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.
> --

What's wrong with Minitel?

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
> 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?
>

It likely has to do with infrastructure spend, but I hope you aren't implying that floridas finances are run better. Harkening back to 'avoiding paying their fair share', NY is the largest donor state to the federal government, while florida ranks #8 in money _taken_ from the feds. I guess it's easier to manage your budget when you're counting on the rest of the country to pay your bills.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:14:43 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <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.
> >
> 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.

If you're playing a semantic game, then it's also true that you _don't_ have access to those tools if you don't have the income sources and levels of the ultra rich. It doesn't matter if you can see the brass ring dangling in front of you when you can't reach it.

>
> 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.

If that were true, people wouldn't bother paying for tax lawyers. Besides that, As of 2021 the US federal tax code contained 10000 sections:

https://www.efile.com/tax-history-and-the-tax-code/

generally written in tax law language. Are you going to stay with 'knowing the tax code and applying the rules and regulations is nothing out of the ordinary'? If so, 'the world you live(d) in' is fantasy. The code changes every year. Keeping up with that is a full time job, understanding it is another matter entirely.

>
> 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.

Thank you for making my point. If you don't have the income, you can't take advantage of the tax breaks (Andrews valid point about people with very low incomes notwithstanding).

parable: "gee, that brass ring is just out of reach. Maybe you could grab it if you were just a little taller, or had a stool to stand on"

where:
brass ring = tax breaks
a little taller = born into wealth
step stool = lucky enough to have earned enough to buy a financial 'step stool'.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:17:53 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> >
> > 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".
> >
> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the
> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
> generally. No one.
>

ok, for the richest to avoid _income_ taxes - legally or not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".

Better?

On Thu, 26 May 2022 03:13:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:17:53 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >
>> > 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".
>> >
>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the
>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
>> generally. No one.
>>
>
>ok, for the richest to avoid _income_ taxes - legally or not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".
>
>Better?

But...
The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual
income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3
percent.
and
The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes
(38.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.2 percent).
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

And you want more?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 03:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:14:43 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <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.
>> >
>> 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.
>
>If you're playing a semantic game, then it's also true that you _don't_ have access to those tools if you don't have the income sources and levels of the ultra rich. It doesn't matter if you can see the brass ring dangling in front of you when you can't reach it.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>If that were true, people wouldn't bother paying for tax lawyers. Besides that, As of 2021 the US federal tax code contained 10000 sections:
>
>https://www.efile.com/tax-history-and-the-tax-code/
>
>generally written in tax law language. Are you going to stay with 'knowing the tax code and applying the rules and regulations is nothing out of the ordinary'? If so, 'the world you live(d) in' is fantasy. The code changes every year. Keeping up with that is a full time job, understanding it is another matter entirely.

No, the code do not change changes every year. Yes some portions might
differ from last year's but for the majority of the law there is no
significant changes.

>>
>> 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.
>
>Thank you for making my point. If you don't have the income, you can't take advantage of the tax breaks (Andrews valid point about people with very low incomes notwithstanding).

But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)

>parable: "gee, that brass ring is just out of reach. Maybe you could grab it if you were just a little taller, or had a stool to stand on"
>
>where:
>brass ring = tax breaks
>a little taller = born into wealth
>step stool = lucky enough to have earned enough to buy a financial 'step stool'.

Modern American fantasy?

I ask as I've been a salaried employee all my life and we are, as the
saying goes, comfortable. Why shouldn't others do the same?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/25/2022 10:26 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.
>

Yes, that's all correct.

Analysis of the actual numbers (2017= Obama era tax rules)
points to a schism of philosophy not an arithmetical or
statistical dispute.

https://reason.com/2012/01/27/obamas-bogus-case-for-tax-fairness/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/26/2022 12:59 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.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.
>

What was the effect of both expenditures?

The Pentagon has a decidedly mixed record (people of every
philosophical or political persuasion agree on that)

The War on Poverty has handed a magnificent victory to
peverty and the attendant apparatus of the poverty racket.

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

On 5/26/2022 4:51 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> It likely has to do with infrastructure spend, but I hope you aren't implying that floridas finances are run better. Harkening back to 'avoiding paying their fair share', NY is the largest donor state to the federal government, while florida ranks #8 in money _taken_ from the feds. I guess it's easier to manage your budget when you're counting on the rest of the country to pay your bills.
>
> https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states
>

As with the concurrent discussion of FIT, there are rules
(not made by NY or FL) and one can observe them. Or not.

