Romney calls 47% of Americans victims. I beg to differ.

Aaaah, the man with the negligible and null opinions. Mitt Romney. Say tell me something, if this man doesn't trust Americans "that much", why doesn't he quit the presidential race? This man doesn't deserve to win the Presidential race. And the polls are clearly stating Obama has a clear victory, close to landslide.

I wonder what his former employees who laid off think about this situation. At any rate, the more this man tries to connect, the more disconnected he seems. I wonder sometimes.


New member
Romney's claim is as one columnist put it, "Factually-challenged" in addition to asinine and stupid.

Here's a quick breakdown on this so-called 47% percent of people who 'don't pay federal taxes'. This 47% includes the elderly, base-rate military employees/soldiers (whose paygrade starts at $18,000/year and thus, with most tax credits, have zero federal income tax liability), and families/individuals making less than $20,000/year. Yet all these people still pay taxes in the form of Federal Payroll Tax, FICA, State, Local/and or City taxes, sales tax (the most regressive tax), property taxes, car taxes, and excise taxes. They pay into Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid funds, and Unemployment Insurance. (except for fully retired, non-wage earners and students). They also pay taxes whenever they withdraw funds from managed retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s. In fact, tax breaks like the Earned Income Tax Credit which were put in place by Republicans make up a good portion of why some people either pay nothing in Federal Income Tax or guessed, a tax return/refund. There is a difference between not paying federal income taxes and having 'zero liability' (owing the IRS money). In fact, if Romney's accountants and tax attorneys are as good as they should be for how much he earns, it's almost guaranteed that at some point (maybe after a year of losses that can be written off), he himself was not liable for federal income tax. In fact, the ONE return he's released to the public shows that the majority of taxes he paid were from capital gains, not payroll income or federal income tax.

There are also two major demographics in this "47 Percent" that he claims have no personal responsibility or want to take care of themselves, and they are typically Republican voters:

  • Lower-class, blue-collar whites
  • The elderly/retired.

Good move, Romney. You just insulted part of your base. Also, a person can't want to be President to just 53% of the population. Here is another useful infolink from the Tax Policy Center.

It should be also noted that this '47 percent' represents a year-to-year basis, meaning that it isn't that 47 of people pay no federal income taxes ever; it's that on most given years recently, that percentage may not be liable. Most people as they reach prime income-earning years move up to a tax bracket where they have more tax liability and thus pay a larger share in Federal Income and Payroll taxes.
Last edited:


New member
Also, another very useful article to read, which dissects this idea that 'not paying income taxes' = 'not paying taxes and 'taking' from everyone else'. It's in The Economist, one of the world's most respected (and non-partisan) financial publications. It's a great mag in general, been reading it for years despite it having a somewhat right-of-center bent (though, despite being mostly centrist with commentators from various ideologies, it's also been called a liberal magazine many times by right-wingers it's pissed off, lol).

A good excerpt:

The Economist said:
...You can see this effect in Mr Romney's tax proposals, as well. Mr Romney hasn't promised to cut payroll taxes; he's promised to cut income taxes by a fifth, across the board. On its own, this shift means low-income workers pay the same share of the income-tax burden, while paying a larger share of the overall tax burden. Yet Mr Romney can continue to imply that low-income workers are freeloaders because they don't pay income tax. Then, Mr Romney promises to keep the tax cuts revenue-neutral by ending deductions, which he pledges to restrict to those earning $200,000 a year and up; this isn't mathematically possible, but if it were, it would mean the income-tax burden would shift even more heavily towards high earners, again perpetuating the line that the poor are freeloading. And then there's the consumption-tax option beloved of many conservative economists. If the tax burden shifts towards flat consumption taxes and away from progressive income taxes, it will fall more heavily on the poor. But if people like Mr Romney and Mr Ryan insist on equating "income taxes" with "taxes", they will continue to be able to claim that the poor are "takers" who are "dependent on government" because they "aren't paying any income tax", even while they increase the share of the tax burden that falls on the poor.
Last edited: