On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@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.

Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.

With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.

Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account.. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?

With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:03:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/26/2021 7:57 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 10:20:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> But Andrew, I didn't assert that the road tax worked efficiently, I
>> merely said it was a fair method of paying for roads. Whether or not
>> your elected officials administer the system efficiently is a whole
>> different problem. But remember; "Y'all" elected them (:-)
>>
>
>It's not a 'tax to fund road maintenance' program any
>longer. It's just a racket.
>
>If any potholes are filled it's an anomalous miracle.

As I said, y'all elected them... And even more telling y'all run about
telling foreign folk that if they'd only accept democracy everything
would be wonderful. (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
> >
> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> station in life.
>
> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> things not made, things not done, things not built.

Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?

ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
contentment.

We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:30:20 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/26/2021 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 12:44:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/26/2021 11:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:46:02 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/26/2021 9:14 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, FDR's Ponzi scheme is both socialist and fraudulent (to
>>>>> the extent one is a different term for the other).
>>>>>
>>>>> When cooking up that mess, the White House was despairing of
>>>>> putting this over to a Democrat Congress and the citizenry.
>>>>> It was Stalin's man on FDR's staff[1], Harry Hopkins, who
>>>>> made the breakthrough, "Let's call it insurance! No one
>>>>> understands insurance!". And so it was.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] He lived in the White House and was FDR's constant
>>>>> companion/ minder.
>>>>
>>>> Social Security was passed by a congress that had seen unimaginable hardship, and it could have been unwound at any time by subsequent administrations -- but it wasn't. Roosevelt's administration built public works projects comprising some of the greatest engineering feats ever accomplished -- from bombs to dams. Eisenhower used public funds to build the interstates. Kennedy got us headed to the moon. The MAGA set seems to ignore what made America great -- collective action coordinated by governments and paid for with tax dollars. We should demand that government be efficient, and taxes can be oppressive, but I'm tired of the evil government meme. Its weak. Go run for office or even get on a citizen's board. I look forward to the return of conservatives who are not a bunch of lunatics or side-show barkers raving about Jewish space lasers, stolen elections, child sex-slaves in Wayfair wardrobes, etc., etc. We need a strong middle of the road to anchor the outside lanes.
>
>>>>
>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm with you in principle.
>>>
>>> NASA is a good example- once efficient and productive but oh
>>> how that has ended. DARPA has had some excellent returns to
>>> US and culture generally. This is not the same as defending
>>> pissholes for taxpayer money like the failed Education
>>> Department which hasn't done anything useful ever but it's
>>> not done anything at great expense. Federalization of
>>> highway spending is another excellent example- once
>>> productive but now pernicious, in that the dollars are huge
>>> and the results are scant.
>>
>> But, you are "shooting yourself in the foot", as it were. You live in
>> a democracy and You elect the government that controls things, like
>> NASA for example.
>>
>
>"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what
>they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
>- H. L. Mencken
>
>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/

Ah yes, H.L. Mencken - a newspaper reporter and outspoken opponent of
organized religion, theism, and representative democracy,
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:30:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what
> they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
> - H. L. Mencken
>
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/
> --
> Andrew Muzi

Andy, the link you posted has the title of "More than Eight in Ten Americans get News from Digital Devices". There are only so many ways to get news. Hear the news from someone who is speaking to you. Like a Town Cryer from hundreds of years ago. Read the news from newspapers or magazines. Written paper news has declined precipitously in recent times. And it only comes once per day or once per month. Not exactly current. Television and radio. I count these into the digital devices category or at least electronic devices. And of course via the internet. So is this article implying that anyone who gets news from television, radio, internet, is being lied to? And the only truthful news is written newspapers and magazines?

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
> > >
> > I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> > station in life.
> >
> > For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> > investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> > classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> > accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> > things not made, things not done, things not built.
>
> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>
> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> contentment.
>
> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.

Europe in general has better high speed internet, but then again, some countries are so small that a good home router would cover the whole nation. The entire Netherlands could be put in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon, which is amazing when you consider the quality of bicycle racers from the NL. The lower right-hand corner of Oregon has more cows than people and probably zero world-class bicycle racers.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@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.
>
> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
>
> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
>
> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
>
> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.

>"...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
You are correct!
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html

And why is that? (30 second video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU

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

On 9/26/2021 9:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
>>>>
>>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
>>> station in life.
>>>
>>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
>>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
>>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
>>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
>>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
>>
>> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>>
>> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
>> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
>> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
>> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
>> contentment.
>>
>> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
>
> Europe in general has better high speed internet, but then again, some countries are so small that a good home router would cover the whole nation. The entire Netherlands could be put in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon, which is amazing when you consider the quality of bicycle racers from the NL. The lower right-hand corner of Oregon has more cows than people and probably zero world-class bicycle racers.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

I just had a discussion of electric cars with a scientist
(not physics) who insisted they were the bees knees and
perfectly fine for long trips.

He's English. It's just 80 miles across at the skinny part.

There's no electric capable of a quick visit to my daughter
and back without an 8-hour layover to recharge. A lot of
things are different here!

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

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:02:08 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/26/2021 9:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
> >>>>
> >>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> >>> station in life.
> >>>
> >>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> >>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> >>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> >>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> >>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
> >>
> >> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
> >>
> >> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> >> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> >> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> >> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> >> contentment.
> >>
> >> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
> >
> > Europe in general has better high speed internet, but then again, some countries are so small that a good home router would cover the whole nation.. The entire Netherlands could be put in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon, which is amazing when you consider the quality of bicycle racers from the NL. The lower right-hand corner of Oregon has more cows than people and probably zero world-class bicycle racers.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> I just had a discussion of electric cars with a scientist
> (not physics) who insisted they were the bees knees and
> perfectly fine for long trips.
>
> He's English. It's just 80 miles across at the skinny part.
>
> There's no electric capable of a quick visit to my daughter
> and back without an 8-hour layover to recharge. A lot of
> things are different here!

Pillars of Rome . . . . Oregon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQZZC6gjLv8&ab_channel=BackcountryTraveler Downtown Rome https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/19/4b/c0/24/rome-station.jpg I was in Rome, Italy a couple of years ago, and the two are surprisingly similar. Both have air, gravity . . . the sun. Both have airports: https://www.airport-data.com/images/airports/035/035292.jpg The Vatican, Oregon, is behind the gas station. https://miro.medium.com/max/2250/1*AxDJWoTvqCBSiiQ_GZBUbQ.jpeg My wife and I were going to Europe again next year, but screw that. We're going to Rome. http://www.erench.com/RESTAUR/OREGON/ROME/index.htm Amery-cuh goddamnit!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 19:39:11 -0700, russellseaton1@yahoo.com scribed:

> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:30:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
>> and deserve to get it good and hard."
>> - H. L. Mencken
>>
>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-
ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>
> Andy, the link you posted has the title of "More than Eight in Ten
> Americans get News from Digital Devices". There are only so many ways
> to get news. Hear the news from someone who is speaking to you. Like a
> Town Cryer from hundreds of years ago. Read the news from newspapers or
> magazines. Written paper news has declined precipitously in recent
> times. And it only comes once per day or once per month. Not exactly
> current. Television and radio. I count these into the digital devices
> category or at least electronic devices. And of course via the
> internet. So is this article implying that anyone who gets news from
> television, radio, internet, is being lied to? And the only truthful
> news is written newspapers and magazines?

Personally I do not see the difference

At least with the dead tree version, you can re-use it for the budgie
cage.

FWIW, you have trouble actually reading our local newspapers now as they
shrunk the format and thus font size with excreteable contrast. At least
with a digital version, it is very easy and less eye straining to select
and enlarge what ever interests you. you can even mount it on the wall
and view it on a 4'/5'/6' screen with your feet up.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:02:09 -0500, AMuzi scribed:

>>
> I just had a discussion of electric cars with a scientist (not physics)
> who insisted they were the bees knees and perfectly fine for long trips.
>
> He's English. It's just 80 miles across at the skinny part.
>
> There's no electric capable of a quick visit to my daughter and back
> without an 8-hour layover to recharge. A lot of things are different
> here!

That must be olde tech. Modern tech allows you to drive an infinite
distance provided you tase the recommended breaks; 30mins after two hours
driving*.

It is just a matter of spacing of recharging stations. About a couple of
years ago, a tesla owner was explaining how he did regular drives from
Sydney to Brisbane (930kms/ 780 miles ~8-9hours) and back. It was about
knowing which service stations had recharging points and what their
coffee was like.

Am 25.09.2021 um 02:03 schrieb AMuzi:
> 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'.

https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

For "Share of national income for the top 10%", the USA are doing
OK-ish: Europe, China and Russia are a bit more balanced, the rest of
the world is not.

For "Wealth concentration (proportion of noational wealth belonging to
the top 1%", the US is 30% more concentrated than the second-most
disbalanced country (Netherlands) and double as concentrated as the 6th
most concentrated OECS country (Latvia).

The average wealth of the US is at the extreme high end but the mean
wealth of the US is significantly below countries like Switzerland,
Belgium, France or UK.

Rolf

Am 27.09.2021 um 04:09 schrieb John B.:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:00:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>> IIRC Otto von Bismark gets the prize for dreaming up a
>> government pension scheme with taxes now and payouts later-
>> starting at age 70 for a population mostly dead before 70.
>>
>> The German regime lowered the payout age to 65 during the
>> Great War.
>
> I hadn't realized that. and interestingly that the U.S. plan seems to
> have been modeled very closely to the German scheme.

Most interesing was Bismarck's motivation: Inventing the gevernment
pension was part of his "anti-socialist legislation 1878"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws>

1883: national health insurances
1884: national "industrial accident" insurance
1889: national pension

(1890: Anti-socialist laws not prolonged; the plan to kill the socialist
party failed).

Rolf

On 9/27/2021 7:12 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 25.09.2021 um 02:03 schrieb AMuzi:
>> 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'.
>
> https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/
>
> For "Share of national income for the top 10%", the USA are
> doing OK-ish: Europe, China and Russia are a bit more
> balanced, the rest of the world is not.
>
> For "Wealth concentration (proportion of noational wealth
> belonging to the top 1%", the US is 30% more concentrated
> than the second-most disbalanced country (Netherlands) and
> double as concentrated as the 6th most concentrated OECS
> country (Latvia).
>
> The average wealth of the US is at the extreme high end but
> the mean wealth of the US is significantly below countries
> like Switzerland, Belgium, France or UK.
>
> Rolf

It's all in data selection. Add in transfer payments and see
what it looks like.

p.s. You want 'equality'? Try DPRK!

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

Am 27.09.2021 um 14:38 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 9/27/2021 7:12 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 25.09.2021 um 02:03 schrieb AMuzi:
>>> 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'.
>>
>> https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/
>>
>> For "Share of national income for the top 10%", the USA are
>> doing OK-ish: Europe, China and Russia are a bit more
>> balanced, the rest of the world is not.
>>
>> For "Wealth concentration (proportion of noational wealth
>> belonging to the top 1%", the US is 30% more concentrated
>> than the second-most disbalanced country (Netherlands) and
>> double as concentrated as the 6th most concentrated OECS
>> country (Latvia).
>>
>> The average wealth of the US is at the extreme high end but
>> the mean wealth of the US is significantly below countries
>> like Switzerland, Belgium, France or UK.
>
> It's all in data selection. Add in transfer payments and see what it
> looks like.

This *is* after transfer payments; the first picture can possibly be
interpreted that US transfer payments are marginally larger Brasilian
Transfer payments.

Why do you think your minisclue transfer payments make the US less
extreme than Europe where the transfer payments are larger by a
significant factor?

Rolf

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:12:34 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@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.
> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
>
> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
>
> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
>
> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in.. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
Let me explain something to you stupid - YOU contribute ALL of the SS. If you were working for that man he would not be contributing anything. So it is YOUR work that puts money into your account. It is just stupid people like you that think that you're getting something for free. One of these days you MIGHT just catch on but it is doubtful. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production and we do not have that here. Our TAXES do not go to pay SS. Or at least they are not supposed to - with the Democrats handing money to illegal aliens who the hell knows what is happening?

