On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> 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%.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.

NO - there is absolutely NO legal requirements for electronic engineers or programmers to have any education other than the ability to perform given tasks. And to perform these given tasks often means you have to have complex understandings of science. And that is what MOST degreed engineers and programmers lack. I do not say that with any contempt for them.

Neal Tyson, the noted black accomplished physicist has made several videos on just how most people haven't even a passing understanding of science. YOU have shown that you don't know a damn thing about it but you continue to blurt out crap that has absolutely no basis in reality. This is not me attempting to insult you but me simply stating a fact.

Did you see that Frank couldn't explain what the difference was between accelerating a kg and accelerating 2.2 lbs? Now this is a man who taught engineering and you could expect him to be able to answer a question that simple.. But he doesn't have any grasp of science and so he doesn't really understand the difference between weight and mass. THIS IS NORMAL and something I've had the unfortunate experience to fight all of my life since all of this appears to be so simple to me. The difference between weight and mass is purely mathematical or imaginary if you will. It allows you to calculate energy necessary to accelerate something in a more simple manner. On the surface of Earth there is absolutely NO difference in that acceleration. It only makes a difference in low or zero gravity when the weight changes but mass remains the same. But - MASS is still connected to the weight it would be on the surface of this world.

The reason that I was successful (and I worked for men a hell of a lot smarter and far more educated) was simply because they needed people that understood science and probably 95% of people do not. I have NO DOUBT that Frank could draw the double triangle of a bicycle frame and explain every single force acting upon it. But he showed that he doesn't have a sufficient understanding of other forces and how they act on the world around him. This doesn't make him stupid, it makes him the normative of the population.

Poor John wants to be a part of a group. So what ridiculous thing has he done? He thinks that I am bragging about what I have done rather than using it as proof that I know what I'm talking about. He wants to break the group into sides - those who do not understand science and think they do and me and a few others. He looks things up on the Internet and he doesn't understand any of it but it appears to "prove" me wrong so he copies and pastes it to the group. John IS part of the group if for no other reason than he posts here so what the hell does he have to prove? John had nothing to say about my comments about there being no such thing as a B50. Why is that? Because while the B50 was built originally as an improvement on the B36, by the time they started delivering them the B47 was the front line bomber and the B50 was modified to the KB50 and the RB50. Same plane, different mission.

I have shown you that no one is actually dying from covid-19. Why do you want to fight that? If they called it the flu which is what it is, would you be so frightened of it? So they call it a "novel corona virus" instead and you're ready to through away your civil rights in a second. The normal numbers of people are dying from the normal reasons of death. Because they can claim that covid-19 is present makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in those deaths. These people were dying in the same numbers and for the same reasons as always. Got that? There ARE no excess deaths and you are being lied to from every corner. And as Joseph Goebbels said. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".

The Democrats seized upon the so-called "pandemic" to commit election fraud.. The election audits are proving that in a huge way. That the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of the government have not even opened an investigation shows that the entire mess is corrupt and that YOU are nothing but a helpless tool. I have perhaps another 12 years at best but you have a long life ahead of you and you had better wake up or you're going to be nothing more than a communist slave. Or you can spend your time thinking that you are proving me wrong.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:47:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
> question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>
> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
> comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000 Lincoln hybrid getting 40
> mpg pays less per mile than the guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford
> Taurus getting 18 mpg. That's just one example of how the system
> benefits the wealthy.
>
> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just enough to get by,
> it's very hard to take advantage of economic opportunities - even basic
> ones like buying a more efficient car or insulating one's home - let
> alone to accumulate wealth.
>
> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the smart ones can
> do economically productive things with any excess. The more they do
> that, the faster their wealth grows. But those who start out in a
> prosperous family get that excess from birth. It is much, much easier
> for them to climb the economic ladder.
>
> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart & hard work,
> inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a certain amount, it can
> accumulate rapidly, as an exponential function. So it's always WAY
> easier for a wealthy person, compared to a poor person, to afford a
> $10,000 bill.
>
> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be more stable,
> have lower crime rates, and have more contented citizenry. The U.S. is
> not one of them.

