On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>
>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>
>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>
>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>> auto.
>>>
>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>
>>
>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
>> making broad generalizations.
>
>Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>
>Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?

On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly complained to
> reporters about the Korean businesses being trashed/burned, 'They showed
> up here with 23c and no speak English a few years ago and now they own
> the whole neighborhood.'
>
> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for them.

One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when his family
fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the first time he went into
an American convenience store and was astonished at the quantity and
variety of goods available.

His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd been here
only a few years, the father owned his own home and car outright. The
house was in a less desirable part of town, so it had been priced very
low, and the family did the copious repair work it needed. The car was
used and old but it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But
the family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I heard from
him he was working as a salesman of high tech machinery and doing very
well.

There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an electrical
engineer. We actually helped him come here for political asylum. When he
landed, he got a cheap apartment and a job painting trucks as he worked
on his English and searching for better work. He eventually worked for
an international company where he specialized in satellite
communication. For several years, they supplied him and his family with
a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd retired early, had a ranch in
the western U.S. and was using his retirement to teach yoga.

I think it's quite common for people who have come from really bad
situations like that to be VERY motivated to work hard and be prudent
with their money.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>
>> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
>
> Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.

That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
problems.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/21/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>...I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>
>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>
> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".

Of course there are less educated well drillers, etc. (I'm riffing off
"artesians" here) who become prosperous. There are highly educated
people who don't. Strategy and dumb luck certainly play a part.

The guy I mentioned has biology degrees, and IIRC biology is not usually
one of the more lucrative science fields (one of the reasons I changed
my major from biology to engineering). He did work for a state agency,
but dreamed of teaching like his parents did.

At this point, I'd say betting on a college teaching career is a
mistake. It certainly has been for him. He was strung along for years
with part-time contracts and promises of upcoming full-time positions.
They worked him hard and he was very productive both in teaching and
research, but he's finally realized the promises of more are lies.
Sadly, that's the financial model most American universities now use -
string along part-timers at low wages, while raising tuition to unheard
of levels.

It pays for lots of top level administrators.

- -

As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
back... Don't sell your house!")
https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/

But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>>
>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>>
>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>>
>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>>> auto.
>>>>
>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
>>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
>>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
>>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
>>> making broad generalizations.
>>
>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>
>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>
> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>
> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
> from voting.
>
> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
>

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7:39:34 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 2:57 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 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.
> > 'half by employer'
>
> hah hah hah.
> As a CPA you know full well that both portions are 'payroll
> expense' to the employer.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

OK. We can discuss or argue about who really pays the payroll tax. Technically, legally, the gross salary paid to the employee. That amount multiplied by 7.65% is paid by the employer as their share of payroll taxes. And 7.65% of the total salary is withheld by the employer from the employee's gross pay. And the employer sends it in along with his own share to the federal government. Who really pays it is debatable. If it was gone, would wages be 7.65% lower since the employee would get the same amount? So their incentive, greed, compensation would be identical. Or would wages go up 7..65% since the employer is not paying anything to the feds and thus it could go to the employee and the employer would be identical.

On 9/21/2021 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
>> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>> neighborhood.'
>>
>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for
>> them.
>
> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when
> his family fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the
> first time he went into an American convenience store and
> was astonished at the quantity and variety of goods available.
>
> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd
> been here only a few years, the father owned his own home
> and car outright. The house was in a less desirable part of
> town, so it had been priced very low, and the family did the
> copious repair work it needed. The car was used and old but
> it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But the
> family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I
> heard from him he was working as a salesman of high tech
> machinery and doing very well.
>
> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an
> electrical engineer. We actually helped him come here for
> political asylum. When he landed, he got a cheap apartment
> and a job painting trucks as he worked on his English and
> searching for better work. He eventually worked for an
> international company where he specialized in satellite
> communication. For several years, they supplied him and his
> family with a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd
> retired early, had a ranch in the western U.S. and was using
> his retirement to teach yoga.
>
> I think it's quite common for people who have come from
> really bad situations like that to be VERY motivated to work
> hard and be prudent with their money.
>

Which is it? Recently you implied that people of meager
means without high society connections were doomed.

