On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>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.

Actually I don't know a damned thing about Texas voting laws. Except
what I read in the news. And that seems to be that the new laws will,
somehow, infringe or limit, the rights of (it seems to be implied) "po
folks".
--
Cheers,

John B.