Re: Tariffs and bikes

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 15:54:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 4/5/2025 2:16 PM, Shadow wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 08:20:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 4/4/2025 11:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/4/2025 10:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/4/2025 9:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/4/2025 12:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:

>
You can have whatever opinion you like but not your own
facts.

>
Heck, I thought it was fashionable to have "alternative
facts" if you don't like the look of normal ones! Wasn't
that made clear during Trump version 1?
>

USA has among the most steeply sloped tax regimes on
earth, such that the top 1% of earners pay roughly half
of all income tax.
>
https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/

>
The USA also has some of the highest income and wealth
disparity of developed nations. Granted, not as bad as
many small 3rd world countries - but I think we should
not be striving to emulate those.
>
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-
justice/income- and-wealth-inequality/
>
I'd say that means our tax structure is still
insufficiently progressive.
>
And what should we be trying to achieve anyway? ISTM our
nation was founded on the idea of doing away with a
privileged class lording it over those purportedly of
less worth. Also the idea of everyone (well, as long as
their complexion wasn't too dark) getting an equal shot
at prosperity. If nothing else, those ideas, if
implemented, work toward keeping the masses content
enough that they don't literally rebel. Rebellions are
messy, unpredictable, and bad for bike shops.
>
We now have a new privileged class, one that can rake in
millions per year and pay lower rates than struggling
middle Americans, in part because of clever deductions.
Remember Leona Helmsley? "Taxes are for little people."
>
And of course, any money made over $170,000 per year is
free of Social Security duties. Because hey, one's third
mega- mansion is much more important than better food for
the family making $50,000 per year. Why should the ultra-
rich help to keep Social Security afloat?
>
>

>
The 'disparity' is a myth in that it counts only taxable
earnings, ignoring that fully half the country pays no
income tax.  Many of those receive 'negative tax' payments
and in fact dos very well on relief, much better than many
working people.

>
"The disparity is a myth"??  The GINI index for the U.S. is
higher (worse) than for Britain, Italy, France, Austria,
Canada, Australia, Ireland, Sweden, Albania, Croatia, etc.
etc. etc. Yes, it's not as bad as South Africa, Mexico,
Venezuela, Columbia, but it's hardly a myth.
>

>
Regarding wealthy citizens, we do indeed have some
inherited wealth but almost all the top earners are self
made ...

>
That's irrelevant. I was not restricting my comments to
inherited wealth. I'm basically saying that our current laws
and tax structures favor the wealthy and especially the very
wealthy. That includes corporations, for which it's not that
unusual to pay next to zero federal taxes. Tax shelters are
available to those with tons of money. Helmsley's "little
people" have no access to that trickery.
>

Your snarky racism comment is ridiculous.

>
I said a big idea for the new nation of the U.S. was that
everyone should get an equal shot if their skin wasn't too
dark. Did you somehow forget that black slavery existed back
then? Slaves did not get an equal shot.
>
Yes, I know you (especially you!) can come up with anecdotes
about modern black guys who have gotten rich. But surely
even you don't think it's as likely for a young black guy to
succeed as it is for a young white guy.
>

There are 224 times more black millionaires in USA than
the top 19 countries of Africa combined.
>
Go stick your racism somewhere else.

>
I was not comparing black Americans to black Africans. I was
comparing black Americans to white Americans. And in my
original statement, I was comparing those groups in 1776.
>
>

>
It simply is not true. Full stop. Not true.
>
'Income disparity' is a classic blatant example of 'garbage
in, garbage out.  By utterly ignoring our lavish
transfer/benefits systems, the appearance of poverty greatly
exceeds poverty.
>
As with so many topics discussed here, one would do well to
ask what is counted and who is counting.
>
For readers who did not pursue my previous link, here's a
shorter simpler version:
>
https://www.cato.org/study/myth-american-income-inequality

 
Cato? Seriously?
That's a far right pro tax exemption (only for billionaires) think
tank....
LOL
 
PS It's non profit because the bribes it receives are distributed
equally between its "reporters". They call it "expenses".
[]'s
 

>
And regarding racism, why do legal immigrant Nigerians,
being as dark or darker than US citizens grouped as black,
do so well here?  And Nigerians are not unique (I was made
aware of their success by a Nigerian immigrant engineer of
my acquaintance) with above average incomes for legal
immigrant Ghanians, Jamaicans and others, most voluminously
Indians.
>
They all live in the same world as you, finding employment,
housing and so on with all the myriad daily interactions as
you while 'swimming in the same pool' as it were.  If
there's 'structural racism' the outcomes don't show it.
>
Then again I mentioned recently that I was in North Lawndale
(Chicago) regularly some years ago.  The guys on the corner
drinking cheap liquor from a bagged pint while shooing dice
and generally killing time claimed 'the man' kept them down.
They actually believed that.
>
Or as my favorite black millionaire from humble roots often
notes, "Hard work wins."

>
I have proudly supported and contributed to Cato Institute
for over 30 years. Aside from their newish web presence they
are a major publisher as well, which is how I first metthem:
>
https://www.cato.org/search/category/books

Sorry, I mistook it for this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute>

In 2024 they had a  71 million dollar budget . 124 employees.
Nice salaries.

<Cato Institute Awards 2025 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing
Liberty to Charles Koch>

There's a word for that. Not Nepotism. In Portuguese it would
be "puxasaquismo".
[]'s
[]'s


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021