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

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:48:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly complained to
> > reporters about the Korean businesses being trashed/burned, 'They showed
> > up here with 23c and no speak English a few years ago and now they own
> > the whole neighborhood.'
> >
> > Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for them.
> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when his family
> fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the first time he went into
> an American convenience store and was astonished at the quantity and
> variety of goods available.
>
> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd been here
> only a few years, the father owned his own home and car outright. The
> house was in a less desirable part of town, so it had been priced very
> low, and the family did the copious repair work it needed. The car was
> used and old but it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But
> the family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I heard from
> him he was working as a salesman of high tech machinery and doing very
> well.
>
> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an electrical
> engineer. We actually helped him come here for political asylum. When he
> landed, he got a cheap apartment and a job painting trucks as he worked
> on his English and searching for better work. He eventually worked for
> an international company where he specialized in satellite
> communication. For several years, they supplied him and his family with
> a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd retired early, had a ranch in
> the western U.S. and was using his retirement to teach yoga.
>
> I think it's quite common for people who have come from really bad
> situations like that to be VERY motivated to work hard and be prudent
> with their money.
Frank, I'm glad that you described these people. Now that you've actually seen what hard work and industriousness do, why is it you seem so offended by it?

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> >>
> >> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
> >
> > Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.
> That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
> problems.

It scares hell out of you what I am well capable of doing to Fauci if I were to meet him face to face? That you don't think I could supply more than a good defense for what I would do to Fauci? And the look on Jay's face would be priceless. It absolutely petrifies you what I might do to you face to face, doesn't it? Well no worries, I would simply laugh in your face, I am far too big and strong to pick on runts of the litter.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:05:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 5:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>>
>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>>
>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>>
>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>>> auto.
>>>>
>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know
>>> a great many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed
>>> lower class peons' are as overrated as English PhDs driving
>>> taxis (of whom I knew two). Humans are a wildly diverse lot,
>>> such that one ought to pause when making broad generalizations.
>>
>> I don't know about the present but when I lived in the States I
>> remember a news report, in California, about the poor, unappreciated
>> U.S.ians who were unemployed and had to live on the government dole,
>> and just couldn't get ahead... while at the same time hordes of
>> Mexican, both those holding valid work permits and illegal workers,
>> were flocking in to harvest the crops.
>>
>
>During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
>English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>neighborhood.'
>
>Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for them.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:48:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly complained to
>> reporters about the Korean businesses being trashed/burned, 'They showed
>> up here with 23c and no speak English a few years ago and now they own
>> the whole neighborhood.'
>>
>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for them.
>
>One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when his family
>fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the first time he went into
>an American convenience store and was astonished at the quantity and
>variety of goods available.
>
>His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd been here
>only a few years, the father owned his own home and car outright. The
>house was in a less desirable part of town, so it had been priced very
>low, and the family did the copious repair work it needed. The car was
>used and old but it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But
>the family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I heard from
>him he was working as a salesman of high tech machinery and doing very
>well.
>
>There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an electrical
>engineer. We actually helped him come here for political asylum. When he
>landed, he got a cheap apartment and a job painting trucks as he worked
>on his English and searching for better work. He eventually worked for
>an international company where he specialized in satellite
>communication. For several years, they supplied him and his family with
>a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd retired early, had a ranch in
>the western U.S. and was using his retirement to teach yoga.
>
>I think it's quite common for people who have come from really bad
>situations like that to be VERY motivated to work hard and be prudent
>with their money.

Well, likely the Krygowski's came to America and obviously did fairly
well for themselves (:-)

But Andrew's point was that here are these foreign folk, who can't
even speak English, arriving and the next thing they are running all
the businesses in the neighborhood. While the folks that live there
are still living on unemployment, aid to unwed mothers and all the
other social hand outs.

It just Tain't fair!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>...I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>>
>>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>>
>> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
>> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
>> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
>> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>
>Of course there are less educated well drillers, etc. (I'm riffing off
>"artesians" here) who become prosperous. There are highly educated
>people who don't. Strategy and dumb luck certainly play a part.
>
>The guy I mentioned has biology degrees, and IIRC biology is not usually
>one of the more lucrative science fields (one of the reasons I changed
>my major from biology to engineering). He did work for a state agency,
>but dreamed of teaching like his parents did.
>
>At this point, I'd say betting on a college teaching career is a
>mistake. It certainly has been for him. He was strung along for years
>with part-time contracts and promises of upcoming full-time positions.
>They worked him hard and he was very productive both in teaching and
>research, but he's finally realized the promises of more are lies.
>Sadly, that's the financial model most American universities now use -
>string along part-timers at low wages, while raising tuition to unheard
>of levels.
>
>It pays for lots of top level administrators.
>
>- -
>
>As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
>voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
>back... Don't sell your house!")
>https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>
>But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
>as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?

