Mother Jones has published a video of Mitt Romney at a private fund-raiser making incendiary remarks about Obama voters – and, well, about half of the electorate.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will votefor the president no matter what,” Mr. Romney said. “Thereare 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they arevictims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they areentitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it, that that’s an entitlement. And thegovernment should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
“These are people who pay no income tax,” he added.
I’ll address just that last part in this post.
Mr. Romney is absolutely correct that about half of American households do not pay federal income tax. (He is also tapping into a now long-running vein of conservative anger at those households.) But he is missing some crucial context on why they do not pay federal income tax.
The nonpartisan andhighly respected Tax Policy Center derivedthe 47 percent number – it is actually 46 percent, as of 2011 – and published an excellent analysis of it last summer .
It found that about half of the households that do not pay federal income tax do not pay it because they are simply too poor. The Tax Policy Centergives as an example a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 a year: The household would pay no federal income tax because its standard deduction and other exemptions would simply erase its liability.
The other half, the Tax Policy Center found, consists of households taking advantage of tax credits and other provisions, mostly support for senior citizens and low-income workingfamilies.
Put bluntly, these are not households shirking their tax liabilities. The pool consists mostly of the poor, of relatively low-income workingfamilies and of old people. The tax codeis specifically designed to reduce the burden on them.
Indeed, the recession and its aftermath have left tens of millions of workers out of a job or underemployed, removing more households from payment of federal income taxes. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts – the signature Republicaneconomic policy of the 2000s, which doubled the child taxcredit, increased a number of other deductions and exemptions, and lowered marginal tax rates – erased millions of families ’ federal income tax liabilities.
It is also worth noting that though tens of millions of families do not pay federal income taxes, there are virtually no families that do not pay any taxes – between payroll taxes, sales taxes, state and localtaxes, and on and on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romneys-47-percent-us-election?newsfeed=true


Who are Romney's 47% that don't pay tax?

Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes and tax credit schemes mean this headline figure is misleading

Haroon Siddique
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 September 2012 08.52 EDT

Mitt Romney defending his 47% comments
Mitt Romney speaks to the press about the secretly taped video from one of his campaign fundraising events. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

In the leaked video published by Mother Jones, Mitt Romney claimed that 47% of Americans "pay no income tax", people who he could "never convince … to take personal responsibility and care for their lives".

He described such people as those "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it".

At a press conference designed to limit the damage to his election campaign, he did not disavow the claim but said Obama's policies are "attractive to people who do not pay taxes".

Romney's headline assertion that 47% of Americans pay no income tax is almost correct, assuming he was referring to federal income tax. The Tax Policy Centre said that in 2011 46.4% of people paid no federal income tax. But his suggestion that such people do not "take personal responsibility and care for their lives" warrants further investigation.

Firstly, some of those people who did not pay income tax still paid payroll taxes, for social security and Medicare, so that it was only 18.1% of households that did not pay any income or payroll taxes. Given that there are sales taxes, state property taxes and state income taxes these people are still paying some tax – at what point you are deemed to be taking personal responsibility is subjective.

Of the 18.1% paying no income or payroll taxes, more than half (10.3% of all households) were elderly, so retired people who may well have paid income and payroll taxes, as well as others, during their working lives. Of the remainder, 6.9% of all households did not pay income or payroll taxes, essentially because they were poor, leaving 1% of "others" who did not pay either of these two types of taxes. Presumably, within the "others" category would fall the likes of six of the 400 US tax filers in 2009 with the highest adjusted gross income (at least $77m), who, according to Internal Revenue Service studies, paid no US income tax, and the 19,551 US households with income above $200,000 who owed no US or foreign income tax.

The percentage of people paying no federal income tax was even higher in 2008 and 2009 (50.8% in each of those years) but it is no coincidence that such figures have gone up during a recession (the figure was 39.9% in 2007).

Howard Gleckman wrote for Tax Policy Centre about the situation in 2009: "You may have noticed that we've had a recession lately. And here is a powerful insight: When people's incomes decline so too does their income tax (at least most of the time) ... there is, however, another reason why some people don't pay. For decades, both Democratic and Republican governments have made conscious policy decisions to remove low-income working families from the income tax rolls. And, guess what, sometimes government policy works exactly as intended. That's what happened this time."

Michael Cooper for the New York Times writes: "A major reason that many poor people no longer pay federal income taxes is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has long been supported by Republicans. The credit was added to the tax code when Gerald Ford was president, and was expanded by President Reagan in 1986 and by George Bush Sr."

