On Mon, 23 May 2022 09:30:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/22/2022 10:38 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 8:46:43 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 19:57:42 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2022 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 10:46:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 5:42 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:40:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:43:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 4:59 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 10:36 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com" <funkma...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 11:50 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember Kamala Harris during the vice presidential debates saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that she would be very reluctant to take a "Trump vaccine", which was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being developed in an awful hurry without adequate safeguards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What she _actually_ said during the debate was, “If the public health
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.â€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I looked at the transcript, and it is indeed not exactly as remembered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, had Trump won, he certainly would have told her and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of us to "take it".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point there, but somehow after the vaccines rolled out right *after*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the election, they became "Biden vaccines",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must have missed the press releases naming the vaccines "trump" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biden". Would you have a link to a credible news source that notes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those terms specifically?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are my terms. I think they fit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might enjoy this editorial from the NY Times, Sept 2020:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-trump.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It discusses the Gerald Ford vaccine, for swine flu, that was withdrawn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after causing a few cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, and compares it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump's operation warp speed. They make some good points, but after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election nothing like this was visible in the mainstream press.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @WhiteHouse tweeted on 12 May 2022, 2:45 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When President Biden took office, millions were unemployed and there was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no vaccine available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure sounds like they're trying to make it the Biden vaccine to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and every Democrat jumped on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bandwagon to not only take the experimental vaccine, but to try to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force everyone everywhere to take it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hyperbole won't do you any favors. I was extremely hesitant. I waited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until july.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You waited longer than I did. I don't think I would do it again, although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing unusually bad has happened to me. My tinnitus is a lot worse,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's hard to say if that's vaccine related or not. I have not and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not take a booster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete revision of ideas about respiratory pandemic handling happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the *last two years*. That was not due to an increase in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge or wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's a completely ridiculous assertion. The Obama administration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented policies and created positions to manage pandemics, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going so far as to embed a CDC advisor called "resident adviser to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China" in the Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDC. As soon as trump took office he went to work dismantling Obamas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic response team and recalled the CDC advisor. If anything, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trump administration dumbed down and ignored what had been learned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 years is an overstatement, reflecting only the facts on the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual plans go back to Bush the younger's admininistration. 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saw an abortive attempt to put the new plans into practice, but it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't scary enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recommend this article for some history on pandemic planning and how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we got here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Particularly the linked paper by D A Henderson, the guy most responsible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for eradicating smallpox:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know, Frank will say he's a winger. Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those of you who have read all the way here, a lagniappe, the Amish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach to covid:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Amish make the Swedes look like a nation of Chicken Littles, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't seem to have any regrets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much is unknown and given the political spin on statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gathering and analysis (in various countries) probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowable now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that Portugal has among the highest rates of mRNA shots:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and also among the highest rate of reinfections. hmmm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, reinfections. But getting reinfected is not that bad. You stay home from work one day and feel tired for awhile. Then you are good to go again. With no hospital stay in the ICU and no breathing tube and no death. So minimal to no harm being reinfected. Not many people have said the vaccine will prevent ALL infections. The vaccine just almost minimizes death and makes infections somewhat immaterial. Kind of like a pitcher and batter. He is throwing a fastball at 90 mph. It can hit you in the thigh, and leave a bruise. Or it can hit you in the head and leave you brain damaged. Seems to me getting the vaccine and getting hit in the thigh is better than not getting the vaccine and getting hit in the head. And yes the pitch/virus does not hit everyone. Sometimes the pitcher throws and you dive on the ground and the ball/virus goes over your head and misses you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then again, in direct conflict with the modern meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the term 'vaccine' until two years ago, the mRNA shot
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prevent reinfection or much more significantly,
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't keep that person from spreading it to others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that lower death rates for second/ third/ fourth
>>>>>>>>>>>> infections is a good thing. Then again it's 'lower' not
>>>>>>>>>>>> zero. Continued contraction and continuing contagion are
>>>>>>>>>>>> unhelpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to once more toss in the shameful history of AIDS and
>>>>>>>>>>>> CDC under Drs Gallo and Fauci. Great resources in money,
>>>>>>>>>>>> time and effort were pissed away on vaccine research for 35
>>>>>>>>>>>> years or so with no result. Early advocates of traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>> medical method- develop/discover therapeutics to prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> death and improve health of the infected- were shouted down,
>>>>>>>>>>>> hounded, belittled. Yet here we are today where those evil
>>>>>>>>>>>> pharmaceutical organizations supply many and various
>>>>>>>>>>>> effective therapies such that even the poor in undeveloped
>>>>>>>>>>>> countries live out their lives for pennies per week of
>>>>>>>>>>>> treatment. Sound familiar? It's the same playbook and
>>>>>>>>>>>> written by at least some of the same people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BUT... what is the alternate? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring the Covid and looking at HIV only, Thailand had a HIV rate of
>>>>>>>>>>> over 2% among pregnant women and over 4% among Thai
>>>>>>>>>>> military recruits. Without the use of a vaccine the rates have been
>>>>>>>>>>> reduced to 0.6% in pregnant women and military recruits. Largely
>>>>>>>>>>> through education and protective "devices".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet when, in the U.S., Medics suggest the use of proactive devices,
>>>>>>>>>>> like masks, for the Covid, people are leaping up and down, waving
>>>>>>>>>>> their arms and shouting, "NO", "NO", "NO".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, of the larger countries, say 250 million or larger population
>>>>>>>>>>> the U.S. is leading the pack in total cases and total deaths.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for calculating normal deaths and excess deaths and so on?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, during the 20 years of the Vietnam war where the total combat
>>>>>>>>>>> deaths were a paltry 47,434 compared with the over today's 1 million
>>>>>>>>>>> Covid deaths, nobody was shouting, "OH! Never mind it is only a few if
>>>>>>>>>>> you calculate the usual/normal/whatever death rates. No, you were
>>>>>>>>>>> running for the border in terror.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The numbers of people who emigrated to avoid the draft were
>>>>>>>>>> much smaller than the mythic version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. I am voicing what the professional
>>>>>>>>> military believed, or was told. Stories of the "cowards" streaming
>>>>>>>>> across the border were printed in the Air Force Times (the Air Force
>>>>>>>>> "in service newspaper").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, from all I read after it was all over they didn't
>>>>>>>>> Immigrate, they simply crossed the border and lived there. Technically
>>>>>>>>> as illegal immigrants.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you ignore my point, while people stand around yammering about
>>>>>>>>> excess deaths and old folk dying in an attempt to somehow de-demonize
>>>>>>>>> the Coved, this isn't done in wartime. Nope we build monuments to
>>>>>>>>> those who died in"the war". But to date, from the records I see, that
>>>>>>>>> in all the wars, invasions, military intrusions, etc., the U.S. has
>>>>>>>>> engaged in from 1775 to 2019 deaths in combat amounted to about
>>>>>>>>> 666,441. While Covid deaths, from 2020 to 2022 amounted to 1,028,741.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, one might (with out rationalizing) say that the Covid is/was/may
>>>>>>>>> be a greater killer by a factor of 1.5 then all the wars the U.S. has
>>>>>>>>> fought. When will we be building a monument?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Monuments come after we defeat china. This virus is merely a
>>>>>>>> first engagement.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Defeat China? I am far more concerned about stopping the deaths from Covid-19. And eliminating the economic effects Covid has caused throughout the world. I am aware Covid started in China. And spread worldwide. Was it intentional? Maybe, maybe not. I'd go for the not. The leaders in China have some competent advisors. They would tell the leaders that destroying the world's economy is bad for China. No matter how much harm it does to everyone else, China will also suffer. China is interconnected with the world economically. Very few spouses commit spousal murder by pulling the spouse into a closet and setting off a hand grenade. Its not much benefit to kill yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as first engagement. Hopefully the world has learned from Covid. And will be better prepared for the next time something similar happens. But I'm not too hopeful a large portion of the USA has learned anything at all. So we would likely have a repeat exactly as bad the next time around. As for engaging China on other fronts. Such as the militarization of the South China Sea, and human rights, and trading, those conflicts will continue. And I am hopeful a good outcome can be achieved. Good for both sides and everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike the Republicans who assume everything is a zero sum game. If you gain, then I must lose, So that is evil. I believe we all can gain together. Likely different amounts of gain. But all pluses for everyone. No one has to lose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have that backwards IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Statists believe in the socialist version of 'sharing',
>>>>>> i.e., forcibly redistributing limited resources all while
>>>>>> suppressing innovation, efficiency and growth. Classic
>>>>>> 'zero-sum' outlook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Classic liberals (now called conservatives) are more with Mr
>>>>>> Deng, "Let a thousand flowers bloom". Liberty with less
>>>>>> restriction makes everyone more prosperous and life more
>>>>>> meaningful for most.
>>>>>
>>>>> And while I don't know this from experience I am told that opening a
>>>>> business in China is easier, with far fewer restriction, then doing
>>>>> the same in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that.
>>>> Note CCP is your partner whether you like it or not.
>>>>
>>> I'm sure.
>>>
>>> But so is the U.S., or at least I read that you pay 21% in corporate
>>> taxes to your government.
>>
>> No. That is the mythical, fantastical, corporate tax rate. No one pays anywhere near that.
>>
>> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-19-fortune-100-companies-paid-next-to-nothing-or-nothing-at-all-in-taxes-in-2021/
>> https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/business/economy/zero-corporate-tax.html
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corporate-tax-large-companies-foreign-us/
>>

