Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[russ_watters]

Yes, but the 47% only references federal income tax. If you look at all taxes, that number would be outrageously wrong.

It is a fact, Bob. It may or may not be relevant, but it is just data and it is not wrong.

I mean many people that pay federal income tax (and know it) have no idea that they're part of the 47% that pay no taxes when grouped together as a whole. The 47% number is misleading if used inappropriately, or when misworded as Romney's statement was.

The number is misleading, as is, since it takes some analysis to realize its limitations. Using the number wrongly is even more misleading.

You keep saying these things, but based on your previous post, it appears to me that you are misunderstanding what the stat is a measure of, because what you're saying there is a contradiction. If someone pays federal income tax, they are not in the 46%. Let's try to make it clearer: On or before April 15, everyone who has income is required to fill out a 1040. For people who pay any attention, they'll see near the bottom:

What you owed for this year:
What you already paid:
What you still owe:

If the "what you owed" is above zero, you're in the 54%, if it is below zero, you're in the 46%. That's it -- that's all this stat is. What you are saying implies that you think that the total of every return in the 46% equals zero, so some are positive and some are negative. That's not correct. All of them are either zero or negative.

 

[russ_watters]

First, it's a small mistake, but the correct number is 46%.

It appears to be out of date -- that 47% was 2010, but I don't recall seeing an update. We've had this discussion a number of times in the past couple of years and I remember it always being 47%. Unfortunately now google is flooded with updates on this story and I can't find past articles for reference. But whatever: we're talking fractions of a percent difference.

And what about the wealthy that pay no taxes, I guess Romney meant them too?

Dunno about Romney, but *I'm* absolutely in favor of closing the couple of biggie loopholes for the super-rich as we discussed in a previous thread a few months ago. Mostly because people make a big stink about them, though, because if I had it my way, I'd fix big problems before little ones and the tens of thousands of super-rich not paying taxes that probably should is a very, very little problem compared to the size of the deficit and the tens of millions of non-poor who pay no federal income tax and should be. I recognize that sometimes you have to fix the distracting problems before you can fix the real problems.

Let me ask you (et al) this, though: Do you consider it a problem of real significance that tens of millions of non-poor Americans are not paying federal income tax?

 

[russ_watters]

Mitt doesn't really know much about the average American. The dressage horse, hobby that wasn't really a hobby was the last straw for me.

That must be the most petty and prejudiced reason for not voting for someone I've ever heard, save for racism.

 

[russ_watters]

No, why? The article is about what he said about Palestinians. Do I think it was smart of him to make such a statement about Palestinians in light of Romney's perceived problems with his inability to handle Foreign Affairs, no.

I think it is roughly in-line with Obama's non-gaffe over Egypt: it is an uncomfortable reality that people dance around.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Mostly because people make a big stink about them, though, because if I had it my way, I'd fix big problems before little ones and the tens of thousands of super-rich not paying taxes that probably should is a very, very little problem compared to the size of the deficit and the tens of millions of non-poor who pay no federal income tax and should be.

The top 20% hold 93% of the wealth in this country. The top 1% - a grand total of three million people - hold over 40%. 80% of the population holds 7%. To state this more succinctly, three million people hold nearly six times as much wealth as two hundred and forty million. You have the audacity to complain about the two hundred and forty million? Seriously?

Frankly, I'm disgusted. People in the lower classes have it hard enough without rich people wanting to take their last dime from their cold, hungry hands.

 

[russ_watters]

The top 20% hold 93% of the wealth in this country. The top 1% - a grand total of three million people - hold over 40%. 80% of the population holds 7%. To state this more succinctly, three million people hold nearly six times as much wealth as two hundred and forty million. You have the audacity to complain about the two hundred and forty million? Seriously?

No, I didn't complain about 240 million people, I complained about roughly 70 million people. But by all means, answer my poll question in the thread I just started. Sounds like you would say that 240 million people should pay no federal income tax! Otherwise, you're just posting non sequitur: one does not imply or have anything to do with the other. Ryan Howard is hitting .225 right now, by the way (also disgusting!) - if that's relevant too. In any case, the percentages of tax burden aren't that far off the wealth distribution: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
For example, you said 20% hold 93% of the wealth. Well, 25% pay 87% of the taxes.

