Re: Tariffs and bikes

On 4/6/2025 8:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/6/2025 2:04 PM, zen cycle wrote:

On 4/6/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/6/2025 7:03 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 4/5/2025 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/5/2025 11:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/5/2025 9:20 AM, AMuzi 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.

>
It is not true that black Americans in 1776 suffered disadvantages
compared to white Americans? That is absolutely senseless.
>

'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

>
:-) Ah yes, "one would do well to ask ... who is counting." So we
should ignore the countless American and world-wide economic
institutions which all accept recognized standards for inequality
measurements, and rank America's GINI index as being worse than
all similar modern nations. Instead we should pay attention to the
outlier, the hyper-libertarian Cato institute.
>

And regarding racism, why do legal immigrant Nigerians, being as
dark or darker than US citizens grouped as black, do so well here?

>
Yes, there are certainly cultural differences among various sub-
cultures. Japanese and Chinese tend to do better here by various
measurements than average white Americans. IIRC, white Jewish
Americans do better, on average, than other whites. That does not
mean that racism against American blacks is gone, and that blacks
don't suffer from its current and historical effects.
>
When I lived down south, I witnessed my black co- workers and
later my black students getting mocked behind their backs or to
their faces. I remember our two neighbors proudly going off to
hear Lester Maddox speak, telling us "He's going to put those
niggers back in their place." I can't believe those attitudes
didn't lead to disadvantages for them.
>
One thing that I learned fairly recently: My father bought his
first house with help from the GI Bill. My wife and I did the same
many years later. Buying a home and having its value appreciate,
as they generally do, was an important contributor toward
increasing family wealth. But after WW2, black servicemen had much
more trouble taking advantage of the GI Bill. That put a great
damper on black family's equity growth, and the historic effects
persist.
>

Or as my favorite black millionaire from humble roots often
notes, "Hard work wins."

>
It's more likely to "win" if you have good connections, good
education, access to capital, etc. and if you're not rejected for
a job by being the wrong color.
>
>

>
>
Nearly 60 years ago I was shocked and offended at separate water
fountains. We're roughly of the same age so I know what you meant.
>
That was long long ago. Fortunately.
>

>
And yet....
https://michiganadvance.com/2024/07/22/we-love-hitler-we- love-
trump- white-supremacists-march-through-howell/
>
https://www.brennancenter.org/events/do-police-care- about- white-
supremacist-violence
>
https://www.ctpublic.org/2025-01-10/nh-supreme-court- sides- with-
white-supremacist-group-over-highway-banner- in-portsmouth
>
https://www.brennancenter.org/events/do-police-care- about- white-
supremacist-violence
>
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/politics- government/2025-01-08/
u- s-attorneys-office-yellowstone- gunman-espoused-white-
supremacist-views

>
Right. We're a very large country with every flavor of belief
arranged uncomfortably into two gargantuan party structures.  But a
few pointy head racists (above) or the antisemite scum in the other
party are equally offset by their opposites. In each party.
>
https://www.chicagoflipsred.com/
>

>
Lets not pretend they aren't trying to exert political influence.

 
Well, who doesn't?
 
But it's not Cato's main mission.  They are highly critical of
Republicans by the way and have been for at least 40 years.
 

>
By 'they' I meant white supremacists.