My younger union brother continually told me he didn't like Trump because of what he said. But he could never supply even one example. Not being a member of Twitter I never saw any "mean tweets" and doubt there ever were any. I know that the Lame Stream Media misquoted Trump in a constant barrage of propaganda.

William Crowell

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 4:04:53 PM9/15/21

to

Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 5:34:20 PM9/15/21

to

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.

You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.

Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?

Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.

What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.

Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?

William Crowell

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 5:34:40 PM9/15/21

to

Biden yelling at the "Fuck you, Biden!" protesters who appeared at all 3 of his 9/11 appearances last week:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYqbjPuYeU0Bwpm9kjc9D5fAOEjKgiOp/view?usp=sharing

Note how the Clintons, Biden's wife, Barack Obama and everyone else looks shocked at what he is doing. The guy has lost it completely.

William Crowell

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 5:45:09 PM9/15/21

to

Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 6:12:19 PM9/15/21

to

Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.

"As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.

Explanation:
As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.

However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).

They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."

This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.

"American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."

This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.

Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 6:25:29 PM9/15/21

to

I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.

John B.

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 7:13:13 PM9/15/21

to

it" ???

You are certainly correct (:-)

But the tea dumped in Boston Harbor was, due to changes in the British
tea tax, to have been sold for a lower price then existing stores of
tees smuggled into America from Holland by America ship owners.

And, the above isn't a secret. In fact there are very detailed
accounts of the British tea business complete with the various taxes
that applied available on the Internet.

As for being farmers... Well, John Hancock was a wealthily ship owner,
Samuel Adams was the son of a wealthy merchant and was educated at
Harvard Collage. Thomas Jefferson? father owned a large plantation in
what is now Virginia, George Washington, well "The Washington family
was a wealthy Virginia planter family that had made its fortune
through land speculation and the cultivation of tobacco."

Hardly poor farmers.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 7:18:09 PM9/15/21

to

Don't try to confuse Tommy with facts. He is "bullet proof" from that
direction (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 8:15:24 PM9/15/21

to

On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>>>>
>>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>>>>
>>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
>> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>>
>> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>>
>> Explanation:
>> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>>
>> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>>
>> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>>

>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be rememberedâ€”something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

>>
>> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>>
>> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>>
>> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>>
>> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
>
> I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
>

Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
took 2d place nonetheless.

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

Frank Krygowski

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 9:15:09 PM9/15/21

to

The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

sms

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 9:29:24 PM9/15/21

to

On 9/15/2021 4:13 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> "People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about
> it" ???

Undoing the damage done by Trump will take at least a decade. Even if
Biden runs for, and wins, a second term, it will be the president after
him (if he or she is a Democrat) that will be tasked with contining to
repair the damage Trump did to the country.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 9:35:28 PM9/15/21

to

Full employment, low inflation, strong military all
unpopular in Santa Clara I assume. Out here in USA it looks
very different than from your perspective.

John B.

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 9:44:43 PM9/15/21

to

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>> >>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>> >>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
>> >> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>> >>
>> >> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>> >>
>> >> Explanation:
>> >> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>> >>
>> >> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>> >>
>> >> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>> >>

>> >> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

>> >>
>> >> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>> >>
>> >> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>> >>
>> >> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>> >>
>> >> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
>> >
>> > I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
>> >
>> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
>> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
>> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
>> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
>> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
>> took 2d place nonetheless.
>
>The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
>success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
>when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

And Washington, in 1777 ordered that the members of the Continental
forces be vaccinated against smallpox.

But, mosquito's? I would wonder as the British had by the late 1700's
been active in tropical countries such as India and China for some
time and must have been familiar with mosquito's, and was the
relationship between mosquito's and sickness realized in the 1700's?
--
Cheers,

John B.

ritzann...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 9:53:14 PM9/15/21

to

But John, back in them thar good old days, plantation owners were considered farmers. The fact the plantation owner bought and sold slaves and had slave masters or slave whippers making the slaves do the farming does not matter. He was a farmer. With his hands in the dirt. Or at least his slave's hands were in the dirt.

John B.

