On 5/24/2022 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 10:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some
>>>>>> corporate
>>>>>> entities which pay a tax rate below average, and some
>>>>>> zero. Congress in
>>>>>> its wisdom has written a gazillion carve-outs, credits,
>>>>>> deductions,
>>>>>> exemptions etc and an accountant or tax attorney would
>>>>>> be remiss in not
>>>>>> availing those to his client's advantage when filing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I
>>>>>> woudl add
>>>>>> patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in
>>>>>> your links had
>>>>>> actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and
>>>>>> imprisonment. More, the
>>>>>> larger one's income, the more likely an audit. Very
>>>>>> large entities are
>>>>>> routinely audited for every filing every year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call out
>>>>>> Elon Musk for
>>>>>> not 'paying his fair share':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't
>>>>>> enough, maybe one
>>>>>> ought to reconsider the proposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world
>>>>> history, they should
>>>>> pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How is that
>>>>> not obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone
>>>>> of that ilk
>>>>> violated the law. It's simply saying that the law should
>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's this:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the
>>>>> world’s richest
>>>>> man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He
>>>>> achieved the feat
>>>>> again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the
>>>>> second-richest
>>>>> person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years.
>>>>> Billionaire
>>>>> investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no
>>>>> federal income
>>>>> tax three years in a row.
>>>>>
>>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue
>>>>> Service data on
>>>>> the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s
>>>>> wealthiest
>>>>> people, covering
>>>>> more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented
>>>>> look inside the
>>>>> financial lives of America’s titans, including
>>>>> Warren
>>>>> Buffett, Bill
>>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not
>>>>> just their
>>>>> income and taxes, but also their investments, stock
>>>>> trades, gambling
>>>>> winnings and even the results of audits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the
>>>>> American tax
>>>>> system: that everyone pays their fair share and the
>>>>> richest Americans
>>>>> pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest
>>>>> can — perfectly
>>>>> legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny
>>>>> fraction of the hundreds
>>>>> of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> [from
>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> � ]
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a
>>>>> mega-yacht, or Bill
>>>>> Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to a mansion. That
>>>>> money could be
>>>>> put to far better use, paying for things that are now
>>>>> funded by the
>>>>> taxes of much less prosperous people.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the theme here is "TAX the RICH! (Rah!
>>>> Rah! Rah!)
>>>> but what is "rich"? Those that "have more money then you
>>>> do"? "Those
>>>> that have more money then the poor"? Or just point the
>>>> finger and
>>>> BANG! "You are rich!"
>>>
>>> I'd say you don't understand it. At least not very
>>> thoroughly.
>>>
>>> The current situation is often "Tax everybody but the rich."
>>> Warren Buffet has noted that his secretary pays a higher tax
>>> percentage than he does. I pay a higher percentage of my
>>> income in taxes than does Elon Musk. Why should that be?
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that the rich folks mentioned in the article
>>>> quoted complied
>>>> with every detail in the tax code. So the tax code is
>>>> wrong?
>>>> Or is it jealousy? "Whoo! they make more money then I do,
>>>> they gotta
>>>> be bad guys!"
>>>
>>> Sorry, I've not claimed Buffet, Musk, Bezos or Gates are bad
>>> guys. (Well, except Gates personally attacked Tom's
>>> computer, and Bezos personally interferes with Tom's online
>>> purchases!). I think much of what they've done is admirable,
>>> I know what they or their accountants are doing regarding
>>> taxes is probably legal. I'm saying the laws are terribly
>>> written.
>>>
>>>> But to put it on a personal basis. From reading posts here
>>>> it appears
>>>> that Frank has far more money then Tommy. Frank lives in a
>>>> nice house,
>>>> large property, good neighborhood, drives a rather new
>>>> car, etc.,
>>>> while Tommy lives in a $50,000 house in a� self described
>>>> slum with
>>>> guns banging all night and illegal immigrants swarming the
>>>> streets,
>>>> drives a second hand car and gets by on the Social
>>>> Security.
>>>>
>>>> So, logically, the "right" thing to do is to take money
>>>> away from
>>>> Frank and give it to Tommy so that their financial status
>>>> is equal.
>>>> Right? Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it.
>>>
>>> I could easily afford to donate to Tom's well being. Instead
>>> I choose other charities that are IMO much more beneficial.
>>> Tom would just waste the money on another counterfeit bike
>>> component, hoping to speed his next "training" ride.
>>>
>>> But as a broad principle, I want a truly progressive tax
>>> code. I think it should all be on an even basis, with
>>> (almost?) no preference given to the method of making money.
>>> For example, investments should be taxed as much as labor.
>>> (Oh, and that applies especially when investments are passed
>>> on to inheritors.)
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I think the progression of taxes should be by a
>>> smooth mathematical function. This business of tax brackets
>>> being step increases is nonsense, apparently contrived
>>> because the average citizen is innumerate.
>>>
>>> So yes, I'd say Tom should pay less in taxes than I do. The
>>> poor guy needs all the help he can get.
>>>
>>
>> Purposeful misstatements in there, notably the Warren
>> Buffet quip.
>>
>> She pays payroll tax plus FIT. He doesn't draw salary and
>> so is not beholden to the government for those two levies.
>>
>> He 'earned', on paper, asset appreciation. This is not
>> 'income'. It is a putative change of asset value. I say
>> putative because share values are dynamic and may be more
>> or less when sold than at the moment. If they drop in
>> value below purchase price and he sells, he can take that
>> loss against other like kind income. If they hold value or
>> rise he pays tax on the value change, likely at capital
>> gains rate because this is not simple income no matter how
>> you slice it. If that is not clear to you, it's not clear
>> to Ms Warren either.
>
> It's not that difficult to understand, Andrew. Read this:
> https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/
>
>
> Despite your portrayal of the risk of Buffett's or Bezos's
> or other wealthy individuals' assets depreciating, it
> doesn't seem to happen enough to make the system equitable.
> One simple way of looking at it is that the stock market
> historically rises over the long term. (Only a fool would
> have lost money in, say, the Obama years.) That means
> capital gains tend to exceed losses. It's one of the
> mechanisms by which the rich become ever richer.
>
> One might - just might - be able to argue that it's all OK
> because the assets eventually get sold. But even then, the
> gains are generally taxed at a lower rate. And if the assets
> are not sold, if they are instead passed on to one's
> dependents or heirs, the accumulated growth in value is
> _never_ taxed. The basis for the new owner is the price when
> received. By that mechanism, the family owning it reaps a
> potentially tremendous growth in wealth (AKA income) while
> paying no taxes on it. And the expenses of government that
> _would_ have been covered by those taxes are instead paid by
> people like Tom.
>
> Again, one of the many mechanisms by which the rich become
> even richer.
>
> Right wingers tend to portray it as a result of personal
> discipline and hard work. That's bullshit. Lars and Buffy
> make this money while sunning themselves on the deck of
> their family's yacht. The woman scrubbing their gold plated
> toilet works ten times as hard.
>
>> And if the tax code as written doesn't sound fair to you,
>> do what the beneficiaries of those little obscure
>> paragraphs schedules and subnotes did. Buy a Senator or two.
>
> Lars and Buffy can afford senators. The common man cannot.
> That's exactly why we have this perverted system of taxation.
>

On 5/24/2022 4:14 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> We can ask, and without going into details I would guess that Andrew
> will tell you just what I've told you.... that he considers carefully
> the tax liability of most, maybe all, of his business decisions.

