On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:00:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 4:36:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/24/2021 2:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 9/24/2021 12:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 9/23/2021 8:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:30:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 9/22/2021 11:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:38:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Increases in productivity - especially modern ones -
>> >>>>>> have led to huge
>> >>>>>> compensation increases and bonuses for top executives,
>> >>>>>> but wages of
>> >>>>>> ordinary workers have not risen in parallel. In fact,
>> >>>>>> when productivity
>> >>>>>> rises ordinary workers may suffer layoffs.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Lee Iacocca basically kept Chrysler from going bankrupt
>> >>>>> saving the
>> >>>>> jobs of, probably, 15,000, or maybe more people. Doesn't
>> >>>>> he deserve a
>> >>>>> big raise?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John, I think the general run of things has been like this:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "CEO Jack made some executive decisions that probably
>> >>>> prevented stock
>> >>>> prices dropping 10%. He deserves a million dollar bonus
>> >>>> for doing his job!"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> versus
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Maintenance supervisor Joe noticed a stamping press
>> >>>> bearing nearing
>> >>>> failure and got it speedily repaired. That prevented the
>> >>>> entire
>> >>>> production line shutting down, which would probably have
>> >>>> dropped stock
>> >>>> prices 10%. But he was just doing his job."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Top executives' salaries have skyrocketed in recent
>> >>>> decades, to obscene
>> >>>> levels. Ordinary workers' salaries have stagnated, if
>> >>>> indeed their jobs
>> >>>> haven't been shipped offshore.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think it's time to hire cheap CEOs (and university
>> >>>> presidents) from
>> >>>> India. Why can't those jobs be done remotely?
>> >>>
>> >>> You over simplify things.
>> >>>
>> >>> First case... Manager prevented stock prices from dropping
>> >>> 10%.
>> >>> Doesn't sound like much, but what did this do to the
>> >>> corporation's
>> >>> over all financial standing? Would banks be less inclined
>> >>> to finance
>> >>> the company when shares prices dropped? Ask Andrew whether
>> >>> it is
>> >>> easier for a company to borrow money when it is doing
>> >>> "very well,
>> >>> thank you", or when "we are still keeping our head above
>> >>> water".
>> >>>
>> >>> As for jobs migrating overseas? And I'm sure that
>> >>> corporate managers
>> >>> are even getting raises for doing so. I read, for example,
>> >>> that
>> >>> Amazon, in the U.S., pays $15/hour. Minimum salary in
>> >>> Thailand is 300
>> >>> baht a day, about $1.14/hour at current exchange rates.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amazon employs some 1 million people in the U.S. so
>> >>> average daily
>> >>> wages is something like $120,000,000 in the U.S. A move to
>> >>> Thailand
>> >>> would result in a decrease in daily wages to $9,120,000, a
>> >>> savings of
>> >>> $110,880,000.
>> >>>
>> >>> Tell me, wouldn't a reduction in corporate costs of
>> >>> $110,880,000 a day
>> >>> be worth a very substantial bonus to management.
>> >>
>> >> I have no doubt that offshoring jobs can raise corporate
>> >> profits, and generate bonuses for top executives. But the
>> >> other effect is the impoverishing of workers lower on the
>> >> organization chart.
>> >>
>> >> And that's not merely the bottom of the chart. A former huge
>> >> employer of engineers, technicians, administrators etc. in
>> >> our area is gone due to that process, causing much economic
>> >> harm to everyone who was not at the very top. Even retirees
>> >> who thought their pensions were secure took a major, major hit.
>> >>
>> >> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer at
>> >> the expense of the middle and lower classes. But any
>> >> proposal to raise taxes on the rich gets painted as
>> >> "punishing hard work" or other nonsense.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > All that's true but there's both pull and push.
>> >
>> > The other side of the equation is draconian punishment by EPA and all
>> > the other departments bureaus and agencies, Fed & State) of anyone who
>> > makes anything and in particular anyone who employs anyone. At some
>> > point a rational man says no and walks away. As evidenced.
>> >
>> > Tax treatment is another area. I will never understand how 'race to the
>> > bottom' is pejorative! WTF? It's as if some engineer were despairing,
>> > 'We just can't further reduce the efficiency of this process'. 'Race to
>> > the bottom' sounds like an honorable quest to me, like less disease,
>> > slower corrosion, less waste etc.
>> I have no doubt that there are plenty of over-burdensome regulations;
>> but I also have no doubt there are those who will push, lobby and bribe
>> to get rid of clearly beneficial regulations.
>>
>> The local river is a case in point. It was lined with steel mills for
>> many decades and was a horrid chemical mess, quite devoid of life. The
>> steel mills almost all went away in the late 1970s, and only now, 40
>> years later, is the river becoming acceptably clean. However, kayakers
>> are still warned not to actually stand on the bottom in many places,
>> because one's feet can sink down to the deep layer of grease that still
>> remains under the bottom's silt. (And BTW, a wealthy owner of a small
>> company was convicted just a few years ago of having his employee dump
>> waste oil into the river.)
>>
>> But "race to the bottom" has never, AFAIK, referred to highest
>> efficiency or lowest waste of energy or material, etc. IME it's most
>> often used to refer to the fact that companies move operations to
>> locations where salaries and benefits are lowest. The large local tech
>> company I referred to earlier sent most of its production and even
>> design to Mexico. (I knew engineers who were forced to teach Mexican
>> engineers their design skills.)
>>
>> For some companies, Mexican labor is too expensive, so jobs are shifted
>> to even cheaper labor markets. In effect, American workers are asked to
>> compete against near slave wages in other countries. That's the bottom,
>> and it's not a good place for an American to be.
>
>Frank - what cheaper labor markets? Illegal aliens in the US will not work because the Democrats are paying them not to work. They are using your money so smile for the candid camera. Cheaper labor in China? No, there isn't - China has now almost entirely automated American product production in China. The workers running the automation are making better wages comparitively than you did. This is the world you wanted and you have it. Now tell us all about how Americans won't work as you actively prevent them from doing so.