On Mon, 23 May 2022 10:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Sun, 22 May 2022 10:46:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/21/2022 5:42 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/20/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:40:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 5/20/2022 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:43:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 4:59 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 10:36 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com" <funkma...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 11:50 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember Kamala Harris during the vice presidential debates saying
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that she would be very reluctant to take a "Trump vaccine", which was
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being developed in an awful hurry without adequate safeguards.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What she _actually_ said during the debate was, “If the public health
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.â€
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I looked at the transcript, and it is indeed not exactly as remembered.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, had Trump won, he certainly would have told her and
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the rest of us to "take it".
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She had
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point there, but somehow after the vaccines rolled out right *after*
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the election, they became "Biden vaccines",
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I must have missed the press releases naming the vaccines "trump" and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "biden". Would you have a link to a credible news source that notes
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> those terms specifically?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Those are my terms. I think they fit.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You might enjoy this editorial from the NY Times, Sept 2020:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-trump.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> It discusses the Gerald Ford vaccine, for swine flu, that was withdrawn
>> >>>>>>>>>>> after causing a few cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, and compares it to
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trump's operation warp speed. They make some good points, but after the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> election nothing like this was visible in the mainstream press.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> @WhiteHouse tweeted on 12 May 2022, 2:45 PM:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> When President Biden took office, millions were unemployed and there was
>> >>>>>>>>>>> no vaccine available.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure sounds like they're trying to make it the Biden vaccine to me.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and every Democrat jumped on
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bandwagon to not only take the experimental vaccine, but to try to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force everyone everywhere to take it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hyperbole won't do you any favors. I was extremely hesitant. I waited
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> until july.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You waited longer than I did. I don't think I would do it again, although
>> >>>>>>>>>>> nothing unusually bad has happened to me. My tinnitus is a lot worse,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> but it's hard to say if that's vaccine related or not. I have not and
>> >>>>>>>>>>> will not take a booster.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete revision of ideas about respiratory pandemic handling happened
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the *last two years*. That was not due to an increase in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge or wisdom.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that's a completely ridiculous assertion. The Obama administration
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implemented policies and created positions to manage pandemics, even
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> going so far as to embed a CDC advisor called "resident adviser to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China" in the Chinese
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CDC. As soon as trump took office he went to work dismantling Obamas
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic response team and recalled the CDC advisor. If anything, the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> trump administration dumbed down and ignored what had been learned
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> since the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 years is an overstatement, reflecting only the facts on the ground.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The actual plans go back to Bush the younger's admininistration. 2009
>> >>>>>>>>>>> saw an abortive attempt to put the new plans into practice, but it just
>> >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't scary enough.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I recommend this article for some history on pandemic planning and how
>> >>>>>>>>>>> we got here:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Particularly the linked paper by D A Henderson, the guy most responsible
>> >>>>>>>>>>> for eradicating smallpox:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I know, Frank will say he's a winger. Whatever.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> For those of you who have read all the way here, a lagniappe, the Amish
>> >>>>>>>>>>> approach to covid:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Amish make the Swedes look like a nation of Chicken Littles, but
>> >>>>>>>>>>> they don't seem to have any regrets.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Much is unknown and given the political spin on statistical
>> >>>>>>>>>> gathering and analysis (in various countries) probably
>> >>>>>>>>>> unknowable now.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I see that Portugal has among the highest rates of mRNA shots:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> and also among the highest rate of reinfections. hmmm.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, reinfections. But getting reinfected is not that bad. You stay home from work one day and feel tired for awhile. Then you are good to go again. With no hospital stay in the ICU and no breathing tube and no death. So minimal to no harm being reinfected. Not many people have said the vaccine will prevent ALL infections. The vaccine just almost minimizes death and makes infections somewhat immaterial. Kind of like a pitcher and batter. He is throwing a fastball at 90 mph. It can hit you in the thigh, and leave a bruise. Or it can hit you in the head and leave you brain damaged. Seems to me getting the vaccine and getting hit in the thigh is better than not getting the vaccine and getting hit in the head. And yes the pitch/virus does not hit everyone. Sometimes the pitcher throws and you dive on the ground and the ball/virus goes over your head and misses you.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Then again, in direct conflict with the modern meaning of
