On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:56:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2022 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Well, that depends. When we moved "out here" to a small village about
>> 200 km N.E. of Bangkok we, or my wife was, advised by the neighbors
>> NOT to drink the water as "city water isn't safe". I have no idea
>> whether they were speaking from experience or not but we do drink
>> bottled water. Several 20 liter water bottles a week. and so far no
>> water born problems (:-) My wife tells me that the cost is 30 baht/20
>> liter bottle and, again my wife says, 5 - 7 bottles a month so say 210
>> baht, about $6.00 a month.
>>
>> But my wife's father was Chinese and the Chinese are known for being,
>> well, a bit finicky, and I remember when we were first married the
>> last thing in the day, after cooking supper, my wife would set two
>> kettles of water on her charcoal cooking pots to boil tomorrow's
>> drinking water (:-)
>
>As I've said, I like that part of my taxes ensure that our drinking
>water is safe. I much prefer it to, say, paying fewer taxes and
>sanitizing my own water.

I worked around water sanitizing plants a tiny bit and I don't believe
it is the sanitizing process at fault. Or at least I was told that
output water was checked to the Nth degree. I believe it is the miles
and miles of pipelines all with the possibility of leaks that is the
problem.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On 5/25/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> When Los Angeles says the hordes of homeless are no longer a problem
> I'll believe you:

You can't really compare the handful of large, poorly-run, cities like
L.A., San Francisco, and Oakland to the large number of smaller cities
that are more likely to be well-run.

The homelessness issue is the result of decades of policy changes that
cannot be undone.

It began in 1967 with then Governor Reagan signing the
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which was well-intentioned, and might have
worked had there been someplace for the mentally ill patients to go. It
continued when Reagan was president when in 1981 he repealed the Mental
Health Systems Act.

The loss of living-wage, unskilled union jobs, in manufacturing,
defense, steel plants, shipyards, etc., has created an underclass of
lower-educated residents that can no longer earn enough to be part of
the middle class and have become disillusioned and resentful.

On 5/25/2022 4:11 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> I worked around water sanitizing plants a tiny bit and I don't believe
> it is the sanitizing process at fault. Or at least I was told that
> output water was checked to the Nth degree. I believe it is the miles
> and miles of pipelines all with the possibility of leaks that is the
> problem.

The industry standard for water distributors is to replace 1% of the
pipes, pumps, tanks, etc. per year. So over 100 years everything is
replaced. There is no expectation that they can prevent all the leaks,
that would be impractical. The other issue is that corrosion inhibiters
are added to the water to prevent corrosion of the pipes.

Water companies will always proclaim that their water is perfectly safe.
but you probably don't want to drink the tap water in most places.
First of all, there is the taste and the smell, usually of chlorine.
Second there are trace amounts of many harmful chemicals, in
concentrations that are deemed safe, but those levels are often set with
political considerations. You won't immediately get sick, but long-term
exposure to the chemicals in the water should be avoided.

The concept of buying bottled water to drink is pretty recent in the U.S..

See 11:08 of <https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=411042356436661>

"Are you crazy, Who'd ever buy water? I can get water out of the faucet."