Tell you what: next time you go to the grocery store and they ring up your purchase, complain about the sales tax because you aren't a member of the upper 20%. See how that goes.

Frankly, I'm disgusted. People in the lower classes have it hard enough without rich people wanting to take their last dime from their cold, hungry hands.

Oddly put, which makes me wonder if you were paying attention to this thread: The "lower classes" aren't having any "dimes" taken in federal income tax. And no matter how you slice the data, except for an insignificant fraction of either, far more is taken from the upper classes than the lower.

It appears to me that you are ignorant of the facts of who gets taxed what. You posted stats about who earns/has what, but provided nothing about who pays what nor made any connection between earning and paying.

More to the point, the reason I am complaining about those 70 million is because there are nowhere close to enough of the super-rich to tax into oblivion to offset the benefits given to/not paid for by the 46% that are underfunded. In other words, you can't balance the budget by soaking the rich only. Either we have to cut services or we have to tax everyone else more. The rich are not a bottomless gold mine.

 

[mheslep]

According to this blog, the majority of the 74% are in the deep south. Which is interesting, since this is a part of the US subject to all the classic examples of oppression and prejudice.

All of the US is subject to oppression and prejudice when there's a large enough contact between minority and majority groups. The idea that it occurs not here but only for "those people" is another example of prejudice.

 

[Angry Citizen]

And no matter how you slice the data, except for an insignificant fraction of either, far more is taken from the upper classes than the lower.

The point I tried to make is that this occurs precisely because the upper classes have so much more than the lower.

The "lower classes" aren't having any "dimes" taken in federal income tax.

No, but they are taxed through state income tax, state sales tax, payroll tax, and other taxes that add up to quite a bit and which are unavoidable. These people aren't exactly paying no taxes.

 

[russ_watters]

The point I tried to make is that this occurs precisely because the upper classes have so much more than the lower.

Of course: but you are the one complaining about it, not me! And the way you said it says the wealth transfer is in the opposite direction from the reality!

No, but they are taxed through state income tax, state sales tax, payroll tax, and other taxes that add up to quite a bit and which are unavoidable. These people aren't exactly paying no taxes.

1. No one said they are paying "no taxes".

2. Do you believe that paying sales tax and state income tax should exempt people from paying federal income tax? If not, what is the relevance of pointing out that people who pay no federal income tax pay state income tax? I bought myself a car -- does that mean the government should buy me a house?

3. You said "rich people wanting to take their last dime". The rich do not take money from the poor via taxes (net). The wealth transfer is heavily from the upper to the lower. This is a highly misleading propaganda-type statement at best.

 

[Angry Citizen]

2. Do you believe that paying sales tax and state income tax should exempt people from paying federal income tax? If not, what is the relevance of pointing out that people who pay no federal income tax pay state income tax? I bought myself a car -- does that mean the government should buy me a house?

By stating that 47% of America pays no federal income tax, you are implying that they are not contributing to their government. They do. They just don't do so through federal income tax. It rather invalidates the implied notion that these 47% are freeloaders and takers.

3. You said "rich people wanting to take their last dime". The rich do not take money from the poor via taxes. The wealth transfer is heavily from the upper to the lower. This is a highly misleading propaganda-type statement at best.

In fact they do. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy both facilitate transfers of wealth from the lower to the upper class. But my point was larger than taxes. Capitalism itself is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Progressive tax systems, in conjunction with welfare and other social programs, counteract this by transferring the wealth back to the poor where it belongs. When I say the rich want to take the poor's last dime, I mean it. The poor in this country, particularly the 47% who do not pay taxes, have almost nothing to their name compared to the rich. The rich pay so much in taxes not because of their tremendous tax burden (which is at an all-time low, percentage-wise) but because they have so much wealth to give.

Romney's statement is such a disconnect precisely because he has no idea what it's like for a person making $25,000 a year to pay even 10% in taxes. He's the guy making millions per year. Even if he were taxed at the "maximum" rate of 35% (which, given the progressive tax system, does not happen exactly), he'd be making hundreds of thousands per year. That person with the $25,000 per year would send $2,500 to the government - a pittance to the government, but several month's rent or a quarter of a year's worth of college tuition to the poor person. That is why the poor should not be taxed until incomes are made more equal.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that this board is not "left leaning" at all, as you stated earlier in this thread. This board is actually by far the most conservative board that I frequent. There are very few liberals on the board, and I'm pretty sure I'm the most radical leftist who frequents the politics subsection. I'm just a social democrat - a moderate leftist by European standards. Just felt like adding some perspective on just how far right you seem to be.

