You may have seen by now this chart, explaining the identity of the 47% (actually 46.4%) of Americans who “pay no income tax.” As you can see, around two-thirds of that subset do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. If you count both sides of that tax, the employer and employee side, you get to 15.3% of their income in taxes. Mitt Romney paid what, 13.9%, in the one year we know about, and almost none of that included payroll taxes because it derived from interest and capital gains income.
Of the remaining one-third of the “lucky duckies,” about half are the elderly, who are retired, draw no income, and therefore pay no taxes. Only a small sliver pay both no income taxes or payroll taxes and actually work for a living, and they don’t have any tax liability because they don’t make enough. Incidentally, substantial numbers of this 47% subset, both among seniors and working class whites, vote consistently for Republicans.
The reason the poor don’t have tax liability is that the country made a decision, under Republican Presidents, to reduce that. More specifically, Republican Presidents made that decision to compensate for the fact that they wanted to give rich people a giant tax cut. So they made them “broad-based” to make them look somewhat more equitable.
Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. That’s why, when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So whenever you hear that half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that [...]
Some of those tax cuts for the poor were there to make the tax cuts for the rich more politically palatable. “Do you think we wanted to include a welfare payment to people who don’t pay taxes and call it a tax cut?” A top Bush administration official once asked me. “No. But that’s what we needed to do to get it done.”
But of course, these had a dual purpose. They not only served the immediate goal of slashing the tax liability of the rich. They also created a “nation of moochers” that could immediately be pointed to by Republican politicians, to divide the lower classes and separate them. The middle class, which has some understanding that they pay taxes, will envy those who do not, and look to the very Republicans that made this happen to rectify the situation. It serves class and racial politics to have this large underclass that “doesn’t” pay taxes. Conservative politicians point to the “takers” and say that they want to hike taxes on the rich out of envy and frustration. They say that if those people don’t pay taxes they don’t deserve services. So there are multiple ways that creating this 47% myth serves conservative theories of government.
Oh, and the lack of self-awareness extends to the fact that the states housing the most Americans who pay no income tax are almost all in the South.






104 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Two things struck me when I heard this…
1. He just declared that the rich think of themselves as victimized.
2. He just disenfranchised almost the majority of the population of the United States.
he didnt disenfrachise the majority. He just said he doesnt care about 47%. This 47% still can vote, either for him or for someone else. I just think it is stupid, no matter what election you are running for, if you concede half the population, why even bother to run in the first place?
Don’t kid yourselves, Romney’s got a ton of these 47 percent lock, stock and barrel. “The keep government out of my medicare” crowd is a large portion of this population. And the christian conservatives in the far south. He could gun down a million puppies a day and would not lose these votes.
I think there’s a little bit of an opening in the last two weeks. Some quantum of the electorate is galvanizing against the predations of the super-rich, and around public service workers like the Chicago teachers. Michelle Bachmann is in trouble in her district. Romney can’t carry Michigan and Ryan may not pull in Wisconsin. Romney’s final self-administered coup de grace could not have come at a better time.
Is the earned income credit included in these numbers? That would eliminate even the payroll tax. BTW, I think I read somewhere that the earned income credit was proposed by some economists as a way to make up for the low minimum wage.
This whole thing is just another trap for us. We should demand an increase in the minimum wage. How in the world does anyone live on $7.25 an hour? The answer is you can’t and so you need food stamps and two working. What a country we live in given all the wealth that a few have. Now they even want to cut food stamps. And there is talk they want to eliminate the minimum wage. You know, let the market decide. Kind of like slavery.
Ain’t that the truth. What do you call poor people who vote for this asshole? But guess what many of them just don’t vote.
It is wrong to imply that 47% of the country is poor. Yes, a fair hunk of that 47% is poor, but in no way is it all poor.
Yes, that’s a very calculated “47,” just enough to keep the paranoid shelling out money, just enough to make them think that they’ve got a titanic struggle against the zombie poor on their hands, just enough to make them think they can win.