The other necessity in the U.S. is to have a genuine tax accountant do
your taxes and advise you. Our accountant charges a lot but he knows how
to legally minimize our taxes. A long time ago, I used to do our taxes
myself--big mistake, penny-wise and pound foolish unless your income is
solely from a salary and you own no income producing property or securities.

On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:36:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2022 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 10:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some
>>>>>> corporate
>>>>>> entities which pay a tax rate below average, and some
>>>>>> zero. Congress in
>>>>>> its wisdom has written a gazillion carve-outs, credits,
>>>>>> deductions,
>>>>>> exemptions etc and an accountant or tax attorney would
>>>>>> be remiss in not
>>>>>> availing those to his client's advantage when filing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I
>>>>>> woudl add
>>>>>> patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in
>>>>>> your links had
>>>>>> actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and
>>>>>> imprisonment. More, the
>>>>>> larger one's income, the more likely an audit. Very
>>>>>> large entities are
>>>>>> routinely audited for every filing every year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call out
>>>>>> Elon Musk for
>>>>>> not 'paying his fair share':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't
>>>>>> enough, maybe one
>>>>>> ought to reconsider the proposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world
>>>>> history, they should
>>>>> pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How is that
>>>>> not obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone
>>>>> of that ilk
>>>>> violated the law. It's simply saying that the law should
>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's this:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the
>>>>> world’s richest
>>>>> man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He
>>>>> achieved the feat
>>>>> again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the
>>>>> second-richest
>>>>> person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years.
>>>>> Billionaire
>>>>> investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no
>>>>> federal income
>>>>> tax three years in a row.
>>>>>
>>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue
>>>>> Service data on
>>>>> the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest
>>>>> people, covering
>>>>> more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented
>>>>> look inside the
>>>>> financial lives of America’s titans, including Warren
>>>>> Buffett, Bill
>>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not
>>>>> just their
>>>>> income and taxes, but also their investments, stock
>>>>> trades, gambling
>>>>> winnings and even the results of audits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the
>>>>> American tax
>>>>> system: that everyone pays their fair share and the
>>>>> richest Americans
>>>>> pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest
>>>>> can — perfectly
>>>>> legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny
>>>>> fraction of the hundreds
>>>>> of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.
>>>>>
>>>>> [from
>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   ]
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a
>>>>> mega-yacht, or Bill
>>>>> Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to a mansion. That
>>>>> money could be
>>>>> put to far better use, paying for things that are now
>>>>> funded by the
>>>>> taxes of much less prosperous people.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the theme here is "TAX the RICH! (Rah!
>>>> Rah! Rah!)
>>>> but what is "rich"? Those that "have more money then you
>>>> do"? "Those
>>>> that have more money then the poor"? Or just point the
>>>> finger and
>>>> BANG! "You are rich!"
>>>
>>> I'd say you don't understand it. At least not very thoroughly.
>>>
>>> The current situation is often "Tax everybody but the rich."
>>> Warren Buffet has noted that his secretary pays a higher tax
>>> percentage than he does. I pay a higher percentage of my
>>> income in taxes than does Elon Musk. Why should that be?
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that the rich folks mentioned in the article
>>>> quoted complied
>>>> with every detail in the tax code. So the tax code is wrong?
>>>> Or is it jealousy? "Whoo! they make more money then I do,
>>>> they gotta
>>>> be bad guys!"
>>>
>>> Sorry, I've not claimed Buffet, Musk, Bezos or Gates are bad
>>> guys. (Well, except Gates personally attacked Tom's
>>> computer, and Bezos personally interferes with Tom's online
>>> purchases!). I think much of what they've done is admirable,
>>> I know what they or their accountants are doing regarding
>>> taxes is probably legal. I'm saying the laws are terribly
>>> written.
>>>
>>>> But to put it on a personal basis. From reading posts here
>>>> it appears
>>>> that Frank has far more money then Tommy. Frank lives in a
>>>> nice house,
>>>> large property, good neighborhood, drives a rather new
>>>> car, etc.,
>>>> while Tommy lives in a $50,000 house in a  self described
>>>> slum with
>>>> guns banging all night and illegal immigrants swarming the
>>>> streets,
>>>> drives a second hand car and gets by on the Social Security.
>>>>
>>>> So, logically, the "right" thing to do is to take money
>>>> away from
>>>> Frank and give it to Tommy so that their financial status
>>>> is equal.
>>>> Right? Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it.
>>>
>>> I could easily afford to donate to Tom's well being. Instead
>>> I choose other charities that are IMO much more beneficial.
>>> Tom would just waste the money on another counterfeit bike
>>> component, hoping to speed his next "training" ride.
>>>
>>> But as a broad principle, I want a truly progressive tax
>>> code. I think it should all be on an even basis, with
>>> (almost?) no preference given to the method of making money.
>>> For example, investments should be taxed as much as labor.
>>> (Oh, and that applies especially when investments are passed
>>> on to inheritors.)
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I think the progression of taxes should be by a
>>> smooth mathematical function. This business of tax brackets
>>> being step increases is nonsense, apparently contrived
>>> because the average citizen is innumerate.
>>>
>>> So yes, I'd say Tom should pay less in taxes than I do. The
>>> poor guy needs all the help he can get.
>>>
>>
>> Purposeful misstatements in there, notably the Warren Buffet quip.
>>
>> She pays payroll tax plus FIT. He doesn't draw salary and so is not
>> beholden to the government for those two levies.
>>
>> He 'earned', on paper, asset appreciation. This is not 'income'. It is a
>> putative change of asset value. I say putative because share values are
>> dynamic and may be more or less when sold than at the moment. If they
>> drop in value below purchase price and he sells, he can take that loss
>> against other like kind income. If they hold value or rise he pays tax
>> on the value change, likely at capital gains rate because this is not
>> simple income no matter how you slice it. If that is not clear to you,
>> it's not clear to Ms Warren either.
>
>It's not that difficult to understand, Andrew. Read this:
>https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/
>
>Despite your portrayal of the risk of Buffett's or Bezos's or other
>wealthy individuals' assets depreciating, it doesn't seem to happen
>enough to make the system equitable. One simple way of looking at it is
>that the stock market historically rises over the long term. (Only a
>fool would have lost money in, say, the Obama years.) That means capital
>gains tend to exceed losses. It's one of the mechanisms by which the
>rich become ever richer.
>

On Tue, 24 May 2022 17:52:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/24/2022 4:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> We can ask, and without going into details I would guess that Andrew
>> will tell you just what I've told you.... that he considers carefully
>> the tax liability of most, maybe all, of his business decisions.
>
>The other necessity in the U.S. is to have a genuine tax accountant do
>your taxes and advise you. Our accountant charges a lot but he knows how
>to legally minimize our taxes. A long time ago, I used to do our taxes
>myself--big mistake, penny-wise and pound foolish unless your income is
>solely from a salary and you own no income producing property or securities.

