That darn 47%

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

That darn 47%

Post by Arres » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:23 pm

So, now that Mitt Romney has been caught complaining that 47% of the country are useless non tax payers. Plenty of articles discussing the actual figure have been published. I'm reasonably convinced that not only is the number true, like most statistics it's wildly innaccurate. According to most of the figures that I've seen, that group is made up mostly of the elderly, and the poor. Additionally, one other thing keeps popping up in these discussions. The statement is that most of those people don't pay Income Tax, but do pay Payroll Tax.

Can anyone help me with a better understanding of the difference?
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:03 pm

I think the actual numbers and income v. payroll tax stuff is just fluff. The core of Romney's statement is "lots of people will vote for Obama because Democrats promise them free stuff paid for by other's taxes". The hypocrisy is the problem I have with it. Romney is constantly promising a different group of people free stuff, couched in rhetoric of his own, and many people will vote for him on that basis.

This only illustrates the truth of Bastiat's statement: "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

That darn 47%

Post by ampersand » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:58 am

You must have read that NetNet blog that stated every politician wants to raise taxes.

I think Ronmey is correct in that there are people who are wanting something from the government, and I agree with the Obama that there are those who legitimately need help that the government can provide. I just think the size they both spout is too large.

Also, if I understand correctly: 25% of those who are eligible pay neither income or payroll tax.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:07 am

I'm not a Romney fan, but I'm not sure what the controversy could be about his comments. Can someone explain what he said that's causing the controversy and why it's being considered controversial?

That link in the first post seemed to indicate that they were shocked he "showed disdain" for Democrats living off the labor of their neighbors. That's not exactly surprising to me... Obama shows disdain for those who are productive members of society. What else is new? Neither are shocking.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:08 pm

ampersand wrote:You must have read that NetNet blog that stated every politician wants to raise taxes.
No, it is the spending I am talking about. Obama promises education grants and free healthcare, and Romney promises large military-industrial contracts. They both promise the bankers bailouts and Federal Reserve monetary "help". Really, the difference between the two of them is minute.

Lucksi wrote:After all 30% of Americans think that one day they will be in the 1%.
There's this thing in the US called social mobility. I'm not surprised that someone from stagnant Germany has never heard of it. It requires a lack of government economic planning. Which is also why it is starting to go away here - too much "which plan is better for you" in politics, and not enough liberty.
Oh yes, and the rich will create jobs when you cut their taxes.
I never got a job from a poor man. I don't understand anyone who thinks that if we take away all the money the rich have to hire people with, they will somehow hire more people.
And healthcare is bad.
Bastiat wrote: Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
How anyone besides the 1% would even consider voting for Romney is beyond me. But racism and the fear of the gays and the fear that someone, somewhere -who does not deserve it- get's a free pass is not to underestimated.
This ridicule is just asinine. The problem isn't people "getting a free pass" - it is the fact they do so by force, through what is - in effect - stealing.
And the war on women is just great.
It is a great line. Too bad it is really a "war on giving women free shit just because they are women". People being against being looted to forcibly fund everything under the sun is not a bad thing, but a good thing. It's just too bad they don't take it far enough, and dismantle the State apparatus altogether.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:25 pm

Well, that's it. The two major political parties have taken such a firm grip on our political system that not a single non-politician is actually represented by either platform. It'd be sad if we didn't deserve exactly this for the way we've acted politically.

Anyone still in either major party: Thanks for destroying the entire political system of the United States. Have fun with your Civil Cold War. You bastards.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:17 pm

The Cid wrote:Anyone still in either major party: Thanks for destroying the entire political system of the United States. Have fun with your Civil Cold War. You bastards.
I think the Civil Cold War is the least of our worries now. The destruction of the dollar this Civil Cold War will inevitably result in, as it is essentially a war about what to spend money that doesn't exist yet on... that it far more troubling to me.

