On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 2:51:03 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:33:04 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
> >> comes from gas tax.
> >
> >NO, NO, NO. The myth, lie, that gasoline taxes pay for roads is just that. False. A widely held and believed lie. Do a Google search on "how are roads paid for". Property taxes and income taxes and taxes on natural resources are often used to pay for roads. Nationwide the links below says its about 40% paid for by gas taxes. Roads are heavily subsidized.
> >
> >https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf
> >https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
> And yet the New Hampshire State Government states (just as Frank said)
> that "he largest source of revenue for the Highway Fund is the Motor
> Fuels Tax, which is protected by the State Constitution to be used
> only for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of public
> highways, and may be used to pay for policing traffic on those
> highways."
> https://nhfpi.org/blog/new-hampshires-complex-transportation-funding-challenges/
> (:-)
>
> John B.

If you click on the second link I provided you will see that in the USA, as of 2016 anyway, the user fees such as tolls, gas tax, paid for 53.4% of roads. Gas tax only covered 41%. As for New Hampshire, 59.2% was covered by all fees. But only 36% by gas tax. Apparently NH did not want to burden those who used the most gas too much so they made it only 36%. Frank said, and I quote, "Much of that money comes from gas tax." 36% is quite a bit less than even half. Not what I would classify as Much. But NH does get 59.2% for roads from all user fees. So NH ends up ranked number 13 out of the 50+DC total. Up near the top quarter for paying for roads with gas tax and user fees. And the USA in total pays for 53.4% of roads with gas tax and user fees such as tolls. So a majority. Most I guess since it is above 50%.

An analogy: Suppose you went to a restaurant and stole $10 from a guy outside. Then bought a $21 meal. I suppose you can honestly claim you paid for most of the meal. Not to offend you John, but that sounds a lot like Tommy logic and thinking. Roads in the USA are heavily subsidized by other sources of money. Property taxes, state income taxes, federal income taxes, borrowing. Only half the road is paid for by the person using it. The other half of the funds to pay for the road is pilfered from somewhere else.

On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>>
>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>>
>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>>
>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>>
>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>>> means who work and save.
>>>>
>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>>> the wilderness.
>>>
>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>>
>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>>
>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>> contribute much to election campaigns.
>
> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>
> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>
> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>
> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
> auto.
>
> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>

On 9/21/2021 2:33 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>
>>>>> from
>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>
>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>
>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>
>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>> the rest.
>>>>
>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>
>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I have not
>>> advocated anything, just noting that the top 1% of taxpayers earn 21% of
>>> income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>
>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower 50$ pay 3%.
>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>
>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
>> comes from gas tax.
>
> NO, NO, NO. The myth, lie, that gasoline taxes pay for roads is just that. False. A widely held and believed lie. Do a Google search on "how are roads paid for". Property taxes and income taxes and taxes on natural resources are often used to pay for roads. Nationwide the links below says its about 40% paid for by gas taxes. Roads are heavily subsidized.
>
> https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf
> https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
>
>
>
-snip-

