On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>
>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>
> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>
> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
> from voting.
>
> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
>

I follow Texas politics on WBAP. Would you name one
unreasonably restrictive aspect of the revised Statute
please? If there's some outlandish restriction, I missed it.

Here's SB1 as signed by the Governor earlier this month:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf

Since you mentioned Mr Curley, SB1 attempts to limit legal
registered voters to only one ballot each, which IMHO would
be a good thing.

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