Hemingway Evaluates Joe Louis in1935

[QueensburyRules]

"Fight ? This was no fight " How right he was, Burns did not win a single round!

- - What you know about scoring a fight would fit in one of your French Fried Snail brains.

[QueensburyRules]

He kinda forced Jeff back lol. I don't know if that is absolutely true, I mean Jeff was not a 4 foot midget that had to do what he was instructed, or catch a beating lol. Jeff, for whatever reason decided to climb back into that ring and fight... But London definitely had a part in it.

- - The reason was because the winner got approx $130K, the loser $105K, either of which exceeded the career purses of just about every fighter that preceded them.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - The reason was because the winner got approx $130K, the loser $105K, either of which exceeded the career purses of just about every fighter that preceded them.

Well it was the first nationaly noticed prize fight.

It was America's first fight of the century.

People with no interest in prize fighting were paying attention.

The fighters earned it.

CPI inflation calculator 1913-2023 ---> $135,000 = 4.2 million.

[Ivich]

- - The reason was because the winner got approx $130K, the loser $105K, either of which exceeded the career purses of just about every fighter that preceded them.

.
Johnson's purse was $70,000 Jeffries was $ 50,000.
Johnson sold his share of the film rights for $ 50,000. Jeffries sold his for $66,666.
Johnson earned a total of $122,600.Jeffries a total of $ 107,066 ,

[Ivich]

- - What you know about scoring a fight would fit in one of your French Fried Snail brains.

Listen ******,that was a quote from Jack London ,and its one of the most famous boxing quotes ever.

YOU IGNORAMUS!

[billeau2]

The only thing I disagree with is your remark about "taxes."

I suspect you are correct regarding the 2/3rds remark, but that includes, managers, trainers, camp expenses, not just taxes.

RE JEFFRIES: THe income tax doesn't apply until 1917. No income tax (direct tax) until then.

Even if Jeffries was frugal in handling his money it is tough to walk away ftom that kind of a payday.

P.S. Washington had his own little scandal as he was passing off improvements at Mt. Veron as "expenses." Even Washington had a scandal! Lol

While I do not know the percentages, I do know that in rural areas the government took a lot of land away from people because of unpaid taxes... and there were no "programs" to help people catch up.

[Willie Pep 229]

While I do not know the percentages, I do know that in rural areas the government took a lot of land away from people because of unpaid taxes... and there were no "programs" to help people catch up.

County Property Taxes?

I was referring the the income tax; 16th ********* ratified in 1913

I can't see the federal government siezing land before that. I need to look closer.

I did run across an essay from Muhammad Ali's tax adviser (early 70s; post NOI)

He pointed out, that while there was at one point in the 1960s, where the tax rate could climb to 65%, there was an exception for "one time events/performances' where the individual tax couldn't climb over 50%. Boxers fell into that category. So no one should have paid more than 50% of their end, and that taxable figure was at the top 1% of incomes.

P.S. The Nixon tax cuts made that irrelevant around 1971 to 1973.

[billeau2]

County Property Taxes?

I was referring the the income tax; 16th ********* ratified in 1913

I can't see the federal government siezing land before that. I need to look closer.

I did run across an essay from Muhammad Ali's tax adviser (early 70s; post NOI)

He pointed out, that while there was at one point in the 1960s, where the tax rate could climb to 65%, there was an exception for "one time events/performances' where the individual tax couldn't climb over 50%. Boxers fell into that category. So no one should have paid more than 50% of their end, and that taxable figure was at the top 1% of incomes.

P.S. The Nixon tax cuts made that irrelevant around 1971 to 1973.

Not Federal... The point was to consider all taxation as a whole. Sure, when we think of specific taxes levied according to local, versus Federal, yada yada, it seems less. Consider that I get a paycheck, it it taxed at a normal percent of about 20%, I then buy a candy bar, for which I am again taxed (maybe not every state), then consider the taxes I pay on what I invest in my check, property taxes... Think about how this all adds up. Sure the mechanics of the system change, and there is a whole other aspect if I am not a wage earner (more of that in a second). People who are taxed on earned income pay a considerable amount to the state, both Big State (Feds) and small State (local). Then you pay for licenses like cars, improvements, Bonds, etc.

The system reverses when you create more workers for the state as a business owner: Now you can deduct all your income and even take mortgage and property tax deductions on properties for the business... Keeping in mind that most paycheck workers cannot afford to buy property and so do not get the ability to deduct mortgage and prop taxes.

It was the state governments that seized lands. People who could not pay estate taxes upon transfer, or just could not keep property... The banks also did this and were an additional problem because even if someone could afford the taxes, they might have taken a note out on the land...

What I want you to consider is not a particular set of taxes, rather the complete amount of tax any (big, or small) wage earner pays on his income as he uses it. Just as a clear example: BTW this is why I will NEVER buy a lottery ticket, I can do ****** and buy a lottery ticket for fun, but as a matter of principle lets consider a typical lottery winner because it kind of has parity with wage earners... So I win a million bucks and decide to take a lump sum... Taxes will be more and I will probably pay on the onset, at least 35% or so on this lump. Ok so I paid for seed, not trees, fair enough... But I will get taxed on that money every time I use it, increase it with an investment. If I buy a luxury item? thats probably another 15%, or so... I invest my seed? capital gains tax is about 30% or so... Think about what you actually get from that money.

If I am smart? I do what every financial advisor tells one NOT To DO and what the Rich always do... I put the money in a cash life insurance policy that is forever tax deferred... Rich people OWN nothing, eveything is owned by a trust, or in a tax deferred/Exempt vehicle. So If I am Floyd Mayweather I buy a Rolls, if I am old money? my trust buys a Rolls to conduct business.

Regarding the point about Ali's advisor (a great find!) remember Pep... We are talking about a specific kind of INcome here. Why is this important? because the ethical explotation is the same: Whether I have a business that makes one dollar or one billion, I am allowed to make Uncle Sam pay me for my expenses of running that business. Wage earners are all exploited regardless of the amount of their income. No wage earner thinks it through and understands the sheer amount of money they pay to both local and federal governments. And, while business owners generally do better financially, statistically most wage earners are in the range of 30 to 40K, or so... That is so bad that businesses like Walmart make the government subsidize low wage workers, while making it impossible for the upper end of the Bell Curve of wage earners to ever get ahead... So a manager at Walmart? makes around maybe 55k, and pays around half of that to the state when ALL taxation is figured, keeping him treading water... his 401 is taxed on the crop (after the seed money is tax deferred) making all the contributions somewhat comical... meanwhile his workers, are also kept treading water with low wages and corporate welfare extended to Walmart...

[QueensburyRules]

Listen ******,that was a quote from Jack London ,and its one of the most famous boxing quotes ever.

YOU IGNORAMUS!

- - Read some London fiction, some of his JJohnson quotes, never heard that quote that supports my contention that he and ye simply don't have the mental capacity needed to score a fight...yer welcome...

[Willie Pep 229]

Because he being a fiction writer I'd go with "not winning a round" as deliberate hyperbole.

It's a common statement still used today. It makes a point about domination.