Politics & Policy

Romney’s 47 Percent Blunder

Mitt Romney explains his 47 percent comment to the press, September 17, 2012.
His tax argument is flawed and dangerous.

The best defense of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s instantly notorious “47 percent” remarks at a May fundraiser is that he made a bad point badly.

Romney mixed up three separate groups: the roughly half the country that will inevitably support President Barack Obama, the half that doesn’t pay federal income taxes, and the half that receives government benefits. Then he declared them all a collective lost cause. He will never win them over, or convince them to take responsibility for their lives. Next question.

In reality, these are distinct categories. Many Obama supporters are rich. We can be certain the attendees at the president’s fundraiser with Beyoncé and Jay-Z in New York City the other day have hefty tax bills. Meanwhile, many of Romney’s supporters — especially the elderly — don’t pay federal income taxes and receive government benefits.

As a political scientist, Romney is an excellent former governor of Massachusetts.

#ad#On taxes, he was repeating a conservative talking point about the perils of 47 percent of people not paying federal income taxes. (To be precise, 46.4 percent of “tax units” don’t pay income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center.) Romney took this line of argument and blundered his way through it, although it’s not very convincing in the best rendering.

The contention is that if people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing that they don’t have to pay for them.

As NR’s Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal-income-tax liability is up; it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is mainly the poor, seniors, and lower-income families with children who don’t owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that’s always been so. Seniors, on the other hand, have been swinging Republican, and there’s no indication that families with children are becoming more liberal.

Many workers who don’t pay federal income tax pay other taxes, including the payroll tax. Just 18 percent of tax filers escape both the income and payroll taxes. People who aren’t paying income tax don’t think of themselves as freeloading “takers.” An April Gallup poll found more discontent with taxes among people making less than $30,000 than any other income group. Fifty percent said they pay too much, though the vast majority have no federal-income-tax liability.

The deeper problem with the “47 percent” argument is that it is right-wing Elizabeth Warrenism. It reflects the belief that federal income taxes are an expression of our togetherness. If you aren’t paying them — or aren’t paying enough — you are a sub-citizen.

Representative Michele Bachmann says everyone should pay income taxes, even if it’s “the price of two Happy Meals a year, $10.” Texas governor Rick Perry has said it’s an “injustice” that more people don’t pay. Warren wants to tax rich people as a statement of our patriotic commitment to one another; some conservatives evidently want to tax the poor and seniors for the same reason.

How does this look in the real world? If a couple earning $35,000 with two kids has no income-tax liability thanks to various exemptions, deductions, and credits (the child tax credit has been especially important in removing families from the rolls), how much should we tax them to get them to shape up and fly right? How much do they have to pay the Internal Revenue Service to learn a lesson in basic civics?

This tendency represents a backdoor return to country-club Republicanism, with the approval of part of the Republican base. Fear of the creation of a class of “takers” can slide into disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes. For a whiff of how politically unattractive this point of view can be, just look at the Romney fundraising video.

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 King Features Syndicate

Rich Lowry — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

U.S.

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More