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

On 5/26/2022 5:13 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:17:53 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the
>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
>> generally. No one.
>>
>
> ok, for the richest to avoid _income_ taxes - legally or not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".
>
> Better?
>

That's correct. Taxpayers don't write the rules.

But don't cry, write your Congressman. The framers' original
idea (fixed amount per person) would suit me nicely. YMMV

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

On 5/25/2022 7:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> 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/>
>
I believe that the MVNOs participating in the California Lifeline
program include all the taxes and fees.

"As a part of the California LifeLine benefits, the approved California
LifeLine cell phone companies must exempt participants from taxes, fees,
and surcharges associated with the California LifeLine discounted
wireless telephone services. "

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:21:23 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/26/2022 12:59 AM, russell...@yahoo.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.
> >
> What was the effect of both expenditures?
>
> The Pentagon has a decidedly mixed record (people of every
> philosophical or political persuasion agree on that)
>
> The War on Poverty has handed a magnificent victory to
> peverty and the attendant apparatus of the poverty racket.

On 5/26/2022 8:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/26/2022 4:51 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> It likely has to do with infrastructure spend, but I hope you aren't
>> implying that floridas finances are run better. Harkening back to
>> 'avoiding paying their fair share', NY is the largest donor state to
>> the federal government, while florida ranks #8 in money _taken_ from
>> the feds. I guess it's easier to manage your budget when you're
>> counting on the rest of the country to pay your bills.
>>
>> https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states
>>
>
> As with the concurrent discussion of FIT, there are rules (not made by
> NY or FL) and one can observe them. Or not.

One can also discuss them, and revise them when the rules are crappy.

Rules that give huge tax breaks to the super-wealthy and demand taxes
from those much less wealthy are crappy. They need revised. (As do rules
that abet mass killings.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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.

They are not available to everybody, despite your repetition of that
fantasy.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2022 11:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2022 8:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/26/2022 4:51 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It likely has to do with infrastructure spend, but I hope
>>> you aren't implying that floridas finances are run
>>> better. Harkening back to 'avoiding paying their fair
>>> share', NY is the largest donor state to the federal
>>> government, while florida ranks #8 in money _taken_ from
>>> the feds. I guess it's easier to manage your budget when
>>> you're counting on the rest of the country to pay your
>>> bills.
>>>
>>> https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As with the concurrent discussion of FIT, there are rules
>> (not made by NY or FL) and one can observe them. Or not.
>
> One can also discuss them, and revise them when the rules
> are crappy.
>
> Rules that give huge tax breaks to the super-wealthy and
> demand taxes from those much less wealthy are crappy. They
> need revised. (As do rules that abet mass killings.)
>
>

Speaking of, half the population pays zero. How 'fair' is
that?

We're in a complex pseudo-socialist administrative state
with complex rules for everything. There are hardly any
principles now, only interests. make your peace with it
because it's not getting better.

Or, hey, embrace hope- write your Congressman.

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

On 5/26/2022 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
> a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
> save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
> since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)

Your "portions" are undefined, and are probably hypothetical and/or
minimal.

There are certainly countless people who spend beyond their means. I
just finished a conversation with one such neighbor. I'm astonished at
what she buys, given her finances (which, BTW, are what I'd call middle
class).

But there are also countless poor people who indulge in only the tiniest
luxuries. I have a friend like that. You might begrudge his tiny
luxuries. ("You shouldn't have paid so much for that sandwich! Just eat
at home!") But to me he should be allowed to live a bit above starvation
level.

Similarly, a woman I know very well is very intelligent, very well
educated, an award winning artist of national repute. During the 1990s
she remarked that she was living on less than $10,000 per year. If she
chose to, say, buy a theater ticket, I don't think anyone should have
complained.

I don't know what "portion" of those folks meager incomes are or were
put aside, just as I don't know the "portion" you bragged about. I'm
just using them as examples that low income people are not necessarily
wasting lots of money.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 10:23 PM, 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/

As Russell has demonstrated, that's a minimal difference in taxes levied
on an enormous difference in income, not to mention wealth.

American society is structured to give heavy advantages to the super
wealthy. This is one of the roots of our national problems and national
discontent and unrest. Countries with less financial disparity are
healthier, less crime-ridden, more pleasant, more content.

It takes money to run a civilization. Those with excess money should pay
more. Those with grossly excess money should pay much, much more.

