Heritage Foundation
A few months ago, Richard Mourdock, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Indiana, complained, "You know this past April, when our federal taxes were paid, 47 percent -- 47 percent -- of all American households paid no income tax." The far-right candidate equated the 53 percent vs. the 47 percent to the Civil War.
It's a strikingly familiar complaint. Though Mitt Romney's bizarre comments at a closed-door fundraiser, in which he chastised the 47 percent as lazy parasites, is obviously something of a scandal today, we know that Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Eric Cantor, and others have raised related complaints.
It's worth pondering the irony of far-right Republican politicians -- ostensibly the most anti-tax major political party on the planet -- looking at nearly half of the United States and thinking their tax burdens aren't nearly big enough. But it's also worth asking a related question: how did we reach the point at which 47 percent of the country has no federal income tax burden at all?
We talked earlier about the folks who fall into this category: seniors who've left the workforce, Americans with disabilities who can't work, students who have not yet entered the workforce, millions of low-income families, and middle-class families who take advantage of tax credits Republicans have traditionally supported. But that last part is of particular interest: GOP policymakers have helped expand the 47 percent on purpose, so there's no real point to them whining about it now.
Ezra Klein had a good piece on this: "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."
In other words, as far as Republican governance is concerned, the 47 percent "problem" is a feature, not a bug. Romney may have contempt for these people, and perceive them as lazy moochers, but in recent decades, the GOP mainstream believed the exact opposite.
When we talk about policies Republicans supported before the radicalization of the party -- the DREAM Act, economic stimulus, cap-and-trade, an individual health care mandate, campaign-finance disclosure -- we can add this to the list.
Leave a Comment:
Like that line
remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that."
Cratered economy , trillions in unpaid war debt , income inequality ..Republicans Built That
do I see an ad coming ?
you bet your going to see at least Obama will touch on this,for good reason, saw a Rap today by a few clever video cutters that devised a Rap tune from MC Hammer's"Can't touch that, very clever indeed
It was probably posted before you hit enter on your post
Randy Newman just put out a new satirical song as well.
Randy Newman writes new satirical, political song - www's column ...
Hey Kids looky here ...This is the guy that hosted Willard's fund raiser
Seriously , these people have no shame.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/09/18/mitt-romneys-donors-and-their-shameful-dependency-on-government/
Wonder how much tax was paid by that bunch & in particlar Mr Romney. Seeing his taxes now even more interesting.
I doubt 47% is a particularly high number in third world nations. And isn't that exactly where Republican economic policies are taking us?
Whoa Dan! Did you forget that Obummer is in the White House and Harry Reid is running the Senate? Dems still have 2 of 3 branches of the gov't for the past 2 years after having all 3 branches in 2008. So the toilet that the economy is in is from from Obummer's Democratic policies.
You are so wrong Hank. It takes all of congress to get anything done. And the do-nothing House'e pact to not help the President stopped almost everything. And the toilet you say we are in was the Republicans putting us in War for 10 plus yrs, tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation of the Banks, Wall Street inflating prices with no back up, businesses going under(Lehmans 2008) and there is a lot more.The President has brought the Auto Industry back, thousands of jobs there and more all the time with businesses for the auto industry. If the Gop really cared about the people they would have helped.
They have manipulated the process to where there must be a super majority to get anything done. Congress is rated so low it is lower than a snake's belly.
You hear it over and over. Congress held a gun to the heads of us all to get their precious tax cuts. We have been mugged by Wall St., banks and wealthy people that do not need more tax cuts. The spending is an illusion. The spending stimulus was necessary to keep the pit from collapsing and loss of even more jobs. People pretend that Obama has spent more than any one. Not true http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Take a look at the fact checkers and see that spending has fairly well held steady and revenues dipped in 2001, when Bush came in. Bush signed TARP and this situation has been dubbed the "Great Recession", which so many called in reality, a Depression.
Hank, I truly hope you will read these things, but I have a hunch you won't.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/09/04/3-huge-economic-misconceptions-from-election-seas.aspx
The economy is hurting, Congress can regulate Commerce to assist, but it can't force business to hire U.S. workers. Carrots and sticks regulation can. Regulating to allow unfettered business is not wise. I think it's going to take a long time to turn this around, but we're on our way.
It's very hard if you are a person (like my sister in law) that was diagnosed with breast cancer, got laid off her job and now faces foreclosure (for real-notice given). She is 58 years old and has no job prospects after completing her treatments. No income, 401K gone.
These are real people, really hurting with really few prospects for jobs. The fallacy is that there are so many jobs and all the people are able to work.