>> >>>>>>>> the term 'vaccine' until two years ago, the mRNA shot
>> >>>>>>>> doesn't prevent reinfection or much more significantly,
>> >>>>>>>> doesn't keep that person from spreading it to others.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I agree that lower death rates for second/ third/ fourth
>> >>>>>>>> infections is a good thing. Then again it's 'lower' not
>> >>>>>>>> zero. Continued contraction and continuing contagion are
>> >>>>>>>> unhelpful.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I have to once more toss in the shameful history of AIDS and
>> >>>>>>>> CDC under Drs Gallo and Fauci. Great resources in money,
>> >>>>>>>> time and effort were pissed away on vaccine research for 35
>> >>>>>>>> years or so with no result. Early advocates of traditional
>> >>>>>>>> medical method- develop/discover therapeutics to prevent
>> >>>>>>>> death and improve health of the infected- were shouted down,
>> >>>>>>>> hounded, belittled. Yet here we are today where those evil
>> >>>>>>>> pharmaceutical organizations supply many and various
>> >>>>>>>> effective therapies such that even the poor in undeveloped
>> >>>>>>>> countries live out their lives for pennies per week of
>> >>>>>>>> treatment. Sound familiar? It's the same playbook and
>> >>>>>>>> written by at least some of the same people.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> BUT... what is the alternate? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Ignoring the Covid and looking at HIV only, Thailand had a HIV rate of
>> >>>>>>> over 2% among pregnant women and over 4% among Thai
>> >>>>>>> military recruits. Without the use of a vaccine the rates have been
>> >>>>>>> reduced to 0.6% in pregnant women and military recruits. Largely
>> >>>>>>> through education and protective "devices".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Yet when, in the U.S., Medics suggest the use of proactive devices,
>> >>>>>>> like masks, for the Covid, people are leaping up and down, waving
>> >>>>>>> their arms and shouting, "NO", "NO", "NO".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> And yet, of the larger countries, say 250 million or larger population
>> >>>>>>> the U.S. is leading the pack in total cases and total deaths.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> As for calculating normal deaths and excess deaths and so on?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Well, during the 20 years of the Vietnam war where the total combat
>> >>>>>>> deaths were a paltry 47,434 compared with the over today's 1 million
>> >>>>>>> Covid deaths, nobody was shouting, "OH! Never mind it is only a few if
>> >>>>>>> you calculate the usual/normal/whatever death rates. No, you were
>> >>>>>>> running for the border in terror.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The numbers of people who emigrated to avoid the draft were
>> >>>>>> much smaller than the mythic version.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. I am voicing what the professional
>> >>>>> military believed, or was told. Stories of the "cowards" streaming
>> >>>>> across the border were printed in the Air Force Times (the Air Force
>> >>>>> "in service newspaper").
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> By the way, from all I read after it was all over they didn't
>> >>>>> Immigrate, they simply crossed the border and lived there. Technically
>> >>>>> as illegal immigrants.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But you ignore my point, while people stand around yammering about
>> >>>>> excess deaths and old folk dying in an attempt to somehow de-demonize
>> >>>>> the Coved, this isn't done in wartime. Nope we build monuments to
>> >>>>> those who died in"the war". But to date, from the records I see, that
>> >>>>> in all the wars, invasions, military intrusions, etc., the U.S. has
>> >>>>> engaged in from 1775 to 2019 deaths in combat amounted to about
>> >>>>> 666,441. While Covid deaths, from 2020 to 2022 amounted to 1,028,741.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So, one might (with out rationalizing) say that the Covid is/was/may
>> >>>>> be a greater killer by a factor of 1.5 then all the wars the U.S. has
>> >>>>> fought. When will we be building a monument?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Monuments come after we defeat china. This virus is merely a
>> >>>> first engagement.
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Andrew Muzi
>> >>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> >>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> >>>
>> >>> Defeat China? I am far more concerned about stopping the deaths from Covid-19. And eliminating the economic effects Covid has caused throughout the world. I am aware Covid started in China. And spread worldwide. Was it intentional? Maybe, maybe not. I'd go for the not. The leaders in China have some competent advisors. They would tell the leaders that destroying the world's economy is bad for China. No matter how much harm it does to everyone else, China will also suffer. China is interconnected with the world economically. Very few spouses commit spousal murder by pulling the spouse into a closet and setting off a hand grenade. Its not much benefit to kill yourself.
>> >>>
>> >>> As far as first engagement. Hopefully the world has learned from Covid. And will be better prepared for the next time something similar happens. But I'm not too hopeful a large portion of the USA has learned anything at all. So we would likely have a repeat exactly as bad the next time around. As for engaging China on other fronts. Such as the militarization of the South China Sea, and human rights, and trading, those conflicts will continue. And I am hopeful a good outcome can be achieved. Good for both sides and everyone.
>> >>>
>> >>> Unlike the Republicans who assume everything is a zero sum game. If you gain, then I must lose, So that is evil. I believe we all can gain together. Likely different amounts of gain. But all pluses for everyone. No one has to lose.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> You have that backwards IMHO.
>> >>
>> >> Statists believe in the socialist version of 'sharing',
>> >> i.e., forcibly redistributing limited resources all while
>> >> suppressing innovation, efficiency and growth. Classic
>> >> 'zero-sum' outlook.
>> >>
>> >> Classic liberals (now called conservatives) are more with Mr
>> >> Deng, "Let a thousand flowers bloom". Liberty with less
>> >> restriction makes everyone more prosperous and life more
>> >> meaningful for most.
>> >
>> > And while I don't know this from experience I am told that opening a
>> > business in China is easier, with far fewer restriction, then doing
>> > the same in the U.S.
>> >
>> >
>> I believe that.
>> Note CCP is your partner whether you like it or not.
>>
>> OTOH one of those two countries understands growth and
>> export revenue. The other doesn't.
>
>The overwhelming mistakes the US has made over the last 50 years has been the attempt to make EVERYONE else a Democratic Free Market system. This has led to every war that we have gotten involved in. Had we not sullied our name in the middle east we would never have seen 9/11.
>
>The extremely important thing that Trump did was to ACCEPT other countries forms of government whether we agree with them or not.
>
>The VERY first thing that Biden did upon entering office was to invade Syria. Why has this not been talked about in the media?
>
>The Democrats have made war BIG business and as long as they have the slightest say, such endless wars will continue.
>

