On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:56:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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.)

Ah yes, mass killings. The recent school shootings, truly horrible. 22
people shot and killed. My God, something must be done!

And on the same day more then 300 died of the virus and nobody even
noticed it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.

Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
popcorn. What could be finer?

And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
entire salary into savings.

I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
Fund, as a 20 year old.

>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.

It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
interest on a credit card :-)

But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
$1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
I can remember living in.

But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
savings.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.

But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
live!

Are you now saying that it isn't?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:03:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.

All very, what's the word I want to use? Abstract? You moan and grown
about income disparity but when given a chance to actually, your very
own self, do something about it, you cry, "Why me?"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:16:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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 "from each according to their
>> ability and to each according to their needs" 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?

No Frank, I wasn't implying that you were/are a Communist. I merely
pointed out that the Communist had tried a system of "from each
according to their ability and to each according to their needs", very
much like your theory of income parity. And it didn't work. In fact it
resulted in the downfall of the Soviet Union.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:48:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@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.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country
GINI index. 0-100 scale. Higher the number more wealth disparity, concentration. Lower the number more wealth equality, dispersion.

USA 41.4
China 38.5
Russia 37.5
Italy 35.9
Lithuania 35.7
Vietnam 35.7
India 35.7
Luxembourg 35.4
Latvia 35.1
United Kingdom 35.1
Thailand 34.9 John's country
Spain 34.7
Australia 34.4
Portugal 33.5
Canada 33.3 DAM-ed Canadians!!!!!!!!!!!
Switzerland 33.1
Greece 32.9
Japan 32.9
France 32.4
Germany
Ireland 31.4
Sout Korea 31.4
Austria 30.8
Estonia 30.3
Sweden 30
Denmark 28.2
Netherlands 28.1 Lou's country
Norway 27.6
Finland 27.3
Belgium 27.2
Ukraine 26.6

I'm pretty sure almost all the countries listed above, except for the USA, have some kind of government provided health care system for all citizens.

> 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 Thu, 26 May 2022 13:01:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.

As I think I've mentioned, it is very much a matter of semantics. But
every "trick", as you term it, in the Tax Law is equally "available"
to anyone paying taxes. The question is whether they "avail"
themselves of the "trick".

But, as I believe I've mentioned, when I lived in the U.S. I once went
to H&R Block to have my taxes calculated. They used the maximum
allowable amount for payment to charities and miles driven to work...
I seem to remember that gasoline tax was deductible... and when I
protested that I didn't donate that much or drive that ,any miles they
told me, "Take it... they never check"

So yes there are "tricks" that po folk can use.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:09:08 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>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.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "The government you elect is the government
you deserve".
And remember, a "democracy" is a government by the majority.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:20:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >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.
> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
> live!
>
> Are you now saying that it isn't?
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

John, for some reason you are not distinguishing the different levels, quality of democracies. Same with dictators. The Vatican is a country. And the Pope is the dictator. But everyone seems to get along OK inside the Vatican. So not all dictators are bad it seems. Despite the USA portraying all dictators as evil. England, South Korea, Japan, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Portugal, and maybe a few more. They all seem to run their democracies better than the USA. And as I am sure you know. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic. There are no democratically elected federal officers. The only democracy happens at the state/republic level.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:23:34 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:01:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 5/25/2022 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@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.
> As I think I've mentioned, it is very much a matter of semantics. But
> every "trick", as you term it, in the Tax Law is equally "available"
> to anyone paying taxes. The question is whether they "avail"
> themselves of the "trick".

"Avail themselves of the trick"? How can I avail myself of the property tax and mortgage interest deduction if I do not own a house? Or the charitable deduction if I do not give money to a 501c3 enterprise? Or the child tax credit if I do not have children? Many, most, all of the federal tax code is applicable only to a select few people. Which is what Frank is arguing. Many of the tax laws the rich use are not available to the poor. Due to not having enough money to meet the requirements. There is no availing to it. They don't qualify so cannot use it.

