On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:31:04 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <giant snip>
> >>> Â Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> >>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> >>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
> >>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> >>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> >>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> >>> the IRS.
> >>>
> >>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> >>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> >>>>
> >>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> >>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> >>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> >>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> >>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> >>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> >>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> >>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> >>>> the trade and barter of it.
> >>>
> >>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
> >>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the millions
> >>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
> >>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
> >>> income tax.
> >>>
> >>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
> >>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
> >>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
> >>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
> >>>
> >>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> >>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> >>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> >>>> earnings.
> >>>>
> >>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> >>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> >>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> >>>> for everyone and it showed.
> >>>
> >>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
> >>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> >>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed.  The
> >>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> >>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> >>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> >>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>
> >>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> >> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> >> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>
> >> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
> >> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> >> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> >> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> >> postwar era.
> >>
> >> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>
> >>
> >> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>
> >> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
> >> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
> >> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> >> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> >> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >
> > I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> > make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> > ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> > stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> > servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >
> > We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> > tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
> > each should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.
> >
> >
> Helpful graphic:
> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>
> from
> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>
> with the numerical data summarized.
>
> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most recent
> fully published period (2018).
> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>
> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> all what you think it is.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
This was BB (before Biden)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <giant snip>
>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the government to trace,
>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so long. These were
>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to think that
>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade and barter
>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and large companies
>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which are entirely
>>> open to the IRS.
>>>
>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are involved in
>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all sorts of non-cash
>>> exchanges.
>>>>
>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power plant used in
>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar company. They grew and
>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS
>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of the
>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore, the company
>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the retail store NO
>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
>>>
>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar for over 100
>>> years.  The IRS keeps track of the millions of small stores buying the
>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and state regulators
>>> collect sales and income tax.
>>>
>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of sugar for a box
>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event,  but I don't know
>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions between retail
>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>
>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in that dress
>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry the brunt of
>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
>>>>
>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working man as jobs
>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by reducing the
>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it showed.
>>>
>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing marginal
>>> rates in some equitable way.  Of course the rich are taxed.  They
>>> always have been taxed.   The highest marginal rates in the 1950s were
>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax policy and
>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures as we learned
>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible path to price
>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct revenue;
>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>
>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average rate paid by
>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say roughly because
>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso than in the
>> immediate postwar era.
>>
>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>
>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more current but the
>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>
>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous details.
>> Economists have made at least some headway toward broader flatter rates
>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions, incentives and such. This
>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>
>I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we make weekly, I
>pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square feet on ~5
>acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six feet high. The
>carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>
>We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more tiny than
>ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each should pay the
>same percentage of their income in taxes.

So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made some money
should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too lazy to get
out and get with it?

Jealousy?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>> > > > > immaterial.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > John B.
>> > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>> > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
>> > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>> >
>> > -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
>>
>> According to Jay Beattie:
>> > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
>> The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.
>
>The posters here are crying because I only have a GED and yet we haven't even one of them that has a passing acquaintance with economics. You know, that was one of the first books I read in the 4th grade on my way to reading all of the non-fiction books out of three libraries. Watching Jay post has to make you wonder how he ever achieved a law degree.

I sort of wonder about your education.

When you first started bragging about not having a high school
education you stated that the school gave you a diploma because you
joined the Air Force.

Then followed was a period in which you simply bragged that you didn't
have a high school education.

Then Frank mentioned the General Education Development (GED) test and
suddenly you seized onto that and claimed that "Yup, you had a GED".

Mark Twain wrote, many years ago, that to be a good liar one needed a
strong memory... strong enough to remember all the lies one had told.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:13:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> >> > > > > immaterial.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > John B.
> >> > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> >> > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> >> > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities.. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
> >> >
> >> > -- Jay Beattie.
> >>
> >> I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
> >>
> >> According to Jay Beattie:
> >> > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
> >> The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.
> >
> >The posters here are crying because I only have a GED and yet we haven't even one of them that has a passing acquaintance with economics. You know, that was one of the first books I read in the 4th grade on my way to reading all of the non-fiction books out of three libraries. Watching Jay post has to make you wonder how he ever achieved a law degree.
>
> I sort of wonder about your education.
>
> When you first started bragging about not having a high school
> education you stated that the school gave you a diploma because you
> joined the Air Force.
>
> Then followed was a period in which you simply bragged that you didn't
> have a high school education.
>
> Then Frank mentioned the General Education Development (GED) test and
> suddenly you seized onto that and claimed that "Yup, you had a GED".
>
> Mark Twain wrote, many years ago, that to be a good liar one needed a
> strong memory... strong enough to remember all the lies one had told.

John, on your smartest day, you could make a chimpanzee look like Einstein. Yes I did get a GED. Then during a high school reunion I discovered that I had graduated because I dropped out in the last quarter with sufficient credits to pass. Actually quite a bit more since I took every shop class the school offered.

Why does this seem to be so difficult to remember? Are you getting demented like Joe Biden - your hero?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
>> high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
>> proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
>> become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
>> European countries.
>>
>> Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
>> With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
>> long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
>> matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
>> such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
>> high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
>> arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.
>>
>> USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
>> by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
>> the effect.
>
>The Democrats latest tax attack would make Americans pay higher taxes than the Red Chinese. This is the world that most of the goofuses here profess as a perfect world.