On 9/21/2021 2:50 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:33:04 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>
>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>
>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I have not
>>>> advocated anything, just noting that the top 1% of taxpayers earn 21% of
>>>> income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>
>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower 50$ pay 3%.
>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>
>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
>>> comes from gas tax.
>>
>> NO, NO, NO. The myth, lie, that gasoline taxes pay for roads is just that. False. A widely held and believed lie. Do a Google search on "how are roads paid for". Property taxes and income taxes and taxes on natural resources are often used to pay for roads. Nationwide the links below says its about 40% paid for by gas taxes. Roads are heavily subsidized.
>>
>> https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf
>> https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
>
> And yet the New Hampshire State Government states (just as Frank said)
> that "he largest source of revenue for the Highway Fund is the Motor
> Fuels Tax, which is protected by the State Constitution to be used
> only for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of public
> highways, and may be used to pay for policing traffic on those
> highways."
> https://nhfpi.org/blog/new-hampshires-complex-transportation-funding-challenges/
> (:-)
>
>
>> So the owner of a $50,000 Lincoln hybrid getting 40
>>> mpg pays less per mile than the guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford
>>> Taurus getting 18 mpg. That's just one example of how the system
>>> benefits the wealthy.
>>>
>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just enough to get by,
>>> it's very hard to take advantage of economic opportunities - even basic
>>> ones like buying a more efficient car or insulating one's home - let
>>> alone to accumulate wealth.
>>>
>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the smart ones can
>>> do economically productive things with any excess. The more they do
>>> that, the faster their wealth grows. But those who start out in a
>>> prosperous family get that excess from birth. It is much, much easier
>>> for them to climb the economic ladder.
>>>
>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart & hard work,
>>> inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a certain amount, it can
>>> accumulate rapidly, as an exponential function. So it's always WAY
>>> easier for a wealthy person, compared to a poor person, to afford a
>>> $10,000 bill.
>>>
>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be more stable,
>>> have lower crime rates, and have more contented citizenry. The U.S. is
>>> not one of them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski

On 9/21/2021 2:57 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:38:08 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>> the wilderness.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>
> I am going to have to correct you on this part of your reply. Payroll tax is paid half by employee and half by employer. Payroll taxes fund social security (retirement) and Medicare (health insurance). Age 62 is when you can start collecting on both. 7.65% is the total payroll tax paid.
> 6.2% for social security and 1.45% for Medicare. ONLY the first $142No matter h,800 of wages pays the 6.2% tax. Every dollar of wage above $142,800 pays ZERO social security tax. The 1.45% Medicare tax is on all income, no limit. These are the evil FLAT TAXES. Regressive. Billionaire Warren Buffet and the McDonalds worker pay the exact same rate on all income up to $142,800.
>
> You use the word punitive to describe increasing tax rates on income. A negative connotation word. Other may prefer the word progressive tax. And as for no bleeding hearts in favor of changing the payroll tax, wrong. There are always many discussions but no results in making the payroll tax, the 6.2% social security tax, applicable to all income. Eliminating the $142,800 limit. But the rich CEOs of all the companies make enough donations to insure that never happens. They want zero 6.2% tax on all their income above $142,800. Can't put payroll taxes on the multi million salaries. No, no, no.

> 'half by employer'

hah hah hah.
As a CPA you know full well that both portions are 'payroll
expense' to the employer.

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

I never practiced tax law because I didn't know enough about it, but when the state bar required me to take continuing legal education classes, I would often take ones on tax law, on the theory that I might actually learn something that way. I remember one MCLE tax class that I took that was given by a well-known attorney who specialized in advising rich people how to legally avoid U.S. taxes. He outlined the various methods for doing so, and ever since I've wondered whether our tax rates really mean anything, since it is pretty easy to avoid paying the tax if you're willing to spend some money on attorney's fees.

On 9/21/2021 7:59 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> I never practiced tax law because I didn't know enough about it, but when the state bar required me to take continuing legal education classes, I would often take ones on tax law, on the theory that I might actually learn something that way. I remember one MCLE tax class that I took that was given by a well-known attorney who specialized in advising rich people how to legally avoid U.S. taxes. He outlined the various methods for doing so, and ever since I've wondered whether our tax rates really mean anything, since it is pretty easy to avoid paying the tax if you're willing to spend some money on attorney's fees.
>

The data is public record and, as discussed here recently,
astronomically high marginal rates returned roughly the same
% of GDP to the Treasury as lower rates with simpler rules,
often more.

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

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 8:57:41 AM UTC+1, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>....zero 6.2% tax on all their income above $142,800. Can't put payroll taxes on the multi million salaries. No, no, no.

