Are 47% of americans “takers?”

[regent]

By Romney's reckoning, if one doesn't pay income tax they're on the dole. According to that thinking the entire nation was on the dole before Lincoln.

 

[Katzndogz]

By Romney's reckoning 47% of people who do not pay income taxes are not persuaded by arguments of the necessity to lower taxes.

Which is correct.

 

[Bfgrn]

If there is a citizenry on this planet that does NOT have an entitlement mentality, it is the American people. American workers take less vacation time than any other people. American workers take pride in the quality of their work and their work ethic.

What Romney said is a gross insult and reveals a dangerous mindset. He reeks of contempt for middle class working people and the poor.

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[regent]

Romney was just telling that wealthy group of contributors what they wanted to hear. That they are the heart of America and the rest of America are parasites. In the book, "Republican Campaign Arguments" it is found on Pages 47-59. Summarized it says: Make the campaign contributor feel good about himself and his money, it is deserved money, his reward from a higher power. The contributor must understand that his contribution to the Republican party will enlarge that deserved money many folds. Make the contributor understand that he is a superior type of person, Darwin proved that when he said "Lots of money means lots of genes."
Do the wealthy buy this trash, absolutely, the problem: not all the the rest of America believes they are parasites and inferior.

 

[PaulS1950]

What I understood was that if someone is not paying income tax you can't lower their tax burden.
What Romney said in further conversation was that he wants to lower the burden on the rest of the population - that is you and me............

by the way, I am not voting for Romney or Obama - their parties have taken us to the edge of extinction and I would like a change for the positive. I am voting to put the people back in control of their lives - the third party!

 

[Dick Tuck]

It's more like 97% who at one time or another received some kind of government assistance. That would include things like student loans, grants, unemployment, etc.. I'd also say that at least 97% of all adult Americans pay tax of some sort to the Federal Government.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's more like 97% who at one time or another received some kind of government assistance. That would include things like student loans, grants, unemployment, etc.. I'd also say that at least 97% of all adult Americans pay tax of some sort to the Federal Government.

Obviously -- for you to IGNORE the bill for all those Federal Blgs and Departments that funded SOLELY by income tax - not FICA tax, not State/Local taxes, not park service fees -- must mean that you don't value all those services and expenditures. We should start getting rid of all that baggage that 47% of Americans pay NOT A PENNY to support.

That would make us both happy.. Until you realize that now that Soc Sec is in the red -- that the 47% don't contribute a penny to make those checks go out whole either..

That 47% are NOT deadbeats. They are NOT the people on the dole. Most of the seriously subsidized don't even FILE IRS returns. Or if they do -- they recieve NEGATIVE income tax thru EITC. But there are too many of those 47% who are in the 2nd and even third quintile of income --- and THAT is not fair..

 

[PaulS1950]

You do realize that Romney never said they were takers. What he said was he wasn't going to worry about trying to lower their taxes. He was going to concentrate on lowering the taxes of those that pay taxes.
How can you lower taxes on those that already pay nothing?

 

[AquaAthena]

As early as 1998 obama wanted to build a majority coalition of welfare recipients. He's made it to only 47%.


The full recording reveals that Obama saw welfare recipients and the working poor in Chicago as a “majority coalition” who could be leveraged politically. (RELATED: Pat Buchanan: “Fabian socialist” Obama “is a drug dealer of welfare&#8221

“What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what I will label the ‘working poor,’” he said, “although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year.”

“They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.”



Read more: Full audio of 1998 Obama 'redistribution' speech reveals liberal positions on gun control, health care, welfare reform | The Daily Caller

And here is who they are:



Here is the breakdown, according to the Tax Policy Center:

Elderly: 10.3% This group has likely paid off their mortgages and is earning reduced income in the form of modest pensions and Social Security benefits. If they are making less than $10,950 (single), $20,150 (married filing jointly) and $13,650 (head of household) in annual pension benefits alone, then their Social Security is not taxable and they have no filing requirement.

