On 6/21/24 9:30 AM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2024 at 8:26:39 AM EDT, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, Joel wrote:
>>> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Let's say I believe your unsourced claims of the numbers, the top 25%
>>>>> includes people who are middle class, higher up to be sure, but not
>>>>> billionaires. A moron like you, buying Apple hardware, would likely
>>>>> fit in with that class, and have some gripe about the lower classes.
>>>>
>>>> I have no gripe against any class. I used to be poor, but then I grew up and
>>>> got a real job.
>>>>
>>>> The top 25% does not include the middle class, unless you think middle class
>>>> people are paying $50,963 in taxes every year.
>>>>
>>>> Unsourced? It is all here, which is in the 3rd or 4th post in this topic:
>>>>
>>>> <https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/>
>>>>
>>>> Do try to keep up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, well, that's not a neutral site. It's relatively speaking fairly
>>> right-wing. Nevertheless, my point stands, the lower classes are
>>> paying plenty of income tax, and for that matter are paying other
>>> taxes and fees that contribute to government revenue, it's laughable
>>> to think that just because the upper classes pay so much, that it's
>>> really a burden on them, they benefit the most from the first world
>>> security big government provides, in their posh neighborhoods.
>>>
>>
>> This is really a key point here that these sorts of biased sources are
>> choosing to ignore: there's far more taxes than merely Income Tax.
>
> True, except the linked site is hardly "biased".
>
>> An honestly holistic approach will look at all government-sourced
>> expenses, regardless of what they're called ("fee", "surcharge", etc).
>>
>> An obvious example are State level sales taxes, but there's also local
>> property taxes (and let's not forget how there's 1%'ers who get their
>> private estate re-zoned as "farmland" or whatnot to receive lower tax
>> rates per acre), but don't stop just there: go read your utility bills,
>> internet & phone plans, etc for stuff that's hidden there.
>
> And only poor people have utility bills and only poor people pay state taxes?

Everyone has such expenses, but as one income increases, it classically
becomes a smaller percentage of one's income. From a fiscal standpoint,
this is what makes these fees/surcharges functionally a regressive tax,
which means that the lower incomes are more adversely impacted by them.

> And where is your evidence of "and let's not forget how there's 1%'ers who
> get their private estate re-zoned as "farmland" or whatnot to receive lower
> tax rates per acre"?

Its a commonly known loophole:

"Michael Dell managed to devalue his Austin ranch from $71.4 million to
$290,000. He’s not alone: a huge swath of wealthy Americans are misusing
tax credits intended to protect farmland."

<https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-provide-massive-tax-shelter/>

A local method splits a <10 acre property into a minimalist lot for the
physical house and the surrounding 5 acres of privacy buffer is
typically wooded, it gets rezoned as "forestry" for lower taxes, just by
cutting down enough trees per year to sell as firewood to pay the
property taxes to keep that enterprise profitable. One can sell the
firewood to one's self, but that requires a careful watch to not
overcharge vs prevailing market rates to keep the tax man at bay.

>> Case in point:
>>
>> "Taxes, fees, and government surcharges on wireless consumers increased
>> again in 2020, jumping from 21.7 percent to 22.6 percent of a customer’s
>> bill.[1]"
>
> And only poor people have phones? What's your point? Everyone with a phone is
> paying these "Taxes, fees, and government surcharges".

Cellphone plans don't vary by as much as income does, so a 20% tax on a
$100/mo phone bill is basically constant, but when one then normalizes
by income, that $20/mo is a larger percentage of total income for a $50K
household than it is for a $500K household: it is a regressive tax.

>> <https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/wireless-taxes-cell-phone-tax-rates-by-state-2020/>
>>
>> Plus even when one is 'frugal' because of income, there's other gotchas
>> embedded in the system that make lower incomes pay more. For example,
>> my local electrical services rates are regressive: the first 134KWH per
>> month is charged a rate of 12.5 cents, but use more than 750KWH and the
>> rate is only 3.1 cents .. a 75% reduction.
>>
>>
>> TL;DR:
>> be honest and make comparisons based on total taxes, not just by
>> cherrypicking one individual tax within the whole.
>
> So your example of your local electric bill is not "cherry picking one
> individual tax within the whole"? And BTW where is your evidence of this claim?

I already provided a cite for cellphones. For the other, I simply
looked at my electric bill & added a few numbers together: go look at
you own electrical bill to see it for yourself.

-hh

On 6/21/24 3:46 PM, David Brooks wrote:
> On 21/06/2024 20:21, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> TL;DR:
>>> be honest and make comparisons based on total taxes, not just by
>>> cherrypicking one individual tax within the whole.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Still, recall that EXPOTUSSFB45 at one time paid more taxes to Chy-na
>> than to the U.S.
>
> Are you referring to Ex-POTUS Donald Trump?

That would be my guess too.

In any event, that individual is an effective illustration how there's
tons of income tax loopholes which enable the "1%" to pay lower net tax
rates than much of America that basically aren't available to normal
folk who get a W-2 from their employer. This is because there's a huge
amount of latitude in what can be written off as a business expense that
benefits the business owner.

A huge one is in Real Estate, in that profits of a sale of a property
are tax-deferred if it is reinvested in another property. Eventually,
those profits become permanently tax-free when the owner dies: family
gains generational wealth, as the first $12M of an Estate is Tax free.

Similarly, business expense write-offs can offset: more meals become
either a business comp or are a business expense written off as client
entertainment - lowers one's daily costs of everyday life, so more
income is retained instead of spent.

Another one that's more relevant to some of these newsgroups has to do
with personal computers: they're written off as a business expense
which goes to zero after it has depreciated, at which point the business
can hand off the old PC for free as a personal possession.