Errr.... Tommy Boy WAKE UP! Minimum wage in China ranges from a high
of 24/24 Yuan/hour (highest to lowest) in Bejing province to a low of
15/15 in Qinghai province. In Dollar terms that is about 5.8 yuan to 1
US$

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:29:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 8:25:39 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:03:51 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/24/2021 6:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer
>> >>>> at the expense
>> >>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to
>> >>>> raise taxes on the
>> >>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other
>> >>>> nonsense.
>> >>>
>> >>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the
>> >>> lower
>> >>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest,
>> >>> your "job"
>> >>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was
>> >>> to educate
>> >>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have
>> >>> told us,
>> >>> you are pretty well off these days.
>> >>
>> >> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must
>> >> always get richer at the expense of the lower classes - at
>> >> least, not to the degree it happens in this country.
>> >>
>> >> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more
>> >> extreme wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger
>> >> than in many prosperous European and Asian countries.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or
>> >> for society. We've already seen disastrous effects of
>> >> disenfranchized folks voting for a shyster celebrity who
>> >> pretended that he would single-handedly fix their problems.
>> >> ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
>> >>
>> >> There are historical examples of similar situations
>> >> triggering revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and
>> >> misery but ultimately no real improvement. We don't need that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >This country does not in fact display 'income disparity'
>> >whatever that means beyond nornmal human diversity. The
>> >institutional and regulatory disincentives to hire/work are
>> >more than offset by massive transfer payments which are not
>> >included in the breathless reports of 'inequality'.
>> >
>> >You might say that's a ridiculous inefficient and unfair
>> >setup for the taxpayer, as I do, but here we are.
>> I read that the federal budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2022, is
>> $6.011 trillion. Of this it is estimated that $4.018 trillion is
>> Mandatory spending. This category includes entitlement programs such
>> as Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation. It also
>> includes welfare programs such as Medicaid.
>>
>> It appears that 66.8% of the budget is paid to the poor, downtrodden,
>> impoverished, multitudes (:-(
>> https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
>
>As is usual, John, you have no idea what is going on around you. What do you think is going to happen to you after the US Dollar is no longer the preferred currency? What do you think your Air Force retirement pay is going to be worth? You have spend just about every minute on this group arguing against your own good and you're on the very edge of achieving it. So when it costs more to buy food in Thailand with American dollars than it would here remember that.
>

Nothing is going to happen to me if the US$ changes in value as I
don't live in the U.S. and any dollar denoted payments I might receive
are paid to people in the U.S.

But a little "news for the ignorant" the value of the Thai baht versus
the U.S. dollar has little or no effect on living costs in Thailand. A
kilo of rice, grown in Thailand, on Thai owned property, with Thai
labour, is not effected by any change in the dollar. Nor the price of
pork, chickens, fish, shoes, shirts, pants, or you name it. All "Made
in Thailand" or at least "not imported from the U.S."

>You know nothing about economic and the theory of money but you will argue all day that you are the brightest bulb on the tree. Fine - but that filament is about to burn out.

Well Tommy, I know enough about the "theory of money" that I'm living
on what I "earned" either directly or through investments, unlike you
living on the government dole and trying to make money buying and
selling used junk.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer at the expense
>>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to raise taxes on the
>>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the lower
>>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest, your "job"
>>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was to educate
>>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have told us,
>>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>>>
>>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must always get
>>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least, not to the degree
>>> it happens in this country.
>>>
>>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more extreme
>>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than in many
>>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
>>>
>>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or for society.
>>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized folks voting
>>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would single-handedly fix
>>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
>>>
>>> There are historical examples of similar situations triggering
>>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but ultimately no
>>> real improvement. We don't need that.
>>
>> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems that
>> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own efforts. And,
>> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all.
>> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get up and go"
>> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get ahead?
>
>Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>pay more taxes.
>
>Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>excess than from those who have little.
>
>Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>paying enough.

A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
it didn't work.

What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?

Or even the guy that taught bunch of people to be engineers? Or me,
building oil drilling sites in the jungle and thus increasing the
volume of crude being produced and indirectly decreasing the cost of
gasoline in America?

