I really liked this piece from The Monkey Cage on the whole 47%, makers versus takers belief on the Right. I like it because the writer accepts the Right’s stated belief that there are makers and takers, and then simply asks, even if we accept the premise, who are the takers? How many of them are there? What do the 47% do all day in this country, anyway?
Before saying that 47% of Americans don’t pay income taxes in his now familiar comments, Mitt Romney said this: “. . . there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
But the discussion of dependence on government is at the heart of the Republican case against Democrats and is fully consistent with the “maker vs. taker” theme that often shows up in Republican campaign rhetoric. On this point, Romney was not off-message, likely making this part of the argument more central to the ongoing dynamics of the campaign. The Republican line is that there is a large group of takers in American society – Romney’s initial estimate was 47%. Here, I attempt to gain some empirical leverage on this question using information about work experience, receipt of government benefits, and demographics from 2011 Current Population Survey March Supplement microdata.
The bottom line here is that there aren’t that many takers in America. The most restrictive definition pegs the percentage of takers at 2.4%. If we’re willing to include people in households with at least one earner, that number increases to 5.2%. Lots of people, even quite rich people, receive government benefits in the United States, and that is a reasonable thing for true fiscal conservatives to be frustrated about. But these numbers simply don’t line up with the rhetoric of a massive class of lazy people taking advantage of the rest of us while eating solely at the trough of government.
Finally, it’s worth pointing out that these are really upper-bound estimates. Being a taker involves motives as well as work and benefit status. Takers, so the argument goes, feel no responsibility for themselves and believe that they are entitled “to you name it.” The CPS data don’t allow us to examine motives, but if we could, we would likely find even fewer takers.
The writer never tells us if he buys the makers versus takers argument in a moral or ethical or ideological sense. I could make a solid guess (he doesn’t) but I don’t have to. Instead he just looks at the claim and takes it apart, and in the process he tells us something real and true about the actual country we live in, rather than the country Mitt Romney and his donors imagine when they’re up nights seething with resentment against half of their fellow citizens. He introduces us to the real 47% and tells us what they might be doing all day. They’re making. They’re not “making” in the cramped narrow sense that conservatives would have us believe is the only “making” that matters. They’re at all different points in their lives, and some of them aren’t making enough money to pay federal income taxes because they’re students, or low wage workers, or retired, or they stay at home and care for others for who can’t care for themselves, and all of these categories are fluid and most of them change. I’ve been in a few of the much-maligned “taker” subsets myself-low wage worker, student, unemployed and looking for work, and stay at home mother- at one point or another in my life. Nearly everyone has.
Just think about that when we’re told tomorrow on the morning shows that Mitt Romney is a “numbers guy” and Paul Ryan is a “wonk”. Forget about ideology or ethics or what conservatives value as “work”. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan accepted the factual basis of the makers versus takers argument they promote without ever looking into it at all.
Kristine
Thanks for posting this–I’m going to spread this link around.
Yutsano
Fucking accounting, how do it work?
The Dangerman
I don’t think it’s makers vs. takers; it’s just another set of words for Team Red vs. Team Blue. Within that framework, anything is game to fuck over Team Blue.
For example, and I haven’t read it in any detail, but it looks, from the commercials, like Prop 32 in CA is all about fucking Unions. As if fucking Unions in CA will turn the State from Blue to Red (won’t happen in any of our lifetimes).
Anthony
It doesn’t really take a lot of numbers or wonkery to figure that a lot of the makers were or will be takers and vice versa. That’s how people have lived since time immemorial.
WereBear
As with all wingnut memes, it is after-the-fact rationalization for what they feel in the tiny twisted spaces where their heart and guts should be.
They are poor and feel put upon and cheated? Must be those people they hate who are somehow putting one over on them!
