The media – in carrying out their role as Obama’s Praetorian Guard – has been doing its damnedest to try to paint Romney’s “47%” remark as a huge gaffe.
But Mitt was right; 47% of the people don’t pay taxes. And in some cases – the poor – there may be a reason for this.
The lefty and media (ptr) came out with all sorts of rationalizations and tu quoques –
- “Republican states pay less than average!” was one I saw on TV yesterday (Channel 9 was duly parroting the Media Matters chanting points), which is hilarious, given that the states they point out invariably have lower per-capita incomes and costs of living than the Blue states; you’ve got liberals bitching about progressive taxation!
- “Many rich people pay no taxes!” – Leaving aside the obvious answer – it’s a red herring, the middle class and wealthy as a whole do pay the vast majority of this nation’s tax burdeen – well, gosh, d’ya suppose we should simplify the tax system to remove some of the byzantine loopholes? A flat tax would sure fix that…
- “Part of that is the Bush Tax cuts!” – This is a dumb evasion. The Bush tax cuts were across-the-board. But it’s hordes of “targeted tax cuts” that have so imbalanced the system – because the tax system has long been an instrument of redistribution.
But whatever the qualifications and rationalizations, whatever the reasons for some and the outrages of others, the fact remains that this society can not survive with, soon, less than half of its people paying in.
Romney should not back off of this statement. His campaign has been far too timid lately; while for about a week or two after the Ryan selection he was cooking with gas, rife with promise that this nation could finally have The Big Conversation it’s needed for at least a generation (the one that Tip O’Neill blocked thirty years ago), he’s been running a campaign only a weasel consultant could love since then.
We need to reform entitlements. We need an America where everyone has some skin in the game. Above all, we need a nation that doesn’t believe government is something we “belong to”, but rather something we hire to do some distasteful jobs.
The problem is the implication he drew about the 47% – that they can be written off. Country club Republicans don’t understand what motivates people to vote GOP, so they go after the clueless 5% of undecided “independents.” Conservatives know that culture and values are as significant factors in voting behavior as economic self-interest.
47% don’t pay income taxes. Many of them do pay taxes, particularly payroll taxes which have gradually gone up as the number of retirees has increased over the years. And “Just a mom” is right, lots of that 47% will be willing to vote Republican for principled reasons. Not everyone is so base as to vote purely on what will be best for the amount of money flowing to their pocket.
I would add that this sort of principled approach to voting is something which tends to leave Paul fans and libertarians shaking their heads in confusion.
I don’t believe for one moment that Romney believes that the entire 47% that pay no federal income tax are, by default, entirely in support of Obama. And keep in mind that the remark was not part of a speech but on off the cuff remark surreptitiosly recorded.
What frightens me is the very likely ratio of any group the would vote against the federal government taking more money out of their pocket. I certainly wouldn’t, I feel I pay too much…and I feel the federal government spends too much. One might find that one who doesn’t make enough to have any federal withholding AND then gets a refund DOESN’T feel the federal government spends too much. Again, not each and every individual, but I’d be willing to bet a majority.
Romney wasn’t my first choice…but I find I may, for the first time in over three decades, have to hold my nose to pull that lever because…as a firm believer in free markets, the Second Amendment, and limited government…another four years of an Obama administration has the potential to erode the American way of life beyond repair.
The comment wasn’t a stellar moment for him, but I do like that he is not backing off the truth that 47% of Americans have no skin in the federal game and the tax code is a tool for redistribution and purchasing political favor. My advice to Romney is to start channeling his inner Christie.
Good article and comments in New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107453/romney-fundraising-dinner-47-percent-moocher-taker-entitlement-medicare
I agree. Romney should not back off his statement, and he should start talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare.
“Not everyone is so base as to vote purely on what will be best for the amount of money flowing to their pocket.”
True, but if you are working for $10 an hour every penny counts — another thing that Country Club Republicans don’t understand because most have never been in the position of trying to decide whether to pay the rent or eat.
