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.
--
Cheers,

John B.