I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
rich chap at a private fund raising.

Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.

Example: I read that Obama received ninety percent of his donors give
$100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the
Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in
small contributions.

As I pointed out James Michael Curley, who served as Mayor of Boston
four times, one term as Governor of Massachusetts, and two terms in
the U.S. Congress. And was twice elected to office while serving a
prison sentence and was actually imprisoned for a portion of one term
as Mayor depended on the working-class Roman Catholic Irish to get
elected. Not the rich folks.

That is not to say that "rich folks", whether individual or corporate,
cannot influence what an elected official may do but in order to "do
it" he first has to get elected.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>>>> auto.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
>>>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
>>>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
>>>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
>>>> making broad generalizations.
>>>
>>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>>
>>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>>
>> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
>> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
>> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
>> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>>
>> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
>> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
>> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
>> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
>> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
>> from voting.
>>
>> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
>> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
>> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
>>
>
>I follow Texas politics on WBAP. Would you name one
>unreasonably restrictive aspect of the revised Statute
>please? If there's some outlandish restriction, I missed it.
>
>Here's SB1 as signed by the Governor earlier this month:
>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf
>
>Since you mentioned Mr Curley, SB1 attempts to limit legal
>registered voters to only one ballot each, which IMHO would
>be a good thing.

On 9/21/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>>>>> auto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
>>>>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
>>>>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
>>>>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
>>>>> making broad generalizations.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>>>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>>>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>>>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>>>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>>>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>>>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>>>
>>> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
>>> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
>>> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
>>> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>>>
>>> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
>>> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
>>> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
>>> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
>>> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
>>> from voting.
>>>
>>> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
>>> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
>>> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
>>>
>>
>> I follow Texas politics on WBAP. Would you name one
>> unreasonably restrictive aspect of the revised Statute
>> please? If there's some outlandish restriction, I missed it.
>>
>> Here's SB1 as signed by the Governor earlier this month:
>> https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf
>>
>> Since you mentioned Mr Curley, SB1 attempts to limit legal
>> registered voters to only one ballot each, which IMHO would
>> be a good thing.
>
> Actually I don't know a damned thing about Texas voting laws. Except
> what I read in the news. And that seems to be that the new laws will,
> somehow, infringe or limit, the rights of (it seems to be implied) "po
> folks".
>

Tom Kunich wrote: "I am far too big and strong to pick on runts of the litter."

Tom, I would appreciate it if you would leave me OUT of this!

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 6:33:23 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote: "I am far too big and strong to pick on runts of the litter."
>
> Tom, I would appreciate it if you would leave me OUT of this!
Bill, you aren't the one saying that without a patent, I cannot prove I ever even worked. That the recommendations on my account were in some manner invented by me and weaseled in there in some manner. This is Frank.

I come from Oakland. Most white people that do not live in Piedmont (part of Oakland so high class that they hire their own police force) leave the bay area and most especially Oakland ASAP. But then most white people from Oakland are terrified of the crime rates. This is caused by the successive mayors handcuffing the police force. State governors who are busy spending tax money in the manner in which they get it back in their own pockets in triplicate. When was the last time you heard of a Democrat being prosecuted for crimes while in office?

On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>
>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?
>
> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>
> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.

I believe this is the way it works:

Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can attend a meet
& greet session at (say) a church in a low income neighborhood; or he
can attend a fund raising dinner hosted by a wealthy friend.

Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But let's pretend
he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think "Maybe I can get 700 to vote
for me."

If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands of dollars.
Those dollars could help pay for television spots in which he portrays
his rivals as spawn of the devil. Those ads would be seen my tens of
thousands. They'd have far more impact.

Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk to the rich
folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they wanted ("More tax
breaks, dammit!") and promise to do whatever he can.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
>>> enough of them into
>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
>>> all coming
>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>
>>>
>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
>>> much influence
>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
>>> Seriously?
>>
>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
>> influence then a
>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>
>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
>> whether you get
>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
>> quite happy to
>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>
> I believe this is the way it works:
>
> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
> hosted by a wealthy friend.
>
> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
>
> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
> far more impact.
>
> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
> whatever he can.
>
>

All those scenarios are probable.

And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions,
year after year.

