Romney Talks Bluntly of Those Dependent on Government: Good news, maybe Mitt does get it after all.
By the way . . . for those proglodytes with a short memory, here is a bit of what Obama says when he thinks that very few in the public are listening.
This post was last modified on March 13, 2021
View Comments (58)
Funny how he talks about people being dependent on government when it is him who depends on the government to rig the election for him.
How do you function in society being this stupid? How is he rigging the election? Is this about voter ID laws?
Crowley functions in society?
John is probably a paid troll for some leftist/communist organization and pretends to be a Paulista, he is just looking to stir up shit, The only job he could get besides being a census wonk is working for media matters..and his boss should know he is not very good at it.....
After reading all the comments here I gotta ask one question. What part of FEDERAL INCOME TAX do ya'll not understand. Romney was not talking about social security, all the state and local taxes we have to pay, only about the FEDERAL INCOME TAX. And he is right. Nobody making less than $20,000 per year has to pay it. No family of four making less than $50,000 per year has to pay it. Which means that 47% of working Americans do not pay FEDERAL income taxes.
In fact, most families whose gross income is less than $50,000 per year get more back, thanks to all the deductions allowed, than they pay in each year. The entire system is idiotic and a flat tax is the only answer. One percent, a penny on the dollar, for everyone no matter what their income from $20 grand per year to $ 1 billion (or whatever) per year would solve the federal income tax problem to a certain extent. But nothing is going to help until the fools in Washingtoon quit spending money we don't have, quit giving money to foreign countries that hate our prosperity and freedoms, quit giving money to those too lazy to get a job and quit paying gooberment employees more than they are worth.
Most working people have taxes withheld by their employer because the don't know they have an option to refuse. If everybody that pays federal taxes paid it themselves, say monthly or quarterly, rather than it being withheld, there would be a citizens tax revolt on an order greater than any in North America, ever.
Curious about numbers. If employers are concerned about taxes, you'd think they'd educate their employees on this simple fact (i.e. stir up the tax revolt in order to affect policy down-the-line). I tend to think that most people permit withholding because they expect they'll f-ck it up down the line, and are too lazy to calculate the savings rate or enforce necessary regimen. And the "refund" itself probably triggers an annual dopamine rush.
Many people use withholding as a savings account. They pay in far more than they should, then use the overage when it is returned. Interest free, of course. Stupid! But at least it shows their honestry. THey are incapable of having money and not spending it.
They don't understand how their money, if they get a return, was an interest free loan to the IRS. They somehow look at any return like a savings account they use when they get the employee tax forms. The amount they might read on their check stub indicating the accumulation of federal tax dollars withheld is usually the 3rd biggest number after gross and net. The whole idea of income tax being withheld by the employer was to desensitize the basically comfortable middle class to ever increasing taxes. The Eagle shit has landed, that's what they said when they handed out the checks. If its YOUR money, why does it have The United State of America printed on it, rather than your name?
Withholding got serious during WWII because the US needed the cash flow. The War Department couldn't wait around for quarterly payments. Even FDR didn't like deficit spending.
Ah that's a nice detail i wasn't aware of
I'll look later, but there was a business guy back a ways who got a big smack-down from the IRS and a few others.
He started paying his people their gross in cash, had an assembly line of staffed tables after that; FICA, pay the lady, State, pay the man, local & on & on. So his people had to actually see what it was costing them and fork it over. Didn't take long for them to start bitchin to the wrong people and they made him stop.
Or tie all tax increases to the welfare payout. Taxes go up, welfare payments go down. Then watch them scream for lower taxes for the producers.
That sounds like something I'd get behind just because it would finally screw the freeloaders. Don't think for a moment I'm placing retirees, or those who can't support themselves into the group of professional freeloaders--they know who they are. Whatever percentage they represent of the 47% is the percentage we need to reduce welfair by! And I say, by whatever means works for us...not them!
There's no need to be progressive about it, either. It could be really practical like, say, ten bucks. Everybody pays at least ten bucks.Two packs of smokes. A twelve pack of beer. That way, everybody has a stake.
