On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
> "No! No!" (:-)

How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
lane make cycling safer?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net

On 9/18/2021 2:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:04:16 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:12:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>>>>>> immaterial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>>>> Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
>>> Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>> Jay, in all but unusual cases, corporations are almost entirely double or even triple taxed on the same money. Without those stupid write-offs I really don't know what would become of most corporations.
>
> Tom, no they are not. Corporations are taxed once for their income just like individuals. Post-tax income may be taxed again when distributed to shareholders, depending on the shareholder's tax circumstances. Corporations often do not make distributions and use post-tax income for capital improvements, which they can deduct, usually over time. Corporations may also use earnings to benefit shareholders in other ways like stock buy-backs that drive up stock value without creating current income to shareholders. "Stupid write-offs" are available to all businesses, corporations and proprietorships -- and individuals.

Corporations pay taxes on their profits, and shareholders pay taxes on
their dividends. I guess you could argue that since shareholders own the
company that it is double taxation. One solution is to eliminate taxes
on dividends and make up the losses by increasing corporate income
taxes, which would, in turn, cause the dividends to be lower. Or
eliminate corporate income taxes and increase taxes on dividends.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 22:18:40 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
>> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
>> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
>> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
>> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
>> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
>> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
>> "No! No!" (:-)
>
>How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
>lane make cycling safer?

Honestly, I have no idea as I live in Thailand and we don't have bike
lanes here so I can only base my remarks on what I read in the news
and the overwhelming arguments for bike lanes, in the U.S., seem to be
(A) it is safer, or (B) it makes the cyclists feel safer.

However, in the interest of total discloser, I must add that Frank has
posted evidence that crashes in the bike lane are more frequent then
occurred before they were installed.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 19:30:26 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/18/2021 2:44 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:04:16 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:12:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>>>>>>> immaterial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>>>>> Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
>>>> Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>>> Jay, in all but unusual cases, corporations are almost entirely double or even triple taxed on the same money. Without those stupid write-offs I really don't know what would become of most corporations.
>>
>> Tom, no they are not. Corporations are taxed once for their income just like individuals. Post-tax income may be taxed again when distributed to shareholders, depending on the shareholder's tax circumstances. Corporations often do not make distributions and use post-tax income for capital improvements, which they can deduct, usually over time. Corporations may also use earnings to benefit shareholders in other ways like stock buy-backs that drive up stock value without creating current income to shareholders. "Stupid write-offs" are available to all businesses, corporations and proprietorships -- and individuals.
>
>Corporations pay taxes on their profits, and shareholders pay taxes on
>their dividends. I guess you could argue that since shareholders own the
>company that it is double taxation. One solution is to eliminate taxes
>on dividends and make up the losses by increasing corporate income
>taxes, which would, in turn, cause the dividends to be lower. Or
>eliminate corporate income taxes and increase taxes on dividends.

But, a corporation is a legal entity and logically should (in a modern
society) pay taxes on their income and an individual is a legal entity
so why shouldn't he/she/it pay taxes on his/hers/its income?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/18/2021 4:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>>>>>> then and now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>>>>>
>>>> Words have meaning.
>>>>
>>>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>>>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>>>>
>>>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>>>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>>>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>>>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>>>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>>>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>>>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>>>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>>>> greater loss, but there it is.
>>>>
>>>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>>>>
>>>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>>>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>>>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>>>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>>>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>>>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>>>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>>>
>>> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>>>
>> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>>
>> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>> never on the table
> .
> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

+1

Every monarch, administration or regime everywhere always
discovers that there just aren't enough 'rich' and all their
assets together are not enough.

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

On 9/18/2021 4:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>>>>>>> then and now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Words have meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>>>>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>>>>>
>>>>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>>>>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>>>>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>>>>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>>>>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>>>>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>>>>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>>>>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>>>>> greater loss, but there it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>>>>>
>>>>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>>>>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>>>>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>>>>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>>>>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>>>>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>>>>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>>>>
>>>> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>>>>
>>> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>>> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>>> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>>> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>>> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>>>
>>> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>>> never on the table
>> .
>> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>
> Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
>

It's included in the landed value of whatever you're
swapping. Jay's right. Hence the eternal allure of
smuggling, not only contraband but more voluminously tax
evasion.

