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.

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