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 12:21:09 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 5/22/2022 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Sun, 22 May 2022 10:46:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 5/21/2022 5:42 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>> On 5/20/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:40:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 5/20/2022 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:43:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 4:59 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 10:36 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com" <funkma...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 11:50 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember Kamala Harris during the vice presidential debates saying
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that she would be very reluctant to take a "Trump vaccine", which was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being developed in an awful hurry without adequate safeguards.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What she _actually_ said during the debate was, “If the public health
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.â€
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I looked at the transcript, and it is indeed not exactly as remembered.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, had Trump won, he certainly would have told her and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the rest of us to "take it".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She had
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point there, but somehow after the vaccines rolled out right *after*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the election, they became "Biden vaccines",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I must have missed the press releases naming the vaccines "trump" and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "biden". Would you have a link to a credible news source that notes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those terms specifically?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Those are my terms. I think they fit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> You might enjoy this editorial from the NY Times, Sept 2020:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-trump.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It discusses the Gerald Ford vaccine, for swine flu, that was withdrawn
> > >>>>>>>>>>> after causing a few cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, and compares it to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Trump's operation warp speed. They make some good points, but after the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> election nothing like this was visible in the mainstream press.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @WhiteHouse tweeted on 12 May 2022, 2:45 PM:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> When President Biden took office, millions were unemployed and there was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> no vaccine available.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sure sounds like they're trying to make it the Biden vaccine to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and every Democrat jumped on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bandwagon to not only take the experimental vaccine, but to try to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force everyone everywhere to take it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hyperbole won't do you any favors. I was extremely hesitant. I waited
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> until july.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> You waited longer than I did. I don't think I would do it again, although
> > >>>>>>>>>>> nothing unusually bad has happened to me. My tinnitus is a lot worse,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> but it's hard to say if that's vaccine related or not. I have not and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> will not take a booster.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete revision of ideas about respiratory pandemic handling happened
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the *last two years*. That was not due to an increase in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge or wisdom.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that's a completely ridiculous assertion. The Obama administration
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> implemented policies and created positions to manage pandemics, even
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> going so far as to embed a CDC advisor called "resident adviser to the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China" in the Chinese
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> CDC. As soon as trump took office he went to work dismantling Obamas
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic response team and recalled the CDC advisor. If anything, the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> trump administration dumbed down and ignored what had been learned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> since the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 years is an overstatement, reflecting only the facts on the ground.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The actual plans go back to Bush the younger's admininistration. 2009
> > >>>>>>>>>>> saw an abortive attempt to put the new plans into practice, but it just
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't scary enough.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I recommend this article for some history on pandemic planning and how
> > >>>>>>>>>>> we got here:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Particularly the linked paper by D A Henderson, the guy most responsible
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for eradicating smallpox:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I know, Frank will say he's a winger. Whatever.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> For those of you who have read all the way here, a lagniappe, the Amish
> > >>>>>>>>>>> approach to covid:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Amish make the Swedes look like a nation of Chicken Littles, but
> > >>>>>>>>>>> they don't seem to have any regrets.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Much is unknown and given the political spin on statistical
> > >>>>>>>>>> gathering and analysis (in various countries) probably
> > >>>>>>>>>> unknowable now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I see that Portugal has among the highest rates of mRNA shots:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> and also among the highest rate of reinfections. hmmm.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, reinfections. But getting reinfected is not that bad. You stay home from work one day and feel tired for awhile. Then you are good to go again. With no hospital stay in the ICU and no breathing tube and no death. So minimal to no harm being reinfected. Not many people have said the vaccine will prevent ALL infections. The vaccine just almost minimizes death and makes infections somewhat immaterial. Kind of like a pitcher and batter. He is throwing a fastball at 90 mph. It can hit you in the thigh, and leave a bruise. Or it can hit you in the head and leave you brain damaged. Seems to me getting the vaccine and getting hit in the thigh is better than not getting the vaccine and getting hit in the head. And yes the pitch/virus does not hit everyone. Sometimes the pitcher throws and you dive on the ground and the ball/virus goes over your head and misses you.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Then again, in direct conflict with the modern meaning of
> > >>>>>>>> the term 'vaccine' until two years ago, the mRNA shot
> > >>>>>>>> doesn't prevent reinfection or much more significantly,
> > >>>>>>>> doesn't keep that person from spreading it to others.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I agree that lower death rates for second/ third/ fourth
> > >>>>>>>> infections is a good thing. Then again it's 'lower' not
> > >>>>>>>> zero. Continued contraction and continuing contagion are
> > >>>>>>>> unhelpful.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I have to once more toss in the shameful history of AIDS and
> > >>>>>>>> CDC under Drs Gallo and Fauci. Great resources in money,
> > >>>>>>>> time and effort were pissed away on vaccine research for 35
> > >>>>>>>> years or so with no result. Early advocates of traditional
> > >>>>>>>> medical method- develop/discover therapeutics to prevent
> > >>>>>>>> death and improve health of the infected- were shouted down,
> > >>>>>>>> hounded, belittled. Yet here we are today where those evil
> > >>>>>>>> pharmaceutical organizations supply many and various
> > >>>>>>>> effective therapies such that even the poor in undeveloped
> > >>>>>>>> countries live out their lives for pennies per week of
> > >>>>>>>> treatment. Sound familiar? It's the same playbook and
> > >>>>>>>> written by at least some of the same people.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> BUT... what is the alternate? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring the Covid and looking at HIV only, Thailand had a HIV rate of
> > >>>>>>> over 2% among pregnant women and over 4% among Thai
> > >>>>>>> military recruits. Without the use of a vaccine the rates have been
> > >>>>>>> reduced to 0.6% in pregnant women and military recruits. Largely
> > >>>>>>> through education and protective "devices".
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yet when, in the U.S., Medics suggest the use of proactive devices,
> > >>>>>>> like masks, for the Covid, people are leaping up and down, waving
> > >>>>>>> their arms and shouting, "NO", "NO", "NO".
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> And yet, of the larger countries, say 250 million or larger population
> > >>>>>>> the U.S. is leading the pack in total cases and total deaths.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> As for calculating normal deaths and excess deaths and so on?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Well, during the 20 years of the Vietnam war where the total combat
> > >>>>>>> deaths were a paltry 47,434 compared with the over today's 1 million
> > >>>>>>> Covid deaths, nobody was shouting, "OH! Never mind it is only a few if
> > >>>>>>> you calculate the usual/normal/whatever death rates. No, you were
> > >>>>>>> running for the border in terror.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The numbers of people who emigrated to avoid the draft were
> > >>>>>> much smaller than the mythic version.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. I am voicing what the professional
> > >>>>> military believed, or was told. Stories of the "cowards" streaming
> > >>>>> across the border were printed in the Air Force Times (the Air Force
> > >>>>> "in service newspaper").
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> By the way, from all I read after it was all over they didn't
> > >>>>> Immigrate, they simply crossed the border and lived there. Technically
> > >>>>> as illegal immigrants.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But you ignore my point, while people stand around yammering about
> > >>>>> excess deaths and old folk dying in an attempt to somehow de-demonize
> > >>>>> the Coved, this isn't done in wartime. Nope we build monuments to
> > >>>>> those who died in"the war". But to date, from the records I see, that
> > >>>>> in all the wars, invasions, military intrusions, etc., the U.S. has
> > >>>>> engaged in from 1775 to 2019 deaths in combat amounted to about
> > >>>>> 666,441. While Covid deaths, from 2020 to 2022 amounted to 1,028,741.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So, one might (with out rationalizing) say that the Covid is/was/may
> > >>>>> be a greater killer by a factor of 1.5 then all the wars the U.S. has
> > >>>>> fought. When will we be building a monument?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Monuments come after we defeat china. This virus is merely a
> > >>>> first engagement.
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Andrew Muzi
> > >>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > >>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > >>>
> > >>> Defeat China? I am far more concerned about stopping the deaths from Covid-19. And eliminating the economic effects Covid has caused throughout the world. I am aware Covid started in China. And spread worldwide. Was it intentional? Maybe, maybe not. I'd go for the not. The leaders in China have some competent advisors. They would tell the leaders that destroying the world's economy is bad for China. No matter how much harm it does to everyone else, China will also suffer. China is interconnected with the world economically. Very few spouses commit spousal murder by pulling the spouse into a closet and setting off a hand grenade. Its not much benefit to kill yourself.
> > >>>
> > >>> As far as first engagement. Hopefully the world has learned from Covid. And will be better prepared for the next time something similar happens. But I'm not too hopeful a large portion of the USA has learned anything at all. So we would likely have a repeat exactly as bad the next time around. As for engaging China on other fronts. Such as the militarization of the South China Sea, and human rights, and trading, those conflicts will continue. And I am hopeful a good outcome can be achieved. Good for both sides and everyone.
> > >>>
> > >>> Unlike the Republicans who assume everything is a zero sum game. If you gain, then I must lose, So that is evil. I believe we all can gain together. Likely different amounts of gain. But all pluses for everyone. No one has to lose.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> You have that backwards IMHO.
> > >>
> > >> Statists believe in the socialist version of 'sharing',
> > >> i.e., forcibly redistributing limited resources all while
> > >> suppressing innovation, efficiency and growth. Classic
> > >> 'zero-sum' outlook.
> > >>
> > >> Classic liberals (now called conservatives) are more with Mr
> > >> Deng, "Let a thousand flowers bloom". Liberty with less
> > >> restriction makes everyone more prosperous and life more
> > >> meaningful for most.
> > >
> > > And while I don't know this from experience I am told that opening a
> > > business in China is easier, with far fewer restriction, then doing
> > > the same in the U.S.
> > >
> > >
> > I believe that.
> > Note CCP is your partner whether you like it or not.
> >
> > OTOH one of those two countries understands growth and
> > export revenue. The other doesn't.
> The overwhelming mistakes the US has made over the last 50 years has been the attempt to make EVERYONE else a Democratic Free Market system. This has led to every war that we have gotten involved in. Had we not sullied our name in the middle east we would never have seen 9/11.
>
> The extremely important thing that Trump did was to ACCEPT other countries forms of government whether we agree with them or not.
>
> The VERY first thing that Biden did upon entering office was to invade Syria. Why has this not been talked about in the media?
>
> The Democrats have made war BIG business and as long as they have the slightest say, such endless wars will continue.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:26:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@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'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!"
>
> Warren Buffett, for example worked or was in business from a very
> young age. He bought his first shares at 11 years of age. Is he to be
> penalized for "busting his arse" almost literally "all his life"?
>
> But to put it on a personal basis. From reading posts here it appears
> that Frank has far more money then Tommy.