As I've mentioned, the company I worked for made no decisions without
referring them to our Lawyer who, apparently, specialized in U.S. tax
law.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 May 2022 15:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:51:28 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> > On 5/23/2022 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 23 May 2022 13:43:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/23/2022 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some
>> >>>>>> corporate entities which pay a tax rate below average, and
>> >>>>>> some zero. Congress in its wisdom has written a gazillion
>> >>>>>> carve-outs, credits, deductions, exemptions etc and an
>> >>>>>> accountant or tax attorney would be remiss in not availing
>> >>>>>> those to his client's advantage when filing.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I
>> >>>>>> woudl add patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in your
>> >>>>>> links had actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and
>> >>>>>> imprisonment. More, the larger one's income, the more
>> >>>>>> likely an audit. Very large entities are routinely audited
>> >>>>>> for every filing every year.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call out
>> >>>>>> Elon Musk for not 'paying his fair share':
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't
>> >>>>>> enough, maybe one ought to reconsider the proposition.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world history,
>> >>>>> they should pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How
>> >>>>> is that not obvious?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone of
>> >>>>> that ilk violated the law. It's simply saying that the law
>> >>>>> should be changed.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There's this:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ---------------------
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the
>> >>>>> world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income
>> >>>>> taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla
>> >>>>> founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world,
>> >>>>> also paid no federal income taxes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years.
>> >>>>> Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros
>> >>>>> paid no federal income tax three years in a row.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue
>> >>>>> Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the
>> >>>>> nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.
>> >>>>> The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial
>> >>>>> lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill
>> >>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just
>> >>>>> their income and taxes, but also their investments, stock
>> >>>>> trades, gambling winnings and even the results of audits.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the
>> >>>>> American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and
>> >>>>> the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show
>> >>>>> that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income
>> >>>>> taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of
>> >>>>> millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [from
>> >>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --------------------
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a
>> >>>>> mega-yacht, or Bill Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to
>> >>>>> a mansion. That money could be put to far better use, paying
>> >>>>> for things that are now funded by the taxes of much less
>> >>>>> prosperous people.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Society benefits greatly from those men regardless.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Investment, employment and development benefit society, the economy and
>> >>>> culture I would argue as much as or probably more than pissing cash into
>> >>>> the great corruption machines.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't deny that Musk, Bezos and Gates have brought benefits to
>> >>> society. But if they were actually taxed the same percentage of their
>> >>> income as you or I, they would still have generated those same benefits.
>> >>> There's no way Musk is going to say "I'm making a little less money so
>> >>> I'm quitting."
>> >>>
>> >>> You seem to believe the myth that all government is terrible, wasteful
>> >>> and inefficient and that private enterprise is the opposite. That does
>> >>> not jibe with my experience.
>> >>>
>> >>> Let me give a fresh example - admittedly, second hand. A woman I know
>> >>> well recently changed jobs. After years of working for a city
>> >>> government, she recently took a rather similar job with a manufacturing
>> >>> company with big new projects. She's using the same skills as before,
>> >>> but at a much, much higher salary.
>> >>>
>> >>> After a short time on the job, she needed to organize a meeting of
>> >>> various manufacturing representatives and government officials. She
>> >>> decided it would be necessary to get caterers for a light lunch and
>> >>> asked her superior about her budget for that. Her superior said "Don't
>> >>> worry about it. Spend whatever you need to spend. I know this is new for
>> >>> you, but trust me, they don't care how much you spend, so it's better
>> >>> not to bother them. It took me months to learn that."
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh, and vaguely related: The company also pays for lunches and snacks
>> >>> for all employees, every day.
>> >>>
>> >>> My friend told me, "Coming from government, this is really hard to get
>> >>> used to. Working for the city, I chipped in six dollars a month for
>> >>> water for the office."
>> >> I know it isn't what you are trying to prove but the lunches that
>> >> the
>> >> company "they don't care how much you spend" are part of the company's
>> >> operating expenses and thus serve to reduce taxes (:-)
>> >
>> > I'm just trying to prove that the government is a relatively "lean"
>> > operation. The company I'm describing is happy to spend investor
>> > dollars on free employee food. The city government made the employees
>> > pay for anything that wasn't tap water.
>> >
>> > (FWIW, I think bottled water or special water cooler water is silly,
>> > but apparently others disagree.)
>> I would happily pay for bottled water, although I agree it's silly, if I
>> could just get a nice fat pension instead. That is where the money
>> goes, and goes, and goes.
>
>Frank wants your money because his university job doesn't pay him enough pension for him to live the way he wants to live. So he wants you and I to lift his standard of living. If you stole the entire worth of the very small number of Billionairs you could give a ONE TIME GIFT of 3,100 to every citizen in the US.
>
>Frank is such scum that it isn't even funny. Unstand that the only reason that he would hold you up at gunpoint and steal your wallet is because he doesn't have the knowledge or courage.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:36:42 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Despite your portrayal of the risk of Buffett's or Bezos's or other
> wealthy individuals' assets depreciating, it doesn't seem to happen
> enough to make the system equitable. One simple way of looking at it is
> that the stock market historically rises over the long term. (Only a
> fool would have lost money in, say, the Obama years.)

Tommy?
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

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".

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.

As I have mentioned, almost literally, everything that the
> company I worked for did was evaluated by a tax expert with the intent
> of reducing the amount of taxes paid.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> We can ask, and without going into details I would guess that Andrew
> will tell you just what I've told you.... that he considers carefully
> the tax liability of most, maybe all, of his business decisions.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

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".
>

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

People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many and
various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline, tires,
kerosene, fishing gear and many more[1])the two
arithmetically indefensible payroll taxes and a host of
regulatory impositions. And now, by design or ineptitude,
inflation, the cruelest tax of all.

[1]https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/types-federal-excise-taxes

The government has problems, serious problems, many and
varied. A lack of revenue is not one of them.