>
> But, as I believe I've mentioned, when I lived in the U.S. I once went
> to H&R Block to have my taxes calculated. They used the maximum
> allowable amount for payment to charities and miles driven to work...
> I seem to remember that gasoline tax was deductible... and when I
> protested that I didn't donate that much or drive that ,any miles they
> told me, "Take it... they never check"
>
> So yes there are "tricks" that po folk can use.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:32:40 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:20:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
>> live!
>>
>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>John, for some reason you are not distinguishing the different levels, quality of democracies. Same with dictators. The Vatican is a country. And the Pope is the dictator. But everyone seems to get along OK inside the Vatican. So not all dictators are bad it seems. Despite the USA portraying all dictators as evil. England, South Korea, Japan, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Portugal, and maybe a few more. They all seem to run their democracies better than the USA. And as I am sure you know. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic. There are no democratically elected federal officers. The only democracy happens at the state/republic level.

Nope.
But yes, I do understand that the U.S. is not a "pure" democracy, I
believe technically it is called a "democratic republic" in that the
country is ruled by appointed officials and these officials are
appointed by the public election.

As for the "good, better, best" evaluation of democracies... Probably
the greatest progress, since WW II, was Singapore which went from
bombed rubble in 1945 to the "market place" for South East Asia by
1970. Under the auspices of the PAP - People's Action Party - with
Lee Quan Yew a virtual dictator - the PAP held all the seats in the
parliament.

And Indonesia, after the Communist uprising. Yet another "democratic"
government with a "strong Man", virtual dictator, in power.

Thailand sort of stutters and stammers. We have a coup and the
military rules and law enforcement is strict and thus crime decreases
but on the other hand economic growth seems to be much more rapid
under civilian governments with less strict law enforcement.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/25/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:48:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkr...@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.
>
>https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country
>GINI index. 0-100 scale. Higher the number more wealth disparity, concentration. Lower the number more wealth equality, dispersion.
>
>USA 41.4
>China 38.5
>Russia 37.5
>Italy 35.9
>Lithuania 35.7
>Vietnam 35.7
>India 35.7
>Luxembourg 35.4
>Latvia 35.1
>United Kingdom 35.1
>Thailand 34.9 John's country
>Spain 34.7
>Australia 34.4
>Portugal 33.5
>Canada 33.3 DAM-ed Canadians!!!!!!!!!!!
>Switzerland 33.1
>Greece 32.9
>Japan 32.9
>France 32.4
>Germany
>Ireland 31.4
>Sout Korea 31.4
>Austria 30.8
>Estonia 30.3
>Sweden 30
>Denmark 28.2
>Netherlands 28.1 Lou's country
>Norway 27.6
>Finland 27.3
>Belgium 27.2
>Ukraine 26.6
>
>I'm pretty sure almost all the countries listed above, except for the USA, have some kind of government provided health care system for all citizens.
>

I firmly believe that the income disparity that Frank rants about is
simply human nature. In extremely primitive cultures - people running
around naked with a spear - there are "Big Men" who are leaders, have
more pigs (symbol of wealth) and more wives to take care of the pigs,
then everyone else.

In every country I've lived in there have been rich men and poor men
and in nearly all cases, noticeably in developing countries, it is due
to the individual's own efforts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/26/2022 8:32 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:20:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
>> live!
>>
>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> John, for some reason you are not distinguishing the different levels, quality of democracies. Same with dictators. The Vatican is a country. And the Pope is the dictator. But everyone seems to get along OK inside the Vatican. So not all dictators are bad it seems. Despite the USA portraying all dictators as evil. England, South Korea, Japan, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Portugal, and maybe a few more. They all seem to run their democracies better than the USA. And as I am sure you know. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic. There are no democratically elected federal officers. The only democracy happens at the state/republic level.
>

uh, pontiffs are 'elected' as much as anyone could be (with
the usual sub rosa influences of course).

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

On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
> popcorn. What could be finer?
>
> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
> entire salary into savings.
>
> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
> Fund, as a 20 year old.
>
>> 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.
>
> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
>
> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
> interest on a credit card :-)
>
> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
> I can remember living in.
>
> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
> savings.

I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
behavior.

But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
well financially.)

Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.

I once knew an engineering professor from Bangladesh, and knew him well
enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
but I couldn't afford servants.

Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2022 8:25 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:03:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> All very, what's the word I want to use? Abstract? You moan and grown
> about income disparity but when given a chance to actually, your very
> own self, do something about it, you cry, "Why me?"

Did you miss the fact that I donate quite heavily to many charities? I
don't moan about that at all. But I do choose my charities carefully.
Tom would not qualify.

I doubt that you'd donate to Tom either, BTW.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 26 May 2022 21:38:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/26/2022 8:32 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:20:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
>>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
>>> live!
>>>
>>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> John, for some reason you are not distinguishing the different levels, quality of democracies. Same with dictators. The Vatican is a country. And the Pope is the dictator. But everyone seems to get along OK inside the Vatican. So not all dictators are bad it seems. Despite the USA portraying all dictators as evil. England, South Korea, Japan, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Portugal, and maybe a few more. They all seem to run their democracies better than the USA. And as I am sure you know. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic. There are no democratically elected federal officers. The only democracy happens at the state/republic level.
>>
>
>uh, pontiffs are 'elected' as much as anyone could be (with
>the usual sub rosa influences of course).

But that is, as I wrote in another post, very much human nature. Take
a group of kids, they gravitate into the "Leader" and the "Followers"
naturally. In more primitive societies it is usually the strong man,
or the guy with the most spears.

As for sub rosa (:-) Sort of like the mother warning her daughter
about men? "Whatever you do... keep your pants on!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/26/2022 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
> live!
>
> Are you now saying that it isn't?

Don't be simplistic, John. All democracies are not equal. The one I live
in has great room for improvement. Look at the data!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:40:47 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:23:34 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:01:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/25/2022 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@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.
>> As I think I've mentioned, it is very much a matter of semantics. But
>> every "trick", as you term it, in the Tax Law is equally "available"
>> to anyone paying taxes. The question is whether they "avail"
>> themselves of the "trick".
>
>"Avail themselves of the trick"? How can I avail myself of the property tax and mortgage interest deduction if I do not own a house? Or the charitable deduction if I do not give money to a 501c3 enterprise? Or the child tax credit if I do not have children? Many, most, all of the federal tax code is applicable only to a select few people. Which is what Frank is arguing. Many of the tax laws the rich use are not available to the poor. Due to not having enough money to meet the requirements. There is no availing to it. They don't qualify so cannot use it.

But isn't that what I wrote whether they "avail themselves". You are,
as I mentioned, getting all excited abut semantics. You didn't qualify
so you couldn't avail.

Or to put it, perhaps, a bit more bluntly, you couldn't avail yourself
of "property tax and mortgage interest deduction"... because you
didn't have any property tax and mortgage interest expenses.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/26/2022 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> I firmly believe that the income disparity that Frank rants about is
> simply human nature. In extremely primitive cultures - people running
> around naked with a spear - there are "Big Men" who are leaders, have
> more pigs (symbol of wealth) and more wives to take care of the pigs,
> then everyone else.
>
> In every country I've lived in there have been rich men and poor men
> and in nearly all cases, noticeably in developing countries, it is due
> to the individual's own efforts.

The problems I'm noting are certainly connected to human nature, as are
probably most of the problems we deal with as humans.

Governments exist in part to control the bad effects of human nature.
Examples: Rape is illegal. Theft is illegal. Murder is illegal.

But there are wide varieties of governments and government regulations.
Many governments tax the wealthy and super-wealthy in ways that allow
greater government revenue. Using that revenue, they provide much higher
levels of services to citizens compared to the U.S.

As a side effect of those policies, their wealth and income disparities
are much lower than the U.S. That in itself provides social benefits.
Lower disparities lead to less envy, discontent and crime.

I'm not hearing any good arguments in favor of U.S. policies. As with
gun policies and medical care systems, our results are lousy, but the
right wing wants to ignore results while nonsensically yelling "freedom!!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:38:28 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/26/2022 8:32 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:20:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
> >> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
> >> live!
> >>
> >> Are you now saying that it isn't?
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> > John, for some reason you are not distinguishing the different levels, quality of democracies. Same with dictators. The Vatican is a country. And the Pope is the dictator. But everyone seems to get along OK inside the Vatican. So not all dictators are bad it seems. Despite the USA portraying all dictators as evil. England, South Korea, Japan, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Portugal, and maybe a few more. They all seem to run their democracies better than the USA. And as I am sure you know. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic. There are no democratically elected federal officers. The only democracy happens at the state/republic level.
> >
> uh, pontiffs are 'elected' as much as anyone could be (with
> the usual sub rosa influences of course).
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

OK. The Pope is democratically elected by the chosen Cardinals to be the dictator. Kind of similar to the way Xi Jinping was elected.