Latest Tax??? In 2016 the Chinese spent 5,388,814 (in millions USD)
and the U.S. spent 9,818,534 (in millions USD).

The population of China 1,439,323,776 and the U.S. is 331,002,651 so
just divide the Chinese expenditures by their population figure and
the do the same for the U.S.

And you find it strange that the tax rate is higher in the U.S. then
in China?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:23:19 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
> >> high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
> >> proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
> >> become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
> >> European countries.
> >>
> >> Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
> >> With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
> >> long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
> >> matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
> >> such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
> >> high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
> >> arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.
> >>
> >> USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
> >> by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
> >> the effect.
> >
> >The Democrats latest tax attack would make Americans pay higher taxes than the Red Chinese. This is the world that most of the goofuses here profess as a perfect world.
>
> Latest Tax??? In 2016 the Chinese spent 5,388,814 (in millions USD)
> and the U.S. spent 9,818,534 (in millions USD).
>
> The population of China 1,439,323,776 and the U.S. is 331,002,651 so
> just divide the Chinese expenditures by their population figure and
> the do the same for the U.S.
>
> And you find it strange that the tax rate is higher in the U.S. then
> in China?

John, there you go again relying on the Internet to give you information to make you look like what you're talking about. Do you know what a communism is? I suggest you look that up. Most of the people of China make NO INCOME AT ALL. Does that get through to you? You cannot get blood from a turnip. So the small part of the population that is making some money (those working for foreign companies) are pretty heavily taxed. But not as heavily as Biden has announced he is going to change the tax laws to. But he will have a hard time doing that since even the Democrats intend to oppose that maniac..

Please stop your endless whining about everything. Pretty soon we won't be able to tell you apart from Russell.

On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>> the IRS.
>>>>
>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>
>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>
>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>> for over 100 years.  The IRS keeps track of the millions
>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
>>>> income tax.
>>>>
>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
>>>> event,  but I don't know what the law is in California.
>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>
>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way.  Of course the
>>>> rich are taxed.  They always have been taxed.   The
>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>
>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>> postwar era.
>>>
>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>
>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>
>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>
>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.
>>
>>
>
>
> Helpful graphic:
> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>
> from
> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>
>
> with the numerical data summarized.
>
> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most recent fully
> published period (2018).
> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>
> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at all what you
> think it is.

Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than poor people"?
That's not news. You can't get blood out of a stone - that is, you can't
get much money from people who don't have much money.

It requires a certain amount of money to run a government, maintain
infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain amount of taxation to
provide paved roads, sewage systems, law enforcement, fire departments,
public schools and all the rest.

To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk of necessary
money from the guy spending cash on a second yacht, instead of from a
woman taking three different buses to get to her two jobs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > > immaterial.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > John B.
> > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
>
> According to Jay Beattie:
> > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
> The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.

And yet you don't understand taxes. If a corporation has a gross profit of $1M and paid all that in wages and bonuses, it would pay zero taxes. If it has a gross profit of $1M and invests all of that in capital expenditures, it would -- depending on the expenditures, amortize or expense the $1M and get a deduction in the current year and/or in future years. All of the payments you mention that make a corporation great are deductions in the current or future tax years. Wages are, in essence, paid pre-tax -- subject to the IRC limitations on executive compensation, etc. Isn't Russell an accountant -- somebody here is an accountant, and they can check my math and the IRC.

Corporations only pay tax on net taxable income, which is typically the amount available for distribution to shareholders, unless it isn't -- as when it is used for stock buy-backs (what happened during the Trump tax give-away). Sales taxes are not corporate taxes or a "double tax" on income, although they obviously reduce wealth. Trump created a double tax by removing the SALT deduction, which is really one of the few examples of double taxation.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the government to trace,
>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so long. These were
>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to think that
>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade and barter
>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and large companies
>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which are entirely
>>>> open to the IRS.
>>>>
>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are involved in
>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all sorts of non-cash
>>>> exchanges.
>>>>>
>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power plant used in
>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar company. They grew and
>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS
>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of the
>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore, the company
>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the retail store NO
>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
>>>>
>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar for over 100
>>>> years.  The IRS keeps track of the millions of small stores buying the
>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and state regulators
>>>> collect sales and income tax.
>>>>
>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of sugar for a box
>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event,  but I don't know
>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions between retail
>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in that dress
>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry the brunt of
>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working man as jobs
>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by reducing the
>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it showed.
>>>>
>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing marginal
>>>> rates in some equitable way.  Of course the rich are taxed.  They
>>>> always have been taxed.   The highest marginal rates in the 1950s were
>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax policy and
>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures as we learned
>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible path to price
>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct revenue;
>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>
>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average rate paid by
>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say roughly because
>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso than in the
>>> immediate postwar era.
>>>
>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>
>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more current but the
>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>
>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous details.
>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward broader flatter rates
>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions, incentives and such. This
>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>
>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we make weekly, I
>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square feet on ~5
>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six feet high. The
>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>
>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more tiny than
>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each should pay the
>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
>
> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made some money
> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too lazy to get
> out and get with it?
>
> Jealousy?

Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I suspect that
those born with a silver spoon in their mouth are on average lazier than
those at the edge of the official poverty level.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/19/2021 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:13:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>>
>> I sort of wonder about your education.
>>
>> When you first started bragging about not having a high school
>> education you stated that the school gave you a diploma because you
>> joined the Air Force.
>>
>> Then followed was a period in which you simply bragged that you didn't
>> have a high school education.
>>
>> Then Frank mentioned the General Education Development (GED) test and
>> suddenly you seized onto that and claimed that "Yup, you had a GED".
>>
>> Mark Twain wrote, many years ago, that to be a good liar one needed a
>> strong memory... strong enough to remember all the lies one had told.
>
> John, on your smartest day, you could make a chimpanzee look like Einstein. Yes I did get a GED. Then during a high school reunion I discovered that I had graduated because I dropped out in the last quarter with sufficient credits to pass. Actually quite a bit more since I took every shop class the school offered.
>
> Why does this seem to be so difficult to remember? Are you getting demented like Joe Biden - your hero?

So here we have someone who couldn't keep track of whether he graduated
high school, and is using that to brag about his mental ability.

If you took the GED test, you did not graduate high school. See
https://www.test-guide.com/ged-requirements-overview.html

"All states, territories, and provinces do not allow current high school
students or high school graduates to take the GED test."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 16:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:13:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>> >> > > > > immaterial.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > Cheers,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > John B.
>> >> > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>> >> > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
>> >> > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>> >> >
>> >> > -- Jay Beattie.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
>> >>
>> >> According to Jay Beattie:
>> >> > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
>> >> The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.
>> >
>> >The posters here are crying because I only have a GED and yet we haven't even one of them that has a passing acquaintance with economics. You know, that was one of the first books I read in the 4th grade on my way to reading all of the non-fiction books out of three libraries. Watching Jay post has to make you wonder how he ever achieved a law degree.
>>
>> I sort of wonder about your education.
>>
>> When you first started bragging about not having a high school
>> education you stated that the school gave you a diploma because you
>> joined the Air Force.
>>
>> Then followed was a period in which you simply bragged that you didn't
>> have a high school education.
>>
>> Then Frank mentioned the General Education Development (GED) test and
>> suddenly you seized onto that and claimed that "Yup, you had a GED".
>>
>> Mark Twain wrote, many years ago, that to be a good liar one needed a
>> strong memory... strong enough to remember all the lies one had told.
>
>John, on your smartest day, you could make a chimpanzee look like Einstein. Yes I did get a GED. Then during a high school reunion I discovered that I had graduated because I dropped out in the last quarter with sufficient credits to pass. Actually quite a bit more since I took every shop class the school offered.
>
>Why does this seem to be so difficult to remember? Are you getting demented like Joe Biden - your hero?

Joe Biden? My hero? Tommy, Tommy, I live in Thailand not the U.S. I
couldn't care less who y'all elect as it has no effect on me
whatsoever.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:23:19 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
>> >> high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
>> >> proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
>> >> become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
>> >> European countries.
>> >>
>> >> Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
>> >> With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
>> >> long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
>> >> matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
>> >> such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
>> >> high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
>> >> arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.
>> >>
>> >> USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
>> >> by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
>> >> the effect.
>> >
>> >The Democrats latest tax attack would make Americans pay higher taxes than the Red Chinese. This is the world that most of the goofuses here profess as a perfect world.
>>
>> Latest Tax??? In 2016 the Chinese spent 5,388,814 (in millions USD)
>> and the U.S. spent 9,818,534 (in millions USD).
>>
>> The population of China 1,439,323,776 and the U.S. is 331,002,651 so
>> just divide the Chinese expenditures by their population figure and
>> the do the same for the U.S.
>>
>> And you find it strange that the tax rate is higher in the U.S. then
>> in China?
>
>John, there you go again relying on the Internet to give you information to make you look like what you're talking about. Do you know what a communism is? I suggest you look that up. Most of the people of China make NO INCOME AT ALL. Does that get through to you? You cannot get blood from a turnip. So the small part of the population that is making some money (those working for foreign companies) are pretty heavily taxed. But not as heavily as Biden has announced he is going to change the tax laws to. But he will have a hard time doing that since even the Democrats intend to oppose that maniac.
>
>Please stop your endless whining about everything. Pretty soon we won't be able to tell you apart from Russell.

"relying on the Internet to give you information"???

So tell us Tommy, how do you get your information. Have you ever
visited China? I have. Can you speak Chinese? I can, granted, a
limited amount of the Teochew dialect, but still Chinese.

Or to put it another way, when you speak of China you are doing it
from a totally lack of knowledge while when I speak of China it is
from at least a little bit of knowledge.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:06:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the government to trace,
>>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so long. These were
>>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to think that
>>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade and barter
>>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and large companies
>>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which are entirely
>>>>> open to the IRS.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are involved in
>>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all sorts of non-cash
>>>>> exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power plant used in
>>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar company. They grew and
>>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS
>>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of the
>>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore, the company
>>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the retail store NO
>>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar for over 100
>>>>> years.  The IRS keeps track of the millions of small stores buying the
>>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and state regulators
>>>>> collect sales and income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of sugar for a box
>>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event,  but I don't know
>>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions between retail
>>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in that dress
>>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry the brunt of
>>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working man as jobs
>>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by reducing the
>>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing marginal
>>>>> rates in some equitable way.  Of course the rich are taxed.  They
>>>>> always have been taxed.   The highest marginal rates in the 1950s were
>>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax policy and
>>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures as we learned
>>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible path to price
>>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct revenue;
>>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>
>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average rate paid by
>>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say roughly because
>>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso than in the
>>>> immediate postwar era.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>
>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more current but the
>>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>
>>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous details.
>>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward broader flatter rates
>>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions, incentives and such. This
>>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>
>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we make weekly, I
>>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square feet on ~5
>>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six feet high. The
>>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>
>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more tiny than
>>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each should pay the
>>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
>>
>> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made some money
>> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too lazy to get
>> out and get with it?
>>
>> Jealousy?
>
>Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I suspect that
>those born with a silver spoon in their mouth are on average lazier than
>those at the edge of the official poverty level.