6.9%: Non-elderly Some of these folks are under the age of 65, likely live in low-income areas, may possibly enjoy the benefits of low-income housing, food stamps, government subsidized medical, etc. They make less than $9,500 (single), $19,000 (married filing jointly), and $12,200 (head of household). They have no filing requirement and do not work. If they did, they would be included in the next category of the 28.3%. This could also include the ultra rich who pay no taxes thanks to tax loopholes. It also includes many students living off student loans or with their parents. And don’t forget our beloved Armed Forces who receive nontaxable combat zone pay.

28.3% Pay Payroll Tax This group has jobs, but are working for very low pay or part time. They pay into Social Security and Medicare through payroll withholding, but because their incomes are so low, they end up owing nothing in income taxes.

Low enough wages to not have to file a return can be common at large corporations. According to Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2012, four members of the Wal-Mart family hold 6th through 9th place with a combined net worth of $107.1 billion. Yet, Angela Andrews, a registered tax practitioner who works in a tax office at a California mall across from Wal-Mart states, “more than 50% of the 100 Wal-Mart employees who come in to get their taxes done qualify for and receive the Earned Income Credit.” When employers don’t pay the difference between the minimum pay scale and adequate compensation, taxpayers provide it in the form of the EIC for those workers.

These people are legally entitled to the Earned Income Credit (EIC), which helps low-income filers hold on to and even get more money from Uncle Sam. Many eligible candidates for the EIC are single parents, and can get a maximum of $5,666 for 2011 with the credit.

Some corporations prefer to hire two part timers rather than one full-time individual so they don’t have to provide fringe benefits.

<1% Others &#8211; a hodge podge of the remainder that make up the 47%, with no descriptive provided by the Tax Policy Center. These are probably self-employed individuals who are suffering business reversals. They file tax returns with the hopes of carrying backward or forward their business losses. No tax is due if you threw your money into a business that is not yet giving you a return on your investment.

So as you can see, the 47% is a varied group. Some are elderly, living modestly on small pensions. Some work and pay into the system in other ways. Some are thrown by the bad economy, unemployed and looking, losing their businesses, losing their homes.

On Mitt Romney&#8217;s website is the following declaration: &#8220;Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.&#8221;

It&#8217;s likely that most among the 47% can say the same.

Think about the tax monster we have created. The rich pay 15%, the poor get reverse welfare. Those in the middle are forced to carry the load. It&#8217;s time for less talk and more action. We need a Congress and a president who will radically change the tax system in this country.

Bonnie Lee is an Enrolled Agent admitted to practice and representing taxpayers in all fifty states at all levels within the Internal Revenue Service. She is the owner of Taxpertise in Sonoma, CA and the author of Entrepreneur Press book, &#8220;Taxpertise, The Complete Book of Dirty Little Secrets and Hidden Deductions for Small Business that the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know.&#8221; Follow Bonnie Lee on Twitterat BLTaxpertise and at Facebook

Read more: Who is the 47% Not Paying Taxes? | Fox Business

 

[Politico]

Of course it's not true.

 

[oldfart]

You do realize that Romney never said they were takers. What he said was he wasn't going to worry about trying to lower their taxes. He was going to concentrate on lowering the taxes of those that pay taxes.
How can you lower taxes on those that already pay nothing?

Good point. I think I was channeling Paul Ryan when I heard the Romney tape. It's clear that Romney was speaking extemporaneously and not from prepared remarks and that his phrasing was not artful. I agree wth you that Rmney was making the more narrow point you presented that lowering marginal income tax rates has no appeal for those who pay no income tax because of credits, deductions, and exempions, whether they are millionaires with tax-free bonds, Social Security retirees, or working poor.

That said, the controversy took off as if his remark was a fuctional equivalent of Reagan's "welfare Cadillac" anecdote. I think most of Romney's audience took it in that broader sense and I'm sure Ryan interpreted through the prism of the Ayn Rand universe. This put Romney back in his familiar dilemna; if he corrected the misinterpretation of his remarks, he would alienate his supporters who viewed his remarks through that prism.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are democrats trying to say that people who pay no taxes are persuaded by arguments to lower taxes?

The intelligent ones would. Those who realize that lower taxes results in increased revenue would. But how intelligent is the average democrat? Not very.

 

[kiwiman127]

Wages in real dollars have been stagnant for over thirty years. Of course more and more people are going to fall into that dreaded description of the 47%.
Who determines wages? Who determines outsourcing offshore? Who's becoming wealthy by holding wages down? Exactly why is the gap between the wealthy and the rest becoming larger and larger? Why has the working class see their share of the National Income keep in sinking to record lows?

 

[regent]

During World War II I was told the real Americans were serving their country so I did.
After the war the real Americans got a job, raised a family, paid their taxes, so I did. Now I discover it's all changed, the real Americans are the ones that pay income taxes, keep their savings overseas and make lots of money. Suddenly I'm a taker and a burden on the really real Americans, the wealthy. It keeps changing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The recent leaked remarks of Gov Romney at a fundraiser where he made a somewhat garbled claim that 47% of the American public were “dependent on government” and unreachable to the attractive features of his programs because they paid no federal income tax raises some questions of fact and perspective. First to be fair to Mr. Romney, I believe that he is sincere in what he believes and that much of the blowback is the result of him misspeaking what he believes. So I am going to spot him a big one and assume that he does NOT think that 47% of the American public is “takers” in the parlance of the Randian universe, even if that is what he said. This is like Ronald Reagan’s comment about welfare Cadillac’s; he presented it as an anecdote without claiming that any specific percentage of those on public assistance were irresponsible moochers or crooks.

In particular, Romney bemoaned the fact that nearly half the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes: “These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility for their lives.”

The confusion started with the 47% figure itself. Actually in the Statistics of Income Bulletin the figure given is 46.4% and is the percentage of 2011 federal income tax returns filed that show no net income tax liability. So the first caveat is that this is a percentage of filed Form 1040 series returns, not a general population figure. This introduces two distortions; first not all 2011 returns are filed (extensions are due October 15) and apparently Mr. Romney himself is in this category. Secondly, it says nothing about those who do not file tax returns, most of whom are not required to file tax returns.

Almost all of the data about tax return filing and information comes from the Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service and can be accessed in excruciating detail through Tax Statistics. Since individual tax return information is protected from disclosure by law, all information is presented as aggregates, but some of the series, like the top 400 individual returns characteristics, can be pretty interesting. The data is so available and accessible I have trouble seeing a good reason not to fact check this data when quoted. The biggest problem is that there is so much data published it can be hard to find exactly what you are looking for.

Perhaps the biggest limitation of this data and how Romney used it is that it is for one year. Typically filers go through a life cycle, showing low income when students, higher income while working, and lower income again when retired. And most small businesses have good years and bad years; I’ve got a few zero years in my Social Security earnings record myself. Using Census information, the Hamilton Project show that until age 60 or so, about 80% of all tax filers pay income and/or payroll taxes, and that from ages 25 to 60 about 70% of filers pay some income tax. The point is that most return filers pay income tax during their working years, even if they do not pay income tax in the current year. I think that it is obvious that drawing conclusions about Americans work ethic based on a single year of tax data is a misuse of the data; most Americans during their normal working years pay income tax.

[Sorry, I am having trouble posting the graphics of the charts; if I can't fix it I will at least post the url]

So who are the remaining 20%, are they the same people each year, and what tax advantages cause them to have no income tax liability? Obviously not all of them are poor; in fact about 4,000 millionaires pay no income tax each year.

