Romney’s voters are not moochers or victims

[punked]

Really? And your source for this is .... ??

The tax code. The money he made while at Bain would have been is non-wage and non-salary income (i guess on his salaried income if he had any he would have paid a payroll tax but that is such a small amount of what he made) which would have no payroll tax taken out of it. This is part of the reason why SS and Medicare are messed up, because the rich don't pay their fair share into them. We wouldn't know unless he showed his tax returns from that period but I am willing to bet all of his income was non-wage and non-salary.

Edited September 18, 2012 by punked

[punked]

Ok went back and looked at his 2010 tax return he made some money about 500,000 dollars on speaking fees (which he said was basically nothing, that is a quote from him) of that money in 2010 he paid 20,000 dollars as a payroll tax. He made 20 some million that year, so his payroll taxes WHICH WERE a part of his tax return and a part of his 13% he paid was about 0.1%. Much less then the 16% everyone else is paying.

With out seeing his other tax returns I am going to assume that is the norm he pays 0.1% in payroll taxes.

Edited September 18, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

The tax code. The money he made while at Bain would have been is non-wage and non-salary income (i guess on his salaried income if he had any he would have paid a payroll tax but that is such a small amount of what he made). We wouldn't know unless he showed his tax returns from that period but I am willing to bet all of his income was non-wage and non-salary.

Again. Your source is ....... ?

Putting your claims aside, from what I've read, Romney's salary at Bain was $100,000. Let's say he left in 2002, even though he says he left in 1999. In 2002, the Social Security Wage Base was $84,900. That means employees paid no SS payroll taxes on income above that amount, which means Romney paid the maximum amount in Social Security payroll taxes. Not sure about medicare taxes - would have to look into it.*

------

* I see that After 1993, the cap on covered wages was eliminated for Medicare tax purposes, so the Medicare tax applies to the employee's total covered wages.

Edited September 18, 2012 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Less people bringing in an income will result in less people paying taxes.... or am I just out to lunch here?

[blueblood]

Maybe because he is criticizing people who pay more then he does for not paying enough? I know if he had his way no one would pay taxes and the US would be Free Marketland with no police or educators but that really isn't how it works.

Wtf?

Everybody has to pay taxes, the debate is how much. Does the USA really need that big of a govt when they've done as well if not better with a much smaller one many many years ago?

[Bitsy]

Romney evidently thinks these 47% are the shiftless deadbeats, the perennial welfare mooches, and so on...

While that may be true for some small portion of them, it is not true for most.

Large numbers of them fall into groups like:

-retired seniors

-students

-those put out of work by the recent recession

-the working poor (those working at low-paying jobs and relying on the EITC to make ends meet, rather than going on welfare)

-veterans leaving the service and finding no jobs, and veterans on disability

It is beyond crass for Romney to characterize those paying no federal income tax as people who won't "take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

This isn't as dangerous for Romney as people are predicting, however. The reason is simple: his core voters all think they're part of the 53%.

Right now there's some occasionally-employed roofer pumping his fist in the air shouting "you tell 'em Mitt! tell those welfare queens and spoiled college kids to get off their asses and get a job!" while he waits for the phone to ring and hopes it'll be for work instead of bills.

-k

As always, Kimmy, a very good, clear post. I know many in Texas who fit the vision of your fist pumping roofer, often unemployed.

[Black Dog]

Wtf?

Everybody has to pay taxes, the debate is how much. Does the USA really need that big of a govt when they've done as well if not better with a much smaller one many many years ago?

Does the U.S. really need a low marginal tax rate on the rich when they've done as well if not better with a much smaller one many many years ago?

[punked]

Again. Your source is ....... ?

Putting your claims aside, from what I've read, Romney's salary at Bain was $100,000. Let's say he left in 2002, even though he says he left in 1999. In 2002, the Social Security Wage Base was $84,900. That means employees paid no SS payroll taxes on income above that amount, which means Romney paid the maximum amount in Social Security payroll taxes. Not sure about medicare taxes - would have to look into it.*

------

* I see that After 1993, the cap on covered wages was eliminated for Medicare tax purposes, so the Medicare tax applies to the employee's total covered wages.

I fail to see your point. MY POINT is he pays less (I didn't see him trying to donate any more to the IRS) then those he is accusing of being moochers. Even IF he did pay payroll taxes he would still be paying less then them as a percentage. I mean we can't all take a 70,000 deduction on our wifes horse now can we? Although there is a very easy way for him to prove you right and that is to release his taxes.

Edited September 18, 2012 by punked

[punked]

Wtf?

Everybody has to pay taxes, the debate is how much. Does the USA really need that big of a govt when they've done as well if not better with a much smaller one many many years ago?

When was that? Was that when they had thousands of scientists working around the clock to make the bomb? Or was it when half the country was helping the government with the war effort? Was it after the war when they took on the largest construction project ever in the highway system? How about when they re routed a river across 3 states to grow crops in the desert? I really have no clue what you are talking about seriously. When the US was growing at its fastest pace taxes were at 90% on the top tax bracket. The US government was passing Social Security, and building a nation by lying roads in the mud. Is that US you are talking about because that is not what small government means.

