6 ms·

Where Are the 47% of Americans Who Pay No Income Taxes?

8 points by Cieplak 14y ago

MartinCron 14y ago
That conclusion about red states being overrepresented in the untaxed 47% was the first thing I thought of. It makes me think that Romney mis-spoke, was pandering, or has been seriously taken out of context. I have a hard time buying into the narrative that he is so clueless about American demography.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  The rest of the comment makes me think he's pandering. The picture he paints is of people who simply take from the government and don't have any interest in taking care of themselves. By connecting that picture to the 47% number, he's trying to convince people that there's a huge entitlement problem and that we need to take back the country from the lazy. But of course the 47% of non-taxpayers includes retirees who've paid their fair share of taxes in the past, students who will enter the workforce and pay plenty of future taxes, and working families who don't earn enough to offset deductions and credits (a family of 4 can earn about $51,000 without owing taxes, due to the standard deduction, personal exemptions, child tax credit, and making work pay credit.) If Romney phrases his accusation carefully enough, people in these categories will think "he's not talking about me", and yet still may get riled up about "the huge number of lazy people who don't pay taxes".
- elmuchoprez 14y ago
  My guess is that he was pandering. The statements were made at a fundraiser where he's trying to echo the narrative of the crowd, not present a realistic overview.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- antidoh 14y ago
  Why? Do you think he studies demography? He studied business and business people, and he has people feeding him things to say.
Lazare 14y ago
That article made me wince because it was apparently written by someone who had never heard of Simpson's Paradox[1]. Just because Texas as a whole tends to support Romney, and just because Texas as a whole has a lot of people who pay no income tax does not give you the data needed to conclude that people who do not pay income tax tend to support Romney, or even that they are more likely to do so. And in fact, the exact opposite is true. It's been a staple of American political analysis for decades that although poor states tend to vote Republican, poor people tend vote Democratic. If you take Mississippi, you will find that it is poor and thus (as expected) it votes Republican. But within Mississippi the poorest groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic (regardless of skin colour, in case you think racism plays a role), while the richest groups vote Republican. Look at a rich state and the same trends hold - the poorest groups within that state will vote Democratic, while the richest will vote Republican. (A ton of research exists on this; this blog post seems to sumarrise it well[2].) To quote from the article: "So Romney appears to be wrong about these voters. But if calling for a less progressive taxation system was enough to alienate poor voters in the Deep South, the Republican Party would have already lost its stronghold there." This is something that could only be written by someone who has no grasp of American politics. You only have to glance at an exit poll - any exit poll - to realize that Republicans alienated poor voters LOOOONG ago. Let's say 2004, presidential election, Mississippi again[3]: Kerry beat Bush by 24 points among people making less than $15k a year, but by only 9 points among people making $15k - $30k. Look at people making $30k - $50k and he lost by 20 points, a massive 36 points among people making $50k - $75k, and an eye-popping 43% (71% to 28%) among people making over $75k. And, again, the same trends exert themselves in every state, every race, and every year, over and over and over. Texas in 2004? Kerry wins every income band up to $30k, and loses everything else by increasing landslides (losing 92% to 8% for people making over $200k). California in 2004? Same deal; Kerry wins every income band up to $100k, and loses everything else by ever-increasing margins as you climb the income scale. Congressional elections in 2010? Same thing: [4] TL;DR: Today I learned that you don't need to have a good grasp of statistics, logic, or American politics to be an associate editor of The Atlantic. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox [2]: http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/red-state-rising.html http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/red-state-rising... [3]: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MS/P/00/epolls.0.html http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MS... [4]: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JGX1ch5CkN8/TZ9mEU7lnJI/AAAAAAAAAeU/KIF8RJuRY0g/s1600/cnn.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JGX1ch5CkN8/TZ9mEU7lnJI/AAAAAAAAAe...
Evbn 14y ago
I like how "my colleague Derek Thompson picked up the baton" and clobbered the article by disproving its thesis.