And it is generally accepted among pollsters that the billions shelled out in campaign ads are in the end only important in reaching the small percentage of people–6 or 7% of them–whose votes are truly in play. Those independent voters, it is said, are basically conservative on foreign policy and money issues, liberal where social issues are concerned. Some complain that Obama has shilled to them for four years, more concerned about capturing their votes than about helping the poor or middle class.
There is some substance, in other words, to the meme.
I think Romoney just won the Atrios ‘Wanker of the Millennium’ award.
True enough but we know we have around 50 million in poverty and the 47% certainly suggests there are millions more near poverty. That says nothing of people who work multiple jobs to stay ahead of the game. In our local IHOP I would say about half the waitresses have two jobs. I often wonder how they go on.
Bain Capital takes over a company, loads it down with debt while removing all of the assets, forces the company into bankruptcy and shifts the pension plan onto the backs of the Pension Guarantee Corporation (read taxpayer). That uses a lot more government support than any member of the 47% “deadbeat” population.
My Mom is one. A 75 year old widow whose singular reason for voting for Romney is to get rid of Obamacare to save her medicare. That’s the simple truth and you will not change her mind. The mind control by Fox News is stunning.
There are millions like her. Low information voters we call them, but they don’t want to know the truth. They have made up their mind.
A big chunk pay state tax too. And anyone who drives pays gas tax. And a lot of people who have no Federal income tax liability buy lottery tickets, which is a tax on people with bad math skills. And there are taxes on their cell phone bills, and most other consumer purchases.
And SS and Medicare and all of these other taxes are used for purposes other than General Revenue which is what Federal Income Taxes are used for.
So even though the 47% number is accurate, it’s easy to manipulate that it’s not.
Out of the 400 tax returns in 2009 with the highest Adjusted Gross Incomes,
27 paid an effective income tax rate of less than 10% (click through to download .pdf).
My guess is that at least a few paid zero or negative rate.
Is Mitt counting these job creators among the 47%?
But but but, they built that business.
Working poor people who own homes pay property taxes. If they rent they pay their landlord’s property taxes. Property taxes pay for local government and local services including the cost of educating children. Part of Medicaid is paid for with local property taxes. Mitt Romney is ‘uninformed’.
'Just' as in; "only recently"? He and his ilk have thought this since 1776, and most of their political actions have not betrayed the sentiment, which doesn't keep them from getting voted into office. He merely had the misfortune of being caught articulating it…this time.
********************************
Believe me, Mitt, if I could find a job that paid $40-60k, I would be delighted to bear my share of our horrible tax burden! Regardless of things like sales, excise, payroll taxes, etc. the thing about 47% of Americans "paying no taxes" is:
They don't make enough INCOME to pay INCOME TAXES.
That's the real story.
A successful America depends on half of the population making little to no income, the rest barely scraping by and a tiny minority so wealthy that no economic decision made (regarding the majority) will effect them negatively in any way? Is that what you are telling me, Mitt? That's how it should be. Mitt…Mitt, Mitt, my friend! If you you want to be taxed at lower than %20 on your offshore tithings, you must suffer "capital-gains-creator" scum like me making-do with $20k / year chillaxing at Wal-Mart while you sweat and toil over your hard-earned interest and dividends.
Why do you hate America?
The Atlantic has a good write up here.
David Cay Johnston says 6 out of the 400 paid no taxes.
Thanks for the link to the Atlantic graphic showing, yet again, another set of data that demonstrates the result of two-hundred-years of conservative policy in action.
So, Romeny is spouting BS to a room full of wealthy, smart, job-creators. Are they all clueless or just mean & greedy?
You know, the banking industry would not exist without constant government bailout (S&L, Mex. peso, SE Asia, LTCM, housing fraud – just to name the recent big ones). But, within the government propped-up banking sector, Romney only returned 20% to his investors at Bain over 14 years. This is the same 20% annual return an unmanaged S&P 500 index fund made over the same 14 years:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08/the-romney-files-from-bain-to-boston-to-white-house-bid/
Those Bain investors took huge risks, over the smaller risk of the over-all stock market, to get the same return from Bain as the market average.