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:48:15 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
> > > involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
> > > that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
> > > I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
> > >
> > > But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
> > > friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
> > > well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
> > >
> > > I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
> > > where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
> > > with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
> > > husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
> > > unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
> > >
> > > He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
> > >
> > > As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
> > > because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
> > > wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
> > > though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
> > > motorists who die of brain injury.)
> > >
> > > My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
> > > zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
> > > certification test.
> > >
> > >
> > Sorry to hear!
> >
> > Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
> > folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
> > by what appears to be something quite benign.
> >
> > Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.
>
> Since crashes, by their very nature, are chaotic events, no amount of knowledge can lead to any changes in cyclists behavior that will have any effect beyond safe riding practives. It APPEARS that safety helmets and most certainly the latest Bontrager Wavecell helmets, can reduce fall over deaths but these are already near the smallest possible. My near death experience could NOT have been avoided and my head was less than 3 feet above the ground.
>
> When Frank isn't touting communism he advocates that other cyclist take the same chances he does by not wearing a helmet. Are these serious chances? No, but I was walking down the street yesterday and lost the view of the visual horizon when glacing down at the phone expecting a call from my mechanic. Since I have no balance since my concussion, I tripped over the uneven pavement and fell down in front of God and miles of heavy traffic. Falling on the sidewalk was hardly dangerous but who knows what may happen in such circumstances. There was a tree there. What if instead of falling clear of it I had hit my head on the truck of that tree? My guess is that 99% of the people that Frank rides with wears a helmet. And that despite that his friend was killed. In Frank's mind then, helmets are useless if they don't prevent 100% of all fall-over deaths.
>
> I note in the header that there are over 400 postings on this sting. What percentage do you supoose have the slightest thing to do with Frank's friend being killed? I'm sure that jn this string somewhere, rather than bemoaning the passing of his friend, Frank is promoting communism so that he can live off of the work of others. He is supposedly an engineer and a teacher but he clearly has never coldly analyzed why Billionaires don't pay the sorts of taxes that Frank thinks they should. Colleges and Universities live largely off charitable donations from multi-millionaires and Billionaires because it gives them income reductions leading to fewer taxes. Not NO TAXES and Frank purports and NOT less taxes than he pays as he has no trouble lying about. It is impossible to have large incomes without paying large amounts in taxes.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
The one above is a good one. It shows the income reported and income taxes paid. Income, not wealth. Shows Warren and Bezos paid 20-25% tax rate. Musk 30%. Bloomberg at only 3% is very odd.(I guess its due to charitable contributions.) But it appears their income tax rate is sort of correct for their reported income.

> It is possible to be so charitable that you can reduce your taxes to the same rates that Frank pays. That is what he is sniveling about. He thinks because these people live rich that they should be paying more than he does.
>
> Most people have work to perform because of billionaires and the like. Frank would just as soon the entire world was living in homeless camps if he could live better than he does.
>
> What about his friend? He supposedly died from the inability to unclip from his pedal. He is wiling to demonize clipless pedals. Anyone that does anything DIFFERENT from Frank is clearly in the wrong. If the man died he didn't die from falling over. He had a heart attack or stroke and simply died while everyone looked on helpless to do anything. Obviously a covid-19 death - right Russell?

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.

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

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@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. 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 5/25/2022 6:14 PM, funkma...@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.
>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

All of that can be true. We're a large country and if
nothing else diverse in all aspects.

That said a guy working with no savings whatsoever cannot
plan and arrange his taxable income to limit the
confiscation. As an intellectual exercise that makes sense I
think.

The tragic aspect the past two years are people working 1099
jobs who disastrously discover at year end that they are
responsible for the 15.9% payroll tax besides FIT and State
levies. They have no means to pay it as every penny runs
through their fingers.

And to your other point, Mr Buffet's secretary has wage
income. Mr Buffet does not. The income tax regime treats
zero income as zero tax liability. Don't cry, write your
Congressman and best of luck with that.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/25/2022 6:37 PM, sms wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> When Los Angeles says the hordes of homeless are no longer
>> a problem I'll believe you:
>
> You can't really compare the handful of large, poorly-run,
> cities like L.A., San Francisco, and Oakland to the large
> number of smaller cities that are more likely to be well-run.
>
> The homelessness issue is the result of decades of policy
> changes that cannot be undone.
>
> It began in 1967 with then Governor Reagan signing the
> Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which was well-intentioned, and
> might have worked had there been someplace for the mentally
> ill patients to go. It continued when Reagan was president
> when in 1981 he repealed the Mental Health Systems Act.
>
> The loss of living-wage, unskilled union jobs, in
> manufacturing, defense, steel plants, shipyards, etc., has
> created an underclass of lower-educated residents that can
> no longer earn enough to be part of the middle class and
> have become disillusioned and resentful.
>

> "...smaller cities that are more likely to be well-run."

We can agree on that.

In a small village (Mr Krygowski, you, me)the officials live
just down thw block and can't escape responsibility. I
suspect they have both good intentions and a capacity for
shame, both of which are sadly lacking in many venues.