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 10:35:17 PM9/15/21

to

Hardly, and while slavery was a perfectly legal and relatively common
practice (and had been throughout human history) I hardly think that
an individual with a net worth of $587 million (in today's dollars)
and owning some 8,000 acres of farm land was to be classified as a
"common farmer" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Andre Jute

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:15:07 AM9/16/21

to

I know a little something of the Anglo-Boer War -- I grew up with tales of "Great-Aunt Agatha killed by the perfidious British in their concentration camp." Until I was well into my twenties, there were still men who'd fought in that war alive and compos. Indeed, one of the commanders who signed the Peace of Vereeniging was my lawyer. Some of my grandmother's diaries are in the Smuts Papers down the road here. Smuts's assault on Okiep, a copper-and-diamond-mining town (the war was basically fought because the British coveted the diamonds and the gold in the two Afrikaner Republics of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal) convinced the British, who by then knew they couldn't win the war outright and were embarrassed by the failure of the greatest empire the world had ever seen -- against two pinprick nations! --, to offer a ceasefire. Less than ten years later the British decided that Afrikaners are simply smarter than other nations, and it was clearly better to have them onside, and gave Smuts and his master, Louis Botha (Smuts, though a killer negotiator and an experienced statesman, was still just 40, in those days a boy among the men with yes-power), back the two Afrikaner Republics, plus the two British provinces of the Cape and Natal, and after the war the German territory of South West Africa (rich in diamonds) as well. Smuts was the only man to serve in the British War Cabinet in both wars, and the only man to sign both the Versailles Treaty and the UN Charter, of which he wrote the first draft of the prologue. He was made a field marshal in the British Army in 1941. Among other great deeds he performed for the British, he was the founder of the RAF. On the cusp of the twentieth century, the Boer commandos were the world's leading guerrilla fighters, and Smuts wasn't even their finest example, that probably being Koos de la Rey, Smuts's first commander; in the beginning they had only five hundred men (men joined the best commanders voluntarily), running a British army of 20,000, lavishly equipped and supplied, ragged all over the Western Transvaal. It was because the British couldn't pin them them down to their preferred style of battle, complete with marching bands, that Kitchener invented the concentration camps to herd their women and children into as hostages, and the scorched earth behind the British Army was also intended to break their spirit. Both were mistakes that did the British more harm than good, the concentration camps to their reputation, the scorched earth to their supply trains as the Afrikaner commandos simply took whole trains, and so the British had to bring in more troops than the entire population of the two Afrikaner Republics (including women and children) to protect their supply trains over thousands of miles. It was a miserable lesson for an empire that was accustomed to slaughtering little brown men to be on the receiving end of fighters who knew they lay of the land and were accustomed to counting their bullets and making every bullet count double, and who included a very large proportion of leaders with brains and initiative.

Andre Jute
Charm offensive

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 11:37:43 AM9/16/21

to

Scharf, why do you continue to make those false statements without so much as mentioning what sort of "damage" Trump did and how? We've been waiting for you to at least attempt to support your bullshit.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 11:46:43 AM9/16/21

to

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 12:06:41 PM9/16/21

to

On 9/16/2021 11:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> .
>> But John, back in them thar good old days, plantation owners were considered farmers. The fact the plantation owner bought and sold slaves and had slave masters or slave whippers making the slaves do the farming does not matter. He was a farmer. With his hands in the dirt. Or at least his slave's hands were in the dirt.
>

> You cannot stop yourself from the utterance of lies beyond lies can you? Slave were expensive, 90% of slave owners had a single slave that often was nothing more than a farm hand that ate at the same table in the same hovel as the farmer/owner. You do not "beat" your slaves into ill health as you seem to think. Plantations treated slaves as farm workers and the pictures of scarred backs and such were almost always of escaped slaves and those almost entirely from the Texas cotton plantations and not the more northern areas where even the founders and owners of those Plantations admitted that slavery was a crime against humanity. Jefferson ended up freeing all of his slaves....

Wow. Yet another torrent of misinformation.

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/slaves-who-gained-freedom

--
- Frank Krygowski

Tom Kunich

Reality certainly isn't one of Tommy's strong points... or perhaps
history is wrong?

The First Boer War was fought between the British Empire and the so
called "Trekboers" who had settled in the Transvaal. This ended in the
Boers victory and the eventual independence of the South African
Republic.

The Second Boer war was fought between the British Empire and South
African Republic (Republic of Transvaal) and the Orange Free State
when the Boers attacked Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking in early
1900. This war ended when the Boer leadership surrendered and accepted
British terms with the Treaty of Vereeniging in May 1902.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:52:34 PM9/16/21

to

>>>>>>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be rememberedâ€”something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

Having read quite a bit of period writings, yes smallpox was
a big problem, especially in Boston in 1775.