Well yes, I was being a bit critical but still, what about the guy who
does get off his arse and get with it and becomes a millionaire. Why
should he be penalized? After all his company might well be supporting
- well in the case of some, thousands of employees, Amazon, for
example employs nearly a million - be penalized for having some
gumption?

You do realize, of course, that more then half of all the very wealthy
chaps in the U.S. made it through their own efforts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>> complex:
>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>
>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>> millions
>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>> The
>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>
>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>> postwar era.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>
>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>
>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>
>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>> taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Helpful graphic:
>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>
>> from
>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>
>>
>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>
>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>> recent fully published period (2018).
>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>
>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>> all what you think it is.
>
> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> don't have much money.
>
> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> the rest.
>
> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> to get to her two jobs.
>

Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?

That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1% of
taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.

The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower 50$
pay 3%.

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

On 9/19/2021 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>> Â Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>> government to trace,
>>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so
>>>>> long. These were
>>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those
>>>>> paying the excise
>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>> think that
>>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade
>>>>> and barter
>>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and
>>>>> large companies
>>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which
>>>>> are entirely
>>>>> open to the IRS.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>> involved in
>>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all
>>>>> sorts of non-cash
>>>>> exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the
>>>>>> power plant used in
>>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar
>>>>>> company. They grew and
>>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long
>>>>>> time for the IRS
>>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to
>>>>>> keep track of the
>>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore,
>>>>>> the company
>>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the
>>>>>> retail store NO
>>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>
>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>> for over 100
>>>>> years. The IRS keeps track of the millions of small
>>>>> stores buying the
>>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and
>>>>> state regulators
>>>>> collect sales and income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>> sugar for a box
>>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event, but
>>>>> I don't know
>>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions
>>>>> between retail
>>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash
>>>>> sales. Most
>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown
>>>>>> in that dress
>>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry
>>>>>> the brunt of
>>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the
>>>>>> working man as jobs
>>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by
>>>>>> reducing the
>>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it
>>>>>> showed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>> establishing marginal
>>>>> rates in some equitable way. Of course the rich are
>>>>> taxed. They
>>>>> always have been taxed.  The highest marginal rates
>>>>> in the 1950s were
>>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were
>>>>> at an all-time
>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>> policy and
>>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures
>>>>> as we learned
>>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>> path to price
>>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct
>>>> revenue;
>>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests,
>>>> hidden agendae etc.
>>>>
>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>> average rate paid by
>>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say
>>>> roughly because
>>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso
>>>> than in the
>>>> immediate postwar era.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>> current but the
>>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>
>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>>> details.
>>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>>> broader flatter rates
>>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions,
>>>> incentives and such. This
>>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher
>>>> compliance, as
>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>
>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>> make weekly, I
>>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square
>>> feet on ~5
>>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six
>>> feet high. The
>>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is
>>> larger than our house.
>>>
>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even
>>> more tiny than
>>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each
>>> should pay the
>>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
>>
>> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made
>> some money
>> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too
>> lazy to get
>> out and get with it?
>>
>> Jealousy?
>
> Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I
> suspect that those born with a silver spoon in their mouth
> are on average lazier than those at the edge of the official
> poverty level.
>
>

I would posit that there are ample examples of both
character types in both groups. It's hardly a definitive
standard.

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

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 6:00:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <giant snip>
> >>>> Â Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> >>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> >>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
> >>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> >>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> >>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> >>>> the IRS.
> >>>>
> >>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> >>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> >>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> >>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> >>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> >>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> >>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> >>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> >>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> >>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
> >>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the millions
> >>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
> >>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
> >>>> income tax.
> >>>>
> >>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
> >>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in California.
> >>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
> >>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> >>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> >>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> >>>>> earnings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> >>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> >>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> >>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> >>>>
> >>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
> >>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> >>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed.  The
> >>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> >>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> >>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> >>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> >>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> >>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>>
> >>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
> >>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> >>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> >>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> >>> postwar era.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>
> >>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
> >>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
> >>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> >>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> >>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>
> >> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> >> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> >> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> >> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> >> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >>
> >> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> >> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
> >> each should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Helpful graphic:
> > https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> >
> > from
> > https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> >
> >
> > with the numerical data summarized.
> >
> > Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most recent fully
> > published period (2018).
> > https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> >
> > Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at all what you
> > think it is.
> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than poor people"?
> That's not news. You can't get blood out of a stone - that is, you can't
> get much money from people who don't have much money.
>
> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government, maintain
> infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain amount of taxation to
> provide paved roads, sewage systems, law enforcement, fire departments,
> public schools and all the rest.
>
> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk of necessary
> money from the guy spending cash on a second yacht, instead of from a
> woman taking three different buses to get to her two jobs.

Frank, who are these people you know that are buying a second yacht? I'll bet you never even met a woman who works two jobs and takes three buses to commute. MY middle daughter works a job, plays classical piano and is taking a course in psychology to get a degree and be able to become a psychologist. I just had brunch with my son who is a project manager in programming for a major aerospace firm in San Diego and is finishing his PhD.

I will ask you who these people are that you're talking about? You are the laziest person I've every known. Much as I don't like John, in the Air Force he worked 100 times harder than you ever did in your entire life.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 6:46:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>> cycl...@gmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <giant snip>
> >>>>> Â Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>>>> government to trace,
> >>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so
> >>>>> long. These were
> >>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those
> >>>>> paying the excise
> >>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>>>> think that
> >>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade
> >>>>> and barter
> >>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and
> >>>>> large companies
> >>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which
> >>>>> are entirely
> >>>>> open to the IRS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>>>> involved in
> >>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all
> >>>>> sorts of non-cash
> >>>>> exchanges.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the
> >>>>>> power plant used in
> >>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar
> >>>>>> company. They grew and
> >>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long
> >>>>>> time for the IRS
> >>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to
> >>>>>> keep track of the
> >>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore,
> >>>>>> the company
> >>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the
> >>>>>> retail store NO
> >>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
> >>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>>>> for over 100
> >>>>> years. The IRS keeps track of the millions of small
> >>>>> stores buying the
> >>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and
> >>>>> state regulators
> >>>>> collect sales and income tax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>>>> sugar for a box
> >>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event, but
> >>>>> I don't know
> >>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions
> >>>>> between retail
> >>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash
> >>>>> sales. Most
> >>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown
> >>>>>> in that dress
> >>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry
> >>>>>> the brunt of
> >>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the
> >>>>>> working man as jobs
> >>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by
> >>>>>> reducing the
> >>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it
> >>>>>> showed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
> >>>>> establishing marginal
> >>>>> rates in some equitable way. Of course the rich are
> >>>>> taxed. They
> >>>>> always have been taxed.  The highest marginal rates
> >>>>> in the 1950s were
> >>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were
> >>>>> at an all-time
> >>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>>>> policy and
> >>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures
> >>>>> as we learned
> >>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >>>> path to price
> >>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct
> >>>> revenue;
> >>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests,
> >>>> hidden agendae etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
> >>>> average rate paid by
> >>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say
> >>>> roughly because
> >>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso
> >>>> than in the
> >>>> immediate postwar era.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >>>> current but the
> >>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>>
> >>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous
> >>>> details.
> >>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward
> >>>> broader flatter rates
> >>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions,
> >>>> incentives and such. This
> >>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher
> >>>> compliance, as
> >>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> >>> make weekly, I
> >>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square
> >>> feet on ~5
> >>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six
> >>> feet high. The
> >>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is
> >>> larger than our house.
> >>>
> >>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even
> >>> more tiny than
> >>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each
> >>> should pay the
> >>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
> >>
> >> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made
> >> some money
> >> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too
> >> lazy to get
> >> out and get with it?
> >>
> >> Jealousy?
> >
> > Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I
> > suspect that those born with a silver spoon in their mouth
> > are on average lazier than those at the edge of the official
> > poverty level.
> >
> >
> I would posit that there are ample examples of both
> character types in both groups. It's hardly a definitive
> standard.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:06:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the government to trace,
>>>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so long. These were
>>>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to think that
>>>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade and barter
>>>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and large companies
>>>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which are entirely
>>>>>> open to the IRS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are involved in
>>>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all sorts of non-cash
>>>>>> exchanges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power plant used in
>>>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar company. They grew and
>>>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS
>>>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of the
>>>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore, the company
>>>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the retail store NO
>>>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar for over 100
>>>>>> years.  The IRS keeps track of the millions of small stores buying the
>>>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and state regulators
>>>>>> collect sales and income tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of sugar for a box
>>>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event,  but I don't know
>>>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions between retail
>>>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in that dress
>>>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry the brunt of
>>>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working man as jobs
>>>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by reducing the
>>>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing marginal
>>>>>> rates in some equitable way.  Of course the rich are taxed.  They
>>>>>> always have been taxed.   The highest marginal rates in the 1950s were
>>>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax policy and
>>>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures as we learned
>>>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible path to price
>>>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct revenue;
>>>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average rate paid by
>>>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say roughly because
>>>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso than in the
>>>>> immediate postwar era.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more current but the
>>>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>
>>>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous details.
>>>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward broader flatter rates
>>>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions, incentives and such. This
>>>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we make weekly, I
>>>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square feet on ~5
>>>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six feet high. The
>>>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>
>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more tiny than
>>>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each should pay the
>>>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
>>>
>>> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made some money
>>> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too lazy to get
>>> out and get with it?
>>>
>>> Jealousy?
>>
>> Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I suspect that
>> those born with a silver spoon in their mouth are on average lazier than
>> those at the edge of the official poverty level.
>
> Well yes, I was being a bit critical but still, what about the guy who
> does get off his arse and get with it and becomes a millionaire. Why
> should he be penalized? After all his company might well be supporting
> - well in the case of some, thousands of employees, Amazon, for
> example employs nearly a million - be penalized for having some
> gumption?
>
> You do realize, of course, that more then half of all the very wealthy
> chaps in the U.S. made it through their own efforts.