Plus there's ways to "finesse" on this: after Fed accelerated
depreciation has been taken (it was recently just 1 year), have the
business incur a business expense to "pay" someone to recycle it, where
this payment conveniently aligns perfectly with the remaining State
depreciation. Business owner gets a 1 year old laptop for free, plus
got paid to 'dispose' of it.

Or outright cheating: business buys a new laptop to replace an existing
PC, but keeps the old PC that it was supposedly replacing in service in
the office: that new laptop goes to the owner's kid in college.

And for both of these .. oops, we goofed on who pays the Office 365
subscription! /s

Recall also how Warren Buffet has commented about how his income tax
rate was lower than his W2-earning secretary: that's typically due to
income from Long Term Capital Gains & Qualified Dividends being taxed at
rates lower than personal income (eg, 15% vs 24%).

-hh

David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 21/06/2024 20:21, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> TL;DR:
>>> be honest and make comparisons based on total taxes, not just by
>>> cherrypicking one individual tax within the whole.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Still, recall that EXPOTUSSFB45 at one time paid more taxes to Chy-na
>> than to the U.S.
>
> Are you referring to Ex-POTUS Donald Trump?
>
> Is FB45 a bit generic, like Hoover = Vacuum Cleaner?

SFB -- shit for brains

--
I got a hint of things to come when I overheard my boss lamenting, 'The
books are done and we still don't have an author! I must sign someone today!
-- Tamim Ansary, "Edutopia Magazine, Issue 2, November 2004"
on the topic of school textbooks

On 22/06/2024 13:40, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 21/06/2024 20:21, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> TL;DR:
>>>> be honest and make comparisons based on total taxes, not just by
>>>> cherrypicking one individual tax within the whole.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Still, recall that EXPOTUSSFB45 at one time paid more taxes to Chy-na
>>> than to the U.S.
>>
>> Are you referring to Ex-POTUS Donald Trump?
>>
>> Is FB45 a bit generic, like Hoover = Vacuum Cleaner?
>
> SFB -- shit for brains

Dear Shit for Brains,

Is FB45 a bit generic, like Hoover = Vacuum Cleaner?

On 22/06/2024 11:58, -hh wrote:
> On 6/21/24 3:46 PM, David Brooks wrote:
>> On 21/06/2024 20:21, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> TL;DR:
>>>> be honest and make comparisons based on total taxes, not just by
>>>> cherrypicking one individual tax within the whole.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Still, recall that EXPOTUSSFB45 at one time paid more taxes to Chy-na
>>> than to the U.S.
>>
>> Are you referring to Ex-POTUS Donald Trump?
>
> That would be my guess too.
>
> In any event, that individual is an effective illustration how there's
> tons of income tax loopholes which enable the "1%" to pay lower net tax
> rates than much of America that basically aren't available to normal
> folk who get a W-2 from their employer.  This is because there's a huge
> amount of latitude in what can be written off as a business expense that
> benefits the business owner.
>
> A huge one is in Real Estate, in that profits of a sale of a property
> are tax-deferred if it is reinvested in another property.  Eventually,
> those profits become permanently tax-free when the owner dies:  family
> gains generational wealth, as the first $12M of an Estate is Tax free.
>
> Similarly, business expense write-offs can offset: more meals become
> either a business comp or are a business expense written off as client
> entertainment - lowers one's daily costs of everyday life, so more
> income is retained instead of spent.
>
> Another one that's more relevant to some of these newsgroups has to do
> with personal computers:  they're written off as a business expense
> which goes to zero after it has depreciated, at which point the business
> can hand off the old PC for free as a personal possession.
>
> Plus there's ways to "finesse" on this:  after Fed accelerated
> depreciation has been taken (it was recently just 1 year), have the
> business incur a business expense to "pay" someone to recycle it, where
> this payment conveniently aligns perfectly with the remaining State
> depreciation.  Business owner gets a 1 year old laptop for free, plus
> got paid to 'dispose' of it.
>
> Or outright cheating:  business buys a new laptop to replace an existing
> PC, but keeps the old PC that it was supposedly replacing in service in
> the office:  that new laptop goes to the owner's kid in college.
>
> And for both of these .. oops, we goofed on who pays the Office 365
> subscription!  /s
>
>
> Recall also how Warren Buffet has commented about how his income tax
> rate was lower than his W2-earning secretary:  that's typically due to
> income from Long Term Capital Gains & Qualified Dividends being taxed at
> rates lower than personal income (eg, 15% vs 24%).
>
>
> -hh

Good post, '-hh'! 😀

Thanks for your contribution.

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:30:05 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>And only poor people have phones? What's your point? Everyone with a phone is
>paying these "Taxes, fees, and government surcharges".

But that ten dollars a month takes a bigger bite out of a $300 paycheck than a $3000 one.

Swill

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:14:26 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>On Jun 21, 2024 at 8:26:39?AM EDT, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> <https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/>
>>>>
>>>> Do try to keep up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, well, that's not a neutral site. It's relatively speaking fairly
>>> right-wing.
>
>Why does it need to be "right wing"? Do you think there are no wealthy left
>wing people? What about Hollywood actors/movie stars? How many of them are
>"right wing" these days?
>
>What about Bernie "I am a socialist" Sanders? This guy is as left wing as you
>can get, yet he is a millionaire with 3 houses.
>
>The fact is, there are LOTS of wealthy Democrats in the U.S. Being wealthy has
>no relation to one's politics.

There are wealthy on both sides of the aisle but Democrats and Republicans view taxation
very differently.

