On 4/4/2024 9:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 4:51 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/4/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
>>>>> fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is an immediate credible threat to human life, one's own
>>>>> or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the threat, as the
>>>>> general rule, is viewed as reasonable self defense (some States
>>>>> limit the circumstance, some severely. None are more expansive).
>>>>>
>>>>> A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as negligent
>>>>> discharge, escalation or even provocation. Depending on how
>>>>> connected this guy is in our much degraded judicial system, he may
>>>>> well be charged. I think he ought to be.
>>>>
>>>> He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
>>>>
>>>> The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out the
>>>> incident was months ago. The young guys in question told the story
>>>> only recently.
>>>>
>>>> And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real nerve
>>>> for local law enforcement to go after a state senator regarding a
>>>> months-old incident, even if his own statements about it are damning.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
>>
>> Please explain how a suicide is in any way related to an idiot firing
>> a shotgun in the general direction of someone who wasn't a threat.
>>
>> And yes, Fosters death was a suicide. Conspiracy theories to the
>> contrary are on par with stories of a democrat satanic pedophile cult
>> being run on the basement of a pizza shop (which, interestingly
>> enough, doesn't have a basement).
>>
>> Perhaps you meant the Cheney rule......
>>
> We can agree Mr Cheney should not be handling firearms. Negligence IMHO
> and he's lucky the victim recovered.
>
> Mr Foster's death, like the death of Seth Rich, was amazingly convenient...

Only to conspiracy theorists.

--
Add xx to reply

On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with
>>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
>>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
>>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>>
>> I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
>>
> The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at least a decade,
> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is related to power output
> as with battery powered models the lumens increases slightly incrementally
> each year.
>
> It’s about £250 for
>
> https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo

Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or a car
headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want
>>>> lights with
>>>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
>>>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
>>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
>>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
>>>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>>>
>>> I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
>>>
>> The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at least a decade,
>> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is related to power output
>> as with battery powered models the lumens increases slightly incrementally
>> each year.
>> It’s about £250 for
>> https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
>
> Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or a car
> headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.

One hour standlight is pretty cool, but still too rich for my blood.

--

On 4/4/2024 4:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least
> compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
> to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
> yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
>
> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with
> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.

I have dynamo wheels on some bikes, a Dahon folder, my road bike, and
one other. These are adequate for DRLs, but of course for night riding,
even the higher-end dymano light I have is not sufficient on unlit roads
or MUPs, and being from Europe there is no flash mode.

What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.

--
“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 4/5/2024 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I
>>>> want lights with
>>>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one
>>>> dynamo lights with
>>>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s
>>>> power output is
>>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my
>>>> light kicks out at
>>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that,
>>>> as it uses how fast
>>>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>>>
>>> I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
>>>
>> The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at
>> least a decade,
>> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is
>> related to power output
>> as with battery powered models the lumens increases
>> slightly incrementally
>> each year.
>>
>> It’s about £250 for
>>
>> https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
>
> Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or
> a car headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
>

Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want
>>>>> lights with
>>>>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
>>>>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
>>>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
>>>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
>>>>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
>>>>
>>> The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at least a decade,
>>> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is related to power output
>>> as with battery powered models the lumens increases slightly incrementally
>>> each year.
>>> It’s about £250 for
>>> https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
>>
>> Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or a car
>> headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
>
> One hour standlight is pretty cool, but still too rich for my blood.
>
It’s really has quite a niche market ie a Dynamo powered light for off road
riding, particularly as battery powered lights as well as being more
powerful by quite some margin will last for a number of hours.

Ie it will feel fairly underwhelming very quickly off road once past dirt
roads, into more technical terrain. And considering folks will need/want to
charge phones GPS units so on, be that via a power supply or power bank
it’s reason to be is quite narrow use case.

I have an older Exposure Strada 600 on offer? Wasn’t that expensive £100 or
so probably last years model and so on, which I use for the commute and did
use for Gravel riding though it really does better if you keep to dirt
roads than the woods due to beam shape.

And I have an Exposure Race which is a year or so old, which I use for
night time adventures on the Gravel bike and occasionally the MTB it was
expensive (£240) but equally impressive bit of kit in that it will light up
the woods and it’s auto power level works very well and means it lasts good
few hours.

Personally a better upgrade than say new wheels or so on, but everyone has
different expectations, and uses.

Roger Merriman

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%

The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.

If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
US is the lowest:
"Consumption Tax Trends"
<https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>
> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>
> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
> US is the lowest:
> "Consumption Tax Trends"
> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".