It's unclear to me that anyone at the time understood
mosquitos as disease vectors but Frank makes a good point
about humid dank low areas near water, probably a fungible
difference. Whether either army behaved/maneuvered
differently with that in mind is not at all clear to me.
Maybe, maybe not.

Mahon credits the French navy at Yorktown for turning the
final victory, something skipped over in schoolbooks.

John B.

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 9:44:14 PM9/16/21

to

>>>>>>>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

Washington's army at Yorktown was about 40% French troops and the
French Navy had won a battle with a British fleet and was blockading
the Chesapeake fleet so basically it is probably true that the
Continental army would have lost the fight if it hadn't been for the
French.

As an aside for Frank, it appears that malaria was effecting the
British troops far more then the Continentals "as most of their
members had grown up with malaria, and hence had acquired resistance
to the disease" and as the incubation period is about a month the
French troops hadn't been there long enough to develop symptoms.
--
Cheers,

John B.

William Crowell

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 8:49:36 AM9/17/21

to

Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.

So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?

Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 10:44:31 AM9/17/21

to

Don't let anyone like John tell you someone was "inoculated" against Smallpox. This was "achieved" by rubbing the powdered scabs of recovering smallpox victims into open wounds of the "inoculated" and caused as much smallpox and it supposedly prevented. John and his moronic reading of history from the Internet is why actual books by scholars were written.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 10:46:27 AM9/17/21

to

Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.

AMuzi

unread,

John B.

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 6:48:58 PM9/17/21

to

>> >>>>>>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

I'm not sure what out resident "Expert in Everything" is going on
about but the term "Inoculation" seems to have been used in the U.S.
as early as the 1721 Boston smallpox epidemic.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 7:00:39 PM9/17/21

to

And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.

Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
immaterial.

--
Cheers,

John B.

ritzann...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 8:24:45 PM9/17/21

to

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:51:54 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why don't you tell us again how you're a conservative as you spit your Democrat talking points all over the group. Tell us all - what is a "Trumper Republican"? I actually was born and grew up in Oakland. I NEVER lived anywhere where blacks weren't the majority around me except in the Air Force and there the most important people in the shop were the two black sergeants that actually repaired the equipment and they did it correctly.
>
> Why don't you tell me about all of the blacks you lived around and how many were in the schools you went to?
>
> Why dem slaves hated those evil slave owners so much that most of them took the names of their masters.

I don't understand this calling me a conservative attack you are on. I have never ever said I am a conservative. At least in terms of using conservative as it describes political parties in the USA. I can be conservative on spending money at times. I am conservative in my dressing. Nothing ostentatious for me. But as conservative is used for political parties, NO. I am very proud to vote for the Democrat in all elections that have party affiliation.

A Trumper Republican would be characterized as a new person to politics. Someone who was awoken in just the last few years. A person who repeats and believes the Trump lies about Covid, the election loss, and others. A person who has no political objective other than instituting Trump's lies and nonsensical ideas. Old time Republicans yipped and yapped about small government and freedom and low taxes, etc. Lots of nonsense. Because they spent trillions upon trillions of government money on "defense" and needless military wars and bankrupted the government or drove its debt to sky high levels while cutting taxes for people and business who gave them bribes. And they happily used the government to suppress minorities and women on various health matters. That is the old time Republicans. New Trumper Republicans still have those same faults but have just added on with the blind obedience to their new master.

I am very glad you grew up in Oakland and have remained there ever since. I still find it odd that you hate your state so much but choose to remain there. I have lived in the midwest all my life. Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Kansas, Iowa, Kansas, Iowa is the progression of my living quarters. I have attended college in two of these states and have degrees from one of the states. I root for all three states in college sports. Well, one of the schools in the three states. There are certain schools in these states that I hate.

I spent 6th grade through Senior year living in Leavenworth Kansas. For those who may not know, Leavenworth is a somewhat famous town. It has a Federal prison and an Army base. It also has a Federal Veterans Administration hospital/domicile and a state prison is in the suburb to the south. Lansing. There are a lot of government jobs in Leavenworth Kansas. Leavenworth may have the highest percentage of blacks in any city in Kansas except maybe some parts of Kansas City, Kansas. Therefore I had a significant percentage of blacks in my junior high and senior high schools. Today I do not have much contacts with any blacks. The biking group I ride with today only has one black man who rides with us. And in my daily life I do not meet many blacks on a day to day basis. Central Iowa is not a very diversified location for ethnicity. We do have an area of town with a higher percentage of black population. But overall Iowa is a low black percentage state.

As for slaves taking the last name of their former masters when freed, that can be explained by the slaves instantly becoming free. And previously they had no last name at all. Just whatever name their owner called them. They were ignorant of naming conventions. So they simply took whatever was available. You also have a large percentage of blacks with last names of Washington and Jefferson. The first and third presidents of the USA. They just picked a name that was available. With Washington and Jefferson they probably were told these were iconic Americans so assumed taking that name would be good. They did not take their former owner's last name because they still loved them.

ritzann...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 8:30:07 PM9/17/21

to

Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 8:59:40 PM9/17/21

to

+1

John B.

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 9:16:09 PM9/17/21

to

I'm not sure what your subject is but to rephrase my statement, "The
U.S. government has the right to levy taxes" on anything that they
damn please. There is even a levy if you want to give up your
citizenship :-)

As for the "not me" rallying cry, well yes. but I would also say that
it is a major overwhelming factor in all societies. As an example,
desertion was a problem in the Continental army during the
revolutionary war (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

ritzann...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 10:14:17 PM9/17/21

to

I have looked that up. Concerning outstanding unrealized capital gains anyway. You have to pay taxes on unrealized gains. So you cannot get rich on unsold Apple or Google stock or maybe Bitcoin too, and then give up your USA citizenship and get Bermuda citizenship or Monaco citizenship, and keep all the gains. The federal government will get its cut before letting you go.

> As for the "not me" rallying cry, well yes. but I would also say that
> it is a major overwhelming factor in all societies. As an example,
> desertion was a problem in the Continental army during the
> revolutionary war (:-)

I've read tales of high desertion in the Confederate army during the Civil War. Or at least towards the end. Or when Sherman and Grant were on their marches at the end.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

John B.

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 10:48:57 PM9/17/21

jbeattie

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 8:15:52 PM9/18/21

to

By the way, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is the single supplier of alcoholic beverages in Oregon. We have privately owned "state" liquor stores (basically franchises) that purchase all of their alcohol from the state. The alcohol tax is collected by the state-run distributor, the private seller marks it up, and the consumer pays exactly the price shown on the shelf. We have no sales tax.

Washington had the same system, but Washingtonians got tired of trudging to state controlled stores, and a law was passed allowing the private sale of alcohol in retail outlets like supermarkets. To maintain the same revenue, however, the state passed a super-tax on liquor (actually two separate taxes) that are not easy to calculate in one's head and that are large. The price looks good on the shelf, but when you get to the check-out, its like a 30% pop, depending on the volume of booze purchased. Enough to make a guy sober. Washington is really big into sin taxes since they have no income tax (except a capital gains tax to capture some of the Amazon and Microsoft dollars).

-- Jay Beattie.

Joy Beeson

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 10:18:44 PM9/18/21

to

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:48:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
> statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
> almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
> group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
> safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
> add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
> bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
> "No! No!" (:-)

How does putting a straight-through lane to the right of a right-turn
lane make cycling safer?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net

sms

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 10:30:33 PM9/18/21

to

Corporations pay taxes on their profits, and shareholders pay taxes on
their dividends. I guess you could argue that since shareholders own the
company that it is double taxation. One solution is to eliminate taxes
on dividends and make up the losses by increasing corporate income
taxes, which would, in turn, cause the dividends to be lower. Or
eliminate corporate income taxes and increase taxes on dividends.

John B.

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 10:32:57 PM9/18/21

to

Honestly, I have no idea as I live in Thailand and we don't have bike
lanes here so I can only base my remarks on what I read in the news
and the overwhelming arguments for bike lanes, in the U.S., seem to be
(A) it is safer, or (B) it makes the cyclists feel safer.

However, in the interest of total discloser, I must add that Frank has
posted evidence that crashes in the bike lane are more frequent then
occurred before they were installed.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 11:12:50 AM9/19/21

to

Hope I'm not repeating myself, but a related phenomenon is where the town government passes an ordinance establishing a robust network of bike lanes going everywhere, but it doesn't get fully funded. Then a lot of the bike lanes get built only partially, but at first glance appear to go through to the next town, so you ride down them for about 5 miles and they come to a dead end instead. This happened to me more than once in the Netherlands.

Lou Holtman

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 12:03:05 PM9/19/21

to

Huh?? We have a strict policy where to build (separate) bike lanes and where not. Our bike lanes don't come to a dead end because of insufficient funding, they just morph into the normal roads according to that policy.

