So, my dad sends me an email -

He does that, you know. The email that he sent me was from his brother in law, I think, who's a Tea Bagger.

The email was a purported presentation given by one Leo Carrington, owner of Carrington Automotive, to the entire employee body of his 12 stores assembled at the Grand Payne Hotel. You can read the email here.

So, Dad asks me "What do I think"?

Well, I spent about 90 minutes reading, doing some (very quick, because the facts are RIGHT there) Google research and composing a response for him. To-wit:

Oh, the horseshit starts flying.

My friend Nancy, who has a small business that brings in something a tad less than the Carrington example would LOVE to pay a payroll tax of 2.5% instead of the ferocious health premiums she's now been paying. In fact, it would push her balance sheet over from red to black. But, Carrington doesn't provide any health insurance.

I believe that the pending and incomplete legislation on health care prohibits a pushback on wages for any employer who is penalized for failing to provide health insurance. So, that part of the missive is an empty and illegal threat. The 8% tax penalty is only in the house bill, and the Senate bill (which everyone who isn't trying to panic people about the "socialists" knows is going to prevail) has a $750 per employee per year tax penalty for employers who don't provide health insurance. That's $140,250 in tax penalty for requiring that the government pay for his employees' health care premiums. Given that the average private health insurance annual premium WITHOUT dependent coverage is now $6,000 to the employer - sounds like he's still a cheapskate and getting off without much of a penalty. His insurance premium for employees only would be $1,122,000.

At least that way, by providing his employees with health care coverage, he wouldn't have to pay any personal income tax at all.

As to his assertions on the increase in taxes - let's come back to reality. The top incremental rate on income over $250,000 will increase by 3% to approximately $370,000, and the top incremental rate on income over $370,000 would increase by 4.6% The rates on income below $250,000 will NOT change.

So, the increase in tax on the portion between $370,000 and the stated $534,000 of taxable income would be the difference between $57,400 (the tax on that increment of income at present under the Bush tax cuts) and $64,944 (the tax on that increment of income if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire.) His taxes will increase by $7,544. Gee, I can do THAT in my head! The increase in tax on the portion between $250,000 and $370,000 - $3,600.

Our example, Carrington, will see his income taxes increase by $11,144 if the Bush tax cuts expire. Another sum I can do in my head!

According to our "example", $11,144 expressed as a percentage of his total taxable income is 2.08%. The "example" suggests that "nearly" 5% is the tax impact, $24,564. So, the "example" of the net effect of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is overstated by a factor of "nearly" two times. The net effect would be that he pays $11,144 in additional personal income tax, which is slightly less than $1,000 per store of twelve per year, or just about $90 a month in additional personal income tax.

Whoopie fucking do.

There is no proposal to increase the top incremental tax rate on incomes over $1,000,000. That part of the "example" is a flat out lie. A fantasy. Not even being discussed, EXCEPT IN BRITAIN.

About three quarters of the "example" in the missive is posturing, ranting and fantasy - the math I have countered above (with facts, sorry). The proposed tax increase (that was passed by the Republican controlled Congress and signed by Bush - how do they keep missing that part?) will cost him $59/employee/year. If the health care employer mandate is indeed effected, then STARTING IN 2014, he'd be paying an additional $750/employee/year for a total increase of $800/employee/year, or $66.00 per employee/month.

Next big problem, according to the SBA in 2009, just over 50% of all employment in the United States is by "small business". They comprise 44% of total private (non-government) payroll, which is a damned sight smaller than the 80% the "example" suggests, and job growth by "small business" is 64% of new jobs over the last FIFTEEN years - not just the last year. Spinning, let's add some more spin.

Now, for the coup d'grace. The ENTIRE EMAIL IS A FAKE. There is no Carrington Automotive, there is no Leo Carrington, and there is no Royal Payne Hotel in Norfolk, Virginia. There is, still, Norfolk Virginia, but the tea baggers probably have something up their sleeves about that.

The End.