But whining about bumpy roads? A fair method would be to simply
increase the tax on those that use the road. Perhaps by how much they
actually use the roads by an increase in motor vehicle fuel taxes. And
bicycle rider, who complain the loudest don't pay any tax at all and
ride around on bicycles that might cost more then $10,000. Shouldn't
they be taxed? After all they appear to want private "roads".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:33:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer
>>>>>> at the expense
>>>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to
>>>>>> raise taxes on the
>>>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of
>>>>> the lower
>>>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be
>>>>> honest, your "job"
>>>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it
>>>>> was to educate
>>>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you
>>>>> have told us,
>>>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must
>>>> always get
>>>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least,
>>>> not to the degree
>>>> it happens in this country.
>>>>
>>>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even
>>>> more extreme
>>>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than
>>>> in many
>>>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation,
>>>> or for society.
>>>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized
>>>> folks voting
>>>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would
>>>> single-handedly fix
>>>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't
>>>> sell your houses!")
>>>>
>>>> There are historical examples of similar situations
>>>> triggering
>>>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but
>>>> ultimately no
>>>> real improvement. We don't need that.
>>>
>>> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems
>>> that
>>> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own
>>> efforts. And,
>>> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any
>>> inheritance at all.
>>> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get
>>> up and go"
>>> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get
>>> ahead?
>>
>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
>>
>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
>>
>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
>>
>
>For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>
>What is enough for you?
>Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
>who work and invest' and call it a victory?
>
>Before the dread 16th Amendment, the Framers' original
>document allowed for excises, tariffs and per capita taxes.
>Per capita, that is, each man paying the same amount, being
>the perfect embodiment of 'fair'.

A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
everyone what the actually need.

And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
where they could get rich (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer at the expense
> >>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to raise taxes on the
> >>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the lower
> >>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest, your "job"
> >>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was to educate
> >>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have told us,
> >>>> you are pretty well off these days.
> >>>
> >>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must always get
> >>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least, not to the degree
> >>> it happens in this country.
> >>>
> >>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more extreme
> >>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than in many
> >>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or for society.
> >>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized folks voting
> >>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would single-handedly fix
> >>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
> >>>
> >>> There are historical examples of similar situations triggering
> >>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but ultimately no
> >>> real improvement. We don't need that.
> >>
> >> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems that
> >> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own efforts. And,
> >> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all.
> >> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get up and go"
> >> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get ahead?
> >
> >Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
> >pay more taxes.
> >
> >Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
> >required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
> >excess than from those who have little.
> >
> >Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
> >do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
> >roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
> >paying enough.
> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
> it didn't work.
>
> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?

The story of the guy who invented your pacemaker, and his company, is a classic story of American ingenuity. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/history.html What they don't mention in that squib is that Earl got the idea out of a magazine of the era, and the doctor mentioned was Walt Lillehei, a pioneer of open heart surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei Earl and Walt both made millions with Medtronics.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:23:30 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have finally given up. After showing people the evidence and them not giving one shit what is going on, it is now actually a safer and more free country in Mexico than here.

You're moving to Mexico Tommy?????? Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! God Bless the USA! Or maybe it should be God Bless Mexico if they take you. Anyway, as long as you are gone. Do we need to setup one of those Go Fund Me webpages to collect money so you can pay the fees to give up your US citizenship? Now I realize there is a big question whether Mexico will allow you to be a citizen of their country. Most likely not. But maybe you can be completely country less. As long as we can get rid of you, it will be alright.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:56:18 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> The story of the guy who invented your pacemaker, and his company, is a classic story of American ingenuity. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/history.html What they don't mention in that squib is that Earl got the idea out of a magazine of the era, and the doctor mentioned was Walt Lillehei, a pioneer of open heart surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei Earl and Walt both made millions with Medtronics.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Medtronic invented, made, the pacemaker? Personally, I hate Medtronic most of the time. I have personal experience with some of their products. Most of the time I hate Medtronic's guts. Apparently they had competent people long ago. Today they have lots of incompetent idiots working for them. Tommy could work there and be right at home.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
> > the wealthy pay more taxes.
> >
> > Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
> > money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
> > those who have an excess than from those who have little.
> >
> > Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
> > question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
> > immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
> > properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
> >
> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>
> What is enough for you?

I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
to, say, the level of Europe?
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s

> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
> who work and invest' and call it a victory?

No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
tilted against me.

More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
of other examples.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> everyone what the actually need.
>
> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> where they could get rich (:-)
>
> John B.

And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
> >pay more taxes.
> >
> >Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
> >required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
> >excess than from those who have little.
> >
> >Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
> >do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
> >roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
> >paying enough.
> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
> it didn't work.

I'd say it's a rather practical attitude. Why tax those with low incomes and reduce
them to poverty? That would trigger something akin to the French Revolution. The
truly wealthy are heavily into conspicuous consumption. They have money to burn.

> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?