Have you ever had cancer surgery and chemo and infections, with swollen arm (painful) that won't go back to normal?
GOP wants to further cut the safety net that is still out of reach for my sister in law. Where is she going to live? Who will rent to someone with no income? We already pay her medical insurance premiums.
I have news for Romney...I'm not on Welfare, I don't get food stamps, I'm white middle class and voted for the President in '08 and will be voting for him again. Romney's ship is sinking quickly without a lifeboat. Everyday he says something stupid! Get over yourself Romney 47% of the people you put down won't be voting for you!
Same for me Jeanne. We probably paid a higher percentage of income tax than Romney too. Whew, think he'll release more returns now? I like to see how many "entitlements" he received.
If you only paid FICA - 15.3% - you paid more.
That's his point Jeanne that the poorest people will not be voting for him. The 47% are getting the redistributed wealth of the 53% who are paying federal income taxes. Thus the 47% do not want to vote for a candidate who wants to lower government spending and the taxes to pay for their redistributed benefits, rather they want to vote for a candidate who wants to raise the taxes on the 53% to promise and give to the lower 47%.
I wonder, do people realize that the 47% of people not paying taxes also are barely making ends meet? I mean if you worked at minimum wage jobs all your life and exist solely on SS, you don't have enough money to pay taxes! And while the "dog whistle" is to make people think "other" fact is yes there are white people in that 47% figure that will ignore that point and vote for these people anyway.
Plus this: "In 2011, payroll tax receipts totaled $818 billion, only $200 billion less than was brought in by the federal income tax." (ThinkProgress graph) And, those paying payroll tax constitute almost 30% of the population.
Also, 7000 of those paying no income tax happen to be MILLIONAIRES.
@Zora-
This is the thing I've been pondering for the longest time. How can you simultaneously complain about the fact that we're in a recession and unemployment is so high under Obama while then also complaining about how so many people aren't paying taxes. This is the same paradox Republicans create when they complain about the recession and then brag the GM or some other company (green energy, union based, etc) isn't making high sales or is going under/has gone under. The recession seems to only exist in Republican circles when it's good for attacking Obama. Remember our Voldemort here on Maddowblog (he whose name shall not be spoken)? He repeatedly assures us that demand is constant and that's why if we just lower taxes and regulations more demand will be created. The problem with this, of course, is that he then goes on to complain about how high unemployment is, inflation is, and debt is. If the latter exists then that means that demand has decreased and not flat-lined or increased. The two cannot exist simultaneously. Either a. recessions cause demand to decrease which is why businesses lose revenue thereby causing further layoffs and further demand decreases (which, in turn, causes companies to go bankrupt and have poor sales) OR b. recessions do not exist which is why unemployment cannot be used as a meter of Barack Obama's successes or failures. Likewise either a. unemployment and underemployment are at historically high rates thanks to Obama which is why we cannot expect more people to be paying income taxes OR b. unemployment cannot be used as a measure to assess taxation rates and therefore it's entirely pointless to complain about unemployment/underemployment under this president.
The majority of people receiving government checks and pay no taxes are white. More whites than any other ethnic group are getting Food Stamps, more whites are collecting Unemployment, more whites are receiving Social Security, more whites are getting farm subsidies...and the list goes on and on and on.
Wall Street, Oil Companies---any large corporation (like GE) have so many loopholes that they rarely pay any taxes. Some even get money back from the government.
Why does all this information get ignored by both campaigns and the media?
Because they're all siphoning off of the same system and NO one wants to rock the boat...And WE the PEOPLE haven't been on the streets with our pitchforks and torches along with a few well placed guillotines!
Not yet anyway.
There are more whites than minorities. Whats the percentage of welfare recipients who are white compared to black, hispanic and asian welfare recipients as a percentage of that group?
....Hank you do realize that this argument justifies racism as it applies to welfare?
Well, there you go again...
...throwing the facts at the TeaGOP talking points.
Please, please PLEASE don't forget about payroll taxes. With those, the picture becomes radically different (and are we really going to get them get away with saying that those don't really count, while Mitt's 13% is "doing it right"?).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/18/opinion/091812krugman1/091812krugman1-blog480.jpg
This shows the true people who are paying no income tax nor payroll tax are the elderly. But that makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Is Mitt's new slogan really "tax granny"?
Dexter, "payroll taxes" go towards social security and medicare. You know, "Entitlements"!
Curious, that it is an entitlement to your own money. . .
Yes, the word entitlement is one that has been "redefined". Entitlement means you have a right and are eligible, meaning you paid into the insurance program.