” . . . most have never been in the position of trying to decide whether to pay the rent or eat.”
There are more limosuine liberals than there are country club republicans these days.
The dems abandoned the working class long ago. Didn’t like their morals.
“. . . and he should start talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare.”
Very funny. I’d be happy to get out of SS, but I want the $300k I’ve paid into the system over the years. The reason they can’t reform SS is that there is no money. It’s been spent by greasy politicians over the years.
Correction to my post: I would vote against the an increase in my taxes.
Oh, and Sanity…the worker making $10 an hour pays no federal tax and quite likely gets a refund. A refund when you’ve not paid in is what? Anyone? Redistribution.
And sanity, if you know, please post how much Romney paid in tax in 2011, and how much he “redistibuted” on his own by giving to charity (in which the recipient gets much closer to the actual dollar amount than when filtered through the waste and bureaucracy aof government)…oh, I am not asking for the deliberately vague “percentage” he paid, the amount…in actual dollars.
Sanity, I also agree. Romney should not back off his statement, and he should start talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare…the two greatest ponzi schemes perpetrated on the American public which would have the perpetrator rotting in prison for life if it weren’t the federal government….
What really bothers me about social security is that if it wanted to, the government could have made it a great program. They could have used the money to buy T-bills in your name, and it could have been a real retirement account.
Instead it is a ponzi scheme. The politicians spent the money as soon as they got their hands on it.
And they don’t have to give anyone any of it back, ever. They could raise the retirement age to 120 years if they wanted to. It’s not your money, it never was. It’s government money.
Right now there is some poor slob working for minimum wage, and the government is taking 12.5% of the little he earns so they can pass it off to their crony capitalist pals.
Unfortunately Terry, what you describe is essentially what we have now. A T-bill is merely a stated IOU of the government. A borrowing of cash, with a stated interest rate. The feds long ago robbed the trust funds of cash, with a promise to repay at a future date. They just didn’t promise a stated interest rate, but instead allowed the benefits to be increased, without regard to the earnings of the underlying asset.
Much like the defined benefit, vs. the defined contribution retirement program. There are few, if any, defined benefit programs which are adequately funded to provided the benefits promised. Most continue to rely on the sponsor to contribute additional funds when the day of reckoning arrives. Much as SS is today.
There is a huge difference between owning a quarter million in T bills and owning nothing, Loren. Ownership is the key. SS was designed so that you, as a worker, own nothing when you retire. You are dependent on the State and the politicians and bureaucrats who run it.
“the worker making $10 an hour pays no federal tax and quite likely gets a refund. A refund when you’ve not paid in is what? Anyone? Redistribution.”
Are you saying that the worker making $10 an hour should pay income tax (on top of the payroll, state, and local taxes they already pay)?
Mitt Romney earned more than $42 million over the past two years, and paid $6.2 million in taxes at an effective rate averaging 14 percent. I pay an effective rate of over 25% on much lower income, so comparatively I’m paying much more in taxes than Romney.
Much of his charity is required tithing (Mormon requirement). I don’t know how the Mormon church spends that money.
“Right now there is some poor slob working for minimum wage, and the government is taking 12.5% of the little he earns”
Actually it’s at 4.2% (for the employee contribution portion) right now, but you are right on other points. It’s called FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution) which is what torques me. With a normal insurance policy there are set rules and the goal posts can’t keep changing (like you said, age changes, amount, etc), so this is a misnomer at best and scam on Americans at worst. They should call it what it is . . .
The Republicans, in spite of their pathetic Country Club elites and leadership, are not the party of the hard working class.
Gee whiz. Please make that:
The Republicans, in spite of their pathetic Country Club elites and leadership, are the party of the hard working class.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
The employee part of the contribution has been 4.2% for less than two years.