Those arguing against me seem to somehow imagine I want the wealthy to become
poor. I don't want the wealthy to sleep under bridges. If they were taxed at higher rates
they would still be wealthy, they would still have incentives to be productive. Don't pretend
this doesn't work in dozens of countries.

> Or even the guy that taught bunch of people to be engineers? Or me,
> building oil drilling sites in the jungle and thus increasing the
> volume of crude being produced and indirectly decreasing the cost of
> gasoline in America?
>
> But whining about bumpy roads? A fair method would be to simply
> increase the tax on those that use the road.

To what end? So the person driving a 1985 Honda Civic pays as much as the person
driving the big new Mercedes because his wife took the Bentley today?

BTW, your teenage 50 cents an hour probably equates to $10 an hour in today's
money. It's far better than the Thai minimum wage today.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 18:56:16 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
<jbeattie57@msn.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer at the expense
>> >>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to raise taxes on the
>> >>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other nonsense.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the lower
>> >>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest, your "job"
>> >>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was to educate
>> >>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have told us,
>> >>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must always get
>> >>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least, not to the degree
>> >>> it happens in this country.
>> >>>
>> >>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more extreme
>> >>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than in many
>> >>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or for society.
>> >>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized folks voting
>> >>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would single-handedly fix
>> >>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
>> >>>
>> >>> There are historical examples of similar situations triggering
>> >>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but ultimately no
>> >>> real improvement. We don't need that.
>> >>
>> >> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems that
>> >> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own efforts. And,
>> >> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all.
>> >> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get up and go"
>> >> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get ahead?
>> >
>> >Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>> >pay more taxes.
>> >
>> >Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>> >required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>> >excess than from those who have little.
>> >
>> >Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>> >do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>> >roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>> >paying enough.
>> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
>> it didn't work.
>>
>> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
>> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
>> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
>> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
>> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?
>
>The story of the guy who invented your pacemaker, and his company, is a classic story of American ingenuity. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/history.html What they don't mention in that squib is that Earl got the idea out of a magazine of the era, and the doctor mentioned was Walt Lillehei, a pioneer of open heart surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei Earl and Walt both made millions with Medtronics.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.

I'm not sure that I ever heard of a "pacemaker" until the doctor said,
"Well, we can put this thing in your chest that will keep your heart
beating" and (I was pretty sick) my wife said "Go Ahead!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >
>> > Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
>> > the wealthy pay more taxes.
>> >
>> > Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
>> > money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
>> > those who have an excess than from those who have little.
>> >
>> > Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
>> > question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
>> > immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
>> > properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
>> >
>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>>
>> What is enough for you?
>
>I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
>to, say, the level of Europe?
>https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
>
>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
>
>No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
>tilted against me.
>
>More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
>acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
>evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
>of other examples.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

But Frank it is relative.

I mean, there is Tommy living in a house that cost $50,000, on the
dole, and trying to get ahead buying second hand stuff and trying to
sell it. Why, to him, just how "flush" you must look. Should you pay
more simply because you are so much better off then Tom?

I imagine that Tom would say that you should pay more, just as you do
for the guy with that house that is bigger then yours.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:17:45 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
>> everyone what the actually need.
>>
>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
>> where they could get rich (:-)
>>
>> John B.
>
>And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I always though that the CCC and the WPA were great ideas.
Not only did it give people jobs but it actually accomplished
something. A couple of summers I worked for the Vermont Forest Service
and number of state parks and forests had signs that This or That was
built by the CCC.

Unemployment really has to be taken in the context of the times. I can
remember back when I was a child being told "Don't play with those
people. They are on the town". "On the town" being a synonym for being
on the Dole. It was actually shameful to be unemployed in those
days... How things have changed (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:12:46 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:56:18 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> > The story of the guy who invented your pacemaker, and his company, is a classic story of American ingenuity. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/history.html What they don't mention in that squib is that Earl got the idea out of a magazine of the era, and the doctor mentioned was Walt Lillehei, a pioneer of open heart surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei Earl and Walt both made millions with Medtronics.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
> Medtronic invented, made, the pacemaker? Personally, I hate Medtronic most of the time. I have personal experience with some of their products. Most of the time I hate Medtronic's guts. Apparently they had competent people long ago. Today they have lots of incompetent idiots working for them. Tommy could work there and be right at home.

I have no idea who made JB's exact pacemaker, but as I understand it, Earl Bakken designed the first battery operated, portable pacemaker -- and that was Medtronic's first commercial device. Early pacemakers were literally the size of a canister vacuum cleaner and had to be plugged into a wall. When patients with heart-block were transferred from the OR to the CCU, someone had to run down the hall and unplug and plug in the pacemaker.