But they've recruited even many middle class or lower class
right-wingers to argue in their favor. What a wonderful scam!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 11:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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?

I'm talking about my _personal_ reasons for not _personally_ donating to
Tommy. The government can't micromanage decisions regarding individuals
in the way voluntary donors can.

I'm fine with, say, lowering Tommy's tax rate by increasing Bill Gates's
tax rate. Even though Tommy will probably waste the extra money by
trying to pretend he's riding like a 40 year old.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2022 8:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/26/2022 5:13 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:17:53 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the
>>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
>>> generally. No one.
>>>
>>
>> ok, for the richest to avoid _income_ taxes - legally or not - is akin
>> to "making everyone else pay for it".
>>
>> Better?
>>
>
> That's correct. Taxpayers don't write the rules.
>
> But don't cry, write your Congressman. The framers' original idea (fixed
> amount per person) would suit me nicely. YMMV

Sure, write your congressman. Your letter will go in one pile. The
multi-thousand dollar re-election donation from your town's wealthiest
resident will go in another pile. Guess which pile gets thrown away?

When the chance comes, elect a different congressman.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2022 12:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 10:23 PM, 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/
>
>
> As Russell has demonstrated, that's a minimal difference in
> taxes levied on an enormous difference in income, not to
> mention wealth.
>
> American society is structured to give heavy advantages to
> the super wealthy. This is one of the roots of our national
> problems and national discontent and unrest. Countries with
> less financial disparity are healthier, less crime-ridden,
> more pleasant, more content.
>
> It takes money to run a civilization. Those with excess
> money should pay more. Those with grossly excess money
> should pay much, much more.
>
> But they've recruited even many middle class or lower class
> right-wingers to argue in their favor. What a wonderful scam!
>
>

Hey I resemble that remark. As a taxpayer, I resent the
half of USAians who don't pay any FIT as much as I do the
politicians pocketing envelopes of tax free cash and the
crooked contractors who pay it.

But that's our system, a mess of bad incentives whishful
thinking, willful ignorance and outright propaganda. People
bitch (yep that's us) but nothing changes.

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

On 5/25/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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 (:-)

Despite Tom's howling, I'm not talking about communism.

There are plenty of non-communist countries with far less income and
wealth disparity than the U.S., a result of more rational policies. We
have several posters here who live in such countries. Those countries
tend to have greater public safety, better infrastructure, better health
care by far, fewer social problems in general and higher public
contentment and satisfaction than the U.S.

I note that you choose not to live in the U.S. You must perceive some
advantages to that choice. If not, you'd be over here getting super-rich
off the tax strategies you allude to - right?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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?

That's exactly backwards logic! Ford's decision _reduced_ income
disparity, and it worked.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 9:23 PM, AMuzi 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.

??? Our street was repaved three years ago, IIRC. I voted for the tax
levy that allowed that.

Seriously what are you lobbying for? Potholes? Gravel roads everywhere?
Or is gravel too luxurious, do you prefer dirt and mud?

> 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.

You need to move to Mogadishu.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2022 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/26/2022 11:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/26/2022 8:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2022 4:51 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It likely has to do with infrastructure spend, but I hope
>>>> you aren't implying that floridas finances are run
>>>> better. Harkening back to 'avoiding paying their fair
>>>> share', NY is the largest donor state to the federal
>>>> government, while florida ranks #8 in money _taken_ from
>>>> the feds. I guess it's easier to manage your budget when
>>>> you're counting on the rest of the country to pay your
>>>> bills.
>>>>
>>>> https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As with the concurrent discussion of FIT, there are rules
>>> (not made by NY or FL) and one can observe them. Or not.
>>
>> One can also discuss them, and revise them when the rules
>> are crappy.
>>
>> Rules that give huge tax breaks to the super-wealthy and
>> demand taxes from those much less wealthy are crappy. They
>> need revised. (As do rules that abet mass killings.)
>>
>>
>
> Speaking of, half the population pays zero. How 'fair' is that?
>
> We're in a complex pseudo-socialist administrative state with complex
> rules for everything. There are hardly any principles now, only
> interests. make your peace with it because it's not getting better.

Take heart! Mogadishu wants citizens!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2022 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That's exactly backwards logic! Ford's decision _reduced_
> income disparity, and it worked.
>

Some people get credit for that, some don't:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-families-idUSKBN26J2LZ

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