Frank, exactly HOW can you say that? When the top 10% essentially pay all of the taxes you have to have a hell of a lot of gall to suggest they pay more when the facts are that every extra dollar you take from them takes a job from someone else.

Exactly why is it that you're such a fan of socialism? Why is it that you cannot understand basic economics? It isn't as if you don't have the intelligence to do so - it is because you don't give a damn when the simple message on AOC's dress is enough for you - "Tax the Rich".

On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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%.
>
> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>
> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>
> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
> accumulate wealth.
>
> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
> climb the economic ladder.
>
> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>
> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 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..
> Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.

We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
> We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d

Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for.. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:38:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> 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%.
> >
> > Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
> > I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> >
> > The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
> > that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
> > Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
> > guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
> > That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
> >
> > Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
> > enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
> > economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
> > efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
> > accumulate wealth.
> >
> > But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
> > smart ones can do economically productive things with any
> > excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
> > grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
> > that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
> > climb the economic ladder.
> >
> > And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
> > hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
> > certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
> > function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
> > compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
> >
> > Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
> > more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
> > contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
> >
> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>
> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>
> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
> means who work and save.
>
> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
> the wilderness.

On 9/20/2021 11:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:38:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> 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%.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>
>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>
>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>
>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>
>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>
>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>
>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>
>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>
>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>> means who work and save.
>>
>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>> the wilderness.
>
> At one time Texas was solid Democrat. In the Democrat primaries up until recently you had to be white to vote in the primary. In the general election the civil rights act forced them to allow anyone of any color, race, creed or sex, but what did it matter if white Democrats chose the Democrat runner?
>
> More importantly, you couldn't even RUN in the primary unless you had the money to run a campaign and so you were beholden to the rich 1% to supply almost your entire campaign financing. That 1% would provide more financing than ALL of the rest of the contributors combined. So only those people entirely beholden to the 1% ever made it to office. Of either party but importantly the Democrats since they are the most racist group as a whole. (After all, they were the descendants of slave owners and Texas was the home of cotton industries which required thousands of slaves until automation took over).
>
> What this means is that you can be damn sure that those 1%ers aren't touched by tax laws and never will be. Trump used the same laws to pay the same smaller taxes (as did the parents of AOC) but in what world should he have paid more than required of him? He did give far more than generously to charities whereas George Soros has used his fortune to undermine democracies around the world.
>
> So what does this mean to you and me? That we don't "tax the rich" but that we reduce the scope and reach of government. We eliminate entire departments. The EPA is one of the most destructive and expensive government agencies ever. The BLM should NEVER have existed. Despite Jay's bullshit, the Constitution really does forbid the government holding that much land inside of states. You can go right down the line and most of the government has no need to exist. So if you end it you don't have to support it and you can reduce taxes all around.
>

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
> > We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d
> Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.

In the normal world, W-2 employees get inventor credits all the time. I gave you examples and a link to the USTPO mentions for my friend, who is a mechanical engineer. If you are implementing a novel idea (as you claim) and developing products to implement that idea that are also novel (as you claim), then you get a credit as an inventor, assuming your employer patents the product -- which it will, because it is an asset. If you had no patentable ideas, you were probably just a drone doing a job -- which is fine, but it doesn't make you some engineering god. Important people leave a footprint, typically in professional journals or at the USTPO.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
> > > We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d
> > Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.
> In the normal world, W-2 employees get inventor credits all the time. I gave you examples and a link to the USTPO mentions for my friend, who is a mechanical engineer. If you are implementing a novel idea (as you claim) and developing products to implement that idea that are also novel (as you claim), then you get a credit as an inventor, assuming your employer patents the product -- which it will, because it is an asset. If you had no patentable ideas, you were probably just a drone doing a job -- which is fine, but it doesn't make you some engineering god. Important people leave a footprint, typically in professional journals or at the USTPO.

Tell me Jay, why do your "examples" go against 50 years of my experience? The PCR automation for instance was vastly improved by Dr. Michael McCown, after it was just generally describe by Dr. Mullis. Why didn't Dr. McCown even get a mention in the credits? I had to analyze and re-program that poison gas detector, why wasn't my name even mentioned in the "developed by" column in the description of it? I did all of the hardware design for a Respiratory Gas Analyzer. No credits in the manual whatsoever. Nor for the firmware programmer who also worked on it.