Have they gone wrong? My wife has Medtronics neurostimulators, and my only complaint is that he sales guys are part of the surgical team, and they always seem like twenty year-old frat brothers. The product seems to work.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>> >pay more taxes.
>> >
>> >Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>> >required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>> >excess than from those who have little.
>> >
>> >Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>> >do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>> >roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>> >paying enough.
>> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
>> it didn't work.
>
>I'd say it's a rather practical attitude. Why tax those with low incomes and reduce
>them to poverty? That would trigger something akin to the French Revolution. The
>truly wealthy are heavily into conspicuous consumption. They have money to burn.
>

But neither the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution was
actually a success. The assault on the Bastille was in 1793 and
Napoleon was effectively in power by about 1797. The Russian
Revolution began in 1917 and ended in 1991. In contrast the American
Revolution was generally reckoned to have started in 1775 and is still
a success story in 2021 albeit based on the horribly unfair
"free-market economy". I might add that China can no longer be
considered a pure communist system, in the sense that Marx defined it.
So what is better? A country where one can get off one's butt and get
somewhere or one where everyone is equal?

>> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
>> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
>> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
>> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
>> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?
>
>Those arguing against me seem to somehow imagine I want the wealthy to become
>poor. I don't want the wealthy to sleep under bridges. If they were taxed at higher rates
>they would still be wealthy, they would still have incentives to be productive. Don't pretend
>this doesn't work in dozens of countries.
>
>> Or even the guy that taught bunch of people to be engineers? Or me,
>> building oil drilling sites in the jungle and thus increasing the
>> volume of crude being produced and indirectly decreasing the cost of
>> gasoline in America?
>>
>> But whining about bumpy roads? A fair method would be to simply
>> increase the tax on those that use the road.
>
>To what end? So the person driving a 1985 Honda Civic pays as much as the person
>driving the big new Mercedes because his wife took the Bentley today?

But why should they pay more. the Mercedes of Bentley does no more
damage to the roads then the Honda.

>BTW, your teenage 50 cents an hour probably equates to $10 an hour in today's
>money. It's far better than the Thai minimum wage today.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

No, you are equating the Thai cost of living to that in the U.S.
For example:

My wife, who is 77 years old, has a "Cleaning Lady" (Thai term, a
"Helper Person") come in a few days a week, who she pays 300 baht (
which is currently $8.955 in U.S. money) each day she works. The woman
is married with two kids, one collage age and one grade school age.
She and her husband are primarily employed as servants for an
apparently wealthy family who reside in Bangkok but maintain a home in
this town, which the couple "take care of". The "estate" seems to
consist of "the big house" and a second smaller house for the
servants, on about 1/3 of an acre of land.

The couple are paid a salary of 17,000 baht a month, live in the
servants quarters - I assume lights and water paid by the owners -
and, from what she tells my wife they have TV, Internet, Smart Phones,
etc., and two motorcycles - the one she rides to work here has about
15,000 km on the speedometer (I looked) - and I think that the second
bike is for one of the kids to ride to school. Since she is paid by
the day she brings her own lunch and my wife says "she eats regular
food, just like everybody".

I can't really comment on their "standard of living" in any detail but
the grade school kid will have to have school uniforms while the
collage kid may (probably) wear civilian clothes. The woman herself
seems to have a very large selection of clothes, a different blouse
every time I see her.

Why does she work for my wife? Well, according to what my wife says,
she wants "a bit of pocket money".

Now note here that I'm not describing what might be consider even an
average Thai family. This is a "servant level" family but still, they
seem to "get along" on U.S.$507 a month.

Oh yes, I checked and 50 cents an hour when I was 16 years old would
be $5.66 a day in today's money. But it was enough to put 5 gallons of
"Regular" in the tank and say $1.00 if you could get an "old guy" to
buy you a 6-pack of Bud and still have still have plenty go dancing on
Saturday night. 50 cents admission, and $1.65 to romance the girls.
Could anyone ask for more?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>> >pay more taxes.
>> >
>> >Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>> >required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>> >excess than from those who have little.
>> >
>> >Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>> >do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>> >roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>> >paying enough.
>> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
>> it didn't work.
>
>I'd say it's a rather practical attitude. Why tax those with low incomes and reduce
>them to poverty? That would trigger something akin to the French Revolution. The
>truly wealthy are heavily into conspicuous consumption. They have money to burn.
>

But neither the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution was
actually a success. The assault on the Bastille was in 1793 and
Napoleon was effectively in power by about 1797. The Russian
Revolution began in 1917 and ended in 1991. In contrast the American
Revolution was generally reckoned to have started in 1775 and is still
a success story in 2021 albeit based on the horribly unfair
"free-market economy". I might add that China can no longer be
considered a pure communist system, in the sense that Marx defined it.
So what is better? A country where one can get off one's butt and get
somewhere or one where everyone is equal?

>> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
>> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
>> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
>> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
>> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?
>
>Those arguing against me seem to somehow imagine I want the wealthy to become
>poor. I don't want the wealthy to sleep under bridges. If they were taxed at higher rates
>they would still be wealthy, they would still have incentives to be productive. Don't pretend
>this doesn't work in dozens of countries.
>
>> Or even the guy that taught bunch of people to be engineers? Or me,
>> building oil drilling sites in the jungle and thus increasing the
>> volume of crude being produced and indirectly decreasing the cost of
>> gasoline in America?
>>
>> But whining about bumpy roads? A fair method would be to simply
>> increase the tax on those that use the road.
>
>To what end? So the person driving a 1985 Honda Civic pays as much as the person
>driving the big new Mercedes because his wife took the Bentley today?