Technically you COULD withdraw more than you put in PLUS the interest that the Government earns out it, but that is highly unusual. I have calculated that I will have to make it to 92 to reach the point at which I will match the money I put in plus any reasonable interest rate that I would have earned in the market.'

Grow up you child. The world isn't what you want to argue it is because you don't like me. I couldn't care less what you like.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:15:55 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>.
> As I said, y'all elected them... And even more telling y'all run about
> telling foreign folk that if they'd only accept democracy everything
> would be wonderful. (:-)

Biden was NOT elected and election audits are beginning to show that. I have said this a million times - The Democrats used the excuse of a "pandemic" that really didn't exist to send out mass mailings of ballots. Who received those and who sent them back? Were they legal voters? Trump made 3 million more votes than he did with Hillary. Are they trying to tell us that suddenly 5 million more people voted for the invisible and demented Biden? Bullshit.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
> > >
> > I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> > station in life.
> >
> > For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> > investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> > classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> > accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> > things not made, things not done, things not built.
>
> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>
> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> contentment.
>
> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.

Will you EVER stop with your bullshit? Mountain roads in Italy, Spain and France are often gravel or broken down asphalt. Where do you get the idea that peaks covered with snow most of the year can be maintained anything like they do here? Why? Because the US has far more tax collections and in most states, actually use the taxes for what it was collected for. California is an exception and not a rule.

No one cares what you think of the rich. It is the rich that PROVIDE the jobs to make the rest of us well off. The money I have in my house and investments CAME FROM COMPANIES OWNED BY RICH PEOPLE. Without those people I might be poor. You lived in your fucking bubble all of your life complaining about your income as a public employee. Too fucking bad - you had the education and training to work at a real job and make real money. Don't complain to me that you made the wrong choice or that you made the right choice but the "rich" prevented you from making the money you would have liked. What I see is that you are nothing more than a sniveling coward who took the easy way out and now want to blame someone else for your lack of guts.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:39:13 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:30:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what
> > they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
> > - H. L. Mencken
> >
> > https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> Andy, the link you posted has the title of "More than Eight in Ten Americans get News from Digital Devices". There are only so many ways to get news.. Hear the news from someone who is speaking to you. Like a Town Cryer from hundreds of years ago. Read the news from newspapers or magazines. Written paper news has declined precipitously in recent times. And it only comes once per day or once per month. Not exactly current. Television and radio. I count these into the digital devices category or at least electronic devices. And of course via the internet. So is this article implying that anyone who gets news from television, radio, internet, is being lied to? And the only truthful news is written newspapers and magazines?
Russell, MOST people get their news from NBC, CBS, ABC or PBS. They may subscribe to the New York Times or the Washington Post. These are all owned by the same people and they parrot the exact same viewpoint. Please don't pretend that anyone is getting a balanced view of reality.

On 9/26/2021 10:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
>>>>
>>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
>>> station in life.
>>>
>>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
>>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
>>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
>>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
>>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
>>
>> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>>
>> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
>> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
>> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
>> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
>> contentment.
>>
>> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
>
> Europe in general has better high speed internet, but then again, some countries are so small that a good home router would cover the whole nation. The entire Netherlands could be put in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon, which is amazing when you consider the quality of bicycle racers from the NL. The lower right-hand corner of Oregon has more cows than people and probably zero world-class bicycle racers.

When I said I saw good European infrastructure and technology, I wasn't
limiting that to cell phones and internet. I saw things like washing
machines and parking meters and credit card terminals that were far more
advanced than their American contemporaries. Of course their smaller
travel distances and higher density helped their public transportation
systems to put ours to shame, but density isn't the only difference.
Public policy - including their tax structures - have huge effects.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:52:09 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski 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
> > > >
> > > I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> > > station in life.
> > >
> > > For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> > > investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> > > classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> > > accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> > > things not made, things not done, things not built.
> >
> > Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
> >
> > ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> > experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> > ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> > And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> > contentment.
> >
> > We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
> Europe in general has better high speed internet, but then again, some countries are so small that a good home router would cover the whole nation. The entire Netherlands could be put in the lower right-hand corner of Oregon, which is amazing when you consider the quality of bicycle racers from the NL. The lower right-hand corner of Oregon has more cows than people and probably zero world-class bicycle racers.

Well that is hardly a measurement is it? Until Greg Lemond, most Americans had never heard of the Tour de France. We have common Americans that can recite every baseball player on every team going back to the beginning of the sports but most people couldn't even tell you who was on Armstrong's teams..

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@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.
> >
> > Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
> >
> > With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
> >
> > Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
> >
> > With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
> >"...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
> You are correct!
> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
>
> And why is that? (30 second video)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU

While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.

The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 10:32:35 PM UTC-7, News 2021 wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:02:09 -0500, AMuzi scribed:
> >>
> > I just had a discussion of electric cars with a scientist (not physics)
> > who insisted they were the bees knees and perfectly fine for long trips..
> >
> > He's English. It's just 80 miles across at the skinny part.
> >
> > There's no electric capable of a quick visit to my daughter and back
> > without an 8-hour layover to recharge. A lot of things are different
> > here!
> That must be olde tech. Modern tech allows you to drive an infinite
> distance provided you tase the recommended breaks; 30mins after two hours
> driving*.
>
> It is just a matter of spacing of recharging stations. About a couple of
> years ago, a tesla owner was explaining how he did regular drives from
> Sydney to Brisbane (930kms/ 780 miles ~8-9hours) and back. It was about
> knowing which service stations had recharging points and what their
> coffee was like.
You don't own an electric car do you? I don't know what gives you the idea that people traveling want to take a 30 minute break every 2 hours or think that Tesla batteries don't need replacement at considerable expense if you are running them flat and they recharging them to full load. Tesla recommends for maximum battery life you never charge over 3/4's.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 5:30:05 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 27.09.2021 um 04:09 schrieb John B.:
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:00:46 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >> IIRC Otto von Bismark gets the prize for dreaming up a
> >> government pension scheme with taxes now and payouts later-
> >> starting at age 70 for a population mostly dead before 70.
> >>
> >> The German regime lowered the payout age to 65 during the
> >> Great War.
> >
> > I hadn't realized that. and interestingly that the U.S. plan seems to
> > have been modeled very closely to the German scheme.
> Most interesing was Bismarck's motivation: Inventing the gevernment
> pension was part of his "anti-socialist legislation 1878"
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws>
>
> 1883: national health insurances
> 1884: national "industrial accident" insurance
> 1889: national pension
>
> (1890: Anti-socialist laws not prolonged; the plan to kill the socialist
> party failed).

Bismarck was a thinker and not a speaker. The socialist parties across the world have ALWAYS been able to charge free governments with not caring for the little man no matter how much better off the little man was under freedom - look at Frank. He absolutely believes in socialism because he worked for the government his whole life and thinks that they should always do more for him.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 27.09.2021 um 14:38 schrieb AMuzi:
> > On 9/27/2021 7:12 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> >> Am 25.09.2021 um 02:03 schrieb AMuzi:
> >>> 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'.
> >>
> >> https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/
> >>
> >> For "Share of national income for the top 10%", the USA are
> >> doing OK-ish: Europe, China and Russia are a bit more
> >> balanced, the rest of the world is not.
> >>
> >> For "Wealth concentration (proportion of noational wealth
> >> belonging to the top 1%", the US is 30% more concentrated
> >> than the second-most disbalanced country (Netherlands) and
> >> double as concentrated as the 6th most concentrated OECS
> >> country (Latvia).
> >>
> >> The average wealth of the US is at the extreme high end but
> >> the mean wealth of the US is significantly below countries
> >> like Switzerland, Belgium, France or UK.
> >
> > It's all in data selection. Add in transfer payments and see what it
> > looks like.
> This *is* after transfer payments; the first picture can possibly be
> interpreted that US transfer payments are marginally larger Brasilian
> Transfer payments.
>
> Why do you think your minisclue transfer payments make the US less
> extreme than Europe where the transfer payments are larger by a
> significant factor?

The interest payments on the National Debt of the US is more than the total income of Europe. Would you like to take that from us?