Romney and the 47% that are dependent on the govt.

[Gumbeaux]

Speaking about apologies, I'm glad that Romney again chose not to apologize and to "double down" on his statement. This is a gift to the Democratic Party. From what I've read, more tapes are to come.

[charley]

"It's not elegantly stated, let me put it that way," Romney said. "I'm speaking off the cuff in response to a question, and I'm sure I can state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that and so I'm sure I'll point that out as time goes on."

The man doesn't have a clue.

[RiverFarm]

But those who like him won't be turned off by this. Hopefully some fence-sitters will rethink their straddling, though.

[applecrisp]

This is just part of the article from Motherjones.com. You can go their website to hear the whole tape (just recently released), or hear the initial parts released.

Now certainly all candidates gear their speech to the crowd to some degree, but I don't think I recall ever hearing such damning statements. More than a small misstatement/flub). With statements like this, sure doesn't make one think that he would represesent all Americans.

And, wow, he certainly was speaking effortlessly....

(Obama is on David Letterman, heard snippets on his reply. Now which sounds more presidential).


SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn

Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3561.

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, 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 health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

[amarante]

Does it matter that the 47% is incorrect?

Does it matter to his "base" that statistically his base is more likely to be in the 47% of moochers than Democrats?

[applecrisp]

Amarante,

I know, many of the states with the highest number of people that don't pay federal taxes are from R states.

He just glossed over (or actually skipped right over) who makes up the 47%. A large percent being some of those darn "lazy" retirees. Ignore the fact that many paid federal taxes, payroll taxes etc while working.

And, someone could be busting their butt in a low paying job, so not paying federal taxes, but certainly paying payroll.

I don't trust Romney as far as I could throw him. First started when he refused to submit his taxes when running for Gov in MA ..... in order to prove residency. He said, just take my word for it, that he always submitted tax returns in MA (in the years in question). Turned out he was lying, then went ahead and fixed his returns for earlier years to reflect he was a MA resident.

[jmarie]

He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November,

There are exceptions to every rule......but I am telling you that you have no clue.....you have absolutely no clue, the MISUSE of federal funds and the number of people willing to take these funds and waste them.

Do you hear me? YOU HAVE NO CLUE! there are Waaaaaaaayyyyyy more freeloaders than legitimate people on the dole, right now. Furthermore, the people who could really use a leg up right now can't get it because all the money is taken.

Go Romney.

[ccooney]

there are Waaaaaaaayyyyyy more freeloaders than legitimate people on the dole, right now.

Joyce, I have been having exactly this discussion with someone I know and have been trying to find a study or something that says what percentage of people there are who just sit at home and collect versus people who really need help. Sounds like you have a source? Would you share?

[amarante]

What do people consider to be "on the dole"?

People collecting Social Security? People collecting Medicare? The old, disabled and poor on Medicaid? Student loans? Hedge fund billionaires taxed on their income at an effective rate of less than 15%? Veterans utilizing the VA medical system? College students receiving Pell Grants? Small businesses receiving a tax credit if they provide health insurance? Credits for child care? Earned income credits?

[syzygy]

Mitt Romney was almost correct that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes — the exact figure for 2011 is 46.4% of American households.



But the vast majority of those households do pay a federal tax based on wages: the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.



That means 18.1% of households pay neither the federal income tax nor the federal payroll tax. Of those, over half consist of retired, elderly Americans. And most of the rest are the working poor who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a Republican policy that gives tax breaks to low-income workers in lieu of a higher minimum wage.



And don't forget that federal taxes aren't the only kind of taxes. There are various state and local taxes, like property tax and sales tax. The notion that large swaths of Americans are unfairly mooching off government is just not true.

ORIGINAL: Charts and analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

[wallycat]

Similar to Joyce's "break-my-heart" post, this breaks my heart...
that people are willing to cut off their own arm to support a guy with only his ilk in mind.
It is sad that the saddest and need-iest believe his rhetoric and are willing to let him have his tax breaks on their backs. But hey, it is a free country and sadly, the uniformed are stuck with their willingness to believe what is not true.

It will be interesting to see what republican 64 year olds feel when they are told they are stealing from the country by signing up for medicare and social security, never mind they paid into it. Since Romeny-esque taxable people never worry about insurance or pensions, it will be interesting how they feel in a year, should this all come to fruition.

[Robyn1007]

Furthermore, the people who could really use a leg up right now can't get it because all the money is taken.

You are correct in this statement. And if wealthy Americans paid at tax rate equal to those in the working middle class there would be FAR more money available to those people who need that leg up.

[Andrea_2]

You are correct in this statement. And if wealthy Americans paid at tax rate equal to those in the working middle class there would be FAR more money available to those people who need that leg up.

Exactly.

[Gumbeaux]

I bet there's a lot of taxable income that is hidden in Cayman Islands secret bank accounts.

[leebee]

There are exceptions to every rule......but I am telling you that you have no clue.....you have absolutely no clue, the MISUSE of federal funds and the number of people willing to take these funds and waste them.