????????
What posts are you reading John? Every post Tommy boy makes is about how rich he is and how much money he made. He routinely says he made $250,000 per year. And has prior employers calling hm today to hire him at that salary again. But he turns them down. I don't recall Frank ever saying anything like that.

Now I will admit Tommy has also repeatedly complained and screamed about Obama stealing all of Tommy's money during his presidency. After Tommy got rich under Bush2. Can't recall if Clinton stole all of Tommy's money too. But I am sure he got rich under Bush1 and Reagan. And Tommy definitely got rich rich rich rich rich under Trump. But Biden has stolen all of Tommy's money now. So I am not sure what is up with Tommy today.

> 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.

OK. This is all true. For being as rich as Tommy says he is, it does seem like he lives a very very very modest, almost poverty life. Odd. One would think someone making $250k a year like Tommy and being the smartest financial investor since Mr Buffet came along, as Tommy repeatedly claims, one would live a little higher on the hog.

>
> 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.
>
> So tell us, when can Tommy expect the first check and will you be
> making weekly or Monthly payments?
>
> And non of this "Hey No! Why Me! The Goment sposed to do it!". No Sir,
> if you are going to be an advocate then don't hide your light under a
> bushel. Be a Man! Lead from the front and be the first in your
> neighborhood to do a good thing.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Mon, 23 May 2022 22:03:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 12:21:09 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 5/22/2022 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 22 May 2022 10:46:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On 5/21/2022 5:42 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>> On 5/20/2022 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:40:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On 5/20/2022 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:43:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 4:59 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 10:36 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com" <funkma...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 11:50 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember Kamala Harris during the vice presidential debates saying
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that she would be very reluctant to take a "Trump vaccine", which was
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being developed in an awful hurry without adequate safeguards.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What she _actually_ said during the debate was, “If the public health
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.â€
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I looked at the transcript, and it is indeed not exactly as remembered.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, had Trump won, he certainly would have told her and
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the rest of us to "take it".
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She had
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point there, but somehow after the vaccines rolled out right *after*
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the election, they became "Biden vaccines",
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I must have missed the press releases naming the vaccines "trump" and
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "biden". Would you have a link to a credible news source that notes
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those terms specifically?
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Those are my terms. I think they fit.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You might enjoy this editorial from the NY Times, Sept 2020:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-trump.html
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It discusses the Gerald Ford vaccine, for swine flu, that was withdrawn
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> after causing a few cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, and compares it to
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Trump's operation warp speed. They make some good points, but after the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> election nothing like this was visible in the mainstream press.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> @WhiteHouse tweeted on 12 May 2022, 2:45 PM:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> When President Biden took office, millions were unemployed and there was
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> no vaccine available.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sure sounds like they're trying to make it the Biden vaccine to me.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and every Democrat jumped on
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bandwagon to not only take the experimental vaccine, but to try to
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force everyone everywhere to take it.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hyperbole won't do you any favors. I was extremely hesitant. I waited
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> until july.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You waited longer than I did. I don't think I would do it again, although
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> nothing unusually bad has happened to me. My tinnitus is a lot worse,
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> but it's hard to say if that's vaccine related or not. I have not and
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> will not take a booster.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete revision of ideas about respiratory pandemic handling happened
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the *last two years*. That was not due to an increase in
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge or wisdom.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that's a completely ridiculous assertion. The Obama administration
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> implemented policies and created positions to manage pandemics, even
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> going so far as to embed a CDC advisor called "resident adviser to the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China" in the Chinese
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> CDC. As soon as trump took office he went to work dismantling Obamas
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic response team and recalled the CDC advisor. If anything, the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> trump administration dumbed down and ignored what had been learned
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> since the H1N1 outbreak in 2009.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 years is an overstatement, reflecting only the facts on the ground.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The actual plans go back to Bush the younger's admininistration. 2009
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> saw an abortive attempt to put the new plans into practice, but it just
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't scary enough.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I recommend this article for some history on pandemic planning and how
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> we got here:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Particularly the linked paper by D A Henderson, the guy most responsible
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> for eradicating smallpox:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I know, Frank will say he's a winger. Whatever.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For those of you who have read all the way here, a lagniappe, the Amish
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> approach to covid:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Amish make the Swedes look like a nation of Chicken Littles, but
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> they don't seem to have any regrets.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Much is unknown and given the political spin on statistical
>> > >>>>>>>>>> gathering and analysis (in various countries) probably
>> > >>>>>>>>>> unknowable now.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> I see that Portugal has among the highest rates of mRNA shots:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> and also among the highest rate of reinfections. hmmm.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, reinfections. But getting reinfected is not that bad. You stay home from work one day and feel tired for awhile. Then you are good to go again. With no hospital stay in the ICU and no breathing tube and no death. So minimal to no harm being reinfected. Not many people have said the vaccine will prevent ALL infections. The vaccine just almost minimizes death and makes infections somewhat immaterial. Kind of like a pitcher and batter. He is throwing a fastball at 90 mph. It can hit you in the thigh, and leave a bruise. Or it can hit you in the head and leave you brain damaged. Seems to me getting the vaccine and getting hit in the thigh is better than not getting the vaccine and getting hit in the head. And yes the pitch/virus does not hit everyone. Sometimes the pitcher throws and you dive on the ground and the ball/virus goes over your head and misses you.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Then again, in direct conflict with the modern meaning of