Currently it amounts to 13.3% including medicare. Employee and employer portions should be lumped together, it’s all compensation. The “employer portion” is just a way to hide from the worker just how much the politicians are taking from him or her.
Employee and employer portions should be lumped together, it’s all compensation.
Good point, but my guess is that if the employer contribution were reduced it would not be put toward increasing the employee’s wage.
I think the biggest problem for Romney is the inconsistency in his messaging. It’s hard to know what he believes and who he would represent as president. When he says he doesn’t care about 47% of the electorate it’s a concern.
“The employee part of the contribution has been 4.2% for less than two years.”
This was due to Obama cutting the payroll tax.
When he says he doesn’t care about 47% of the electorate it’s a concern.
That’s a lie. Romney did not say that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
“And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. ”
Right here he says he doesn’t care about “those people”.
If we elect Romney we’ll have the richest president ever to hold the office. His history and statements lead many to believe he can’t relate to the middle or lower classes. He’s never had to live their lives (not even close), and he’s always associated with the wealthy classes — in his personal and business life, from Day 1.
“so comparatively I’m paying much more in taxes than Romney.”
No, you’re paying a higher percentage of your income, you aren’t paying more in taxes. But if I had my way, you’d be paying the same to near the same percentage and the federal government would live within it’s constitutional means.
But what government product is Romney getting for his $6.2 mil, that your mere 25% of whatever is getting you?
The nations armed forces aren’t protecting him any better than you.
Even if your view that education is a federal government function (i don’t) did you utilize public education? I doubt Romney or his family did even though he paid for it.
Does he have a much finer lane of the interstate on which to drive? A nicer camping spot in a national park? The air he breathes is cleaner?
He pays more than you, but why should he be required to…simply because he has it and you don’t? Yes, I see your point of view, I just don’t understand it
““so comparatively I’m paying much more in taxes than Romney.”
“No, you’re paying a higher percentage of your income, you aren’t paying more in taxes.”
On each dollar I earn I’m paying 25%. On each dollar Romney earns he pays 14%.
So yes, I’m paying more on each dollar of income than Romney. Yes, comparatively speaking, I’m paying more in taxes than Mitt Romney.
Is that fair? He makes more than me, and pays less than me per dollar earned. He used every legal loophole he could to make that possible (money in foreign accounts, write offs for feeding of his horse, etc).
That’s his right, but many would argue that isn’t patriotic, especially for a guy who wants the job of chief patriot.
“The nations armed forces aren’t protecting him any better than you.”
He’s getting secret service protection to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money spent. He’s being protected better than me right now.
“He pays more than you, but why should he be required to…simply because he has it and you don’t? ”
Are you suggesting that we all pay a flat tax of x percent, regardless of income? Fine. Set it to 25%. Romney is paying only 14% and I’m paying 25%. Where is the fairness in that? Shouldn’t everyone pay the same rate? Why does he get 86 cents of each dollar he earns and I get only 75 cents? Because he needs it more than me? Doubtful. He earned $42 million over the past 2 years. I don’t think he has a poverty argument to fall back on.
“Sanity” wrote
“And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. ”
Right here he says he doesn’t care about “those people”.
Let me clue you in, “Sanity”. “And so my job is is not to worry about those people.”
Is not saying “I don’t care about those people”. You have paraphrased and removed context. It is a very dishonest thing to do.
Terry,
True to an extent, it (T-Bills) is still paper that probably won’t be worth face value when it comes due.
Loren-
Taxes must be paid in dollars and the tort system runs on dollars. Dollars, aka T bills, will never be worthless unless the government falls.
T bills define face value. You buy a thousand dollar T bill, payable in, say, six months, for some amount less than a thousand dollars. They will always pay full value, all they have to do is print the money.
You are dense as well as crazy, “Sanity”. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income. Blame the government for that — including Democrats — not Romney.