If you feel that passionately that the $142,800 upper limit on tax should be reduced to zero, Russell, you should run for President in 2024. Among all the RINOs contemplating a run, a self-redeemed commie-pinko-fellow-traveller will surely stand out. -- AJ

On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years.  The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>>> event,  but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way.  Of course the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed.  They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>>>> more stable,  have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>>>> means who work and save.
>>>>>
>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>>>> the wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>>>
>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
>>
>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>
>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>
>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>
>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>> auto.
>>
>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>
>
> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
> making broad generalizations.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 2:20:46 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 7:59 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > I never practiced tax law because I didn't know enough about it, but when the state bar required me to take continuing legal education classes, I would often take ones on tax law, on the theory that I might actually learn something that way. I remember one MCLE tax class that I took that was given by a well-known attorney who specialized in advising rich people how to legally avoid U.S. taxes. He outlined the various methods for doing so, and ever since I've wondered whether our tax rates really mean anything, since it is pretty easy to avoid paying the tax if you're willing to spend some money on attorney's fees.
> >
> The data is public record and, as discussed here recently,
> astronomically high marginal rates returned roughly the same
> % of GDP to the Treasury as lower rates with simpler rules,
> often more.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
It's a question of motivation, with several Stations of the Cross along the road to the Gethsemane of Taxes. Some outstanding steps:

Low taxes you pay cheerfully, as your contribution to society.

Higher taxes incline you more and more towards paying a lawyer to help you keep the money you earned.

Were high taxes and the most productive people go live in a tax haven and spend fewer days in the year in the jurisdiction so that they pay no taxes; at this point the administration has altogether lost the goodwill of the high earners, and is unlikely ever to get it back.

Confiscatory taxes leads to emigration of the middle classes, who are the real powerhouse of all Western-style (and all successful Eastern) economies, the flight of capital, etc. Britain between Harold Wilson and the sainted Margaret, had such a brains and capital drain, it took a couple of decades tor recover fully.

You'll notice I didn't put numbers on these motivational classes. They're different, roughly speaking, for different nations. For instance, am Englishman won't start calling taxes "confiscatory" before 80 percent on income and 90 percent death duties, whereas an American will start screaming in pain at a much lower number.

Andre Jute
Tax exiles are people too.

On 9/21/2021 4:34 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> If you click on the second link I provided you will see that in the USA, as of 2016 anyway, the user fees such as tolls, gas tax, paid for 53.4% of roads. Gas tax only covered 41%. As for New Hampshire, 59.2% was covered by all fees. But only 36% by gas tax. Apparently NH did not want to burden those who used the most gas too much so they made it only 36%. Frank said, and I quote, "Much of that money comes from gas tax." 36% is quite a bit less than even half. Not what I would classify as Much.

I chose my words carefully. I did not say "most" or "all" of the money
for paving county roads comes from gas taxes. I said "much" of it does.
I think even for New Hampshire, 36% qualifies as "much," although I
think that percentage is far higher for our county. (I find no numbers
online, but a statement that the County Engineer's projects are funded
"primarily" by gas tax and license fees.)

But none of Russell's statements rebuts my point: After having bought
whatever vehicle they thought they could afford, the owner of a hybrid
Lincoln SUV is paying far less gas tax per mile than the owner of a 2000
Ford Taurus.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Don't forget about the island nations that have virtually no economy except foreign banks, of which they have quite a few; whose revenues are based largely on bank transaction fees; have little or no income tax; and have no treaty with the U.S. requiring them to execute our court judgments, or to respect IRS forfeiture orders. It is my understanding that establishing a taxpaying entity in such a jurisdiction is a common way to avoid taxes.

Franki-Boy Krygowski wants to know:
> How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>
Apparently no has yet told Franki-boy that the ghetto has become a fashionable address, and is likely to grow more fashionable as black people gain immunity for actions that whites never had. White people will move into the ghetto to show how woke they are, and in the hope that some of that immunity for burning and looting will rub off on them. But you're far too square, and too apt to lecture, to fit in, Franki-boy. -- AJ