8 points by Cieplak 14y ago

That conclusion about red states being overrepresented in the untaxed 47% was the first thing I thought of. It makes me think that Romney mis-spoke, was pandering, or has been seriously taken out of context. I have a hard time buying into the narrative that he is so clueless about American demography.

lotharbot 14y ago
The rest of the comment makes me think he's pandering. The picture he paints is of people who simply take from the government and don't have any interest in taking care of themselves. By connecting that picture to the 47% number, he's trying to convince people that there's a huge entitlement problem and that we need to take back the country from the lazy. But of course the 47% of non-taxpayers includes retirees who've paid their fair share of taxes in the past, students who will enter the workforce and pay plenty of future taxes, and working families who don't earn enough to offset deductions and credits (a family of 4 can earn about $51,000 without owing taxes, due to the standard deduction, personal exemptions, child tax credit, and making work pay credit.) If Romney phrases his accusation carefully enough, people in these categories will think "he's not talking about me", and yet still may get riled up about "the huge number of lazy people who don't pay taxes".
elmuchoprez 14y ago
My guess is that he was pandering. The statements were made at a fundraiser where he's trying to echo the narrative of the crowd, not present a realistic overview.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
antidoh 14y ago
Why? Do you think he studies demography? He studied business and business people, and he has people feeding him things to say.

Lazare 14y ago

That article made me wince because it was apparently written by someone who had never heard of Simpson's Paradox[1]. Just because Texas as a whole tends to support Romney, and just because Texas as a whole has a lot of people who pay no income tax does not give you the data needed to conclude that people who do not pay income tax tend to support Romney, or even that they are more likely to do so. And in fact, the exact opposite is true. It's been a staple of American political analysis for decades that although poor states tend to vote Republican, poor people tend vote Democratic. If you take Mississippi, you will find that it is poor and thus (as expected) it votes Republican. But within Mississippi the poorest groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic (regardless of skin colour, in case you think racism plays a role), while the richest groups vote Republican. Look at a rich state and the same trends hold - the poorest groups within that state will vote Democratic, while the richest will vote Republican. (A ton of research exists on this; this blog post seems to sumarrise it well[2].) To quote from the article: "So Romney appears to be wrong about these voters. But if calling for a less progressive taxation system was enough to alienate poor voters in the Deep South, the Republican Party would have already lost its stronghold there." This is something that could only be written by someone who has no grasp of American politics. You only have to glance at an exit poll - any exit poll - to realize that Republicans alienated poor voters LOOOONG ago. Let's say 2004, presidential election, Mississippi again[3]: Kerry beat Bush by 24 points among people making less than $15k a year, but by only 9 points among people making $15k - $30k. Look at people making $30k - $50k and he lost by 20 points, a massive 36 points among people making $50k - $75k, and an eye-popping 43% (71% to 28%) among people making over $75k. And, again, the same trends exert themselves in every state, every race, and every year, over and over and over. Texas in 2004? Kerry wins every income band up to $30k, and loses everything else by increasing landslides (losing 92% to 8% for people making over $200k). California in 2004? Same deal; Kerry wins every income band up to $100k, and loses everything else by ever-increasing margins as you climb the income scale. Congressional elections in 2010? Same thing: [4] TL;DR: Today I learned that you don't need to have a good grasp of statistics, logic, or American politics to be an associate editor of The Atlantic. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox [2]: http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/red-state-rising.html http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/red-state-rising... [3]: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MS/P/00/epolls.0.html http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MS... [4]: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JGX1ch5CkN8/TZ9mEU7lnJI/AAAAAAAAAeU/KIF8RJuRY0g/s1600/cnn.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JGX1ch5CkN8/TZ9mEU7lnJI/AAAAAAAAAe...

Evbn 14y ago

I like how "my colleague Derek Thompson picked up the baton" and clobbered the article by disproving its thesis.