Considering that the success of the human race can probably all be
attributed to humans being herd (or pack, if it makes you feel better)
animals, there sure are a lot of rugged individualists out there.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 7:53:52 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:06:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <giant snip>
> >>>>>> Trade and barter is almost impossible for the government to trace,
> >>>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so long. These were
> >>>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to think that
> >>>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade and barter
> >>>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and large companies
> >>>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which are entirely
> >>>>>> open to the IRS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are involved in
> >>>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all sorts of non-cash
> >>>>>> exchanges.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power plant used in
> >>>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar company. They grew and
> >>>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS
> >>>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of the
> >>>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore, the company
> >>>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the retail store NO
> >>>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
> >>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar for over 100
> >>>>>> years. The IRS keeps track of the millions of small stores buying the
> >>>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and state regulators
> >>>>>> collect sales and income tax.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of sugar for a box
> >>>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event, but I don't know
> >>>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions between retail
> >>>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in that dress
> >>>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry the brunt of
> >>>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working man as jobs
> >>>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by reducing the
> >>>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it showed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing marginal
> >>>>>> rates in some equitable way. Of course the rich are taxed. They
> >>>>>> always have been taxed. The highest marginal rates in the 1950s were
> >>>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax policy and
> >>>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures as we learned
> >>>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible path to price
> >>>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct revenue;
> >>>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average rate paid by
> >>>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say roughly because
> >>>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso than in the
> >>>>> immediate postwar era.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more current but the
> >>>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too voluminous details.
> >>>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward broader flatter rates
> >>>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions, incentives and such. This
> >>>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we make weekly, I
> >>>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square feet on ~5
> >>>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six feet high. The
> >>>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >>>>
> >>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more tiny than
> >>>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each should pay the
> >>>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
> >>>
> >>> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made some money
> >>> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too lazy to get
> >>> out and get with it?
> >>>
> >>> Jealousy?
> >>
> >> Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I suspect that
> >> those born with a silver spoon in their mouth are on average lazier than
> >> those at the edge of the official poverty level.
> >
> > Well yes, I was being a bit critical but still, what about the guy who
> > does get off his arse and get with it and becomes a millionaire. Why
> > should he be penalized? After all his company might well be supporting
> > - well in the case of some, thousands of employees, Amazon, for
> > example employs nearly a million - be penalized for having some
> > gumption?
> >
> > You do realize, of course, that more then half of all the very wealthy
> > chaps in the U.S. made it through their own efforts.
> Considering that the success of the human race can probably all be
> attributed to humans being herd (or pack, if it makes you feel better)
> animals, there sure are a lot of rugged individualists out there.
Almost the entire advancement of the human condition has been from people who are NOT herd animals. It is this herd mentality that controls no advancement.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:00:44 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > > > immaterial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John B.
> > > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes.. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> > > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
> > >
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
> >
> > According to Jay Beattie:
> > > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
> > The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.
> And yet you don't understand taxes. If a corporation has a gross profit of $1M and paid all that in wages and bonuses, it would pay zero taxes. If it has a gross profit of $1M and invests all of that in capital expenditures, it would -- depending on the expenditures, amortize or expense the $1M and get a deduction in the current year and/or in future years. All of the payments you mention that make a corporation great are deductions in the current or future tax years. Wages are, in essence, paid pre-tax -- subject to the IRC limitations on executive compensation, etc. Isn't Russell an accountant -- somebody here is an accountant, and they can check my math and the IRC.
>

Yes I have a Bachelor's degree and a Master of Arts degree in Accounting from a state university. What you wrote sounds fairly reasonable. Your definition or discussion of gross profit isn't exactly correct. Gross profit is revenues and expenses from the main business. A farmer for instance sells grain he harvested for the revenue and the expenses are for fuel, machinery depreciation, his labor cost, fertilizer. More or less. But said farmer may have also done some futures and hedges on corn and soybeans and lost thousands because the price of crops went against him. His gross profit would be his income hopefully from the farming operations. But his net income would have to subtract the losses on his crop hedges. You mention wages and bonuses. Usually the ones used in calculating gross profit would be those directly involved in the manufacturing of the product. Not the secretary and janitor payroll. Those would be taken out to get to the net income. Gross profit is the operational income. All the extra hanger ons and expenses get added into the miscellaneous category and get deducted to get to net income. They are still valid deductible expenses but not calculated into gross profit. Yes wages are pre-tax and are deducted from revenue to get to the net income that taxes are paid on.

In assessing company's performance, EBITDA, is often used. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization. EBITDA lets investors know how well the company runs its business operations. The operations a business has direct control over and can change easily. Interest is on long term debt most likely that you can't repay immediately so you are stuck paying interest. Taxes you probably don't have much control over. Depreciation is on physical assets you bought and are using and take many years to write off each year. So no changes can be done there immediately. Amortization is on not physical but more intellectual property. Such as you bought a patent and are amortizing it over many years. Amortization and depreciation are the same for different types of assets. EBITDA is a reflection of what you can change quickly.