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

On 9/18/2021 5:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:21:24 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>>>>>>>>> then and now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Words have meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>>>>>>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>>>>>>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>>>>>>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>>>>>>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>>>>>>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>>>>>>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>>>>>>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>>>>>>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>>>>>>> greater loss, but there it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>>>>>>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>>>>>>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>>>>>>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>>>>>>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>>>>>>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>>>>>>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>>>>> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>>>>> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>>>>> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>>>>> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>>>>> never on the table
>>>> .
>>>> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>>> Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
>> Now pay attention: I buy a bag of refined sugar from ye olde dry good store. The price includes an excise tax, which is collected by the sugar distributor and passed on by the seller in the price of the sugar. I then trade that sugar to Zeek the beaver trapper for some pelts, and to get equivalent value to what I spent on the sugar, I want two pelts instead of one -- or one beaver pelt and a nutria pelt or some willow bark for the headache your are giving me. If I pay more for sugar, I expect more in trade -- and the person making the trade is "paying" more -- and indirectly paying the excise tax or tariff.
>>
>> You imagine an economy that did not involve manufactured or imported goods, which was never he case in the US. People were not making rifles in their home forges and trading them to other people. They were imported along with tea, sugar, alcohol (rum) and other goods. BTW, this is also why the barter economy kicked the bucket early in American history. It only works when both parties have something the other wants. It is super inefficient. With money, you can buy whatever you want. Screw the beaver pelts.
>
> Jay, the headache isn't from me. It from you trying to understand the simplest possible terms put before you. MOST of the USA was on a barter system before the advent of our money system. Most of it remained that way after the money system because the money was all held by the commercial interests. Whether you called it an income tax or an excise tax mattered not at all because the SAME people paid in either case. Once the country began moving away from the barter system and into the money system, it made a HUGE difference whether you called it an excise or an income tax. I will repeat - you do not finance a country and all of its services by forcing the costs upon a minority. We've gone through all of this sort of crap before when we were speaking of increasing the money supply. You do not understand the most basic requirements of economics.
>

On 9/18/2021 7:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>>>>>>>>> then and now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Words have meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>>>>>>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>>>>>>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>>>>>>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>>>>>>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>>>>>>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>>>>>>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>>>>>>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>>>>>>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>>>>>>> greater loss, but there it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>>>>>>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>>>>>>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>>>>>>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>>>>>>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>>>>>>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>>>>>>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>>>>> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>>>>> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>>>>> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>>>>> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>>>>> never on the table
>>>> .
>>>> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>>>
>>> Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
>> Tommy, you just keep exposing your ignorance. The Whiskey Rebellion of
>> 1791 - 94 was against a excise tax levied on distilled beverages. This
>> tax was paid by the manufacturer and passed along to the customer in
>> the form of an increase in price. So, in effect, when one bought
>> whiskey, one paid tax..
>>
>> Now, granted, this may seem rather complex, to you, but it is a rather
>> simple formula to anyone that can count.
>
> By the way, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is the single supplier of alcoholic beverages in Oregon. We have privately owned "state" liquor stores (basically franchises) that purchase all of their alcohol from the state. The alcohol tax is collected by the state-run distributor, the private seller marks it up, and the consumer pays exactly the price shown on the shelf. We have no sales tax.
>
> Washington had the same system, but Washingtonians got tired of trudging to state controlled stores, and a law was passed allowing the private sale of alcohol in retail outlets like supermarkets. To maintain the same revenue, however, the state passed a super-tax on liquor (actually two separate taxes) that are not easy to calculate in one's head and that are large. The price looks good on the shelf, but when you get to the check-out, its like a 30% pop, depending on the volume of booze purchased. Enough to make a guy sober. Washington is really big into sin taxes since they have no income tax (except a capital gains tax to capture some of the Amazon and Microsoft dollars).
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

On 9/18/2021 9:18 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
>> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
>> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
>> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
>> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
>> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
>> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
>> "No! No!" (:-)
>
> How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
> lane make cycling safer?
>

Local politician gets to be on television for the ribbon
cutting. Election materials will include 'I built eco
sensitive alternate transportation!'. Every contract has a
few cutouts and kickbacks. In the best of cases (for the
office holder) whatever it is (example: your suicide bike
lane) gets designed abysmally so it all has to be ripped out
and redone with another round of the usual crap above.
Repeat into perpetuity.

#1 rule in government: Once you solve the problem, the money
stops.

That should help your understanding of any project's press
releases. You'll read one and think, "That can't work!"
which is exactly the point.

