Magazine | October 15, 2012, Issue

Who Are the 47 Percent?

Mitt Romney’s simplistic take on a complicated situation

A great deal of ink has already been spilled over Mitt Romney’s off-the-record remarks at a fundraiser concerning the 47 percent of Americans who are dependent on government, who do not pay federal income taxes, and who would never dream of voting for a Republican presidential candidate. President Obama has woven references to Romney’s supposed contempt for the 47 percent into his stump speech, to great effect. Many on the left are convinced that Romney’s reference to the 47 percent has cemented the perception that he is a clueless plutocrat, thus dooming his presidential campaign.

In response to this feeding frenzy, many on the right have leapt to Romney’s defense. And Romney’s defenders have made at least one crucially important point, which is that the dependency the former Massachusetts governor referenced is a serious and growing problem. In the latest issue of National Affairs, David Armor and Sonia Sousa of George Mason University document the extraordinary growth of federal anti-poverty schemes such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). Between 2000 and 2010, the number of SNAP beneficiaries has gone from 17 million to 40 million. Much of this growth can be attributed to a rapid rise in the number of non-poor households that receive SNAP benefits. As of 2010, these households accounted for 48 percent of the SNAP rolls. Over that same decade, Medicaid enrollment shot up from 33 million to 54.6 million, and that number is expected to increase dramatically if President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect as scheduled.

One interpretation is that this expansion of the SNAP rolls and Medicaid represents a moral triumph that has materially improved the lives of the poor and near-poor, and that it should be celebrated. Another interpretation is that it represents a profound failure, in that our broken economy has for at least the last decade failed to grow in a way that would have delivered these benefits and more as rewards for hard work rather than dignity-sapping handouts. These views are far enough apart that we can’t expect any real reconciliation of them anytime soon. Even so, Romney’s defenders are right to want to have this debate.

The problem for them is that the Republican nominee didn’t make a very sophisticated point about dependency in his off-the-cuff remarks. Rather, he conflated a number of distinct issues in a particularly destructive and distracting manner. Perhaps the most obvious criticism is that many of those who reflexively oppose the GOP are among America’s well-off, from ultra-wealthy social liberals to upper-middle-class professionals employed by the public sector. And while the dependency of the poor is of great consequence, the dependency of public employees and subsidized industries is at least as important. Then there is the fact that virtually all of the households with no federal income-tax liability pay other taxes. Once we factor in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, for example, the share of households that aren’t paying taxes falls to 18 percent. Adding in state and local taxes, including retail sales taxes, causes the number to fall further still.

Even if we do focus exclusively on federal income-tax liability, it is not clear that there is a strong conservative case for dramatically shrinking the 47 percent. Last July, Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center broke down why 46 percent of tax units — that is, individuals or married couples filing jointly and their dependents — had no income-tax liability, drawing on the findings of a report he co-authored with Rachel Johnson, James Nunns, Jeffrey Rohaly, and Eric Toder. The analysis is complicated, and it doesn’t line up well with the dependency story Romney seemed to have in mind.

Half of these households have no federal income-tax liability because they report very low incomes. Most of the rest rely heavily on Social Security benefits, which are partly excluded from taxable income, or receive tax credits aimed at raising the disposable income of low-income workers with children. Which of these provisions would we really want to change?

Republicans have championed the earned-income tax credit (EITC) as an anti-poverty tool that emphasizes labor-force participation, and the program is rightly regarded as a success. In fact, there is a case for improving or expanding the program in various ways. We might, for example, embrace wage subsidies that would raise the incomes of low-wage workers who aren’t parents (perhaps by increasing the EITC income threshold for nonparents). We might also take stronger action to reduce fraudulent EITC claims. Yet there is strong evidence that the EITC has increased labor-force participation more than unconditional cash assistance. In doing so, it has encouraged poor people to get on the first rungs of the economic ladder. The central problem facing the poor is that, in the absence of robust economic growth and healthy labor markets, there hasn’t been enough of a chance to climb up the ladder to real economic independence. But the EITC is not to blame.

#page#Tax credits for parents are a low-cost way to recognize that raising the next generation constitutes an expensive investment in human capital that will yield dividends for society as a whole, as Ramesh Ponnuru and Robert Stein have argued on National Review Online. Shielding Social Security benefits from taxation is extremely popular politically, and there is no reason to believe that it creates a particularly strong work disincentive. To the extent that it does, conservatives might consider exempting over-62 workers from the Social Security payroll tax to encourage senior citizens to keep working, as Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute has proposed.

What is the basic idea that ties these threads together? It is that the tax code should be attuned to the life cycle. Many low-income households are headed by young people, including students and workers in the apprenticeship phase of their careers. Many high-income households, in contrast, are headed by prime-age individuals, who are in a better position to carry the tax burden than their younger or older counterparts. Some prime-age individuals have children, and they are thus obligated to make substantial human-capital investments in their children that generate significant spillover benefits to the wider economy. Other prime-age individuals do not have children.

The elasticity of taxable income (i.e., the degree to which higher income taxes create a disincentive to work) varies between individuals and between broad demographic groups. For example, very young workers and those close to retirement appear to be more tax-sensitive than prime-age workers, and a secondary earner (i.e., the member of a couple with a lower income) is more tax-sensitive than a primary earner. Conservatives have long argued, and rightly so, that these differences between people’s circumstances should be reflected in tax policy. A policy that recognizes such  differences is more likely to encourage growth and widespread labor-market participation than one that does not.

Republicans who have embraced the “takers” interpretation of the statistic that 46 percent of tax units don’t pay federal income taxes forget why Republican policymakers of the past created policies like the EITC and the child tax credit in the first place. This has left the GOP vulnerable to the charge of indifference to the fate of the poor. What conservatives should be arguing is that the way to reduce the number of households that don’t pay taxes is to enact policies that make everyone — the 100 percent, to use Mitt Romney’s new turn of phrase — richer. To get there, however, we need tools like the EITC to inculcate the habits of work, and a generous child tax credit to help cash-strapped working parents invest in America’s future work force.

Some have asked why conservatives seem to be repudiating tax reforms that GOP stalwarts such as Ronald Reagan, who celebrated the fact that his 1986 tax reform removed large numbers of low-earners from the tax rolls, championed in the past. Many of today’s Republicans are unacquainted with the case for the EITC, the child tax credit, and the exclusion of Social Security benefits, or else fail to connect these initiatives to the narrowing of the tax base. This is an intellectual failure. We need conservative politicians who are willing to explain why low-income and middle-income parents should be removed from the tax rolls during the years they are making the biggest investments in their children, and to make the case for the EITC program as an alternative to worklessness and lifelong dependency.

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

In This Issue

Articles

Politics & Policy

The Rapper Barons

I feel like a black Republican, money I got comin’ in.  – Jay-Z, “Black Republican,” 2006 I’m a Republican voting for Mitt Romney, you lazy b****es is f***ing up the economy.  – Nicki ...
Politics & Policy

Fatwa against Free Speech

The cascading crisis involving derogatory depictions of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, by amateur American filmmakers and French satirists has reinvigorated a 20-year-old demand from the Muslim world for a Western crackdown ...
Politics & Policy

Estonian Economics

Tallinn, Estonia – Sitting shirt-sleeved and without, sadly, his trademark bow tie, in his official residence here in the Estonian capital, this Baltic nation’s Swedish-born, New Jersey–raised president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, ...

Features

Politics & Policy

A Million Steps

Helmand Province, Afghanistan – In early 2011, National Review published “With the Warriors,” my description of the savage struggle to control Sangin District in the southern part of this province. More ...
Politics & Policy

Sharia on the Nile

Just before the “Arab Spring” dominos started falling in Tunis, Mohammed Badi, “supreme guide” of the global Muslim Brotherhood, called for violent jihad against the United States. Yes, yes, we know ...

Books, Arts & Manners

Politics & Policy

Up against It

Nicholas Jarecki’s Arbitrage is a movie about serious things: corporate fraud and police corruption, adultery and manslaughter, race and class, the ways that husbands betray wives and fathers betray children. ...
Politics & Policy

Dickens at 200

Dickens was born in 1812, and there are celebrations and commemorative activities taking place in this bicentennial year all over the English-speaking world and beyond it. Along with the works ...

Sections

Politics & Policy

Letters

Obama and the Founders In “Obama’s Truth” (October 1), Charles R. Kesler does a remarkable job of sorting through some of the muddled thinking in Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. ...
Politics & Policy

The Week

‐ Obama says you can’t change Washington from the inside — and he wants four more years to finish the job. ‐ Most of the polls show Mitt Romney behind, and ...
Athwart

Media Matter

Whenever talking about the YouTube video on which the riots were blamed, it’s important to note that it’s bad. Lousy acting, cheap F/X, costumes from the Halloween store. But what ...
Politics & Policy

Poetry

FIVE NIGHTMARES When I am naked in the dock, I get His cloak and coat. The clock Sweeps the exam away from me, When I have lost the room, but He Teaches me where I stand ...

Most Popular

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
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More
Elections

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More
U.S.

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More