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

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

On 5/24/2022 8:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2022 10:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some
>>>>>>> corporate
>>>>>>> entities which pay a tax rate below average, and some
>>>>>>> zero. Congress in
>>>>>>> its wisdom has written a gazillion carve-outs, credits,
>>>>>>> deductions,
>>>>>>> exemptions etc and an accountant or tax attorney would
>>>>>>> be remiss in not
>>>>>>> availing those to his client's advantage when filing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I
>>>>>>> woudl add
>>>>>>> patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in
>>>>>>> your links had
>>>>>>> actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and
>>>>>>> imprisonment. More, the
>>>>>>> larger one's income, the more likely an audit. Very
>>>>>>> large entities are
>>>>>>> routinely audited for every filing every year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call out
>>>>>>> Elon Musk for
>>>>>>> not 'paying his fair share':
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't
>>>>>>> enough, maybe one
>>>>>>> ought to reconsider the proposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world
>>>>>> history, they should
>>>>>> pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How is that
>>>>>> not obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone
>>>>>> of that ilk
>>>>>> violated the law. It's simply saying that the law should
>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the
>>>>>> world’s richest
>>>>>> man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He
>>>>>> achieved the feat
>>>>>> again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the
>>>>>> second-richest
>>>>>> person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years.
>>>>>> Billionaire
>>>>>> investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no
>>>>>> federal income
>>>>>> tax three years in a row.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue
>>>>>> Service data on
>>>>>> the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s
>>>>>> wealthiest
>>>>>> people, covering
>>>>>> more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented
>>>>>> look inside the
>>>>>> financial lives of America’s titans, including
>>>>>> Warren
>>>>>> Buffett, Bill
>>>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not
>>>>>> just their
>>>>>> income and taxes, but also their investments, stock
>>>>>> trades, gambling
>>>>>> winnings and even the results of audits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the
>>>>>> American tax
>>>>>> system: that everyone pays their fair share and the
>>>>>> richest Americans
>>>>>> pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest
>>>>>> can — perfectly
>>>>>> legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny
>>>>>> fraction of the hundreds
>>>>>> of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [from
>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a
>>>>>> mega-yacht, or Bill
>>>>>> Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to a mansion. That
>>>>>> money could be
>>>>>> put to far better use, paying for things that are now
>>>>>> funded by the
>>>>>> taxes of much less prosperous people.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, the theme here is "TAX the RICH! (Rah!
>>>>> Rah! Rah!)
>>>>> but what is "rich"? Those that "have more money then you
>>>>> do"? "Those
>>>>> that have more money then the poor"? Or just point the
>>>>> finger and
>>>>> BANG! "You are rich!"
>>>>
>>>> I'd say you don't understand it. At least not very
>>>> thoroughly.
>>>>
>>>> The current situation is often "Tax everybody but the rich."
>>>> Warren Buffet has noted that his secretary pays a higher tax
>>>> percentage than he does. I pay a higher percentage of my
>>>> income in taxes than does Elon Musk. Why should that be?
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that the rich folks mentioned in the article
>>>>> quoted complied
>>>>> with every detail in the tax code. So the tax code is
>>>>> wrong?
>>>>> Or is it jealousy? "Whoo! they make more money then I do,
>>>>> they gotta
>>>>> be bad guys!"
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I've not claimed Buffet, Musk, Bezos or Gates are bad
>>>> guys. (Well, except Gates personally attacked Tom's
>>>> computer, and Bezos personally interferes with Tom's online
>>>> purchases!). I think much of what they've done is admirable,
>>>> I know what they or their accountants are doing regarding
>>>> taxes is probably legal. I'm saying the laws are terribly
>>>> written.
>>>>
>>>>> But to put it on a personal basis. From reading posts here
>>>>> it appears
>>>>> that Frank has far more money then Tommy. Frank lives in a
>>>>> nice house,
>>>>> large property, good neighborhood, drives a rather new
>>>>> car, etc.,
>>>>> while Tommy lives in a $50,000 house in a  self described
>>>>> slum with
>>>>> guns banging all night and illegal immigrants swarming the
>>>>> streets,
>>>>> drives a second hand car and gets by on the Social
>>>>> Security.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, logically, the "right" thing to do is to take money
>>>>> away from
>>>>> Frank and give it to Tommy so that their financial status
>>>>> is equal.
>>>>> Right? Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it.
>>>>
>>>> I could easily afford to donate to Tom's well being. Instead
>>>> I choose other charities that are IMO much more beneficial.
>>>> Tom would just waste the money on another counterfeit bike
>>>> component, hoping to speed his next "training" ride.
>>>>
>>>> But as a broad principle, I want a truly progressive tax
>>>> code. I think it should all be on an even basis, with
>>>> (almost?) no preference given to the method of making money.
>>>> For example, investments should be taxed as much as labor.
>>>> (Oh, and that applies especially when investments are passed
>>>> on to inheritors.)
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, I think the progression of taxes should be by a
>>>> smooth mathematical function. This business of tax brackets
>>>> being step increases is nonsense, apparently contrived
>>>> because the average citizen is innumerate.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, I'd say Tom should pay less in taxes than I do. The
>>>> poor guy needs all the help he can get.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Purposeful misstatements in there, notably the Warren
>>> Buffet quip.
>>>
>>> She pays payroll tax plus FIT. He doesn't draw salary and
>>> so is not beholden to the government for those two levies.
>>>
>>> He 'earned', on paper, asset appreciation. This is not
>>> 'income'. It is a putative change of asset value. I say
>>> putative because share values are dynamic and may be more
>>> or less when sold than at the moment. If they drop in
>>> value below purchase price and he sells, he can take that
>>> loss against other like kind income. If they hold value or
>>> rise he pays tax on the value change, likely at capital
>>> gains rate because this is not simple income no matter how
>>> you slice it. If that is not clear to you, it's not clear
>>> to Ms Warren either.
>>
>> It's not that difficult to understand, Andrew. Read this:
>> https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/
>>
>>
>>
>> Despite your portrayal of the risk of Buffett's or Bezos's
>> or other wealthy individuals' assets depreciating, it
>> doesn't seem to happen enough to make the system equitable.
>> One simple way of looking at it is that the stock market
>> historically rises over the long term. (Only a fool would
>> have lost money in, say, the Obama years.) That means
>> capital gains tend to exceed losses. It's one of the
>> mechanisms by which the rich become ever richer.
>>
>> One might - just might - be able to argue that it's all OK
>> because the assets eventually get sold. But even then, the
>> gains are generally taxed at a lower rate. And if the assets
>> are not sold, if they are instead passed on to one's
>> dependents or heirs, the accumulated growth in value is
>> _never_ taxed. The basis for the new owner is the price when
>> received. By that mechanism, the family owning it reaps a
>> potentially tremendous growth in wealth (AKA income) while
>> paying no taxes on it. And the expenses of government that
>> _would_ have been covered by those taxes are instead paid by
>> people like Tom.
>>
>> Again, one of the many mechanisms by which the rich become
>> even richer.
>>
>> Right wingers tend to portray it as a result of personal
>> discipline and hard work. That's bullshit. Lars and Buffy
>> make this money while sunning themselves on the deck of
>> their family's yacht. The woman scrubbing their gold plated
>> toilet works ten times as hard.
>>
>>> And if the tax code as written doesn't sound fair to you,
>>> do what the beneficiaries of those little obscure
>>> paragraphs schedules and subnotes did. Buy a Senator or two.
>>
>> Lars and Buffy can afford senators. The common man cannot.
>> That's exactly why we have this perverted system of taxation.
>>
>
>
> 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/

