Romney sticks to his guns on the 47%: Sometimes the truth hurts

Washington Times ^ | 09/20/2012 | Andrew Napolitano

[SeekAndFind]

As readers of this column and viewers of Fox News Channel may know, I have not hesitated to criticize Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and the governor himself. I have argued that his message is muddled and his values are unknown beyond his ardent wish to improve economic conditions through the use of free-market mechanisms rather than central economic planning, a position with which I agree entirely.

I have also maintained that his willingness to abandon, or not to accept, first principles has made these questions reasonable: If Mr. Romney is elected president, which Mitt Romney will show up for work on Jan. 20, 2013? Will it be the Romney who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994, the Romney who governed Massachusetts as Mario Cuomo governed New York, or the Romney who now claims to be a “severe” (his word) conservative? Will it be the Romney who spent the entire presidential primary season assuring conservative Republican primary voters that he’ll dismantle Obamacare on “Day One” (his phrase), or the Romney who told reporters last week that he approves of a limited federal role in managing health care? Or will it be the Romney who, when caught by the press saying something not intended for public consumption but demonstrably true, sticks to his guns?

A few months ago, at a private fundraiser, Mr. Romney spoke to supporters and contributors and observed that 47 percent of Americans do not pay any income tax, and thus his call for not raising taxes (though he wants to eliminate some familiar deductions, which is the functional equivalent of raising some folks’ taxes) will not resonate with the voters in that group.

[JediJones]

47% was not correct when Hannity went off on his rants for the last half year ~ and it’s still not correct. So, tell us what you think is correct

I think there may be confusion between two different statistics. The first is the amount of people who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX (not counting state, local, or "payroll" taxes, which few voters will be aware is different from income tax). The second is the amount of people who are NET TAKERS from government, i.e. they get more in subsidies/benefits than they pay in taxes/fees.

The second stat may be more problematic to calculate, since you have to look at time period. Are you counting someone who isn't paying into the system this year only, or are you counting the amounts they have paid in earlier in their lives?

Romney seems close on the correct statistic for the first one.

For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans will pay Federal income tax.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

If Hannity got something wrong, it might be that he said "Americans who pay no taxes" without distinguishing he was referring to the federal income tax only.

[JediJones]

I hope that you are right. However, doesn’t the “likely voters” aspect of polling take into consideration the turnout element (although the oversampling of D’s still skews the polls in their favor)?

"Oversampling" is a complete misnomer. No matter how many Rs or Ds are in their sample, the pollsters do not just give you the direct percentage of what their respondents answered. The released results are based on their "turnout model" which is their own prediction, including how many Ds and Rs will show up. I'm not sure what they base that prediction on, but I have heard analysts say their models expect the same percent of Ds to show up as did in 2008, which conservatives seem to agree is unlikely to happen.

[JediJones]

It doesn't take a genius in probability and statistics to realize that a poll is useless if its sample is not reflective of the likely voter demo.

It's not a matter of believing this poll or that poll. It all comes down to turnout.

The pollsters know this. When you see the results of a poll it's already been weighted according to their prediction of turnout. Looking at their sample is meaningless. Even if they sampled more Rs, their likely turnout model can still make the poll results lean to Obama if they want it to.

[muawiyah]

Hannity repeatedly referred to "Americans who pay no taxes" and Romney himself, after seeming to get it right the first time through began referring to "those who pay no taxes".

Obviously the idea that anybody can get away with paying no taxes at all is nonsense. This is modern America. They tax everything! If they don't tax you directly, they tax you indirectly.

Secondly, having Romney even note folks who pay no taxes raises some questions!!!!! I like your little item on looking at the question over a period of time ~ since there can be no doubt that many of those being counted as non tax payers actually have paid truly stupendous taxes in the past ~ then they got t-boned by a tractor trailer! Or, maybe all that happened was they got wiped out financially by the Great Obama Recession.

Up until quite recently it was HARDCORE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE policy to eliminate the payment of federal personal income taxes by the "working poor". Going against this policy is to go against Ronald Reagan!

Going further, it's pretty obvious that the federal personal income tax is just another failed federal program and should be abolished on that account alone.

I think the founding fathers had it right ~ no direct taxes on individuals is a good idea!

[muawiyah]

And then there are the far more numerous polls that do no such thing ~ they randomly select individuals from the total population ~ and report what they said ~ with no such thing as a "turnout model" in use.

[muawiyah]

"So who are the 49 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes? The vast majority are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families with children." ~ that's the bottom line in that reference you provided.

Equating them with hard core Obama supporters is elementally wrong.

Even here the writers of the piece who were so careful to refer to federal personal income tax as only one kind of tax out of many, screwed up and fell into the lazy habit of saying "don't pay income taxes" ~ yet, FICA's authority is the same 16th amendment ~ and they noted that many people not paying federal personal income tax on 1040 still pay FICA.

Lazy, lazy, lazy, and all on behalf of a little sourced class warfare argument!

[JediJones]

Perhaps but still, Romney’s point makes sense. If he’s going to give an income tax cut, how is that going to win him votes with people who don’t pay income tax? Not to mention with Obama’s expansion of welfare and other transfer payments, why are people going to vote against him if they are reaping a net benefit from the redistribution because their taxes are outweighed by the payouts they receive? Whether or not people are quoting the statistics accurately, there can be no denying that Obama’s expansion of the welfare state might have the effect of buying him votes.

I would hope Republican policy would be for a flat tax on all sources of income. It’s simple, it’s fair, it doesn’t discriminate. The fact that we have a graduated income tax at all allows Obama to make the class warfare argument, because he can raise the tax rate on people with higher incomes only.

[muawiyah]

Romney should have a broader program than simple tax cuts for anybody.

If that's all he's got we don't need a president do we ~ Congress can do it all and we can toss up a grand vizier to tell people what to do (I think they call them "premiers" in Europe).

A flat tax on personal income still defeats the Founder's objective of the federales not having direct access to any citizens income or wealth.

[muawiyah]

A second point ~ almost forgot ~ the reason given for tax cuts for the rich is this will enable them to invest in the economy and that will create jobs.

So, whether you pay taxes, or don't pay taxes, jobs are good.

That's the theory anyway. Then there are the Gates family. Give them a tax break and they'll donate to more overseas organizations to kill more babies. He also doesn't want to hire Americans into his jobs ~ just foreign people.

Dude is strange.

Trying to think of this old friend's full name ~ Charley Price? He lives uphill from the Gates mansion ~ actually overlooks it.

He's not rich. Gates is rich.