On 9/20/2021 11:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:38:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>
>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>
>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>
>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>
>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>
>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>
>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>
>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>
>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>
>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>
>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>
>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>> means who work and save.
>>
>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>> the wilderness.
>
> At one time Texas was solid Democrat. In the Democrat primaries up until recently you had to be white to vote in the primary. In the general election the civil rights act forced them to allow anyone of any color, race, creed or sex, but what did it matter if white Democrats chose the Democrat runner?
>
> More importantly, you couldn't even RUN in the primary unless you had the money to run a campaign and so you were beholden to the rich 1% to supply almost your entire campaign financing. That 1% would provide more financing than ALL of the rest of the contributors combined. So only those people entirely beholden to the 1% ever made it to office. Of either party but importantly the Democrats since they are the most racist group as a whole. (After all, they were the descendants of slave owners and Texas was the home of cotton industries which required thousands of slaves until automation took over).
>
> What this means is that you can be damn sure that those 1%ers aren't touched by tax laws and never will be. Trump used the same laws to pay the same smaller taxes (as did the parents of AOC) but in what world should he have paid more than required of him? He did give far more than generously to charities whereas George Soros has used his fortune to undermine democracies around the world.
>
> So what does this mean to you and me? That we don't "tax the rich" but that we reduce the scope and reach of government. We eliminate entire departments. The EPA is one of the most destructive and expensive government agencies ever. The BLM should NEVER have existed. Despite Jay's bullshit, the Constitution really does forbid the government holding that much land inside of states. You can go right down the line and most of the government has no need to exist. So if you end it you don't have to support it and you can reduce taxes all around.
>

Texas just keeps getting better! Meet the next Governor:

https://west4texas.com/

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