I’m beginning to think America’s wealthy, smart, job creators aren’t so bright after all.
Broad..see where it says *almost* the majority in my post? Not “the” majority?
Decades ago some said William F.Buckley was the last living (US) Tory.
Clearly this is not true- a good number of the 1% fall into that category.
Add to the tax list: sales taxes,state taxes (where present),city taxes….
People should be judged economically on how much disposable income they
have and what their total assets are.
Many things are infuriating about this 47% speech, but what is worst for me is that these people view Social Security and Medicare as some kind of charity (if you’re under 55), despite the fact that every recipient (particularly of SS) has paid in all his life. Because it is a “handout” they feel free to take it away, i.e., steal it. All this coming from a creep who conceals his taxes and in the little he has concealed pays a much lower percentage than me.
I think I’m like a lot of people here. I was entertained by the campaign, seeing Swiss Mitt/R Money/Mormon Gekko such an unlikeable, awkward freak. But a really hate him now, with a sulfurous kind of hatred.
Let’s see Romney walk this back. Maybe he can say he was brainwashed.
It’s still just mid-September; what’s he going to do for an encore?
BTW, if you pay 15.3% payroll tax and no Federal Income Tax, your Marginal Tax Rate is 0%, Romneys is 35% (Marginal rate is the highest bracket that you pay). Your Effective Tax Rate would also be 0%, while Romneys would be 13.9% (Effective rate is total Federal taxes divided by total income).
Comparing payroll taxes to Effective rate isn’t even apples to oranges, it’s apples to elbows.
The trolls have been saying this for several years, which makes me think it comes from right wing media.
The very idea that half the population of the US is taking handouts from the hard working Republicans is just nuts. Nearly as bad as attacking over half the population in the War on Women.
It’s really too bad we have such awful candidates to “lead” this country. We needed an FDR and we got Coolidge.
I’m betting that unless we take congress back form the Nazis, Obama will implement many of the R’s “good ideas” just like he did in his first term. Drill, baby, drill.
Here’s a line for the campaign:
Maybe if Romney had spent less time writing pink slips and more delivering pay stubs he’d be aware that all Americans pay taxes.
At least this 47% has paid all the taxes they are legally required to do so. Just like Mitt!
———
The official restaurant of the R&R campaign? Burger King, home of the Whopper!
Oh, there will be several. The 1% want Obama. We can expect more of this dumb-down-the-”opposition”. The think tanks are in high gear. They like what they have.
If anyone hasn’t seen this, an aspiring young comedian punking Gretchen Carlson on Faux Snooze this morning. Hilarious.
Are there really people who didn’t already know that we created a problem when we let 51% of the people vote themselves benefits out of the pockets of the 49%?
And if they own a large amount of government bonds they pay a negative rate or we pay them cause they’re sooooo rich !
triad @ #21
bain did manage to “uncreate” a lot of u.s. jobs –gotta give him credit for that! /s
You mean like me bailing out the 1%?? I never voted for that, but that’s what happened, nonetheless.
Here’s the problem with arguing against the facts, you need to fudge to make your point sound credible, then nullify your own argument with other fudged points.
Start with 47% of Americans pay no income tax is a lie because of payroll tax!
Then add up payroll taxes to get a factual sounding number, say 15.3% and compare that to Romneys Effective Federal Income Tax Rate of 13.9%. The uninformed will think he pays less, or a lower rate. But that’s like saying 3 elephants is less than 10 banjos, there’s no context.
Then you make an argument for the poor, elderly, retired, no income, so for sympathy, you’re now supporting the original claim that a large percent don’t pay federal income tax.
That requires another excuse, so blame the Other. Republicans reduced the poor peoples taxes to 0 to help the rich. ???
Back to supporting the original claim = part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans.
The half of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes have Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to thank. Wait, is that a bad thing or a good thing?
Well, they didn’t do it to help the poor, just so they could call them names.
Start out claiming 47% isn’t true then blaming a Republican ploy for the 47%.
The only logical conclusion to correct this Republican ploy is to ensure everyone pays at least some federal income tax. But I haven’t heard that yet.