 

[Pythagorean]

All of the US is subject to oppression and prejudice when there's a large enough contact between minority and majority groups. The idea that it occurs not here but only for "those people" is another example of prejudice.

It's not prejudiced, it's just a fact that the deep south is the venue of the longest lasting classic examples of prejudice policies (i.e. state-sanctioned prejudices: slavery, segregation, banning women from voting, banning inter-racial marriages. In most cases, it required federal policy to get these states to practice equality). The evidence is summarized in the link (you can ignore Chik-Fil-A, the gif was made in their honor for a different discussion).

It's similar to a statistic showing that the larger percentage of inmates are black. Prejudiced would be to take that information and assume that all black people are criminals (prejudiced; pre: before, judicium: judgment. To judge before); the information itself is not prejudiced. I am not saying that everyone in the deep south is a bigot, but demonstrating that the region's policies has historically presented a significant socioeconomic challenge to minority groups.

 

[russ_watters]

By stating that 47% of America pays no federal income tax, you are implying that they are not contributing to their government. They do. They just don't do so through federal income tax. It rather invalidates the implied notion that these 47% are freeloaders and takers.

I bought a car: will you buy me a house? Does the fact that I bought the car mean that I'm not a "freeloader" even though you bought me the house? I'd really love to be your tenant!

IMO, all people should make contributions at all levels of government. Do you disagree? Members of the 46% are not contributing a "dime" to Obama's salary. He's working for them and they aren't paying him. They're getting him for "free". "Free"loading? Or does the fact that someone pays state sales tax mean that it is ok that they aren't paying Obama?

In fact they do. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy both facilitate transfers of wealth from the lower to the upper class.

Utter nonsense. "Corporate subsidies" is so broad as to be completely meaningless in this context, but "tax breaks for the wealthy" is just completely wrong. Again, 46% vs 54%. You can't give a "tax break" to someone who pays no federal income tax so when the federal income tax rates are cut across the board, naturally, most will go toward those who pay the most tax. This fact does not in any way invalidate the fact that the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes. As I said, in the net, wealth transfer is from top to bottom. No matter how you slice it.

But my point was larger than taxes. Capitalism itself is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

You'll have to make that argument in a different thread, because this is just about taxes.

Progressive tax systems, in conjunction with welfare and other social programs, counteract this by transferring the wealth back to the poor where it belongs.

"Belongs" is oddly stated, but otherwise factually accurate: contradicting what you said previously.

When I say the rich want to take the poor's last dime, I mean it. The poor in this country, particularly the 47% who do not pay taxes, have almost nothing to their name compared to the rich.

Nonsense. I drive through work through one of the poorest areas in my state and I drive past row house after row house with satellite tv antennas. Labeling such people "poor" is pure fantasy.

Beyond that, stating that the rich live better than the poor says nothing about the rich "taking" anything.

The rich pay so much in taxes not because of their tremendous tax burden (which is at an all-time low, percentage-wise) but because they have so much wealth to give.

Percentage of what? Meh, that's wrong no matter how you meant it (yeah, I know how you meant it):

1. The top tax bracket is not at an all-time low. That should be obvious enough based on the fact that through most of our history there were no income taxes, so the "top bracket" was 0%. But even setting that aside, no: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

2. The "tax burden" can also be said in terms of the percentage of the nation's taxes paid by the wealthy. I know there's better data out there, but the existence of this thread is a reflection of the fact that the tax burden is moving up: the number of people paying nothing or negative has risen in the past few years and the fraction of taxes paid by the rich has correspondingly also had to rise.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that this board is not "left leaning" at all, as you stated earlier in this thread. This board is actually by far the most conservative board that I frequent.

You do realize one does not contradict the other, right? Anyway, the recent poll titled "I side with..." clearly shows that the vast majority of posters on PF side with the left side.

There are very few liberals on the board, and I'm pretty sure I'm the most radical leftist who frequents the politics subsection.