Lou

jbeattie

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 12:03:21 PM9/19/21

to

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. 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.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 12:12:30 PM9/19/21

to

Swapping pelts for turnips can be a tax fee exchange, sure.
(I am not advising you to omit your pelt/turnip profits from
your 1040 subschedules. It happens, just sayin')

But for anything imported, mined or manufactured, the tax is
paid and so tax (+markup) is in everyone's cost downstream
from the port of entry or factory dock. Car tire excise tax,
gasoline excise tax. Chainring duty while cranksets are duty
free (because... Congress!). More things are taxed in more
ways than you'd imagine and examples above are all both
constitutional & statutory.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 12:27:13 PM9/19/21

to

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.

Andre Jute

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 12:34:32 PM9/19/21

to

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:12:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > immaterial.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > John B.
> > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
>

> -- Jay Beattie.

I'm not running an undergrad tutorial here -- it would be throwing pearls to swine -- so I'll just take up one item in this welter of ignorance:

According to Jay Beattie:

> employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation

The corporation's profits are taxed, reducing funds available for invest, which would make the present workers more productive and thus able to obtain a higher wage, and keeps the corporation from expanding and employing more workers. Sales taxes are a direct double taxation of workers' income. Etc, all standard stuff in standard economics texts.

Andre Jute
I dunno why I bother.

Andre Jute

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 12:41:11 PM9/19/21

to

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 3:30:33 AM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>
> Corporations pay taxes on their profits, and shareholders pay taxes on
> their dividends. I guess you could argue that since shareholders own the
> company that it is double taxation. One solution is to eliminate taxes
> on dividends and make up the losses by increasing corporate income
> taxes, which would, in turn, cause the dividends to be lower. Or
> eliminate corporate income taxes and increase taxes on dividends.

How is a double tax reduction a "loss".Most of us would consider it a sign of good management and good government.

Andre Jute
Do the folk who elected Scharfie know they can buy a brain implant?

Frank Krygowski

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 2:24:14 PM9/19/21

to

I'll add: The normal begging policy is America has been to say "We need
bike lanes to have a SAFE place to ride!" The current and even worse
version: "We need _protected_ bike lanes to have a safe place to ride!
Ordinary bike lanes are not safe!"

The obvious corollary is that anything else cannot be safe. Since we
will never have bike lanes on every street, the message is that riding a
bike is just plain dangerous. It dissuades people from riding here and now.

And since the fantasy land with "protected" bike lanes everywhere will
always be fantasy, that message will continue to dissuade people as long
as they keep spouting it.

It's anti-cycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 2:44:56 PM9/19/21

to

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 3:18:26 PM9/19/21

to

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>

>>> Â 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?Â 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.Â 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,Â 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.Â 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.Â Of course the
>>> rich are taxed.Â They always have been taxed.Â Â The

>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time

>>> peak.Â 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?Â 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.
>
>

Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
European countries.

Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.

USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
the effect.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 3:22:11 PM9/19/21

to

The posters here are crying because I only have a GED and yet we haven't even one of them that has a passing acquaintance with economics. You know, that was one of the first books I read in the 4th grade on my way to reading all of the non-fiction books out of three libraries. Watching Jay post has to make you wonder how he ever achieved a law degree.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 3:24:22 PM9/19/21

to

Bike lanes are a direct result of the police failing to enforce safe driving laws and ticketing people that do not understand that bikes have as much right to the road and anyone in a Lotus.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 3:27:18 PM9/19/21

to

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Envy aside, the _actual_ revenue effect has been that fewer
> high earning taxpayers are responsible for ever greater
> proportions of Treasury revenue. The net payments have
> become extremely progressive, moreso than for example
> European countries.
>
> Key to this I think is that humans are actors, not widgets.
> With literally ridiculous top marginal rates (95% for a very
> long while) no one actually pays that rate. As a practical
> matter, deductions, averaging, credits and exemptions abound
> such that the actual revenues collected were lower among
> high earners than now. You could look it up! It's like
> arithmetic, not even higher level mathematics.
>
> USA may be unique in the disproportionate Federal taxes paid
> by 'the rich', but is only one of many entities to discover
> the effect.

The Democrats latest tax attack would make Americans pay higher taxes than the Red Chinese. This is the world that most of the goofuses here profess as a perfect world.

AMuzi

unread,

Sep 19, 2021, 3:31:04 PM9/19/21

to

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>

>>> Â 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?Â 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.Â 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,Â 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.Â 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.Â Of course the

>>> rich are taxed.Â They always have been taxed.Â Â The

>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time

>>> peak.Â 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?Â 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.