Only smart people and elites bother with history and facts. All you need to know is Obama will take your guns and make your daughters use birth control pills. The left wing parasites have been suckling from America's teat long enough. In fact they are raping the country and our probes will show this. When we have taken all the fraud out of the presidential election, our vision of America will have Romney standing tall and pissing on the parasites. Mitt has been in touch with China and has an offer to purchase as many people as we can ship to them. They are especially eager to have people of color so their people will have someone to hate besides the government.
If you do research, but the way I have for quite a while now, check out a film called Maafa21, tell's about smug White Anglo male & females dating back to slavery doing their best to De-populate the country of Blacks, hence the birth control pill was born.
Also came from that Planned Parenthood...
BTW I'm White so don't play a race card on me
.
I hope others catch your sarcasm.
.
I sincerely hope that this posting was sarcasm. Just in case- no the birth control pill was created to prevent pregnancy related deaths and to prevent women from having dozens of children which a. causes the life expectancy of women to decrease and b. causes the health of women to deteriorate every pregnancy ensued (this is, in particular, true after 5+ pregnancies). Back in those days the more children you had the greater chance there was that at least 1 child would make it to adulthood and then you could use those children, in particular their work related income, to support the rest of the family. There was an active incentive for families to over-populate in an effort to create healthy children (a. just to compensate for those that would die at young age or become mentally retarded or suffer from some other ailment and b. because it was easier to get your child a job than it was for adults). In the advent that the mother died or that both parents died these children used to end up in orphanages or out on the streets. We used to have a problem both here in America, but in particular in Europe, where there were so many orphans during especially cold winters or hot summers you could walk down the street and see dead children littering the alleyways. This is part of the inspiration behind A Modest Proposal.
Planned Parenthood was created as a means of publicly making available the pill to people who could not afford it or, as was most often the case, to provide access to the pill for women who no longer wanted to give birth, but were ordered to continue having sex with their husbands (back in those days it was both legal to beat your wife and to rape her which causes many, many women to have pregnancies against their will).
If this was satire sorry for the serious-faceness here, just can't tell through text.
As Juvenal has said; "It is hard not to write satire." The whole Republican discourse these days begs for satire!
nomoremagicalthinking...
I love it and thank you ...
It all started with Reagan -- the most irresponsible, damaging President the country has ever known. W just continued the work Reagan started, and Romney-Ryan will finish it. We'll have finally become the banana republic the Banana Republicans have wanted all along. Then, the rest of us will simply be The Help, as Charles Pierce is known to say.
America deserves what it gets because America elects these Republican asswholes and Democrats are spineless in the face of all their belligerence and immorality. But the rest of the world does not deserve the catastrophe immoral Republican power would bring.
.
It isn't that Reagan caused all the damage personally,
It's the trains of thought created by Reagan which continues to create damage.
One of the trains of thought validated by Reagan was simple and easily understood (though not necessarily correct) solutions to problems which has morphed into idiot simple solutions void of reality to vastly complex problems.
Yes, that's exactly right, and what I've referring to. It all started, at least at an easily focusable point, right there with Reagan. The 30+ years of failed economic policies, the anti-science that had been brewing in the Republican laissez faire capitalism nurseries, and the idiocy and dumbing down of the American public. All started in earnest when Reagan became President. Reagan was the triumph of all that was nastily brewing in previously crank circles. And that's when the decline began for most of the country, and the rise began for the plutocrats.
The ideas that destroyed the world: 1) government is bad, 2) unfettered markets and deregulation, 3) there is no such thing as society. That's all that was needed to get to where we and the world are today.
This is one of those issues that seems to be misunderstood because the figures are unclear. The 47% number is never really explained, so it is unclear who is included in this group. Both sides argue various points, which might be valid; however the basis of the 47% figure is really never specified. If you notice, the chart indicates that it is "a percentage of the population not represented on a taxable return." Does that mean that if you don't owe money at the end of the year that the amounts that you paid simply don't count? If so, that would include a huge portion of the population that might be a bit shocked to learn that they are mooches. For example, if a family of four has the amount withheld from each paycheck based on 0 dependents and then claims all dependents on their return, they would likely get a refund, as the amount withheld from each paycheck would be more than what they ultimately owed. The chart is unclear whether or not this makes them mooches or not. While there are certainly people who probably pay no taxes, this surely wouldn't apply to this group.
The chart seems to indicate that anyone that didn't owe money at the end of the year is considered to be in the 47%. Think about that, if you get a refund, for any reason, you are now considered to be a mooch.