My name is on the manual for that communications board used in the space station but nowhere does it mention that I did the complete design and program for it. I don't know where you get your ideas from but they have left reality FAR behind.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+1, 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.
>
> 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.

I believe you Jay. Or, rather, I believe you believe all that crap because it happens and you don't have the brainpower -- or the will -- to see beyond current practice.

But answer me a single question. Isn't levying a tax on a corporate profit and again on its distribution to shareholder levying another tax a double tax?

Andre Jute
Riddle me a hard one.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:52:05 PM UTC+2, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
> > > > We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d
> > > Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.
> > In the normal world, W-2 employees get inventor credits all the time. I gave you examples and a link to the USTPO mentions for my friend, who is a mechanical engineer. If you are implementing a novel idea (as you claim) and developing products to implement that idea that are also novel (as you claim), then you get a credit as an inventor, assuming your employer patents the product -- which it will, because it is an asset. If you had no patentable ideas, you were probably just a drone doing a job -- which is fine, but it doesn't make you some engineering god. Important people leave a footprint, typically in professional journals or at the USTPO.
> Tell me Jay, why do your "examples" go against 50 years of my experience? The PCR automation for instance was vastly improved by Dr. Michael McCown, after it was just generally describe by Dr. Mullis. Why didn't Dr. McCown even get a mention in the credits? I had to analyze and re-program that poison gas detector, why wasn't my name even mentioned in the "developed by" column in the description of it? I did all of the hardware design for a Respiratory Gas Analyzer. No credits in the manual whatsoever. Nor for the firmware programmer who also worked on it.
>
> My name is on the manual for that communications board used in the space station but nowhere does it mention that I did the complete design and program for it. I don't know where you get your ideas from but they have left reality FAR behind.

Nothing in Jay’s post contradict your examples.

Lou

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
> > > > We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d
> > > Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.
> > In the normal world, W-2 employees get inventor credits all the time. I gave you examples and a link to the USTPO mentions for my friend, who is a mechanical engineer. If you are implementing a novel idea (as you claim) and developing products to implement that idea that are also novel (as you claim), then you get a credit as an inventor, assuming your employer patents the product -- which it will, because it is an asset. If you had no patentable ideas, you were probably just a drone doing a job -- which is fine, but it doesn't make you some engineering god. Important people leave a footprint, typically in professional journals or at the USTPO.
> Tell me Jay, why do your "examples" go against 50 years of my experience? The PCR automation for instance was vastly improved by Dr. Michael McCown, after it was just generally describe by Dr. Mullis. Why didn't Dr. McCown even get a mention in the credits? I had to analyze and re-program that poison gas detector, why wasn't my name even mentioned in the "developed by" column in the description of it? I did all of the hardware design for a Respiratory Gas Analyzer. No credits in the manual whatsoever. Nor for the firmware programmer who also worked on it.

You live in the Tom Kunich Mystery Spot, and your personal experience rarely mirrors objective reality, so to answer your question, I don't know. Most companies that develop medical devices patent them and patent all the processes and components that are patentable. Here are Mullis' inventor credits: https://tinyurl.com/wmnfbe46 Is this the machine you worked on?: https://tinyurl.com/4z8fmfzh Hey, SMS invented something with Kary Mullis! https://tinyurl.com/3c4p5tvz

Michael McCown has numerous mentions at the USPTO. https://tinyurl.com/f9jfmy4p -- but they are mostly citing his journal articles. He apparently was not an inventor but provided the basic science. You can dig around and see if he has any inventor credits.
> My name is on the manual for that communications board used in the space station but nowhere does it mention that I did the complete design and program for it. I don't know where you get your ideas from but they have left reality FAR behind.