This from Google:
How was Xi Jinping elected?
Xi was elected President of the PRC on 14 March 2013, in a confirmation vote by the 12th National People's Congress in Beijing. He received 2,952 for, one vote against, and three abstentions.

rOn Thu, 26 May 2022 23:05:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/26/2022 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> I firmly believe that the income disparity that Frank rants about is
>> simply human nature. In extremely primitive cultures - people running
>> around naked with a spear - there are "Big Men" who are leaders, have
>> more pigs (symbol of wealth) and more wives to take care of the pigs,
>> then everyone else.
>>
>> In every country I've lived in there have been rich men and poor men
>> and in nearly all cases, noticeably in developing countries, it is due
>> to the individual's own efforts.
>
>The problems I'm noting are certainly connected to human nature, as are
>probably most of the problems we deal with as humans.
>
>Governments exist in part to control the bad effects of human nature.
>Examples: Rape is illegal. Theft is illegal. Murder is illegal.
>
>But there are wide varieties of governments and government regulations.
>Many governments tax the wealthy and super-wealthy in ways that allow
>greater government revenue. Using that revenue, they provide much higher
>levels of services to citizens compared to the U.S.
>
>As a side effect of those policies, their wealth and income disparities
>are much lower than the U.S. That in itself provides social benefits.
>Lower disparities lead to less envy, discontent and crime.
>
>I'm not hearing any good arguments in favor of U.S. policies. As with
>gun policies and medical care systems, our results are lousy, but the
>right wing wants to ignore results while nonsensically yelling "freedom!!"

Gun problem?

Well, Pew research has it that 30% of the U.S. population owns a gun.
that is 100,404,343 people in the U.S. own firearms.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Another source states that 44% of the U.S. public live in a household
where guns are available.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
So, there are actually some 147, 259, 967 people in the U.S. who can
access a firearm.

The most up to date figures I have is 2019 but there were some 10,258
murders committed with firearms according to the FBI statistics.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls
So, if we assume that one person murdered only one person - I have no
better statistics - then 0.0069% of gun owners murdered someone.
Really, really, horrifying statistics.

And yes, I did read about the school shooting in Texas - 22 deaths I
believe. But on the same date there were over 300 Covid deaths.

Not to, in any manner diminish the horror of school shootings but is
it deaths that are being counted or deaths solely by those demon guns?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:52:06 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> rOn Thu, 26 May 2022 23:05:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 5/26/2022 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I firmly believe that the income disparity that Frank rants about is
> >> simply human nature. In extremely primitive cultures - people running
> >> around naked with a spear - there are "Big Men" who are leaders, have
> >> more pigs (symbol of wealth) and more wives to take care of the pigs,
> >> then everyone else.
> >>
> >> In every country I've lived in there have been rich men and poor men
> >> and in nearly all cases, noticeably in developing countries, it is due
> >> to the individual's own efforts.
> >
> >The problems I'm noting are certainly connected to human nature, as are
> >probably most of the problems we deal with as humans.
> >
> >Governments exist in part to control the bad effects of human nature.
> >Examples: Rape is illegal. Theft is illegal. Murder is illegal.
> >
> >But there are wide varieties of governments and government regulations.
> >Many governments tax the wealthy and super-wealthy in ways that allow
> >greater government revenue. Using that revenue, they provide much higher
> >levels of services to citizens compared to the U.S.
> >
> >As a side effect of those policies, their wealth and income disparities
> >are much lower than the U.S. That in itself provides social benefits.
> >Lower disparities lead to less envy, discontent and crime.
> >
> >I'm not hearing any good arguments in favor of U.S. policies. As with
> >gun policies and medical care systems, our results are lousy, but the
> >right wing wants to ignore results while nonsensically yelling "freedom!!"
> Gun problem?
>
> Well, Pew research has it that 30% of the U.S. population owns a gun.
> that is 100,404,343 people in the U.S. own firearms.
> https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
> Another source states that 44% of the U.S. public live in a household
> where guns are available.
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
> So, there are actually some 147, 259, 967 people in the U.S. who can
> access a firearm.
>
> The most up to date figures I have is 2019 but there were some 10,258
> murders committed with firearms according to the FBI statistics.
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls
> So, if we assume that one person murdered only one person - I have no
> better statistics - then 0.0069% of gun owners murdered someone.
> Really, really, horrifying statistics.
>
> And yes, I did read about the school shooting in Texas - 22 deaths I
> believe. But on the same date there were over 300 Covid deaths.
>
> Not to, in any manner diminish the horror of school shootings but is
> it deaths that are being counted or deaths solely by those demon guns?
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