No, that's not what the number represents. What they are looking at is the net amount you owe for the year, before you subtract what you already paid.
As others have stated, the 47% includes the retired people, the involuntarily unemployed, the working poor. A whole lot of those people who don't pay income tax do pay other federal taxes and do not get any government assistance.
.
47% Probably includes children, babies and the unborn too.
.
It would be interesting to add to this graph the unemployment rate, or those who have dropped outta the work force all together. Another interesting line would be the median income adjusted for inflation.
The Irony,
The Anti-Tax Party complaining about people not paying taxes.
Even if Romney's figures are true and 47% don't pay taxes it would still be ironic.
Or would it be hypocrisy, another overused word.
.
What about all the military families? Are they part of the 47%? I bet they don't pay much income tax after deductions. They don't make that much to begin with.
I'm in one of those families. Military serving in areas with hostile fire get a federal income tax exemption. Yes, Mr. Romney, I believe that "the government has a responsibility to care" for us and that we are "entitled to health care, to food, to housing". I guess that makes military families a culture of entitlement.
Payroll taxes for low-income Americans are more than their income taxes. But not as low as Mitt's rate. And Ryan's plan would make Mitt's effective rate only 1%.
The Romney/Ryan slogan should be: Tax Work, Not Wealth.
How can a 0% federal income tax be lower than Mitt's 13% tax rate?
Reading comprehension fail much, Hank????
the climb that starts circa 94 was due to the gop congress going from direct welfare payments to tax credits...resulting in a 6 point increase in the next 6 years
i'd also note what that 2007 number was, the last full year before the conservatives economy went south.. i'd heard it was 37% but the heritage foundation [no liberals, they] have it at 40%...then, the climb to the current 47% was totally due to the downturn
i'd just add, a married head of household with two kids working full time making $38K pays no federal income tax...[but pays all sorts of other taxes, of course]....anyone think they're moochers?
Mitt Romney and the GOP.
So, is this another case of Republican trojan-horse legislation? Cut taxes on everyone, bragging about how it makes the code more progressive, then use those cuts to create a political wedge and give them an excuse to raise taxes regressively?
Much like they added a huge unfunded liability to medicare, and now use the projected shortfalls as an excuse to replace it with a voucher program. Or how they created a massive deficits so they could use the deficit as an excuse to slash social services and safety net programs and curb unions. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there's a pattern there. It's hard to believe that none of this was calculated ahead of time.
If corporations were forced to pay living wages, none of this would even be discussed. Everybody pays Federal income taxes if you make, say, from $ 30 an hour and up. Instead, they don't, and so this massive corporate welfare scheme continues, the robber barons accusing their minions, and getting away with it.
hello I am a 51 yr old singel white male , I work as a counslor( drug and alcohol), my 79 yr old mother and 85 yr old father live with me, resently my 47 yr old sister and her husband moved in with us to help with my dad as he had a stroke and will need a lot of help! he is do good but can no longer walk, they have good insurens and medicare and mr obamas health care plan has made sure they will be taken care of for the rest of their lifes, they paid in to the system for 70 years if Romney and Ryan were to get in office they would gut everything that makes this the best country in the world and make us a country that only the richest and greedest get the best of everthing and the rest get what is leftover, as the workers become the slaves of the rich (basterds) I mean Masters,
I voted for Obama and will do so agin
Can I make an observation from across the pond because there appears to be a similarity between what is happening in the US and the recent political scene over here. In the UK we used to have a party called it was ultimately socialist believing in a dominant presence in having state ownership then Thatcherism occurred Reagenism in its extreme form. The Left in the UK realised that the only way to have power was to become Thatcherist and so we had Tony Blair, who had to see all that had gone before had to be erased from being the Labour Party. There would still be people who would attempt to keep the Socialist flame but would be so ostracised that they would never be considered seriously. Now look at the emergence of the Tea Party phenomenon in the USA it is as though the Reagonomic attempts to turn Democratic leaning voters economically out of paying taxes and so voting Republican appears to being airbrushed so the reason that these 47% do not pay tax is advantageable has become with Romney as not being of interest to the Republican party. It appears a little like the Soviet Union when Stalin died none of his assets were acknowledged. This is why romney will lose the election he does not see as Reagan and the Bush`s did the less people pay taxes the more you would think they would vote Republican as Thatcher did her in the UK she bought the election against Kinnock by tax cuts to the lower middle classes. Am I stupid or does romney want to lose this election. If he does the Tea Party is to blame. Best wishes from the pond from one who would rather be red than dead
But doesn't the claim that the Republicans are partly responsible for expanding the non-federal income tax paying percentage contradict the Democrats and liberals claim that Republican policies only benefit the rich?