Swill

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:46:16 +0100, David Brooks <DonQuixote@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>On 21/06/2024 20:21, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> TL;DR:
>>> be honest and make comparisons based on total taxes, not just by
>>> cherrypicking one individual tax within the whole.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Still, recall that EXPOTUSSFB45 at one time paid more taxes to Chy-na
>> than to the U.S.
>
>Are you referring to Ex-POTUS Donald Trump?
>
>Is FB45 a bit generic, like Hoover = Vacuum Cleaner?

"SFB45" = "Shitty Fucking Bastard 45"

hth

Swill

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:04:47 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>That you want to argue your beliefs against facts is pathetic.

I hope we can get through the irony without hip waders.

Said the pot to the kettle. The fact is, including income tax, the wealthy and affluent
pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the poor. And even their income
taxes are minimized when certain "types" of income are taxed at a lower rate than "earned"
income or they're able to bring to bear exclusions and advantages not available to those
with more modest means.

Swill

On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:

>They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
>they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
>percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.

From whom much is given, much is expected.

One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to make sure
they could afford to buy what they made.

But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.

See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased considerably since
1971."
<https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>

Swill

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:32:49 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>On Jun 20, 2024 at 5:51:47?PM EDT, "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:15:09 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2024 at 6:39:28?PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ooopsie, CBS?
>>>>> That's a libby news outlet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is interesting information but misleading, in that it reflects
>>>> billionaires' main income taxes, not necessarily all of their assets
>>>> that would be untaxed, Chris A. might be pointing the finger
>>>> arbitrarily at the top 1%, I don't dispute that, they aren't a
>>>> fountain of revenue, but they do pay less than their fair share, by
>>>> any reasonable standard. Our system isn't optimized for the working
>>>> poor and below, and really much of the middle class, either.
>>>
>>> These facts are not "misleading". I have personally downloaded the
>>> spreadsheets from irs.gov and done the math. This was around 2016 when I did
>>> this.
>>>
>>> These figures match what I saw. The top 25% pay 90% of all income taxes.
>>>
>>> How is 25% of people paying 90% of all income taxes "not their fair share"?
>>> That means that 75% of people are carrying just 10% of the load. Think about
>>> that. Our system is actually VERY "optimized for the working poor and below,
>>> and really much of the middle class". The bottom 50% are paying 2% of all
>>> taxes.
>>>
>>> Would you like the top 25% to be paying 100% of all taxes? How is that
>>> "fair"?
>>>
>>> This shows that "Middle Class Tax Relief" is a lie that is always promised by
>>> brain dead politicians. The middle class is already paying very little.
>>
>> Apples and oranges. He's talking about the top 1% and you're driving the
>> discussion down
>> to the near middle class.
>
>You can't talk about one without talking about the other.

Actually, yes, you can.

>> The top 1% is the topic. They do not pay their fair share of income or other
>> taxes.
>> Further, they wealth holdings far exceed their numbers.
>
>The top 1% is paying almost 50% of the taxes. How is that "not their fair
>share"?

What is their final effective tax rate? If they're paying half the income taxes, how much
of the income are they earning? What other taxes are they paying that give them an unfair
advantage over John Doe?

>If "they wealth holdings far exceed their numbers" (whatever that
>means) then get the tax laws changed.

THEY can afford to buy Congress Critters to change the tax laws to their advantage.

>Meanwhile, they are STILL paying half of the taxes.

They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used before the
massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting spendthrift since.
>
>Don't forget that the top 1% is a very small number of people compared to the
>HUGE middle class which is paying less than 10% of the taxes. For the top 1%
>of people (which is 1,535,899 tax returns, so maybe 2.5 million people
>considering joint returns of couples) to be paying half the taxes in a country
>of 340 million people looks to me that the top 1% ARE paying "their fair
>share". And that pecentage has grown from 33% to almost 50% in the last 20
>years.
>
>What is your point again?

That your numbers are screwed up. If the top 1% is paying 50% of the taxes (they aren't)
and the middle class is paying 10% (which they aren't), where is the other 40% coming
from? Waffle House waitresses and day laborers?

>> Income inequality began in the eighties. Until then, the middle class was
>> booming.
>
>What exactly is "income inequality"? Do you think everyone should be paid the
>same amount? Keep in mind that income is EARNED. It is not distributed by the
>government. If a company is willing to pay a CEO 50 million dollars a year,
>then good for him/her AND it is none of your (or my) GD business.

My god! Are you really that thick? Income disparity as the difference between highest
earners and lowest.

>You want to make more money? Then go after it. Don't expect your McDonald's
>job to support you for your entire life. You need some ambition.

Than what's all this we keep hearing from your side about what a struggle it is for the
average family to make ends meet? Why don't they just make more money and stop whining?

Swill

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:
>
>> They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
>> they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
>> percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.
>
> From whom much is given, much is expected.
>
> One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
> dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to make sure
> they could afford to buy what they made.
>
> But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.
>
> See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased considerably since
> 1971."
> <https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>
>
> Swill
>

Reagan made it worse by pushing the idiotic trickle down myth.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33 AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
> before the
> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
> spendthrift since.

The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.

>>
>> Don't forget that the top 1% is a very small number of people compared to the
>> HUGE middle class which is paying less than 10% of the taxes. For the top 1%
>> of people (which is 1,535,899 tax returns, so maybe 2.5 million people
>> considering joint returns of couples) to be paying half the taxes in a country
>> of 340 million people looks to me that the top 1% ARE paying "their fair
>> share". And that pecentage has grown from 33% to almost 50% in the last 20
>> years.
>>
>> What is your point again?
>
> That your numbers are screwed up. If the top 1% is paying 50% of the taxes
> (they aren't)
> and the middle class is paying 10% (which they aren't), where is the other 40%
> coming
> from? Waffle House waitresses and day laborers?

The top 25% pay 90% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 97.7 of all income
taxes. The bottom 50% pay the remaining 2.3%. Looks pretty fair to me. That's
where it comes from.

