Skip to comments.I am (Not) the 47% ( I did not choose my tax bracket )
Posted on 09/28/2012 9:34:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I can't take it anymore! It's time to set the record straight:
I am, officially and categorically, in the infamous 47% tax bracket. You know, the one everybody assumes are moochers, users and takers. The main factor that has not been incorporated into the argument is choice. As you cannot choose your tax bracket, I did not and cannot choose mine.
What I pay doesn't and shouldn't brand my integrity.
Both parties have liberally slathered my character as a usable calculation to their cause. Do the Democrats think that by dangling 'freebie carrots' they have my vote? Why do the Republicans write me off as a lost cause due to my eligibility for entitlement programs? It is our choices not our 'classes' (an old Soviet term) that define us.
I was gathering signatures on the petition to recall Gray Davis. Before the Tea Party emerged on the public scene, I was an attendant at the "Heads On A Stick" rallies hosted by John & Ken (local LA talk show hosts) protesting corrupt California politicians. I emerged with the Tea Party as I rallied at various representative townhalls protesting against Obama Care and standing shoulder-to- shoulder against SEIU paid thugs to keep us at distance.
I have never filed or used food stamps - I shop wisely.
I do not claim extra dependents on my tax forms for more deductions. I do not file 'earned income tax credits' where I would get a hefty check from the government come year's end. If you're not familiar with it, look it up. It will make your blood boil! I do not use the emergency room even when I've been advised to go. Amazing how I didn't need the stitches that everyone so adamantly assured me were necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And if she owns her own home, she pays property tax (as well as state and local) and sales.
If you’re not a moocher, then clearly you’re not who we’re talking about. You’re one of us.
Its not about being poor or not poor. Its not even about being dependent. Its about being dependent when you don’t have to be.
If you’re not on the dole, then you should be irritated at the numbers of people who are.
If you are on the dole through no fault of your own, you should be irritated at the fact that O’s economy has driven large numbers of people onto the dole who wouldn’t be there if he hadn’t spent the last 4 years choking the life out of this economy.
Good article, and she is correct. People should be judged by the content of their character, and not for any other reason.
If Linda B. is implying that there are no moochers among the 47%, then she is wrong.
And if Linda B. is implying that Romney said *everyone* in the 47% is a moocher, then she is wrong again.
If you want to work and better yourself you need to ask yourself which candidate would give you the best chance of doing just that. If you want to sit on your behind and watch TV all day make calls on your free cell phone we both know which candidate that is as well. What you may not know is the day of free government stuff will end one way or the other. And one way isn’t pretty. Just look at Europe. When folks leave our offices for a business trip I often say, “Write if you find work.” Most young folks have never heard the saying which was very popular during the Great Depression.
[[Its not about being poor or not poor. Its not even about being dependent. Its about being dependent when you dont have to be]]
Bingo- Those who are moiochers feel as though they are ‘victims’ and insult all those folks who truly are victims of circumstances and who truly do need help- The peopel whom Mitt was talking abotu were peopel liek that woman who when questioend why she voted for Obama said “So I can get me some of that Obama Money” and hwen questioend abotu her remark, she simply replied soemthign like “Why not, it’s free’
Those are the ‘victims’ romeny was talking about- and hte left knows this full well, but they are hell bent on putting words in romney’s mouth to make it look liek he was attackign people who truly can’t fend for themselves financially or physically
The essential question is: “Is she a NET taxpayer or not?” If she is not, then she lives off the rest of us NET taxpayers. No matter how you cut her ideology, intentions, working for this or that, if she doesn’t pay income taxes, she is not paying her fair share.
Any renter paying market rate is paying property tax as much as an owner is - I am not counting people on rent control or Section 8 or public housing.
Hmmm...I was a renter many years in NYC and never paid property tax. My building may have been rent stabilized.
Yeah! You’re right! Let’s get out our pitchforks and tumbrils and go after her. Do I need a sarcasm alert?
The 47% is about all the people who do, not about their level of income.
Should there not be editors who think about these things prior to publishing these stories?
SOME people are SO “sensitive”....they are narcissists...seeing something as applying to them
even if it does not. Get over yourself Linda. EVERYONE KNOWS exactly who Romney was talking about...if it doesn’t apply to you...quit yer bitchen...
I'm not aware of any 47% tax bracket, not yet at least.
sorry, but I pay more in property taxes than you do in rent... pennies on the dollar...
I blame Rush Limbaugh.
I am in the 53% who pay income taxes...lots and lots of income taxes. And not because I am rich, it is because I have no deductions to claim.
This whole notion about people who don’t pay federal income taxes being a drag on the economy and vote themselves freebies through the democrat party is just horse manure. You can thank Rush Limbaugh for this particular flavor of horse manure.
Income taxes were never meant to be paid by the majority of US citizens. I will paraphrase Calvin Coolidge here...
“only the very wealthy should pay income taxes and they should only pay a pittance”.
