For the record, I’m the effete elite arugula buying variety of liberal, and I pay plenty of taxes on the income that buys that arugula. I’ve paid income taxes every year since graduating from college, both to the Federal government and to California. I’ve paid payroll taxes every year since graduating from college. I pay sales taxes to my state and local governments. And I pay property taxes. Given my income level, my pension, and my 401k, I expect that, more likely than not, I’ll even manage to be in the minority who still pay income taxes after retirement. Consider me well and thoroughly taxed.
Also, for the record, I think the “if I was Mexican” remark bothers me more than the “47 per cent” remark. It feels to me like a play to the white people version of victim mentality. Seriously, get over yourselves. This is not a country in which you have to be black or Mexican to get, well, really anything.
But the story of the “47 per cent” is more interesting, mainly because it’s been all over the place, in blogs and blog comments and Facebook posts, before Mitt Romney ever said the words in the leaked video, the whole “We are the 53% who pay income taxes” meme, and the counter to it, in the form of charts of how much all the non-income-tax-payers are paying in payroll and sales taxes, has also been all over the place. And the “47 per cent” business persists. I’ve even seen people suggest it was dishonest to compare other taxes with income taxes. Why? I’ve paid boatloads of income taxes, and boatloads of payroll taxes, and it always felt to me like pretty much the same process. It’s true that I expect the government to use my payroll taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare, so I can eventually receive them in turn. But the same is true of my income taxes; I pay them with the expectation that the government is at least supposed to then spend them on things that will provide some general benefit, that will make it worth my while to have paid the taxes.
I’ve concluded that the reason the meme persists is that “We are the 53 per cent” makes a neat sound byte to counter Occupy’s “We are the 99 per cent.” There are lots of better arguments you might make, from ones that discuss why taxing the 1%, by itself, has limitations as a budget balancing strategy, to ones that point out that the 1% does actually include some people earning that wealth in worthwhile ways. But they don’t make as easy sound bytes.
And so we have the strange conversion of a portion of the conservative blog world to the notion that there’s something morally bankrupt about being a gainfully employed person who supports a family, pays payroll taxes, perhaps volunteers in the community, and doesn’t quite make enough money to pay income taxes. Because being a moocher, evidently, isn’t about being too dependent on other people, but about not giving enough in precisely the right category to the government.
I think the assessment that those who receive government “aid” and don’t pay much if anything in actual income taxes, not being likely to vote for smaller government, while defeatist in tone, is probably an accurate one and thus not at all “controversial.”
There are currently dueling soundbites, Romney’s “there are 47% (of recipients) who won’t vote for me,” and Obama’s “I believe in redistribution,” in play right now.
I can’t imagine either of these statements changing the minds of either’s supporters OR even effecting Independents much at all, for as much as Independents don’t like “class warfare,” there are generally only 15% to 20% of Americans willing to acknowledge they support “redistribution” at all.
The ONLY issue I had with Romney’s statement was that it was defeatist.
Milton Friedman would never cede a single person to the powers of his persuasion, as evidenced here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4&feature=related)…this is a great exchange.
With Obama’s statement I have plenty of issues, the primary one being that we ALREADY OVER-redistribute! In 2010, the top 1% of income earners (among whom there are VERY few of the top 1% of wealthiest Americans) pay 38% of federal income taxes, on 20% of the country’s Adjusted Gross Income. The top 10% of income earners (that begins at just $112,000/year), pay 71% of federal income taxes.
I oppose ALL income taxes because they tax and thus hinder productivity (work).
I support, instead a consumption tax system. Such a system would effectively tax the wealthiest (the BIGGEST consumers) the most.
I’m a lifelong Conservative Democrat. A self-described “Zell Miller Democrat.” I KNOW that the government cannot create jobs by hiring more government workers, since government can only hire workers with the permission of the private sector, ESPECIALLY the FIRE industries (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate). Moreover, every government job (like mine) is a net COST, which is why I’ve ALWAYS supported streamlining Police and Fire Departments and reducing federal, state and city workers across the board, so a greater portion of the workforce would be available for private sector (producing) jobs. I’m a Unionist and DON’T see “greater strength in numbers,” I see a “diluting of the brand” when excess government workers are hired. I’ve read where it takes about 8 productive workers to fund a single government job, if that’s the case then our government workforce (city, state and federal workers) shouldn’t be anything near the current 19%, but closer to 11 or 12%.
“Milton Friedman would never cede a single person to the powers of his persuasion”
Milton Friedman always struck me as one of those rare people that it’s very hard to dislike, whatever side of the argument you may be on.
Yes, Milton Friedman was a very unique individual. He obviously worked hard on his persuasive delivery, but it came across so effortlessly that it appeared easy. Hayek, who crushed J M Keynes in debate was also very persuasive, but not nearly as accessible as Friedman.