They still pay tax. At least they have income. It is the ones who don't that kill the welfare budget numbers, by relative magnitudes. I am still of the mind that we should do a little more as culture to exalt those that work for the lowest wages, doing jobs most find unpleasant. High five a clerk today.
i am thinking this would be a perfect angle for future Republican participation in Labor Day..Am I wrong to think that Republicans tend to view it with distaste, because the imagery is wrapped up in unions? What better day to honor those who stick to low-wage work rather than live on the dole?
"Want fries with that?" should be viewed as a healthy signal within a system of market transactions, not as a means to denigrate someone's rung on economic ladder (unless, of course, i capped off my order with a "that's all".. I MEANT THAT'S ALL DAMMIT!!! I kid..)
I'm not saying Republicans are particularly guilty of this. Too many people are, even the apolitical ones, and snarky hipster liberals. I'm just viewing a messaging opportunity (e.g. 2014 congressional races)
(yes i'm replying to my own damn self here.. upvote early, upvote often!)
Look at the rate of disability claims over the past three years. I agree, Alien, the low wage (and obviously low marketable skill) workers could go in the tank and live off the provider class. I think about that every time I deal with them. I appreciate the ethic and it is heartening that some people value work despite federally sponsored temptation not to.
That's a good question, I haven't seen disability claim numbers.. wouldn't surprise me to find a spike in fraud there
There is a great deal of fraud in disability cases. They get caught every day. So,meone "Disabled" by back pain, but they can handle deep sea fishing, or rock climbing. That is one reason the system is so annoying to GET disability, even when the qualifications are obvious. I see all these advertisiments for lawyers who will get your disability if you are denied. When I applied, friends told me to expect to be denied, then to refile with an attorney. Well if the applicant qualifies, they should pass the first time. And if they don't, they shouldn't pass in subsequent attempts unless there has been a change or worsening in condition. People lose a chunk of their money, the government is flooded with paperwork, it takes 8-12 months for the most obvious approvals (and you cannot work during that time) and the lawyers are getting rich.
I would be more interested if fiscal conservatives came up with a game or market system that rewarded those who ferreted out fraud, then trying to throw it all out.. Definitely agree that some lawyers are gaming it to advantage
There's an App for that...! (musing now...)
It's a well known fact that 47 percent pay no taxes, a number I'm sure "Dear Leader" and his progressive control freak friends would like to see much higher. Is is any wonder we are running multi-trillion dollar deficits every year, the receivers almost outnumber the producers.
Pay no income taxes..
40 million of them make less then 16K, and still pay sales & payroll. Their combined income is just a chunk of a trillion. You could take it all and not make up the deficit.
Payroll taxes are money they'll get back at some point, they aren't going to reduce the deficit or to welfare recipients. Sales taxes don't go there either, so that is a false premise.
The statement that this percentage pays No Tax is a false premise.. that is the main triggering point for my not unreasonable response. Whether one gets their payroll taxes back is an insurance modeled crapshoot, and still is salient to discussion of deficits.
Romney carefully said that 47% pay no federal income tax. Now if you want to be critical of that number in light of some seniors and working poor being means tested out of paying anything into the IRS and whether or not that is fair or just, then that is a whole different conversation and one that should include a frank discussion about the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
I realize Romney himself scoped it to income tax. He also later drops the qualifier in a shorthand reference, but the context remains clear.
I'm talking about the root of this comment thread, otherwise, where the income qualifier is missing
Just to reiterate:
It’s a well known fact that 47 percent pay no taxes, a number I’m sure “Dear Leader” and his progressive control freak friends would like to see much higher.
At top of this thread. My attempt to identify this as the statement to which i referred, and clarify with Sidekick, oddly receives downvotes
You lack honor, silent downvoters!
