Conservatives do have principles:

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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