In theory — again, blame the government if this isn’t true — you get back all your SS and medicare money when you get old. Romney is limited on his SS contribution because his withdrawl is limited on the back end. If you pay $1,000,000 into SS every year and can receive a max payout of $20k/year, it’s not social security. This feature was designed into SS by Roosevelt because he did not want SS to become a welfare program, that is, he wanted every American to have a stake in SS so every American would have a reason to support it.
The reason capital gains are taxed less is because it (supposedly) helps the economy to grow. Money is invested expecting a return, that is, $100 invested returns $103. This makes the economy grow by $3.
Screw sustainability. Every economy where ordinary people do well financially is a growth economy. This has been known since the time of Adam Smith. This is so obvious that even Keynes did not question it.
“47% of the people don’t pay taxes”
Per the WSJ, 47% don’t pay federal “income tax”. They still pay Federal payroll taxes (SS and Medicaid/Medicare) if they work and they pay state and local sales taxes if they buy stuff.
Of course, the whole point is to get a rube like you to not notice the difference to start speading the idea that 47% don’t pay any taxes to your fellow rubes.
But go ahead an campaign on the idea the retired people living on Social Security should pay more in taxes.
I understand how capital gains are taxed, and for Romney that tax on long term gains is 15%. He pays 14% in taxes, so he doesn’t even get to the minimum of cap gains tax rate.
I’m not talking about SS and Medicare contribution of Romney here (that is not included in income tax, as it is payroll tax which is not included in this discussion). In any case, nobody EVER pays a million dollars into SS in any year because nobody pays SS tax on earnings above $110,100 in income (2012 limit — this the amount of earnings subject to taxation for SS) which is well below Romney’s annual income of around 20+ million. Romney will never pay that much into the SS system — he pays the same amount as anyone earning $110,100 (max that can be taxed for SS), which is (including employer share) $11,450.40. That is less than the $20,000 a year you state as the social security benefit.
The rule is stated here
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Useful table here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base
Sanity, when you go to buy a product, does the clerk ask to see a pay stub so they can charge you based on a percentage of your income?
Taxes and buying products are two different things. Are you suggesting that everyone should pay exactly the same flat amount of income tax? What would that amount be?
$5000 a year? How would people at lower incomes pay that? Loans? A lien against their estate (in case they leave something behind)?
Just wonderin’
No, I didn’t suggest a flat amount tax, I would agree a flat rate would indeed be better.
But in your envy of those that have more and your obvious contempt for Romney, you suggested hist tax rate raised to the level of your instead of yours lowered to the rate he paid.
I would even counter that we could put it at 10% eliminate all loopholes, deductions ad credits, apply it to all income levels…everyone gets some skin in the game so office holders have less opportunity to use the tax code to purchase political favor…and the federal government go on a crash diet…or…
Elininate income tax altogether and go to a consumption tax…and the federal government go on a crash diet.
Either way my guess is I will not convince you of anything…and what I see as a federal government that has bloated many times over what the framers had envisioned when they crafted the constitution…and that wreaks of corruption, malfeasence and fiscal mismanagement…you see as a federal government that is simply under-funded.
Oh, and with the liberals in Washingtons hatred of all things Bush…if they are successful in allowing the tax rates esablished by the legislature and signed into law by W to expire…get ready for more than 25%
What state was Romney in when he was unknowingly recorded? Maryland?
“Romney’s income tax rate is 14%…..” and yours could be, too. As said above, his income is from investments, hence the lower rate. What all the Libs conveniently fail to mention is that the money he now uses to invest he first earned as ordinary income, and taxed accordingly- at 35% or 39%, depending on the time frame.
“Sanity” wrote:
In any case, nobody EVER pays a million dollars into SS in any year because nobody pays SS tax on earnings above $110,100 in income (2012 limit — this the amount of earnings subject to taxation for SS) which is well below Romney’s annual income of around 20+ million. Romney will never pay that much into the SS system — he pays the same amount as anyone earning $110,100 (max that can be taxed for SS), which is (including employer share) $11,450.40. That is less than the $20,000 a year you state as the social security benefit.
