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

I stated as an electronics technician and worked my way up to department manager. That sure as hell wasn't buying a second yacht. Though I admit, as hard as I worked I never took three buses to get to two jobs. But after I became an engineer it was common for me to work 12 hours a day. Can you imagine Frank working 3 hours a day teaching college?