Romney's 47 Percent Blunder

Friday, 21 Sep 2012 12:36 PM

By Rich Lowry

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
The best defense of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's instantly notorious "47 percent" remarks at a May fundraiser is that he made a bad point badly.

Romney mixed up three separate groups: the roughly half the country that will inevitably support President Barack Obama, the half that doesn't pay federal income taxes, and the half that receives government benefits. Then he declared them all a collective lost cause. He will never win them over, or convince them to take responsibility for their lives. Next question.

In reality, these are distinct categories. Many Obama supporters are rich. We can be certain the attendees at the president's fundraiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z in New York City the other day have hefty tax bills. Meanwhile, many of Romney's supporters — especially the elderly — don't pay federal income taxes and receive government benefits.

As a political scientist, Romney is an excellent former governor of Massachusetts.

On taxes, he was repeating a conservative talking point about the perils of 47 percent of people not paying federal income taxes. (To be precise, 46.4 percent of "tax units" don't pay income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center.) Romney took this line of argument and blundered his way through it, although it's not very convincing in the best rendering.

The contention is that if people aren't paying federal income taxes, they are essentially freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing that they don't have to pay for them.

As conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there's no evidence for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal income tax liability is up; it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is mainly the poor, seniors and lower-income families with children who don't owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that's always been so. Seniors, on the other hand, have been swinging Republican, and there's no indication that families with children are becoming more liberal.

Many workers who don't pay federal income tax pay other taxes, including the payroll tax. Just 18 percent of tax filers escape both the income and payroll taxes. People who aren't paying income tax don't think of themselves as freeloading "takers."

An April Gallup poll found more discontent with taxes among people making less than $30,000 than any other income group. Fifty percent said they pay too much, though the vast majority has no federal income tax liability.

The deeper problem with the "47 percent" argument is that it is right-wing Elizabeth Warrenism. It reflects the belief that federal income taxes are an expression of our togetherness. If you aren't paying them — or aren't paying enough — you are a subcitizen.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says everyone should pay income taxes, even if it's "the price of two Happy Meals a year, $10." Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said it's an "injustice" that more people don't pay. Warren wants to tax rich people as a statement of our patriotic commitment to one another; some conservatives evidently want to tax the poor and seniors for the same reason.

How does this look in the real world? If a couple earning $35,000 with two kids has no income tax liability thanks to various exemptions, deductions, and credits (the child tax credit has been especially important in removing families from the rolls), how much should we tax them to get them to shape up and fly right? How much do they have to pay the Internal Revenue Service to learn a lesson in basic civics?

This tendency represents a backdoor return to Country Club Republicanism, with the approval of part of the Republican base. Fear of the creation of a class of "takers" can slide into disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes. For a whiff of how politically unattractive this point of view can be, just look at the Romney fundraising video.

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and a variety of other publications. Read more reports from Rich Lowry — Click Here Now.



 

 




© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Obama's Unilateral Actions Show Disdain for Congress

Friday, 21 Nov 2014 16:55 PM

It doesn't take someone who used to teach constitutional law to know that Congress writes the law and the president exec . . .

Comet Mission Shouldn't Be Marred by Garish Shirt

Tuesday, 18 Nov 2014 10:57 AM

In discussing the mission on camera after the landing, Taylor wore a Hawaiian-style shirt depicting cartoonish, scantily . . .

Gruber Does Justice With Obamacare Views

Friday, 14 Nov 2014 13:45 PM

He has done us all a favor by affording us an unvarnished look into the progressive mind, . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved