An Amazing Discovery
 

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/5/11 7:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg


There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

I have heard several times that a 3% surtax on millionaires would pay
for it and if you can believe the IRS, that isn not close to right.

From the IRS tax stats
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in32tt.xls

Amount of tax
32,755,871,000
19,393,235,000
46,943,630,000
24,617,005,000
53,790,324,000

Income Level

$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$10,000,000 or more

Number of returns

46,741
20,561
29,928
7,404
4,916


Total tax from the1,000,000
180 billion (round numbers)
3% of 180 is 5.4 billion (using the definition of "surtax" when they
did it in the 70s)

How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B




The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their millionaire
supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if it means
raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The Republican
whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so as to shield
its clients from paying a bit more.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

An Amazing Discovery
 

For 5840 consecutive days, Krause has been shoveling his nonsensical
bull****. Each new day sets a new record for bull**** delivery to rec.boats.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg


There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.


now let's see...the conservative bull**** is that

tax cuts ALWAYS pay for themselves. this can not be questioned

then this is modified to

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:15:06 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:



The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their millionaire
supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if it means
raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The Republican
whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so as to shield
its clients from paying a bit more.

i love the GOP bull**** that tax cuts ALWAYS stimulate the economy and
ALWAYS pay forthemselves and NEVER have to be offset with cuts
elsewhere

except if you give cuts to the middle class. the middle class is
undeserving, shifltess and lazy. only the rich are worthy of cuts


aint the GOP great!

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:52:45 -0500, Drifter wrote:

For 5840 consecutive days, Krause has been shoveling his nonsensical
bull****. Each new day sets a new record for bull**** delivery to rec.boats.

===

How long is that in dog years?

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/5/2011 12:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:52:45 -0500, wrote:

For 5840 consecutive days, Krause has been shoveling his nonsensical
bull****. Each new day sets a new record for bull**** delivery to rec.boats.

===

How long is that in dog years?


What size dog?

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:01:36 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:15:06 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:


How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B




The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their millionaire
supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if it means
raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The Republican
whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so as to shield
its clients from paying a bit more.


I have no problem restoring the Clinton tax rate but I also under just
restoring the part on people over $250k is chump change, just a tad
over half of the payroll tax holiday (Holiday $120b, Bush tax cut on
$250k, $70b per year)

you DO realize that the total income of millionaires in this country
is over a trillion dollars, right?

and the bottom 50% makes only a 1.4 trillion

but the GOP thinks the bottom should pay MORE taxes and the rich LESS


Personally I would like to see the whole tax cut go away. I would also
make Capital Gains progressive, up to the marginal rate (maybe just
starting over in the tax table with your cap gains)
That would make the first of gains and dividends $8360 at 10%, next
$33,900 at 15% etc up to $375k where you pay 35%
That would shut Warren Buffett up.

wow. a right winger who has some freakin' common sense.

An Amazing Discovery
 

X ` Man wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg


There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

I have heard several times that a 3% surtax on millionaires would pay
for it and if you can believe the IRS, that isn not close to right.

From the IRS tax stats
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in32tt.xls

Amount of tax
32,755,871,000
19,393,235,000
46,943,630,000
24,617,005,000
53,790,324,000

Income Level

$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$10,000,000 or more

Number of returns

46,741
20,561
29,928
7,404
4,916


Total tax from the1,000,000
180 billion (round numbers)
3% of 180 is 5.4 billion (using the definition of "surtax" when they
did it in the 70s)

How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B




The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their
millionaire supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if
it means raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the
payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The
Republican whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so
as to shield its clients from paying a bit more.

Payroll taxes are paid my the employer, not the employee. Reduced
payroll taxes help to add jobs, bozo.

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg

There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

now let's see...the conservative bull**** is that

tax cuts ALWAYS pay for themselves. this can not be questioned

then this is modified to

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages


employers are required to withold from an employee's wages

IOW the employee pays them

BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/5/11 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages


employers are required to withold from an employee's wages

IOW the employee pays them

BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?


Dan Krueger by any handle is still dumb as a post.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Dec 5, 9:37*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:





On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
*wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages

employers are required to withold from an employee's wages

IOW the employee pays them

BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?

Dan Krueger by any handle is still dumb as a post.

--http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

....and to think he claims to be more than a 'counterman' in his
daddy's contractor supply business.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem

which, of course, is not the objective.

