On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:33:59 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>
> Is that $7.95/month with the connection to the phone system, or is it
> only payment for the phone?
>
> Here we have both schemes. You can buy a phone from the phone company
> with a monthly payment which includes the "phone line" or you can buy
> a phone for cash and do your own deal with the phone company.

I did the latter. My phone's not super-stylish, but it works for me.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:45:22 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I would be happy to pay more taxes. I rarely vote against a tax increase. As it
> >is, I make large donations every year to various agencies. I can afford more taxes.
> Careful what you wish for, you might actually get it. If by the
> miracle of creative accounting and inflation, your state generates a
> surplus, it's likely that your taxes will continue to increase and
> spent on the governors favorite projects:
>
> "With California budget surplus projected at $97 billion, Newsom
> proposes driver rebates, more reproductive health funding"
> <https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/05/13/newsom-california-budget-proposal-may-2022/>
>
> Why he wants to send rebates only to drivers instead of tax credits to
> all California taxpayers is unknown.

And I certainly don't approve of all government spending projects. Nobody ever will; there will
always be disagreement.

But the fact is, some tax revenue will always be necessary. The mega-rich should pay more than
they do now.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:33:50 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Is that $7.95/month with the connection to the phone system, or is it
>only payment for the phone?

The total taxes for any kind of communications service in my part of
California is about $7/month. As I understand it, the phone service
is essentially free (subsidized, donated or mandated) but the taxes
must still be paid.

I use Ooma phone service, which is free after the initial equipment,
number porting and setup charges. However, I still have to pay the
taxes. For zip code 95005:
<https://www.ooma.com/home-phone-service/savings/>
Description Amount
Regulatory Compliance Fee $1.78
911 Service Fee $1.00
Local Interconnect Recovery Fee $2.31
State and local taxes, fees and surcharges $1.92

Total: $7.01

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 3:37:03 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 3:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/25/2022 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
> >>>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
> >>>>>>>> from taxes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
> >>>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
> >>>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
> >>>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
> >>>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
> >>>>>>> and found this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
> >>>>>>> social order."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >>>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
> >>>>>> principle,
> >>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >>>>>> nothing much works.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
> >>>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
> >>>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
> >>>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
> >>>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
> >>>
> >>> Exactly!
> >>>
> >>>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the
> >>>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
> >>>> generally. No one.
> >>>>
> >>>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
> >>>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
> >>>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
> >>>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
> >>>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
> >>>
> >>> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
> >>> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
> >>> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
> >>> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
> >>> probably has no need of kerosene!
> >>>
> >>> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
> >>> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
> >>> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
> >>> that _is_ a serious problem.
> >>>
> >>> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
> >>> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
> >>> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
> >>> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
> >>> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
> >>>
> >>> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
> >>> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
> >>> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
> >>> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
> >>> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
> >>> rich paid their fair share.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
> >>
> >> Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
> >> traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!)
> >> never seems to affect the situation for citizens. The
> >> rule is , 'once you solve the problem, the money stops.'
> >> Professionals understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
> >
> > Regarding potholes: our village streets were a mess. They
> > were a mess even after the surrounding township acquired
> > funds to pave its streets. The difference was very apparent
> > when (as we did again today) we rode our bikes to get
> > groceries.
> >
> > So the village asked citizens for a special tax levy for
> > paving. The residents approved it. The village roads we use
> > are now excellent.
> >
> > We've got a good police force, known for stopping traffic
> > violators and keeping a close eye on things. This community
> > has twice been rated one of the top ten safest communities
> > in the state.
> >
> > Not that everything is perfect, mind you. For example, there
> > are two little areas where the residents have complained
> > about occasional sewage odors; but the village officials
> > pointed out that's not under their jurisdiction. The lines
> > are owned and controlled by the county, and the county
> > engineer says they don't have the budget to address the
> > problem.
> >
> > I'll note that this county's roads are notoriously rough.
> > Years ago, the man who was then county engineer explained
> > the problem. As one of the earlier settled counties, we have
> > many more miles of county roads than the state's average,
> > but we get the same number of dollars as counties with very
> > low road mileage. The total allocation from the state is
> > evenly divided among the 88 counties.
> >
> > The county engineer said that if he had more money to work
> > with, the roads would be better maintained. I believe him.
> >
> > Vaguely related: One little used MUP here crosses the
> > border, starting in Ohio and ending in Pennsylvania. It's
> > construction was actually totally funded by a local family.
> > When it was built, the county promised to maintain it. So
> > did the townships in Pennsylvania.
> >
> > PA has kept its part of the bargain, which I'm told they
> > could afford because of revenue generated by the fracking
> > industry. But our current county engineer refuses to do any
> > maintenance. He claims that he doesn't have the budget for it.
> >
> Your village may well be a paragon of thrift and sincere
> concern for the ever suffering taxpayer. I'll accept your
> word on that.
>
> If taxpayer resources are so well managed, why is the NY
> State budget with a declining roughly 20 million population
> more than double FL State budget with 22 million+ and growing?
>

$216 Billion budget for New York. $100 Billion budget for Florida.
Reason for the difference? Transportation budget of NY is $11.8B. Florida $9.9B. Freezing temperatures in NY break the roads. New York education budget is $39B. Florida education budget is $24B. Education per student is $8,081 in Florida. An article I found from NY Post said several years ago New York state spent $25,139 per student. USA average was $13,187. 3million Florida students. 2.65million NY students. A website I found says there are 1,443,500 NY government employees. And 1,108,900 Florida government employees. Florida poverty rate 12.94%. New York poverty rate 13.95%.

Lot of reasons why the state budgets are different between these two very different states. Even though population is sort of similar. One could be who runs the government. Example: June 2021 a condominium collapsed in Miami and killed 98. Does the Florida GOVERNMENT building department care? Probably not.

And of course there is the age old national charity aspect. Every year a hurricane hits Florida. And Florida squeals for public aid and money and charity. Federal tax money. Why pay for anything yourself in your own budget when unfortunately you have a rich daddy to pay?

On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:58:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/25/2022 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:15:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes from taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a SCOTUS
>>>>>>> opinion that contained "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized
>>>>>>> society", a sentiment that I embrace. I researched it to make sure I
>>>>>>> got the attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich') and
>>>>>>> found this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of social order."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>>>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in principle,
>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>>>>>> nothing much works.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where one can
>>>>> become rich through a combination of sweat, ingenuity, and luck),
>>>>> there is a price to pay. For the richest to avoid taxes - legally or
>>>>> not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".
>>>
>>> Exactly!
>>>
>>>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the Leviathan) or
>>>> expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes' generally. No one.
>>>>
>>>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income tax _rates_
>>>> (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital gains, 1120 corporation
>>>> taxes, inheritance, all the many and various excises (alcohol & tobacco
>>>> but also gasoline, tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
>>>
>>> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing gear or
>>> kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those are obviously a much
>>> bigger burden on a low income subsistence fisherman than on Lars and
>>> Buffy. Their yacht probably has no need of kerosene!
>>>
>>> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall tax rate paid
>>> by the typical billionaire is much lower than the overall tax rate paid
>>> by a middle income American. Yes, that _is_ a serious problem.
>>>
>>> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total dollars cuts no
>>> ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many dollars, and he _should_ pay
>>> far more than he does. If he did, the tax rates of typical Americans
>>> could drop, and/or the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
>>>
>>> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police and better
>>> technology to address gun crime? How about traffic light detectors that
>>> would automatically respond to cyclists? How about stopping the sewage
>>> overflows into storm water systems? Things like this could be afforded
>>> if the rich paid their fair share.
>>
>> But Frank, I went to some effort to try and explain to you that your
>> question is ridiculous. After all you are rich, in relation to may
>> others in the U.S. Are you advocating that your taxes be increased?
>>
>> Given that you have so much more then poor old Tommy I'm shocked that
>> you haven't yet made, at least one, contribution to his welfare.
>>
>> But, of course it isn't YOU is it Frank, it is a matter of "them over
>> there". Let them pay. The other guy, not me.
>>
>> Or jealousy, as it is usually referred to.
>>
>
>The Founders and Framers were literate men and knew
>something of humans and of previous governments (and
>failures), much of it in the original Latin and Greek. Being
>wise, informed and with the best motivations they wrote into
>our Constitution that national direct taxes[1] could only be
>levied per capita. The discussions surrounding that make
>clear their understanding and fear of codifying envy.
>
>All that and more went all to hell in 1913. And here we are.
>
>
>{1}Art I, Sec 2.
>Excises and duties are separate things and those funded the
>entire US Treasury until 1913.`

True. But don't ignore the fact that the original U.S. was just that a
union of states... each state managing their own affairs, with the
Federal government largely responsible for only defense of the country
as a whole.

The "Bill of Rights", the first amendment, was made largely to ensure
the states that their "rights" would not be infringed.

Reagan probably wasn't thinking of it when he said, "the most
horrifying words are I'm from the government and I've come to help"
but they were far more true then he ever imagined.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/25/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:20:10 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2022 5:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:12:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:14:54 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you payer a higher percentage in taxes then others then, in simple
>>>>> terms, you didn't arrange your financial affairs as wisely as they
>>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. The average working stiff doesn't have access to the financial tools and deductible options that the very rich have, and also don't have the ability to hire tax lawyers with the ability to "interpret" our overly complex tax code and take advantage of those tools. Buffet's secretary can't lower her tax rate because he/she can't. If anyone would be able to figure out a legal way for them to do it, it would be Buffet and his army of tax attorneys.
>>>>
>>> But I was a working stiff. And I had access to financial tools, etc.
>>>
>>> You are simply rationalizing the fact that, at least from what I read,
>>> the average USian pisses his money way, even before he gets it.
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/11/amid-rising-prices-us-households-fall-deeper-in-debt.html
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I was at a telephone store last Friday with an old friend
>> who is now of severely diminished mental capacity. Her
>> previous Type 3 telephone can no longer make calls so she
>> needed a Type 4 model. There were a row of them on display
>> with large type showing the monthly charge for a 12 month
>> finance and small type with the features. The one most
>> similar to her old one was $7.95/mo. I said I'd just buy it
>> and the clerk said no one buys telephones outright, they
>> just take the monthly plan.
>>
>> I paid for it, $50. You do the arithmetic on that one.
>
> Is that $7.95/month with the connection to the phone system, or is it
> only payment for the phone?
>
> Here we have both schemes. You can buy a phone from the phone company
> with a monthly payment which includes the "phone line" or you can buy
> a phone for cash and do your own deal with the phone company.
>

$50 is for a thing in a box.

The prepaid service is $25 per month (I bought her a few
months worth)

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

On 5/25/2022 8:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:41:59 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:52:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2022 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 11:49:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> I'd say you don't understand it. At least not very thoroughly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current situation is often "Tax everybody but the rich." Warren
>>>>> Buffet has noted that his secretary pays a higher tax percentage than he
>>>>> does. I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than does Elon
>>>>> Musk. Why should that be?
>>>>
>>>> If you payer a higher percentage in taxes then others then, in simple
>>>> terms, you didn't arrange your financial affairs as wisely as they
>>>> did.
>>>
>>> Wrong, and you seem to be ignorant of U.S. tax laws. There are many,
>>> many tax avoidance strategies that are, practically speaking, available
>>> only to the wealthy. They're certainly not available to a middle income
>>> worker living on paychecks.
>>>
>>>> I have no idea of your financial details but one can, for example,
>>>> invest in tax free municipal bonds. One can lease instead of owning
>>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> When I did my own investing, I did make heavy use of tax free munis.
>>> They did well. (Since then I've turned my investing over to a
>>> specialist. I assume some of my assets are in those munis, but I'm not
>>> curious enough to check.) I've considered leasing vehicles, but for me
>>> paying cash and owning outright makes more sense. It's not even a close
>>> decision.
>>>
>>>> My guess is that people like Warren Buffet "don't go to the toilet"
>>>> without first consulting their financial adviser.... who's salary, is
>>>> likely tax deductible, unlike you who, in financial terms probably
>>>> blunders around with your eyes tight shut.
>>>
>>> Your wild guesses are all turning out wrong, John.
>> Well, they aren't "wild guesses" they are reality.
>>
>> I started "investing" money when I first joined the Air Force in 1952,
>> making something like $70 a month. I sent half that home and my mother
>> opened a bank account in my name and deposited it and I saved or
>> invested about half my pay from that time until I actually retired. In
>> fact the last job I did, building a gas processing plant, I was
>> getting a pretty good "living allowance" and invested my entire salary
>> for that year.
>>
>> So don't say it can't be done or it is a wild guess. I did it.
>> But then, I've never lived "high on the hog" as the saying goes. When
>> we were first married we paid $30 a month rent.... $1.00 a day (:-)
>
> Your attitude was the same as mine, although you probably made more
> money than I did most years. (I didn't go into teaching because of its high
> salary. Quite the opposite - although I ultimately did well enough.)
>
> When we were first married, my excess money didn't get invested much in
> securities, etc. They went into the real estate - improving our first house, which
> we sold at a healthy profit. Then improving this house, largely for energy
> efficiency. (My natural gas usage is a fraction of what it originally was.) Later,
> when more money was coming in, we did much more classic financial investing.
>
> But you're dancing away from the main point. Neither you nor I took advantage of
> the tricks used by the mega-rich. Those tricks are simply not available to us! My
> income was from sources much different than those of Bezos or Musk. Or Lars
> and Buffy.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

You could have rented rooms in your house and depreciated
your commercial property while retaining 'primary residence'
tax advantages and expensing everything large ans small. The
again you didn't retain this woman as counsel:

https://funeralinnovations.com/obituary/250358/Cheryl-Rosen-Weston/

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

On 5/25/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:14:43 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 6:49:31 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:12:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:14:54 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you payer a higher percentage in taxes then others then, in simple
>>>>> terms, you didn't arrange your financial affairs as wisely as they
>>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. The average working stiff doesn't have access to the financial tools and deductible options that the very rich have, and also don't have the ability to hire tax lawyers with the ability to "interpret" our overly complex tax code and take advantage of those tools. Buffet's secretary can't lower her tax rate because he/she can't. If anyone would be able to figure out a legal way for them to do it, it would be Buffet and his army of tax attorneys.
>>>>
>>> But I was a working stiff. And I had access to financial tools, etc.
>>
>> Still bullshit. Were you able to reduce your tax burden to zero? Likely not. Buffet et al were able to reduce their burdens to zero or near-zero because they have access to tools that you didn't. To reiterate, Buffet stated he pays a lower rate than his secretary. If there was a way for his secretary to realize the same lower rate that he did, I'm sure they would have been able to figure it out. That they couldn't speaks to the fact that his income and financial tools gave him privileges that his secretary didn't qualify for.
>>
>>>
>>> You are simply rationalizing the fact that, at least from what I read,
>>> the average USian pisses his money way, even before he gets it.
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/11/amid-rising-prices-us-households-fall-deeper-in-debt.html
>>
>> Still bullshit. You're moving the goalposts. We aren't talking about basic money management, which has very little to do with the tax burden. The fact that many people spend more than they earn has nothing to do with their tax burden. We're talking specifically about the tax burden, which is actually in inverse function of income.
>>
> Nope. I have "access" to every facility that anyone else does. It is
> semantics I know, but true never the less. What you are saying is that
> some don't take advantage of all the tax reducing clauses in the tax
> code.
>
> And I would disagree that knowing the tax code and applying the rules
> and regulations is anything out of the ordinary. At least in the world
> I live(d) in.
>
> But yes, certainly people, or some people, live literally hand to
> mouth and thus probably can't take advantage of as many tax
> regulations as those who save and invest their money but the
> regulations are there for everyone.
>

Not only living week to week with no reserves but they sadly
lack even the capacity to bitch about paying taxes!

https://www.thousandaire.com/pay-nothing-federal-income-tax/

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

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
> >>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
> >>>>>>> from taxes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
> >>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
> >>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
> >>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
> >>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
> >>>>>> and found this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
> >>>>>> social order."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
> >>>>> principle,
> >>>>> right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >>>>> nothing much works.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
> >>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
> >>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
> >>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
> >>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
> >>
> >> Exactly!
> >>
> >>> 'Taxes'Â is a very large set of income streams (to the
> >>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
> >>> generally. No one.
> >>>
> >>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
> >>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
> >>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
> >>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
> >>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
> >>
> >> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
> >> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
> >> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
> >> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
> >> probably has no need of kerosene!
> >>
> >> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
> >> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
> >> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
> >> that _is_ a serious problem.
> >>
> >> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
> >> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
> >> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
> >> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
> >> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
> >>
> >> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
> >> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
> >> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
> >> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
> >> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
> >> rich paid their fair share.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
> >
> >Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
> >traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!) never
> >seems to affect the situation for citizens. The rule is ,
> >'once you solve the problem, the money stops.' Professionals
> >understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
> Or perhaps, "well you gave us some, now give us some more!"
> I read that:
>
> "In the 50 years since that time (the war on poverty), U.S. taxpayers
> have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for
> inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or
> Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the
> American Revolution.

I noticed how you wrote "three times the cost of all U.S. military WARS". NOT three times the cost of all U.S. military spending/budgets. Big, big, big difference. Wars are actually cheap. Its all the years in between where the military spending really adds up.

Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the
> U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President
> Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere
> “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely.
> In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable
> of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began."
> https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:56:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:33:50 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Is that $7.95/month with the connection to the phone system, or is it
>>only payment for the phone?
>
>The total taxes for any kind of communications service in my part of
>California is about $7/month. As I understand it, the phone service
>is essentially free (subsidized, donated or mandated) but the taxes
>must still be paid.
>
>I use Ooma phone service, which is free after the initial equipment,
>number porting and setup charges. However, I still have to pay the
>taxes. For zip code 95005:
><https://www.ooma.com/home-phone-service/savings/>
>Description Amount
>Regulatory Compliance Fee $1.78
>911 Service Fee $1.00
>Local Interconnect Recovery Fee $2.31
>State and local taxes, fees and surcharges $1.92
>
> Total: $7.01

Oops. I wrongly decoded the "Type 3" and "Type 4" to be a handicapped
access land line. It should be 3G or 4G(LTE) cellular phones.
However, I the taxes still need to be paid but at a lower rate.
Sales Tax: $0.00
Local Charge, CPUC User Fee and PPP Surcharges: $0.64
USF: $0.24
RCF: $0.05
Shipping Tax: $0.00

Total Taxes: $0.93

From my cellular bill:
<https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/>
"Prices do not include taxes and fees."

The rest might be part of whatever program is providing the funding:
"Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers"
<https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers>
"California LifeLine Eligibility"
<https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/lifeline/>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:58:51 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:15:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes from taxes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a SCOTUS
> >>>>>> opinion that contained "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized
> >>>>>> society", a sentiment that I embrace. I researched it to make sure I
> >>>>>> got the attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich') and
> >>>>>> found this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of social order."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in principle,
> >>>>> right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >>>>> nothing much works.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where one can
> >>>> become rich through a combination of sweat, ingenuity, and luck),
> >>>> there is a price to pay. For the richest to avoid taxes - legally or
> >>>> not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".
> >>
> >> Exactly!
> >>
> >>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the Leviathan) or
> >>> expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes' generally. No one.
> >>>
> >>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income tax _rates_
> >>> (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital gains, 1120 corporation
> >>> taxes, inheritance, all the many and various excises (alcohol & tobacco
> >>> but also gasoline, tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
> >>
> >> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing gear or
> >> kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those are obviously a much
> >> bigger burden on a low income subsistence fisherman than on Lars and
> >> Buffy. Their yacht probably has no need of kerosene!
> >>
> >> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall tax rate paid
> >> by the typical billionaire is much lower than the overall tax rate paid
> >> by a middle income American. Yes, that _is_ a serious problem.
> >>
> >> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total dollars cuts no
> >> ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many dollars, and he _should_ pay
> >> far more than he does. If he did, the tax rates of typical Americans
> >> could drop, and/or the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
> >>
> >> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police and better
> >> technology to address gun crime? How about traffic light detectors that
> >> would automatically respond to cyclists? How about stopping the sewage
> >> overflows into storm water systems? Things like this could be afforded
> >> if the rich paid their fair share.
> >
> > But Frank, I went to some effort to try and explain to you that your
> > question is ridiculous. After all you are rich, in relation to may
> > others in the U.S. Are you advocating that your taxes be increased?
> >
> > Given that you have so much more then poor old Tommy I'm shocked that
> > you haven't yet made, at least one, contribution to his welfare.
> >
> > But, of course it isn't YOU is it Frank, it is a matter of "them over
> > there". Let them pay. The other guy, not me.
> >
> > Or jealousy, as it is usually referred to.
> >
> The Founders and Framers were literate men and knew
> something of humans and of previous governments (and
> failures), much of it in the original Latin and Greek. Being
> wise, informed and with the best motivations they wrote into
> our Constitution that national direct taxes[1] could only be
> levied per capita. The discussions surrounding that make
> clear their understanding and fear of codifying envy.
>
> All that and more went all to hell in 1913. And here we are.
>
>
> {1}Art I, Sec 2.
> Excises and duties are separate things and those funded the
> entire US Treasury until 1913.`
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Federal Reserve was created in 1913 too. Coincidence? Or cause and effect?