I guess Mittens thinks that the only people who are supposed to pay no taxes are the wealthy. Oh, yes, and his favorite "people," corporations!
Complete hypocrisy. When Romney and Bain stripped companies of their assets (including employees pension funds) he forced the government to pick up the tab.
This is Romney's idea of personal responsibility.
But the arithmetic Rmoney uses subtracts so many people as "people" and adds in corporations as people.
The subtraction of revenues from off shoring jobs, tax cutting and bailing out Wall St. creates additional deficit.
So, add it all up and the result is division. Divide these people from those people, turn those people against these people, for what purpose?
I've noticed the media comparing the "47%" comments of Romney's to Obama's '08 comments about people "clinging to their guns and religion". The two are diametrically opposed. Obama, in full context, was relating to the frustrations of people and saying that he understood their reactions; Romney, in full context, was showing his disdain for Americans who don't pay taxes. His bias against the "have-nots", the non-contributors, was glaringly apparent by his not just stating that he could not win their votes, but that they did not take personal responsibility for their situations. So, I guess from his supposition, he is stating that only non-taxpaying citizens are going to vote for Obama and that seniors, vets, students, disabled Americans, those whose deductions outweigh their income, etc., are all good-for-nothings who just want, as he has said before, free handouts.
I proudly own my own business, pay self-employment taxes, local & state taxes, and federal INCOME taxes, and have absolutely have no interest in electing someone like Romney with NO compassion for those less fortunate or those who have earned their non-taxable social security retirement. I'm in the 53% and that does not mean he automatically gets my vote. Who's responsible for the haves vs. have-nots of class warfare? Republicans. Period.
I didn't mean to leave out the unemployed, who have the most dire straits and greatest frustrations of all those not currently paying taxes! It's hard when someone so arrogantly clumps half the population into one basket to sort out all the factions. Fact is, when employed, most of the currently unemployed pay more in taxes than Romney! Please excuse the omission in the list...
You are leaving out unemployed people who have either given up looking or are still looking, but are struggling two, three, or more years into these Bush recessions (2001-2005 and 2007-present).
Don't sweep us under the rug when you talk about the "47%" or the "99%", etc. There are many white collar and blue collar unemployed who are being forgotten in all of these debates.
This is the heart of the GOP's economic policies: get rid of the working class (white collar and blue collar) to a point where most companies can make much higher profits and shareholders can achieve higher rates of return on their investments, and forget about those who have been laid off and can't find work. Lump them together with those traditionally under-employed or unemployed who never get a job and only care about the "53%" who pay taxes and make things.
What Democrats, progressives and liberals have forgotten is what America looked like in the 19th century. A relatively smaller wealthy class and a rather larger poor and working class, plus rural farmer population, with a small, but growing middle class based primarily in the eastern cities, and smaller cities and towns off the east coast and eventually moving into the midwest.
When the Repugnants say they want to take the country back, it's not back to the 1950's as some liberals have said, but the 1850's or earlier.
For some contemporary historical reference, watch BBC America's "Copper" and see how the "47%" Mitt the Twit does not care about really lived like when their great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents were living.
Please see my correction... sorry for the omission!
It is amazing how the elite use this "47% don't pay any taxes" and no one questions them. While it may be true that 47% don't pay federal income taxes, because they are too poor or very rich, it is otherwise a silly uninformed statement.
The working poor like a McDonald's employee may not pay federal income tax because he or she is working at minimum wage, however, that same individual is paying a big percentage of that small income in taxes. To buy a five hundred dollar car, the tax may translate into working five or six hours. To fill the tank, the tax can easily mean working two or three hours. To buy a childs pair of shoes the tax can mean working almost an hour. Paying an electricity or phone bill for the month can easily require working hours to pay the tax.
Compare that with the CEO of Microsoft. An eight hour day for him means a salary of over a hundred thousand dollars, or over 12 thousand dollars an hour. Of course much of this is sheltered from taxes. Not so for the working poor. They can't make enough to make it from one month to the next.
A number of tax studies have found that the poorest Americans pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest, even though they may not pay federal income taxes. It is too bad that the wealthy Republicans can use the 47% statement without being challenged, and that their working class Tea Party supporters are not sufficiently informed to understand what a disingenuous statement this is. It is also too bad, that those individuals presenting or writing the news are ignorant of the accuracy of that statement to refute it.