In praise of Brooks saddles

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 6:10:04 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/13/2019 8:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/13/2019 7:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-8, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:59:46 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

"pro-capitalist"? You don't believe that you should
have to make
your own way in this life? That the F-ing world owes
you a living?

No, I believe working people deserve fair compensation,
and simply having wealth doesn't entitle you to the
spoils of others' labor. I believe money should be a
public utility and not a treasure hoard. And I believe
that economic surpluses should serve the needy and the
public good, not allow the development of perversions
like billionaires.

I believe the world doesn't owe rich fux a living just
for being rich.


Oh! You mean like Bill Gates? Or maybe Larry Page? Or
Sergey Brin? Or
even Mark Zuckerberg?

I could go on, I suppose, but what's the sense, as you
know that the
world doesn't owe rich fux a living just for being
rich.... even when
they made the money themselves.

As for money being a "public utility"? Hey, a really
great idea! And
how much of your salary will you be committing to this
scheme?

I think Chalo's point would be that those men did not make
money themselves. Gates, for example, didn't write a line
of code for DOS. He bought it from a guy who worked in a
local computer shop. It was a rip-off of CPM. Gates made
some good moves when IBM came calling looking for an
operating system, and the rest is history.

Gates was certainly captain of the ship, but he had a crew
and ultimately a huge crew. The question is whether the
crew was well treated, and judging by Seattle, Redmond and
Medina, I would say yes. Does Gates pay enough in taxes?
Maybe yes and maybe no -- Chalo would certainly say no,
and in 1958, the answer would certainly be no. He would be
in an 80% tax bracket.

I think it's undeniable that if you compare someone like
Bill Gates with an equally intelligent and motivated black
kid in the inner city, and if they both had precisely the
same idea for a business, the black kid would have far, far
less chance of getting rich. The difference was not the
dollar value of his inheritance. It was the background, the
opportunities, the connections.

The differences will probably be there forever. If your dad
is a prominent lawyer, you'll be able to meet and become
familiar with a lot more influential people than if your dad
is a janitor. IOW, "The poor you will always have with you."
But once someone is pulling in an income that's 100 times
what anyone needs to live in reasonable comfort, they should
be paying a much greater percentage of it to help keep our
society functioning. Hell, if it just went for pothole
repair, that would be something. How many Maseratis or
luxury homes does someone deserve?

It is tough setting brackets at a place that generates
enough revenue to run the country but avoids capital
flight. Tax policy is not easy. The Trump cuts, however,
were just foolish. They resulted in a massive deficit with
no trickle-down to ordinary Americans -- who will get left
holding the tab. Trump is now filling budget holes with
tariffs and SNAP and TANF cuts. Ordinary Americans will
pay the price of corporate tax rate cuts without any
reduction in the price of goods. It's not like corporate
America is passing on the tax savings to consumers.

I totally understand young people pointing out the massive
wealth gap and the unfairness of the system -- although
that is not a reason to ****-can the system. It just
needs fixing in a non-torch and pitchfork way.

Yes. And making the tax system more progressive isn't
torching the system. It's worked before.




The US tax system is among the most punitively 'progressive'
on earth already.


The US now has one of the lowest corporate rates in the world. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/1...t-World-Report That's just based on corporate rate and doesn't speak to total tax burden. The US has no VAT, as you know, which probably moves the US even lower in terms of total business tax burden.

The money to run the country has to come from somewhere. Would you prefer it to come from even more borrowing? Why would you cut taxes and increase borrowing when the economy is booming. Any rational business would use surplus revenue to pay down debt.

-- Jay Beattie.