So here we are today stumbling with “but…but…but”.
I’m beginning to wonder if the whole “leak” was planned. It’s brilliant. They are going to get away with it. It’s the Southern Strategy and it’s going to work for these fucking scumbags.
The sad part is that most Americans will look at their pay stub and see some form of taxes taken out and think that they are not part of the 47%.
This is a bunch of BS.
It isn’t 47% he does not care about, it is 99%.*
*The same percent Obama does not care about.
There’s the great irony of all this. Most US corporations couldn’t exist without tax payer funded welfare–and at the very least they try to socialize as much of the costs of their operations as possible–and yet here is one of their own suggesting that those much lower on the socioeconomic ladder are the ones getting a “free ride.” Does the bulk of the 47% have off shore tax havens? Has the pleasure of the rich stopped being dependent on an abundant supply of the poor?
Romney has made his fortune by putting people out of work, and now he complains that too many people don’t pay income tax? It is not good enough for the sociopathic likes of Romney to take away the ability of someone to pay their electricity bill or feed their children. He must grind them under a boot by turning them into “freeloaders.” A clear case of projection?
Well put.
And, “He merely had the misfortune of being caught articulating it…this time,” etc. is exactly right.
This really is the heart of his hypocrisy (although your first paragraph is also a good point).
The attitude is disgusting and it boggles my mind how blatant he is about it and yet he’ll still get 46% or more of the votes come November. Wow. Of course, my own parents who will be hurt under his policies are fervent supporters of him. It’s maddening.
As Obama said, “Everyone has to have skin in the game.”
It was a big mistake to set it up otherwise.
Oddly, it is the 47% who pay nothing who complain the most.
very well put.
Why are you counting the employer side of taxes? This seems to be disingenuous to me.
Forget October surprises. Republicans have mastered the art of the September implosion. McCain did it in 2008 when he suspended his campaign to pretend to address the financial meltdown. Romney does it this past week by trying to exploit the Libyan consulate attack and writing off 47% of Americans as parasites.
As for the national debt and the huge surge of Americans on government assistance, Republicans can proudly say of each, “We built that!”
What Romney is saying to the audience in that Mother Jones video is this: “Fuck the poor. Doing so is what has made us rich. Who’s with me?” This is why he has such a “tin ear” when it comes to talking with the 99%. You’ve seen him “interact” with them. He can hardly stand the exchange. He sees most of those folks as grist for his mill. “What the hell are peasants for?!” Romney yells rhetorically to his aides in private.
And it is indeed one of the great Mysteries of Faith that so many folks who are hurt by the machinations of Romney, et al cheer these parasitic bastards on. They identify with their oppressors–or at least their “leaders”–and haven’t realized that when the Romneys of the world talk about “freeloading peasants” that they mean them. As long as these folks can be convinced by their “leaders” that there is someone lower down (i.e. less worthy) than they are, they don’t realize that they are the ones on the hook waiting to be eaten.
Romney says that he dreams of an America where everyone gets to follow their dreams into the middle class? Romeny’s America (and to be fair, Obama’s as well) is one where the lower and middle class shrinks.
A question for the future is will the Romneys and Obamas and the owning class they represent devour their host? And if so, then how will they survive?
There is no 47% that pay nothing. Even if someone does not pay income taxes he still pays taxes in a variety of other ways: payroll taxes, taxes on gasoline and telephone service, etc.
Secondly, the people that don’t pay income taxes have every right to complain the most because they have the least. 50% of US households have only 1% of the wealth. It isn’t because they are lazy moochers. It’s because the US is emulating the structure of Third World countries with regressive taxation and the destruction of opportunities for upward mobility. The system is rigged. It is no accident that everything started trending in a bad direction when conservatives gained the upper hand 32 years ago.
Mitt is part of the low information voter bloc. Not smart enough to build a business on his own but narcissistic enough to think he is a higher class of human because he was born into a wealthy family. We used to call these guys assholes back in the 1900′s. And remember Capitalism will always be the best system as long as it has Socialism to bail it out every ten or so years.