I'd agree with you to the extent that what he said was phrased clumsily and as you say, a good proportion of that 47% are retirees and others who are done paying taxes anyway. There is no "personal responsibility" issue with them, and I'm sure some number really are trying to make it back on their feet; no, I'm not even going to try and guess numbers. What he said really was a fairly crude stereotype, even if it may be true for a significant majority of that 47%. But 1) he SHOULD know that and 2) he SHOULD know that everything he says is going to be dissected and reassembled into a Frankensteined edit by the Collaborationist Media. So yes, 2 black marks against Romney for incautious remarks, and possibly 3 for not entirely understanding what he was talking about.
OMG DID I SAY "BLACK MARKS" IS THAT RACIST?????
I agree, though it WAS a private fundraiser, and was SUPPOSED to be made up of his supporters. I wonder who the spy was?
a caterer
possibly low enough waged that they didn't pay income tax
It kills me that people forget the 'Bush tax cuts' coupled with earned income tax credits and mortgage interest deductions put thousands of hard working middle class people in that 47% some seem to enjoy looking down their noses at.
I persoannly have a problem with Earned income credit. I believe they should get every cent of taxes back if the family makes so little, but I am uncomfortable with the govenment giving out more money than was taken. GENERALLY SPEAKING if one cannot afford 5 kids, one shuld not HAVE 5 kids. Back before adequate birth control, no one could really control reproductiopn and maintain a marital lifestyle. But now there are a zillion forms of birth control. If you're broke, don't have another kid! I understand there are "surpises" (my son was one of them. I was on birth control and working nights!) But most people can do better than now. Watch the Maury show. Men with a dozen children by a dozen different women and PROUD of it. Oh, and for the poor, birth control has been provided free for some 40+ years!
Or a Democratic plant (yes, I am a conspiracy theorist!)
Absolutely, no doubt a Dem or sympathizer.. i just think its opportunistic.. Even the hyper-wealthy can't vet all of servitude with 100% accuracy
These kinds of things don't require explicit planning. To me, what often appears to be conspiracy, is just an emergent, well put-together set of systems
Damn I should've grabbed the link, but I saw a number of 18% for those who just pay nothing.. that could be the effective rate after gov benefits etc... I think around there we approach the Freeloader Quotient.. Will look later
Where do you get the 40 million make less than $16K? I've never seen that statistic. Does this include teenagers and their part time jobs?
Sales tax and social security don't count either. Federal income tax revenue is the means by which the federal government functions. Anything else is just baseline that everyone pays (in some cases only if they work). Even if it is only a dollar, everyone should contribute to the legitimate function of THEIR country.
I'll have to find it.. bottom quintile of income reporting entities (households, individuals).. chart had total number at 40 million or so, capped at a bit over 16K.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3057 from 2011 anyhow
Hate me if you want but I think every American should have to pay taxes, then they'd know what if feels like for those of us who have to pay them and they wouldn't be so eager to raise everybody elses' because they'd be raising their own! Or, and there is always an or, those who pay no taxes and get more than 40% of their sustenance from federal largess should be considered as wards of the state and prevented from voting because they have absolutely no skin in the game; as the O-one wants to say. I don't care if they only make 16K a year or 27K a year--if they're making anything, they should be paying some sort of tax. A national sales tax might be a start. Personally, I hate like hell that the federal government taxes our income at all. Taxes were always a state issue until the commies took over in the thirties! It all boils down to cronyism and vote pandering...how much other people's shit can I give away to stay in office and continue to give other people's shit away?
You had me up until the national sales tax, then you lost me. That would be the biggest mistake we could make.
Hey poppajoe49, I'm not all up on my taxes, I'm just saying that these folks have to pay some sort of federal tax, like the rest of us. If it's not a national sales tax, then maybe some sort of flat tax, where everybody pays 5%, or 6%, or whatever. They need to feel the hurt just like the rest of us, or we're done. We'll go down that rat hole of redistributive bull shit the EU seems hell-bent on leather emulating.