And BTW, these are not "my numbers". They come from the IRS. If you know of a
better source, do let us know.

Have a look at the actual numbers so you can talk about facts instead of your
opinions and assumptions:

<https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/>

If you claim "these numbers are not correct" then go to irs.gov and download
the spreadsheets. Feel free to point out the errors in numbers.

Or you can accept reality. These numbers are correct.

>>> Income inequality began in the eighties. Until then, the middle class was
>>> booming.
>>
>> What exactly is "income inequality"? Do you think everyone should be paid the
>> same amount? Keep in mind that income is EARNED. It is not distributed by the
>> government. If a company is willing to pay a CEO 50 million dollars a year,
>> then good for him/her AND it is none of your (or my) GD business.
>
> My god! Are you really that thick? Income disparity as the difference between
> highest
> earners and lowest.

And that is a problem? Why? You are jealous of people who make more money than
you? That is your problem. Don't try turn it into someone else's problem.

>> You want to make more money? Then go after it. Don't expect your McDonald's
>> job to support you for your entire life. You need some ambition.
>
> Than what's all this we keep hearing from your side about what a struggle it
> is for the
> average family to make ends meet? Why don't they just make more money and stop
> whining?

"My side"? What is that?

And yes, why DON'T they make more money? Why don't they stop getting married
and having 3 kids by the age of 23? Because, are you sitting down? The
typical 23 year old's salary can't support that. When I was 23 I was certainly
in no position to get married and have kids. Because, again are you sitting
down? I had no marketable skills yet.

AGAIN, don't just let life happen to you. You should be an active participant.
Get an education. Learn SOMETHING. People making bad choices and fucking up
THEIR lives is not MY problem.

I know it can be done because I did it. My father died when I was 18. He left
us a few thousand dollars of insurance money, which was enough to bury him. I
did not go to college. My life pretty much sucked until I was around 30.

So don't just whine about "income inequality". People make more money because
they EARN it. I am making 10 times more today than I was making when I was 23.
It is not for you or anyone else to say that I am making too much. Its none
of your GD business.

Don't worry about what others are doing. Worry about YOUR life and YOUR
family.

Tyrone wrote:

>The top 25% pay 90% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 97.7 of all income
>taxes. The bottom 50% pay the remaining 2.3%. Looks pretty fair to me.

Before we decide what's "fair", what percentage of all income do the
top 25% and top 50% make?

--
"Why on earth would one buy something that can only be used online
give or take?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quack, regarding
Chromebooks

On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 21/06/2024 12:04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have no gripe against any class.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who gets off their ass and goes to work every day gets my
>>>> respect.
>>>>
>>>>> I used to be poor, but then I grew up and got a real job.
>>>>
>>>> Me too. I've lived in a trailor house. I've been homeless. I got my
>>>> shit together in my early 20's, however.
>>>
>>> I grew up poor in rural Illinois. But my (divorced) father would treat us
>>> to (compensatory?) zoo and museum visits, science-fiction paperbacks,
>>> telescopes, microscopes... We even managed to get a set of Worldbook
>>> Encyclopedia.
>>>
>>> And look at me now! Old, pudgy, retired, and tinkering endlessly on laptops.
>>>
>>> The Circle of Life! :-D
>>
>> Indeed! 🙂
>>
>> Here ya go!
>> https://i.ibb.co/d74mPWt/cid-62-C2583-C-7-EA3-44-AD-8-D1-D-99-F54-B0-EE07-E.jpg
>>
>> So very true!
>
> That pic leaves out (at least in my case) and additional bicycling frame as
> I continue to ride after age 60. It also leaves out my two stints with a walker
> thanks to hip replacements thanks to tons of pavement running, soccer, and
> free training.

Tangentially, those injuries are similar to the dichotomy between lower
income working class jobs (eg, trades) vs the top 5% who did their stint
sitting in an office chair: trades workers get their bodies "beaten up"
by their jobs, which then requires such expensive medical care (if they
can afford it) at significantly lower ages ... 50's instead of 70's ...
which also adversely affects their physical ability to keep on working.

This is where raising the FRA is harming essentially that entire class
of workers, but not white collar workers who are less reliant on
physical labor in their job, thus enabling them to be more readily able
to work to age 67 instead of being forced due to physical limitations to
retire at age 55-60 and hope that savings are adequate to bridge them
until Social Security starts, particularly if they were un/underinsured
on healthcare insurance to make bodily repairs affordable.

> Anyway, I'll be 67 soon and happy to still be physically acive, in spite of my
> pudge and my computer addiction.
>

You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
chipmunks and twigs <g>.

-hh

On 6/22/24 1:05 PM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33 AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
>> before the
>> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
>> spendthrift since.
>
> The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.

Not possible.

Because before the 2017 TCJA, the top Federal marginal personal income
tax rate hasn't been lower than 35% for at least the past 30 years...

....and that's before adding anything any others (SS/Medicare, State &
Local taxes, fees, etc):

2018-present: 37%
2017-2012: 39.6%
2012-2003: 35%
2002: 38.6%
2001: 39.1%
2000-1993: 39.6%

Citation:

<https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/>

FYI, before Reagan,

Plus one can look at this pic:
<https://twitter.com/levelsio/status/1803381755405037889/photo/1>
...and scroll down to find the USA (#32) and see that roughly 10%
(~5/47ths) of government revenues are sourced from these typically
regressive Consumption taxes.

