Republican presidential candidate, and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.
(Getty)
The Romney-Ryan campaign has been caught playing fast and loose with the facts. Now, Mr. 47 percent is in trouble for getting the facts right — but drawing all the wrong conclusions.
Many responded with disbelief to the Romney video in which he spoke disparagingly of the 47 percent of American households that don't pay a federal income tax. It's a surprising number. It appears to indicate something is really wrong with our country.
Now, the actual number is 46.4 percent (should be rounded down, not up, but we'll give Romney the 0.1 percent benefit of the doubt). But the number is meaningless out of context.
It was the GOP presidential hopeful himself who suggested this number meant that half of our population are government dependents — and with that, the implication that they are selfish freeloaders with no work ethic.
Quickly, the numbers were parsed and we learned more than 28 percent percent of American households contribute to the federal budget in the form of payroll taxes, but don't owe a federal income tax beyond that; and another 10 percent are elderly Americans with no income. Of the remainder, the vast majority — nearly 7 percent of American households — earn less than $20,000 each year.
A large number that does not pay federal income tax? Sure. Freeloaders? Moochers? Dependents? Hardly.
There's nothing wrong with quoting that number — but think about the other conclusions that could be drawn. If more than a quarter of our households are working at jobs that leave them so little they don't owe federal taxes, that means that our working families are struggling.
If nearly 7 percent of our population earns under $20,000, we need to look at the types of jobs that are available — and figure out how to make sure Americans have the education and skills to fill good jobs that offer a living wage.
In short, you could speak about that number with compassion rather than use it for division. You could use it as a jumping off point to discuss improving the lives of all Americans, not as an argument for dismissing half the population.
The Romney quote was widely compared to then-candidate Obama's comments about Pennsylvanians "clinging to guns or religion," an "inelegant" (to use Romney's word) — or insensitive — observation about people facing hard times. Those words did treat some Americans as "other," and did condescend about their motives. But it did so ultimately with the aim of understanding their perspective addressing economic uncertainty they were facing.
It was a foolish comment Obama made, but it was made with the aim of inclusion. And as president, he has not rallied against guns or religion, hasn't written off large parts of the country, hasn't selected only one kind of American for relief, support and encouragement.
Romney has hoped to divide and conquer, but all he's doing is driving a wedge between him and most working Americans, and from the majority view of people likely to vote Republican this year — people who know that paying no federal income tax doesn't equate to being a dependent.
Romney's facts were right. But what he does with those facts was even more revealing than what he does with his fictions.
Justin Krebs is a political organizer and writer based in New York City. He is the founder of Living Liberally, a nationwide network of 250 local clubs that create social events around progressive politics, and author of "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal."
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Supported by
WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public. Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.
Comments [4]
@We_Hold_These_Truths - That's a lot of typing to get to your tax rates are the same conclusion. Your example ignores the unequal treatment of capital gains income - why is money earned by money taxed differently than money earned from work? And why are dividends taxed differently than interest on savings?
Romney's statements were clearly illogical from the point of view of a politician. Many of the 47% vote Republican and will continue to do so. Why would a rational politician insult so many potential voters? To impress the audience he's in front of and to get them to write larger checks, of course.
http://www.gianfalco.it/index.php/2012/09/20/pierced-mitt-romney/
The Mislead Majority (or Why Everyone Misses the Issue)
Now that the primitive, reactionary, lizard-brain response to the latest Romney ‘place foot in mouth’ self-inflicted disclosure of his thought processes has revealed yet again that neither party knows what they are talking about, the media is possibly more clueless (as impossible as that would be given the significant nonexistence of intelligence in party die-hards), and the public is complacent and uninvolved in even attempting to think about the salient issue at the core of Romney’s “47%” faux pas. So yet again we have the bulk of the public attention span misdirected to nonsense, nuance, and nothing of import. All this off-point commotion directed at an important issue that is not being discussed meaningfully, because not one person has understood the right question or the enlightening answer that goes to the heart of Romney’s sentiment.
Now I have come to expect to be disappointed by Congress and politicians of any other stripe, and I have become immune to the debilitating insight shown by news entities, and I am confident in the public’s attention to the magician’s misdirecting movements while missing his picking of their pockets. So in an anti-Borgian attempt to fight for a futile endeavor to provide a view that has not surfaced from this gaff or from many preceding ‘sound-bites’ from all sides and in every conceivable context where America’s tax system and policies are supposedly discussed. The words you hear in these discussions would lead the casual observer to actually believe that someone is talking intelligently about taxes despite the fact that they are so far away from intelligent that we are dealing with the knowledge level found amongst rocks.
In opposition to that trend, I am presenting a puzzle for you to solve. It’s not a difficult problem, and it’s not going to require any complex knowledge or in fact any information that anyone who went through an American high-school would not have had explained to them.
Puzzle: Imagine two Americans, one “L” who earns $25,000 per year and the other “M” who earns $1,000,000 per year. Both, oddly enough, have equivalent deductions. As a result of these deductions, “L” owes $0 in taxes by the federal tax table. Now consider “M”, after working about 6.5 days “M” will have earned the same $25,000 as “L” did for the entire year. How much tax does “M” owe the IRS for that same $25,000?
Once you have figured out the answer you are ready to answer the puzzle. The puzzle is: Who was treated unfairly?
Do not read any further unless you have your answer, when you’re ready did you arrive at: Neither?
They were treated identically. The American tax system does not tax anyone at a higher or lower rate given comparable applicable tax situations. For the first $25,000 earned each party owes exactly the same tax liability.
Check out Now4yourconsideration blog for the last couple of sentences.
Yes Mitt, There Once Was A Time,
when Americans were not dependent upon government, believing that government has a responsibility to care for them, that they’re entitled to health care, to food, to housing. Oh, what a glorious free market time that was.
We were free of all financial regulation, it did not matter that desperation ruled as the stock market crashed, and banks closed never to reopen their doors. There was no intrusive FDIC to guarantee bank accounts, so in the time it takes the eye to blink, or the heart to beat, a lifetime of savings was wiped out. Yet for some reason, even thought we were free of regulation, businesses failed, jobs were lost, homes and farms were foreclosed, and dreams were swept away.
As it should be, those who could not take personal responsibility and care for their lives, such as the old and disabled, literally died in the street from starvation. Unfortunately, they were too weak to wait for hours on breadlines at soup kitchens for a meal. World War One veterans, who had lost their homes, set up an encampment in Washington. They were calling for the bonus they had been promised after the war. They believed that they were victims. Rightfully, instead of being honored, they were brutally attacked and expelled by other soldiers. No leeches here. Hundreds of thousands homeless men, women, and children traveled from town to town, in open boxcars on the rails, and falling apart jalopies looking for work. Any job, at any wage, just to put a scrap of bread on the table and end the relentless hunger that consumed them.
It was paradise, then, for us, no freeloaders with their food stamps and unemployment checks. No one was taking it, from those who were making it. So just remember, Mitt, your job is not to worry about those people. They're not paying taxes anyway. Now, take my $50,000 donation, I have to catch my plane to the Cayman Islands and check my bank account there. I'll see you there in 2 months. We're counting on you.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.