> Corporations only pay tax on net taxable income, which is typically the amount available for distribution to shareholders, unless it isn't -- as when it is used for stock buy-backs (what happened during the Trump tax give-away). Sales taxes are not corporate taxes or a "double tax" on income, although they obviously reduce wealth. Trump created a double tax by removing the SALT deduction, which is really one of the few examples of double taxation.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:00:44 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > > > immaterial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John B.
> > > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes.. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> > > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
> > >
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
> >
> > According to Jay Beattie:
> > > employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
> > The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.
> And yet you don't understand taxes. If a corporation has a gross profit of $1M and paid all that in wages and bonuses, it would pay zero taxes. If it has a gross profit of $1M and invests all of that in capital expenditures, it would -- depending on the expenditures, amortize or expense the $1M and get a deduction in the current year and/or in future years. All of the payments you mention that make a corporation great are deductions in the current or future tax years. Wages are, in essence, paid pre-tax -- subject to the IRC limitations on executive compensation, etc. Isn't Russell an accountant -- somebody here is an accountant, and they can check my math and the IRC.
>

I should also state "Don't ask me about the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)." Because accountants, accounting, divides when it comes to taxes and financial organizing. The accountants who deal with taxes, IRC, are specialized in taxes only. The accountants who deal with financial statements and debits and credits and assets and liabilities and equity and cash flow statements deal with those things only. Never taxes, the IRC.

I think criminal and civil attorneys are like that too. The expert in suing companies for fraud or negligence is not the one you want defending you for murder.

> Corporations only pay tax on net taxable income, which is typically the amount available for distribution to shareholders, unless it isn't -- as when it is used for stock buy-backs (what happened during the Trump tax give-away). Sales taxes are not corporate taxes or a "double tax" on income, although they obviously reduce wealth. Trump created a double tax by removing the SALT deduction, which is really one of the few examples of double taxation.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:17:28 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I stated as an electronics technician and worked my way up to department manager. That sure as hell wasn't buying a second yacht. Though I admit, as hard as I worked I never took three buses to get to two jobs. But after I became an engineer it was common for me to work 12 hours a day. Can you imagine Frank working 3 hours a day teaching college?

"But after I became an engineer"

Tommy, I know this has been discussed before, but are you an engineer as you like to claim? I am sure an engineer is a legal, licensed title. One requiring you to have a engineering degree and take tests to qualify. Have you done that? Can you correctly call yourself an engineer? I'm guessing no.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:03:05 AM UTC-7, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:12:50 PM UTC+2, William Crowell wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 9/18/2021 9:18 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
> > > >> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
> > > >> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
> > > >> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
> > > >> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
> > > >> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
> > > >> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting..
> > > >> "No! No!" (:-)
> > > >
> > > > How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
> > > > lane make cycling safer?
> > > >
> > > Local politician gets to be on television for the ribbon
> > > cutting. Election materials will include 'I built eco
> > > sensitive alternate transportation!'. Every contract has a
> > > few cutouts and kickbacks. In the best of cases (for the
> > > office holder) whatever it is (example: your suicide bike
> > > lane) gets designed abysmally so it all has to be ripped out
> > > and redone with another round of the usual crap above.
> > > Repeat into perpetuity.
> > >
> > > #1 rule in government: Once you solve the problem, the money
> > > stops.
> > >
> > > That should help your understanding of any project's press
> > > releases. You'll read one and think, "That can't work!"
> > > which is exactly the point.
> > > --
> > > Andrew Muzi
> > > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > Hope I'm not repeating myself, but a related phenomenon is where the town government passes an ordinance establishing a robust network of bike lanes going everywhere, but it doesn't get fully funded. Then a lot of the bike lanes get built only partially, but at first glance appear to go through to the next town, so you ride down them for about 5 miles and they come to a dead end instead. This happened to me more than once in the Netherlands.
> Huh?? We have a strict policy where to build (separate) bike lanes and where not. Our bike lanes don't come to a dead end because of insufficient funding, they just morph into the normal roads according to that policy.
>
> Lou

Pardon my dumbness, Lou, but I didn't realize until now that you lived in the Netherlands. Thanks for the input, but yes, this did happen to me at least twice when I was riding around in Holland.

On 9/19/2021 11:07 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:00:44 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:34:32 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>>>>>>> immaterial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>>>>> Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
>>>> Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>> I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:
>>>
>>> According to Jay Beattie:
>>>> employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation
>>> The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.
>> And yet you don't understand taxes. If a corporation has a gross profit of $1M and paid all that in wages and bonuses, it would pay zero taxes. If it has a gross profit of $1M and invests all of that in capital expenditures, it would -- depending on the expenditures, amortize or expense the $1M and get a deduction in the current year and/or in future years. All of the payments you mention that make a corporation great are deductions in the current or future tax years. Wages are, in essence, paid pre-tax -- subject to the IRC limitations on executive compensation, etc. Isn't Russell an accountant -- somebody here is an accountant, and they can check my math and the IRC.
>>
>
> Yes I have a Bachelor's degree and a Master of Arts degree in Accounting from a state university. What you wrote sounds fairly reasonable. Your definition or discussion of gross profit isn't exactly correct. Gross profit is revenues and expenses from the main business. A farmer for instance sells grain he harvested for the revenue and the expenses are for fuel, machinery depreciation, his labor cost, fertilizer. More or less. But said farmer may have also done some futures and hedges on corn and soybeans and lost thousands because the price of crops went against him. His gross profit would be his income hopefully from the farming operations. But his net income would have to subtract the losses on his crop hedges. You mention wages and bonuses. Usually the ones used in calculating gross profit would be those directly involved in the manufacturing of the product. Not the secretary and janitor payroll. Those would be taken out to get to the net income. Gross profit is th
e operational income. All the extra hanger ons and expenses get added into the miscellaneous category and get deducted to get to net income. They are still valid deductible expenses but not calculated into gross profit. Yes wages are pre-tax and are deducted from revenue to get to the net income that taxes are paid on.
>
> In assessing company's performance, EBITDA, is often used. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization. EBITDA lets investors know how well the company runs its business operations. The operations a business has direct control over and can change easily. Interest is on long term debt most likely that you can't repay immediately so you are stuck paying interest. Taxes you probably don't have much control over. Depreciation is on physical assets you bought and are using and take many years to write off each year. So no changes can be done there immediately. Amortization is on not physical but more intellectual property. Such as you bought a patent and are amortizing it over many years. Amortization and depreciation are the same for different types of assets. EBITDA is a reflection of what you can change quickly.
>
>
>
>
>> Corporations only pay tax on net taxable income, which is typically the amount available for distribution to shareholders, unless it isn't -- as when it is used for stock buy-backs (what happened during the Trump tax give-away). Sales taxes are not corporate taxes or a "double tax" on income, although they obviously reduce wealth. Trump created a double tax by removing the SALT deduction, which is really one of the few examples of double taxation.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.