“The very idea that half the population of the US is taking handouts from the hard working Republicans is just nuts.”
Ding! That is exactly the thesis the Reps have been selling to their audience, lo these many years.
It is an old con. The grifter pretends to be on the side of the mark by warning them of all the lurking dangers in the busy market square. “Look! There’s a good-for-nothing, freeloading pickpocket right there!” And as the mark, out of fear and ignorance, turns to look, the grifter lifts his wallet. The mark kindly thanks the grifter for looking out for his best interests and goes about his day. When he later discovers his missing wallet, he of course blames the imagined boogeymen in the square. The next day the exchange is repeated. And as long as the grifter can keep redirecting the mark . . . And the grifters have the most powerful redirecting device ever invented: The television.
That’s a good question. He’s running out of groups to piss off.
But I have faith in the RNC, Romney and Ryan.
I disagree. 3 elephansts is MORE than 10 banjos. Eveybody knows that alan.
Scrambler September 18th, 2012 at 6:58 am
“Don’t kid yourselves, Romney’s got a ton of these 47 percent lock, stock and barrel. “The keep government out of my medicare” crowd is a large portion of this population. And the christian conservatives in the far south. He could gun down a million puppies a day and would not lose these votes.”
Well put, so much so, that it bears repeating.
I cringe watching the liberals nail coffins with some smug delight.
We are in the middle of a civil war of sorts, and the forces jefferson romney is trying to rally actually ‘THINKS’ thoughts like what he was saying through his looking glass.
It will be interesting how the reactions reflected in polling in the next four days will be.
The msm will still suffocate any information that runs counter to their corporate owners.
The country will still wait until the debates.
It is very difficult to lie consistently in public. Some time, some where the liar is going to give the game away–unless you are a trained actor like Reagan. Part of the necessity for politicians of looking good on TV is to be able to lie 100% of the time, a very difficult thing to pull off.
Hvae I said lately I like your style?
For a party that used to easily “out campaign” the democrats. They look like a blind guy playing volleyball.
If true I think we can determine which side of the Mendoza line a disproportionate segment of commenters fall on.
But remember George Costanza in Seinfeld, the “key”…”It’s not a lie if YOU believe it.”
The feeling is mutual.
HA! Indeed. And there’s the rub. Figuring out who believes what comes out of their mouth is one of the few interesting things about watching politicians.
True.
Ten is more than 3, just like 15.3% is more than 13.9%.
Except that 3 elephants is more weight than 10 banjos, just like 13.9% effective tax rate is more federal taxes than 15.3% payroll tax.
On one hand, low information voters – not too bright; on the other hand, willful refusal to understand – dishonest.
Very true. Another fun fact…hiding your income in foreign accounts to avoid paying your taxes is unpatriotic and illegal.
Yes, makes sense but many at lower income levels cannot afford to pay any tax. I think we must insist that the eight and half percent or so most everyone pays for SS and medicare is a tax ( that 15% number apparently includes the employers part and is unhelpful.) I also think we must insist on an increase in the minimum wage. And I think it needs to be substantial.
I also havn’t heard anyone talk about the earned income credit. That credit could eliminate all taxes in some cases.
cregan,
Like most Republicans, you’re muffing your propaganda points when you say “the 47% who pay nothing” — that’s a lie meant for intra-Republican consumption. When you talk to a broader public you have to accurately qualify that. What you mean is “…who pay no income tax.” Not a minor distinction. You can investigate why; I can’t do your thinking for you.
How much does Romney pay, by the way?…(crickets)
A wild guess, but I’d guess that most of the 47% who pay no federal income taxes pay a higher rate than Romney.
Don’t bother to argue with me. I’m just the messenger. The voters will be making a more lapidary and forceful argument soon.
It’s fun to bash Romney, I get it, and BTW in this case he is totally wrong.
There are many people who pay zero federal income taxes that will end up voting for Romney. (mostly Seniors) afraid of Obamacare.