Do you hear me? YOU HAVE NO CLUE! there are Waaaaaaaayyyyyy more freeloaders than legitimate people on the dole, right now. Furthermore, the people who could really use a leg up right now can't get it because all the money is taken.

Go Romney.

Joyce, please explain how you have a "clue" and those on the other side of the issue do not. I am quite curious what insight you have regarding the facts that I am lacking. I have spent a great deal of free time looking & found what syzygy posted, and other information that supports those numbers. I have found nothing to support the idea of these vast numbers of people refusing to work for their living & simply falling into a cushy net provided by an overindulgent government. If you have facts to support that idea, I want to see them, because if I am wrong, I will reevaluate my position.

If I rely on what I see, I have a vastly different picture. I know many who are considered "working poor" who are just that, and I begrudge them nothing. In fact, I am ashamed to know that coworkers of mine must rely on foodstamps for their children. They should be earning a living wage. Believe me, if they didn't have to use them, they would not--but RESPONSIBILITY to their children went before their pride.

There are always those that try to take advantage or manipulate the system, but that is the exception, rather than the norm of what I see. But, as I have pointed out before, anecdotal evidence is wildly unreliable. So if what I see is wrong, I will look at that evidence.

[RiverFarm]

What happened to posting comments calmly and with respect? I think we need to remind ourselves that this board only works when we can maintain a civil dialogue. Hyperbole convinces no one.

Thanks, Leebee, for your polite and measured response

[Angelina]

May I ask what the difference is between "income tax" and "payroll tax"? Federal taxes are taken out of my paycheck, together with state and city (2 states when I worked in NJ and lived in NY!).

If my paycheck is my income, isn't that an income tax I am paying? I know you can have other income besides a paycheck, but still...isn't a paycheck considered income?

Thanks!

[donleyk]

From library Duke edu

Technically, a payroll tax is a tax paid by the employer based on its payroll. An example would be the employer portion of U.S. Social Security (Old Age and Survivor’s Insurance or OASI) or unemployment insurance (FUTA, for Federal Unemployment Tax Act). There may be all sorts of variations, such as limits on the level of wages on which the Social Security tax is applied. Colloquially, I’ve heard the term used for the entire Social Security program, including the employee portion, as you suggest. The income tax comes from the employee based on their income and, from a theoretical or policy (but perhaps not from a psychological) standpoint, is considered distinct. The money isn’t earmarked the same way as OASI or FUTA money.

[ecau]

What I find amazing about this whole argument is that part of the reason a large group of people is paying no federal income tax is due to Republican policies. I heard a clip on the radio yesterday morning of Reagan boasting how his tax changes would take the federal government off the backs of the working poor. So what is up with now bashing those people who are benefiting from the lower taxes that the Republicans want to push so much?

Also, since when is paying little or no tax (federal tax) mean you are mooching off the government? That seems to be such a big leap. If you are going to take that leap, it would seem all those millionaires who want to pay little or no taxes are also moochers.

Lastly, I think it is interesting how the two parties view government. Democrats tend to realize how much everyone benefits from government policies. The whole you didn't build that line is about how we as private businesses and citizens didn't build the infrastructure we rely on to operate in this country - the roads, the bridges, the court system, the public schools, etc... While the Republicans seem to think that anyone who relys on anything from the government is some sort of parasite (even though most of them do rely on/use government services and somehow manage to pretend they don't).

Of course there is going to be waste, of course there are going to be people who take advantage of the system. But the solution to this is to try to design programs to get the incentives inline with behaviors we want. The solution is not to lump whatever that small percentage of people is in with almost half of the country.

Lastly, I think I might be in the 46.4% (doesn't Mitt know how to round numbers?). As someone working and living abroad, I typically don't pay any income taxes to the US government, because I get foreign tax credits. I certainly don't see myself as a moocher, or a free loader, or someone who won't take responsibility for my life. I am guessing most of the rest of the 46% feel the same way.

[amarante]

May I ask what the difference is between "income tax" and "payroll tax"? Federal taxes are taken out of my paycheck, together with state and city (2 states when I worked in NJ and lived in NY!).

If my paycheck is my income, isn't that an income tax I am paying? I know you can have other income besides a paycheck, but still...isn't a paycheck considered income?

Thanks!

It's semantics although technically "Federal income tax" as used to get to the 47% figure is solely the amount paid annually to the IRS.

Payroll taxes are paid by everyone with a job and for many people with lower incomes represent more of a tax burden than the relatively "progressive" Federal "income tax rates since they stop when one hits approximately $100,000 in wages.

Many corporations pay little or no income taxes and how convenient for Romney that in the two years of tax returns he deigned to release, his rate was about 13% - which I suspect is lower than the "effective tax rate" of most people on this Board - i.e. Federal taxes combined with payroll taxes.

The effective rate of payroll taxes is a bit more than 15%.