I was on the space station and looked through that manual and did NOT see your name.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
> > > > > We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d
> > > > Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.
> > > In the normal world, W-2 employees get inventor credits all the time. I gave you examples and a link to the USTPO mentions for my friend, who is a mechanical engineer. If you are implementing a novel idea (as you claim) and developing products to implement that idea that are also novel (as you claim), then you get a credit as an inventor, assuming your employer patents the product -- which it will, because it is an asset. If you had no patentable ideas, you were probably just a drone doing a job -- which is fine, but it doesn't make you some engineering god. Important people leave a footprint, typically in professional journals or at the USTPO.
> > Tell me Jay, why do your "examples" go against 50 years of my experience? The PCR automation for instance was vastly improved by Dr. Michael McCown, after it was just generally describe by Dr. Mullis. Why didn't Dr. McCown even get a mention in the credits? I had to analyze and re-program that poison gas detector, why wasn't my name even mentioned in the "developed by" column in the description of it? I did all of the hardware design for a Respiratory Gas Analyzer. No credits in the manual whatsoever. Nor for the firmware programmer who also worked on it.
> You live in the Tom Kunich Mystery Spot, and your personal experience rarely mirrors objective reality, so to answer your question, I don't know. Most companies that develop medical devices patent them and patent all the processes and components that are patentable. Here are Mullis' inventor credits: https://tinyurl.com/wmnfbe46 Is this the machine you worked on?: https://tinyurl.com/4z8fmfzh Hey, SMS invented something with Kary Mullis! https://tinyurl.com/3c4p5tvz
>
> Michael McCown has numerous mentions at the USPTO. https://tinyurl.com/f9jfmy4p -- but they are mostly citing his journal articles. He apparently was not an inventor but provided the basic science. You can dig around and see if he has any inventor credits.
> > My name is on the manual for that communications board used in the space station but nowhere does it mention that I did the complete design and program for it. I don't know where you get your ideas from but they have left reality FAR behind.
> I was on the space station and looked through that manual and did NOT see your name.

Jay, is this what you are reduced to? Dr. Mullis was a scientist that knew enough to patent his inventions because otherwise people would joyfully steal them. Just like your bicycle if you leave it out unlocked. Dr. McCown was an extremely good chemist, but not that I noticed much of an inventor.

I find it telling that you believe that stealing the ideas of someone else is fair game.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 3:53:52 AM UTC+1, Ralph Barone wrote:

> 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.
>
Actually, all the success of human race can be attributed to Woman domesticating pack and plowing animals, flora and fauna. Man was just the last of the animals Woman domesticated. And if you think I'm joking, look up the philosophers of history Joseph Bronowski and Will Durant, both of them eminently accessible. -- Andre Jute

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+1, 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.
> >
> > 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.
> I believe you Jay. Or, rather, I believe you believe all that crap because it happens and you don't have the brainpower -- or the will -- to see beyond current practice.

O.K., Andre, you tell me about US corporate taxation.
>
> But answer me a single question. Isn't levying a tax on a corporate profit and again on its distribution to shareholder levying another tax a double tax?

Yes and no. It is a tax on the same money that has been taxed at the corporate level, but is not a double tax in the sense that the same tax-payer is paying tax twice. A different tax payer is paying tax on a distribution, but yes, the same money may (or may not) be taxed again depending on the shareholder's tax circumstances.

A lot of times distributions are not taxed again, depending on who owns the stock, e.g. pension funds, individuals in low tax brackets, etc. And even if it is taxed again, the total tax (corporate and individual) on qualified dividends might be at less than the shareholder's marginal rate. Qualified dividends are given very favorable tax treatment under US law.

The only place corporate rates really matter is with cap ex that can't be expensed. Having less post-tax cash means more borrowing or deferred expansion, etc. This hasn't been a problem in the current rate environment, and dropping the rate on repatriated cash didn't increase cap ex. https://www.yahoo.com/news/little-evidence-capex-surge-tax-195831833.html We discussed this years ago. In other words, corporations weren't using all the cash to do anything productive -- except drive up share value so shareholders could cash in. https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/the-trump-tax-cuts-promises-made-promises-kept-1

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:22:50 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+1, 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > I believe you Jay. Or, rather, I believe you believe all that crap because it happens and you don't have the brainpower -- or the will -- to see beyond current practice.
> O.K., Andre, you tell me about US corporate taxation.
> >
> > But answer me a single question. Isn't levying a tax on a corporate profit and again on its distribution to shareholder levying another tax a double tax?
> Yes and no. It is a tax on the same money that has been taxed at the corporate level, but is not a double tax in the sense that the same tax-payer is paying tax twice. A different tax payer is paying tax on a distribution, but yes, the same money may (or may not) be taxed again depending on the shareholder's tax circumstances.
>
> A lot of times distributions are not taxed again, depending on who owns the stock, e.g. pension funds, individuals in low tax brackets, etc. And even if it is taxed again, the total tax (corporate and individual) on qualified dividends might be at less than the shareholder's marginal rate. Qualified dividends are given very favorable tax treatment under US law.
>
> The only place corporate rates really matter is with cap ex that can't be expensed. Having less post-tax cash means more borrowing or deferred expansion, etc. This hasn't been a problem in the current rate environment, and dropping the rate on repatriated cash didn't increase cap ex. https://www.yahoo.com/news/little-evidence-capex-surge-tax-195831833.html We discussed this years ago. In other words, corporations weren't using all the cash to do anything productive -- except drive up share value so shareholders could cash in. https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/the-trump-tax-cuts-promises-made-promises-kept-1
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Count me out; I have a life to live, 133 pages of the manual of my new smartwatch to read before it is delivered: far more interesting than trying to talk a lawyer smart. Someone else can point out to you that one of your examples is actually of a tax distorting normal activities in the investment chain. -- AJ

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:47:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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%.
>
>Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
>question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>
>The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
>comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000 Lincoln hybrid getting 40
>mpg pays less per mile than the guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford
>Taurus getting 18 mpg. That's just one example of how the system
>benefits the wealthy.
>
>Based on my own experience, if a person is making just enough to get by,
>it's very hard to take advantage of economic opportunities - even basic
>ones like buying a more efficient car or insulating one's home - let
>alone to accumulate wealth.
>
>But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the smart ones can
>do economically productive things with any excess. The more they do
>that, the faster their wealth grows. But those who start out in a
>prosperous family get that excess from birth. It is much, much easier
>for them to climb the economic ladder.
>
>And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart & hard work,
>inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a certain amount, it can
>accumulate rapidly, as an exponential function. So it's always WAY
>easier for a wealthy person, compared to a poor person, to afford a
>$10,000 bill.
>
>Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be more stable,
> have lower crime rates, and have more contented citizenry. The U.S. is
>not one of them.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> 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%.
>>
>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>
>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>
>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>> accumulate wealth.
>>
>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>> climb the economic ladder.
>>
>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>
>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>
>
>The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>
>Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>
>At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>means who work and save.
>
>The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>the wilderness.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:06:05 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:20:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > 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.
>> > > > > > Russell, after your comments about your own education I can understand that you have absolutely no idea what engineering is like. Engineers do not patent other people's products in their own names. Perhaps you believe that as an accountant that you can copyright pages out of the textbooks written by someone else? Well this is precisely what you are claiming an engineer needs to prove himself an engineer.
>> > > > > We've been through this many times before. If you lead a design team that comes up with a novel product or process, you get a credit as inventor -- and employers get an asset, a patent assignment. If you have no mentions at the USPTO, it is unlikely you designed anything patentable, meaning anything novel. W-2 engineers get recognition as inventors on patents all the time. Lou is an example, and I have friends who are software and product engineers with many patents. My best bicycling buddy: https://tinyurl.com/6uky522d
>> > > > Jay, I have worked at dozens of companies and never heard of even ONE engineer getting a patent on a project for a company he was hired to develop for. Why do you continue to peddle this drivel which has never been true in anything other than very general theoretical law? The company is founded by a man who has a novel idea. It isn't mine to steal no matter how much your legal mind would prefer. Theft of other's property seems to be your modus operandi. Go pay your state for a bottle of wine. There is a perfect example of Oregon legal minds at work.
>> > > In the normal world, W-2 employees get inventor credits all the time. I gave you examples and a link to the USTPO mentions for my friend, who is a mechanical engineer. If you are implementing a novel idea (as you claim) and developing products to implement that idea that are also novel (as you claim), then you get a credit as an inventor, assuming your employer patents the product -- which it will, because it is an asset. If you had no patentable ideas, you were probably just a drone doing a job -- which is fine, but it doesn't make you some engineering god. Important people leave a footprint, typically in professional journals or at the USTPO.
>> > Tell me Jay, why do your "examples" go against 50 years of my experience? The PCR automation for instance was vastly improved by Dr. Michael McCown, after it was just generally describe by Dr. Mullis. Why didn't Dr. McCown even get a mention in the credits? I had to analyze and re-program that poison gas detector, why wasn't my name even mentioned in the "developed by" column in the description of it? I did all of the hardware design for a Respiratory Gas Analyzer. No credits in the manual whatsoever. Nor for the firmware programmer who also worked on it.
>> You live in the Tom Kunich Mystery Spot, and your personal experience rarely mirrors objective reality, so to answer your question, I don't know. Most companies that develop medical devices patent them and patent all the processes and components that are patentable. Here are Mullis' inventor credits: https://tinyurl.com/wmnfbe46 Is this the machine you worked on?: https://tinyurl.com/4z8fmfzh Hey, SMS invented something with Kary Mullis! https://tinyurl.com/3c4p5tvz
>>
>> Michael McCown has numerous mentions at the USPTO. https://tinyurl.com/f9jfmy4p -- but they are mostly citing his journal articles. He apparently was not an inventor but provided the basic science. You can dig around and see if he has any inventor credits.
>> > My name is on the manual for that communications board used in the space station but nowhere does it mention that I did the complete design and program for it. I don't know where you get your ideas from but they have left reality FAR behind.
>> I was on the space station and looked through that manual and did NOT see your name.
>
>Jay, is this what you are reduced to? Dr. Mullis was a scientist that knew enough to patent his inventions because otherwise people would joyfully steal them. Just like your bicycle if you leave it out unlocked. Dr. McCown was an extremely good chemist, but not that I noticed much of an inventor.
>
>I find it telling that you believe that stealing the ideas of someone else is fair game.

Well why not? After all you feel that telling lies is fair game.

What is it the Good Book says about doing unto others as you would
have done to you?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> 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%.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>
>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>
>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>
>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>
>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>
>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>
>>
>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>
>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>
>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>> means who work and save.
>>
>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>> the wilderness.
>
> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> 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%.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>
>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>
>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>
>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>
>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>
>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>
>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>
>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>> means who work and save.
>>>
>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>> the wilderness.
>>
>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>
>On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>
>People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>contribute much to election campaigns.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > 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%.
> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
> question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>
> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
> comes from gas tax.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:33:04 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> > 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%.
>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>
>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
>> comes from gas tax.
>
>NO, NO, NO. The myth, lie, that gasoline taxes pay for roads is just that. False. A widely held and believed lie. Do a Google search on "how are roads paid for". Property taxes and income taxes and taxes on natural resources are often used to pay for roads. Nationwide the links below says its about 40% paid for by gas taxes. Roads are heavily subsidized.
>
>https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf
>https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:38:08 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>
> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
> the wilderness.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I am going to have to correct you on this part of your reply. Payroll tax is paid half by employee and half by employer. Payroll taxes fund social security (retirement) and Medicare (health insurance). Age 62 is when you can start collecting on both. 7.65% is the total payroll tax paid.
6.2% for social security and 1.45% for Medicare. ONLY the first $142No matter h,800 of wages pays the 6.2% tax. Every dollar of wage above $142,800 pays ZERO social security tax. The 1.45% Medicare tax is on all income, no limit. These are the evil FLAT TAXES. Regressive. Billionaire Warren Buffet and the McDonalds worker pay the exact same rate on all income up to $142,800.

You use the word punitive to describe increasing tax rates on income. A negative connotation word. Other may prefer the word progressive tax. And as for no bleeding hearts in favor of changing the payroll tax, wrong. There are always many discussions but no results in making the payroll tax, the 6.2% social security tax, applicable to all income. Eliminating the $142,800 limit. But the rich CEOs of all the companies make enough donations to insure that never happens. They want zero 6.2% tax on all their income above $142,800. Can't put payroll taxes on the multi million salaries. No, no, no.