On 4/4/2025 11:16 AM, sms wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while
decreasing them on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so
Reaganesque with the fraud of "Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be
disastrous since a new bike, a new phone, or even a new car,
is not generally a required purchase, and consumers will be
unwilling to pay much more. So companies like Trek will
likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more
business as consumers spend more to keep their existing
vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just
have to pay more for the same items or switch to lower-cost
items.
You can have whatever opinion you like but not your own
facts. 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/
Moreover, various Cassandras notwithstanding, no significant
changes to the current (2017 Act) schedules are in play.
Regarding Trek, otherwise known as The Great Chinese Bicycle
Selling Company, meh.
On 4/4/2025 12:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 11:26:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 11:16 AM, sms wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while
decreasing them on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so
Reaganesque with the fraud of "Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be
disastrous since a new bike, a new phone, or even a new car,
is not generally a required purchase, and consumers will be
unwilling to pay much more. So companies like Trek will
likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more
business as consumers spend more to keep their existing
vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just
have to pay more for the same items or switch to lower-cost
items.
You can have whatever opinion you like but not your own
facts. 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.
So what is your income tax rate? Here it's from 0 to 27.5% (0%
for people who don't make enough to eat and pay only purchase tax (60%
on food) to people that make more than US$ 500, 00 a month and are considered "rich" employees.
Businessmen, market "players", multinationals and banks are
all tax exempt. We are a right wing country, more or less expected. Inheritance tax is around 1%, but most millionaires get a judge to
exempt them.
Give me an example. If Musk manages to buy the judges in Texas
and gives himself over 50 billion dollars for a year's "hard" work
breaking Tesla, how much of that will he pay as income tax?
https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/
USA facts is founded and run by a billionaire(Steve Ballmer)
one of the most notorious tax-evaders in the world. LOL, he probably deducts any expenses with his "ORG".
Hardly a "reference" for unbiased tax "facts".
IMHO
[]'s
Moreover, various Cassandras notwithstanding, no significant
changes to the current (2017 Act) schedules are in play.
Regarding Trek, otherwise known as The Great Chinese Bicycle
Selling Company, meh.
I carry no water for Mr Ballmer. I (and others) have linked
many tax reporting sites over the years with the same
numbers as that one.
I also have no animus toward Brasil. Run your own country
any way you like, not my problem. Our tax rates are in
theory zero to 37.5%.
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
In practice, relief here, with our "negative income tax"
policies, is the equivalent of up to $62,000 per year* or
well over what many working people make before taxes.
Again, this is not a policy statement either way, just
reporting.
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
*for 2022. Higher now of course.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed that there was
no estate tax.
"Estate tax is paid by the estate on its net value, while inheritance
tax is paid by beneficiaries on what they receive, with estate taxes
going to the [federal] government and inheritance taxes to state governments."
"Only six states currently impose inheritance taxes: Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania."
<https://www.actec.org/resources-for-wealth-planning-professionals/state-death-tax-chart/>
"Tax is tied to federal state death tax credit. CA REV & TAX ??
13302; 13411.
State Type of Tax: None.
2025 State Death Tax Threshold: None
and more because all of the rich have left so the have to bleed the poor.
Tom, you claimed to have millions in investments. Why are you still
living in California?
03/05/2025 <https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=121640&group=rec.bicycles.tech#121640>
"I GAVE $60,000 to my brothers... In order to protect my investments
from any possible recession I have moved from growth stocks into fuds
like Govertrnment bonds which pay low interest rates rather than
growth. And I still have increased my investments to over $1.1
Million."
On 4/4/2025 7:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Apr 4 14:52:25 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 4/4/2025 12:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 11:26:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 11:16 AM, sms wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while
decreasing them on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so
Reaganesque with the fraud of "Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be
disastrous since a new bike, a new phone, or even a new car,
is not generally a required purchase, and consumers will be
unwilling to pay much more. So companies like Trek will
likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more
business as consumers spend more to keep their existing
vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just
have to pay more for the same items or switch to lower-cost
items.
You can have whatever opinion you like but not your own
facts. USA has among the most steeply sloped tax regimes on
earth, such that the top 1% of earners pay roughly half of
all income tax.