[syzygy]

Of course there is going to be waste, of course there are going to be people who take advantage of the system.

And this happens with systems both public AND private! Biggest difference here is that the losses or gains in a public system go into (or out of) many pockets, but in a private system its just a few pockets.

[SDMomChef]

What is missing from the whole 47% who don't pay taxes and is dependent on the government meme are the huge corporations dependent upon corporate welfare - defense contractors, oil companies, large agribusinesses.

[leebee]

What is missing from the whole 47% who don't pay taxes and is dependent on the government meme are the huge corporations dependent upon corporate welfare - defense contractors, oil companies, large agribusinesses.

But, see, Romney DOES care about them! I guess those are all about taking responsibility for themselves, and themselves only. And I assume he finds that just peachy...

[amarante]

So how do you think this will actually impact the election in terms of the swing voters?

[jmarie]

The above was one of the headlines on the Comcast homepage headlines


WHAAAAAT you say? OHHHHHH....BUT THERE IS MORE!

Then you open the article and, WOW, it says: How does Mitt define "Middle-Income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

BUT THEN, you read on......and it says: Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.

Uhhhhhh.......If BOTH Obama and MITT, set the same income guidelines for the middle class. then WHY did the headlines say: "Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less"

Just one question of many.

[mcgeiger]

I've thought for a while that Romney was possibly the worst choice we could have for a president. I stand corrected. Jmarie would be worse.

[amarante]

The above was one of the headlines on the Comcast homepage headlines


WHAAAAAT you say? OHHHHHH....BUT THERE IS MORE!

Then you open the article and, WOW, it says: How does Mitt define "Middle-Income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

BUT THEN, you read on......and it says: Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.

Uhhhhhh.......If BOTH Obama and MITT, set the same income guidelines for the middle class. then WHY did the headlines say: "Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less"

Just one question of many.

I am utterly confused as to what you think this proves - a headline from a website without any context of what the rest of the article was about?

What does this have to do with a discussion of Romney's view that 47% of the country are moochers and that moochers support the Democrats because essentially they are being paid by government money in the form of "entitlements".

[applecrisp]

Did you hear that Jimmy Carter's grandson helped get the video to the people at Mother Jones magazine? I saw an interview with him on the news.

[leebee]

The above was one of the headlines on the Comcast homepage headlines


WHAAAAAT you say? OHHHHHH....BUT THERE IS MORE!

Then you open the article and, WOW, it says: How does Mitt define "Middle-Income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

BUT THEN, you read on......and it says: Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.

Uhhhhhh.......If BOTH Obama and MITT, set the same income guidelines for the middle class. then WHY did the headlines say: "Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less"

Just one question of many.

This was a headline because he just said it in an interview. It's simply a matter of timing. When Obama talked about tax cuts extending for those in middle income (meaning up to $250K) there were some reports on it. And now, as then, there was a discussion of IRS "middle income" being around $250K but true median income in the US being around $50K. Both figures refer to household income.

The fact that Romney said it in an interview coupled with the fact that he is a high profile politician would mean it would likely make a report or two. Do you refute the numbers? They are correct in one context. Do you think he shouldn't have said them? That it shouldn't be reported that he did?

I think anyone who considers $250K to be "middle income" in a social context is nutso, Republican or Democrat. But that's because MY family income is MUCH closer to the $50K mark, and I prefer to think of myself as middle class. Certainly below 6 figures. Heck, we're closer to the poverty threshold. But I understand the idea in a financial context.

[PurplePotato]

Originally Posted by jmarie View Post
The above was one of the headlines on the Comcast homepage headlines


WHAAAAAT you say? OHHHHHH....BUT THERE IS MORE!

Then you open the article and, WOW, it says: How does Mitt define "Middle-Income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

BUT THEN, you read on......and it says: Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.

Uhhhhhh.......If BOTH Obama and MITT, set the same income guidelines for the middle class. then WHY did the headlines say: "Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less"

Just one question of many.

This was a headline because he just said it in an interview. It's simply a matter of timing. When Obama talked about tax cuts extending for those in middle income (meaning up to $250K) there were some reports on it. And now, as then, there was a discussion of IRS "middle income" being around $250K but true median income in the US being around $50K. Both figures refer to household income.

The fact that Romney said it in an interview coupled with the fact that he is a high profile politician would mean it would likely make a report or two. Do you refute the numbers? They are correct in one context. Do you think he shouldn't have said them? That it shouldn't be reported that he did?

I think anyone who considers $250K to be "middle income" in a social context is nutso, Republican or Democrat. But that's because MY family income is MUCH closer to the $50K mark, and I prefer to think of myself as middle class. Certainly below 6 figures. Heck, we're closer to the poverty threshold. But I understand the idea in a financial context.

Regardless of the source and the fact that this issue doesn't really relate to the topic of the thread....

I do think that the media's slant on this was a bit skewed. The soundbite they reduced the issue to was clearly not neutral reporting. Both candidates said basically the same thing. The media spin on this issue was not right.