On 5/25/2022 9:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:58:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2022 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:15:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes from taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a SCOTUS
>>>>>>>> opinion that contained "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized
>>>>>>>> society", a sentiment that I embrace. I researched it to make sure I
>>>>>>>> got the attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich') and
>>>>>>>> found this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of social order."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>>>>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in principle,
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>>>>>>> nothing much works.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where one can
>>>>>> become rich through a combination of sweat, ingenuity, and luck),
>>>>>> there is a price to pay. For the richest to avoid taxes - legally or
>>>>>> not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".
>>>>
>>>> Exactly!
>>>>
>>>>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the Leviathan) or
>>>>> expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes' generally. No one.
>>>>>
>>>>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income tax _rates_
>>>>> (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital gains, 1120 corporation
>>>>> taxes, inheritance, all the many and various excises (alcohol & tobacco
>>>>> but also gasoline, tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
>>>>
>>>> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing gear or
>>>> kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those are obviously a much
>>>> bigger burden on a low income subsistence fisherman than on Lars and
>>>> Buffy. Their yacht probably has no need of kerosene!
>>>>
>>>> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall tax rate paid
>>>> by the typical billionaire is much lower than the overall tax rate paid
>>>> by a middle income American. Yes, that _is_ a serious problem.
>>>>
>>>> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total dollars cuts no
>>>> ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many dollars, and he _should_ pay
>>>> far more than he does. If he did, the tax rates of typical Americans
>>>> could drop, and/or the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
>>>>
>>>> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police and better
>>>> technology to address gun crime? How about traffic light detectors that
>>>> would automatically respond to cyclists? How about stopping the sewage
>>>> overflows into storm water systems? Things like this could be afforded
>>>> if the rich paid their fair share.
>>>
>>> But Frank, I went to some effort to try and explain to you that your
>>> question is ridiculous. After all you are rich, in relation to may
>>> others in the U.S. Are you advocating that your taxes be increased?
>>>
>>> Given that you have so much more then poor old Tommy I'm shocked that
>>> you haven't yet made, at least one, contribution to his welfare.
>>>
>>> But, of course it isn't YOU is it Frank, it is a matter of "them over
>>> there". Let them pay. The other guy, not me.
>>>
>>> Or jealousy, as it is usually referred to.
>>>
>>
>> The Founders and Framers were literate men and knew
>> something of humans and of previous governments (and
>> failures), much of it in the original Latin and Greek. Being
>> wise, informed and with the best motivations they wrote into
>> our Constitution that national direct taxes[1] could only be
>> levied per capita. The discussions surrounding that make
>> clear their understanding and fear of codifying envy.
>>
>> All that and more went all to hell in 1913. And here we are.
>>
>>
>> {1}Art I, Sec 2.
>> Excises and duties are separate things and those funded the
>> entire US Treasury until 1913.`
>
> True. But don't ignore the fact that the original U.S. was just that a
> union of states... each state managing their own affairs, with the
> Federal government largely responsible for only defense of the country
> as a whole.
>
> The "Bill of Rights", the first amendment, was made largely to ensure
> the states that their "rights" would not be infringed.
>
> Reagan probably wasn't thinking of it when he said, "the most
> horrifying words are I'm from the government and I've come to help"
> but they were far more true then he ever imagined.
>
>

We are still (nominally, hopefully, temporarily?) a Republic
comprised of sovereign States. Like it or not we are (were?)
not structured like France. Nationalizing every little
thing is not IMHO a good policy generally as both Mr Scarf
and Mr Krygowski obliquely hinted at earlier.

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

On 5/25/2022 8:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:45:22 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would be happy to pay more taxes. I rarely vote against a tax increase. As it
>>> is, I make large donations every year to various agencies. I can afford more taxes.
>> Careful what you wish for, you might actually get it. If by the
>> miracle of creative accounting and inflation, your state generates a
>> surplus, it's likely that your taxes will continue to increase and
>> spent on the governors favorite projects:
>>
>> "With California budget surplus projected at $97 billion, Newsom
>> proposes driver rebates, more reproductive health funding"
>> <https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/05/13/newsom-california-budget-proposal-may-2022/>
>>
>> Why he wants to send rebates only to drivers instead of tax credits to
>> all California taxpayers is unknown.
>
> And I certainly don't approve of all government spending projects. Nobody ever will; there will
> always be disagreement.
>
> But the fact is, some tax revenue will always be necessary. The mega-rich should pay more than
> they do now.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

You're quite cavalier about someone else's earnings where,
"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income
taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined
(29.9 percent)."

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

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

On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:33:59 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Is that $7.95/month with the connection to the phone system, or is it
>> only payment for the phone?
>>
>> Here we have both schemes. You can buy a phone from the phone company
>> with a monthly payment which includes the "phone line" or you can buy
>> a phone for cash and do your own deal with the phone company.
>
>I did the latter. My phone's not super-stylish, but it works for me.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Here you can buy phones "locked or "unlocked". If you buy from the
phone company it will be a "locked" phone and only usable on that
company's system while an unlocked phone can use any SIM card and thus
use any company's system.
The phone companies, of course, sell phones for the full list price
while the "unlocked" phones are sold by phone dealers and one can
usually get a favorable price from them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:48:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:05:30 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:44:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >And no, that degree of income and wealth disparity is not just fine. It
>> >hurts society in countless ways.
>> Well, yes, "income disparity"... the difference between your wealth
>> and Tommy's, for example. So you will be sending Tom a weekly?
>> monthly? check to make his "income" equal yours?
>>
>> No? The other guy should pay? Them over there? The government should
>> do it?
>
>The government should do certain things. It should be in charge of paving roads,
>properly disposing of sewage, etc. To do that, it needs tax money.
>
>The tax money should come much more from those with gross excesses of money,
>much less from people like Tommy who are scraping to get by.
>
>I can afford to pay more taxes. Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg etc. can afford to pay far, far
>more.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

The communists tried your theory - "from each according to their
ability and to each according to their needs". It is very noticeable
that Communist countries are failures or are at the bottom of the
economic latter. It might be noted that China, ostensibly a Communist
country, loosened the economic reins and now essentially free
companies operate there. With, it might be said, considerable success.

It would seem that your theory is flawed (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:13:43 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:15:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police and better
>> >technology to address gun crime? How about traffic light detectors that
>> >would automatically respond to cyclists? How about stopping the sewage
>> >overflows into storm water systems? Things like this could be afforded
>> >if the rich paid their fair share.
>> But Frank, I went to some effort to try and explain to you that your
>> question is ridiculous.
>
>"How about roads with fewer potholes?" is somehow ridiculous?
>
>> After all you are rich, in relation to may
>> others in the U.S. Are you advocating that your taxes be increased?
>
>I would be happy to pay more taxes. I rarely vote against a tax increase. As it
>is, I make large donations every year to various agencies. I can afford more taxes.
>
>> Given that you have so much more then poor old Tommy I'm shocked that
>> you haven't yet made, at least one, contribution to his welfare.
>
>As I said, I certainly could donate to Tommy. I prefer to put my money into more
>worthwhile causes. Tom would just blow a donation on another counterfeit go-fast
>bike component, hoping to take a few seconds off his next "training" ride.
>
But YOU are the one talking about income disparity and now you have
changed your tune and say, "well for those who won't fritter it away".
But the disparity is still there. What to do?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:23:34 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 8:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:45:22 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would be happy to pay more taxes. I rarely vote against a tax increase. As it
> >>> is, I make large donations every year to various agencies. I can afford more taxes.
> >> Careful what you wish for, you might actually get it. If by the
> >> miracle of creative accounting and inflation, your state generates a
> >> surplus, it's likely that your taxes will continue to increase and
> >> spent on the governors favorite projects:
> >>
> >> "With California budget surplus projected at $97 billion, Newsom
> >> proposes driver rebates, more reproductive health funding"
> >> <https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/05/13/newsom-california-budget-proposal-may-2022/>
> >>
> >> Why he wants to send rebates only to drivers instead of tax credits to
> >> all California taxpayers is unknown.
> >
> > And I certainly don't approve of all government spending projects. Nobody ever will; there will
> > always be disagreement.
> >
> > But the fact is, some tax revenue will always be necessary. The mega-rich should pay more than
> > they do now.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> You're quite cavalier about someone else's earnings where,
> "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income
> taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined
> (29.9 percent)."
>
> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thank you for the link. It is 2017, so a few years ago. But I am sure the facts it presents are still the same. For fun I put some of the numbers into Excel and did some simple math. Number of returns and adjusted gross income. Adjusted gross income includes deductions for property taxes paid, state income tax paid, standard deductions, and charitable contributions to your favorite university for them to build a new football stadium.

Number of returns in the Top1%: 1,432,952
Number of returns in the Bottom 50%: 71,647,580
Number of returns in the Bottom 90%: 128,965,644

Income per return for Top 1%: $1,606,089
Income per return for Bottom 50%: $17,174
Income per return for Bottom 90%: $44,318

The income for the Top 1% is 94 TIMES greater than the income for the Bottom 50%. The income for the Top 1% is 36 TIMES greater than the income for the Bottom 90%. Andy, above you wrote the top 1 percent paid 38.5 percent of the income taxes and the bottom 90 percent paid 29.9 percent. So the top 1% paid 29% more income taxes than the bottom 90%. 38.5 / 29.9 = 1.29. Looking at the numbers, facts, it seems to me the top 1% got a pretty darned good deal. The top 1% got 36 TIMES, 3600%, more income, and only had to pay an extra 29% taxes. I don't know about you, but I will take 3600 over 29 every day of the week.

And just in case you are wondering, when I did the numbers for the Top 1% compared to the Bottom 95%, the difference in income per return is still 31 TIMES greater for the Top 1% over the Bottom 95%. And the Top 1% is 26 TIMES greater than the Bottom 99%. The income is extremely skewed in the USA. I would guess it is still skewed if you compared the top 0.5% or 0.1% to everyone below.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:18:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/25/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:44:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Much Deleted --------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should get out more. Or at least read the news in the morning.
>>>>
>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/richest-men-world-lost-ton-090000527.html
>>>>
>>>> https://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-poorer-billionaires-losing-1-trillion-this-year-bloomberg-2022-5?op=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/crypto-billionaires-see-wealth-eroded-with-this-week-s-market-crash-1031453962?op=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/crypto-billionaires-losing-fortunes-as-bitcoin-tumbles/
>>>
>>> I won't comment on cryptocurrency gambling. To me, it's in the same
>>> category as buying baseball cards or Hummel figurines.
>>>
>>> But to respond to the first article: Musk down to only $200 billion!
>>> Bezos only $131 billion! Zuckerberg only $71 billion!
>>>
>>> Markets go up and markets go down. But the income and wealth disparity
>>> in the U.S. goes up and up and up. Don't pretend otherwise.
>>>
>>> And no, that degree of income and wealth disparity is not just fine. It
>>> hurts society in countless ways.
>>
>> Well, yes, "income disparity"... the difference between your wealth
>> and Tommy's, for example. So you will be sending Tom a weekly?
>> monthly? check to make his "income" equal yours?
>>
>> No? The other guy should pay? Them over there? The government should
>> do it?
>>
>
>I'd much rather live in a society which produces the
>occasional Michael Dell or Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison than
>a culture which built MiniTel. Or one with no innovation to
>speak of.

I think there is sufficient proof that Franks theory "income parity"
for all doesn't work. In fact, if anything it stifles progress. Would,
for example, the automobile industry be what it is today if Ford
hadn't come up with the scheme to pay his workers more... so they
could afford to buy a Ford?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:41:59 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:52:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/24/2022 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 May 2022 11:49:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>> I'd say you don't understand it. At least not very thoroughly.
>> >>>
>> >>> The current situation is often "Tax everybody but the rich." Warren
>> >>> Buffet has noted that his secretary pays a higher tax percentage than he
>> >>> does. I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than does Elon
>> >>> Musk. Why should that be?
>> >>
>> >> If you payer a higher percentage in taxes then others then, in simple
>> >> terms, you didn't arrange your financial affairs as wisely as they
>> >> did.
>> >
>> >Wrong, and you seem to be ignorant of U.S. tax laws. There are many,
>> >many tax avoidance strategies that are, practically speaking, available
>> >only to the wealthy. They're certainly not available to a middle income
>> >worker living on paychecks.
>> >
>> >> I have no idea of your financial details but one can, for example,
>> >> invest in tax free municipal bonds. One can lease instead of owning
>> >> and so on.
>> >
>> >When I did my own investing, I did make heavy use of tax free munis.
>> >They did well. (Since then I've turned my investing over to a
>> >specialist. I assume some of my assets are in those munis, but I'm not
>> >curious enough to check.) I've considered leasing vehicles, but for me
>> >paying cash and owning outright makes more sense. It's not even a close
>> >decision.
>> >
>> >> My guess is that people like Warren Buffet "don't go to the toilet"
>> >> without first consulting their financial adviser.... who's salary, is
>> >> likely tax deductible, unlike you who, in financial terms probably
>> >> blunders around with your eyes tight shut.
>> >
>> >Your wild guesses are all turning out wrong, John.
>> Well, they aren't "wild guesses" they are reality.
>>
>> I started "investing" money when I first joined the Air Force in 1952,
>> making something like $70 a month. I sent half that home and my mother
>> opened a bank account in my name and deposited it and I saved or
>> invested about half my pay from that time until I actually retired. In
>> fact the last job I did, building a gas processing plant, I was
>> getting a pretty good "living allowance" and invested my entire salary
>> for that year.
>>
>> So don't say it can't be done or it is a wild guess. I did it.
>> But then, I've never lived "high on the hog" as the saying goes. When
>> we were first married we paid $30 a month rent.... $1.00 a day (:-)
>
>Your attitude was the same as mine, although you probably made more
>money than I did most years. (I didn't go into teaching because of its high
>salary. Quite the opposite - although I ultimately did well enough.)
>
>When we were first married, my excess money didn't get invested much in
>securities, etc. They went into the real estate - improving our first house, which
>we sold at a healthy profit. Then improving this house, largely for energy
>efficiency. (My natural gas usage is a fraction of what it originally was.) Later,
>when more money was coming in, we did much more classic financial investing.
>
>But you're dancing away from the main point. Neither you nor I took advantage of
>the tricks used by the mega-rich. Those tricks are simply not available to us! My
>income was from sources much different than those of Bezos or Musk. Or Lars
>and Buffy.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

But Frank, what I was trying to point out is that they aren't "tricks"
they are page after page in the Tax laws showing, right there in black
and white, what you have to pay tax for and what you don't. And they
are available to anybody.

I, for instance invested, at one time, in some tax free bonds. Was it
a trick? Hardly. Everyone in the business was certainly aware of them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:23:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/25/2022 8:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 6:44:21 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2022 5:05 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2022 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
>>>>> traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!)
>>>>> never seems to affect the situation for citizens. The
>>>>> rule is , 'once you solve the problem, the money stops.'
>>>>> Professionals understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
>>>>
>>>> You must live in an area with very poorly run government.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that roads require continuous expenditures to
>>>> maintain in order to prevent potholes. If you let the
>>>> condition deteriorate then the cost increases even more, not
>>>> only for the paving but for the damage to vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> For my area, the PCI (Pavement Condition Index) is available
>>>> for all cities and unincorporated areas
>>>> <https://static.ktvu.com/www.ktvu.com/content/uploads/2021/11/PCI_table-2020_data-00F.pdf>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the most recent year that was evaluated, my city was #1
>>>> out of 109 with a score of 85 "Very Good." Tom's city was
>>>> ranked #100 out of 109 with a score of 55 "At Risk." You
>>>> can't even go by the relative wealth of the jurisdiction,
>>>> The next city over from us, which is much wealthier, had a
>>>> PCI of 68 "Fair." It's all about how a city chooses to spend
>>>> its limited resources. It isn't cheap to maintain the roads
>>>> in good condition but there's an upside to not letting the
>>>> roads deteriorate too badly.
>>>>
>>>> We also have very low policing costs and one of the lowest
>>>> crime rates.
>>>>
>>>> Running a city efficiently takes a dedicated professional
>>>> staff, plus appointed and elected officials that care enough
>>>> about the community to work for essentially no pay. Is there
>>>> waste? Sure, but it's not as some people want to believe
>>>> that waste comprises a large percentage of expenditures.
>>> When Los Angeles says the hordes of homeless are no longer
>>> a problem I'll believe you:
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/la-council-approves-settlement-to-spend-up-to-dollar3-billion-on-homeless-housing-units-beds/ar-AAXfqWk
>>>
>>> US$3,000,000,000.00 is not chump change. It's also on top of
>>> a very expensive ongoing base of expense. And yet nothing
>>> has changed. Nor will.
>>>
>>> How about mentally ill accosting the citizenry in NYC?
>>>
>>> https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-nyc-de-blasio-legacy-thrivenyc-cost-over-1-billion-with-limited-results-20211229-rp6z3wverffwras5gnurt5pbcq-story.html
>>>
>>> Nothing's changed. And nothing will. THRIVE never rented
>>> offices, never hired staff, never presented a plan. A
>>> perfectly successful program!- for the Mayor's wife. For
>>> taxpayers (or even for the suffering addled among us) not so
>>> much.
>>>
>>> I can do this all day. Pick a state and name a program.
>>
>> I'm sure you can, Andrew. It's quite a hobby with you. But your hobby seems to be only
>> providing complaints. It does not seem to include providing solutions.
>>
>> I don't see that any problems you complain about will be solved by, say, lowering taxes on
>> the wealthy even further. Or lowering taxes on everyone, although that hasn't been a priority
>> compared to taking care of the wealthy.
>>
>> Are you prepared to pay for repaving the street directly in front of your house and shop, and
>> hoping that your neighbors will deign to do the same? When there's a fire, will you be the one
>> to organize the old-fashioned bucket brigade? Will water be available, or will you have to rely
>> on your own cistern?
>>
>> It is literally more efficient - _much_ more efficient - to have such things done as large group projects,
>> not as tiny individual projects. All societies have grasped this. That requires collecting money
>> in an organized manner. This system wasn't invented during Obama's second term. It's been obvious
>> for centuries.
>>
>> There are societies with alternative systems. Read _Call Me American_, about the situation in Mogadishu
>> even today. Hey, low taxes! No gun control! FREEDOM! And ... hell. Almost literally, hell.
>>
>> Given that society needs money to run, why should those with mountains of excess money contribute
>> a greater percentage of their income? Why essentials from the poor, when the wealthy have so much
>> money they literally don't know what to do with it.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
>I sincerely wish you never have your street repaved. The
>assessments are bloody hell.
>
>I would love to celebrate and laud the closing of any agency
>department or bureau, Federal, State, County or municipal,
>as the staff are let go, the vehicles, equipment and
>buildings sold.
>
>Do write if you know of such I've waited a very long time.