So what is your income tax rate? Here it's from 0 to 27.5% (0%
for people who don't make enough to eat and pay only purchase tax (60% >>> on food) to people that make more than US$ 500, 00 a month and are
considered "rich" employees.
Businessmen, market "players", multinationals and banks are
all tax exempt. We are a right wing country, more or less expected.
Inheritance tax is around 1%, but most millionaires get a judge to
exempt them.
Give me an example. If Musk manages to buy the judges in Texas
and gives himself over 50 billion dollars for a year's "hard" work
breaking Tesla, how much of that will he pay as income tax?
https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/
USA facts is founded and run by a billionaire(Steve Ballmer)
one of the most notorious tax-evaders in the world. LOL, he probably
deducts any expenses with his "ORG".
Hardly a "reference" for unbiased tax "facts".
IMHO
[]'s
Moreover, various Cassandras notwithstanding, no significant
changes to the current (2017 Act) schedules are in play.
Regarding Trek, otherwise known as The Great Chinese Bicycle
Selling Company, meh.
I carry no water for Mr Ballmer. I (and others) have linked
many tax reporting sites over the years with the same
numbers as that one.
I also have no animus toward Brasil. Run your own country
any way you like, not my problem. Our tax rates are in
theory zero to 37.5%.
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
In practice, relief here, with our "negative income tax"
policies, is the equivalent of up to $62,000 per year* or
well over what many working people make before taxes.
Again, this is not a policy statement either way, just
reporting.
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
*for 2022. Higher now of course.
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes. and more because all of the rich have left so the have to bleed the poor.
As of 2022, California has the highest number of billionairs of any
state in the US, and is #4 per capita.
https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/visualizations/which-us-states-have-the-most-billionaires/
Please post data to the contrary if you can.
On 4/4/2025 5:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed that there was
no estate tax.
<snip>
Besides there being no inheritance tax or estate tax, the first $13.61 million in value of an inheritance is exempt from Capital Gains taxes,
thanks to the Step-Up in Basis rule.
California ranks 35th in the country for property tax percentage, and
thanks to Prop 13, long time homeowners pay a pittance in property tax, including on inherited property prior to December 16, 2020 (when Prop 19
took effect).
With Prop 19, heirs get $1 million off the assessed value of property
they inherit (or they pay the current assessed value, whichever is
greater). Since Tom's property is worth less than $1 million, the
property tax rate of any heirs would not go up at all.
However California has the highest income tax rate in the country, which
is why so many wealthy people establish residency in Nevada.
Where Tom lives, the sales tax is a whopping 10.75%, but in nearby San Francisco it's 8.625%, more than 2% lower. For any large purchases he
should go to San Francisco. In my city it's 9.13%.
If Tom paid anything in inheritance taxes then his accountant was either incompetent or was stealing from him.
--
?If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.??Tin Foil Awards
On 4/5/2025 9:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/4/2025 5:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas
tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property
taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and
ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed
that there was
no estate tax.
<snip>
Besides there being no inheritance tax or estate tax, the
first $13.61 million in value of an inheritance is exempt
from Capital Gains taxes, thanks to the Step-Up in Basis rule.
California ranks 35th in the country for property tax
percentage, and thanks to Prop 13, long time homeowners pay
a pittance in property tax, including on inherited property
prior to December 16, 2020 (when Prop 19 took effect).
With Prop 19, heirs get $1 million off the assessed value of
property they inherit (or they pay the current assessed
value, whichever is greater). Since Tom's property is worth
less than $1 million, the property tax rate of any heirs
would not go up at all.
However California has the highest income tax rate in the
country, which is why so many wealthy people establish
residency in Nevada.
Where Tom lives, the sales tax is a whopping 10.75%, but in
nearby San Francisco it's 8.625%, more than 2% lower. For
any large purchases he should go to San Francisco. In my
city it's 9.13%.
If Tom paid anything in inheritance taxes then his
accountant was either incompetent or was stealing from him.
Many ways to view that or parse it.
For 2023, selected states by population, annual budget and
simple ratio:
Florida 24 million people, $116 billion budget = 4.8
New York 20 million people, $122 billion budget = 6.1
California 40 million people, $308 billion budget = 7.7
I don't doubt you that there are local differences of sales
tax and property tax within California.