President Obama doesn’t have that 46% or 47% locked up, although he does have a large coalition of the country locked up maybe even as high as 49%
The big issue is that the Federal Tax system needs to be reformed, to eliminate the loopholes.
President Obama has a plan to increase taxes on people earning over $200,000 a year, or couples earning $250,000. It might be a good start, but I doubt it’ll work because many high earners are able to shift their income to avoid higher tax rates.
The only solution is to eliminate all the loopholes.
Romney says he’s for tax reform, but when the republicans reform taxes they just lower the tax rates, and the upper income earners benefit the most.
Why aren’t the Dems in favor of tax reform?
You’re knocking down a straw man.
If someone here is arguing that the 47% figure is wrong, then they’re wrong. If that were as far as he went, the claim would be accurate.
I’m sorry to break it to you, though, but he didn’t stop there.
You’ve got a bright future getting in on the ground floor as a Romney apologist. There aren’t many left after this week.
I’d prefer we fashion the loopholes into nooses.
“…the only solution is to eliminate all the loopholes”
Excuse me, but I’ve got to get back to planet Earth now, Dwayne.
Comrade:
The freeloader meme is a Luntzian, Orwellian, propaganda investment. There is nothing subconscious in masking the psychopathy.
Thanks for taking a moment to peer deeper into the deception than DDay.
Superb.
The absurdity of their fabrications indicates the instability of this world-view. On one hand, there is great potential for a rapid inversion of their support. On the other, there is great malevolence yet to be unleashed.
This isn’t merely a “political cycle” thing.
Romney’s now implied that half the country, the less well-of half, need to pay more taxes. Meanwhile, the non-partisan analyses recently indicate Romney/Ryan will, indeed, raise the tax burden on everyone middle class and below. I suspect that the Obama campaign will now be able to successfully convince a few percent of uncommitted voters that this smirking, plutocrat creep Romney really will raise their taxes (and they will) to give himself another tax break.
They’re going to kill him.
First off, I agree fully with your first para.
Now, if I might interrupt the crickets.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I think Romney made something like $20M last year (mostly dividends and such). He did have some real income, let’s say $500k.
He (foolishly, but probably accurately) claimed he paid about 13.9% in taxes. The foolish part is that this is his Effective Tax Rate. That means he paid about $2.8M in taxes on $20M (capital gains are taxed at about 15%, so 13.9% seems about right).
He could have honestly claimed he paid 35% in taxes. That is his Marginal Tax Rate. Of the $500k, everything over $372k is taxed at 35%.
Your wild guess that most of the 47% who pay no federal income taxes pay a higher rate than Romney – would, by definition be impossible. As you point out, Federal Income Tax is different than other taxes, and 0% cannot be a higher rate than 13.9% or 35%.
Don’t consider this an argument. I’m just like numbers. I agree, the voters will decide.
First of all, Romney wasn’t talking about rates, he said there is 47% who pay no taxes (I know his effective income tax rate is higher than mine, he pays millions more dollars than I do, but he has millions and millions more disposable income afterward-and since he might have had to lift a finger to do it, I suppose he can call himself an unemployed manual-laborer).
Let’s say I’m married, filing jointly, with two kids. I can’t take any but the automatic exemptions and adjustments (no tuition payments, mortgage, IRA contributions, etc.) If I (and my wife) earn only $26,305 gross, we have to pay $1 in taxes (If I whittled my two-week period payroll deductions for Fed income tax down to only 8%, and filed asap, Uncle Sam at 3% annual interest still made $31.32 off the interest of my withholding). We had to pay taxes with an annual income of $26,305 ($9405 if I’m single). If you paid NO taxes, you are:
1) destitute,
2) struggling (and I mean struggling) to pay a mortgage (possibly submarine) or student loan, treating a sick family member, or
3) receiving some kind of a federally non-taxable income (regular distributions from IRA, 401ks, pensions are taxed-I doubt someone in this situation is holding a stack of state or municipal bonds).
That 47% of the adult population falls into any of these categories belies the woeful underemployment the 1% have created in this country. To deny these people assistance is inhumanly ruthless. Not smart, but cunning.
