On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:20:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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".
>>
>
>Despite the actual text of the statute. Much like 'Larry
>Elder is a white supremacist' which was the only story on LA
>news for weeks. pfffft.

See, We don't have all that B.S, over here. Thais simply know that
they are superior and don't have to make a big issue of it (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.