Maybe you mean when my grandfather came home and they paid for the collage education of most of the nation.

You live in a dream world if you don't think big government programs didn't help the US become what it is. Government isn't the problem, bad government is a problem but the government can help grow a nation.

[Guest American Woman]

I fail to see your point.

My point is that you're wrong; Romney most certainly has paid payroll taxes.

MY POINT is he pays less (I didn't see him trying to donate any more to the IRS) then those he is accusing of being moochers.

Ummm. The IRS isn't a charitable organization. It doesn't take donations. Furthermore, your point is incorrect, as I already pointed out. Now you're just going in circles.

Even IF he did pay payroll taxes he would still be paying less then them as a percentage.

What's this "if" about? Of course he paid them, and I explained why SS taxes are the same for someone earning (in 2002) $85,000 or $85,000,000. As for medicare benefits, which aren't capped, everyone pays the same percentage of their earned income.

I mean we can't all take a 70,000 deduction on our wifes horse now can we? Although there is a very easy way for him to prove you right and that is to release his taxes.

Prove me right about what? I haven't said anything about the percentage of federal income taxes that he's paid. That isn't what we've been discussing - that would be payroll taxes.

Edited September 18, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

My point is that you're wrong; Romney most certainly has paid payroll taxes.

Ummm. The IRS isn't a charitable organization. It doesn't take donations. Furthermore, your point is incorrect, as I already pointed out. Now you're just going in circles.

What's this "if" about? Of course he paid them, and I explained why SS taxes are the same for someone earning (in 2002) $85,000 or $85,000,000. As for medicare benefits, which aren't capped, everyone pays the same percentage of their earned income.

Prove me right about what? I haven't said anything about the percentage of federal income taxes that he's paid. That isn't what we've been discussing - that would be payroll taxes.

No I believe I qualified what I said as "He paid less then those he calls moochers" which he did because much of his income he pays no play roll tax on at all.

[msj]

Prove me right about what? I haven't said anything about the percentage of federal income taxes that he's paid. That isn't what we've been discussing - that would be payroll taxes.

I could be wrong about this, but for 2010 it looks like Romney didn't pay payroll taxes.

2010 tax return

Other source saying "That’s a higher percentage than Romney (who paid no payroll taxes because he declared no wages or salary in 2010."

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that Romney would be clever enough to avoid payroll taxes for his other years but to know for sure would require full disclosure (an issue I don't really care for one way or another).

[punked]

I could be wrong about this, but for 2010 it looks like Romney didn't pay payroll taxes.

2010 tax return

Other source saying "That’s a higher percentage than Romney (who paid no payroll taxes because he declared no wages or salary in 2010."

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that Romney would be clever enough to avoid payroll taxes for his other years but to know for sure would require full disclosure (an issue I don't really care for one way or another).

I think he paid payroll taxes on only his speaking fees.

[Guest American Woman]

No I believe I qualified what I said as "He paid less then those he calls moochers" which he did because much of his income he pays no play roll tax on at all.

Well then, you've changed your tune. It isn't, however, black and white. Medicare and social security taxes are different from income taxes as they fund distinctly different things and programs. Medicare and social security are benefits that we all enjoy - we pay into them for our future benefit; the social programs from the federal income tax do not all go to all, and some, which we all enjoy such as education, roads, military protection, etc. are not being funded by the 47%, which I'm sure was what Romney was saying.

Of course Romney was wrong referring to the the whole 47% as a single group, as if they are all in the same category, all of the same circumstances, all of the same mindset - and of course it was beyond ignorant to say he didn't have to care about them, or however it was that he worded it. And I do believe he likely paid a lot less taxes than someone with his assets should be paying.

But as a most definitely not rich American who pays both federal income tax and payroll taxes, and never collected a dime from the government, I get more than a little annoyed that so many are not paying any federal income taxes as they enjoy the benefits I do, that I help pay for, as well as many extra benefits that I do not get - and there are a good many people who are more than happy to live off of the government - who, in fact, do believe that life owes them a living.

IOW, it's wrong to refer to the whole 47% as a single group, all of the same circumstances, all of the same mindset in defense of them, too. Some of them don't deserve defending any more than some of them deserved Romney's contempt.

Fact is, rich people who enjoy too many tax loopholes and people who are too willing to abuse the system and live off the government are all annoying.

[punked]

Well then, you've changed your tune. It isn't, however, black and white. Medicare and social security taxes are different from income taxes as they fund distinctly different things and programs. Medicare and social security are benefits that we all enjoy - we pay into them for our future benefit; the social programs from the federal income tax do not all go to all, and some, which we all enjoy such as education, roads, military protection, etc. are not being funded by the 47%, which I'm sure was what Romney was saying.

Of course Romney was wrong referring to the the whole 47% as a single group, as if they are all in the same category, all of the same circumstances, all of the same mindset - and of course it was beyond ignorant to say he didn't have to care about them, or however it was that he worded it. And I do believe he likely paid a lot less taxes than someone with his assets should be paying.