Romney is a symbol of elite contempt for politics. His cynical solicitude is a sheer veil for executive raiders who blaze the capitalist future.
What is the effect of their terrorism on the already apathetic population? I think a large number of them just can’t handle the truth.
You ask how will the parasites survive? Wrong metaphor, comrade.
This is from my government program lovin’ cronies:s/
You pay more in taxes that R. says you do even if you are in the bottom quintile:
I don’t have any specifics, and it’s obvious you don’t either, but following US tax code, including using foreign accounts to avoid paying taxes is as illegal as opening a Roth IRA or 401k account.
Typo: meant to say “more in taxes” (federal and other) generally. For lack of any evidence to the contrary — (you know, like tax returns) — it’s plausible that somebody who doesn’t pay any federal taxes pays more in taxes overall than Mitt. I mean, a little bird told me he’s paid zero ;-)
I think you’ll admit that your response as to what his marginal federal income tax rate is obviously irrelevant here, because that’s not how his mountains of money are taxed. But I’ll pass it on to Mitt. Maybe he can try that 35% line. (By the way, it’s long Republican practice to wilfully get people to confuse “taxes”, generally, with “federal income taxes” because it gives the rich the chance to complain about that 35% rate. Please don’t try it on me again.)
I appreciate the respectful response, but I can’t really reciprocate — you do see the absurdity of your speculating about what Romney might have paid, don’t you? It kind of begs the question of what he’s hiding and we’re back full circle.
Good link, it states:
Your link strains to show that all income groups pay some kind of tax. But it doesn’t point out that payroll taxes pay for SS and Medicare, excise taxes like the gas tax pay for road construction, state and local taxes pay for state and local government.
Now let’s go back and be more specific. 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax that supports the General Fund of the United States that pays for the federal government to run the country (of which 85% of the General fund comes from federal income taxes – paid by which group?).
Nice try. I think you’re the one who needs to get more specific, though. After all, you’re the one who wants to raise taxes for that 47%. Which ones?
We’re not the ones who want to raises their taxes.
There may be some of both. The meme is Luntzian for sure.
First off I will admit that my response about his marginal federal income tax rate is irrelevant. As you can see, I was not trying to confuse “taxes”, I was spelling out that there are ways in which some people try to equate 15.3% payroll taxes with 13.9% effective federal income tax (first para. of the article above) which is false.
You’re in luck. We have tax returns, and it turns out your bird is ill-informed.
For you to be correct, your high gas tax, phone tax, etc. guy would have to pay $3,000,000 in his “other taxes”, while having no federal taxable income. Not so plausible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-returns/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html
I’m trying to be more specific. The link, while accurate, was slanted by not identifying what the average persons taxes pay for.
To be fair, point to where I want to raise taxes for that 47%. I don’t care that higher wage earners pay more tax (dollars and/or percents) than lower wage earners.
I’ve just been pointing out that some (maybe not you) tend to slant their Tax Stats in their favor. Shock!
Even if it were, the collective lie is far more insidious.
“Romney’s now implied that half the country, the less well-of half, need to pay more taxes.”
Good call. And whether or not it was the intended purpose, these statements by Romney can potentially serve to move policy to the right for the Obama adminstration to further their tax cuts for the wealthy. “Tax breaks for the poor as a compromise for tax breaks for the rich?! But the former don’t pay income taxes anyway!”
You do see why I would jump to that conclusion, don’t you? It’s that much worse for Romney/Ryan, who definitely want to raise taxes on that 47% and have now let the cat out of the bag.
As for slanting, who slanted worse — the commenters here, or Romney with his culture-of-dependency-they’ll-never-vote-for-me insults? Don’t take my word for it — you can find plenty of refutations of his repellent comments on the right, even from Romney apologists.
What is a better metaphor?
If Mitt releases his tax returns we’ll all have specifics. It is unpatriotic to avoid paying taxes you legally owe by hiding your income. You are not a good citizen.
Forgive me, but I’m going to enjoy the moment, and the election, before succumbing to that kind of fatalism.
I think so, too.