But why should they pay more. the Mercedes of Bentley does no more
damage to the roads then the Honda.

>BTW, your teenage 50 cents an hour probably equates to $10 an hour in today's
>money. It's far better than the Thai minimum wage today.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

No, you are equating the Thai cost of living to that in the U.S.
For example:

My wife, who is 77 years old, has a "Cleaning Lady" (Thai term, a
"Helper Person") come in a few days a week, who she pays 300 baht (
which is currently $8.955 in U.S. money) each day she works. The woman
is married with two kids, one collage age and one grade school age.
She and her husband are primarily employed as servants for an
apparently wealthy family who reside in Bangkok but maintain a home in
this town, which the couple "take care of". The "estate" seems to
consist of "the big house" and a second smaller house for the
servants, on about 1/3 of an acre of land.

The couple are paid a salary of 17,000 baht a month, live in the
servants quarters - I assume lights and water paid by the owners -
and, from what she tells my wife they have TV, Internet, Smart Phones,
etc., and two motorcycles - the one she rides to work here has about
15,000 km on the speedometer (I looked) - and I think that the second
bike is for one of the kids to ride to school. Since she is paid by
the day she brings her own lunch and my wife says "she eats regular
food, just like everybody".

I can't really comment on their "standard of living" in any detail but
the grade school kid will have to have school uniforms while the
collage kid may (probably) wear civilian clothes. The woman herself
seems to have a very large selection of clothes, a different blouse
every time I see her.

Why does she work for my wife? Well, according to what my wife says,
she wants "a bit of pocket money".

Now note here that I'm not describing what might be consider even an
average Thai family. This is a "servant level" family but still, they
seem to "get along" on U.S.$507 a month.

Oh yes, I checked and 50 cents an hour when I was 16 years old would
be $5.66 a day in today's money. But it was enough to put 5 gallons of
"Regular" in the tank and say $1.00 if you could get an "old guy" to
buy you a 6-pack of Bud and still have still have plenty go dancing on
Saturday night. 50 cents admission, and $1.65 to romance the girls.
Could anyone ask for more?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:12:26 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> >Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>>> >pay more taxes.
>>> >
>>> >Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>>> >required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>>> >excess than from those who have little.
>>> >
>>> >Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>>> >do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>>> >roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>>> >paying enough.
>>> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
>>> it didn't work.
>>
>>I'd say it's a rather practical attitude. Why tax those with low incomes and reduce
>>them to poverty? That would trigger something akin to the French Revolution. The
>>truly wealthy are heavily into conspicuous consumption. They have money to burn.
>>
>
>But neither the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution was
>actually a success. The assault on the Bastille was in 1793 and
>Napoleon was effectively in power by about 1797. The Russian
>Revolution began in 1917 and ended in 1991. In contrast the American
>Revolution was generally reckoned to have started in 1775 and is still
>a success story in 2021 albeit based on the horribly unfair
>"free-market economy". I might add that China can no longer be
>considered a pure communist system, in the sense that Marx defined it.
>So what is better? A country where one can get off one's butt and get
>somewhere or one where everyone is equal?
>
>>> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
>>> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
>>> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
>>> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
>>> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?
>>
>>Those arguing against me seem to somehow imagine I want the wealthy to become
>>poor. I don't want the wealthy to sleep under bridges. If they were taxed at higher rates
>>they would still be wealthy, they would still have incentives to be productive. Don't pretend
>>this doesn't work in dozens of countries.
>>
>>> Or even the guy that taught bunch of people to be engineers? Or me,
>>> building oil drilling sites in the jungle and thus increasing the
>>> volume of crude being produced and indirectly decreasing the cost of
>>> gasoline in America?
>>>
>>> But whining about bumpy roads? A fair method would be to simply
>>> increase the tax on those that use the road.
>>
>>To what end? So the person driving a 1985 Honda Civic pays as much as the person
>>driving the big new Mercedes because his wife took the Bentley today?
>
>But why should they pay more. the Mercedes of Bentley does no more
>damage to the roads then the Honda.
>
>>BTW, your teenage 50 cents an hour probably equates to $10 an hour in today's
>>money. It's far better than the Thai minimum wage today.
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>No, you are equating the Thai cost of living to that in the U.S.
>For example:
>
>My wife, who is 77 years old, has a "Cleaning Lady" (Thai term, a
>"Helper Person") come in a few days a week, who she pays 300 baht (
>which is currently $8.955 in U.S. money) each day she works. The woman
>is married with two kids, one collage age and one grade school age.
>She and her husband are primarily employed as servants for an
>apparently wealthy family who reside in Bangkok but maintain a home in
>this town, which the couple "take care of". The "estate" seems to
>consist of "the big house" and a second smaller house for the
>servants, on about 1/3 of an acre of land.
>
>The couple are paid a salary of 17,000 baht a month, live in the
>servants quarters - I assume lights and water paid by the owners -
>and, from what she tells my wife they have TV, Internet, Smart Phones,
>etc., and two motorcycles - the one she rides to work here has about
>15,000 km on the speedometer (I looked) - and I think that the second
>bike is for one of the kids to ride to school. Since she is paid by
>the day she brings her own lunch and my wife says "she eats regular
>food, just like everybody".
>
>I can't really comment on their "standard of living" in any detail but
>the grade school kid will have to have school uniforms while the
>collage kid may (probably) wear civilian clothes. The woman herself
>seems to have a very large selection of clothes, a different blouse
>every time I see her.
>
>Why does she work for my wife? Well, according to what my wife says,
>she wants "a bit of pocket money".
>
>Now note here that I'm not describing what might be consider even an
>average Thai family. This is a "servant level" family but still, they
>seem to "get along" on U.S.$507 a month.
>
>Oh yes, I checked and 50 cents an hour when I was 16 years old would
>be $5.66 a day in today's money. But it was enough to put 5 gallons of
>"Regular" in the tank and say $1.00 if you could get an "old guy" to
>buy you a 6-pack of Bud and still have still have plenty go dancing on
>Saturday night. 50 cents admission, and $1.65 to romance the girls.
>Could anyone ask for more?