Studies have shown that people in general who pay something, even a little, have more respect for the object paid for. Give soemone something for free, they don't care waht happens to it, it was free. But if they have even a small investment, it behooves them to take care of it. It increases self respect to allow people to pay if at all possible, even if its a token amount. During the great Deprassion, folks didn't want a handout. They wanted WORK. To earn their own way. Those are the kids of people that made America a great country. THose who would work to build up themselves, their area and the country as a whole. People who COULD work, but didn't were shunned. I also hold the wealthy accountable. With great wealth comes great responsibility. The wealthy in the past created jobs, gave to charity and frequently took on the responsibility of a particular child or family. We still have the wealth, but very few are doing the giving at that level. Where are the philanthropists?
hisham, the way I see it, the government wants the national sales tax, which has been touted at 21%, with a rebate given to low income people at the beginning of the year.
They say that the prices won't change because product prices will go lower because the companies will not have to pay income tax, and pass the savings along.
My problem with it is, that none of the companies I am familiar with are paying that much in taxes, what with subsidies, etc.
Then, there is the issue that EVERYTHING is going to be taxed. We don't pay sales tax on food now, but will under the (un) Fair Tax. That will hit the poor disproportionally hard.
Then, once the government has this tax, what is to stop them from unilaterally increasing the rate?
Now is my biggest problem with it.
We already pay federal taxes on alcohol, and state taxes on cigarettes. Then we pay sales tax on them. Well, it is illegal to charge tax on a tax, but these 2 items seem to be exempt from that, because we pay sales tax on the shelf price, not the pre-tax price. This will only make things worse IMHO.
I read Neal Boortz's Fair Tax book a few years ago. From what I remember everything bought retail or wholesale would have a sales tax of about 22% but the IRS would go away completely. No corporate or personal income taxes at all. I think the payroll taxes disappear too. The idea is that taxes are embedded in everything we buy because every link of the supply chain is governed by a taxed entity and with that cost removed the sales tax would be a price wash as far as all consumers' are concerned. Boortz always said that the Fair Tax would be revenue neutral.
But state sales taxes would stay in effect, which would vary from state to state, with California, which is already over 9% leading the way. That would be 31%+ for Cali folks, we here in FLorida would be around 28-29% depending on the county. That will make quite a difference, and I don't buy the revenue neutral theory.
Remember, it is a tax on only what you buy not on what you earn. The effective rate as a percentage of income would be close to where you are now that is why Boortz claims revenue neutrality. What I like about it is that everyone pays taxes to the federal government.
To your point in an indirect way: I hung out with my Venezuelan neighbor last night and we were talking about this stuff. I asked him why so many Hispanics support the Democrats in light of the church and family values issues that should keep them miles apart. He said it is because all of the Spanish countries are welfare states and they want the free stuff here too. Think about it. They leave their homelands for economic opportunity here. The lack of opportunity in their home countries being due to their welfare state apparatus and crushing taxes, yet these same people want the same here. That makes NO sense but what do you do?
That makes my blood boil!
The way I figure it we already have a national sales tax. Only they call it corporate income tax and it is passed onto the consumer directly.
And your point?
The same could be said of the so-called one percenters...if you took all of their wealth and all of their goods you'd still be no closer to closing the multi-trillion dollar gap that the Loser-In-Chief and his minions have left us to pony up for!
I don't have any answers.. depressing all around
So you're both saying no matter whose money the government takes, there is not enough to pay the bills. Which is why people need to talk about spending cuts, we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem. Flat tax for everyone and a balanced budget amendment would go a long way.
Exactly Joe.
Somebody help me out here - what exactly did Romney say that was so terrible as to disqualify him from public office? NBC played the tape on the Nightly News and I thought I was having an extended senior moment - I completely failed to hear anything out of the ordinary. It cannot become November fast enough.
what exactly did Romney say that was so terrible as to disqualify him from public office?
He used that racist code phrase, "Personal Responsibility"
This should be part of Romney's stump speech.
Part of the problem is that a significant chunk of that 47% are households led by elderly whose only income is social security. Or, for others, income tax liability is reduced because of Earned Income Tax Credit (which is another republican policy idea offered up to placate democrats in some past negotiation).
The statement is a broadside on huge segment of population.. it is problematical on scale of Obama's bitter clingers. I think debates should wash it mostly away.