The second sentence is probably true and when combined with the first indicates that even though you know you lean left, you still underestimate just how far left you lean: you're misplacing the center.

I'm just a social democrat - a moderate leftist by European standards. Just felt like adding some perspective on just how far right you seem to be.

I recognize I'm conservative by European standards, but you're an American and vote in American elections and are discussing American politics in a board owned by an American and populated mostly by Americans. So when I said this board is "left leaning", I meant by American standards. I can't imagine that wouldn't have been obvious.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, despite the "stupidest statement ever", and over the past week of apparently non-stop Romney gaffes, Obama's convention bounce is has completely dissipated and Romney and Obama are now polling 1% apart, as they were just before the DNC:

9/5: Obama: 47%, Romney 46%
9/11: Obama: 50%, Romney 44%
9/17: Obama 47%, Romney 46%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Seems this disastrous week didn't hurt Romney too badly.

 

[DavidSnider]

Nonsense. I drive through work through one of the poorest areas in my state and I drive past row house after row house with satellite tv antennas. Labeling such people "poor" is pure fantasy.

Would you mind naming which neighborhood you are talking about?

 

[russ_watters]

Would you mind naming which neighborhood you are talking about?

Norristown, PA.

http://articles.philly.com/1995-03-14/news/25699552_1_norristown-blue-route-county-seat

 

[mheslep]

It's not prejudiced, it's just a fact that the deep south is the venue of the longest lasting classic examples of prejudice policies (i.e. state-sanctioned prejudices: slavery, segregation, banning women from voting, banning inter-racial marriages. ...

Yes you used 'policies' this time as opposed to only 'examples' the first time and two are different. I agree the prejudice and oppression of the large minority groups in the old south were accompanied by, and institutionalized through, government policies. With small, even tiny, minority populations elsewhere that continue to this day (New Hampshire 1.3% black) the friction hardly registers. My objection is there are examples of prejudice where ever one finds minority groups.

 

[mheslep]

When I say the rich want to take the poor's last dime, I mean it. The poor in this country, particularly the 47% who do not pay taxes, have almost nothing to their name compared to the rich.

Nonsense. I drive through work through one of the poorest areas in my state and I drive past row house after row house with satellite tv antennas. Labeling such people "poor" is pure fantasy.

Hopefully the conversation can move on beyond the tiresome claim that the US 'poor' have nothing and stipulate the facts.

In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The relevant argument now seems to be that in order to have a stable society those with low earnings need be granted parity with the top earners, regardless of the baseline. I think Carville articulated that point a couple months ago.

 

[Gokul43201]

...

3. You said "rich people wanting to take their last dime". The rich do not take money from the poor via taxes (net). The wealth transfer is heavily from the upper to the lower. This is a highly misleading propaganda-type statement at best.

It seems to me like the rich and the poor get federal tax money from the middle.

The lower 46% (or so) earn some small fraction, 'f%' of the "pie" and pay less than 0% federal income tax (and therefore less than f%), so they are contributing less than their share.

Similarly, going by the numbers you cited in an earlier post (top 25% pay 87% of fed taxes), we find that the top 20% of income earners make 93% of the pie, but only pay about 70-75% of Fed taxes, so they're not paying a proportional share either.

I believe this means the group in the middle, occupying a range of incomes from the 47 percentile to about the 80 percentile, pay a disproportionately large share of their incomes as Fed income taxes. The money flows both upward and downward from this group.

 

[russ_watters]

"getting" and "not paying their share" are two very different things.

Edit: That said, I do agree with the general sentiment that the upper middle class get hit the hardest, measured using effective tax rates.

 

[Oltz]

It seems to me like the rich and the poor get federal tax money from the middle.

The lower 46% (or so) earn some small fraction, 'f%' of the "pie" and pay less than 0% federal income tax (and therefore less than f%), so they are contributing less than their share.

Similarly, going by the numbers you cited in an earlier post (top 25% pay 87% of fed taxes), we find that the top 20% of income earners make 93% of the pie, but only pay about 70-75% of Fed taxes, so they're not paying a proportional share either.

I believe this means the group in the middle, occupying a range of incomes from the 47 percentile to about the 80 percentile, pay a disproportionately large share of their incomes as Fed income taxes. The money flows both upward and downward from this group.

Gokul you are conflating two separate statics the 93% number is controlled wealth that includes all assets, property and other holdings.

The income pie is broken up as follows from this source the 2009 numbers are what I have on hand.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Tax-Rate-and-Income-Percentile

These are percents of all AGI "share" and all Federal income tax paid so this does not even include net negative from pay outs.

TOP quartile AGI income share 65.81% Taxes paid 87.3% of all federal income taxes paid.

Q3 50-75% earners Income 20.71% Taxes paid 10.45%

Bottom half Income 13.48% Taxes paid 2.25%

So no the upper class pays more then they make. Accumulated assets are not a valuable measure for tax comparison.

 

[Evo]

So no the upper class pays more then they make. Accumulated assets are not a valuable measure for tax comparison.

Uhm, no, the upper class does not pay more than they make. And "adjusted gross income" doesn't take into consideration the amount of real income.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My vote would be for this one, in a speech to a group of African-Americans:

My heart is as black as yours.

However, the silly season is still in full swing. I look forward with trepidation to the nonsense we are going to hear from these two featherweights right up until the day we get to say which political philosophy we adhere to.

 

[Oltz]

Uhm, no, the upper class does not pay more than they make. And "adjusted gross income" doesn't take into consideration the amount of real income.

I am sorry you are correct they do not pay "more" then they make they pay a larger share of taxes then the share of income they recieve.

AGI is what you are taxed on in the US so why would we not use that as the basis of this conversation?

What "real income" would you like to use? Does that mean we use the "real income" to determine who is poor so no child tax credits or allowances for filling jointly or any other deductions cause the bottom end does not talk about "real income" either.

I personally am all for these basic deductions and allowances after all most loopholes were created for a reason.

If we go back and look that reason was typically to help those on the borderline of tax brackets move down if they are supporting other people in addition to themselves.


I guess we cold discriminate and say you get a tax break for having kids but only if you make less then 250K a year and you get a break for filling jointly but only if you combined income is less then 200k a year. You can write off business expenses but only if you make under 100K a year those people do not get any loopholes to exploit. I seem to recall this nation not wanting to target legislation like that at certain minority groups though.

Since this conversation is about income tax and not property tax or capital gains tax or inheritance tax or payroll tax or sales tax or state taxes or energy tax or consumption tax or any other tax you can think of. Why do these other issues keep getting brought up and nobody mentions that they are off topic. Keep in mind all those "other taxes" the poor have to pay are also paid by the rich so kind of a moot point.We can always have a thread about payroll or any other tax if you like.

 

[russ_watters]

Oltz meant compared to income fraction, similar to what Gokul was showing vs wealth. The US doen't tax wealth, though, so Gokul's way of looking at it doesn't match how taxes are tackled...though he is of course entitled to a preference on reformulating the concept of taxation nearly from the ground-up.

 

[BobG]

In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

This is one of the strange things about earned income credit. Technically, a person with an income and enough dependents to get earned income credit could get that credit spread out over the course of the year. In practice, I'm not sure how many know they can do that, let alone know how to get that done.

Usually, people get their earned income credit in their income tax refund. So a family with 3 kids struggle along on a single minimum wage job all year long, then suddenly have more than $5000 in a single check to play with.

In a way, that's good for businesses, because even low income people become large consumers at least once per year.

But that may not be the best way to improve their day to day lives, which does raise a valid point. If low income people live without earned income credit in their daily lives, how necessary is it?

Of course, some use it to catch up on bills that have been accumulating during the year, or replace vital transportation on its last legs with a car that actually runs, and some do get advanced income credit to help them get by with monthly expenses, so you can't categorically say all people receiving earned income credit just blow it on luxuries.

Plus, I guess if you're comparing "American poverty" to someone living in the bush, a stove and refrigerator might be considered a luxury, but those are pretty essential items in an American household.

It still does raise questions just how well earned income credit works, though.

 

[BobG]

Oltz meant compared to income fraction, similar to what Gokul was showing vs wealth. The US doen't tax wealth, though, so Gokul's way of looking at it doesn't match how taxes are tackled...though he is of course entitled to a preference on reformulating the concept of taxation nearly from the ground-up.

We do, but we haven't been talking about that or including them in the calculations. We assess property taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

 

[mheslep]

The US doen't tax wealth, though, .

...with the exception of the inheritance and state/local property taxes. Edit: too slow. Thanks BobG

 

[mheslep]

...
Plus, I guess if you're comparing "American poverty" to someone living in the bush, a stove and refrigerator might be considered a luxury, but those are pretty essential items in an American household...

Essential to what? Those items have come to be universally expected items in the American household, including things on that list like the X Box. Many of them are are far from essential, none of them if compared to what was essential for life and limb a hundred years ago.

 

[BobG]

Essential to what? Those items have come to be universally expected items in the American household, including things on that list like the X Box. Many of them are are far from essential, none of them if compared to what was essential for life and limb a hundred years ago.

Essential to keep people from cooking my dog in my own back yard.

I kind of like civilization.

 

[russ_watters]

We do, but we haven't been talking about that or including them in the calculations. We assess property taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

Neither property taxes nor inheritence taxes are wealth taxes: Inheritence taxes are levied on the transfer of wealth, which is why they are put on your 1040 - like gifts.

Property taxes tax the value of the property in your posession, regardless of if you own the value. In other words, if you own a house valued at $200,000 and have no equity, your wealth based on your house is zero, but you are still taxed based on the $200,000 value.

 

[mheslep]

...

I kind of like civilization.

Me too, and it existed long before the items on that list.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes you used 'policies' this time as opposed to only 'examples' the first time and two are different. I agree the prejudice and oppression of the large minority groups in the old south were accompanied by, and institutionalized through, government policies. With small, even tiny, minority populations elsewhere that continue to this day (New Hampshire 1.3% black) the friction hardly registers. My objection is there are examples of prejudice where ever one finds minority groups.

I'm contending that when prejudice is sanctioned by state policy, and enforced by law, the socioeconomic pressure is more significant. When authority condones these things, there is no one to turn to; they are our leading example of acceptable behavior. It's hard to appreciate all the things the state's power does for you when you haven't had it used against you.

 

[AlephZero]

This seems to have wandered off into a discussion about US tax policy and terminology, but isn't he essential stupidity of the MR's statement the equating of "the 47% who will vote for Obama" and "the 47% who pay no federal tax" as the same set of people? Of course both numbers are defiensible as "correct" if you accept opinion polls for the first number and and the Tax Policy Center's data for the second.

But the actual situation is that 53% of "the old" (age >= 65) voted McCain in 2008 and 52% say they will vote Romney. For "the poor" (income < $20,000) the numbers were 33% McCain, 37% Romney. (Sources: Tax Policy Center, Gallup, CNN, Census Bureau, IRS - as reported in the UK Financial Times today).

So apparently MR doesn't even care about some of the people who say they might vote for him. That sounds like a good winning strategy to me

 

[Evo]

Thank you Aleph, yes, we need to return the thread to the topic. No more off topic posts.

 

[russ_watters]

This seems to have wandered off into a discussion about US tax policy and terminology, but isn't he essential stupidity of the MR's statement the equating of "the 47% who will vote for Obama" and "the 47% who pay no federal tax" as the same set of people? Of course both numbers are defiensible as "correct" if you accept opinion polls for the first number and and the Tax Policy Center's data for the second.

But the actual situation is that 53% of "the old" (age >= 65) voted McCain in 2008 and 52% say they will vote Romney. For "the poor" (income < $20,000) the numbers were 33% McCain, 37% Romney. (Sources: Tax Policy Center, Gallup, CNN, Census Bureau, IRS - as reported in the UK Financial Times today).

So apparently MR doesn't even care about some of the people who say they might vote for him. That sounds like a good winning strategy to me

That's taking the quote out of context -- and admittedly it was badly put: Romney was answering a question on tax policy, so all he really intended was to say that you can't win over a person on taxes if they already don't pay taxes (it is in the last couple of sentences in the quote). As I said previously, he's missing that people think they have a chance to move up, but otherwise, it isn't far from the mark.

It is also why the left's anti-1% message plays better even though it is equally poorly targeted: certainly not all of the 1% will be Romney voters, but since they are a much smaller group than the 47%, Obama is much safer in ignoring them (antagonizing them!) than Romney is in doing the same to the 47%.