Very nicely done overview.

I am not a CPA but I've fought ( won & lost) in most of
those areas.

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

On 9/19/2021 9:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 8:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 6:55 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 14:44:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>  Â  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>> government to trace,
>>>>>> hence the excise taxes that supported the US for so
>>>>>> long. These were
>>>>>> perfectly fine with the common citizen because those
>>>>>> paying the excise
>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>> think that
>>>>>> large corporations would be the one's involved in trade
>>>>>> and barter
>>>>>> which is silly. For their own good, corporations and
>>>>>> large companies
>>>>>> must of needs keep careful and accurate records which
>>>>>> are entirely
>>>>>> open to the IRS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>> barter, although they are involved in trade and all
>>>>>> sorts of non-cash
>>>>>> exchanges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the
>>>>>>> power plant used in
>>>>>>> Salinas for what eventually became C & H Sugar
>>>>>>> company. They grew and
>>>>>>> processed sugar cane into sugar. It took a very long
>>>>>>> time for the IRS
>>>>>>> to grow to the level a sophistication to be able to
>>>>>>> keep track of the
>>>>>>> millions of small stores buying the sugar. Therefore,
>>>>>>> the company
>>>>>>> paid taxes and few others did. And once it left the
>>>>>>> retail store NO
>>>>>>> taxes were paid on the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is complex:
>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>> for over 100
>>>>>> years.  The IRS keeps track of the millions of small
>>>>>> stores buying the
>>>>>> sugar by collecting income tax from those stores, and
>>>>>> state regulators
>>>>>> collect sales and income tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>> sugar for a box
>>>>>> of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable event,  but
>>>>>> I don't know
>>>>>> what the law is in California. But yes, transactions
>>>>>> between retail
>>>>>> purchasers generally escapes taxation -- and so do cash
>>>>>> sales.  Most
>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown
>>>>>>> in that dress
>>>>>>> worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they didn't carry
>>>>>>> the brunt of
>>>>>>> taxation far above their earnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the
>>>>>>> working man as jobs
>>>>>>> disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any money by
>>>>>>> reducing the
>>>>>>> highest rate - he was making jobs for everyone and it
>>>>>>> showed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>> establishing marginal
>>>>>> rates in some equitable way.  Of course the rich are
>>>>>> taxed.  They
>>>>>> always have been taxed.   The highest marginal rates
>>>>>> in the 1950s were
>>>>>> staggering, and yet manufacturing and employment were
>>>>>> at an all-time
>>>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>> policy and
>>>>>> corporate spending on workers or capital expenditures
>>>>>> as we learned
>>>>>> with the Reagan and Trump trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>> path to price
>>>>> supports for US producers. It's not always about direct
>>>>> revenue;
>>>>> governance involves many goals, policies, interests,
>>>>> hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>> average rate paid by
>>>>> any given percentile of income is roughly similar. I say
>>>>> roughly because
>>>>> the present actual revenue is highly progressive, moreso
>>>>> than in the
>>>>> immediate postwar era.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>> current but the
>>>>> trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>
>>>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>>>> details.
>>>>> Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>>>> broader flatter rates
>>>>> with fewer carve-outs, exceptions, exemptions,
>>>>> incentives and such. This
>>>>> gives a more efficient system and generally higher
>>>>> compliance, as
>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>> make weekly, I
>>>> pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing ~10,000 square
>>>> feet on ~5
>>>> acres, surrounded by brand new stone fences about six
>>>> feet high. The
>>>> carriage house or servants' quarters or whatever is
>>>> larger than our house.
>>>>
>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even
>>>> more tiny than
>>>> ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of each
>>>> should pay the
>>>> same percentage of their income in taxes.
>>>
>>> So, a bloke that "got off his ass" and went out and made
>>> some money
>>> should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who was too
>>> lazy to get
>>> out and get with it?
>>>
>>> Jealousy?
>>
>> Sorry, it's a fallacy that all poor people are lazy. I
>> suspect that those born with a silver spoon in their mouth
>> are on average lazier than those at the edge of the official
>> poverty level.
>>
>>
>
> I would posit that there are ample examples of both character types in
> both groups. It's hardly a definitive standard.

Of course. That goes without saying - which is why I included the phrase
"on average." (I'm a big fan of the Normal Curve and its implications.)