And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
else.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>
>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>
>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
>> US is the lowest:
>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
>
> And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax rate
> schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any rationality, efficiency,
> fairness or logic, here or anywhere else.
>

C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy, regardless of how
rational, efficient, fair, or logical it was.

--
Add xx to reply

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 4:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least
>> compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
>> to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
>> yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
>>
>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with
>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>
> I have dynamo wheels on some bikes, a Dahon folder, my road bike, and
> one other. These are adequate for DRLs, but of course for night riding,
> even the higher-end dymano light I have is not sufficient on unlit roads
> or MUPs, and being from Europe there is no flash mode.

Kinda depends on what you mean by Europe but certainly most of the lights
including even my exposure Race lights have a flash mode, it’s not within
the main toggle mode and can’t say I’ve ever used it!
>
> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
> dynamo, but there is no such animal. A dynamo to USB-C PD adapter would
> be perfect but all the dynamo USB commercial products are to 5VDC only.
>
I believe sort of is, with e bike lights ie they draw from the main
battery, I suspect that considering that stuff like my Exposure Race has a
fairly large battery capacity between two and three times more than your
iPhone say, that would require very long days in the saddle to charge that
up!

Roger Merriman

On 4/5/2024 1:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi
>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>>
>>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>>
>>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales
>>> tax rates,
>>> US is the lowest:
>>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
>>> Development".
>>
>> And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income
>> tax rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
>> rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or
>> anywhere else.
>>
>
> C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy,
> regardless of how rational, efficient, fair, or logical it was.
>

Well, yes I would.
Any counterexamples anywhere on earth I may have missed?
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/5/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 1:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>>>
>>>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>>>
>>>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
>>>> US is the lowest:
>>>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>>>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>>>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
>>>
>>> And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax rate
>>> schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any rationality, efficiency,
>>> fairness or logic, here or anywhere else.
>>>
>>
>> C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy, regardless of how
>> rational, efficient, fair, or logical it was.
>>
>
> Well, yes I would.
> Any counterexamples anywhere on earth I may have missed?

That's hardly an objective argument
--
Add xx to reply

On 4/5/2024 3:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/5/2024 1:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi
>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>>>>
>>>>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're shopping for the lowest international
>>>>> VAT/sales tax rates,
>>>>> US is the lowest:
>>>>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>>>>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>>>>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
>>>>> Development".
>>>>
>>>> And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income
>>>> tax rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
>>>> rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or
>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy,
>>> regardless of how rational, efficient, fair, or logical
>>> it was.
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes I would.
>> Any counterexamples anywhere on earth I may have missed?
>
> That's hardly an objective argument

Initial efforts have historically been relatively fair,
efficient and defensible. Not much time passes until the
encrustations of exemptions, cutouts, rebates, special
clauses (both favoring and punishing various groups),
'temporary' surcharges and such pile up, all while the
administrative cost climbs relative to revenue.

Even the despotic Vladmir Putin, who filled his treasury
twenty years ago with a flat and uniform 13% tax, has begun
those machinations. When it was a low and even rate
everyone, yes including the corrupt classes, paid it as
there was little incentive to finagle around it.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/5/2024 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/5/2024 5:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I
>>>>> want lights with
>>>>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one
>>>>> dynamo lights with
>>>>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s
>>>>> power output is
>>>>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my
>>>>> light kicks out at
>>>>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that,
>>>>> as it uses how fast
>>>>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
>>>>
>>> The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at
>>> least a decade,
>>> unlike the battery powered models which I assume is
>>> related to power output
>>> as with battery powered models the lumens increases
>>> slightly incrementally
>>> each year.
>>>
>>> It’s about £250 for
>>>
>>> https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo
>>
>> Wow. I've never paid close to that for a bike headlight. Or
>> a car headlight, motorcycle headlight, etc.
>>
>
>Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%

All bike lights are too expensive for me, in fact, you'd have to pay
me to take one and then I'd just give it away. I don't ride in the
dark, I walk in the dark. I carry a small flashight, but don't very
often turn it on.

On 4/5/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 1:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/5/2024 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>>>
>>>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>>>
>>>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
>>>> US is the lowest:
>>>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>>>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>>>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
>>>
>>> And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax rate
>>> schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any rationality, efficiency,
>>> fairness or logic, here or anywhere else.
>>>
>>
>> C'mon Andrew, you'd say that about _any_ tax policy, regardless of how
>> rational, efficient, fair, or logical it was.
>>
>
> Well, yes I would.
> Any counterexamples anywhere on earth I may have missed?

Mogadishu and Port-Au-Prince. Tax collection is probably zero there, at
least at the moment.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>
> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
> dynamo, but there is no such animal.

ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
benefits are too minor to make it marketable.

But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical
Engineer be able to design and build one?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:00:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>
>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>
>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
>> US is the lowest:
>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".

>And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
>rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
>rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
>else.

Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
should finance our government using the traditional methods of
sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you
want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:54:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:00:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>>
>>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>>
>>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
>>> US is the lowest:
>>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
>
>>And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
>>rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
>>rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
>>else.
>
>Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
>should finance our government using the traditional methods of
>sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
>fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you
>want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
>politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
>of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.

Government "leaders" not only decide what's fair and logical, but
lately, it seems, what you should be allowed to hear and say. They are
also allowed to spy on citizens to insure that we all do what "they"
decide is in our best interest.

On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:00:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2024 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:54:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, there's British 20% VAT vs Ohio's 6%
>>>
>>> The US average sales tax rate is about 8.3%.
>>>
>>> If you're shopping for the lowest international VAT/sales tax rates,
>>> US is the lowest:
>>> "Consumption Tax Trends"
>>> <https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/consumption-tax-trends-united-states.pdf>
>>> OECD is "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development".
>
>> And we have among the world's most 'progressive' income tax
>> rate schemes. Tax revenue policy seldom shows any
>> rationality, efficiency, fairness or logic, here or anywhere
>> else.
>
> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you
> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>

The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI
Amendment. Predictably the situation has degraded such that
more than half of us pay zip and many of those have a
negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they are paid to be here.
So much for 'shared burden'. And also predictably election
results reflect the avarice and envy of the takers against
the makers, creating societal and cultural divisions to our
greater loss. There has to be a better way. And there was.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 12:36 PM, sms wrote:
>>
>> What would be nice is a higher-end battery powered light that could be
>> charged with a dynamo, and operate at lower power directly from the
>> dynamo, but there is no such animal.
>
> ISTM that the market generally finds a way to fill almost all real
> needs. If such a thing doesn't exist, it's probably a signal that the
> benefits are too minor to make it marketable.

Also the technical aspect ie charging such as high capacity battery plus
running it even at a low draw.
>
> But if a person really wanted such an item, shouldn't some Electrical
> Engineer be able to design and build one?
>
Roger Merriman

On 4/5/2024 11:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries. This has worked
> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners). If you
> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.

A philosophy professor I knew well once told me about health care
corporations hiring philosophers to help justify their decisions. He
said "Philosophers come cheap!"

But they have to be treated with respect. What was that line from
_Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_? "You'll have a national
philosopher's strike on your hands!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
>> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.  This has worked
>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners).  If you
>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>
>
> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the incorporation
> of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI Amendment. Predictably the
> situation has degraded such that more than half of us pay zip and many
> of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they are paid to be
> here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also predictably election results
> reflect the avarice and envy of the takers against the makers, creating
> societal and cultural divisions to our greater loss.  There has to be a
> better way. And there was.

As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which leads
me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation in ways
you like?

I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate far
less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated benefits
are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more content. It's
not that there are zero problems, but that there seem to be far fewer
problems than we have.

Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S. did
things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally different
then regarding society, technology, morality, customs, personal freedom
etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's just go back to
all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the vote of almost all
women and blacks, and most of while males as well.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then
>>> perhaps we
>>> should finance our government using the traditional
>>> methods of
>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.  This
>>> has worked
>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the
>>> winners).  If you
>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors
>>> usually hire
>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their
>>> actions, all
>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>
>>
>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
>> incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI
>> Amendment. Predictably the situation has degraded such
>> that more than half of us pay zip and many of those have a
>> negative Federal tax burden, i.e., they are paid to be
>> here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also predictably
>> election results reflect the avarice and envy of the
>> takers against the makers, creating societal and cultural
>> divisions to our greater loss.  There has to be a better
>> way. And there was.
>
> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things.
> Which leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances
> its operation in ways you like?
>
> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that
> generate far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but
> tax-generated benefits are also far higher, and citizens are
> generally much more content. It's not that there are zero
> problems, but that there seem to be far fewer problems than
> we have.
>
> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say
> "The U.S. did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions
> were totally different then regarding society, technology,
> morality, customs, personal freedom etc. Anyone who
> campaigned for election saying "Let's just go back to all
> the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the vote of
> almost all women and blacks, and most of while males as well.
>

Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on
it later.

As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other
cultural failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed
so large a wealth increase and so fast and so broadly shared
as the USA between 1865 and 1914.

Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted
over the actual data:

https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america

But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so
'official numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent,
food, medical, walking around money, negative income tax and
so on) which are no longer negligible. They are in fact a
huge drain on our society. Economists have noted this for
years but in politics facts do not matter.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/6/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/6/2024 10:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/6/2024 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2024 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, if taxation is not your cup of tea (or blood), then perhaps we
>>>> should finance our government using the traditional methods of
>>>> sacking, plundering and pillaging other countries.  This has worked
>>>> fairly well since history has been recorded (by the winners).  If you
>>>> want some fairness and logic, successful conquerors usually hire
>>>> politicians, philosophers and economists to justify their actions, all
>>>> of which are summarily declared to be fair and logical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The original Constitution had a better ethos IMHO than the
>>> incorporation of envy as a guiding principle after the XVI Amendment.
>>> Predictably the situation has degraded such that more than half of us
>>> pay zip and many of those have a negative Federal tax burden, i.e.,
>>> they are paid to be here. So much for 'shared burden'. And also
>>> predictably election results reflect the avarice and envy of the
>>> takers against the makers, creating societal and cultural divisions
>>> to our greater loss.  There has to be a better way. And there was.
>>
>> As usual, I'm interested in how other nations manage things. Which
>> leads me to again ask: Is there a nation that finances its operation
>> in ways you like?
>>
>> I'm aware that much of Europe has economic structures that generate
>> far less economic disparity. Taxes are higher, but tax-generated
>> benefits are also far higher, and citizens are generally much more
>> content. It's not that there are zero problems, but that there seem to
>> be far fewer problems than we have.
>>
>> Also, when making comparisons, it seems simplistic to say "The U.S.
>> did things better in 1795" or whenever. Conditions were totally
>> different then regarding society, technology, morality, customs,
>> personal freedom etc. Anyone who campaigned for election saying "Let's
>> just go back to all the laws we had in 1795" would surely lose the
>> vote of almost all women and blacks, and most of while males as well.
>>
>
> Nice straw horse you have there. Maybe I'll help you beat on it later.
>
> As regards actual economics, and ignoring various other cultural
> failings you mention, no nation in history enjoyed so large a wealth
> increase and so fast and so broadly shared as the USA between 1865 and
> 1914.
>
> Regarding 'income disparity', the myth seems to have shouted over the
> actual data:
>
> https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-inequality-america
>
> But it serves some interests to perpetuate that lie, and so 'official
> numbers' utterly ignore public transfers (rent, food, medical, walking
> around money, negative income tax and so on) which are no longer
> negligible. They are in fact a huge drain on our society.  Economists
> have noted this for years but in politics facts do not matter.

Nice try, but you really didn't address my points.

You said "the original constitution had a better ethos." I tried to
explain that the original constitution had severe problems, and we're
never going back to it, for good reasons. Besides, let's remember that
every change in the constitution was, in effect, approved by the
constitution. It does specify a mechanism for changes, which is the
opposite of "Thou must never improve this document."

Also note, I didn't say "income disparity." I said "economic disparity."
There is a difference.

And your linked article is remarkably non-specific. It alludes to data
that it claims isn't counted, but it doesn't seem to be a source of much
of that data. I suppose they want me to buy that book, but they could
certainly have provided a bit more detail to convince me.

Regarding the surge in U.S. economics between 1865 and 1914: The U.S.
was in a pretty unique position in the world. By 1865, the original
inhabitants of the U.S. had been pretty thoroughly wiped out. The few
remaining were mostly confined on reservations. Their land was given
away or sold cheaply, and the resources on that land were up for grabs.

And being at the dawn of the industrial age, the U.S. had the technology
to take advantage of a continent full of untapped resources. So people
like Carnegie could purchase, control and use vast amounts of resources,
and make money using the new technology and the very inexpensive labor
of countless immigrants drawn in part by the promise of former Indian
land - even if that land was a small plot inside a city.

Those were huge advantages, ones that other countries lacked at least in
part. So I think the U.S. would have succeeded very well even with a
markedly different constitution or political system.

Also, your article offers no comparisons with the other nations I
mentioned. Again, it's consistently shown that many European nations
have a far more contented population than the U.S., plus lower crime
rates, less violence, more economic security, etc. Much of those are
attributed to a different attitude toward taxation, wealth and social care.

It's obvious that you don't prefer their tax, income, wealth and benefit
rules. But let me ask again: Since you're complaining about the American
set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you
like about it and why?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:41:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Since you're complaining about the American
>set of rules, is there a country whose rules you prefer? What do you
>like about it and why?
>
>--
>- Frank Krygowski

My preference is for an imaginary country where there are no
professional politicians (that means term limits for Congress) and
where the government responds to what the people believe to be in
their best interest instead of what the professional politicians say
say it is.

One does not need to specify a preferred existing country to dislike
the direction this country is going.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/direction-of-country