So you agree with what I wrote? Why did you restate it?
What state was Romney in when he was unknowingly recorded? Maryland?
Florida, actually. And I believe they have a two-party consent rule as well on such recordings. Not that I expect to see anyone prosecuted.
RickDFL wrote:
Per the WSJ, 47% don’t pay federal “income tax”. They still pay Federal payroll taxes (SS and Medicaid/Medicare) if they work and they pay state and local sales taxes if they buy stuff.
As I wrote above, SS and medicare tax are social insurance schemes. Most people will get their money back.
State and local taxes don’t go to the federal government, only income tax, and a few odd-ball fees for tires and phone service, go to the feds.
Poor folks get quite a bit of their payroll taxes back via refundable tax credits. If you have kids and make $10/hr, your EIC may be more than any payroll taxes you’ve paid.
Romney is running for president. Who would expect him to address local & state taxes?
” If you pay $1,000,000 into SS every year and can receive a max payout of $20k/year, it’s not social security. ”
This line in your post was confusing, and my statement was to clarify that NOBODY (not even Romney) pays a million dollars into SS in any year. The most anyone pays in in 2012 is $11,450.40. Previous years were lower (because the income limit was lower – it goes up slightly every year).
Just a clarification because you did not state this rule clearly and your comment could be taken to mean that rich people are paying a million or more each year into SS. They don’t.
“Romney’s income tax rate is 14%…..” and yours could be, too.”
Yes, IF you, like Romney, were a trust fund baby (inherited massive wealth that is invested to receive only dividends and capital gain income). The 99% must rely on wage income because they weren’t born rich. Some will save enough to (someday) have large investment holdings, but the majority of their lives they will be wage slaves, and therefore they will be subject to higher taxes when they do succeed as part of the middle class.
“the money he now uses to invest he first earned as ordinary income, and taxed accordingly- at 35% or 39%, depending on the time frame”
NO. Most of the money he now uses to invest came from other investments and he’s rolling it over. When he did work at a job (Bain Capital was where he “earned” most of his money) he was given most of his compensation in stock (or stock options) and other derivative instruments. NONE of this money was EVER taxed at 35% or 39%. EVER. It began life as stock holdings and the gains and dividends were taxed at the much lower rates.
Romney never had to work the way most Americans do, for a wage that is taxed at regular rates.
Stewart’s video (bottom of page) gets to the point of Romney’s tax bracket (at the end) more eloquently than I can say it:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/20/jon-stewart-mocks-bullsht-mountain-fox-news-over-secret-romney-video/
SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment are all ‘social insurace’ programs. They are all designed to pay out as much as they take in. Individual payouts vary, but everyone is insured against downside risk. You accept social insurance programs and you accept the modern mixed economy welfare state.
EITC is a great conservative idea, first proposed by Milton Friedman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d7YKAeLWc
and embraced by Ronald Regan and George W Bush. But if the GOP wants to run on raising taxes for those making minimum wage feel free.
Finally it does not matter what I or anyone expected Romney to address. What Mitch said is that “47% don’t pay taxes”. That is false.
“Sanity” paraphrased:
“I’m more than a little ignorant, and I possess a vibrant jealously for those who aren’t dependent on government. It really wouldn’t matter if rich man X payed 35% or 40% in taxes, I would still vote to tax him more.”
“I’m more than a little ignorant, and I possess a vibrant jealously for those who aren’t dependent on government.”
It takes some hubris to put words into another’s mouth. I never said this, and you are attempting a character assassination here. How Rovian of you. Have at it.
” It really wouldn’t matter if rich man X payed 35% or 40% in taxes, I would still vote to tax him more.”
I never said that. And the truth is that rich man X (in this case, Mitt Romney) does not pay 35 or 40% in taxes. He pays 13-14%.
Is this is all you have to debate with (putting words into my mouth that I never said) ?
Sad.