Well.... I read that the Milwaukee police budget for 2020 was some
$321,470,403. Just think of the tax savings if you get rid of them.
https://www.vera.org/publications/what-policing-costs-in-americas-biggest-cities/milwaukee-wi
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:12:18 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
>> >>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
>> >>>>>>> from taxes.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
>> >>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
>> >>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
>> >>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
>> >>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
>> >>>>>> and found this:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
>> >>>>>> social order."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>> >>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
>> >>>>> principle,
>> >>>>> right.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>> >>>>> nothing much works.
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
>> >>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
>> >>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
>> >>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
>> >>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
>> >>
>> >> Exactly!
>> >>
>> >>> 'Taxes'Â is a very large set of income streams (to the
>> >>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
>> >>> generally. No one.
>> >>>
>> >>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
>> >>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
>> >>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
>> >>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
>> >>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
>> >>
>> >> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
>> >> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
>> >> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
>> >> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
>> >> probably has no need of kerosene!
>> >>
>> >> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
>> >> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
>> >> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
>> >> that _is_ a serious problem.
>> >>
>> >> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
>> >> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
>> >> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
>> >> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
>> >> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
>> >>
>> >> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
>> >> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
>> >> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
>> >> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
>> >> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
>> >> rich paid their fair share.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
>> >
>> >Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
>> >traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!) never
>> >seems to affect the situation for citizens. The rule is ,
>> >'once you solve the problem, the money stops.' Professionals
>> >understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
>> Or perhaps, "well you gave us some, now give us some more!"
>> I read that:
>>
>> "In the 50 years since that time (the war on poverty), U.S. taxpayers
>> have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for
>> inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or
>> Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the
>> American Revolution.
>
>I noticed how you wrote "three times the cost of all U.S. military WARS". NOT three times the cost of all U.S. military spending/budgets. Big, big, big difference. Wars are actually cheap. Its all the years in between where the military spending really adds up.

Well, I copied but never mind. From what I can figure out the Vietnam
War cost $843.63 billion and three times that is 2,530.89 billion.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/

And while I can't find numbers before 1960 for Defense budgets I did
find 1960 - 1975 and the total average Defense budget for those 15
years was about 1,173.6 billion.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
Granted it isn't all inclusive but it is certainly indicative that
wars ain't cheap.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:21:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/25/2022 9:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:58:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2022 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:15:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a SCOTUS
>>>>>>>>> opinion that contained "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized
>>>>>>>>> society", a sentiment that I embrace. I researched it to make sure I
>>>>>>>>> got the attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich') and
>>>>>>>>> found this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of social order."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in principle,
>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>>>>>>>> nothing much works.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where one can
>>>>>>> become rich through a combination of sweat, ingenuity, and luck),
>>>>>>> there is a price to pay. For the richest to avoid taxes - legally or
>>>>>>> not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly!
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the Leviathan) or
>>>>>> expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes' generally. No one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income tax _rates_
>>>>>> (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital gains, 1120 corporation
>>>>>> taxes, inheritance, all the many and various excises (alcohol & tobacco
>>>>>> but also gasoline, tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing gear or
>>>>> kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those are obviously a much
>>>>> bigger burden on a low income subsistence fisherman than on Lars and
>>>>> Buffy. Their yacht probably has no need of kerosene!
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall tax rate paid
>>>>> by the typical billionaire is much lower than the overall tax rate paid
>>>>> by a middle income American. Yes, that _is_ a serious problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total dollars cuts no
>>>>> ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many dollars, and he _should_ pay
>>>>> far more than he does. If he did, the tax rates of typical Americans
>>>>> could drop, and/or the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police and better
>>>>> technology to address gun crime? How about traffic light detectors that
>>>>> would automatically respond to cyclists? How about stopping the sewage
>>>>> overflows into storm water systems? Things like this could be afforded
>>>>> if the rich paid their fair share.
>>>>
>>>> But Frank, I went to some effort to try and explain to you that your
>>>> question is ridiculous. After all you are rich, in relation to may
>>>> others in the U.S. Are you advocating that your taxes be increased?
>>>>
>>>> Given that you have so much more then poor old Tommy I'm shocked that
>>>> you haven't yet made, at least one, contribution to his welfare.
>>>>
>>>> But, of course it isn't YOU is it Frank, it is a matter of "them over
>>>> there". Let them pay. The other guy, not me.
>>>>
>>>> Or jealousy, as it is usually referred to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Founders and Framers were literate men and knew
>>> something of humans and of previous governments (and
>>> failures), much of it in the original Latin and Greek. Being
>>> wise, informed and with the best motivations they wrote into
>>> our Constitution that national direct taxes[1] could only be
>>> levied per capita. The discussions surrounding that make
>>> clear their understanding and fear of codifying envy.
>>>
>>> All that and more went all to hell in 1913. And here we are.
>>>
>>>
>>> {1}Art I, Sec 2.
>>> Excises and duties are separate things and those funded the
>>> entire US Treasury until 1913.`
>>
>> True. But don't ignore the fact that the original U.S. was just that a
>> union of states... each state managing their own affairs, with the
>> Federal government largely responsible for only defense of the country
>> as a whole.
>>
>> The "Bill of Rights", the first amendment, was made largely to ensure
>> the states that their "rights" would not be infringed.
>>
>> Reagan probably wasn't thinking of it when he said, "the most
>> horrifying words are I'm from the government and I've come to help"
>> but they were far more true then he ever imagined.
>>
>>
>
>We are still (nominally, hopefully, temporarily?) a Republic
>comprised of sovereign States. Like it or not we are (were?)
>not structured like France. Nationalizing every little
>thing is not IMHO a good policy generally as both Mr Scarf
>and Mr Krygowski obliquely hinted at earlier.

Looking at history it would appear that if a country has a history of
being a single entity then it works... Canada for instance.

But the U.S. from it's earliest history was a "bunch of places"
settled by, in some cases radically different folks. The Puritans who
settled the Massachusetts colony were very oppressive and bigoted
people, while the settlers in the Jamestown settlement were,
apparently much more liberal.
I don't think that a National Country would have been acceptable.

Look at this "abortion thing". I read that California is rubbing their
hands and practically counting the money as abortions will be legal
there while other states are smugly bragging "It's illegal here".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:42:42 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:12:18 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
> >> >>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
> >> >>>>>>> from taxes.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
> >> >>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
> >> >>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
> >> >>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
> >> >>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
> >> >>>>>> and found this:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
> >> >>>>>> social order."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >> >>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
> >> >>>>> principle,
> >> >>>>> right.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >> >>>>> nothing much works.
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
> >> >>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
> >> >>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
> >> >>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
> >> >>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly!
> >> >>
> >> >>> 'Taxes'Â is a very large set of income streams (to the
> >> >>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
> >> >>> generally. No one.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
> >> >>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
> >> >>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
> >> >>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
> >> >>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
> >> >> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
> >> >> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
> >> >> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
> >> >> probably has no need of kerosene!
> >> >>
> >> >> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
> >> >> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
> >> >> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
> >> >> that _is_ a serious problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
> >> >> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
> >> >> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
> >> >> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
> >> >> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
> >> >>
> >> >> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
> >> >> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
> >> >> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
> >> >> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
> >> >> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
> >> >> rich paid their fair share.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
> >> >
> >> >Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
> >> >traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!) never
> >> >seems to affect the situation for citizens. The rule is ,
> >> >'once you solve the problem, the money stops.' Professionals
> >> >understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
> >> Or perhaps, "well you gave us some, now give us some more!"
> >> I read that:
> >>
> >> "In the 50 years since that time (the war on poverty), U.S. taxpayers
> >> have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for
> >> inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or
> >> Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the
> >> American Revolution.
> >
> >I noticed how you wrote "three times the cost of all U.S. military WARS".. NOT three times the cost of all U.S. military spending/budgets. Big, big, big difference. Wars are actually cheap. Its all the years in between where the military spending really adds up.
> Well, I copied but never mind. From what I can figure out the Vietnam
> War cost $843.63 billion and three times that is 2,530.89 billion.
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/
>
> And while I can't find numbers before 1960 for Defense budgets I did
> find 1960 - 1975 and the total average Defense budget for those 15
> years was about 1,173.6 billion.
> https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
> Granted it isn't all inclusive but it is certainly indicative that
> wars ain't cheap.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