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
> > involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
> > that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
> > I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
> >
> > But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
> > friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
> > well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
> >
> > I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
> > where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
> > with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
> > husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
> > unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
> >
> > He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
> >
> > As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
> > because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
> > wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
> > though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
> > motorists who die of brain injury.)
> >
> > My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
> > zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
> > certification test.
> >
> >
> Sorry to hear!
>
> Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
> folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
> by what appears to be something quite benign.
>
> Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.

Since crashes, by their very nature, are chaotic events, no amount of knowledge can lead to any changes in cyclists behavior that will have any effect beyond safe riding practives. It APPEARS that safety helmets and most certainly the latest Bontrager Wavecell helmets, can reduce fall over deaths but these are already near the smallest possible. My near death experience could NOT have been avoided and my head was less than 3 feet above the ground..

When Frank isn't touting communism he advocates that other cyclist take the same chances he does by not wearing a helmet. Are these serious chances? No, but I was walking down the street yesterday and lost the view of the visual horizon when glacing down at the phone expecting a call from my mechanic. Since I have no balance since my concussion, I tripped over the uneven pavement and fell down in front of God and miles of heavy traffic. Falling on the sidewalk was hardly dangerous but who knows what may happen in such circumstances. There was a tree there. What if instead of falling clear of it I had hit my head on the truck of that tree? My guess is that 99% of the people that Frank rides with wears a helmet. And that despite that his friend was killed. In Frank's mind then, helmets are useless if they don't prevent 100% of all fall-over deaths.

I note in the header that there are over 400 postings on this sting. What percentage do you supoose have the slightest thing to do with Frank's friend being killed? I'm sure that jn this string somewhere, rather than bemoaning the passing of his friend, Frank is promoting communism so that he can live off of the work of others. He is supposedly an engineer and a teacher but he clearly has never coldly analyzed why Billionaires don't pay the sorts of taxes that Frank thinks they should. Colleges and Universities live largely off charitable donations from multi-millionaires and Billionaires because it gives them income reductions leading to fewer taxes. Not NO TAXES and Frank purports and NOT less taxes than he pays as he has no trouble lying about. It is impossible to have large incomes without paying large amounts in taxes. It is possible to be so charitable that you can reduce your taxes to the same rates that Frank pays. That is what he is sniveling about. He thinks because these people live rich that they should be paying more than he does.

Most people have work to perform because of billionaires and the like. Frank would just as soon the entire world was living in homeless camps if he could live better than he does.

What about his friend? He supposedly died from the inability to unclip from his pedal. He is wiling to demonize clipless pedals. Anyone that does anything DIFFERENT from Frank is clearly in the wrong. If the man died he didn't die from falling over. He had a heart attack or stroke and simply died while everyone looked on helpless to do anything. Obviously a covid-19 death - right Russell?

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

Wrong, and you seem to be ignorant of U.S. tax laws. There are many,
many tax avoidance strategies that are, practically speaking, available
only to the wealthy. They're certainly not available to a middle income
worker living on paychecks.

> I have no idea of your financial details but one can, for example,
> invest in tax free municipal bonds. One can lease instead of owning
> and so on.

When I did my own investing, I did make heavy use of tax free munis.
They did well. (Since then I've turned my investing over to a
specialist. I assume some of my assets are in those munis, but I'm not
curious enough to check.) I've considered leasing vehicles, but for me
paying cash and owning outright makes more sense. It's not even a close
decision.

> My guess is that people like Warren Buffet "don't go to the toilet"
> without first consulting their financial adviser.... who's salary, is
> likely tax deductible, unlike you who, in financial terms probably
> blunders around with your eyes tight shut.

Your wild guesses are all turning out wrong, John.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

As I've said, I like that part of my taxes ensure that our drinking
water is safe. I much prefer it to, say, paying fewer taxes and
sanitizing my own water.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes from taxes.
>>>>
>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a SCOTUS
>>>> opinion that contained "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized
>>>> society", a sentiment that I embrace. I researched it to make sure I
>>>> got the attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich') and
>>>> found this:
>>>>
>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>>>>
>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of social order."
>>>>
>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in principle,
>>> right.
>>>
>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>>> nothing much works.
>>> --
>>
>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where one can
>> become rich through a combination of sweat, ingenuity, and luck),
>> there is a price to pay. For the richest to avoid taxes - legally or
>> not - is akin to "making everyone else pay for it".

Exactly!

> 'Taxes'  is a very large set of income streams (to the Leviathan) or
> expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes' generally. No one.
>
> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income tax _rates_
> (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital gains, 1120 corporation
> taxes, inheritance, all the many and various excises (alcohol & tobacco
> but also gasoline, tires, kerosene, fishing gear...

Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing gear or
kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those are obviously a much
bigger burden on a low income subsistence fisherman than on Lars and
Buffy. Their yacht probably has no need of kerosene!

Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall tax rate paid
by the typical billionaire is much lower than the overall tax rate paid
by a middle income American. Yes, that _is_ a serious problem.

Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total dollars cuts no
ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many dollars, and he _should_ pay
far more than he does. If he did, the tax rates of typical Americans
could drop, and/or the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.

