[bigbang123]

Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree

Again, offer someone $$ and see if he doesn't take it... even if he doesn't need it...

Mitt Romney's '47 Percent' Includes Real-Life Millionaires

Posted: 09/18/2012 2:00 pm

According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, some 3,000 of the 76 million taxpayers that were expected to pay no federal income taxes in 2011 were members of Romney's cohort, making nearly $2.2 million per year, which puts them in the top 0.1 percent income bracket.

Another 24,000 taxpayers expected to pay no income taxes last year were in the top 1 percent income bracket, according to the TPC, making between $532,613 and $2.2 million per year.

How the heck does this happen? For one thing, as Kevin Roose at New York magazine points out, these wealthy earners benefit to an unusual degree -- as Mitt Romney himself does -- from tax breaks on investment.

Capital gains on investments are taxed at 15 percent, much lower than the top income-tax rate. "Carried interest" income, which Romney and other private-equity executives enjoy, is taxed at the capital-gains rate. And many wealthy taxpayers take advantage of a feature that lets them recognize past investment losses to lower or eliminate their tax bills.

But the main (legal) reasons the One Percenters pay no income taxes are far less exotic, according to an Internal Revenue Service study of 2009 tax data. For the most part, these people get off with paying nothing because of run-of-the-mill stuff like getting their income from tax-free municipal bonds and plain-vanilla itemized deductions (monocle prescriptions, top-hat cleaning, manservant housing).

A lot of big and small companies, meanwhile, also do not pay taxes. Some even get so many tax breaks that the government pays them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-g...b_1893715.html

[kmoney]

The data behind Romney's 47%

By Damian Paletta and John D. McKinnon - Wall Street Journal

In his comments to fundraisers captured on video, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans would almost automatically vote for President Barack Obama because they were “dependent” on the government, in part because they received government benefits and paid no federal income taxes.

In a press conference late Monday, Mr. Romney said his comments were “not elegantly stated” while at the same time reiterating the main point. Our translation: If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you may not be swayed by a candidate that wants to cut them.

Here’s a rundown of the data behind Mr. Romney’s argument, some of which he correctly stated and other parts of which don’t hold up so well.

Entitlements:

According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit. (The total population at the time was 305 million).

That’s up from 30% in the 1980s and 44.4% in the third quarter of 2008, a recent growth in part attributable to the bad economy of President Obama’s first term.

The Census Bureau broke the data down like this:

26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans)
16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security.
15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps
14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits
4.5% of households received assistance with their rent
1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.

The large majority of Medicare and Social Security recipients have paid payroll taxes in many cases for decades to qualify for those benefits.

There can be a lot of overlap in which programs benefit certain households. For example, millions of people receiving Social Security benefits also receive Medicare health benefits. Many Americans covered by Medicaid are also receiving food stamp benefits.

Mr. Romney implied that anyone receiving government benefits wouldn’t likely be one of his voters. But there’s no clear partisan split among beneficiaries, especially for broad-based federal retirement and health-care programs.

Taxes:

Mr. Romney correctly noted that nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. Who are all these people? And how did we get here?

Here’s a quick answer. Roughly half of U.S. households that pay no federal income tax are exempted because of basic provisions such as limitations on tax for low-income earners, according to a 2011 study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The other half benefit from targeted breaks (known to tax geeks as “tax expenditures”), such as assistance for the working poor and for children in moderate-income families. Seniors also benefit from some of these targeted breaks.

To analyze which breaks are most important in moving people off the income-tax rolls, the TPC study arranged these tax expenditures into eight categories:

Elderly tax benefits (the extra standard deduction for the elderly, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for the elderly);
Credits for children and the working poor (the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit);
Exclusion of other cash transfers (such as welfare and disability payments);
Tax-exempt interest and some other deductions, such as for retirement savings;
Itemized deductions;
Education credits;
Other credits; and
Reduced rates on capital gains and dividends (zero rate on gains and dividends that would otherwise be taxed at 10% or 15%, 15% rate combined with credits).

The TPC found that of the 38 million households that are made nontaxable by tax expenditures, “44% are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30% by credits for children and the working poor.”

So how did we get to the point where almost half of American households pay no income tax? Since the 1970s, Congress and successive presidents have begun creating more and more tax breaks to benefit broad swaths of the population (and some very narrow gauges too). Democrats generally have been more supportive of the particular breaks that push people off the income-tax rolls, but Republicans have supported a few too, and they also have pushed breaks that benefit higher-income people.

The basic exemptions for very low-income people have been around for a while and are pretty non-controversial. Many of the breaks that benefit the elderly also have been supported by members of both parties, who realize older Americans are among the most consistent voters. Breaks for military personnel – such as the exemption for combat pay – also are widely popular.

