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

>On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>   Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's involved
>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTF?  Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>> for over 100 years.  The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income tax
>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales and
>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no taxable
>>>>>>> event,  but I don't know what the law is in California.
>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers generally
>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales.  Most
>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules, establishing
>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way.  Of course the
>>>>>>> rich are taxed.  They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>> peak.  There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The average
>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can that be?  The devil's in the all too voluminous
>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway toward
>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the owners of
>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>
>>>> from
>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>
>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>
>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>> don't have much money.
>>>
>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>> the rest.
>>>
>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>
>>
>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>
>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I have not
>> advocated anything, just noting that the top 1% of taxpayers earn 21% of
>> income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>
>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower 50$ pay 3%.
>
>Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more. I'd say the
>question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>
>The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of that money
>comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000 Lincoln hybrid getting 40
>mpg pays less per mile than the guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford
>Taurus getting 18 mpg. That's just one example of how the system
>benefits the wealthy.
>
>Based on my own experience, if a person is making just enough to get by,
>it's very hard to take advantage of economic opportunities - even basic
>ones like buying a more efficient car or insulating one's home - let
>alone to accumulate wealth.
>
>But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the smart ones can
>do economically productive things with any excess. The more they do
>that, the faster their wealth grows. But those who start out in a
>prosperous family get that excess from birth. It is much, much easier
>for them to climb the economic ladder.
>
>And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart & hard work,
>inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a certain amount, it can
>accumulate rapidly, as an exponential function. So it's always WAY
>easier for a wealthy person, compared to a poor person, to afford a
>$10,000 bill.
>
>Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be more stable,
> have lower crime rates, and have more contented citizenry. The U.S. is
>not one of them.

Yup, and back in the day of highway robbers a working bloke walking
down the highway was usually perfectly safe while the chap with the
big fancy coach and four got stopped.

--
Cheers,

John B.