California is however a high-tax State and the voters seem
to prefer it that way.
On 4/5/2025 10:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2025 9:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/4/2025 5:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus
salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed that there was >>> no estate tax.
<snip>
Besides there being no inheritance tax or estate tax, the first $13.61
million in value of an inheritance is exempt from Capital Gains taxes,
thanks to the Step-Up in Basis rule.
California ranks 35th in the country for property tax percentage, and
thanks to Prop 13, long time homeowners pay a pittance in property
tax, including on inherited property prior to December 16, 2020 (when
Prop 19 took effect).
With Prop 19, heirs get $1 million off the assessed value of property
they inherit (or they pay the current assessed value, whichever is
greater). Since Tom's property is worth less than $1 million, the
property tax rate of any heirs would not go up at all.
However California has the highest income tax rate in the country,
which is why so many wealthy people establish residency in Nevada.
Where Tom lives, the sales tax is a whopping 10.75%, but in nearby San
Francisco it's 8.625%, more than 2% lower. For any large purchases he
should go to San Francisco. In my city it's 9.13%.
If Tom paid anything in inheritance taxes then his accountant was
either incompetent or was stealing from him.
Many ways to view that or parse it.
For 2023, selected states by population, annual budget and simple ratio:
Florida 24 million people, $116 billion budget = 4.8
New York 20 million people, $122 billion budget = 6.1
California 40 million people, $308 billion budget = 7.7
I don't doubt you that there are local differences of sales tax and property tax within California.
California is however a high-tax State and the voters seem to prefer it that way.
Illinois is a high tax state and everyone is trying to get out who
happen to be conservatives. The nuts running this state all are against anything that might be helpful that Trump is doing. Out property taxes
are the 2nd highest in the nation.
On 4/4/2025 6:34 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 21:42:58 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I have to wonder why only the real losers in the world have to change real facts to fit their narative.
Do you suppose that they really think that it was Trump that invented tariffs?
LOL. No tariffs (also known as taxes paid only by consumers) exist for thousands of years. They were the main cause of the great depression
at the beginning of the last century. The American economy "broke",
and took down the economies of its allies.
Trump as probably the first American President to use tariffs to
manipulate the market and make billions buying cheap and selling high
and betraying pension funds and small investors. Him and his
billionaire buddies, Maybe that's what you a referring to.
Do you suppose these olittle closet communists reall think that taxing the rich is a good idea?
Basically, it was what the "New Deal" was all about. America grew so
much that by the 60's - 70's it produced 60% of ALL industrial
products in the world. That is the maximum America has ever produced. Millionaires were taxed > 80% on their earnings. They had to work hard
and employ a lot to expand their businesses and continue rich.
Then they complain that they can't get a job aned want the government to support them.
The "New Deal" collapsed when Reagan removed taxes from the rich and shifted them on to the working class and pensioners. And now China is
the World's #1 economy.... there are more homeless and unemployed (percentage-wise, obviously) in the US than in China.
PS If you're interested in pro-market right wing publications, read
this month's "The Economist". They are not perfect, in fact I'd call
them classic repuglicans, but are not usually wrong in their
predictions...
Oh, I forgot. "The Economist" is a British product. You probably can't afford it any more...
[]'s
Tax revenue as percent of GDP shows no direct relationship
to statutory marginal rates or political policy:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217533/revenues-from-income-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/
Oh, and about that "94%" rate (which virtually no one ever
paid), it ran only in FDR's last full year alive and into
1945, dropped after the war to 91% and continued until
Lyndon Johnson, with Democrats running both chambers,
dropped it to 77%:
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates
Concise overview and 1913~2025 chart here:
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
chambers, dropped it to 77%:I'm sure "virtually no one ever paid" the high marginal tax rates,
largely because people earning that much money invest in tax experts and lawyers to minimize their tax burdens by any legal, and some very questionable tactics.
But I think it's significant that with top tax percentage rates in the
90s, then in the 70s, the country was generally quite prosperous. Middle class prosperity soared. So what was the downside?
