Paying for the jobs bill.

[DaveS]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=DaveS]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=cbelt3]

Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.

First, just a note: I think the correct link to the quote is this:

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze...ear-ruler/

The assumptions that are made about what numbers to crank through the math don't matter? How about this assumption from the OP: "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)." Nothing iffy about that, huh?

Also, the author pretends that the intent is to pay for the whole jobs bill with one year's increase in taxes on those making a million or more, but the taxes are intended to run for 10 years.
Yes your right... so let's double the numbers... instead of 50K let's make it 100k.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
From the original numbers .. which as you note are to some degree factual, assumed AND estimates... "With a 5% surtax on $1 million, that comes out to $50,000 for every household".

So I used the 50k and doubled it to come up with the 100K "corrected" amount per taxpayer to be collected.