>>> Don't forget that the top 1% is a very small number of people compared to the
>>> HUGE middle class which is paying less than 10% of the taxes. For the top 1%
>>> of people (which is 1,535,899 tax returns, so maybe 2.5 million people
>>> considering joint returns of couples) to be paying half the taxes in a country
>>> of 340 million people looks to me that the top 1% ARE paying "their fair
>>> share". And that pecentage has grown from 33% to almost 50% in the last 20
>>> years.
>>>
>>> What is your point again?
>>
>> That your numbers are screwed up. If the top 1% is paying 50% of the taxes
>> (they aren't)
>> and the middle class is paying 10% (which they aren't), where is the other 40%
>> coming
>> from? Waffle House waitresses and day laborers?
>
> The top 25% pay 90% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 97.7 of all income
> taxes. The bottom 50% pay the remaining 2.3%. Looks pretty fair to me. That's
> where it comes from.
>
> And BTW, these are not "my numbers". They come from the IRS. If you know of a
> better source, do let us know. >
> Have a look at the actual numbers so you can talk about facts instead of your
> opinions and assumptions:
>
> <https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/>
>
> If you claim "these numbers are not correct" then go to irs.gov and download
> the spreadsheets. Feel free to point out the errors in numbers.
>
> Or you can accept reality. These numbers are correct.

Doesn't matter because the IRS is reporting just the Federal personal
income taxes, not *all* taxes. As such, you're deliberately looking at
only a partial picture of the tax burden.

>>>> Income inequality began in the eighties. Until then, the middle class was
>>>> booming.
>>>
>>> What exactly is "income inequality"? Do you think everyone should be paid the
>>> same amount? Keep in mind that income is EARNED. It is not distributed by the
>>> government. If a company is willing to pay a CEO 50 million dollars a year,
>>> then good for him/her AND it is none of your (or my) GD business.
>>
>> My god! Are you really that thick? Income disparity as the difference between
>> highest
>> earners and lowest.
>
> And that is a problem? Why? You are jealous of people who make more money than
> you? That is your problem. Don't try turn it into someone else's problem.

The 'problem' is that the tax structure has become regressive, where the
least wealthy now pay a disproportionate share of the total tax burden.

>>> You want to make more money? Then go after it. Don't expect your McDonald's
>>> job to support you for your entire life. You need some ambition.
>>
>> Than what's all this we keep hearing from your side about what a struggle it
>> is for the
>> average family to make ends meet? Why don't they just make more money and stop
>> whining?
>
> "My side"? What is that?
>
> And yes, why DON'T they make more money? Why don't they stop getting married
> and having 3 kids by the age of 23? Because, are you sitting down? The
> typical 23 year old's salary can't support that. When I was 23 I was certainly
> in no position to get married and have kids. Because, again are you sitting
> down? I had no marketable skills yet.

And you still don't. /s

>
> AGAIN, don't just let life happen to you. You should be an active participant.
> Get an education. Learn SOMETHING. People making bad choices and fucking up
> THEIR lives is not MY problem.
>
> I know it can be done because I did it. My father died when I was 18. He left
> us a few thousand dollars of insurance money, which was enough to bury him. I
> did not go to college. My life pretty much sucked until I was around 30.
>
> So don't just whine about "income inequality". People make more money because
> they EARN it. I am making 10 times more today than I was making when I was 23.

How much of that is simply due to inflation?

Case in point, if we assume you're 67, then age 23 was 1980:

As per:
<https://www.usinflationcalculator.com>
$100 in 1980 is worth $381 today ... call it roughly 4x, which means
that roughly half of your "10x more" claim is attributable to simply
inflation, leaving the other half to the value of improved work skills.

> It is not for you or anyone else to say that I am making too much. Its none
> of your GD business.

Also wasn't what was being said.

>
> Don't worry about what others are doing. Worry about YOUR life and YOUR
> family.

Being concerned about income disparity is showing empathy and compassion
for those who happen to be less better off that one's self. Not being
concerned about it is simply being cravenly selfish.

-hh

On Jun 23, 2024 at 11:26:59 AM EDT, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote:

> On 6/22/24 1:05 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33 AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
>>> before the
>>> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
>>> spendthrift since.
>>
>> The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.
>
> Not possible.

Not only possible, but true. I'm not talking about the individual rate that
someone pays. Overall, the top 1% is now paying nearly 50% of all income
taxes. THAT rate has gone from 33% to 46% in 20 years.

> The 'problem' is that the tax structure has become regressive, where the
> least wealthy now pay a disproportionate share of the total tax burden.

Only if you think paying 2% of all income taxes is a "disproportionate share
of the total tax burden".

>
>'The Bottom 20% Do Almost No Work, and You Pay for Them: How the
>Low-Income Bracket Drains Taxpayer Dollars'

Only 20%? Americans, especially in the deep south Red States, are
notoriously lazy and even if they get a job, they're only worth $5 an hour.

And don't forget the retired Americans with low incomes, they're the laziest
of all and mostly support Trump. Thankfully they'll all be dead in 25
years.

That's why we owe everything to the idle rich and realizing that, most
Republican voters kiss their ass, lick their buttholes and perform fellatio
on them until sunrise when it's time to go to work.

And BTW, Trump's running out of money for his legal fees to it's time to dig
deep and send him some.

Since he's supposedly rich, he's far superior to you.

Without rich people you are nothing. Even Trump sucks George Soros' cock
becuase he's 20 times richer.