One way to look at this is to consider which portions of the tax law are used to reduce income tax liability to zero. Using SOI data the Brookings Institution provides the following:

---Tax breaks for the elderly (mainly partial exclusion of Social Security benefits) 44.0%
---Credits for working poor (mainly child tax credit and earned income tax credit 30.4%
---Exclusions for tax-free benefits (like health insurance) 6.0%
---Education credits 5.6%
---Exclusion for tax-exempt interest 5.1%
---Itemized deductions 5.0%
---Other tax credits 2.5%
---Favored treatment of capital gains & dividends 1.3%

The only groups on this list that I think could conceivably support Mr. Romney’s comment are the credits for working poor. But these programs owe their existence to the Republican Party and have been for over 20 years been pointed to with pride by Republicans who argue they are a vital part of moving poor people from welfare to jobs. The original EITC was invented by the famous liberal economist Milton Friedman when he was chief economic advisor to the Barry Goldwater campaign. Back then it was called the “Negative Income Tax” and was the darling of conservatives and libertarians because it was far cheaper to administer than welfare programs such as public housing and food stamps and was less intrusive into people’s private lives. The first earned income credit was proposed and signed by President Nixon.

But have these programs created a permanent class of low-paid workers dependent on these credits for a major portion of their income year after year? Apparently not. Most EITC recipients only get the credit for two consecutive years or less. Many of them soon move up the income ladder and start paying taxes back into the system. One paper found that, over their lifetime, these EITC recipients pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

Consecutive years of receiving EITC
---one year 42%
---two years 19%
---three/four years 20%
---five or more years 20%

[Shamelessly stolen from “Americans who pay no income taxes, EITC edition”
TheWashingtonPost website, October 24, 2011 by Brad Plummer. } Americans who pay no income taxes, EITC edition - The Washington Post

“Approximately half of all taxpayers with children used the EITC at least once [between 1989 and 2006],” writes Indivar Dutta-Gupta of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Most EITC beneficiaries only use it for a year or two, before scrambling up the income ladder. Workers were especially likely to use the EITC when their kids were very young. By and large, the program helps many workers get ahead, and it alleviates early-childhood poverty. You can see why it’s been so popular for so long among both parties — Ronald Reagan, for one, at the signing ceremony of the 1986 Tax Reform Act on October 22, 1986, stated, “The bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code, and a sweeping victory for fairness; it's also the best anti-poverty bill, the best pro-family measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.

Conservative revisionists might want to rewrite history now, but the plain truth is that these tax credits were conceived by conservative Republicans, enacted by conservative Republicans, and claimed as great achievements by conservative Republicans, from Goldwater through Nixon and Reagan forward at least until 2010. If any conservatives want to demonize these programs and claim that the 5.6% of tax filers who owe no federal income tax for more than two years because of the refundable child tax credit and earned income tax credit constitute and underclass of “takers”, they are pointing the finger at their own intellectual heritage. And the size of this group is astonishingly small compared to the 5.6% who owe no federal income tax due to education credits or the 5.1% who avoid federal income tax because their income consists mostly of tax-free bond interest (and they generally do this every year!).

So where are we left? Every government program has some waste, fraud, corruption, and inefficiencies; that’s why each agency has an inspector general. Some agencies do a better job of improving their operations than others. Every program should strive to improve. There are some people who game the system, including the tax system. Some of these people are poor and some of them are extremely wealthy and everywhere in between. But tax statistics do not support the notion that there is a huge underclass of Americans who are permanently dependent on government support.

Why?

 

[Bfgrn]

During World War II I was told the real Americans were serving their country so I did.
After the war the real Americans got a job, raised a family, paid their taxes, so I did. Now I discover it's all changed, the real Americans are the ones that pay income taxes, keep their savings overseas and make lots of money. Suddenly I'm a taker and a burden on the really real Americans, the wealthy. It keeps changing.

Yea, today's 'real Americans' send their savings overseas and make lots of money, and the 47%er's send their sons and daughters overseas to fight wars of ideologies and have them come home in a box.

 

[Politico]

During World War II I was told the real Americans were serving their country so I did.
After the war the real Americans got a job, raised a family, paid their taxes, so I did. Now I discover it's all changed, the real Americans are the ones that pay income taxes, keep their savings overseas and make lots of money. Suddenly I'm a taker and a burden on the really real Americans, the wealthy. It keeps changing.