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

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:18:44 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
> > statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
> > almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
> > group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
> > safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
> > add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
> > bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
> > "No! No!" (:-)
> How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
> lane make cycling safer?

Or in the case of a local city undergoing renovation and removal of the docking facilities so that they can build apartments there - they have built a separate two-way bicycle lane of the east side of the road. But this only runs for about a mile and then you have to cross back over to the right side of the road when southbound while having a poor view of the car traffic. This is not a safe system. In other parts of that city they have put the parking lane outside of the bike lane in the mistaken idea that the cars would protect the bicycles from the passing traffic. Of course pedestrians and opening doors on the parked cars are probably a higher danger to cyclist who are also limited in speed due to the debris in the gutter lane.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 7:17:00 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/18/2021 4:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> WTF?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
> >>>>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >>>>>>>>> then and now.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Words have meaning.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> >>>>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> >>>>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> >>>>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> >>>>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> >>>>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> >>>>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> >>>>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> >>>>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> >>>>> greater loss, but there it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> >>>>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> >>>>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> >>>>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> >>>>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> >>>>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> >>>>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
> >>>>
> >>>> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
> >>>>
> >>> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
> >>> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
> >>> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
> >>> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
> >>> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
> >>>
> >>> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
> >>> never on the table
> >> .
> >> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
> >
> > Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
> >
> It's included in the landed value of whatever you're
> swapping. Jay's right. Hence the eternal allure of
> smuggling, not only contraband but more voluminously tax
> evasion.

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.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/18/2021 9:18 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
> >> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
> >> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
> >> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
> >> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
> >> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
> >> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
> >> "No! No!" (:-)
> >
> > How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
> > lane make cycling safer?
> >
> Local politician gets to be on television for the ribbon
> cutting. Election materials will include 'I built eco
> sensitive alternate transportation!'. Every contract has a
> few cutouts and kickbacks. In the best of cases (for the
> office holder) whatever it is (example: your suicide bike
> lane) gets designed abysmally so it all has to be ripped out
> and redone with another round of the usual crap above.
> Repeat into perpetuity.
>
> #1 rule in government: Once you solve the problem, the money
> stops.
>
> That should help your understanding of any project's press
> releases. You'll read one and think, "That can't work!"
> which is exactly the point.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Hope I'm not repeating myself, but a related phenomenon is where the town government passes an ordinance establishing a robust network of bike lanes going everywhere, but it doesn't get fully funded. Then a lot of the bike lanes get built only partially, but at first glance appear to go through to the next town, so you ride down them for about 5 miles and they come to a dead end instead. This happened to me more than once in the Netherlands.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:12:50 PM UTC+2, William Crowell wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/18/2021 9:18 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
> > >> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
> > >> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
> > >> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
> > >> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
> > >> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
> > >> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
> > >> "No! No!" (:-)
> > >
> > > How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
> > > lane make cycling safer?
> > >
> > Local politician gets to be on television for the ribbon
> > cutting. Election materials will include 'I built eco
> > sensitive alternate transportation!'. Every contract has a
> > few cutouts and kickbacks. In the best of cases (for the
> > office holder) whatever it is (example: your suicide bike
> > lane) gets designed abysmally so it all has to be ripped out
> > and redone with another round of the usual crap above.
> > Repeat into perpetuity.
> >
> > #1 rule in government: Once you solve the problem, the money
> > stops.
> >
> > That should help your understanding of any project's press
> > releases. You'll read one and think, "That can't work!"
> > which is exactly the point.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Hope I'm not repeating myself, but a related phenomenon is where the town government passes an ordinance establishing a robust network of bike lanes going everywhere, but it doesn't get fully funded. Then a lot of the bike lanes get built only partially, but at first glance appear to go through to the next town, so you ride down them for about 5 miles and they come to a dead end instead. This happened to me more than once in the Netherlands.

Huh?? We have a strict policy where to build (separate) bike lanes and where not. Our bike lanes don't come to a dead end because of insufficient funding, they just morph into the normal roads according to that policy.

Lou

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. 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.

On 9/19/2021 10:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 7:17:00 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/18/2021 4:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>>>>>>>>> then and now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Words have meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>>>>>>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>>>>>>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>>>>>>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>>>>>>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>>>>>>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>>>>>>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>>>>>>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>>>>>>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>>>>>>> greater loss, but there it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>>>>>>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>>>>>>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>>>>>>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>>>>>>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>>>>>>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>>>>>>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>>>>> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>>>>> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>>>>> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>>>>> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>>>>> never on the table
>>>> .
>>>> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>>>
>>> Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
>>>
>> It's included in the landed value of whatever you're
>> swapping. Jay's right. Hence the eternal allure of
>> smuggling, not only contraband but more voluminously tax
>> evasion.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

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. 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.

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

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > immaterial.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > John B.
> > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:

According to Jay Beattie:
> employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation

The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.

Andre Jute
I dunno why I bother.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 3:30:33 AM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>
> Corporations pay taxes on their profits, and shareholders pay taxes on
> their dividends. I guess you could argue that since shareholders own the
> company that it is double taxation. One solution is to eliminate taxes
> on dividends and make up the losses by increasing corporate income
> taxes, which would, in turn, cause the dividends to be lower. Or
> eliminate corporate income taxes and increase taxes on dividends.

How is a double tax reduction a "loss".Most of us would consider it a sign of good management and good government.

Andre Jute
Do the folk who elected Scharfie know they can buy a brain implant?

On 9/19/2021 12:03 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:12:50 PM UTC+2, William Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Hope I'm not repeating myself, but a related phenomenon is where the town government passes an ordinance establishing a robust network of bike lanes going everywhere, but it doesn't get fully funded. Then a lot of the bike lanes get built only partially, but at first glance appear to go through to the next town, so you ride down them for about 5 miles and they come to a dead end instead. This happened to me more than once in the Netherlands.
>
> Huh?? We have a strict policy where to build (separate) bike lanes and where not. Our bike lanes don't come to a dead end because of insufficient funding, they just morph into the normal roads according to that policy.

I'll add: The normal begging policy is America has been to say "We need
bike lanes to have a SAFE place to ride!" The current and even worse
version: "We need _protected_ bike lanes to have a safe place to ride!
Ordinary bike lanes are not safe!"

The obvious corollary is that anything else cannot be safe. Since we
will never have bike lanes on every street, the message is that riding a
bike is just plain dangerous. It dissuades people from riding here and now.

And since the fantasy land with "protected" bike lanes everywhere will
always be fantasy, that message will continue to dissuade people as long
as they keep spouting it.

It's anti-cycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.   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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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>
>>> Â 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.  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.
>
>

Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
European countries.

Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.

USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
the effect.

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

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > > immaterial.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > John B.
> > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
>
> According to Jay Beattie:
> > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
> The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.

The posters here are crying because I only have a GED and yet we haven't even one of them that has a passing acquaintance with economics. You know, that was one of the first books I read in the 4th grade on my way to reading all of the non-fiction books out of three libraries. Watching Jay post has to make you wonder how he ever achieved a law degree.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 11:24:14 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 12:03 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:12:50 PM UTC+2, William Crowell wrote:
> >>
> >> Hope I'm not repeating myself, but a related phenomenon is where the town government passes an ordinance establishing a robust network of bike lanes going everywhere, but it doesn't get fully funded. Then a lot of the bike lanes get built only partially, but at first glance appear to go through to the next town, so you ride down them for about 5 miles and they come to a dead end instead. This happened to me more than once in the Netherlands.
> >
> > Huh?? We have a strict policy where to build (separate) bike lanes and where not. Our bike lanes don't come to a dead end because of insufficient funding, they just morph into the normal roads according to that policy.
> I'll add: The normal begging policy is America has been to say "We need
> bike lanes to have a SAFE place to ride!" The current and even worse
> version: "We need _protected_ bike lanes to have a safe place to ride!
> Ordinary bike lanes are not safe!"
>
> The obvious corollary is that anything else cannot be safe. Since we
> will never have bike lanes on every street, the message is that riding a
> bike is just plain dangerous. It dissuades people from riding here and now.
>
> And since the fantasy land with "protected" bike lanes everywhere will
> always be fantasy, that message will continue to dissuade people as long
> as they keep spouting it.
>
> It's anti-cycling.

Bike lanes are a direct result of the police failing to enforce safe driving laws and ticketing people that do not understand that bikes have as much right to the road and anyone in a Lotus.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
> high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
> proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
> become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
> European countries.
>
> Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
> With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
> long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
> matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
> such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
> high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
> arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.
>
> USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
> by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
> the effect.

The Democrats latest tax attack would make Americans pay higher taxes than the Red Chinese. This is the world that most of the goofuses here profess as a perfect world.

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>
>>> Â 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.  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.

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