150k people pay 50% of California's individual tax.

Why do you assume that? Many people don't measure their happiness in terms of their net income. If you have enough money coming in to cover the lifestyle you like, more does not make you significantly happier. Living in a country and neighbourhood with good schools, good roads, good public health care, etc. - that adds to your happiness more than a bigger number on your bank balance.

Some people, of course, /do/ find happiness in simply having large amounts of money - or they find things they can do with the money that makes them happy. But not everyone does.

Precisely. Not all that difficult to understand, really.

I think it is difficult for many Americans to understand, because they see their government (or governments, at different levels) as the enemy of the people, stealing hard-earned money from people to waste through incompetence. As they see it, the target of any company or person is to earn enough money that it is cost-effective to pay accountants so you avoid paying taxes.

These same people are usually very happy to donate large amounts of money to charity or other "good causes".

In Europe, a lot more people appreciate that running society as a whole is a "good cause". We understand that the system is not perfect, there are inefficiencies, and there are plenty of priorities that we disagree with (we live in democracies - we vote to influence these things, and accept that not everyone thinks the same). But we also understand that for the most part, the government, civil service, and other authorities are doing their best for the common good. They are not "the enemy".

Yes indeed.

I'd add that there are inefficiencies/disadvantages in any and all systems - just as there are disadvantages in all technologies and components.

I'd also add that, whereas if They piss us off too much, We can replace the government, something that is impossible with unelected CEOs/boards. I've always found it strange that leftpondians are so pro democracy, but they don't apply that to unaccountable corporations.

Your sarcasm detector appears to be in good alignment. Thank you for participating in the test.

You seem like a good candidate for membership in snipped-for-privacy@groups.io. It's all they talk about. (and they want it that way)

workers that actually pay taxes? "

It is much worse than that. A quick look at usdebtclock will reveal about a third of the people filing income tax. Of them there are many low income w orkers. They get the standard exemption which means they only pay 15 % of m aybe half of what they make. And then there are the ones who get EIC (Earne d Income Credit) who pay much less and in some cases get a refund for more than what was withheld in the first place. I think it is more like a fourth of the people actually paying anything.

a third of the people filing income tax. Of them there are many low income workers. They get the standard exemption which means they only pay 15 % of maybe half of what they make. And then there are the ones who get EIC (Ear ned Income Credit) who pay much less and in some cases get a refund for mor e than what was withheld in the first place. I think it is more like a four th of the people actually paying anything.

But there's the equity argument that points out that if you are earning eno ugh money to pay a lot of tax, a lot of money the government spends is bein g spent on stuff that does a lot more for you than it does for people on lo wer incomes.

In times past the aristocrats not only paid most of the taxes that supporte d the army, but also provided most of it officers, mainly because if they d idn't the aristocrats on the other said of the border would invade the coun try and replace them. The people doing the actual work that kept the countr y running weren't as easy to replace and didn't care much which bunch of ar istocrats were running country.

Is this really a meaningful statistic or just another sound bite to get people worked up?

Wouldn't you expect the top income citizens to pay the most income tax? I suspect there is a clue in the name "income tax".

Rick C.

At first I thought you were making a joke, then I realized you meant a ?

Rick C.

Did anyone else notice this article doesn't cite a reference for the statement?

Rick C.

More money lets me buy more test equipment!

I subscribe to the digest, but since I have little to contribute on the subject of scope guts, I just lurk unless I have a question.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Yebbut a real cost is the time spent learning how to use it effectively. There's a limit to my time and therefore to the amount of /stuff/ I want to acquire.

Pre-web, a friend's relative stated that he was going to stop buying books. He realised that his stack of unread books that he wanted to read was too long to read in his remaining lifetime.

Same is true of test equipment.

The American middle class would much prefer to cut their own throats so long as they're given an assurance that the people getting "handouts" will have theirs cut worse.

e:

out a third of the people filing income tax. Of them there are many low inc ome workers. They get the standard exemption which means they only pay 15 % of maybe half of what they make. And then there are the ones who get EIC ( Earned Income Credit) who pay much less and in some cases get a refund for more than what was withheld in the first place. I think it is more like a f ourth of the people actually paying anything.

enough money to pay a lot of tax, a lot of money the government spends is being spent on stuff that does a lot more for you than it does for people o n lower incomes.

orted the army, but also provided most of it officers, mainly because if th ey didn't the aristocrats on the other said of the border would invade the country and replace them. The people doing the actual work that kept the co untry running weren't as easy to replace and didn't care much which bunch o f aristocrats were running country.

Throat cutting involves severing the carotid artery, which is rapidly fatal .

Once your throat is cut, it's game over - there's no better or worse cut th roat.

The American middle class is more in the state that they are being wrung ou t for the benefit of the rich, and the rich try to persuade them (with some success - look at Trump) to resent the tax money being spent on the poor, rather than the tax money not being collected from the very rich.

Despite professing to be superficially egalitarian my impression of Americans after living here on and off for the better part of 40 years is that white Americans have a very rigid sense of class/caste identity, much more rigid than the old British Empire probably was.

An American would certainly never come out and ask you as a direct question "What caste are you?", it must be indirectly inferred, but it's on people's minds a lot.

Punishment for hanging around the "wrong crowd" takes the form of social ostracization; Americans are experts at hunting down and punishing non-conformity in their social circle through silent treatment/ freeze-outs.

Poverty and misfortune are thought to be communicable diseases that can be avoided in large part through associating with the healthy and financially successful.

You make it sound like this is an inexpensive goal.

It isn't inexpensive, but there are more and less expensive ways of achieving it. And, it /must/ be realised, not all expenses are purely financial.

As someone put it, "if you think education/knowledge is expensive, see how much ignorance costs".