An Amazing Discovery
 

In article ,
says...

X ` Man wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg


There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

I have heard several times that a 3% surtax on millionaires would pay
for it and if you can believe the IRS, that isn not close to right.

From the IRS tax stats
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in32tt.xls

Amount of tax
32,755,871,000
19,393,235,000
46,943,630,000
24,617,005,000
53,790,324,000

Income Level

$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$10,000,000 or more

Number of returns

46,741
20,561
29,928
7,404
4,916


Total tax from the1,000,000
180 billion (round numbers)
3% of 180 is 5.4 billion (using the definition of "surtax" when they
did it in the 70s)

How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B




The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their
millionaire supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if
it means raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the
payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The
Republican whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so
as to shield its clients from paying a bit more.

Payroll taxes are paid my the employer, not the employee. Reduced
payroll taxes help to add jobs, bozo.

Employers do not hire based upon the payroll taxes they have to pay.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:26:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem

which, of course, is not the objective.

I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.

Obama is doing his best to preserve jobs, which is why he's not investigating the corruption in the
Justice Department.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/6/11 7:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

X ` Man wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg


There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

I have heard several times that a 3% surtax on millionaires would pay
for it and if you can believe the IRS, that isn not close to right.

From the IRS tax stats
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in32tt.xls

Amount of tax
32,755,871,000
19,393,235,000
46,943,630,000
24,617,005,000
53,790,324,000

Income Level

$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$10,000,000 or more

Number of returns

46,741
20,561
29,928
7,404
4,916


Total tax from the1,000,000
180 billion (round numbers)
3% of 180 is 5.4 billion (using the definition of "surtax" when they
did it in the 70s)

How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B




The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their
millionaire supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if
it means raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the
payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The
Republican whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so
as to shield its clients from paying a bit more.

Payroll taxes are paid my the employer, not the employee. Reduced
payroll taxes help to add jobs, bozo.

Employers do not hire based upon the payroll taxes they have to pay.


It doesn't matter what Krueger calls himself, he's still the same
ignorant right-wing d.f. who, in this case doesn't realize there is more
than one kind of "payroll tax," and that employees pay payroll taxes.

An Amazing Discovery
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:26:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem

which, of course, is not the objective.

I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.

Obama is doing his best to preserve jobs, which is why he's not investigating the corruption in the
Justice Department.

Saving and creating government jobs.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/6/11 8:42 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:26:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem

which, of course, is not the objective.

I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.

Obama is doing his best to preserve jobs, which is why he's not investigating the corruption in the
Justice Department.

Saving and creating government jobs.



That's an interesting comment to make to a Herring post, since he spent
his entire adult life working "government" jobs.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

An Amazing Discovery
 

In article 2f09590b-57a1-48d2-8dc3-
,
says...

On Dec 5, 9:37*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:





On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
*wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this

No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages

employers are required to withold from an employee's wages

IOW the employee pays them

BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?

Dan Krueger by any handle is still dumb as a post.

--http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...and to think he claims to be more than a 'counterman' in his
daddy's contractor supply business.

And to think you claim to be more than a washed out civil servant,
Suckling Don the Coward.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:26:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:


No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB

aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem

which, of course, is not the objective.

I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.

gee, without jobs

and here is the conservative plan for jobs:

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:13:26 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:40:18 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

which, of course, is not the objective.

I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.

gee, without jobs

and here is the conservative plan for jobs:

You are arguing with yourself. You start saying we need jobs, when I
point out the stimulus did't really provide many you say jobs "was not
the objective"

sorry you can't follow a basic argument

there's a difference between saying a program is designed for jobs and
saying it's designed to provdie income relief for the middle class

see!!! all it took me was a few words to explain what you are
hopelessly confused by. no doubt because you're a right winger

An Amazing Discovery
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages


employers are required to withold from an employee's wages

IOW the employee pays them

BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?
Wikipedia again? Do employees fine this form, Bob?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f941.pdf

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

North Star wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:37 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:





On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:
tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich
so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.
-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages
employers are required to withold from an employee's wages
IOW the employee pays them
BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?
Dan Krueger by any handle is still dumb as a post.

--http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
....and to think he claims to be more than a 'counterman' in his
daddy's contractor supply business.
Nice try. Want to place a wager on that? Let's start with the part
where my father is dead. Ready?

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:29:46 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages


employers are required to withold from an employee's wages

IOW the employee pays them

BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?
Wikipedia again? Do employees fine this form, Bob?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f941.pdf

-HB

and your rebuttal was?

oh. there wasnt one

thanks.

An Amazing Discovery
 

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem

The employee withholding is part of their income tax. That withholding
doesn't change the income tax laws.

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem
which, of course, is not the objective.
I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.
True. Many welfare recipients don't buy durable goods - they steal
them. The illegal drugs many of them buy are not taxed and the use of
these drugs only add to the medical costs we pay for the indigent.

-HB

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
X ` Man wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg

There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

I have heard several times that a 3% surtax on millionaires would pay
for it and if you can believe the IRS, that isn not close to right.

From the IRS tax stats
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in32tt.xls

Amount of tax
32,755,871,000
19,393,235,000
46,943,630,000
24,617,005,000
53,790,324,000

Income Level

$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$10,000,000 or more

Number of returns

46,741
20,561
29,928
7,404
4,916


Total tax from the1,000,000
180 billion (round numbers)
3% of 180 is 5.4 billion (using the definition of "surtax" when they
did it in the 70s)

How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B



The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their
millionaire supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if
it means raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the
payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The
Republican whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so
as to shield its clients from paying a bit more.

Payroll taxes are paid my the employer, not the employee. Reduced
payroll taxes help to add jobs, bozo.
Employers do not hire based upon the payroll taxes they have to pay.
It helps. Not a lot but it doesn't hurt.

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:39:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, wrote:


Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem
which, of course, is not the objective.
I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.
True. Many welfare recipients don't buy durable goods - they steal
them. The illegal drugs many of them buy are not taxed and the use of
these drugs only add to the medical costs we pay for the indigent.


and when wall street bankers stole 10 TRILLION from the economy
putting 14M people out of work...

how'd that work out for us?

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Dec 6, 9:33*pm, Honey Badger wrote:
North Star wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:37 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com *wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
* *wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:
tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich
so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.
-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages
employers are required to withold from an employee's wages
IOW the employee pays them
BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?
Dan Krueger by any handle is still dumb as a post.

--http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
....and to think he claims to be more than a 'counterman' in his
daddy's contractor supply business.

Nice try. *Want to place a wager on that? *Let's start with the part
where my father is dead. *Ready?

-HB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ok... it's your mommy that you 'work' for.
Is that who Margaret is.... your mommy and employer?

An Amazing Discovery
 

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:

tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich

so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.

-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem
which, of course, is not the objective.
I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.
True. Many welfare recipients don't buy durable goods - they steal
them. The illegal drugs many of them buy are not taxed and the use of
these drugs only add to the medical costs we pay for the indigent.

Do these off-tax income producers realize that they are missing out on
qualifying for greater disability and "retirement" benefits?

An Amazing Discovery
 

In article ,
says...

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
X ` Man wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:05:52 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Conservatives do have principles:

http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/u34Brg

There is one lie floating around about the payroll tax cut.

I have heard several times that a 3% surtax on millionaires would pay
for it and if you can believe the IRS, that isn not close to right.

From the IRS tax stats
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in32tt.xls

Amount of tax
32,755,871,000
19,393,235,000
46,943,630,000
24,617,005,000
53,790,324,000

Income Level

$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$10,000,000 or more

Number of returns

46,741
20,561
29,928
7,404
4,916


Total tax from the1,000,000
180 billion (round numbers)
3% of 180 is 5.4 billion (using the definition of "surtax" when they
did it in the 70s)

How does that cover a $120 billion dollar tax cut?

Are they really saying they want to raise the marginal rate by 3%
Still won't come close to doing it.
They need to raise the whole tax bite by 66% going from $180B to $300B



The real issue is that the Republicans want to protect their
millionaire supporters from *any* substantive tax increases, even if
it means raising taxes for the middle class by doing away with the
payroll tax cut.

$1500 or so has meaning for middle income folks. It might pay for a
needed car repair, dentist trips for the kids, whatever. The
Republican whores would rather end that tax break for wage earners so
as to shield its clients from paying a bit more.

Payroll taxes are paid my the employer, not the employee. Reduced
payroll taxes help to add jobs, bozo.
Employers do not hire based upon the payroll taxes they have to pay.
It helps. Not a lot but it doesn't hurt.

Revenue per employee is critical if you are a public company. Too much
of a change in either direction and you are going to raise all kinds of
flags with investors.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/6/2011 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day

Yes, and that exactly embodies the liberal mindset.

