brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Sep 4 10:05:02 EST 2002


Well put, Mr. August,


> > jew Holzman whined:
> > John's handwaving relies on you buying into the assumption that all
> > women receive the EIC

No, it does not.  It makes the conservative assumption that only 12 million
mothers receive EIC, even though Clinton bragged in 1997 that 15 million
women were already receiving EIC, and that he planned to dramatically
increase it.  If his plan was followed, the actual amount of these "child
credits" in 2002 was $55 billion, so $42.5 billion is a very conservative
estimate.

It also ignores the excellent point which Richard just made.  There's not
even any consideration for the additional taxes that divorced men pay
because of income earned by their ex-wives, and this could be a significant
sum (though it won't change the dynamics of the situation by very much).

Not only is the additional income earned by working wives
http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm only 10% of family incomes,
which is barely enough to justify the additional expense of her working and
the increased child care costs, but the contribution to the tax base of that
family is significantly reduced.  This is a triple whammy to the White male
taxpayer even before the divorce.

King George himself couldn't have designed a more egregious tax system if
he'd tried (and he wouldn't have even tried).

John Knight




<raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:Xpnd9.1564$Lo4.409862 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear Mr. Holzman,
>
> "I'm sure it's a trivial exercise for any female reader, or male reader
who
> filed a joint tax return, to review how much taxes they paid in 1988 based
> on female income.  I know I paid money based on what my ex-wife earned."
>
> Tell me, please, Mr. Holzman, how does your foot taste?  Can you lucidly
> respond with a shoe upper between your jaws, or does trying to talk hurt
> your toes?
>
> You know you paid money out to the US IRS based on what your ex-wife
earned.
> Hallelujah.  Maybe we're getting somewhere with you, sir.  You paid money
to
> the Fed based on what your EX-wife earned, which means you SPENT the money
> you both could have SAVED - on HER and HER child!!!
>
> You now not only have an ex-wife, you have an ex-bank account, an
> ex-paycheck, and ex-children, thanks to the feminist laws in our society.
> Boy, you get a big "Dewey for President" button for that one.  How much
more
> are YOU going to have to LOSE before you see that feminist "family" law
and
> feminist "tax" law have made you an EX-MAN?
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Richard C. August
>
>
>
>
> "Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message
> news:al3t3p$dr1$1 at panix2.panix.com...
> > In article <eued9.44032$Ic7.3353880 at news2.west.cox.net>,
> > John Knight <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >To be specific, total IRS tax revenues for 1998 were $952,887,000, but
> > >$124,289,000 of it was "paid back" [even though they didn't "pay in" in
> the
> > >firsts place] to women through "tax credits" and the "earned income
> credit",
> > >leaving a net revenue of $828,597,000.
> >
> > John's handwaving relies on you buying into the assumption that all
> > women receive the EIC.  The truth is, you have to have children to
> > even be eligible for it.  I'm sure it's a trivial exercise for any
> > female reader, or male reader who filed a joint tax return, to review
> > how much taxes they paid in 1988 based on female income.  I know I
> > paid money based on what my ex-wife earned.
> >
> > >Most men understand precisely.  Only jews don't.
> > >
> > >Actually, NONE of the jews and feminazis do, and many of the normal
women
> > >do.
> >
> > This must be what the voices tell you.
> >
> > >> 89% of those taking the poll at your web site?  Was that you and 88%
> > >> of the voices in your head, or you did you tabulate everyone
> > >> responding to your poll as chosing the answer you wanted, as you did
> > >> with the Manifesto itself?
> > >>
> > >
> > >That's out of almost 2,000 respondents so far (less the jews who tried
to
> > >spam the poll, that is).
> >
> > Let me guess -- if you thought someone was Jewish, you discounted
> > their vote.  Yeah, between that and the link between your page's visit
> > counter and the tabulation, I see where you get your numbers.

No.  We left their spams on the polls.  Why bother to try to sort it out?
The only poll that was omitted was one poll which they succeeded in
spamming.  When overnight there were 700 votes to keep you jews here--we
didn't have to guess who might have spammed it, eh?





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list