But as a most definitely not rich American who pays both federal income tax and payroll taxes, and never collected a dime from the government, I get more than a little annoyed that so many are not paying any federal income taxes as they enjoy the benefits I do, that I help pay for, as well as many extra benefits that I do not get - and there are a good many people who are more than happy to live off of the government - who, in fact, do believe that life owes them a living.

IOW, it's wrong to refer to the whole 47% as a single group, all of the same circumstances, all of the same mindset in defense of them, too. Some of them don't deserve defending any more than some of them deserved Romney's contempt.

Fact is, rich people who enjoy too many tax loopholes and people who are too willing to abuse the system and live off the government are all annoying.

Agreed

[Bitsy]

The 47% who had no income tax liability in 2009....

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/chart_households_no_income_tax.03.gif

[Moonlight Graham]

Romney's statements are so obviously absurd that I'm not even sure this topic is necessary since there isn't much to discuss about it. The man has his head up his rump.

[jacee]

Mitt Romney today ...

"We are compassionate, caring people who want to help those in need."

:lol:

Sure Mitt ... Let's see those missing tax returns to find out how much you've "helped" .

Edited September 19, 2012 by jacee

[sharkman]

It was released a long time ago. In fact I posted to it here. However until recently it wasn't verified it was Romney.

But why did it make a big splash suddenly today since it's been around since at least May? It's real easy to verify who it is, the voice is without doubt Romney's. Everywhere I look I see that Mother Jones released it today. I'm wondering why today?

As to the content of Romney's comments, they aren't any more controversial than Obama's "they cling to their guns and religion" comment, which didn't really hurt him in the last election. I doubt this will hurt Romney since so many of the conservatives down there feel much the same about the sugar daddy government mindset.

[kimmy]

But why did it make a big splash suddenly today since it's been around since at least May? It's real easy to verify who it is, the voice is without doubt Romney's. Everywhere I look I see that Mother Jones released it today. I'm wondering why today?

Jimmy Carter's grandson saw the clips that had been posted earlier, sought out the person who made them, and persuaded the person to release the full recording to Mother Jones.

Anyway, who cares? Why does it matter that it was released right now?

It's not like this is dredging back to stuff he did when he was a reckless youth, like holding kids down and giving them impromptu haircuts, or dressing up like a state trooper and pulling people over.

No, this is from a few months ago, after he had already secured the Republican nomination. I realize he changes his story almost daily, but it's not like he's a different man from when he said this.

What's your objection to this being discussed now?

As to the content of Romney's comments, they aren't any more controversial than Obama's "they cling to their guns and religion" comment, which didn't really hurt him in the last election. I doubt this will hurt Romney since so many of the conservatives down there feel much the same about the sugar daddy government mindset.

Yeah, this won't hurt Romney with his core supporters. It's probably going to hurt him with swing voters, though. We shall see.

-k

[jacee]

Romney:

God bless **** ** America

[msj]

The 47% who had no income tax liability in 2009....

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/chart_households_no_income_tax.03.gif

While interesting I find this graph much more so.

I remember when I was a college kid and paid little to no tax.

Of course, this is in Canada so Romney really really wouldn't care to represent me anyway (and, unlike his vile disdain for "47%" of Americans, rightfully so).

But the point is that people pay federal taxes at various times in their lives: usually between the ages of 25 to about 62.

Romney has insulted far more than 47%:

Thanks to the child tax credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, a fair number of working families with young children pay no income tax; thanks to the exemption on Social Security, many older Americans pay no income tax. But in middle age, close to 80 percent of the population pays income taxes, and even more, of course, pay federal taxes of some kind.

[msj]

Romney:

God bless **** ** America

:lol:

[kimmy]

Except you would note Shady's claim was in regards to Romney's statement - "what Romney said is absolutely true. There's an ever-increasing number of voters that don't pay any taxes" - which was in regards to federal income tax.

That's false.

Shady said " There's an ever-increasing number of voters that don't pay any taxes, who's existence is mostly, or soley based on government. So of course, they'll vote themselves bigger benefits, at the expense of tax payers."

Nothing in this statement indicates that Shady was remotely aware that the "47%" statistic refers strictly to federal income tax. That he says "[their] existence is mostly or solely based on government" indicates otherwise.

In fact, there's nothing to indicate that the audience at Mitt's fundraiser, or Mitt himself, for that matter, are aware of the distinction either.

The fact that Mitt describes these 47% as people "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" seems to indicate that Mitt doesn't realize that the statistic only refers to federal income tax either. He doesn't seem to be aware that many of them are still paying into things like Medicare and Social Security even though they are not paying into federal income tax.

And I have heard this line that "47% of Americans pay no taxes!" repeated often enough without any further qualification, by people ranging from media figures to forum members, to be highly skeptical that people are aware of the specifics behind it.

-k

[CPCFTW]

The most puzzling part: the parts of America that are the biggest "takers" are the parts where Republican support is strongest:

Irony alert

-k

Don't you need to file taxes to be a moocher?