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 21/06/2024 12:04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no gripe against any class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who gets off their ass and goes to work every day gets my
>>>>> respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to be poor, but then I grew up and got a real job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. I've lived in a trailor house. I've been homeless. I got my
>>>>> shit together in my early 20's, however.
>>>>
>>>> I grew up poor in rural Illinois. But my (divorced) father would treat us
>>>> to (compensatory?) zoo and museum visits, science-fiction paperbacks,
>>>> telescopes, microscopes... We even managed to get a set of Worldbook
>>>> Encyclopedia.
>>>>
>>>> And look at me now! Old, pudgy, retired, and tinkering endlessly on laptops.
>>>>
>>>> The Circle of Life! :-D
>>>
>>> Indeed! 🙂
>>>
>>> Here ya go!
>>> https://i.ibb.co/d74mPWt/cid-62-C2583-C-7-EA3-44-AD-8-D1-D-99-F54-B0-EE07-E.jpg
>>>
>>> So very true!
>>
>> That pic leaves out (at least in my case) and additional bicycling frame as
>> I continue to ride after age 60. It also leaves out my two stints with a walker
>> thanks to hip replacements thanks to tons of pavement running, soccer, and
>> free training.
>
> Tangentially, those injuries are similar to the dichotomy between lower
> income working class jobs (eg, trades) vs the top 5% who did their stint
> sitting in an office chair: trades workers get their bodies "beaten up"
> by their jobs, which then requires such expensive medical care (if they
> can afford it) at significantly lower ages ... 50's instead of 70's ...
> which also adversely affects their physical ability to keep on working.
>
> This is where raising the FRA is harming essentially that entire class
> of workers, but not white collar workers who are less reliant on
> physical labor in their job, thus enabling them to be more readily able
> to work to age 67 instead of being forced due to physical limitations to
> retire at age 55-60 and hope that savings are adequate to bridge them
> until Social Security starts, particularly if they were un/underinsured
> on healthcare insurance to make bodily repairs affordable.
>
>> Anyway, I'll be 67 soon and happy to still be physically acive, in spite of my
>> pudge and my computer addiction.
>
> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
> chipmunks and twigs <g>.

I'm not active physically so much for longevity, but because it is fun,
helps me feel energized for computer work, and makes my time on Earth more
engaging. What do they say?

Live until you die.

--
You may get an opportunity for advancement today. Watch it!

Message-ID: <1odh7jpeaj7mvh240msoch7cj8fq0trd2v@4ax.com>
On 22 Jun 2024 15:26:35 GMT, Snit <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
References: <0s737jd8p8h8968mt8c4pdjil2nseo85ae@4ax.com> <naj97jt9v7k4cj02mresp14tage4hk3rgs@4ax.com> <2Pycnb3hoqmVR-n7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@supernews.com> <tln97jpksjv1or4ka15i8vqn2vguh04gaf@4ax.com> <j3ydnfm0K5ry5-j7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@supernews.com> <6675fb70$0$2873002$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <3kod7jtk3qcsnocvaeoo38ofr6ik7hm6f1@4ax.com> <6676ed2b$0$2363146$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

>Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
MIME-Version: 1.0
>> On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>> They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>> they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 02:00:49 +0200 (CEST)
>>> percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="124639d604997bef4e6fc45204d7b63b";
>>
>> From whom much is given, much is expected.
logging-data="617273"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Pqap41D3Sf1iWkwVNiy4OzAQXTd1nL5s="
>>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MvC9nk01uCky6IDEkhG3WJlQFGw=
>> One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
>> dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to make sure
>> they could afford to buy what they made.
Xref: unconfigured alt.computer.workshop:232 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10105 comp.os.linux.advocacy:4503
>>

>> But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.
>>
On 22 Jun 2024 15:26:35 GMT, Snit <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased considerably since
>> On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:
>> 1971."
>>
>> <https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>
>>> They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
>>
>>> they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
>> Swill
>>> percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.
>>
>>
>
>> From whom much is given, much is expected.
>Reagan made it worse by pushing the idiotic trickle down myth.
>>

>> One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
Yes, and by subtly shifting the tax burden down to lower income groups and running up
>> dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to make sure
debt.
>> they could afford to buy what they made.

>>
Swill
>> But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.
. >>
>> See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased considerably since
>> 1971."
>> <https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>
>>
>> Swill
>>
>
>Reagan made it worse by pushing the idiotic trickle down myth.

Yes, and by subtly shifting the tax burden down to lower income groups and running up
debt.

Swill

Ever tried to google what percentage of “The Top 1%” are Jews?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:05:54 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33?AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
>> before the
>> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
>> spendthrift since.
>
>The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.

Percentage of what? Certainly you aren't going to try to tell us there are 50% tax rates?

>>> Don't forget that the top 1% is a very small number of people compared to the
>>> HUGE middle class which is paying less than 10% of the taxes. For the top 1%
>>> of people (which is 1,535,899 tax returns, so maybe 2.5 million people
>>> considering joint returns of couples) to be paying half the taxes in a country
>>> of 340 million people looks to me that the top 1% ARE paying "their fair
>>> share". And that pecentage has grown from 33% to almost 50% in the last 20
>>> years.
>>>
>>> What is your point again?
>>
>> That your numbers are screwed up. If the top 1% is paying 50% of the taxes
>> (they aren't)
>> and the middle class is paying 10% (which they aren't), where is the other 40%
>> coming
>> from? Waffle House waitresses and day laborers?
>
>The top 25% pay 90% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 97.7 of all income
>taxes. The bottom 50% pay the remaining 2.3%. Looks pretty fair to me. That's
>where it comes from.

How much of the income are they making? How much do they have left for investment after
meeting basic survival needs? When a wealthy person gets a $400 tax bill on his car, it's
chicken feed. When a 30k wage worker gets a $200 tax bill on his car, he has to budget
for it weeks in advance. When a family of four spends $600 a month on groceries with a 5%
tax rate, that's a significant expenditure if you're taking home $3000 a month, but pocket
change if you're taking home 30,000 a month.

In Europe, traffic violators are means tested before they're find. Five figure fines for
speeding are not unheard of. We should be doing that here.

Why don't we have a flat tax? Because it would result in the rich paying *more*.

>And BTW, these are not "my numbers". They come from the IRS. If you know of a
>better source, do let us know.
>
>Have a look at the actual numbers so you can talk about facts instead of your
>opinions and assumptions:
>
><https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/>
>
>If you claim "these numbers are not correct" then go to irs.gov and download
>the spreadsheets. Feel free to point out the errors in numbers.
>
>Or you can accept reality. These numbers are correct.

Yes they are. They are also woefully incomplete.

>>>> Income inequality began in the eighties. Until then, the middle class was
>>>> booming.
>>>
>>> What exactly is "income inequality"? Do you think everyone should be paid the
>>> same amount? Keep in mind that income is EARNED. It is not distributed by the
>>> government. If a company is willing to pay a CEO 50 million dollars a year,
>>> then good for him/her AND it is none of your (or my) GD business.
>>
>> My god! Are you really that thick? Income disparity as the difference between
>> highest
>> earners and lowest.
>
>And that is a problem? Why? You are jealous of people who make more money than
>you? That is your problem. Don't try turn it into someone else's problem.

Income inequality impoverishes a society. Compare medieval times to now. Back then you
were either top 5% or you were poor as dirt.

Today, or at least in mid century America. That vast middle class is what made America
rich and powerful. Not the few millionaires and billionaires, but the millions of
'thousandaires'.

>>> You want to make more money? Then go after it. Don't expect your McDonald's
>>> job to support you for your entire life. You need some ambition.
>>
>> Than what's all this we keep hearing from your side about what a struggle it
>> is for the
>> average family to make ends meet? Why don't they just make more money and stop
>> whining?
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,comp.os.linux.advocacy
>
>"My side"? What is that?
>
Subject: Re: The Top 1% Pay Half Of All Taxes
>And yes, why DON'T they make more money? Why don't they stop getting married
>and having 3 kids by the age of 23? Because, are you sitting down? The
>typical 23 year old's salary can't support that. When I was 23 I was certainly
>in no position to get married and have kids. Because, again are you sitting
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:17:48 -0400
>down? I had no marketable skills yet.
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider

Lines: 130
In a real economy not everybody can be rich. But that's not an excuse for the rich to
abrogate their responsibilities to the society that gave them that wealth.
Message-ID: <p0eh7jluflcog3l95360gu8nv42c8popp5@4ax.com>

>AGAIN, don't just let life happen to you. You should be an active participant.
References: <0s737jd8p8h8968mt8c4pdjil2nseo85ae@4ax.com> <0u897jdngdaroj7kbnvt5na9vo6ms7vmfg@4ax.com> <cc6dnZMeYqvcRen7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@supernews.com> <bgpd7j1jti63bvcqfgrjo107ff7q2kdqcs@4ax.com> <RdicnbsRNObvmer7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@supernews.com>
> Get an education. Learn SOMETHING. People making bad choices and fucking up
MIME-Version: 1.0
>THEIR lives is not MY problem.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Actually, it is. You can have a bigger slice of the pie or you can make your slice ever
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
bigger by expanding the whole pie, not just your piece of it.

Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 02:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
>I know it can be done because I did it. My father died when I was 18. He left
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="124639d604997bef4e6fc45204d7b63b";
>us a few thousand dollars of insurance money, which was enough to bury him. I
logging-data="621928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18b3I5z8sqCFLtX9GUtXPVsisw8KV1oeig="
>did not go to college. My life pretty much sucked until I was around 30.

Cancel-Lock: sha1:9YZLxpNwkc3liBAx/EyIMCPOCC0=
It's good that you did that. Doesn't excuse you from doing your part. If your final
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
effective income tax rate is under 20%, you're not doing it. If your accountant is piling
up tax benefits that save you tens of thousands in taxes every year, you're not doing your
Xref: unconfigured alt.computer.workshop:234 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10107 comp.os.linux.advocacy:4505
part.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:05:54 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>So don't just whine about "income inequality". People make more money because

>they EARN it. I am making 10 times more today than I was making when I was 23.
>On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33?AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
> It is not for you or anyone else to say that I am making too much. Its none
><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>of your GD business.
>
>
>> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
>Don't worry about what others are doing. Worry about YOUR life and YOUR
>family.

Iow, Greed Is Good?
>> before the

>> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
Swill
>> spendthrift since.
NP: Chicago - Just You 'n' Me
>
. >The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.

Percentage of what? Certainly you aren't going to try to tell us there are 50% tax rates?

>>> Don't forget that the top 1% is a very small number of people compared to the
>>> HUGE middle class which is paying less than 10% of the taxes. For the top 1%
>>> of people (which is 1,535,899 tax returns, so maybe 2.5 million people
>>> considering joint returns of couples) to be paying half the taxes in a country
>>> of 340 million people looks to me that the top 1% ARE paying "their fair
>>> share". And that pecentage has grown from 33% to almost 50% in the last 20
>>> years.
>>>
>>> What is your point again?
>>
>> That your numbers are screwed up. If the top 1% is paying 50% of the taxes
>> (they aren't)
>> and the middle class is paying 10% (which they aren't), where is the other 40%
>> coming
>> from? Waffle House waitresses and day laborers?
>

On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:00:18 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>On Jun 23, 2024 at 11:26:59?AM EDT, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/24 1:05 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33?AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
>>>> before the
>>>> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
>>>> spendthrift since.
>>>
>>> The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.
>>
>> Not possible.
>
>Not only possible, but true. I'm not talking about the individual rate that
>someone pays. Overall, the top 1% is now paying nearly 50% of all income
>taxes. THAT rate has gone from 33% to 46% in 20 years.

That's simply a lie and we all know it.