But small is not dispositive.

https://www.latimes.com/local/bell/la-me-bell-scandal-a-times-investigation-20160211-storygallery.html

https://ndsn.org/marapr97/fordhts.html

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

On Wed, 25 May 2022 11:52:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2022 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 11:49:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some corporate
>>>>>> entities which pay a tax rate below average, and some zero. Congress in
>>>>>> its wisdom has written a gazillion carve-outs, credits, deductions,
>>>>>> exemptions etc and an accountant or tax attorney would be remiss in not
>>>>>> availing those to his client's advantage when filing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I woudl add
>>>>>> patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in your links had
>>>>>> actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and imprisonment. More, the
>>>>>> larger one's income, the more likely an audit. Very large entities are
>>>>>> routinely audited for every filing every year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call out Elon Musk for
>>>>>> not 'paying his fair share':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't enough, maybe one
>>>>>> ought to reconsider the proposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world history, they should
>>>>> pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How is that not obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone of that ilk
>>>>> violated the law. It's simply saying that the law should be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's this:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest
>>>>> man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat
>>>>> again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest
>>>>> person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire
>>>>> investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income
>>>>> tax three years in a row.
>>>>>
>>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on
>>>>> the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering
>>>>> more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented look inside the
>>>>> financial lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill
>>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just their
>>>>> income and taxes, but also their investments, stock trades, gambling
>>>>> winnings and even the results of audits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax
>>>>> system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans
>>>>> pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly
>>>>> legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds
>>>>> of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.
>>>>>
>>>>> [from
>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>> ]
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a mega-yacht, or Bill
>>>>> Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to a mansion. That money could be
>>>>> put to far better use, paying for things that are now funded by the
>>>>> taxes of much less prosperous people.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the theme here is "TAX the RICH! (Rah! Rah! Rah!)
>>>> but what is "rich"? Those that "have more money then you do"? "Those
>>>> that have more money then the poor"? Or just point the finger and
>>>> BANG! "You are rich!"
>>>
>>> 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 (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 07:56:50 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/24/2022 5:15 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 11:55:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2022 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 13:43:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some
>>>>>>>> corporate entities which pay a tax rate below average, and
>>>>>>>> some zero. Congress in its wisdom has written a gazillion
>>>>>>>> carve-outs, credits, deductions, exemptions etc and an
>>>>>>>> accountant or tax attorney would be remiss in not availing
>>>>>>>> those to his client's advantage when filing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I
>>>>>>>> woudl add patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in your
>>>>>>>> links had actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and
>>>>>>>> imprisonment. More, the larger one's income, the more
>>>>>>>> likely an audit. Very large entities are routinely audited
>>>>>>>> for every filing every year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call out
>>>>>>>> Elon Musk for not 'paying his fair share':
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't
>>>>>>>> enough, maybe one ought to reconsider the proposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world history,
>>>>>>> they should pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How
>>>>>>> is that not obvious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone of
>>>>>>> that ilk violated the law. It's simply saying that the law
>>>>>>> should be changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the
>>>>>>> world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income
>>>>>>> taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla
>>>>>>> founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world,
>>>>>>> also paid no federal income taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years.
>>>>>>> Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros
>>>>>>> paid no federal income tax three years in a row.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue
>>>>>>> Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the
>>>>>>> nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.
>>>>>>> The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial
>>>>>>> lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill
>>>>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just
>>>>>>> their income and taxes, but also their investments, stock
>>>>>>> trades, gambling winnings and even the results of audits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the
>>>>>>> American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and
>>>>>>> the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show
>>>>>>> that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income
>>>>>>> taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of