This will inevitably result (and within the next couple decades, I'd bet) in (1) mass inflation, stabilization, deflation, depression, and government default, or (2) hyperinflation followed by a default. Take your pick.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:33 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:I think the Civil Cold War is the least of our worries now. The destruction of the dollar this Civil Cold War will inevitably result in, as it is essentially a war about what to spend money that doesn't exist yet on... that it far more troubling to me.
But that's just it. The fighting, and the polarization that accompanied it and gave these two major parties full of busybodies and wasteful morons all the power, ensures that both major parties will continue to have a stranglehold on our political system. So nobody sane or decent can get in. So nothing can ever change besides one horrible, bad-for-us-all party getting the slight edge over the other. We'll spend the rest of our time fighting between wild spenders who don't pretend to know where we're going to get all the money to afford their grand plans and complete liars who use the banner of economic conservatism to hide behind expensive and wasteful acts of social busybody horsecrap at the beck and call of religious leaders. Any spiral we're in can never be reversed, because the people responsible are now in an unassailable position.

I used to hold out hope that something would break that death grip. I'm not that naive anymore. There is no more democracy in our system anymore, just two awful groups telling everybody what to think. Even if there are bigger problems than that, that one problem makes sure that none of the others will ever be solved.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:50 pm

The problems you speak of are not merely due to the two parties. They are a fundamental problem of democracy itself. (PDF of book) "More democracy" can only make things worse.

Also, you are wrong when you say there is no democracy in our system. There's tons of it - every election people vote to expropriate others to fund things for themselves, and the entire two party system is predicated on people doing just that.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Arres » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:29 pm

CS22, it's not just fluff. I'm not interested in the "core of Romney's Message". I know what that is ("I'm not Obama, please vote for me"). The "half the country doesn't pay taxes" bit IS however a routine conservative talking point and I'm interested in disecting THAT.

Lucksi, your bitterness would probably be better used in a Rant thread. I thought for a moment you were going to contribute, and then you devolved into "Everything vaguely American is stupid" again. I appreciate that your filled with RAYGE, but I don't give a shit. The fact that your even aware of these discussion in American Politics is indicitave that significant portions of the country do not feel that way. Contribute or shut up.

Cid, I tend to agree with you that the major parties are filled with self serving money grabbing, useless degenerate humanoids (humanity yet to be verified). That being said, that's why I'm trying to sort out the chaff from the wheat in the things that get said in an intellectual and hopefully non-partisan fashion. I've actually gotten ahold of the "platform" for each party, and assigned myself the homework of not only reading it, but bulletizing it so that it can assimilated by humans.
Deacon wrote:I'm not a Romney fan, but I'm not sure what the controversy could be about his comments. Can someone explain what he said that's causing the controversy and why it's being considered controversial?

That link in the first post seemed to indicate that they were shocked he "showed disdain" for Democrats living off the labor of their neighbors. That's not exactly surprising to me... Obama shows disdain for those who are productive members of society. What else is new? Neither are shocking.
The controversy revolves around generalization, and what it potentially reveals about the way Mitt Romney thinks. His quote was:
Mitt Romney wrote:There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
This number comes from the Tax Policy Center:
Image

His statement implies a few things:
- All of the 47% are who don't pay Income Tax are self inflicted "victims", "dependant upon government", and "entitled"
- They all vote Democrat, so that they can stay dependant
- Republicans all pay Income Tax and are therefore clearly superior
- There is some small middleground of people who pay Income Tax, but aren't decided and that's who he has to convince in order to get elected
- Anyone in that group clearly has no morals or they wouldn't be in that group and would be paying taxes
- Anyone in the paying group is obviously a Republican, and a Good, Upstanding, Citizen

All of it completely disenfranches half or more of the country from choice. If A->B. If you don't pay Income Tax, you're obviously a Democratic Leach who can't be helped.

The problem (as with most statistics is that when you start to look at it, it's not so cut and dried.
Image

So, more than half of those that did not pay Income Tax, DID pay Payroll tax. Of those that did not pay either, it is almost entirely the elderly (most likely retired and Republican), and the truly poor (by American Standards). I find it unlikely that anyone truly believes that those two groups really ought to have higher taxation.

