On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 3:52:38 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@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.
> I don't know about the present but when I lived in the States I
> remember a news report, in California, about the poor, unappreciated
> U.S.ians who were unemployed and had to live on the government dole,
> and just couldn't get ahead... while at the same time hordes of
> Mexican, both those holding valid work permits and illegal workers,
> were flocking in to harvest the crops.

I was unaware that you could read.