How this transformed into the Rush Limbaugh school of thought where even homeless people should fork over their 10% is beyond me. But Romney sure did latch onto the Rush Limbaugh school of thought and now he’s paying for it in the polls.
The problem is the size of the US government and the amount of money it spends. Their spending needs to be chopped down to about a tenth the size it is currently.
if she doesnt pay income taxes, she is not paying her fair share.
I’m afraid I strongly disagree.
if your landlord was paying property tax, then you were as part of your rent.
Really? Actually he didn't call them "moochers", it's worse. He said they were going to vote for Obama no matter what.
Linda B has a right to be pissed. It was a stupid thing for him to say.
I happen to be a homeowner. And no, I don’t know any renters who have to pay the property taxes directly - the risks to the property owner are too high.
But when we were renters - always market rate since we got out of student housing - I never thought “Oh heavens, we are moochers dependent on the taxpayer, not entitled to police protection or public school for the children or the parks or the libraries because we pay no property taxes.” Our rent paid the property taxes, the other costs, and a profit for the landlord. No shame there.
Her fair share is what the tax code requires her to pay. I pay as little as the tax codes require of me, I take all deductions I legally can. She did not cheat or refuse to pay.
Why don’t you read posts before replying to them? He did not imply that *everyone* in that group was a moocher. I know plenty of “47 percenters” who know damn well he wasn’t talking about them.
The only people who read “moocher” into his statement were the real moochers, the people who were never going to vote for Romney anyway. Oh, and people like you, who have an insatiable need to find fault with everything Romney says....
As usual, the media’s characterization of what Mitt Romney said has people confused about what he really meant.
"Romney: 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 that 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. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those peopleI'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people
we do all these pollsI find it amazingwe poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4
A nut job with psychologocal problems who is incapable of knowing that by "parasites" we don't mean the mentally challenged; or...
A troll who IS in fact a parasite gaming the system and claims the opposite; in other words, she suffers silently and "conservatives" are keeping her there.
The "progressives," and Obamabots really believe that the majority of working, taxpaying US citizens are morons!
And what’s so bad about that statement? It’s pretty accurate. The Democrats certainly have a lock on over 40% of the voters no matter what. That’s why the Democrat party can become as radical, communist and godless as they want, and they will still keep getting about their same share of the votes. Most people don’t think and only vote the party.
The only thing you can quibble with is whether the same percent who don’t pay income tax are the same people who vote Democrat. I’m sure he was just talking fast, and confusing his statements a little. Because even he definitely knows from living in the wealthy liberal state of Massachusetts that many Democrat voters do pay income tax.
Don’t forget those who are on the dole but are still working under the table and not paying taxes.
I listen to the radio as I drive around town, and it's amazing the number of young (usually females) who are outraged and dispirited because they can't find a job...
The latest, yesterday, ultimately admitted she had submitted three applications for jobs ----- in the last 18 months!
She actually thought she would get an avalanche of sympathy!
Which is one reason the mortgage deduction is an unfair tax on renters and usually a regressive tax to boot.
The tax code is wrong - horribly....
No it's wrong all the way around.
There are 47% who don't pay income tax but that includes retired Social Security recipients who tend to be Republican and many others. It was stupid to categorize them this way.
The 47% who don't pay income tax are different from the % who are on the gov't dole.
The % that are on the Gov't dole is not any where near 47% unless you include Social Security and Medicare Recipients.
Romney sounds like Coach Watson used to sound when he was head coach of Vanderbilt. They'd have a pre-game interview and Coach Watson would have 6 reasons ready why Vanderbilt was at a disadvantage. And the game wasn't even started. There's no wonder he had a terrible record.
You can ‘sarc’ it all you want. It still does not make up for the fact that there are people, regardless of their ‘goodness’ that are, through the tax code and no fault of their own, getting a free ride if they pay no federal income taxes. You can sugar coat intentions and all that paying what they legally owe, but this country was not founded to support people who cannot pay their way.
That's irrelevant now considering that they are a major source of the government's funding. I'm all for cutting spending. But no matter how low it is, everyone should be paying their fair share of the tax, however it is collected. And fair means everyone pays the same flat percentage, and they don't get deductions or tax credits that cancel out what they owe because they fit some special interest group, i.e. because they're homeowners, people who bought an "energy saving" car, etc.
I can say the same. In fact, I could have written this article! I wonder how many more of us there are.
The social security crowd was the only age group that voted against Obama.
Obama easily won the $200,000 income and above, by a 52 to 46 margin!
Obama lost the $50,000-$75,000 income group by a single point!
Obama won the $75,000 to $100,000 income group by a solid 51 to 48 margin.
I almost get the impression that you are calling for more taxes, higher taxes, than for reducing taxes.
But I guess for you “fair share” for a rich person is okay, right?
I used to support that thinking, but after 20 years of having an ironclad rule against raising taxes for any reason, I no longer support raising taxes.
You’re just repeating exactly what I said was the one slight inaccuracy in his statement. The 47% figure doesn’t match up exactly what Democrat voters and those not paying taxes, as I said. Everything else he said was true. If you take out the 47% figure and replace it with “many people” then there’s no debating it’s accurate.
And, yes, he is including SS and Medicare recipients in the bunch who the message of “low taxes” will not resonate with. Many of those people are part of the problem. They would not let George W. Bush reform Social Security to be a sustainable, privatized program for young people. They are mooching off the younger taxpayers by bleeding the program dry and refusing to let us reform it for ourselves. They are the people McCain talked about who are charging up the credit card and sticking their grandkids with the bill.
And, no, they aren’t “entitled” to SS and Medicare just because they paid something into it. The programs are going broke because not enough money was paid in to cover the expenditures. They’re being sent checks that are above and beyond the value that they paid in. So when they refuse to let us reform these programs for futur sustainability, I hold them accountable as moochers of the younger generations.
I agree but it is what we have. I don’t like the fact that Romney pays a lower percent of taxes than I do but I don’t blame him. He is paying what the tax code requires of him. Just as I don’t blame the lady in the article.
If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it.
That evil social security group was the only age group that voted republican against Obama (and by a wide margin), so why do you think that they support the democrats on the issues like SS reform, like your age group does?
You can take all the misguided impressions you want. Your data are so four years ago and hold no sway in this case.
This isn’t about “Obama”; it is about a tax code that is fundamentally bent and ‘progressive’ that allows a major portion of the citizens of this country to LEGALLY pay no federal income taxes at all for the benefits thereof they receive.
My post qualified that if she was not a NET taxpayer (Federal Income tax), then she was not paying what I’d say is her fair share. In other words, any benefit she receives from being a national citizen is paid for by someone else - that part of the Federal cost is not borne by her.
That’s okay if it is voluntarily given by the rest, but it is not. The money for her support, however intangible is paid for by others (if she does not, in fact, pay ANY federal income taxes).
Depends how you define it. I don't support raising taxes so that OVERALL people are paying more taxes. In most cases, we should be able to lower taxes on the people who are "overpaying" to flatten things out without raising taxes. But if someone has been given an unfair break then it might have to be taken away.
If Obama said all blacks will pay no taxes from now on as reparations, it would be technically raising taxes on somebody to take that break away later. But it has to be done to be fair to everyone else.
GE is apparently currently paying no taxes due to being a good crony capitalist and getting favored tax policy written into law. That's not fair to small businesses who don't have the same access they do. As long as these deductions and exemptions exist, people will be able to bribe politicians to get ones that favor them.
They might not be voting Democrat, but enough of them opposed Bush's social security reform to kill it. As we have learned especially since Bush Sr. raised taxes, being an "R" doesn't mean you always support the right policy. The country needs to get behind any given policy and the way SS reforms were blocked under Bush was unconscionable.
And I'm afraid you are part of the problem.
Creating a straw man and beating on it is the tactic of an immature and ignorant mind.
No one I know of has suggested that the poor pay 10% income tax.
BUT ZERO% CAN NEVER BE A "FAIR" SHARE.
Most of us must and do pay taxs on what we actually earn, but in addition, also on any value in kind obtained from any source whatseoever.
Why is the army of professional parasites exempt?
No skin in the game, and you can be CERTAIN that they will vote for and support any and all tax increases proposed --- on everyone else.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see the nexus.
Look, I know that we as common citizens can’t do anything about the tax code. There are too many freeloaders now.
However, that doesn’t mean that I have to accept someone who is “stigmatized” by legally being in that 47% but having a ‘good heart’.
It is analogous to someone in the grocery store watching everyone else in the Candy Bar aisle grabbing their favorite candy bar and eating it in front of a cop - with the cop doing nothing....doesn’t make it right because established authority is in on it.....”It’s legal, I guess because it’s ‘legal’” munch munch...
The store owner just covers the ‘aisle munchie’ losses by raising the price of everything else in the store to cover the losses.....that’s okay with you, right?
What Romney should now explain are the reasons why many of those 47% ers on fixed incomes must go on food stamps and apply for other benefits such as energy assistance etc.
The price of ; goods, services ,food, as well as the cost, use, and types of of energy resources, particularly coal,and oil, have all been driven up by Obama through his endless edicts, use of regulations and prohibitions. These are all designed to change the systems of distribution and use of pleantiful resources to conform to a socialist scheme or ideal. Without any regard to the consequences.
After all let US remember “To make an omlet ..”one must break a few eggs” and the one who made that remark. Explaining his murdering of millions to seize their land to conform to a socialist idea of wealth and food distribution. That went praised by The New Tork Times.
I am curious how many FReepers are part of the blanket 47%. You damn well know it’s a healthy chunk. Many commenters here find the nooks and crannies within the blanket 47% to hide, but that does not change the epic stupidity of lumping in hundreds of thousands of hard working conservatives who make up the blanket 47%.
If you want a conservative policy implemented, then work on your democrat voting age group, and direct less criticism at the conservative voting age group.
Rather than promoting raising the tax burden on the poor, you should be working to lower taxes on the better off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.