How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police and better
technology to address gun crime? How about traffic light detectors that
would automatically respond to cyclists? How about stopping the sewage
overflows into storm water systems? Things like this could be afforded
if the rich paid their fair share.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 11:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
>>> involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
>>> that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
>>> I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
>>>
>>> But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
>>> friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
>>> well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
>>>
>>> I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
>>> where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
>>> with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
>>> husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
>>> unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
>>>
>>> He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
>>>
>>> As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
>>> because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
>>> wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
>>> though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
>>> motorists who die of brain injury.)
>>>
>>> My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
>>> zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
>>> certification test.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry to hear!
>>
>> Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
>> folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
>> by what appears to be something quite benign.
>>
>> Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.
>
> Since crashes, by their very nature, are chaotic events, no amount of knowledge can lead to any changes in cyclists behavior that will have any effect beyond safe riding practives. It APPEARS that safety helmets and most certainly the latest Bontrager Wavecell helmets, can reduce fall over deaths but these are already near the smallest possible. My near death experience could NOT have been avoided and my head was less than 3 feet above the ground.
>
> When Frank isn't touting communism he advocates that other cyclist take the same chances he does by not wearing a helmet. Are these serious chances? No, but I was walking down the street yesterday and lost the view of the visual horizon when glacing down at the phone expecting a call from my mechanic. Since I have no balance since my concussion, I tripped over the uneven pavement and fell down in front of God and miles of heavy traffic. Falling on the sidewalk was hardly dangerous but who knows what may happen in such circumstances. There was a tree there. What if instead of falling clear of it I had hit my head on the truck of that tree? My guess is that 99% of the people that Frank rides with wears a helmet. And that despite that his friend was killed. In Frank's mind then, helmets are useless if they don't prevent 100% of all fall-over deaths.
>
> I note in the header that there are over 400 postings on this sting. What percentage do you supoose have the slightest thing to do with Frank's friend being killed? I'm sure that jn this string somewhere, rather than bemoaning the passing of his friend, Frank is promoting communism so that he can live off of the work of others. He is supposedly an engineer and a teacher but he clearly has never coldly analyzed why Billionaires don't pay the sorts of taxes that Frank thinks they should. Colleges and Universities live largely off charitable donations from multi-millionaires and Billionaires because it gives them income reductions leading to fewer taxes. Not NO TAXES and Frank purports and NOT less taxes than he pays as he has no trouble lying about. It is impossible to have large incomes without paying large amounts in taxes. It is possible to be so charitable that you can reduce your taxes to the same rates that Frank pays. That is what he is sniveling about. He thinks because these people live rich that they should be paying more than he does.
>
> Most people have work to perform because of billionaires and the like. Frank would just as soon the entire world was living in homeless camps if he could live better than he does.
>
> What about his friend? He supposedly died from the inability to unclip from his pedal. He is wiling to demonize clipless pedals. Anyone that does anything DIFFERENT from Frank is clearly in the wrong. If the man died he didn't die from falling over. He had a heart attack or stroke and simply died while everyone looked on helpless to do anything. Obviously a covid-19 death - right Russell?

Wow! :-) Tom missed his meds again this morning!
--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/25/2022 10:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 8:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2022 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, there are every year some individuals who and some
>>>>>>>> corporate
>>>>>>>> entities which pay a tax rate below average, and some
>>>>>>>> zero. Congress in
>>>>>>>> its wisdom has written a gazillion carve-outs, credits,
>>>>>>>> deductions,
>>>>>>>> exemptions etc and an accountant or tax attorney would
>>>>>>>> be remiss in not
>>>>>>>> availing those to his client's advantage when filing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember the IRS rule- Tax avoidance is lawful (and I
>>>>>>>> woudl add
>>>>>>>> patriotic). Tax evasion is criminal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh by the way if any of the evil number crunchers in
>>>>>>>> your links had
>>>>>>>> actually evaded taxation, they risk fines and
>>>>>>>> imprisonment. More, the
>>>>>>>> larger one's income, the more likely an audit. Very
>>>>>>>> large entities are
>>>>>>>> routinely audited for every filing every year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it was richly humorous for Ms Warren to call
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> Elon Musk for
>>>>>>>> not 'paying his fair share':
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/20/elon-musk-says-he-will-pay-over-11-billion-in-taxes-this-year.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the highest tax payment ever in world history isn't
>>>>>>>> enough, maybe one
>>>>>>>> ought to reconsider the proposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a person makes more money than anyone in world
>>>>>>> history, they should
>>>>>>> pay more taxes than anyone in world history. How is that
>>>>>>> not obvious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is not saying that Musk or Bezos or Gates or
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> of that ilk
>>>>>>> violated the law. It's simply saying that the law should
>>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the
>>>>>>> world’s richest
>>>>>>> man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He
>>>>>>> achieved the feat
>>>>>>> again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the
>>>>>>> second-richest
>>>>>>> person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>> Billionaire
>>>>>>> investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no
>>>>>>> federal income
>>>>>>> tax three years in a row.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue
>>>>>>> Service data on
>>>>>>> the tax returns of thousands of the
>>>>>>> nation’s
>>>>>>> wealthiest
>>>>>>> people, covering
>>>>>>> more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented
>>>>>>> look inside the
>>>>>>> financial lives of America’s titans,
>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>> Warren
>>>>>>> Buffett, Bill
>>>>>>> Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not
>>>>>>> just their
>>>>>>> income and taxes, but also their investments, stock
>>>>>>> trades, gambling
>>>>>>> winnings and even the results of audits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> American tax
>>>>>>> system: that everyone pays their fair share and the
>>>>>>> richest Americans
>>>>>>> pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest
>>>>>>> can — perfectly
>>>>>>> legally — pay income taxes that are
>>>>>>> only a tiny
>>>>>>> fraction of the hundreds
>>>>>>> of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each
>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [from
>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Society gets no great benefit when Jeff Bezos buys a
>>>>>>> mega-yacht, or Bill
>>>>>>> Gates adds another 10,000 square feet to a mansion. That
>>>>>>> money could be
>>>>>>> put to far better use, paying for things that are now
>>>>>>> funded by the
>>>>>>> taxes of much less prosperous people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, the theme here is "TAX the RICH!
>>>>>> (Rah!
>>>>>> Rah! Rah!)
>>>>>> but what is "rich"? Those that "have more money then you
>>>>>> do"? "Those
>>>>>> that have more money then the poor"? Or just point the
>>>>>> finger and
>>>>>> BANG! "You are rich!"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say you don't understand it. At least not very
>>>>> thoroughly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current situation is often "Tax everybody but the
>>>>> rich."
>>>>> Warren Buffet has noted that his secretary pays a
>>>>> higher tax
>>>>> percentage than he does. I pay a higher percentage of my
>>>>> income in taxes than does Elon Musk. Why should that be?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that the rich folks mentioned in the article
>>>>>> quoted complied
>>>>>> with every detail in the tax code. So the tax code is
>>>>>> wrong?
>>>>>> Or is it jealousy? "Whoo! they make more money then I do,
>>>>>> they gotta
>>>>>> be bad guys!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I've not claimed Buffet, Musk, Bezos or Gates
>>>>> are bad
>>>>> guys. (Well, except Gates personally attacked Tom's
>>>>> computer, and Bezos personally interferes with Tom's
>>>>> online
>>>>> purchases!). I think much of what they've done is
>>>>> admirable,
>>>>> I know what they or their accountants are doing regarding
>>>>> taxes is probably legal. I'm saying the laws are terribly
>>>>> written.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But to put it on a personal basis. From reading posts
>>>>>> here
>>>>>> it appears
>>>>>> that Frank has far more money then Tommy. Frank lives
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> nice house,
>>>>>> large property, good neighborhood, drives a rather new
>>>>>> car, etc.,
>>>>>> while Tommy lives in a $50,000 house in a� self
>>>>>> described
>>>>>> slum with
>>>>>> guns banging all night and illegal immigrants swarming
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> streets,
>>>>>> drives a second hand car and gets by on the Social
>>>>>> Security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, logically, the "right" thing to do is to take money
>>>>>> away from
>>>>>> Frank and give it to Tommy so that their financial status
>>>>>> is equal.
>>>>>> Right? Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could easily afford to donate to Tom's well being.
>>>>> Instead
>>>>> I choose other charities that are IMO much more
>>>>> beneficial.
>>>>> Tom would just waste the money on another counterfeit bike
>>>>> component, hoping to speed his next "training" ride.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as a broad principle, I want a truly progressive tax
>>>>> code. I think it should all be on an even basis, with
>>>>> (almost?) no preference given to the method of making
>>>>> money.
>>>>> For example, investments should be taxed as much as labor.
>>>>> (Oh, and that applies especially when investments are
>>>>> passed
>>>>> on to inheritors.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, I think the progression of taxes should be
>>>>> by a
>>>>> smooth mathematical function. This business of tax
>>>>> brackets
>>>>> being step increases is nonsense, apparently contrived
>>>>> because the average citizen is innumerate.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes, I'd say Tom should pay less in taxes than I do.
>>>>> The
>>>>> poor guy needs all the help he can get.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Purposeful misstatements in there, notably the Warren
>>>> Buffet quip.
>>>>
>>>> She pays payroll tax plus FIT. He doesn't draw salary and
>>>> so is not beholden to the government for those two levies.
>>>>
>>>> He 'earned', on paper, asset appreciation. This is not
>>>> 'income'. It is a putative change of asset value. I say
>>>> putative because share values are dynamic and may be more
>>>> or less when sold than at the moment. If they drop in
>>>> value below purchase price and he sells, he can take that
>>>> loss against other like kind income. If they hold value or
>>>> rise he pays tax on the value change, likely at capital
>>>> gains rate because this is not simple income no matter how
>>>> you slice it. If that is not clear to you, it's not clear
>>>> to Ms Warren either.
>>>
>>> It's not that difficult to understand, Andrew. Read this:
>>> https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Despite your portrayal of the risk of Buffett's or Bezos's
>>> or other wealthy individuals' assets depreciating, it
>>> doesn't seem to happen enough to make the system equitable.
>>> One simple way of looking at it is that the stock market
>>> historically rises over the long term. (Only a fool would
>>> have lost money in, say, the Obama years.) That means
>>> capital gains tend to exceed losses. It's one of the
>>> mechanisms by which the rich become ever richer.
>>>
>>> One might - just might - be able to argue that it's all OK
>>> because the assets eventually get sold. But even then, the
>>> gains are generally taxed at a lower rate. And if the assets
>>> are not sold, if they are instead passed on to one's
>>> dependents or heirs, the accumulated growth in value is
>>> _never_ taxed. The basis for the new owner is the price when
>>> received. By that mechanism, the family owning it reaps a
>>> potentially tremendous growth in wealth (AKA income) while
>>> paying no taxes on it. And the expenses of government that
>>> _would_ have been covered by those taxes are instead paid by
>>> people like Tom.
>>>
>>> Again, one of the many mechanisms by which the rich become
>>> even richer.
>>>
>>> Right wingers tend to portray it as a result of personal
>>> discipline and hard work. That's bullshit. Lars and Buffy
>>> make this money while sunning themselves on the deck of
>>> their family's yacht. The woman scrubbing their gold plated
>>> toilet works ten times as hard.
>>>
>>>> And if the tax code as written doesn't sound fair to you,
>>>> do what the beneficiaries of those little obscure
>>>> paragraphs schedules and subnotes did. Buy a Senator or
>>>> two.
>>>
>>> Lars and Buffy can afford senators. The common man cannot.
>>> That's exactly why we have this perverted system of
>>> taxation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