The real partisan division has come over the growing number of other breaks, particularly those for children and for the working poor. Democrats in the 1970s pushed through the first and still arguably the most important of these, the Earned Income Tax Credit. Essentially, it’s an income supplement for the working poor, and can provide several thousand dollars in extra cash each year for a typical eligible family.

Over the years it’s been significantly expanded, most recently in the 2009 stimulus bill. While Republicans generally have been supportive of the EITC in practice, they have opposed several of the expansions and also are concerned about relatively high levels of erroneous payments under the highly complex EITC rules.

Conservatives tend to focus on the number of people not paying federal income taxes to make a case about the state of American democracy. For example: If half the country has no financial stake in decisions made in Washington, they’ll inevitably end up supporting expensive federal policies. And the burden will fall on everyone else. (That tends to overlook the fact that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax still paid payroll tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.)

Republicans, however, did help push through another big break—the child credit. It’s been aimed at helping moderate-income families, including one-earner couples, afford to have kids. Like the EITC, it’s a “refundable” credit – meaning that it is paid to eligible taxpayers even when their tax liability has been erased. Democrats have pushed to make it more broadly available to lower-income people, often over GOP objections.

[The Barbarian]

This was an interesting admission:
Romney struggles to stabilize campaign after secret videos
In the video, Romney also said in response to an audience question that he would try to take political advantage of a foreign crisis similar to the Iran hostage episode that damaged President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

"I mean, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88G19620120918

Didn't work out as well as he hoped, though.

[kmoney]

I don't find that admission to be that interesting. It's expected. Politicians live to take advantage of whatever they can. I'm sure it will hurt Romney, as are a lot of the things he's said recently, but it really isn't a revealing statement.

[The Barbarian]

I don't find that admission to be that interesting. It's expected. Politicians live to take advantage of whatever they can. I'm sure it will hurt Romney, as are a lot of the things he's said recently, but it really isn't a revealing statement.

Revealing that he's dumb enough to say it publicly. And BTW, notice that when a real disaster happened to Carter (failed hostage rescue attempt) Reagan was American enough to refuse to take advantage of it.

Just saying.

[bucksplasher]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Revealing that he's dumb enough to say it publicly. And BTW, notice that when a real disaster happened to Carter (failed hostage rescue attempt) Reagan was American enough to refuse to take advantage of it.

Just saying.

By this time after shivering and slowly at that, I'm pretty sure he was up enough in the poles that he was already figuring out how to visit Poland and destabilize Russia. tWINs

[drbrumley]

Has Romney Been Reading Bastiat?

Posted by Wilton Alston on September 18, 2012 10:45 AM



"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." ~ Frederic Bastiat

No. Not even.

When Romney said "there are 47 percent who are with him [POTUS], who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them" he was roughly half right. Very. Roughly. What he left out is that the "other" 47 percent, those that are with him [Romney] are after the same thing. Admittedly, the number of people who are unrepentant tax feeders, to use Will Grigg's apt description, is likely (hopefully?) lower than 94 percent. The naive, hopeful dreamer in me would peg it at probably closer to 65–75 percent. Whatever the exact number is, the simple fact of the matter is that politics—particularly in the U.S., but abroad as well—is dominated by sociopaths with megalomaniacal tendencies who are often attended to and served by sycophants with dependency issues.

The other 25–35 percent and I just wish they'd all leave us the hell alone.

[The Barbarian]

Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from ‘moocher’ states. Obama will probably get 5.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...robably-get-5/

[bigbang123]

More Than 47% of Americans "Depend" on Government, Mr. Romney

Posted: 09/19/2012 8:13 am

Those who depend on Government

Raise your hand if you:

• went to a public college or university
• work for government (i.e., cops, teachers, firefighters, military, social workers, librarians, school janitors, judges, court reporters, bus drivers, etc),
• borrow books from a public library,
• work for or own stock in a defense contractor,
• get your electricity or water from a government-owned utility,
• went to, or send your kids to, public school,
• ride on government-run buses, subways or light-rail,
• use or work for the post office,
• went to college on the GI Bill, Pell Grant, state financial aid program,
• are retired and get Social Security payments,
• ever used food stamps,
• lived in public housing or had a Section 8 voucher,
• used a wheelchair ramp mandated by the Americans for Disability Act,
• get your health care from the Veterans Administration hospital,
• go boating or fishing in a government-run lake,
• have a job whose workplace is safer because of OSHA rules
• work for a company or nonprofit organization that has a contract with the local, county, state or federal government
• have a family member who depends on a government-subsidized home health care aide,
• pay for your medicine and medical care with Medicaid,
• got a tax subsidy for your mortgage interest and/or property taxes,
• recycle your garbage through your city's sanitation department,
• took a vacation in a national or state park,
• own a family- or corporate-owned farm that is irrigated by a government-owned dam,
• played baseball or soccer or used the see-saw or swings in a public park or playground,
• got your polio and other vaccination shots at your public school,
• traveled with a government-issued passport,
• used an elevator inspected for safety by the local building department,
• eat food inspected for safety by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
• went to a restaurant inspected by the local Health Department,
• were helped by a police officer, park ranger or firefighter,
• have a savings account in a bank regulated by the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation
• flew on an airplane inspected by the Federal Aviation Administration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-...b_1896185.html