This leaves the contentious 28% who DID pay Payroll Tax, but did NOT pay Income Tax; which lead to my original question: What's the difference?

A few things I've read imply that a large chunk of those people are the working middle class. Those who make enough that they pay Payroll Taxes, but so much that the standard Family Deductions (many of which are part of the "Bush Tax Cuts") allow them to not pay Income Tax.

My biggest problem with Mr. Romney using this statistic is that even a half-assed fact check made it clear that this was not a good one to use.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: That darn 47%

Post by ampersand » Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:41 pm

I suppose this means we're about ten years away from some party blowing up the Treasury department and electing some white anglo-saxon guy who had failed to get into Juliard as Chancellor.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:39 am

Arres wrote:
Mitt Romney wrote:There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
His statement implies a few things:
- All of the 47% are who don't pay Income Tax are self inflicted "victims", "dependant upon government", and "entitled"
- They all vote Democrat, so that they can stay dependant
- Republicans all pay Income Tax and are therefore clearly superior
- There is some small middleground of people who pay Income Tax, but aren't decided and that's who he has to convince in order to get elected
- Anyone in that group clearly has no morals or they wouldn't be in that group and would be paying taxes
- Anyone in the paying group is obviously a Republican, and a Good, Upstanding, Citizen
I don't think it implies all that. I think he was talking about two separate groups here. There is a large percentage of the country (probably 47% or so) that will vote for Obama because they get healthcare or whatever - that do think society owes them shit. These people often don't pay income tax, but many of them do. The fact that some people don't pay income tax is a separate talking point - and one I disagree with, as I want 100% of people not paying income tax. I just think Romney is a shitty speaker and can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to taking a stand on things.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Arres » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:02 pm

Really? You think he was talking about two seperate groups? REALLY?! Let me help you out here.
Mitt Romney wrote:There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
I disagree. (emphasis mine, but not necessary as it is a single quote)

I'm disappointed that noone seems to be able to answer the question though.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm

The factual accuracy of that statement does not concern me, personally, as much as the implications. It seems insane, the whole statement. Then again, this is an election where the incumbent President of the United States looked at a speech somebody wrote for him that literally says "you didn't build that" with the "you" being small business owners and he went ahead with the speech. These are not a pair of wordsmiths running for president. In fact, at times it's staggering how little attention they seem to be paying to the things they say.
Arres wrote:His statement implies a few things:
Arres wrote:- All of the 47% are who don't pay Income Tax are self inflicted "victims", "dependant upon government", and "entitled"
- They all vote Democrat, so that they can stay dependant
This is dangerous thinking. Basically, "everybody who does not share my world view is a burden on our society."
Arres wrote:- Anyone in the paying group is obviously a Republican, and a Good, Upstanding, Citizen
"Everybody like me agrees with me and is just like me, because all successful people think alike."

The implication that bothers me the most, however, probably is as true of the president as it is for Romney: "There's no way that my world view is anything less than perfect." As if his ideal form of government is a totalitarian regime where people who think exactly like he does can impose their will upon everybody else for the Common Good. I'm afraid that both candidates seem to think and act this way, and I don't think anyone's that perfect.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Arres » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:13 pm

I agree Cid. Even giving them a little leeway for "I'm talking to like-minded people who might give me money", there is a certain level of rhetoric that is at BEST distasteful.

I've been saying for some time now that the American people need to ignore their parties a bit, and back off of the issues until we find the common ground where we AGREE on a thing. THEN we can move forward with how to FIX that thing. For instance*:

Everyone agrees that access to health care services is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that children should be taught things.
Everyone agrees that our country should not be massively in debt.
and so on.

Nearly any topic of contention in modern politics can be broadened until we find the spot where we all agree. Most of the problems arise in implementation of the solution.

*Please add "nearly", "most", or whatever qualifier you find necessary to any generalized statement.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests