Again these Turkeys continue to only do what they can for the rich, it
is time for a tax cut for John Q. Public. Most people pay more in payroll
taxes than any other tax. Vote these guys out until we get some that will
cut this tax.
Tax cuts should come from a reduction in the Social Security tax. Congress
has used this surplus for years to give the gigantic tax cuts to the Rich in
the Reagan era when they cut taxes from 70% to 28%. So now as the Big Money
Republican Oil Barons keep socking it to middle class Americans at the gas
pumps, we need to pay back some of our middle class workers by cutting the
Social Security tax in half. We need to uncap the contribution from the
rich, they have never paid their fair share for the benefits their rich
widows have taken out of the system forever. It is these rich guys that
throw out their first wives, and they live to be 100 on Social Security of
$16,000 per year, then their second or third wives chow down on Social
Security as well as they live 50 years beyond their husband collecting for
their children and themselves as well.
It is time to put some of the general surplus back into the Social Security
program and then by cutting the rates in half, the true cost to the worker
may be more equitable while the general surplus picks up the benefits for
the Rich guys widows, the children and the disabled. Afterall the Reagan
people used the Social Security money to finance the rich, it is time to
give it back. This indeed would be the type of tax cut for middle class
Americans that is long overdue. Afterall it is the information provided by
the Greedy Republican websites (www.taxfoundation.org) that lets a person
know that while the rich are now bringing home hundreds of millions, 75% of
Americans average only $20,000 in AGI in 1997.
–
–
Gary Lantz
"Gary Lantz" <garl…@defnet.com> wrote:
>Again these Turkeys continue to only do what they can for the rich, it
>is time for a tax cut for John Q. Public. Most people pay more in payroll
>taxes than any other tax. Vote these guys out until we get some that will
>cut this tax.
We gotta keep sending out all those welfare checks to all the liberals
at the first of the month.
Pointing out the other political parties’
scandles makes you a loyalist. Making
excuses for your own parties scandles
makes you an idiot. Being disgusted with
government dishonesty makes you an
American. Failure to demand government
adherence to Constitutional principles,
dishoners your ancesters. Failure to
defend youself makes you a Liberal.
A Liberal that starts fighting back
becomes a Conservative.
I bet Gary buys lottery tickets! He secretly wants to be rich to and if he
can’t win the lotto he hold his hand out forever.
–
Zeke & Surf Online http://jdhauser.virtualave.net
"Gary Lantz" <garl…@defnet.com> wrote in message
news:shiloov6d58118@corp.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Again these Turkeys continue to only do what they can for the rich, it
> is time for a tax cut for John Q. Public. Most people pay more in payroll
> taxes than any other tax. Vote these guys out until we get some that will
> cut this tax.
> Tax cuts should come from a reduction in the Social Security tax.
Congress
> has used this surplus for years to give the gigantic tax cuts to the Rich
in
> the Reagan era when they cut taxes from 70% to 28%. So now as the Big
Money
> Republican Oil Barons keep socking it to middle class Americans at the gas
> pumps, we need to pay back some of our middle class workers by cutting
the
> Social Security tax in half. We need to uncap the contribution from the
> rich, they have never paid their fair share for the benefits their rich
> widows have taken out of the system forever. It is these rich guys that
> throw out their first wives, and they live to be 100 on Social Security
of
> $16,000 per year, then their second or third wives chow down on Social
> Security as well as they live 50 years beyond their husband collecting for
> their children and themselves as well.
> It is time to put some of the general surplus back into the Social
Security
> program and then by cutting the rates in half, the true cost to the
worker
> may be more equitable while the general surplus picks up the benefits for
> the Rich guys widows, the children and the disabled. Afterall the
Reagan
> people used the Social Security money to finance the rich, it is time to
> give it back. This indeed would be the type of tax cut for middle class
> Americans that is long overdue. Afterall it is the information provided
by
> the Greedy Republican websites (www.taxfoundation.org) that lets a person
> know that while the rich are now bringing home hundreds of millions, 75%
of
> Americans average only $20,000 in AGI in 1997.
> —
> —
> Gary Lantz
"Gary Lantz" wrote
> Again these Turkeys continue to only do what they can for the rich, it
> is time for a tax cut for John Q. Public. Most people pay more in payroll
> taxes than any other tax. Vote these guys out until we get some that will
> cut this tax.
Except that the rich pay more than anyone else. As a percentage of their
income they pay more than anyone else. As a total dollar figure they pay
more than anyone else. As a percentage of all of the taxes collected they
pay more than anyone else. Try again.
> Tax cuts should come from a reduction in the Social Security tax.
Congress
> has used this surplus for years to give the gigantic tax cuts to the Rich
in
> the Reagan era when they cut taxes from 70% to 28%.
So how and why were they spending the surplus in the 1960s and 1970s? How
and why were they spending the surplus in the 1930s and 1940s? Seems like
Reagan didn’t have much affect for most of the times those surpluses were
being raided….. You left out the fact that taxes actually paid in from the
welathy INCREASED after the tax cuts were enacted……
> So now as the Big Money
> Republican Oil Barons keep socking it to middle class Americans at the gas
> pumps, we need to pay back some of our middle class workers by cutting
the
> Social Security tax in half.
So because a product has become expensive, we need to cut taxes? You give a
lot of credit to the oil barons and not to the sheiks that have raised the
price of crude…….
> We need to uncap the contribution from the
> rich, they have never paid their fair share for the benefits their rich
Lantz, when I retire I (and my employer) will have contributed nearly
$450,000 to a plan that will give me at most $25,000 a year. Let’s ignore
the interest and increased value I’d have received if I could have invested
the money. To receive the principal back I will have to stay retired for
almost 20 years, average life expectancy for someone my age after retirement
is 6 years. What a trust…..
> widows have taken out of the system forever. It is these rich guys that
> throw out their first wives, and they live to be 100 on Social Security
of
> $16,000 per year, then their second or third wives chow down on Social
> Security as well as they live 50 years beyond their husband collecting for
> their children and themselves as well.
You stated this nonsense before and have yet to document one example of
this. Not one. Most marriages and divorces and remarriages happen at the
lower end of the economic scale, especially someone depending on SS for
retirement. Most wealthy people tend to have to write big checks to get
ex-wives and lovers to go away which give all of those people and their
widows incomes and property that is taxed to hell and back anyway. Try
again.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> It is time to put some of the general surplus back into the Social
Security
> program and then by cutting the rates in half, the true cost to the
worker
> may be more equitable while the general surplus picks up the benefits for
> the Rich guys widows, the children and the disabled.
> Afterall the Reagan
> people used the Social Security money to finance the rich, it is time to
> give it back. This indeed would be the type of tax cut for middle class
> Americans that is long overdue. Afterall it is the information provided
by
> the Greedy Republican websites (www.taxfoundation.org) that lets a person
> know that while the rich are now bringing home hundreds of millions, 75%
of
> Americans average only $20,000 in AGI in 1997.
Again, buy a fact. You are using data assembled to prove one point to
demonstrate something unrelated. Try again.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —
> —
> Gary Lantz
smyers <smy…@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qJKS4.3247$zi.19137@typhoon.kc.rr.com…
> "Gary Lantz" wrote
> > Again these Turkeys continue to only do what they can for the rich, it
> > is time for a tax cut for John Q. Public. Most people pay more in
payroll
> > taxes than any other tax. Vote these guys out until we get some that
will
> > cut this tax.
> Except that the rich pay more than anyone else. As a percentage of their
> income they pay more than anyone else. As a total dollar figure they pay
> more than anyone else. As a percentage of all of the taxes collected they
> pay more than anyone else. Try again.
When you show your ignorance about the burden of the tax % on the middle
class, who do you think misses that ignornace, Myers???
> > Tax cuts should come from a reduction in the Social Security tax.
> Congress
> > has used this surplus for years to give the gigantic tax cuts to the
Rich
> in
> > the Reagan era when they cut taxes from 70% to 28%.
> So how and why were they spending the surplus in the 1960s and 1970s? How
> and why were they spending the surplus in the 1930s and 1940s? Seems like
> Reagan didn’t have much affect for most of the times those surpluses were
> being raided….. You left out the fact that taxes actually paid in from
the
> welathy INCREASED after the tax cuts were enacted……
With inflation taxes almost always increase, not only did Reagan give the
tax breaks but he allowed the mergers and downwaging and allowed jobs to be
sent overseas. This created new wealth for the rich, besides the tax
bonanza. This was the highest transfer of wealth from the middle class to
the wealthy in the history of the world.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > So now as the Big Money
> > Republican Oil Barons keep socking it to middle class Americans at the
gas
> > pumps, we need to pay back some of our middle class workers by cutting
> the
> > Social Security tax in half.
> So because a product has become expensive, we need to cut taxes? You give
a
> lot of credit to the oil barons and not to the sheiks that have raised the
> price of crude…….
> > We need to uncap the contribution from the
> > rich, they have never paid their fair share for the benefits their rich
> Lantz, when I retire I (and my employer) will have contributed nearly
> $450,000 to a plan that will give me at most $25,000 a year. Let’s ignore
> the interest and increased value I’d have received if I could have
invested
> the money. To receive the principal back I will have to stay retired for
> almost 20 years, average life expectancy for someone my age after
retirement
> is 6 years. What a trust…..
Myers, cut and paste the above as one of the lies that you never knew you
told. You will never work for the type of wages you now get for long. You
will never work long enough to contribute $450,000. You will be fired
several more times or downwaged and will be damn glad you have SS when you
retire. Some people may attain what you are planning, but not you.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > widows have taken out of the system forever. It is these rich guys that
> > throw out their first wives, and they live to be 100 on Social Security
> of
> > $16,000 per year, then their second or third wives chow down on Social
> > Security as well as they live 50 years beyond their husband collecting
for
> > their children and themselves as well.
> You stated this nonsense before and have yet to document one example of
> this. Not one. Most marriages and divorces and remarriages happen at the
> lower end of the economic scale, especially someone depending on SS for
> retirement. Most wealthy people tend to have to write big checks to get
> ex-wives and lovers to go away which give all of those people and their
> widows incomes and property that is taxed to hell and back anyway. Try
> again.
What pure ignorance.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > It is time to put some of the general surplus back into the Social
> Security
> > program and then by cutting the rates in half, the true cost to the
> worker
> > may be more equitable while the general surplus picks up the benefits
for
> > the Rich guys widows, the children and the disabled.
> > Afterall the Reagan
> > people used the Social Security money to finance the rich, it is time
to
> > give it back. This indeed would be the type of tax cut for middle class
> > Americans that is long overdue. Afterall it is the information provided
> by
> > the Greedy Republican websites (www.taxfoundation.org) that lets a
person
> > know that while the rich are now bringing home hundreds of millions,
75%
> of
> > Americans average only $20,000 in AGI in 1997.
> Again, buy a fact. You are using data assembled to prove one point to
> demonstrate something unrelated. Try again.
> > —
Your obvious lack of knowledge of how facts work, tells volumes about your
general ignorance.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > —
> > Gary Lantz
"Gary Lantz" was stuck like a pig and squeeled
> > Except that the rich pay more than anyone else. As a percentage of their
> > income they pay more than anyone else. As a total dollar figure they pay
> > more than anyone else. As a percentage of all of the taxes collected
they
> > pay more than anyone else. Try again.
> When you show your ignorance about the burden of the tax % on the middle
> class, who do you think misses that ignornace, Myers???
Look it up, loon. The IRS has all of the data just waiting for you to take a
look. Oh, yeah, that would spoil your ignorance. I’m not sure what
"ingornance" is.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > So how and why were they spending the surplus in the 1960s and 1970s?