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 12:33:08 AM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> > >>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> <giant snip>
> > >>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> > >>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> > >>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> > >>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> > >>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> > >>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
> > >>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> > >>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> > >>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> > >>>>>> the IRS.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> > >>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> > >>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> > >>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> > >>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> > >>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> > >>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> > >>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> > >>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> > >>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> > >>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
> > >>>>>> complex:
> > >>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> > >>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
> > >>>>>> millions
> > >>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
> > >>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
> > >>>>>> income tax.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> > >>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
> > >>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
> > >>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
> > >>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> > >>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> > >>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> > >>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> > >>>>>>> earnings.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> > >>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> > >>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> > >>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
> > >>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> > >>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed.. ÂÂ
> > >>>>>> The
> > >>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> > >>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> > >>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> > >>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> > >>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> > >>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> > >>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> > >>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> > >>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
> > >>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> > >>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> > >>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> > >>>>> postwar era.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287..aspx
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> > >>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
> > >>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
> > >>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> > >>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> > >>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> > >>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> > >>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> > >>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> > >>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> > >>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> > >>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
> > >>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
> > >>>> taxes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Helpful graphic:
> > >>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> > >>>
> > >>> from
> > >>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> with the numerical data summarized.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
> > >>> recent fully published period (2018).
> > >>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> > >>>
> > >>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> > >>> all what you think it is.
> > >>
> > >> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> > >> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> > >> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> > >> don't have much money.
> > >>
> > >> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> > >> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> > >> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> > >> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> > >> the rest.
> > >>
> > >> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> > >> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> > >> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> > >> to get to her two jobs.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
> > >
> > > That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I have not
> > > advocated anything, just noting that the top 1% of taxpayers earn 21% of
> > > income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
> > >
> > > The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower 50$ pay 3%.
> > Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
> > question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> >
> > The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
> > comes from gas tax.
> NO, NO, NO. The myth, lie, that gasoline taxes pay for roads is just that.. False. A widely held and believed lie. Do a Google search on "how are roads paid for". Property taxes and income taxes and taxes on natural resources are often used to pay for roads. Nationwide the links below says its about 40% paid for by gas taxes. Roads are heavily subsidized.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 8:09:43 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> millions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> California.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
> >>>>>>>>>>>> generally
> >>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> >>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> >>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> >>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
> >>>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> >>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> >>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> >>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
> >>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
> >>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
> >>>>>>>>>>> toward
> >>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> >>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> >>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> >>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> >>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> >>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> >>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> >>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
> >>>>>>>>>> owners of
> >>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
> >>>>>>>>>> taxes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
> >>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
> >>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> >>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> >>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> >>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> >>>>>>>> don't have much money.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> >>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> >>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> >>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> >>>>>>>> the rest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> >>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> >>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> >>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
> >>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
> >>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
> >>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
> >>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
> >>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
> >>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
> >>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
> >>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
> >>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
> >>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
> >>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
> >>>>>> accumulate wealth.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
> >>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
> >>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
> >>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
> >>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
> >>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
> >>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
> >>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
> >>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
> >>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
> >>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
> >>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
> >>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
> >>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
> >>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
> >>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
> >>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
> >>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
> >>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
> >>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
> >>>>> means who work and save.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
> >>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
> >>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
> >>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
> >>>>> the wilderness.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
> >>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
> >>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
> >>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
> >>>
> >>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
> >>> contribute much to election campaigns.
> >>
> >> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
> >> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
> >> them. And they do; usually successfully.
> >>
> >> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
> >> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
> >> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
> >>
> >> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
> >> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
> >> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
> >> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
> >> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
> >> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
> >> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
> >>
> >> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
> >> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
> >> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
> >> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
> >> auto.
> >>
> >> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
> >> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
> >>
> >
> > Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
> > many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
> > are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
> > Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
> > making broad generalizations.
> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>
> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 9:00:10 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> Franki-Boy Krygowski wants to know:
> > How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
> >
> Apparently no has yet told Franki-boy that the ghetto has become a fashionable address, and is likely to grow more fashionable as black people gain immunity for actions that whites never had. White people will move into the ghetto to show how woke they are, and in the hope that some of that immunity for burning and looting will rub off on them. But you're far too square, and too apt to lecture, to fit in, Franki-boy. -- AJ
Facebook offices are directly up the street from East Palo Alto - once the code word for ghetto. They are moving in by the scores and land values are now making ghetto-ites famously rich. They are making their fortunes and moving into condos in the better parts of town. Meanwhile those old falling down homes are going for millions.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:10:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 9:00:10 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > Franki-Boy Krygowski wants to know:
> > > How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
> > >
> > Apparently no has yet told Franki-boy that the ghetto has become a fashionable address, and is likely to grow more fashionable as black people gain immunity for actions that whites never had. White people will move into the ghetto to show how woke they are, and in the hope that some of that immunity for burning and looting will rub off on them. But you're far too square, and too apt to lecture, to fit in, Franki-boy. -- AJ
> Facebook offices are directly up the street from East Palo Alto - once the code word for ghetto. They are moving in by the scores and land values are now making ghetto-ites famously rich. They are making their fortunes and moving into condos in the better parts of town. Meanwhile those old falling down homes are going for millions.
The entire world has turned against Jay and he simply doesn't know what to do. It is likely that his vaccination is going to kill him and he doesn't want to believe it.