True, we had fewer millionaires and no multibillionaires, but as I
recall, we got along pretty well without them.
Overall, I think the government should be doing less to help
megamillionaires and more to help, say, a couple elderly widows I've met
who are both trying to scrape by only on Social Security. Don't worry,
Musk and Bezos and Zuckerberg won't go hungry. Honest!
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Jan Heine of Rene Herse Cycles discusses tariffs in detail:
https://www.renehersecycles.com/bikes-in-the-age-of-tariffs/
The few MTB ones seemed even less positive, particularly if relatively
small and high end ie carbon which is labour intensive.
Not sure certainly in the Bike industry that it needs America? Is SRAM and some of the bike companies that started with MTB, but in terms of bikes
made and parts for them?
Case in point our club kit manufacturers just changed suppliers ie no
longer using a US company.
Can?t see this ending well a recession seems inevitable certainly for the
US at least, and unlike last times other countries where allies, so isn?t much incentive to bargain etc.
On 4/4/2025 5:42 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Apr 4 11:26:12 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 4/4/2025 11:16 AM, sms wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while
decreasing them on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so
Reaganesque with the fraud of "Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be
disastrous since a new bike, a new phone, or even a new car,
is not generally a required purchase, and consumers will be
unwilling to pay much more. So companies like Trek will
likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more
business as consumers spend more to keep their existing
vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just
have to pay more for the same items or switch to lower-cost
items.
You can have whatever opinion you like but not your own
facts. 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/
Moreover, various Cassandras notwithstanding, no significant
changes to the current (2017 Act) schedules are in play.
Regarding Trek, otherwise known as The Great Chinese Bicycle
Selling Company, meh.
I have to wonder why only the real losers in the world have to change real facts to fit their narative.
Like "there was no recession before obama took office"?
Do you suppose that they really think that it was Trump that invented tariffs?
"That is not only not right; it is not even wrong"
Do you suppose these olittle closet communists reall think that taxing the rich is a good idea?
Little closet communists don't believe anyone should be rich enough to qualify for "tax the rich". You keep getting these basic PoliSci
concepts wrong. Perhaps you should stop.
Then they complain that they can't get a job aned want the government to support them.
And tell me you never took any unemployment benefits.
On 4/6/2025 8:13 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 07:46:16 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Exceptions abound within all non-white or non-male examples. This in no
way affects the facts around institutionalized racism in this country.
Although perhaps not as obvious but what is basically "racism" exists
in many societies. As an example, here (Thailand) Americans are
generally considered rather stupid and are normally over charged.
I agree that racism is extremely common throughout the world. I once
read that human societies (from tribes up to nations) tend to welcome
single foreigners as interesting temporary visitors, but tend to get
much more skeptical when, say, clusters show up to move in. And when
larger numbers arrive, it's treated as an "invasion."
The U.S. is an oddball country. Its origin was based on (mostly inadvertently) killing off the aboriginals, leaving much of the land unclaimed; then on importing (mostly) Europeans in wave after wave to
make productive use of the land.
But each new wave went through the "invasion" gauntlet. "No Irish Need
Apply" and all that. But most - Irish, German, Italian, Polish, etc. -
were eventually able to blend in.
Those of African origin could not blend in unless they were white enough
to "pass." They're still considered part of an "invasion." And yes, that attitude has been in our institutions for a long, long time.
On 4/5/2025 11:38 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 4/5/2025 10:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2025 9:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/4/2025 5:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus
salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed that there was >>>> no estate tax.
<snip>
Besides there being no inheritance tax or estate tax, the first
$13.61 million in value of an inheritance is exempt from Capital
Gains taxes, thanks to the Step-Up in Basis rule.
California ranks 35th in the country for property tax percentage, and
thanks to Prop 13, long time homeowners pay a pittance in property
tax, including on inherited property prior to December 16, 2020 (when
Prop 19 took effect).
With Prop 19, heirs get $1 million off the assessed value of property
they inherit (or they pay the current assessed value, whichever is
greater). Since Tom's property is worth less than $1 million, the
property tax rate of any heirs would not go up at all.
However California has the highest income tax rate in the country,
which is why so many wealthy people establish residency in Nevada.
Where Tom lives, the sales tax is a whopping 10.75%, but in nearby
San Francisco it's 8.625%, more than 2% lower. For any large
purchases he should go to San Francisco. In my city it's 9.13%.
If Tom paid anything in inheritance taxes then his accountant was
either incompetent or was stealing from him.
Many ways to view that or parse it.
For 2023, selected states by population, annual budget and simple ratio: >>
Florida 24 million people, $116 billion budget = 4.8
New York 20 million people, $122 billion budget = 6.1
California 40 million people, $308 billion budget = 7.7
I don't doubt you that there are local differences of sales tax and
property tax within California.
California is however a high-tax State and the voters seem to prefer
it that way.
Illinois is a high tax state and everyone is trying to get out who
happen to be conservatives. The nuts running this state all are against anything that might be helpful that Trump is doing. Out property taxes
are the 2nd highest in the nation.
<trying to think of anything helpful trump is doing........> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4
On 4/5/2025 10:38 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 4/5/2025 10:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2025 9:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/4/2025 5:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas
tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property
taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001
and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed
that there was
no estate tax.
<snip>
Besides there being no inheritance tax or estate tax, the
first $13.61 million in value of an inheritance is exempt
from Capital Gains taxes, thanks to the Step-Up in Basis
rule.
California ranks 35th in the country for property tax
percentage, and thanks to Prop 13, long time homeowners
pay a pittance in property tax, including on inherited
property prior to December 16, 2020 (when Prop 19 took
effect).
With Prop 19, heirs get $1 million off the assessed value
of property they inherit (or they pay the current
assessed value, whichever is greater). Since Tom's
property is worth less than $1 million, the property tax
rate of any heirs would not go up at all.
However California has the highest income tax rate in the
country, which is why so many wealthy people establish
residency in Nevada.
Where Tom lives, the sales tax is a whopping 10.75%, but
in nearby San Francisco it's 8.625%, more than 2% lower.
For any large purchases he should go to San Francisco. In
my city it's 9.13%.
If Tom paid anything in inheritance taxes then his
accountant was either incompetent or was stealing from him.
Many ways to view that or parse it.
For 2023, selected states by population, annual budget and
simple ratio:
Florida 24 million people, $116 billion budget = 4.8
New York 20 million people, $122 billion budget = 6.1
California 40 million people, $308 billion budget = 7.7
I don't doubt you that there are local differences of
sales tax and property tax within California.
California is however a high-tax State and the voters seem
to prefer it that way.
Illinois is a high tax state and everyone is trying to get
out who happen to be conservatives. The nuts running this
state all are against anything that might be helpful that
Trump is doing. Out property taxes are the 2nd highest in
the nation.
As with the sales tax differential from San Francisco to
Oakland, direct comparisons are sometimes difficult.
Illinois does indeed have high property taxes. And high
sales taxes (even more in some localities). And high fuel
taxes. And more quasi-governmental taxing bodies than most
States (mosquito districts, water/sewage districts, forestry
districts etc besides school districts). And less State
direct funding to municipalities, who more than make up that
lack in many and various ways.
All of which makes Illinois State annual budget to
population not directly comparable to the three above, who
have roughly (not exactly) similar policies.
Illinois 13 million people, $54 billion budget = 4.15
On 4/6/2025 12:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Apr 4 17:59:08 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed that there was
no estate tax.
As is usual for Liebermann - "Welcome to the State Controller's Website
The page you requested is not found"
:-) This is hilarious.
As usual for Kunich, the site he can't access works for me.
This "internet" thing absolutely baffles Tom! :-)
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 12:52:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Trust, but verify.On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:16:05 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while decreasing them >>on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so Reaganesque with the fraud of >>"Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be disastrous since a >>new bike, a new phone, or even a new car, is not generally a required >>purchase, and consumers will be unwilling to pay much more. So companies >>like Trek will likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more business as >>consumers spend more to keep their existing vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just have to pay >>more for the same items or switch to lower-cost items.
Much of the food we USAians eat is produced in the USA
(by "illegal immigrants")
, so it won't be
affected by tariffs. The current high grocery prices are a product of
the inflation that happened over the last four years.
Most countries apply some tariffs on most goods, but since tariffs are paid by the countries population, it?s normally low as your voters are paying
the tariffs.
You are aware you?re going to paying for the tariffs yes? Particularly with your Aliexpress etc parts and what not! And if you really do have money in the market that has lost value and is continuing to do so.
As per my last post this isn?t going to end well!
On 4/6/2025 12:55 PM, cyclintom wrote:nearly succeeded. And would have it not for the US supplying arms and ammunition to the brave Russian people at Stalingrad.
Stalin literally killed millions simply because they had money. And then when there was no one else to grow the food and build the weapons Hitler who himself was nothing more than a closet communist under the mantle of socialism attacked them and
One of these days you will cease making an absolute fool out of yourself. Probably after you die.
We keeping hoping one of these days you'll get some simple aspect of
history right. Today isn't one of those days.
On 4/6/2025 2:55 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/6/2025 12:55 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Stalin literally killed millions simply because they had money. And
then when there was no one else to grow the food and build the weapons
Hitler who himself was nothing more than a closet communist under the
mantle of socialism attacked them and nearly succeeded. And would have
it not for the US supplying arms and ammunition to the brave Russian
people at Stalingrad.
One of these days you will cease making an absolute fool out of
yourself. Probably after you die.
We keeping hoping one of these days you'll get some simple aspect of history right. Today isn't one of those days.
Sorry to disagree, Zen, but I've long given up any hope of Tom improving.
On 4/6/2025 11:43 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Apr 4 20:08:37 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 4/4/2025 6:34 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 21:42:58 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I have to wonder why only the real losers in the world have to change real facts to fit their narative.
Do you suppose that they really think that it was Trump that invented tariffs?
LOL. No tariffs (also known as taxes paid only by consumers) exist for >>> thousands of years. They were the main cause of the great depression
at the beginning of the last century. The American economy "broke",
and took down the economies of its allies.
Trump as probably the first American President to use tariffs to
manipulate the market and make billions buying cheap and selling high
and betraying pension funds and small investors. Him and his
billionaire buddies, Maybe that's what you a referring to.
Do you suppose these olittle closet communists reall think that taxing the rich is a good idea?
Basically, it was what the "New Deal" was all about. America grew so
much that by the 60's - 70's it produced 60% of ALL industrial
products in the world. That is the maximum America has ever produced.
Millionaires were taxed > 80% on their earnings. They had to work hard >>> and employ a lot to expand their businesses and continue rich.
Then they complain that they can't get a job aned want the government to support them.
The "New Deal" collapsed when Reagan removed taxes from the rich and
shifted them on to the working class and pensioners. And now China is
the World's #1 economy.... there are more homeless and unemployed
(percentage-wise, obviously) in the US than in China.
PS If you're interested in pro-market right wing publications, read
this month's "The Economist". They are not perfect, in fact I'd call
them classic repuglicans, but are not usually wrong in their
predictions...
Oh, I forgot. "The Economist" is a British product. You probably can't >>> afford it any more...
[]'s
Tax revenue as percent of GDP shows no direct relationship
to statutory marginal rates or political policy:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217533/revenues-from-income-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/
Oh, and about that "94%" rate (which virtually no one ever
paid), it ran only in FDR's last full year alive and into
1945, dropped after the war to 91% and continued until
Lyndon Johnson, with Democrats running both chambers,
dropped it to 77%:
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates
Concise overview and 1913~2025 chart here:
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
sourse of corruption that would put normal people in prison for life.But let it be said that the Democrats spent the Social Security Trust Fund against the cries of the Republicans. This gave the Democrats the power to claim that people like Trump are going to kill social security when they have been using it as a
Except for FDR and the 1930s Democrat majority Congresses at
the start, it's been both parties ever since. There never
was any "trust fund" or "lock box".
Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is an insult o
Charles Ponzi. He at least had some cleverness.
On 4/6/2025 12:49 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Apr 4 21:43:55 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
chambers, dropped it to 77%:I'm sure "virtually no one ever paid" the high marginal tax rates,
largely because people earning that much money invest in tax experts and >> lawyers to minimize their tax burdens by any legal, and some very
questionable tactics.
But I think it's significant that with top tax percentage rates in the
90s, then in the 70s, the country was generally quite prosperous. Middle >> class prosperity soared. So what was the downside?
True, we had fewer millionaires and no multibillionaires, but as I
recall, we got along pretty well without them.
Overall, I think the government should be doing less to help
megamillionaires and more to help, say, a couple elderly widows I've met >> who are both trying to scrape by only on Social Security. Don't worry,
Musk and Bezos and Zuckerberg won't go hungry. Honest!
Frank, rather than implying criminal acts by people simply because they have money tell us some specific cases of "questionable practices". Trump and Musk are donating 100% of their government salaries to charity.
Gee tommy, tell us exactly what musks salary is.
And many many other very rich people give huge amounts of money to charities. For many, many years NPR and PBS were the benefactors of this largess until they grew so far left wing that they were attacking the very people funding them.
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 08:52:01 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 13:18:19 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:00:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 4/4/2025 11:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Trust, but verify.On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:16:05 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while decreasing them >>>>> on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so Reaganesque with the fraud of >>>>> "Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be disastrous since a >>>>> new bike, a new phone, or even a new car, is not generally a required >>>>> purchase, and consumers will be unwilling to pay much more. So companies
like Trek will likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more business as >>>>> consumers spend more to keep their existing vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just have to pay >>>>> more for the same items or switch to lower-cost items.
Much of the food we USAians eat is produced in the USA, so it won't be >>>> affected by tariffs. The current high grocery prices are a product of >>>> the inflation that happened over the last four years.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
The tariffs imposed during Mr Trump's first term, which also
elicited dramatic tales of future horrors, were not
rescinded by the Obama-Biden team over four long years, even
though that is well within Presidential powers. Not one.
We USAians are a huge block of consumers and that's a powerful force. >>It's a shame not to use that power for our benefit, and tariffs do
that.
Vegetable Imported From Total Market Value (USD)
Bell Peppers Mexico $1.4 billion
Cucumbers Mexico $607 million
Cauliflower,
Broccoli Mexico $301 million
Asparagus Mexico $386 million
Now add 30 or so % import duty :-(
It seems to me that we can grow that stuff here in the USA, and an
import tariff might be the way to do it.
Sure you can grow stuff in the U.S. just as you can build bicycles in
the U.S., or, autos, or computers or any of the other things that are imported. So why don't they?
Trying to thing of anything trump is doing that will result in even the tiniest fraction of $3T........
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
The web page actually says "California State Controller's Office".
<https://www.google.com/search?num=10&q=hear%20see%20speak%20no%20evil&udm=2> Hear - You don't listen.
See - You can't read.
Speak - You can write, but that's ok because nobody believes you.
I would expect you to know more about inheritance and estate taxes.
You have a wife, three adopted daughters and two brothers with
identical names. Since you don't seem to have any plan to leave some
of your millions to your family members, perhaps you could send some
to a worthwhile charity, such as myself. Or, are you becoming
vindictive and prefer to have your family do battle in probate court?
Perhaps a large pile of paper money and self-immolation will attract
the attention you seem to crave. <https://www.google.com/search?q=burning%20pile%20of%20money&udm=2>
On 4/6/2025 11:07 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Apr 4 17:59:08 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 23:36:14 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In California add to the top rate another 12%. plus gas tax, plus salews tax,plus 50% inheretance tax, property taxes.
The California estate tax was reduced starting in 2001 and ended in
2005:
<https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_estate_tax.html>
Since your mother died in 2019, you should have noticed that there was
no estate tax.
"Estate tax is paid by the estate on its net value, while inheritance
tax is paid by beneficiaries on what they receive, with estate taxes
going to the [federal] government and inheritance taxes to state
governments."
"Only six states currently impose inheritance taxes: Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania."
<https://www.actec.org/resources-for-wealth-planning-professionals/state-death-tax-chart/>
"Tax is tied to federal state death tax credit. CA REV & TAX ??
13302; 13411.
State Type of Tax: None.
2025 State Death Tax Threshold: None
and more because all of the rich have left so the have to bleed the poor. >>Tom, you claimed to have millions in investments. Why are you still
living in California?