?????????
How someone dies matters. Not just the death itself. As you stated, Covid killed more than school, or mass, or regular murders. Or suicides. All by guns. Most by guns I guess. And heart attacks killed 696,962. Cancer killed 602.350. More than guns and Covid combined. Covid killed 350,831. All 2020 numbers.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Covid deaths fell into the blameless category in 2020. But after the vaccines became available in early 2021, then the Covid deaths changed to preventable and self choice. Sort of. Personally, I put school children into the blameless category. Of course I have seen many Republicans saying the school district or the parents or the children themselves caused it. Typical.. Suicides are by definition self induced. So the gun made it easier to accomplish the goal, but no one puts too much worry on these deaths.

How someone dies affects the death. The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded posthumously to a few soldiers. I presume how they died mattered in getting the CMH. Not all dead soldiers got the CMH.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:52:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/26/2022 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:05:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
>> live!
>>
>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
>
>Don't be simplistic, John. All democracies are not equal. The one I live
>in has great room for improvement. Look at the data!

But I'm not being simplistic. It is a democracy and y'all do run
around telling people how wonderful "democracy".

But how improvement?
More welfare? I read that an estimated 59 million Americans receive
welfare during an average month. That number is equivalent to 19% of
the population in the US. More?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:47:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
>> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
>> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
>> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
>> popcorn. What could be finer?
>>
>> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
>> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
>> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
>> entire salary into savings.
>>
>> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
>> Fund, as a 20 year old.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
>> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
>> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
>> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
>>
>> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
>> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
>> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
>> interest on a credit card :-)
>>
>> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
>> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
>> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
>> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
>> I can remember living in.
>>
>> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
>> savings.
>
>I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
>behavior.
>
>But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
>provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
>normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
>paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
>because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
>well financially.)

Yes, you are at least partially correct. It is easy when you live in
the Barracks and eat in the Mess Hall. The technique was on payday as
soon as you were paid you went straight down to the Base Exchange
(general store sort of place) and you bought 3 cakes of soap, a tube
of toothpaste, one canister of shoe polish and 3 cartons of
cigarettes.

What ever was left you spent that night "down town" and lived happily
for the rest of the month (:-)

But I got married. Tain't the same (:-)

>
>Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
>reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
>income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.

Don't kid yourself. It is just as easy to spend money in a low income
country as in the U.S. A friend came in one day sporting a gold Rolex
watch and I asked him, "where'd you steal the watch?" and he told me
he had bought it from a bloke in a bar who'd been out of work for a
couple of months.Paid $200.

>enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
>student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
>nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
>his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
>but I couldn't afford servants.

It used to be that way in Thailand. You moved into a neighborhood and
mentioned to the maid next door that you might be looking for help and
next morning when you looked out there'd be a whole line of girls
squatting on the sidewalk looking for a job.

Today, it is different. "Job as a housemaid?" "Naw, I can get a job
down the fish packing plant. Only 8 hours a day".
Unemployment in Thailand, before Covid was in the 1% neighborhood and
there were an estimated 3 million "guest workers" here.

>Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
>typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.

Perhaps so, perhaps no. I saved half my salary for the 20 years I
spent in the Military and sometimes more then half working as a
civilian. I worked two jobs for quite a few years... not because I had
to but because I wanted to. I'm not bragging, I was doing what I
wanted to do, not what I had to do. I used to work weekends in a
gunsmith shop and evenings I used to build high accuracy "varmint
rifles"... because I enjoyed it.

As for the poor, I really don't know. I've only known one really poor
chap. The welfare had gotten him some sort of free housing for he and
his wife and a clapped old 2nd hand car to get around in and a job at
the Gunsmith shop where I was working. I mentioned,something about
paying attention and learning a trade and he told me straight out that
he didn't "see no need" as he was getting along "just nice". Making
minimum salary living in subsidized housing.

I've always wondered how many "poor" are just like that.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 21:18:55 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:52:06 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> rOn Thu, 26 May 2022 23:05:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/26/2022 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I firmly believe that the income disparity that Frank rants about is
>> >> simply human nature. In extremely primitive cultures - people running
>> >> around naked with a spear - there are "Big Men" who are leaders, have
>> >> more pigs (symbol of wealth) and more wives to take care of the pigs,
>> >> then everyone else.
>> >>
>> >> In every country I've lived in there have been rich men and poor men
>> >> and in nearly all cases, noticeably in developing countries, it is due
>> >> to the individual's own efforts.
>> >
>> >The problems I'm noting are certainly connected to human nature, as are
>> >probably most of the problems we deal with as humans.
>> >
>> >Governments exist in part to control the bad effects of human nature.
>> >Examples: Rape is illegal. Theft is illegal. Murder is illegal.
>> >
>> >But there are wide varieties of governments and government regulations.
>> >Many governments tax the wealthy and super-wealthy in ways that allow
>> >greater government revenue. Using that revenue, they provide much higher
>> >levels of services to citizens compared to the U.S.
>> >
>> >As a side effect of those policies, their wealth and income disparities
>> >are much lower than the U.S. That in itself provides social benefits.
>> >Lower disparities lead to less envy, discontent and crime.
>> >
>> >I'm not hearing any good arguments in favor of U.S. policies. As with
>> >gun policies and medical care systems, our results are lousy, but the
>> >right wing wants to ignore results while nonsensically yelling "freedom!!"
>> Gun problem?
>>
>> Well, Pew research has it that 30% of the U.S. population owns a gun.
>> that is 100,404,343 people in the U.S. own firearms.
>> https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
>> Another source states that 44% of the U.S. public live in a household
>> where guns are available.
>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
>> So, there are actually some 147, 259, 967 people in the U.S. who can
>> access a firearm.
>>
>> The most up to date figures I have is 2019 but there were some 10,258
>> murders committed with firearms according to the FBI statistics.
>> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls
>> So, if we assume that one person murdered only one person - I have no
>> better statistics - then 0.0069% of gun owners murdered someone.
>> Really, really, horrifying statistics.
>>
>> And yes, I did read about the school shooting in Texas - 22 deaths I
>> believe. But on the same date there were over 300 Covid deaths.
>>
>> Not to, in any manner diminish the horror of school shootings but is
>> it deaths that are being counted or deaths solely by those demon guns?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>?????????
>How someone dies matters. Not just the death itself. As you stated, Covid killed more than school, or mass, or regular murders. Or suicides. All by guns. Most by guns I guess. And heart attacks killed 696,962. Cancer killed 602.350. More than guns and Covid combined. Covid killed 350,831. All 2020 numbers.
>
>https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
>
>Covid deaths fell into the blameless category in 2020. But after the vaccines became available in early 2021, then the Covid deaths changed to preventable and self choice. Sort of. Personally, I put school children into the blameless category. Of course I have seen many Republicans saying the school district or the parents or the children themselves caused it. Typical. Suicides are by definition self induced. So the gun made it easier to accomplish the goal, but no one puts too much worry on these deaths.
>
>How someone dies affects the death. The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded posthumously to a few soldiers. I presume how they died mattered in getting the CMH. Not all dead soldiers got the CMH.

The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded for something that the
individual did. The fact that he died, or did not die, doing it has
nothing to do with it. Since 1863 there have been 3,525 that received
the decoration of which 618 were awarded post humorously.
--
Cheers,

John B.