He argued along with his besty John that Ivermectin is illegal in India when that is a lie. But lies never phased Jay before. He will cite law making lies legal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CabalCrusher/comments/prhvd1/vaccine_no_more_alternatives_coming/

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 9:56:49 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 12:33:08 AM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> > > >>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> <giant snip>
> > > >>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> > > >>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> > > >>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> > > >>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> > > >>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> > > >>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
> > > >>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> > > >>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> > > >>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> > > >>>>>> the IRS.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> > > >>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> > > >>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> > > >>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> > > >>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> > > >>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> > > >>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> > > >>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> > > >>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> > > >>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> > > >>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
> > > >>>>>> complex:
> > > >>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> > > >>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
> > > >>>>>> millions
> > > >>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
> > > >>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
> > > >>>>>> income tax.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> > > >>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
> > > >>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
> > > >>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
> > > >>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> > > >>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> > > >>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> > > >>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> > > >>>>>>> earnings.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> > > >>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> > > >>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> > > >>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
> > > >>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> > > >>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
> > > >>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> > > >>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> > > >>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> > > >>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> > > >>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> > > >>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> > > >>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> > > >>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> > > >>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
> > > >>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> > > >>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> > > >>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> > > >>>>> postwar era.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> > > >>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
> > > >>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
> > > >>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> > > >>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> > > >>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> > > >>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> > > >>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> > > >>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> > > >>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> > > >>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> > > >>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
> > > >>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
> > > >>>> taxes.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Helpful graphic:
> > > >>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> > > >>>
> > > >>> from
> > > >>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> with the numerical data summarized.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
> > > >>> recent fully published period (2018).
> > > >>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> > > >>> all what you think it is.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> > > >> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> > > >> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> > > >> don't have much money.
> > > >>
> > > >> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> > > >> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> > > >> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> > > >> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> > > >> the rest.
> > > >>
> > > >> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> > > >> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> > > >> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> > > >> to get to her two jobs.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
> > > >
> > > > That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I have not
> > > > advocated anything, just noting that the top 1% of taxpayers earn 21% of
> > > > income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
> > > >
> > > > The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower 50$ pay 3%..
> > > Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
> > > question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> > >
> > > The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
> > > comes from gas tax.
> > NO, NO, NO. The myth, lie, that gasoline taxes pay for roads is just that. False. A widely held and believed lie. Do a Google search on "how are roads paid for". Property taxes and income taxes and taxes on natural resources are often used to pay for roads. Nationwide the links below says its about 40% paid for by gas taxes. Roads are heavily subsidized.
> Russell, on a good day you're an idiot. Property etc. taxes pay to BUILD roads. Gas taxes pay to keep them in repair. But you have to show what a perfectly acceptable CPA you are. I would never hire you to count pennies.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:32:21 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:10:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 9:00:10 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > Franki-Boy Krygowski wants to know:
> > > > How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
> > > >
> > > Apparently no has yet told Franki-boy that the ghetto has become a fashionable address, and is likely to grow more fashionable as black people gain immunity for actions that whites never had. White people will move into the ghetto to show how woke they are, and in the hope that some of that immunity for burning and looting will rub off on them. But you're far too square, and too apt to lecture, to fit in, Franki-boy. -- AJ
> > Facebook offices are directly up the street from East Palo Alto - once the code word for ghetto. They are moving in by the scores and land values are now making ghetto-ites famously rich. They are making their fortunes and moving into condos in the better parts of town. Meanwhile those old falling down homes are going for millions.
> The entire world has turned against Jay and he simply doesn't know what to do. It is likely that his vaccination is going to kill him and he doesn't want to believe it.
>
> He argued along with his besty John that Ivermectin is illegal in India when that is a lie. But lies never phased Jay before. He will cite law making lies legal.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CabalCrusher/comments/prhvd1/vaccine_no_more_alternatives_coming/

Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/21/2021 1:07 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 8:09:43 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>
>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>
> Because you live in a hell hole doesn't mean the rest of the world is that way.

???

I live in a modest house with a large yard in an extremely pleasant
suburb. This place has several times made the top ten list for least
crime in our state. I'm not the one who complains about living in a hell
hole.

> In California, the illegal aliens that can't read or write and can't even speak English get work easily. Why don't you go out and buy a Tesla because you're so damned "woke"?

I've thought about it. I'm more charmed by the supposedly upcoming
all-electric VW bus.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>>>> means who work and save.
>>>>>
>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>>>> the wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>>>
>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
>>
>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>
>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>
>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>
>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>> auto.
>>
>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>
>
>Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know
>a great many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed
>lower class peons' are as overrated as English PhDs driving
>taxis (of whom I knew two). Humans are a wildly diverse lot,
>such that one ought to pause when making broad generalizations.

On 9/21/2021 5:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>>>>> means who work and save.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>>>>> the wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>>>>
>>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
>>>
>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>
>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>
>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>
>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>> auto.
>>>
>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>
>>
>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know
>> a great many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed
>> lower class peons' are as overrated as English PhDs driving
>> taxis (of whom I knew two). Humans are a wildly diverse lot,
>> such that one ought to pause when making broad generalizations.
>
> I don't know about the present but when I lived in the States I
> remember a news report, in California, about the poor, unappreciated
> U.S.ians who were unemployed and had to live on the government dole,
> and just couldn't get ahead... while at the same time hordes of
> Mexican, both those holding valid work permits and illegal workers,
> were flocking in to harvest the crops.
>

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:32:21 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:10:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 9:00:10 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > Franki-Boy Krygowski wants to know:
> > > > > How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
> > > > >
> > > > Apparently no has yet told Franki-boy that the ghetto has become a fashionable address, and is likely to grow more fashionable as black people gain immunity for actions that whites never had. White people will move into the ghetto to show how woke they are, and in the hope that some of that immunity for burning and looting will rub off on them. But you're far too square, and too apt to lecture, to fit in, Franki-boy. -- AJ
> > > Facebook offices are directly up the street from East Palo Alto - once the code word for ghetto. They are moving in by the scores and land values are now making ghetto-ites famously rich. They are making their fortunes and moving into condos in the better parts of town. Meanwhile those old falling down homes are going for millions.
> > The entire world has turned against Jay and he simply doesn't know what to do. It is likely that his vaccination is going to kill him and he doesn't want to believe it.
> >
> > He argued along with his besty John that Ivermectin is illegal in India when that is a lie. But lies never phased Jay before. He will cite law making lies legal.
> >
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/CabalCrusher/comments/prhvd1/vaccine_no_more_alternatives_coming/
> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!

Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true. Maybe you should leave the plates and screws in since they won't have to replace them. If you think that Fauci can't easily be shown to have invested in the same vaccine companies that he is pressing on the American people you are welcome to try.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 3:52:38 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> millions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> California.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
> >>>>>>>>>>>> generally
> >>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> >>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> >>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> >>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
> >>>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> >>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> >>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> >>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
> >>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
> >>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
> >>>>>>>>>>> toward
> >>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> >>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> >>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> >>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> >>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> >>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> >>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> >>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
> >>>>>>>>>> owners of
> >>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
> >>>>>>>>>> taxes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
> >>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
> >>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> >>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> >>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> >>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> >>>>>>>> don't have much money.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> >>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> >>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> >>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> >>>>>>>> the rest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> >>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> >>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> >>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
> >>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
> >>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
> >>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
> >>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
> >>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
> >>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
> >>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
> >>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
> >>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
> >>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
> >>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
> >>>>>> accumulate wealth.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
> >>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
> >>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
> >>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
> >>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
> >>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
> >>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
> >>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
> >>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
> >>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
> >>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
> >>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
> >>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
> >>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
> >>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
> >>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
> >>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
> >>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
> >>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
> >>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
> >>>>> means who work and save.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
> >>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
> >>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
> >>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
> >>>>> the wilderness.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
> >>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
> >>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
> >>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
> >>>
> >>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
> >>> contribute much to election campaigns.
> >>
> >> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
> >> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
> >> them. And they do; usually successfully.
> >>
> >> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
> >> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
> >> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
> >>
> >> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
> >> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
> >> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
> >> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
> >> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
> >> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
> >> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
> >>
> >> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
> >> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
> >> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
> >> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
> >> auto.
> >>
> >> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
> >> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
> >>
> >
> >Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know
> >a great many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed
> >lower class peons' are as overrated as English PhDs driving
> >taxis (of whom I knew two). Humans are a wildly diverse lot,
> >such that one ought to pause when making broad generalizations.
> I don't know about the present but when I lived in the States I
> remember a news report, in California, about the poor, unappreciated
> U.S.ians who were unemployed and had to live on the government dole,
> and just couldn't get ahead... while at the same time hordes of
> Mexican, both those holding valid work permits and illegal workers,
> were flocking in to harvest the crops.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:05:15 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 5:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> >>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
> >>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
> >>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
> >>>>>>>>>>>> toward
> >>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> >>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> >>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> >>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> >>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> >>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> >>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> owners of
> >>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
> >>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
> >>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> >>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> >>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> >>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> >>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> >>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> >>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> >>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> >>>>>>>>> the rest.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> >>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> >>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> >>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
> >>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
> >>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
> >>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
> >>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
> >>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
> >>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
> >>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
> >>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
> >>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
> >>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
> >>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
> >>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
> >>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
> >>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
> >>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
> >>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
> >>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
> >>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
> >>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
> >>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
> >>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
> >>>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
> >>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
> >>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
> >>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
> >>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
> >>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
> >>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
> >>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
> >>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
> >>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
> >>>>>> means who work and save.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
> >>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
> >>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
> >>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
> >>>>>> the wilderness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
> >>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
> >>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
> >>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
> >>>>
> >>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
> >>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
> >>>
> >>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
> >>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
> >>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
> >>>
> >>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
> >>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
> >>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
> >>>
> >>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
> >>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
> >>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
> >>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
> >>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
> >>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
> >>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
> >>>
> >>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
> >>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
> >>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
> >>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
> >>> auto.
> >>>
> >>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
> >>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know
> >> a great many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed
> >> lower class peons' are as overrated as English PhDs driving
> >> taxis (of whom I knew two). Humans are a wildly diverse lot,
> >> such that one ought to pause when making broad generalizations.
> >
> > I don't know about the present but when I lived in the States I
> > remember a news report, in California, about the poor, unappreciated
> > U.S.ians who were unemployed and had to live on the government dole,
> > and just couldn't get ahead... while at the same time hordes of
> > Mexican, both those holding valid work permits and illegal workers,
> > were flocking in to harvest the crops.
> >
> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
> neighborhood.'
>
> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for them.