Sure. I did say “potentially.” :)
This response is worse than the ones before. You do realize we’re talking about percentages, don’t you? Or do you think if Romney paid $20,000 in taxes last year he’s paid “more” taxes than the other guy?
Alas, it’s not a rhetorical question. You people will never fail to surprise me with the way you think.
RMONEY’S ” hired shills” have convinced him to simplify things. It’s easy now for the Indies to decide. If your part of Obama’s hardcore your a LOSER 47% on da welfare and if your part of RMONEY’S camp a BIG time winner, job creator etc. So the 5% that can’t make up there minds now have from their perspective an easy choice, winner ( RMONEY and klan) or LOSER ( Obama welfare queens et al.)
Husbandry.
Ha! Indeed.
We agree.
The tax code is very complex especially for the very wealthy.
Is it unpatriotic to “avoid paying taxes you legally owe” by putting a few dollars a month into a 527 plan to pay some of my grandchildren’s education in the future?
Is my Health Savings Account (HAS) considered “hiding my income”?
“unpatriotic” “illegal” “hiding income” “not a good citizen”
Loaded words for people following the laws that are in place.
In that case we’ll have to go back to the link at #76.
Top 1% pay 29%.
Bottom 40% pay about 20%.
Excellent point!
That data you just offered does not show what you think it shows.
You need to think harder about the implication of those figures, and proceed to examine the corollary data that addresses the questions these figures beg.
I will give you a few minutes to think about it…
(Jeopardy music playing)
…But you seem numerically illiterate.
Think, think…
You are, in fact, numerically illiterate.
I cannot talk slowly or loudly enough to help you through this.
I’ll try anyway. Let’s posit a hypothetical country — let’s call it Romneystan — with a hundred citizens. The bottom forty each make $1.00 a year. The top %1, one really rich guy, makes $100 million. Since the bottom forty are moochers they only get taxed 10% and contribute a total of $4.00. The top earner is taxed at 35% percent and therefore contributes $35 million. The tax rates aren’t fair! We need to make them fair! So lets tax everyone a fair 20%.
Hey, it’s still not fair! Those bottom 40 only contribute $8.00 and Mitt Romney is still paying $20 million!
How do we make them pay the “same”? Hmm, we could tax Mitt – I mean the 1% – at .000004% so that he pays a total of $40.00 — and tax those 40 losers 50% for a total of $20.00.
But it’s still not fair! That 1% is still paying a higher percentage of total taxes! How do we get those moochers to pay their fair share without outright enslaving them? Oh wait a second…
Completely correct…….I think they said about 10% of those with no tax liability were well off and just like Mitt Romney(not willing to pay a dime more than they have to.)
Everyone HAS skin in the game. Everyone has been paying for the upkeep of this country including the 47% that supposedly pay no taxes, since apparently the only taxes the right counts are income taxes.
So let me get this straight…..it’s completely “patriotic” for you to avoid paying taxes by using legal tax shelters but those who legally qualify for zero tax liability using those same tax rules (and may very well be using the little extra they do have to fund THEIR grandkids education or pay for THEIR deductibles on their insurance) are “moochers?”
It’s pretty darn hypocritical for the right to whine about the unfairness of the tax code while exploiting each and every loophole they can find to get out of paying their share.
And YES, I resent the crap out of the fact that Romney who had his education paid for by someone else, and who makes MOST of his income off the backs of the labor of OTHERS has the balls to call anyone a “moocher.”
In Romney world, the family who makes median wage and takes advantage of loopholes for education, health care or their house and owes nothing is a “moocher”(and a government entitled victim) but Mitt Romney can totally write off HIS horse, HIS health care, and other deductions and he’s some patriot for NOT PAYING ONE SINGLE CENT MORE THAN HE HAS TO. What a hypocrite!
No, nothing even remotely like that. The 1% may have a lot of indirect power, but they can’t simply vote themselves goodies. They have to exercise influence in a way that we may sometimes be able to detect and stop. 51% of the public isn’t subject to any such potential discipline. They can just suck and suck until it’s all gone.