I seem to have sent this twice. Sorry.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:12:46 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:56:18 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> > The story of the guy who invented your pacemaker, and his company, is a classic story of American ingenuity. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/history.html What they don't mention in that squib is that Earl got the idea out of a magazine of the era, and the doctor mentioned was Walt Lillehei, a pioneer of open heart surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei Earl and Walt both made millions with Medtronics.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
> Medtronic invented, made, the pacemaker? Personally, I hate Medtronic most of the time. I have personal experience with some of their products. Most of the time I hate Medtronic's guts. Apparently they had competent people long ago. Today they have lots of incompetent idiots working for them. Tommy could work there and be right at home.
What's the matter little boy - did you lose all of your investments because you didn't invest wisely? Well that would be difficult since you haven't even a trace of wisdom. You are all mouth and no performance.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:13:52 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
> > > the wealthy pay more taxes.
> > >
> > > Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
> > > money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
> > > those who have an excess than from those who have little.
> > >
> > > Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
> > > question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
> > > immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
> > > properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
> > >
> > For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
> >
> > What is enough for you?
> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
> to, say, the level of Europe?
> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
> > Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
> > who work and invest' and call it a victory?
> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
> tilted against me.
>
> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
> of other examples.

But the financial disparity was dropping under Trump and you hated him for that. So why are you saying exactly the opposite now?

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> > his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> > everyone what the actually need.
> >
> > And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> > where they could get rich (:-)
> >
> > John B.
>
> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:50:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
> >> > the wealthy pay more taxes.
> >> >
> >> > Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
> >> > money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
> >> > those who have an excess than from those who have little.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
> >> > question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
> >> > immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
> >> > properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
> >> >
> >> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
> >>
> >> What is enough for you?
> >
> >I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
> >to, say, the level of Europe?
> >https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
> >
> >> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
> >> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
> >
> >No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
> >tilted against me.
> >
> >More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
> >acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
> >evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
> >of other examples.
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski
> But Frank it is relative.
>
> I mean, there is Tommy living in a house that cost $50,000, on the
> dole, and trying to get ahead buying second hand stuff and trying to
> sell it. Why, to him, just how "flush" you must look. Should you pay
> more simply because you are so much better off then Tom?
>
> I imagine that Tom would say that you should pay more, just as you do
> for the guy with that house that is bigger then yours.

Do you mean my living in a house that is presently worth over $900,000? And with investments in those horrible American companies that are growing at $12,000 per month? You do know that the battery in those pacemakers doesn't last forever don't you. The only reason your "wife" is keeping you alive is that she lose all of her income after you kick the bucket. Otherwise she would have stuck a knife in you a long time ago.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 11:13:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
_ > I seem to have sent this twice. Sorry.

And you're too stupid to simply erase one of the postings. Or do you just love to see your own name on the Internet?

On 9/25/2021 8:35 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer at the expense
>>>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to raise taxes on the
>>>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the lower
>>>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest, your "job"
>>>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was to educate
>>>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have told us,
>>>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must always get
>>>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least, not to the degree
>>>> it happens in this country.
>>>>
>>>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more extreme
>>>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than in many
>>>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or for society.
>>>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized folks voting
>>>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would single-handedly fix
>>>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
>>>>
>>>> There are historical examples of similar situations triggering
>>>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but ultimately no
>>>> real improvement. We don't need that.
>>>
>>> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems that
>>> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own efforts. And,
>>> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all.
>>> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get up and go"
>>> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get ahead?
>>
>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>> pay more taxes.
>>
>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>> required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>> excess than from those who have little.
>>
>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>> do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>> roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>> paying enough.
>
> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
> it didn't work.
>
> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?
>
> Or even the guy that taught bunch of people to be engineers? Or me,
> building oil drilling sites in the jungle and thus increasing the
> volume of crude being produced and indirectly decreasing the cost of
> gasoline in America?
>
> But whining about bumpy roads? A fair method would be to simply
> increase the tax on those that use the road. Perhaps by how much they
> actually use the roads by an increase in motor vehicle fuel taxes. And
> bicycle rider, who complain the loudest don't pay any tax at all and
> ride around on bicycles that might cost more then $10,000. Shouldn't
> they be taxed? After all they appear to want private "roads".
>

Good theory.
We've come to a point, however, where taxes/fees/assessments
continue to rise while every 'targeted' problem (such as
road maintenance) gets worse.