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.

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

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
> >>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
> >>>>>> from taxes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
> >>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
> >>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
> >>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
> >>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
> >>>>> and found this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
> >>>>> social order."
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
> >>>> principle,
> >>>> right.
> >>>>
> >>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >>>> nothing much works.
> >>>> --
> >>>
> >>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
> >>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
> >>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
> >>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
> >>> "making everyone else pay for it".
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> >> 'Taxes'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.

Here's why Frank will ALWAYS fail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVCppsIyrA

On 5/25/2022 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
>>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
>>>>>>> from taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
>>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
>>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
>>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
>>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
>>>>>> and found this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
>>>>>> social order."
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
>>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
>>>>> principle,
>>>>> right.
>>>>>
>>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
>>>>> nothing much works.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
>>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
>>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
>>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
>>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>>> 'Taxes'  is a very large set of income streams (to the
>>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
>>> generally. No one.
>>>
>>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
>>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
>>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
>>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
>>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
>>
>> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
>> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
>> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
>> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
>> probably has no need of kerosene!
>>
>> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
>> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
>> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
>> that _is_ a serious problem.
>>
>> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
>> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
>> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
>> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
>> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
>>
>> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
>> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
>> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
>> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
>> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
>> rich paid their fair share.
>>
>>
>
> heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
>
> Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing, traffic
> 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!) never seems to affect the
> situation for citizens.  The rule is , 'once you solve the problem, the
> money stops.' Professionals understand that rule, we chumps often do not.

Regarding potholes: our village streets were a mess. They were a mess
even after the surrounding township acquired funds to pave its streets.
The difference was very apparent when (as we did again today) we rode
our bikes to get groceries.

So the village asked citizens for a special tax levy for paving. The
residents approved it. The village roads we use are now excellent.

We've got a good police force, known for stopping traffic violators and
keeping a close eye on things. This community has twice been rated one
of the top ten safest communities in the state.

Not that everything is perfect, mind you. For example, there are two
little areas where the residents have complained about occasional sewage
odors; but the village officials pointed out that's not under their
jurisdiction. The lines are owned and controlled by the county, and the
county engineer says they don't have the budget to address the problem.

I'll note that this county's roads are notoriously rough. Years ago, the
man who was then county engineer explained the problem. As one of the
earlier settled counties, we have many more miles of county roads than
the state's average, but we get the same number of dollars as counties
with very low road mileage. The total allocation from the state is
evenly divided among the 88 counties.

The county engineer said that if he had more money to work with, the
roads would be better maintained. I believe him.

Vaguely related: One little used MUP here crosses the border, starting
in Ohio and ending in Pennsylvania. It's construction was actually
totally funded by a local family. When it was built, the county promised
to maintain it. So did the townships in Pennsylvania.

PA has kept its part of the bargain, which I'm told they could afford
because of revenue generated by the fracking industry. But our current
county engineer refuses to do any maintenance. He claims that he doesn't
have the budget for it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

Your village may well be a paragon of thrift and sincere
concern for the ever suffering taxpayer. I'll accept your
word on that.