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

On 9/21/2021 8:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>>> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>>> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
>>> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>>> neighborhood.'
>>>
>>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for
>>> them.
>>
>> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when
>> his family fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the
>> first time he went into an American convenience store and
>> was astonished at the quantity and variety of goods available.
>>
>> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd
>> been here only a few years, the father owned his own home
>> and car outright. The house was in a less desirable part of
>> town, so it had been priced very low, and the family did the
>> copious repair work it needed. The car was used and old but
>> it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But the
>> family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I
>> heard from him he was working as a salesman of high tech
>> machinery and doing very well.
>>
>> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an
>> electrical engineer. We actually helped him come here for
>> political asylum. When he landed, he got a cheap apartment
>> and a job painting trucks as he worked on his English and
>> searching for better work. He eventually worked for an
>> international company where he specialized in satellite
>> communication. For several years, they supplied him and his
>> family with a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd
>> retired early, had a ranch in the western U.S. and was using
>> his retirement to teach yoga.
>>
>> I think it's quite common for people who have come from
>> really bad situations like that to be VERY motivated to work
>> hard and be prudent with their money.
>>
>
> Which is it? Recently you implied that people of meager means without
> high society connections were doomed.

As I said, I'm a big fan of Normal Curves. Every normal curve has two
tails. But competing Normal Curves have different means, or different
most likely values.

In any case, the two individuals I mentioned both came from Soviet
imposed poverty and suppression of opportunity. I suspect that the
people coming to the U.S. from such circumstances (including south of
our border) are the ones chomping at the bit to take advantage of every
opportunity. After all, emigrating and leaving behind everyone and
everything that was familiar is a huge, scary step; they must be highly
motivated. And since the two guys I mentioned were both pale skinned, I
suspect they had an easier path than many darker folks.

By contrast, I think lots of poor people in the U.S. have had ambitions
suppressed since birth. They've been raised among people who either
never tried very hard, or tried hard yet failed. They're asked to meet
only low standards - as in "just stay out of jail" - and, if dark
enough, likely meet other barriers to real success.

In brief, all poor people are not alike. All do not have the same
opportunities or drive.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/21/2021 8:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
>>>
>>> Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.
>> That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
>> problems.
>
> It scares hell out of you what I am well capable of doing to Fauci if I were to meet him face to face?

Tom, you're pitiful.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 11:22 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
>>>> enough of them into
>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
>>>> all coming
>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
>>>> much influence
>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
>>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
>>> influence then a
>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>
>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
>>> whether you get
>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
>>> quite happy to
>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>
>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>
>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
>> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
>> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
>> hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>
>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
>> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
>> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
>>
>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
>> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
>> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
>> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
>> far more impact.
>>
>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
>> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
>> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
>> whatever he can.
>>
>>
>
> All those scenarios are probable.
>
> And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions, year after
> year.

John was contrasting the influence of poor people vs. rich people.

Poor people do not tend to belong to unions.

And more's the pity. The rise of union power led to the rise of the
middle class, plus things like pensions, medical coverage, overtime pay,
weekends, etc.

I'm well aware of certain union abuses. I've run into some. But I don't
believe that _all_ power should lie in the hands of corporations or
company managers.

Had strong unions existed at the right time, plant safety regulations
might have been more stringent, and I might have gotten to meet at least
one of my grandfathers. I'll always regret that I never knew them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:22:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
> >>> enough of them into
> >>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
> >>> all coming
> >>> back... Don't sell your house!")
> >>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
> >>> much influence
> >>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
> >>> Seriously?
> >>
> >> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
> >> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
> >> influence then a
> >> rich chap at a private fund raising.
> >>
> >> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
> >> whether you get
> >> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
> >> quite happy to
> >> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
> >
> > I believe this is the way it works:
> >
> > Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
> > attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
> > income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
> > hosted by a wealthy friend.
> >
> > Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
> > let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
> > "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
> >
> > If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
> > of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
> > spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
> > Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
> > far more impact.
> >
> > Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
> > to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
> > wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
> > whatever he can.
> >
> >
> All those scenarios are probable.
>
> And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions,
> year after year.

My younger brother is offended when I tell him he votes what the union tells him to vote and then he does and the union returns NOTHING to him or their other members. Now my father was a staunch union man because the union did a LOT for them. But since that time - nada - the union can't even get the wages to keep up with inflation and yet the members are so loyal they are willing to make less money and vote for the people who are causing lower wages.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:40:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 8:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
> >>>
> >>> Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.
> >> That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
> >> problems.
> >
> > It scares hell out of you what I am well capable of doing to Fauci if I were to meet him face to face?
> Tom, you're pitiful.

Are those tears of fears in your eyes? Are you afraid that once in a courtroom Fauci would have to answer questions under oath? That he would lie and when proven those lies would send him off to a place where they don't treat people like him well? That Jay, pretty obviously couldn't defend a beaver for building a dam.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:51:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 11:22 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
> >>>> enough of them into
> >>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
> >>>> all coming
> >>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
> >>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
> >>>> much influence
> >>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
> >>>> Seriously?
> >>>
> >>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
> >>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
> >>> influence then a
> >>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
> >>> whether you get
> >>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
> >>> quite happy to
> >>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
> >>
> >> I believe this is the way it works:
> >>
> >> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
> >> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
> >> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
> >> hosted by a wealthy friend.
> >>
> >> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
> >> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
> >> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
> >>
> >> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
> >> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
> >> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
> >> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
> >> far more impact.
> >>
> >> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
> >> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
> >> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
> >> whatever he can.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > All those scenarios are probable.
> >
> > And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions, year after
> > year.
> John was contrasting the influence of poor people vs. rich people.
>
> Poor people do not tend to belong to unions.
>
> And more's the pity. The rise of union power led to the rise of the
> middle class, plus things like pensions, medical coverage, overtime pay,
> weekends, etc.
>
> I'm well aware of certain union abuses. I've run into some. But I don't
> believe that _all_ power should lie in the hands of corporations or
> company managers.
>
> Had strong unions existed at the right time, plant safety regulations
> might have been more stringent, and I might have gotten to meet at least
> one of my grandfathers. I'll always regret that I never knew them.

You don't believe that all of the power should belong in the hands of the corporations? What power? At what time did the corporations have the power of slavery? From your own writing we know that people with the power to work have left your town to make real wages elsewhere. You can pretend that I wasn't making a quarter of a million dollars a year, but that was so. Well, $233,000/yr so you can call me a liar. That is your speed. Those who can do..

On 9/22/2021 10:38 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 8:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>>>> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>>>> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
>>>> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>>>> neighborhood.'
>>>>
>>>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when
>>> his family fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the
>>> first time he went into an American convenience store and
>>> was astonished at the quantity and variety of goods
>>> available.
>>>
>>> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd
>>> been here only a few years, the father owned his own home
>>> and car outright. The house was in a less desirable part of
>>> town, so it had been priced very low, and the family did the
>>> copious repair work it needed. The car was used and old but
>>> it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But the
>>> family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I
>>> heard from him he was working as a salesman of high tech
>>> machinery and doing very well.
>>>
>>> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an
>>> electrical engineer. We actually helped him come here for
>>> political asylum. When he landed, he got a cheap apartment
>>> and a job painting trucks as he worked on his English and
>>> searching for better work. He eventually worked for an
>>> international company where he specialized in satellite
>>> communication. For several years, they supplied him and his
>>> family with a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd
>>> retired early, had a ranch in the western U.S. and was using
>>> his retirement to teach yoga.
>>>
>>> I think it's quite common for people who have come from
>>> really bad situations like that to be VERY motivated to work
>>> hard and be prudent with their money.
>>>
>>
>> Which is it? Recently you implied that people of meager
>> means without high society connections were doomed.
>
> As I said, I'm a big fan of Normal Curves. Every normal
> curve has two tails. But competing Normal Curves have
> different means, or different most likely values.
>
> In any case, the two individuals I mentioned both came from
> Soviet imposed poverty and suppression of opportunity. I
> suspect that the people coming to the U.S. from such
> circumstances (including south of our border) are the ones
> chomping at the bit to take advantage of every opportunity.
> After all, emigrating and leaving behind everyone and
> everything that was familiar is a huge, scary step; they
> must be highly motivated. And since the two guys I mentioned
> were both pale skinned, I suspect they had an easier path
> than many darker folks.
>
> By contrast, I think lots of poor people in the U.S. have
> had ambitions suppressed since birth. They've been raised
> among people who either never tried very hard, or tried hard
> yet failed. They're asked to meet only low standards - as in
> "just stay out of jail" - and, if dark enough, likely meet
> other barriers to real success.
>
> In brief, all poor people are not alike. All do not have the
> same opportunities or drive.
>

There's a video of a black celebrity discussing his
childhood and career. The interviewer says that not everyone
can leave the 'hood, to which he replies, 'Bus leaves every
day.'

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