How
> > and why were they spending the surplus in the 1930s and 1940s? Seems
like
> > Reagan didn’t have much affect for most of the times those surpluses
were
> > being raided….. You left out the fact that taxes actually paid in from
the
> > wealthy INCREASED after the tax cuts were enacted……
> With inflation taxes almost always increase, not only did Reagan give the
> tax breaks but he allowed the mergers and downwaging and allowed jobs to
be
> sent overseas. This created new wealth for the rich, besides the tax
> bonanza. This was the highest transfer of wealth from the middle class to
> the wealthy in the history of the world.
Hmmm., but at the time inflation was 4% and if was inflation ALL of the
taxes would have gone up 4% so the percentages would have stayed the same.
You lose again, but you are getting farther away from the kewpie doll.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > So because a product has become expensive, we need to cut taxes? You
give a
> > lot of credit to the oil barons and not to the sheiks that have raised
the
> > price of crude…….
> > > We need to uncap the contribution from the
> > > rich, they have never paid their fair share for the benefits their
rich
> > Lantz, when I retire I (and my employer) will have contributed nearly
> > $450,000 to a plan that will give me at most $25,000 a year. Let’s
ignore
> > the interest and increased value I’d have received if I could have
invested
> > the money. To receive the principal back I will have to stay retired for
> > almost 20 years, average life expectancy for someone my age after
retirement
> > is 6 years. What a trust…..
> Myers, cut and paste the above as one of the lies that you never knew you
> told. You will never work for the type of wages you now get for long.
You
> will never work long enough to contribute $450,000. You will be fired
> several more times or downwaged and will be damn glad you have SS when you
> retire. Some people may attain what you are planning, but not you.
So again, you don’t have a response to an analysis of the situation, because
you have no analytical skills. I would have loved to negotiate a contract
with you when you were a "CFO". I could have retired on the change you would
have given on the purchase of a postage stamp from a $1 bill. I’ve been laid
off once in 16 years Lantz, and got a 30% raise for it. If I get laid off
several more times, I WILL be rich.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > > widows have taken out of the system forever. It is these rich guys
that
> > > throw out their first wives, and they live to be 100 on Social
Security of
> > > $16,000 per year, then their second or third wives chow down on
Social
> > > Security as well as they live 50 years beyond their husband collecting
for
> > > their children and themselves as well.
> > You stated this nonsense before and have yet to document one example of
> > this. Not one. Most marriages and divorces and remarriages happen at the
> > lower end of the economic scale, especially someone depending on SS for
> > retirement. Most wealthy people tend to have to write big checks to get
> > ex-wives and lovers to go away which give all of those people and their
> > widows incomes and property that is taxed to hell and back anyway. Try
> > again.
> What pure ignorance.
Well, I don’t give you credit for pure anything. But ignorance IS one thing
that I DO give you credit for having an abundance of. You do consider
yourself an "Induhvidual" don’t you?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > > It is time to put some of the general surplus back into the Social
Security
> > > program and then by cutting the rates in half, the true cost to the
worker
> > > may be more equitable while the general surplus picks up the benefits
for
> > > the Rich guys widows, the children and the disabled.
> > > Afterall the Reagan
> > > people used the Social Security money to finance the rich, it is time
> to
> > > give it back. This indeed would be the type of tax cut for middle
class
> > > Americans that is long overdue. Afterall it is the information
provided
> > by
> > > the Greedy Republican websites (www.taxfoundation.org) that lets a
> person
> > > know that while the rich are now bringing home hundreds of millions,
> 75%
> > of
> > > Americans average only $20,000 in AGI in 1997.
> > Again, buy a fact. You are using data assembled to prove one point to
> > demonstrate something unrelated. Try again.
> > > —
> Your obvious lack of knowledge of how facts work, tells volumes about
your
> general ignorance.
The only volumes that you are familiar with is the empty space betwixt your
ears.