If taxpayer resources are so well managed, why is the NY
State budget with a declining roughly 20 million population
more than double FL State budget with 22 million+ and growing?

Note zero income tax in FL but NY is #1 in USA. By the way,
how's that NY Temporary Rent Control system working out
since 1942? Like inflation, a punishing tax by another name.

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

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:37:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 3:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/25/2022 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/2022 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/25/2022 5:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:55 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-4, Frank
> >>>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Someone has to pay for civilization. That money comes
> >>>>>>>> from taxes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I read once long ago that Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a
> >>>>>>> SCOTUS opinion that contained "taxes are the price we
> >>>>>>> pay for a civilized society", a sentiment that I
> >>>>>>> embrace. I researched it to make sure I got the
> >>>>>>> attribution correct (lest I be committing a 'kunich')
> >>>>>>> and found this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As early as 1848, "Rightful taxation is the price of
> >>>>>>> social order."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think virtually everyone would agree that some modest
> >>>>>> amount of taxation to preserve civil order is, in
> >>>>>> principle,
> >>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In practice it's a very large amount of tax revenue and
> >>>>>> nothing much works.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point was - If one wants a functioning society (where
> >>>>> one can become rich through a combination of sweat,
> >>>>> ingenuity, and luck), there is a price to pay. For the
> >>>>> richest to avoid taxes - legally or not - is akin to
> >>>>> "making everyone else pay for it".
> >>>
> >>> Exactly!
> >>>
> >>>> 'Taxes' is a very large set of income streams (to the
> >>>> Leviathan) or expense (to us). No one 'avoids taxes'
> >>>> generally. No one.
> >>>>
> >>>> People commonly get apoplectic about 1040 personal income
> >>>> tax _rates_ (ignoring the amount paid) and ignore capital
> >>>> gains, 1120 corporation taxes, inheritance, all the many
> >>>> and various excises (alcohol & tobacco but also gasoline,
> >>>> tires, kerosene, fishing gear...
> >>>
> >>> Oh please! It's ludicrous to complain about taxes on fishing
> >>> gear or kerosene in a discussion about tax inequity. Those
> >>> are obviously a much bigger burden on a low income
> >>> subsistence fisherman than on Lars and Buffy. Their yacht
> >>> probably has no need of kerosene!
> >>>
> >>> Regarding rates: With all taxes accounted for, the overall
> >>> tax rate paid by the typical billionaire is much lower than
> >>> the overall tax rate paid by a middle income American. Yes,
> >>> that _is_ a serious problem.
> >>>
> >>> Whining that dear, delicate Jeff Bezos paid more total
> >>> dollars cuts no ice. He hauls in thousands of times as many
> >>> dollars, and he _should_ pay far more than he does. If he
> >>> did, the tax rates of typical Americans could drop, and/or
> >>> the amenities provided by tax dollars could increase.
> >>>
> >>> How about roads with fewer potholes? How about more police
> >>> and better technology to address gun crime? How about
> >>> traffic light detectors that would automatically respond to
> >>> cyclists? How about stopping the sewage overflows into storm
> >>> water systems? Things like this could be afforded if the
> >>> rich paid their fair share.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> heh heh heh. Connect the dots.
> >>
> >> Throwing endless piles of money at potholes, policing,
> >> traffic 'infrastructure' (and I can list more areas!)
> >> never seems to affect the situation for citizens. The
> >> rule is , 'once you solve the problem, the money stops.'
> >> Professionals understand that rule, we chumps often do not.
> >
> > Regarding potholes: our village streets were a mess. They
> > were a mess even after the surrounding township acquired
> > funds to pave its streets. The difference was very apparent
> > when (as we did again today) we rode our bikes to get
> > groceries.
> >
> > So the village asked citizens for a special tax levy for
> > paving. The residents approved it. The village roads we use
> > are now excellent.
> >
> > We've got a good police force, known for stopping traffic
> > violators and keeping a close eye on things. This community
> > has twice been rated one of the top ten safest communities
> > in the state.
> >
> > Not that everything is perfect, mind you. For example, there
> > are two little areas where the residents have complained
> > about occasional sewage odors; but the village officials
> > pointed out that's not under their jurisdiction. The lines
> > are owned and controlled by the county, and the county
> > engineer says they don't have the budget to address the
> > problem.
> >
> > I'll note that this county's roads are notoriously rough.
> > Years ago, the man who was then county engineer explained
> > the problem. As one of the earlier settled counties, we have
> > many more miles of county roads than the state's average,
> > but we get the same number of dollars as counties with very
> > low road mileage. The total allocation from the state is
> > evenly divided among the 88 counties.
> >
> > The county engineer said that if he had more money to work
> > with, the roads would be better maintained. I believe him.
> >
> > Vaguely related: One little used MUP here crosses the
> > border, starting in Ohio and ending in Pennsylvania. It's
> > construction was actually totally funded by a local family.
> > When it was built, the county promised to maintain it. So
> > did the townships in Pennsylvania.
> >
> > PA has kept its part of the bargain, which I'm told they
> > could afford because of revenue generated by the fracking
> > industry. But our current county engineer refuses to do any
> > maintenance. He claims that he doesn't have the budget for it.
> >
> Your village may well be a paragon of thrift and sincere
> concern for the ever suffering taxpayer. I'll accept your
> word on that.
>
> If taxpayer resources are so well managed, why is the NY
> State budget with a declining roughly 20 million population
> more than double FL State budget with 22 million+ and growing?
>
> Note zero income tax in FL but NY is #1 in USA. By the way,
> how's that NY Temporary Rent Control system working out
> since 1942? Like inflation, a punishing tax by another name.

I stopped reading when Frank said, "The county engineer said he needs more money." The is the refrain from EVERY government official on every subject. Why is it that Elon Musk has become the World's richest man with a mere 110,000 employees while the government has over 9 million people and can achieve NOTHINNG!

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.

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.

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

On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:12:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:14:54 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>
>> If you payer a higher percentage in taxes then others then, in simple
>> terms, you didn't arrange your financial affairs as wisely as they
>> did.
>
>Bullshit. The average working stiff doesn't have access to the financial tools and deductible options that the very rich have, and also don't have the ability to hire tax lawyers with the ability to "interpret" our overly complex tax code and take advantage of those tools. Buffet's secretary can't lower her tax rate because he/she can't. If anyone would be able to figure out a legal way for them to do it, it would be Buffet and his army of tax attorneys.
>
But I was a working stiff. And I had access to financial tools, etc.

You are simply rationalizing the fact that, at least from what I read,
the average USian pisses his money way, even before he gets it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/11/amid-rising-prices-us-households-fall-deeper-in-debt.html

--
Cheers,

John B.