if you did the same. You chickened out.
Hypocrite.

> FACT:
> The John Oliver video at time point 975 said it was about the 4th amdmt.
> OPINION:
> It's about the 4th amendment.
>
> It's _you_ who needs to separate the two.

How about you back up your suspicion that 80% of tax spending is wasted?

>> What most people call
>> government waste is actually a political opinion disagreeing *what* the
>> government chooses to spend on.
>
> This is why I ascribe a higher IQ to you than to many of the other iKooks.
>
> That is a valid opinion on your part, and one that I would tend to agree

Glad we've cleared up that your 80% statement was an opinion.

> with, given Steve

What is it with your obsession with Steve...?

>> Either you're doing it wrong or your declared income is incredibly low.
>
> While I've paid multiple times my income in AMT alone, what I'm talking
> about is something the tax lovers like Steve always try NOT to talk about.

The very fact that you're even affected by AMT means I feel less bad for
you.

> I'm talking total taxes, including the insane property taxes in California.

Of course you were, that's the only way anyone could manipulate the
numbers to make that argument.

On 10/05/2022 14:58, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Mayayana wrote:
>
>> | Nope, not at all.  I just know that if you give money to the
>> | government(s) they will waste it.
>>
>>   Maybe you should write to Biden and tell him you
>> want a gun, 3 books, and a new driveway for those
>> taxes you paid toward military, education and
>> infrastructure. But if you do, then don't expect anyone
>> to pick up your trash, fill your potholes, or keep
>> Putin off your lawn. Those services are only for citizens.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is the huge waste in government.
> If 20% of your money goes to what your words state, I'd be surprised.

Given all the state/federal budgets are public record it's easy to find
out how wrong you are.

On 10/05/2022 08:14, Rod Speed wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>  The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2022 10:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-08 10:11 p.m., The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2022 09:25 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 6:45 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 07:14:18 +1000, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-08 1:48 p.m., Jock wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2022 06:10:11 +1000, Mayayana
>>>>>>>>> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> | The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the
>>>>>>>>>> constitutional
>>>>>>>>>> duty of
>>>>>>>>>> | the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>>>>>>>>> Branch. In
>>>>>>>>>> | this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely
>>>>>>>>>> ignoring
>>>>>>>>>> | existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data
>>>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>>>> | business. Doesn’t this sound like a government agency using
>>>>>>>>>> unfettered
>>>>>>>>>> | power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a
>>>>>>>>>> problem with
>>>>>>>>>> | business but it is really a problem with the government abusing
>>>>>>>>>> its power.
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's both. Government has no interest in you having privacy.
>>>>>>>>>> Business wants to spy to make money. Law enforcement wants
>>>>>>>>>> as much data as possible. Most citizens either don't care,
>>>>>>>>>> don't understand, or regard the spying as a service to help
>>>>>>>>>> them shop. Only common decency favors privacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The NSA has deals with all the major operators. Google
>>>>>>>>>> sells location data the the government for thousands
>>>>>>>>>> of people at a time. ("geofencing") On top of all that, the
>>>>>>>>>> companies get paid for sharing, with your tax dollars!
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know of any law they're skirting. Those laws need
>>>>>>>>>> to be created, as Europe is gradually doing. But Europe mainly
>>>>>>>>>> serves the well being of the citizenry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The US mainly serves
>>>>>>>>>> big business.
>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit with welfare alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You really want to look at the numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when that is done, even you would notice that the
>>>>>>> US spends FAR more on welfare than on big business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when you factor in how little they collect in taxes from big
>>>>>> business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Business doesn't pay taxes, their customers -- YOU -- do.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, this is such bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Are you actually advocating no taxes on ANY business?
>>>
>>> I haven't actually thought about it.  But since ALL taxes are passed on
>>> to their customers, a case might be made for just that.
>>
>> So you're happy for a handful of individuals to hoard the majority of US
>> personal wealth?
>
> That hasn't happened. The absolutely vast bulk of
> wealth is in fact in pension funds and mutual funds

Pensions don't have a personal wealth...

> owed by almost everyone except those whose entire
> income is welfare handouts and illegals.
>
> And yes, I am happy that those who have come up
> with something most want to buy or use, end up
> with vast amounts of personal wealth, because
> that encourages others to attempt the same sort
> of outcome, which benefits almost all of us.

Billionaires only benefit themselves. They could pay their staff a
proper wage without noticing a difference in their wealth, but they
don't. Amazon staff are some of the worst paid and treated in the world.

>> That money comes from your pocket. Nowhere else.
>
> Wrong, as always. The absolute vast bulk of the personal
> wealth of the stinking rich does in fact come from the
> massive hike in the stock price, not from what we have
> paid for their products or services.

Fair.

>> It  benefits no-one.
>
> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
>
> It benefits those who find the products or services
> useful and with plenty of those you don't even have
> to pay for the services they provide, most obviously
> with facebook, twitter and countless other free services.

Has this thread not taught you anything? They aren't free. You're paying
with your data.

> And plenty like Gates use lots of their wealth to fund all
> sorts of ventures which mostly do benefit lots of people.

Philanthropy doesn't work. With exception of Gates the super wealthy are
only interested in pet projects or being able to emblazon their names
all over a hospital or university. It makes them feel like they're
making a difference. THey're not.

>
>>> Multiple taxes applied to the same money seem inherently unfair.
>
>> Nonsense. Taxes are charged on transactions not money.
>
> Wrong, as always, with income tax, capital gains, death dutys etc etc etc.

Those are all transactions...

On 09/05/2022 05:05, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> The CDC falls under the Executive Branch. It is the constitutional
>>> duty of
>>> the Executive Branch to enforce laws created by the Legislative
>>> Branch. In
>>> this case we have an Executive Branch federal agency purposely ignoring
>>> existing laws and regarding privacy and buying tracking data from a
>>> private
>>> business. Doesn�t this sound like a government agency using unfettered
>>> power to skirt the law? You keep trying to pass this off as a problem
>>> with
>>> business but it is really a problem with the government abusing its
>>> power.
>>
>> How exactly is the CDC "abusing its power"? What laws has it broken?
>> It is
>> reasonable for it to investigate the effect of the pandemic and how it
>> affected people. No?
>
> It's a perfectly valid question of how close to the 4th amendment our own
> government should skirt, as I see it (and as the article that badgolferman
> unearthed sees it).

It's notable how neither you nor badgolferman are able to even try to
evidence how the CDC's actions are "unreasonable" or an "abuse of power".

> Still, others, like Steve, feel that any law is there to be broken, as
> long as the end justifies the means, and, well, you know, Covid
> certainly merits dismantling all that we stand for as a country.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

On 08/05/2022 15:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 08.05.22 um 16:36 schrieb Chris:
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Am 08.05.22 um 13:03 schrieb Chris:
>>>> Sharing yt links is also a little ironic given the topic of this thread.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But the solution is simple: Watch it on your stationary
>>> equipment ...
>>
>> How does that change anything? Stationary equipment can also be tracked.
>
> We are discussing tracking and movement profiling of hardware pieces
> that are on the move. As the topic suggests. Relatively useless with
> stationary equipment. We are not discussing tracking in the cyber space.

Your location when you're using a desktop computer is also useful
tracking information.