Keep paying your taxes, bob. The welfare cheats you chose need your money.

I'll take neither a welfare cheat, nor a corrupt hedgefund manager.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On 12/7/2011 9:51 AM, Ombudsman wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day

Yes, and that exactly embodies the liberal mindset.

Keep paying your taxes, bob. The welfare cheats you chose need your money.

I'll take neither a welfare cheat, nor a corrupt hedgefund manager.

That's what gets me about progressives. They always justify breaking the
law by citing (or just making up) another supposedly worse crime when
the real reason they allow some to break the law and not others, it
solely a political matter...

An Amazing Discovery
 

In article ,
says...

On 12/7/2011 9:51 AM, Ombudsman wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day

Yes, and that exactly embodies the liberal mindset.

Keep paying your taxes, bob. The welfare cheats you chose need your money.

I'll take neither a welfare cheat, nor a corrupt hedgefund manager.

That's what gets me about progressives. They always justify breaking the
law by citing (or just making up) another supposedly worse crime when
the real reason they allow some to break the law and not others, it
solely a political matter...

Every single one of them? Oh, and a lot of right wingers do the same.
You yourself have done it here many times.

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:51:31 -0500, Ombudsman
wrote:

On 12/6/2011 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day

Yes, and that exactly embodies the liberal mindset.

let'see..

number of people put out of work by welfare cheats in the last 3
years:

zero

number by wall street greed

10 million

yep. typical right wingers

An Amazing Discovery
 

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:54:38 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/7/2011 9:51 AM, Ombudsman wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day

Yes, and that exactly embodies the liberal mindset.

Keep paying your taxes, bob. The welfare cheats you chose need your money.

I'll take neither a welfare cheat, nor a corrupt hedgefund manager.

That's what gets me about progressives. They always justify breaking the
law by citing (or just making up) another supposedly worse crime when
the real reason they allow some to break the law and not others, it
solely a political matter...

that's what i love about conservatives...

if you rob a bank they put you in jail

if you STEAL a bank you're a conservative

An Amazing Discovery
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:39:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:43:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:37:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:53:03 -0500, wrote:

Damn Bob you got one right, in fact the 2% Obama cut is from the
employee side.
Unfortunately the employer side stayed the same so it did little to
help the unemployment problem
which, of course, is not the objective.
I thought "jobs" was job #1.
That is the flaw in the whole recovery. Without jobs, there is no
recovery, Welfare is not going to do anything but get us in more
trouble with the debt.
True. Many welfare recipients don't buy durable goods - they steal
them. The illegal drugs many of them buy are not taxed and the use of
these drugs only add to the medical costs we pay for the indigent.

and when wall street bankers stole 10 TRILLION from the economy
putting 14M people out of work...

how'd that work out for us?

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day
Who was that banker?

There are more than one welfare cheats - there are hundreds of thousands.

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

North Star wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:33 pm, Honey wrote:
North Star wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:37 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 12/5/11 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:17 -0500, Honey Badger
wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:54:49 -0500, wrote:
tax cuts pay for themselves ONLY if they're given to millionaires.
it's a waste of time to give tax cuts to the middle class because
they're all lazy and shiftless and can be replaced anyhow. god loves
the rich
so let's watch the GOP try to spin this
No need for spin - employees don't pay payroll taxes, employers do.
-HB
aw gee...you're wrong as usual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes.
The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from
employees' wages
employers are required to withold from an employee's wages
IOW the employee pays them
BZZTT!! thanks for playing. what do we have for him, johnny?
Dan Krueger by any handle is still dumb as a post.
--http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
....and to think he claims to be more than a 'counterman' in his
daddy's contractor supply business.
Nice try. Want to place a wager on that? Let's start with the part
where my father is dead. Ready?

-HB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Ok... it's your mommy that you 'work' for.
Is that who Margaret is.... your mommy and employer?
I don't work for anyone. Is your yard clean or are you going to let the
snow hide your garbage until spring?

-HB

An Amazing Discovery
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:51:31 -0500, Ombudsman
wrote:

On 12/6/2011 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:

i'll take a welfare cheat over a hedgefund manager any day
Yes, and that exactly embodies the liberal mindset.
let'see..

number of people put out of work by welfare cheats in the last 3
years:

zero

number by wall street greed

10 million

yep. typical right wingers
So all of that money the welfare scumbags collect comes from the money tree?

-HB