>>>>>>> millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [from
>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a
>>>>>>> mega-yacht, or Bill Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to
>>>>>>> a mansion. That money could be put to far better use, paying
>>>>>>> for things that are now funded by the taxes of much less
>>>>>>> prosperous people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Society benefits greatly from those men regardless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Investment, employment and development benefit society, the economy and
>>>>>> culture I would argue as much as or probably more than pissing cash into
>>>>>> the great corruption machines.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't deny that Musk, Bezos and Gates have brought benefits to
>>>>> society. But if they were actually taxed the same percentage of their
>>>>> income as you or I, they would still have generated those same benefits.
>>>>> There's no way Musk is going to say "I'm making a little less money so
>>>>> I'm quitting."
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to believe the myth that all government is terrible, wasteful
>>>>> and inefficient and that private enterprise is the opposite. That does
>>>>> not jibe with my experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me give a fresh example - admittedly, second hand. A woman I know
>>>>> well recently changed jobs. After years of working for a city
>>>>> government, she recently took a rather similar job with a manufacturing
>>>>> company with big new projects. She's using the same skills as before,
>>>>> but at a much, much higher salary.
>>>>>
>>>>> After a short time on the job, she needed to organize a meeting of
>>>>> various manufacturing representatives and government officials. She
>>>>> decided it would be necessary to get caterers for a light lunch and
>>>>> asked her superior about her budget for that. Her superior said "Don't
>>>>> worry about it. Spend whatever you need to spend. I know this is new for
>>>>> you, but trust me, they don't care how much you spend, so it's better
>>>>> not to bother them. It took me months to learn that."
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and vaguely related: The company also pays for lunches and snacks
>>>>> for all employees, every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> My friend told me, "Coming from government, this is really hard to get
>>>>> used to. Working for the city, I chipped in six dollars a month for
>>>>> water for the office."
>>>>
>>>> I know it isn't what you are trying to prove but the lunches that the
>>>> company "they don't care how much you spend" are part of the company's
>>>> operating expenses and thus serve to reduce taxes (:-)
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to prove that the government is a relatively "lean"
>>> operation. The company I'm describing is happy to spend investor dollars
>>> on free employee food. The city government made the employees pay for
>>> anything that wasn't tap water.
>>>
>>
>> But was it "free food" in the corporate sense? I can visualize a
>> sequence of events where providing free food could result in lower
>> taxes and this actually result in more return in the pockets of the
>> share holders.
>>
>> As an example, the company I worked for paid for monthly travel from
>> the job site to Singapore or Jakarta and return for employees working
>> in the field. Really nice, kind hearted company, right? But in reality
>> charged against the contract income as a "cost" it paid for itself in
>> reduced tax costs.
>>
>>> (FWIW, I think bottled water or special water cooler water is silly, but
>>> apparently others disagree.)
>>
>> Well, that depends. When we moved "out here" to a small village about
>> 200 km N.E. of Bangkok we, or my wife was, advised by the neighbors
>> NOT to drink the water as "city water isn't safe". I have no idea
>> whether they were speaking from experience or not but we do drink
>> bottled water. Several 20 liter water bottles a week. and so far no
>> water born problems (:-) My wife tells me that the cost is 30 baht/20
>> liter bottle and, again my wife says, 5 - 7 bottles a month so say 210
>> baht, about $6.00 a month.
>
>In my area, while the tap water is relatively safe, the chlorine smell
>is overwhelming. Most people in my area have either an R-O filter for
>drinking and cooking water, or they buy water in 5 gallon bottles,
>either delivered or filled at a water store (that uses R-O). An R-O
>system is pretty easy to install and a lot less trouble, and less
>expensive, than those 5 gallon bottles.
>
>Most companies in Silicon Valley provide water dispensers for drinking
>water, either delivered or an R-O system.
>
>As to "free food," having worked at companies where free food was
>provided (and free beer and wine as well at one company), it was done as
>a way to keep employees working. When you provide a lunch or dinner that
>costs the company $5 per employee, but the employee works for a lot more
>hours, it's a pretty obvious cost savings, even when there is some
>abuse. The local restaurants hate that companies are doing this. One
>local city banned free cafeterias
><https://www.eater.com/2018/7/23/17603424/facebook-mountain-view-ca-free-cafeteria-ban>.

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

On 5/25/2022 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:00:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@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. 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
>

As I quoted here recently. 'Cancer and poverty have more
people living off them than dying from them.' Tru dat.

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

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?
--
Cheers,

John B.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

- Frank Krygowski

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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

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

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

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:19:01 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> 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.

Please don't claim that if Jobs paid 15% more in taxes, there would be
no Apple corporation.

- Frank Krygowski