03/05/2025
<https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=121640&group=rec.bicycles.tech#121640>
"I GAVE $60,000 to my brothers... In order to protect my investments
from any possible recession I have moved from growth stocks into fuds
like Govertrnment bonds which pay low interest rates rather than
growth. And I still have increased my investments to over $1.1
Million."
As is usual for Liebermann - "Welcome to the State Controller's Website
The page you requested is not found"
Displays for me.
That's not a 'trust fund' except to you and The Red Queen,
who make words mean anything you wish.
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 14:53:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/6/2025 12:49 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, rather than implying criminal acts by people simply because they have money tell us some specific cases of "questionable practices". Trump and Musk are donating 100% of their government salaries to charity.
Gee tommy, tell us exactly what musks salary is.
The exact amount he donates to poor people. I think that's
what Tom meant.
ZERO.
He isn't taking a salary at all, you fucking idiot.
On 4/6/2025 1:53 PM, zen cycle wrote:
" Gee tommy, tell us exactly what musks salary is."
A lot.
Much of his Tesla earnings, while structured as salary, are
more properly 'performance bonus' as it was and would have
remained zero had he not met extremely unlikely (when
written) goals. And it wasn't structured in all cash but
rather mostly in stock options. The consensus at the time
was that it was nearly impossible.
https://www.investopedia.com/elon-musks-multi-billion-dollar-pay-package-8757243
"In 2018, Tesla's board and then the shareholders approved a
compensation plan for Musk worth up to around $56 billion at
the time. This performance-based package granted Musk stock
options contingent upon achieving specific milestones
related to Tesla's market capitalization and operational
targets.
Each milestone unlocked additional stock options, aiming to
align Musk's incentives with the company's growth. Notably,
Musk would not receive a salary or any cash bonuses as CEO,
emphasizing a commitment to Tesla's long-term success."
I was referring specifically to "Trump and Musk are donating 100% of
their government salaries to charity.", which in musks case is exactly
$0 - hence musk isn't contributing any government salary to charity
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 16:49:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Trump and Musk are donating 100% of their government salaries to charity.
All the corrupt politicians do that here in Brazil too.
The ones that do not steal need their salaries to live on....
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 16:49:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>give huge amounts of money to charities. For many, many years NPR and PBS were the benefactors of this largess until they grew so far left wing that they were attacking the very people funding them.
wrote:
Frank, rather than implying criminal acts by people simply because they have money tell us some specific cases of "questionable practices". Trump and Musk are donating 100% of their government salaries to charity. And many many other very rich people
Elon Musk launders his donations through the Musk Foundation: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk_Foundation>
You might find the end recipients of his charitable donations to be
rather self serving. Also:
"Both the selection of recipients of donations and a relatively low
payout ratio have been criticized. In 2021 and 2022, the Musk
Foundation awarded less than 5% of its assets in donations, after its
assets grew to several billion dollars. This means that it fell short
of the legal minimum donation required to maintain its tax-exempt
status."
lol....TRy to find any passage in your link which supports
- killed millions simply because they had money
- hitler was able to invade because there was _no_ one left to do agricultural or industrial labor.
I'll give you a little credit for The US contributions via the
lend-lease act, but you're 1 for 3, (which is actually pretty good for you)
On 4/4/2025 11:16 AM, sms wrote:
The whole idea of increasing taxes on the masses, while
decreasing them on the wealthy, is so Republican, and so
Reaganesque with the fraud of "Trickle-Down Economics."
These new high taxes on discretionary items will be
disastrous since a new bike, a new phone, or even a new car,
is not generally a required purchase, and consumers will be
unwilling to pay much more. So companies like Trek will
likely absorb some of the tariffs by accepting lower margins.
OTOH, some businesses, like car repair shops will see more
business as consumers spend more to keep their existing
vehicle working.
For items that are not discretionary, like food, we'll just
have to pay more for the same items or switch to lower-cost
items.
You can have whatever opinion you like but not your own
facts. 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/
Moreover, various Cassandras notwithstanding, no significant
changes to the current (2017 Act) schedules are in play.
Regarding Trek, otherwise known as The Great Chinese Bicycle
Selling Company, meh.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:15:05 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,875 |
| Posted today: | 1 |