>> The 'problem' is that the tax structure has become regressive, where the
>> least wealthy now pay a disproportionate share of the total tax burden.
>
>Only if you think paying 2% of all income taxes is a "disproportionate share
>of the total tax burden".

Again, you're ignoring the fact that income tax is not the only tax. It is the only
progressive tax but not the only tax.

Brand new $40K car carries a total state tax and tag of $400.
Ten years later that car is worth $5K but the tax bill is still $100.

In that common scenario, the working classes are actually paying MORE in taxes than the
wealthy.

Sales/use tax is another area where the smaller your income, the higher your tax burden.

So what if a rich guy and a poor guy both pay 50¢ a gallon gas tax. At first glance that
may seem fair but the *burden* is higher for the lower wage earner.

A kid needs $100 in paper, pens and other school supplies. Mom makes $400 a week so that
much money is a quarter week's pay - a significant burden.

The other mom is taking home $3000 a week. Sending her kids to school costs her little
more than pocket change.

Investing in lower income families increases their earnings potential. That's the reason
we have free public education. America would be little more than a feudal kingdom without
our public schools.

Swill

On 6/23/24 12:00 PM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2024 at 11:26:59 AM EDT, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/24 1:05 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 2024 at 10:57:33 AM EDT, "Governor Swill"
>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They used to pay more, MUCH more. We need to go back to the tax schedules used
>>>> before the
>>>> massive deficit days of Ronald Reagan and every Republican tax cutting
>>>> spendthrift since.
>>>
>>> The percentage has grown from 33% to 50% in the last 20 years.
>>
>> Not possible.
>
> Not only possible, but true.

Its so "true" that you were compelled to delete the substantiation of
your falsehood:

[quote]
Not possible.

Because before the 2017 TCJA, the top Federal marginal personal income
tax rate hasn't been lower than 35% for at least the past 30 years...

....and that's before adding anything any others (SS/Medicare, State &
Local taxes, fees, etc):

2018-present: 37%
2017-2012: 39.6%
2012-2003: 35%
2002: 38.6%
2001: 39.1%
2000-1993: 39.6%

Citation:

<https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/>

[/quote]

> I'm not talking about the individual rate that
> someone pays. Overall, the top 1% is now paying nearly 50% of all income
> taxes. THAT rate has gone from 33% to 46% in 20 years.

Oh, you're trying to change horses in midstream to a different metric.

The problem with this oft-quoted claim is that it tries to ignore the
Willie Sutton rule.

If you recall, Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks, and his
reported response was simple, eloquent, and humorous:

"Because that’s where the money is."

So then, just what percent of all income is made by that top percent?

Because if they make 50% of all income, then a flat tax rate across all
income would mean that they pay 50% of all taxes too. Ditto 46%, etc.

>> The 'problem' is that the tax structure has become regressive, where the
>> least wealthy now pay a disproportionate share of the total tax burden.
>
> Only if you think paying 2% of all income taxes is a "disproportionate share
> of the total tax burden".

When they make less than 2% of all income, its a disproportionate share.

-hh

On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:40:48 -0400, -hh wrote:

> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 21/06/2024 12:04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no gripe against any class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who gets off their ass and goes to work every day gets my
>>>>> respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to be poor, but then I grew up and got a real job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. I've lived in a trailor house. I've been homeless. I got
my
>>>>> shit together in my early 20's, however.
>>>>
>>>> I grew up poor in rural Illinois. But my (divorced) father would
treat us
>>>> to (compensatory?) zoo and museum visits, science-fiction paperbacks,
>>>> telescopes, microscopes... We even managed to get a set of Worldbook
>>>> Encyclopedia.
>>>>
>>>> And look at me now! Old, pudgy, retired, and tinkering endlessly on
laptops.
>>>>
>>>> The Circle of Life! :-D
>>>
>>> Indeed! 🙂
>>>
>>> Here ya go!
>>> https://i.ibb.co/d74mPWt/cid-62-C2583-C-7-EA3-44-AD-8-D1-D-99-F54-B0-
EE07-E.jpg
>>>
>>> So very true!
>>
>> That pic leaves out (at least in my case) and additional bicycling
frame as
>> I continue to ride after age 60. It also leaves out my two stints with
a walker
>> thanks to hip replacements thanks to tons of pavement running, soccer,
and
>> free training.
>
> Tangentially, those injuries are similar to the dichotomy between lower
> income working class jobs (eg, trades) vs the top 5% who did their stint
> sitting in an office chair: trades workers get their bodies "beaten up"
> by their jobs, which then requires such expensive medical care (if they
> can afford it) at significantly lower ages ... 50's instead of 70's ...
> which also adversely affects their physical ability to keep on working.
>
> This is where raising the FRA is harming essentially that entire class
> of workers, but not white collar workers who are less reliant on
> physical labor in their job, thus enabling them to be more readily able
> to work to age 67 instead of being forced due to physical limitations to
> retire at age 55-60 and hope that savings are adequate to bridge them
> until Social Security starts, particularly if they were un/underinsured
> on healthcare insurance to make bodily repairs affordable.
>
>
>> Anyway, I'll be 67 soon and happy to still be physically acive, in
spite of my
>> pudge and my computer addiction.
>>
>
> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
> chipmunks and twigs <g>.
>
>
> -hh

I'd just like to point out that relying on SS for retirement isn't
a very good strategy. (On the other hand, I got lucky when it came
to pursuing my career passions, so I am now all but retired, and not
drawing SS.)

ObLinux:
Most of that career work was involving Linux systems since the very
beginning in 1992, and I heartily endorse anyone who can be gainfully
entrepreneurial with Linux.

Also: testing this newsreader on the (Linux) laptop. It's a local
build using the latest gmime, which properly handles the Newsgroups:
header.

--
-c