>> > >>>>>>>> the term 'vaccine' until two years ago, the mRNA shot
>> > >>>>>>>> doesn't prevent reinfection or much more significantly,
>> > >>>>>>>> doesn't keep that person from spreading it to others.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> I agree that lower death rates for second/ third/ fourth
>> > >>>>>>>> infections is a good thing. Then again it's 'lower' not
>> > >>>>>>>> zero. Continued contraction and continuing contagion are
>> > >>>>>>>> unhelpful.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> I have to once more toss in the shameful history of AIDS and
>> > >>>>>>>> CDC under Drs Gallo and Fauci. Great resources in money,
>> > >>>>>>>> time and effort were pissed away on vaccine research for 35
>> > >>>>>>>> years or so with no result. Early advocates of traditional
>> > >>>>>>>> medical method- develop/discover therapeutics to prevent
>> > >>>>>>>> death and improve health of the infected- were shouted down,
>> > >>>>>>>> hounded, belittled. Yet here we are today where those evil
>> > >>>>>>>> pharmaceutical organizations supply many and various
>> > >>>>>>>> effective therapies such that even the poor in undeveloped
>> > >>>>>>>> countries live out their lives for pennies per week of
>> > >>>>>>>> treatment. Sound familiar? It's the same playbook and
>> > >>>>>>>> written by at least some of the same people.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> BUT... what is the alternate? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Ignoring the Covid and looking at HIV only, Thailand had a HIV rate of
>> > >>>>>>> over 2% among pregnant women and over 4% among Thai
>> > >>>>>>> military recruits. Without the use of a vaccine the rates have been
>> > >>>>>>> reduced to 0.6% in pregnant women and military recruits. Largely
>> > >>>>>>> through education and protective "devices".
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Yet when, in the U.S., Medics suggest the use of proactive devices,
>> > >>>>>>> like masks, for the Covid, people are leaping up and down, waving
>> > >>>>>>> their arms and shouting, "NO", "NO", "NO".
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> And yet, of the larger countries, say 250 million or larger population
>> > >>>>>>> the U.S. is leading the pack in total cases and total deaths.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> As for calculating normal deaths and excess deaths and so on?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Well, during the 20 years of the Vietnam war where the total combat
>> > >>>>>>> deaths were a paltry 47,434 compared with the over today's 1 million
>> > >>>>>>> Covid deaths, nobody was shouting, "OH! Never mind it is only a few if
>> > >>>>>>> you calculate the usual/normal/whatever death rates. No, you were
>> > >>>>>>> running for the border in terror.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> The numbers of people who emigrated to avoid the draft were
>> > >>>>>> much smaller than the mythic version.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. I am voicing what the professional
>> > >>>>> military believed, or was told. Stories of the "cowards" streaming
>> > >>>>> across the border were printed in the Air Force Times (the Air Force
>> > >>>>> "in service newspaper").
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> By the way, from all I read after it was all over they didn't
>> > >>>>> Immigrate, they simply crossed the border and lived there. Technically
>> > >>>>> as illegal immigrants.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> But you ignore my point, while people stand around yammering about
>> > >>>>> excess deaths and old folk dying in an attempt to somehow de-demonize
>> > >>>>> the Coved, this isn't done in wartime. Nope we build monuments to
>> > >>>>> those who died in"the war". But to date, from the records I see, that
>> > >>>>> in all the wars, invasions, military intrusions, etc., the U.S. has
>> > >>>>> engaged in from 1775 to 2019 deaths in combat amounted to about
>> > >>>>> 666,441. While Covid deaths, from 2020 to 2022 amounted to 1,028,741.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> So, one might (with out rationalizing) say that the Covid is/was/may
>> > >>>>> be a greater killer by a factor of 1.5 then all the wars the U.S. has
>> > >>>>> fought. When will we be building a monument?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>> Monuments come after we defeat china. This virus is merely a
>> > >>>> first engagement.
>> > >>>> --
>> > >>>> Andrew Muzi
>> > >>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> > >>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Defeat China? I am far more concerned about stopping the deaths from Covid-19. And eliminating the economic effects Covid has caused throughout the world. I am aware Covid started in China. And spread worldwide. Was it intentional? Maybe, maybe not. I'd go for the not. The leaders in China have some competent advisors. They would tell the leaders that destroying the world's economy is bad for China. No matter how much harm it does to everyone else, China will also suffer. China is interconnected with the world economically. Very few spouses commit spousal murder by pulling the spouse into a closet and setting off a hand grenade. Its not much benefit to kill yourself.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> As far as first engagement. Hopefully the world has learned from Covid. And will be better prepared for the next time something similar happens. But I'm not too hopeful a large portion of the USA has learned anything at all. So we would likely have a repeat exactly as bad the next time around. As for engaging China on other fronts. Such as the militarization of the South China Sea, and human rights, and trading, those conflicts will continue. And I am hopeful a good outcome can be achieved. Good for both sides and everyone.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Unlike the Republicans who assume everything is a zero sum game. If you gain, then I must lose, So that is evil. I believe we all can gain together. Likely different amounts of gain. But all pluses for everyone. No one has to lose.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> You have that backwards IMHO.
>> > >>
>> > >> Statists believe in the socialist version of 'sharing',
>> > >> i.e., forcibly redistributing limited resources all while
>> > >> suppressing innovation, efficiency and growth. Classic
>> > >> 'zero-sum' outlook.
>> > >>
>> > >> Classic liberals (now called conservatives) are more with Mr
>> > >> Deng, "Let a thousand flowers bloom". Liberty with less
>> > >> restriction makes everyone more prosperous and life more
>> > >> meaningful for most.
>> > >
>> > > And while I don't know this from experience I am told that opening a
>> > > business in China is easier, with far fewer restriction, then doing
>> > > the same in the U.S.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > I believe that.
>> > Note CCP is your partner whether you like it or not.
>> >
>> > OTOH one of those two countries understands growth and
>> > export revenue. The other doesn't.
>> The overwhelming mistakes the US has made over the last 50 years has been the attempt to make EVERYONE else a Democratic Free Market system. This has led to every war that we have gotten involved in. Had we not sullied our name in the middle east we would never have seen 9/11.
>>
>> The extremely important thing that Trump did was to ACCEPT other countries forms of government whether we agree with them or not.
>>
>> The VERY first thing that Biden did upon entering office was to invade Syria. Why has this not been talked about in the media?
>>
>> The Democrats have made war BIG business and as long as they have the slightest say, such endless wars will continue.
>
>https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
>This website says 1960 to 2022 but it stops at 2019. Odd.
>But its very easy to see that Republicans, starting with Reagan, increased the military budget far far far more than the Democrats. Military budget even went down a few years under Obama. But then Trump skyrocketed the military budget up and up.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I looked it up and Biden left nearly $400 Billion in weapons in Afghanistan. What did Routers say about this? "It's a good thing that American weapons break down so much so that the worst of those weapons will be disabled rapidly. https://fee.org/articles/here-s-the-list-of-billions-in-military-equipment-the-us-left-behind-for-the-taliban/
>
>$7 billion Tommy. And that is the new cost. Not the actual worth when the Taliban got their hands on the items.
>https://www.voanews.com/a/pentagon-downplays-7-billion-in-us-military-equipment-left-in-afghanistan/6549546.html
>https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/politics/afghan-weapons-left-behind/index.html
>
>And where did your nonsensical $400 billion number come from Tommy? Even the idiot Republicans only exaggerated it to $85 billion. And you multiplied their idiot comments by 5. Wow.
>https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/republicans-inflate-cost-of-taliban-seized-u-s-military-equipment/

On Mon, 23 May 2022 22:15:18 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:26:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@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'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!"
>>
>> Warren Buffett, for example worked or was in business from a very
>> young age. He bought his first shares at 11 years of age. Is he to be
>> penalized for "busting his arse" almost literally "all his life"?
>>
>> But to put it on a personal basis. From reading posts here it appears
>> that Frank has far more money then Tommy.
>
>????????
>What posts are you reading John? Every post Tommy boy makes is about how rich he is and how much money he made. He routinely says he made $250,000 per year. And has prior employers calling hm today to hire him at that salary again. But he turns them down. I don't recall Frank ever saying anything like that.
>
Well, yes, there is that.... Tommy makes a lot of claims... but did
you believe him?

--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/24/2022 1:15 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ????????
> What posts are you reading John? Every post Tommy boy makes is about how rich he is and how much money he made. He routinely says he made $250,000 per year. And has prior employers calling hm today to hire him at that salary again. But he turns them down. I don't recall Frank ever saying anything like that.

Well, I did report that when I fully retired, they asked me to keep
teaching as a part-time instructor. They also wanted me to keep
attending department meetings, apparently because they valued my input.
I said thanks, but no thanks.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

(FWIW, I think bottled water or special water cooler water is silly, but
apparently others disagree.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/23/2022 10:15 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> OK. This is all true. For being as rich as Tommy says he is, it does seem like he lives a very very very modest, almost poverty life. Odd. One would think someone making $250k a year like Tommy and being the smartest financial investor since Mr Buffet came along, as Tommy repeatedly claims, one would live a little higher on the hog.

There are a lot of seniors in California that own a property that could
sell for a high price but don't have a lot of income. They could solve
their financial problems by cashing out and moving to a lower-cost area
rather than staying in a high-cost area.

Tom's house is valued at around $1 million (though values have begun
falling after a big run-up during the pandemic). It would make sense for
Tom to do as he proposed and move to a lower-cost state, or even better
to a lower-cost part of California. In California, effective December
16, 2020, those over 55 can take their current property tax assessed
value to anywhere in California (Prop 19). In Tom's area, values are
likely to be especially hard hit if the current housing bubble bursts,
because the schools are not highly rated.

While Nevada has no state income tax, property taxes are much higher.
California limits property taxes to 1% of the property value with a
maximum annual increase of 2%. Nevada limits property taxes to 3.64% of
assessed value with a maximum increase of 3% per year. Houses in Nevada
are not super-cheap either.

Tom's best option would be to move to Modoc county in California. He
could buy a decent house for $250K (with property taxes based on $140K
of value), and have about $600K left over after capital gains taxes.
Plus it's a heavily Republican county
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_voter_registration#Counties>
so he'll be more at home.

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. Me Seaton could probably elucidate better than I.

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.

Further, Mr Kunich doesn't buy alcohol or tobacco products.
I do. So I'm paying two taxes which he doesn't pay. Cry for
me it's so unfair!

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> 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.
>
> (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.

On 5/24/2022 10:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

And as many people found out, during the W recession, there's a big risk
in exercising stock options then holding onto the stock. If you exercise
an option at $5 per share when the stock is at $15 per share, you owe
the capital gains tax on the difference of $10. No problem if you sell
the stock at $15 per share. But if you hold the stock and it falls to $2
per share you still owe capital gains on $10.

On 5/24/2022 1:23 PM, sms wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 10:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> And as many people found out, during the W recession,
> there's a big risk in exercising stock options then holding
> onto the stock. If you exercise an option at $5 per share
> when the stock is at $15 per share, you owe the capital
> gains tax on the difference of $10. No problem if you sell
> the stock at $15 per share. But if you hold the stock and it
> falls to $2 per share you still owe capital gains on $10.

+1

Another great example of why comparing simple income tax
rates to complex asset changes at capital gains rates is
unhelpful.

We haven't even broached Sec 1031 like-kind real estate
swaps or conservation credits or rapid depreciation
schedules, targeted group employee credits or ....

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

On 5/24/2022 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> Another great example of why comparing simple income tax rates to
> complex asset changes at capital gains rates is unhelpful.

Trying to explain stock options to those that insist that someone is
evading income tax is difficult.

Many CEOs that are the founder of the company take no salary at all,
like Elon Musk
<https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-04-20/elon-musk-scores-hat-trick-of-tesla-compensation-goals-worth-23-billion>.
If he exercised his stock option he'd owe a lot of income tax. Probably
one reason he moved his official residence to Texas which has no state
income tax.

As you said, if you don't like the tax system, go buy some senators.

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.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-7, 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
> >> <frkr...@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. Me Seaton could probably elucidate better than I.
>
> 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.
>
> Further, Mr Kunich doesn't buy alcohol or tobacco products.
> I do. So I'm paying two taxes which he doesn't pay. Cry for
> me it's so unfair!
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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.

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. 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.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> On 5/24/2022 10:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> And as many people found out, during the W recession, there's a big
> risk in exercising stock options then holding onto the stock. If you
> exercise an option at $5 per share when the stock is at $15 per share,
> you owe the capital gains tax on the difference of $10. No problem if
> you sell the stock at $15 per share. But if you hold the stock and it
> falls to $2 per share you still owe capital gains on $10.

True. I know a guy that would up owing the IRS more than he could pay
when he thought his employer's stock was a good bet. Not sure what he
finally did. Always sell enough when exercising a stock option to pay
the taxes.

--

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 Tue, 24 May 2022 12:26:50 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> 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. Me Seaton could probably elucidate better than I.
>
>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.
>
>Further, Mr Kunich doesn't buy alcohol or tobacco products.
>I do. So I'm paying two taxes which he doesn't pay. Cry for
>me it's so unfair!

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.

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

On 5/24/2022 3:04 PM, sms wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Another great example of why comparing simple income tax
>> rates to complex asset changes at capital gains rates is
>> unhelpful.
>
> Trying to explain stock options to those that insist that
> someone is evading income tax is difficult.
>
> Many CEOs that are the founder of the company take no salary
> at all, like Elon Musk
> <https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-04-20/elon-musk-scores-hat-trick-of-tesla-compensation-goals-worth-23-billion>.
> If he exercised his stock option he'd owe a lot of income
> tax. Probably one reason he moved his official residence to
> Texas which has no state income tax.
>
> As you said, if you don't like the tax system, go buy some
> senators.

My attorney at the time, one of the brightest women I have
ever met, countered my bitching about FIT and said 'just
read the tax code'. Her advice was to buy a house, rent
rooms and take the fastest depreciation possible,. Which I
did to good effect.

The game is crooked but at least there are rules and
observing them pays.

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