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by bigbang123

More Than 47% of Americans "Depend" on Government, Mr. Romney

Posted: 09/19/2012 8:13 am

Those who depend on Government

Raise your hand if you:

• went to a public college or university
• work for government (i.e., cops, teachers, firefighters, military, social workers, librarians, school janitors, judges, court reporters, bus drivers, etc),
• borrow books from a public library,
• work for or own stock in a defense contractor,
• get your electricity or water from a government-owned utility,
• went to, or send your kids to, public school,
• ride on government-run buses, subways or light-rail,
• use or work for the post office,
• went to college on the GI Bill, Pell Grant, state financial aid program,
• are retired and get Social Security payments,
• ever used food stamps,
• lived in public housing or had a Section 8 voucher,
• used a wheelchair ramp mandated by the Americans for Disability Act,
• get your health care from the Veterans Administration hospital,
• go boating or fishing in a government-run lake,
• have a job whose workplace is safer because of OSHA rules
• work for a company or nonprofit organization that has a contract with the local, county, state or federal government
• have a family member who depends on a government-subsidized home health care aide,
• pay for your medicine and medical care with Medicaid,
• got a tax subsidy for your mortgage interest and/or property taxes,
• recycle your garbage through your city's sanitation department,
• took a vacation in a national or state park,
• own a family- or corporate-owned farm that is irrigated by a government-owned dam,
• played baseball or soccer or used the see-saw or swings in a public park or playground,
• got your polio and other vaccination shots at your public school,
• traveled with a government-issued passport,
• used an elevator inspected for safety by the local building department,
• eat food inspected for safety by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
• went to a restaurant inspected by the local Health Department,
• were helped by a police officer, park ranger or firefighter,
• have a savings account in a bank regulated by the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation
• flew on an airplane inspected by the Federal Aviation Administration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-...b_1896185.html

Translation: Republicans and Democrats are dominated by sociopaths with megalomaniacal tendencies who are often attended to and served by sycophants with dependency issues.

[The Barbarian]

The argument is a good one. Go to a place without all that government activity, and explain why life is better there.

Not some utopia you think might someday exist; tell us about a real place like that.

Government, like work, is the result of settlement and agriculture. Unless you revert to the sort of anarchistic freedom found among hunter-gatherers, government will be necessary.

A necessary evil. But necessary.

[bucksplasher]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

The argument is a good one. Go to a place without all that government activity, and explain why life is better there.

Not some utopia you think might someday exist; tell us about a real place like that.

Government, like work, is the result of settlement and agriculture. Unless you revert to the sort of anarchistic freedom found among hunter-gatherers, government will be necessary.

A necessary evil. But necessary.

Necessary but more than we can afford? tWINs

[The Barbarian]

Necessary but more than we can afford?

Yes, and yes. The problem with government, is that those in power try to accumulate more of it. So we have to watch them closely, and try to keep it from extending more than it has to.

We need something to do periodic trimming. Sunset laws help, but they aren't the whole answer. An educated and aggressive citizenry helps. Brumley helps, although he's probably too far in the other direction.

[bucksplasher]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Yes, and yes. The problem with government, is that those in power try to accumulate more of it. So we have to watch them closely, and try to keep it from extending more than it has to.

We need something to do periodic trimming. Sunset laws help, but they aren't the whole answer. An educated and aggressive citizenry helps. Brumley helps, although he's probably too far in the other direction.

R+R will do it. tWINs

[bigbang123]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Welfare Rolls -An all time record of 47% of Americans are now government dependents

The rich get the handouts too.

Consider the home mortgage interest deduction, a tax expenditure that costs the federal treasury approximately $130 billion per year. According to the Atlantic, 75 percent of this tax expenditure is given to the top 20 percent of income earners. What this means is that the federal government spends almost $100 billion per year subsidizing large homes for upper middle class and wealthy people. Middle-class people get a tiny piece of this pie. Poor people get nothing.

But where does the government get $100 billion to pay for this tax expenditure for the rich? From mostly-poor renters of course, in other words tax payers who receive zero mortgage interest deduction. The home mortgage interest deduction is simply a transfer of wealth from mostly poor renters to mostly well-off home-owners.

So when Governor Romney said that 47 percent of Americans are irresponsible and simply want handouts, he was tapping into and in fact reinforcing the public's ignorance of the federal tax system as a cash cow that transfers a lot more money from the poor to the rich than the other way around. To frame poor people who require health care as free-riders while giving a free pass to rich people who demand tax cuts (tax expenditures) is a sleight of hand. I wonder if Romney understands the deception or not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-...b_1895669.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...rrible/259915/