$773 billion FY2023 military budget.
$715 billion FY2022.
$705 billion FY2021.
$721 billion FY2020.
$693 billion FY2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_FY2022

$22 trillion on anti poverty. That is 28 years of our current military budget. The $843 billion for the Vietnam war. Was that the whole 20 years we were in Vietnam? Or just the last 10 or 15 years? $60 billion a year? One twelfth of the military budget. Pay for that out of the spare change jar.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 22:59:27 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:42:42 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:12:18 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
>> >> >>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
>> >> >>>>>>> from taxes.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
>> >> >>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
>> >> >>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
>> >> >>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
>> >> >>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
>> >> >>>>>> and found this:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
>> >> >>>>>> social order."
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>> >> >>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
>> >> >>>>> principle,
>> >> >>>>> right.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>> >> >>>>> nothing much works.
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
>> >> >>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
>> >> >>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
>> >> >>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
>> >> >>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Exactly!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> 'Taxes'Â is a very large set of income streams (to the
>> >> >>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
>> >> >>> generally. No one.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
>> >> >>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
>> >> >>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
>> >> >>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
>> >> >>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
>> >> >> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
>> >> >> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
>> >> >> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
>> >> >> probably has no need of kerosene!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
>> >> >> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
>> >> >> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
>> >> >> that _is_ a serious problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
>> >> >> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
>> >> >> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
>> >> >> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
>> >> >> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
>> >> >> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
>> >> >> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
>> >> >> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
>> >> >> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
>> >> >> rich paid their fair share.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
>> >> >
>> >> >Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
>> >> >traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!) never
>> >> >seems to affect the situation for citizens. The rule is ,
>> >> >'once you solve the problem, the money stops.' Professionals
>> >> >understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
>> >> Or perhaps, "well you gave us some, now give us some more!"
>> >> I read that:
>> >>
>> >> "In the 50 years since that time (the war on poverty), U.S. taxpayers
>> >> have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for
>> >> inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or
>> >> Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the
>> >> American Revolution.
>> >
>> >I noticed how you wrote "three times the cost of all U.S. military WARS". NOT three times the cost of all U.S. military spending/budgets. Big, big, big difference. Wars are actually cheap. Its all the years in between where the military spending really adds up.
>> Well, I copied but never mind. From what I can figure out the Vietnam
>> War cost $843.63 billion and three times that is 2,530.89 billion.
>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/
>>
>> And while I can't find numbers before 1960 for Defense budgets I did
>> find 1960 - 1975 and the total average Defense budget for those 15
>> years was about 1,173.6 billion.
>> https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
>> Granted it isn't all inclusive but it is certainly indicative that
>> wars ain't cheap.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>$773 billion FY2023 military budget.
>$715 billion FY2022.
>$705 billion FY2021.
>$721 billion FY2020.
>$693 billion FY2019.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_FY2022
>
>$22 trillion on anti poverty. That is 28 years of our current military budget. The $843 billion for the Vietnam war. Was that the whole 20 years we were in Vietnam? Or just the last 10 or 15 years? $60 billion a year? One twelfth of the military budget. Pay for that out of the spare change jar.

Nope. You argued that wars are cheap and I pointed out that from 1960
to 1975 the defense budget was *about* 1,173.6 billion the Vietnam
"War" cost was $843.63 billion and three times that is 2,530.89
billion. Wars are costly :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:25:10 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 22:59:27 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:42:42 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 19:12:18 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
> >> >> >>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
> >> >> >>>>>>> from taxes.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
> >> >> >>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
> >> >> >>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
> >> >> >>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
> >> >> >>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
> >> >> >>>>>> and found this:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
> >> >> >>>>>> social order."
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >> >> >>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
> >> >> >>>>> principle,
> >> >> >>>>> right.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >> >> >>>>> nothing much works.
> >> >> >>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
> >> >> >>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
> >> >> >>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
> >> >> >>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
> >> >> >>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Exactly!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> 'Taxes'Â is a very large set of income streams (to the
> >> >> >>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
> >> >> >>> generally. No one.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
> >> >> >>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
> >> >> >>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
> >> >> >>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
> >> >> >>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
> >> >> >> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
> >> >> >> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
> >> >> >> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
> >> >> >> probably has no need of kerosene!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
> >> >> >> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
> >> >> >> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
> >> >> >> that _is_ a serious problem.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
> >> >> >> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
> >> >> >> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
> >> >> >> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
> >> >> >> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
> >> >> >> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
> >> >> >> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
> >> >> >> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
> >> >> >> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
> >> >> >> rich paid their fair share.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
> >> >> >traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!) never
> >> >> >seems to affect the situation for citizens. The rule is ,
> >> >> >'once you solve the problem, the money stops.' Professionals
> >> >> >understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
> >> >> Or perhaps, "well you gave us some, now give us some more!"
> >> >> I read that:
> >> >>
> >> >> "In the 50 years since that time (the war on poverty), U.S. taxpayers
> >> >> have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for
> >> >> inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or
> >> >> Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the
> >> >> American Revolution.
> >> >
> >> >I noticed how you wrote "three times the cost of all U.S. military WARS". NOT three times the cost of all U.S. military spending/budgets. Big, big, big difference. Wars are actually cheap. Its all the years in between where the military spending really adds up.
> >> Well, I copied but never mind. From what I can figure out the Vietnam
> >> War cost $843.63 billion and three times that is 2,530.89 billion.
> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/
> >>
> >> And while I can't find numbers before 1960 for Defense budgets I did
> >> find 1960 - 1975 and the total average Defense budget for those 15
> >> years was about 1,173.6 billion.
> >> https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
> >> Granted it isn't all inclusive but it is certainly indicative that
> >> wars ain't cheap.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> >$773 billion FY2023 military budget.
> >$715 billion FY2022.
> >$705 billion FY2021.
> >$721 billion FY2020.
> >$693 billion FY2019.
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_FY2022
> >
> >$22 trillion on anti poverty. That is 28 years of our current military budget. The $843 billion for the Vietnam war. Was that the whole 20 years we were in Vietnam? Or just the last 10 or 15 years? $60 billion a year? One twelfth of the military budget. Pay for that out of the spare change jar.
> Nope. You argued that wars are cheap and I pointed out that from 1960
> to 1975 the defense budget was *about* 1,173.6 billion the Vietnam
> "War" cost was $843.63 billion and three times that is 2,530.89
> billion. Wars are costly :-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.