Wow so you're like 90?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wages in real dollars have been stagnant for over thirty years. Of course more and more people are going to fall into that dreaded description of the 47%.
Who determines wages? Who determines outsourcing offshore? Who's becoming wealthy by holding wages down? Exactly why is the gap between the wealthy and the rest becoming larger and larger? Why has the working class see their share of the National Income keep in sinking to record lows?

This is actually off topic whining. BUt it's also misrepresentative of the "jobs" problem.

Employers don't conspire to hold wages down.. The ATM holds banking job wages down. The self-check-out lanes at retail holds cashier wages down.

I myself am doing the jobs of what took 5 support jobs to do in the 80s. DAMN the person that put a personal computer on my desk.. Sorry man -- but you're blaming biz for the existence of globalization and automation...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wages in real dollars have been stagnant for over thirty years. Of course more and more people are going to fall into that dreaded description of the 47%.
Who determines wages? Who determines outsourcing offshore? Who's becoming wealthy by holding wages down? Exactly why is the gap between the wealthy and the rest becoming larger and larger? Why has the working class see their share of the National Income keep in sinking to record lows?

This is actually off topic whining. BUt it's also misrepresentative of the "jobs" problem.

Employers don't conspire to hold wages down.. The ATM holds banking job wages down. The self-check-out lanes at retail holds cashier wages down.

I myself am doing the jobs of what took 5 support jobs to do in the 80s. DAMN the person that put a personal computer on my desk.. Sorry man -- but you're blaming biz for the existence of globalization and automation...

That is bull. Address the fucking GAP.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wages in real dollars have been stagnant for over thirty years. Of course more and more people are going to fall into that dreaded description of the 47%.
Who determines wages? Who determines outsourcing offshore? Who's becoming wealthy by holding wages down? Exactly why is the gap between the wealthy and the rest becoming larger and larger? Why has the working class see their share of the National Income keep in sinking to record lows?

This is actually off topic whining. BUt it's also misrepresentative of the "jobs" problem.

Employers don't conspire to hold wages down.. The ATM holds banking job wages down. The self-check-out lanes at retail holds cashier wages down.

I myself am doing the jobs of what took 5 support jobs to do in the 80s. DAMN the person that put a personal computer on my desk.. Sorry man -- but you're blaming biz for the existence of globalization and automation...

That is bull. Address the fucking GAP.

I will.. BUt NONE of what I said is bull. I'm telling you where the jobs went. I can also tell you how to get them back. But it won't sound like ANYTHING you've been told by politicians or MSNBC. Somewhere in Japan tonight there's a bunch of disgruntled posters on JAPMB, whining about TOyota opening another plant in the US or Sony hiring 100s of American engineers in Silicon Valley. THe world has changed. And the DEFINITION of "a job" has greatly changed.

So the REALLY REALLY REALLY bad news is ---- there's NO FUTURE in low-skilled labor. Not here and not even in CHINA. I've said it 50 times, but FoxConn in China is NOT HIRING a million more country bumbkins to assemble crap.. They are building an ARMY of a MILLION ROBOTS in the next 2 years. They KNOW that "cheap labor" is a passing trend and that 21st manufacturing is NOT dormitory style corporate housing and food servivce.

Our job is to beat them there. The GAP is widening because what USED TO BE solidly middle class lever puller jobs in factories is a thing of the past.. Not gonna happen any more. No more likely than going back to 10acre farming with a mule.

SOOOO --- we are COMPLETELY vulnerable to total societal collapse of the Middle Class unless we start to compete on a GLOBAL scale with innovation and development of new processes and technologies. THAT is the ONLY THING that really sustains 21st century economies. There will be fewer and fewer low skilled positions and what remains will be in shitty limited wage Service sector.

Prepare the country properly --- or keep demanding silly redistributive fixes. Your choice -- Your Kids --- Your Future..

That said --- do you really want to stick with an Admin and a party that doesn't talk about the REAL JOBS problem? That wants to focus on class envy, free birthcontrol and dependency? Or do you want to create a country that can still SELL STUFF to the rest of the world?