So would Romney like to see higher taxes? Or perhaps just for the poor?

a serious numbers boo boo

because people dont pay an 'income tax', doesnt mean they are depending upon government for their needs

there is the growing number of WORKING POOR , who are supporting themselves on measly incomes, not earning ENOUGH to be required to contribute to the 'income tax'

I'm sure you'll find a large portion of said 47% on this site. Romney told it like it was, liberals who wish to live off the government. Why attack Romney for speaking the truth? Oh tat's right, the truth hurts. Dumba$$ can tell lie after lie yet the media and his brainwashed followers never say ANYTHING about that! Romney states a fact and he's attacked. I thought the Left was supposed to be passive, they're almost as nasty as the extreme muslims. The Left will stoop to anything to discredit the GOP. They NEEEEED their Messiah so they won't have to go out and be self-suffcient.

THAT'S your 47%. I agree with Romney. Shiiit on 'em.

And I'm sure they're bowing to your great Messiah for thanks.

unfortunately, those 47% are still american citizens with a vote about who they want representing the interests of america (including their own 47%)

Id say his statement that he doesnt care,, will be his own demise

much more offensive to many working poor than a statement about how noone builds success on their own is to the well to do,,

hes not my messiah, or else ID be amongst the disgruntled that expected him to perform miracles

no, just a man who I believe loves his family, and community and country, and whom I Believe to be the best man for the job

That's your opinion and you're entitled to speak it. Do just that before that idiot takes away your right. Tell me how they had the authority to yank that "filmmaker" out of his own home to question him? What laws did he break? The first amendment? This country is headed towards socialism on a fast track. Think USSR pre-Gorbachev. THAT is Obama's goal. Plain and simple. Enjoy this while it lasts msharmony.

I dont know what they did to him, hopefully they yanked him out and put him in protective custody, as the idiot will certainly need it,,,


whatever "THIS' is is whatever it was under the previous administrations,,Im not under the delusion that my freedom is any more or less available than it ever was (at least since jim crow laws were revoked)


I enjoy my freedoms, while not expecting a perfect country

and hoping the country will always improve its sense of justice and equailty

thats why I support this candidate,,

One day you will realize that he's against everything you just mentioned.

Its really a testament to how bad trickle down economics has worked out.

47% are working poor great job "job creators"

Ms Gilmorgirl.
That is a really, really, reeeeeeeeeeaaallly high expectation.

Given Mitt Romney’s limited intellect and his clumsy people skills, the odds are that he never would have made it very far in America if he had not been born into a family of prominence and privilege.

Yet, in Romney’s mind, he’s the victim here, the beleaguered white guy from a rich family; the kid who attended top-ranked prep schools and Harvard University; the business executive who was set up by wealthy friends with tens of millions of dollars to succeed in private equity. Romney was born on third base with a silver spoon in his mouth and convinced himself that he had not only hit a triple but had taught himself to be a world-class silversmith.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/18-5

yes, he signed the lily ledbetter act and supported same sex marriage, and the repeal of DODT

because he is AGAINST equality and justice

well, I guess he at least admits to NOT CARING About equality upfront,,so those who vote will know what they are getting

he's speeding up the process to it also...the social republic of the almost united states...

I think we're in for some "fireworks" and "missles" thrown back and forth in the weeks before the election...Things are really going to "heat-up!" And all the extremists on both sides are going to come out "swinging."...I'm an Independent. (Don't want to be a card-carrying member of either party.) But I think Mitt Romney stepped in some "doo-doo" and it will hurt him with some voters.

So what the heck are we supposed to do? People cannot support themselves many through no fault of their own. The rich are getting richer this is not in dispute and the working poor are getting poorer.

Should we have some form of social Darwinism that Mit wants and let them starve to death or go to a for profit prison or do we try to raise them up? Free market capitalism is failing and t hat is the trouble, not the solution.

Can you prove to me that it's just liberals who get refunds at tax time and that it's conservatives who pay more than they get back?

Come November, theeconomy — and who would be betterto fix it — will probably be at the forefront of voters’ minds. But like pretty much every election of the last 60 years, voters’ choice will be colored by their views about taxes. Ifyou believe the rich pay too little, chances are you will vote for Barack Obama. If you think tax rates on wealthy Americans are still too high, you will vote for Mitt Romneyinstead. Speaking to his donors at a fund-raiser, Mr. Romney argued he has no chance of gaining the vote of the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax. But he probably has a good chance ofcapturing the vote oftheir fellow citizens who think paying notax is unfair.
Maybe the way to start building a consensus about how much people should be taxed is tomake the connectionbetween the taxes people pay and the benefits they finance.