Small datum- NYC[1], with layers of crushing tax on every
human activity has a budget equal to the State of
Florida[2]. Which is doing well? Who's responsible with the
taxpayers' money?

Here's another regarding The War On Poverty- Poverty won.
It's now an established industry; just like cancer, more
people live off it than die from it.

[1] 8 million humans on 321 sq miles
[2] 22 million squeezed into 53,600 sq miles

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/25/2021 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:33:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer
>>>>>>> at the expense
>>>>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to
>>>>>>> raise taxes on the
>>>>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other
>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of
>>>>>> the lower
>>>>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be
>>>>>> honest, your "job"
>>>>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it
>>>>>> was to educate
>>>>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you
>>>>>> have told us,
>>>>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must
>>>>> always get
>>>>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least,
>>>>> not to the degree
>>>>> it happens in this country.
>>>>>
>>>>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even
>>>>> more extreme
>>>>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than
>>>>> in many
>>>>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation,
>>>>> or for society.
>>>>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized
>>>>> folks voting
>>>>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would
>>>>> single-handedly fix
>>>>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't
>>>>> sell your houses!")
>>>>>
>>>>> There are historical examples of similar situations
>>>>> triggering
>>>>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but
>>>>> ultimately no
>>>>> real improvement. We don't need that.
>>>>
>>>> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems
>>>> that
>>>> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own
>>>> efforts. And,
>>>> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any
>>>> inheritance at all.
>>>> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get
>>>> up and go"
>>>> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get
>>>> ahead?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
>>>
>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
>>>
>>
>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>>
>> What is enough for you?
>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
>>
>> Before the dread 16th Amendment, the Framers' original
>> document allowed for excises, tariffs and per capita taxes.
>> Per capita, that is, each man paying the same amount, being
>> the perfect embodiment of 'fair'.
>
> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> everyone what the actually need.
>
> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> where they could get rich (:-)
>
The best retort to that was from Milton Friedman, "Who
decides?".

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/25/2021 8:56 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 6:36:05 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:06:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/24/2021 10:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:42:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer at the expense
>>>>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to raise taxes on the
>>>>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the lower
>>>>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest, your "job"
>>>>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was to educate
>>>>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have told us,
>>>>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must always get
>>>>> richer at the expense of the lower classes - at least, not to the degree
>>>>> it happens in this country.
>>>>>
>>>>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more extreme
>>>>> wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger than in many
>>>>> prosperous European and Asian countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or for society.
>>>>> We've already seen disastrous effects of disenfranchized folks voting
>>>>> for a shyster celebrity who pretended that he would single-handedly fix
>>>>> their problems. ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
>>>>>
>>>>> There are historical examples of similar situations triggering
>>>>> revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and misery but ultimately no
>>>>> real improvement. We don't need that.
>>>>
>>>> I recently looked up "rich folks" on the Web and it seems that
>>>> something like 64% of them are rich because of their own efforts. And,
>>>> I read, that Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all.
>>>> So... is it justifiable to effectively penalize these "get up and go"
>>>> people because the multitudes don't have the push to get ahead?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having the wealthy
>>> pay more taxes.
>>>
>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of money is
>>> required, it makes much more sense to get it from those who have an
>>> excess than from those who have little.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The question is,
>>> do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building immense mansions along
>>> roads the county can't afford to properly pave, I'd say they aren't
>>> paying enough.
>> A rather socialistic attitude. Essentially what Russia tried... and
>> it didn't work.
>>
>> What you are missing is, what appears to be a fact, that some people
>> are more important then others and deserve more of the common pie.
>> Should a chap who discovers a treatment for AIDS, for example, deserve
>> more? Or the guy that developed the pacemaker that is keeping me
>> alive? Or anyone else that accomplished something?
>
> The story of the guy who invented your pacemaker, and his company, is a classic story of American ingenuity. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/history.html What they don't mention in that squib is that Earl got the idea out of a magazine of the era, and the doctor mentioned was Walt Lillehei, a pioneer of open heart surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei Earl and Walt both made millions with Medtronics.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>

We still have some creative, slightly nuts, brilliant people
who change the world. Saw this yesterday- The best newspaper
writing is in Letters but the best stories are the Obituaries:

https://www.ironmountaindailynews.com/news/local-news/2021/09/fred-dakota-tribal-leader-and-gambling-pioneer-in-up-dies/

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971