Because one thing they do know, deep down; they are stupid and easily bamboozled. And of course, they get the perpetrators wrong…
Lest I sound terribly harsh, I’m just basing this on relatives and acquaintances. I can safely say they are not even bad people. They simply are completely clueless about “how things work” and thus love to pick the “reasons” that make them look good in their own eyes.
Anya
Hey kay, I’ve been meaning to tell you about the training I attended with the Obama Victory Counsel on voter protection. It was really good. These guys know what they’re doing. I was impressed.
Since I was dumb enough to say that I was willing to go out of state, I was told today that I’ll be sent to PA or Ohio a week before the election to help with GOTV efforts and to work on polls on Election Day. I’m so excited about helping. But I am a bit scared since I’ve never been to any of these states. In 08 I was in NC, so I have a bit of experience which will help. I was told that generally they like local volunteers to do the GOTV efforts and poll monitoring but a lot was happening in terms of voter suppression so they’re sending reinforcements.
Also, too, great post.
c u n d gulag
And today, Ryan wouldn’t, or couldn’t, explain how his and Romney’s economic plan would work.
‘It would take too long to explain,’ he basically said.
And then wouldn’t answer any follow-up questions, which were “gimme’s” – FROM CHRIS FECKIN’ WALLACE!
If you can’t lie on FOX News with Chris Wallace to FOX viewers, who’ll believe any feckin’ thing, wtf good are you?
Jayzoos H. Keerist with an abacus – just move some beads, and pull some numbers out of your ass, you physically fit simp!
It’s not like FOX viewers would check – they took their calculator batteries out a long time ago to run their pacemakers.
reflectionephemeral
The Southern Strategy began as a cynical tactical gambit. But a generation-plus of repeating the talking points has pervaded the Republican brain, completely short circuting their ability to think rationally about any matters of public policy. The government is held to be the cause of every problem, regardless of the data. No empirical evidence supports the view that the stimulus failed, or that the government caused the financial crisis, or that lazy poors are draining our treasury. But literally every Republican official believes otherwise.
JoeShabadoo
That’s because “makers vs. takers” is always just a paper thin cover for “rich vs. poor.” It allows rich people to shit all over the poor (and of modest means) without having people’s reflexive reaction be to string them up.
“Job creators” is another paper thin phrase that means the exact same thing as “makers.”
What gets me is how out in the open it is now becoming. With these phrases as cover the wealthy aren’t afraid to push their horrible ideas. Look at this Business week article from a few days ago. This billionaire lives out of 5 star hotels and has started a think tank which is pushing for less democracy. He is literally and admittedly taking things from autocratic societies and trying to get them implemented here. He feels no shame and no pressure to hide his despicable ideas to the point that he allows a huge profile piece to be put into a magazine chronicling them.
Politically Lost
Many of the “conservatives” that I have had politics oriented conversations with usually spout an easily disprovable “fact” usually at the beginning of the conversation.
I find myself either: a.) Giving up and letting them bloviate until the conversation is dead because I don’t have the time. or b.) Have to argue the easily disprovable “fact” before even getting to the premise that we had started with. Then, they’ll just do another “fact” and start the marry-go-round again.
Which of course leads me back to a.)
Davis X. Machina
@WereBear: Any political party predicated on appeals to the worst in people is going to begin each election cycle half a lap ahead.
Even when the fundamental depravity of mankind doesn’t win outright, it always covers the spread. Take the depravity and the points.
And if the bookies offer an evil-stupid parlay, get some action in on that too.
WaterGirl
@Anya: I always travel with friends or family, so in 2008 when I went to Iowa for 10 days before their caucus and then to Colorado for 18 days before their caucus, it was like jumping off a cliff for me.
I was completely out of my comfort zone, but those were some of the best experiences of my life. It took me a day to settle in at each place, and then it was great.
Not to worry. As long as you don’t mind working hard, you’ll do great!
Cerberus
One thing that is extra insulting is that the working poor who “don’t pay income taxes” don’t pay extra income taxes because they are overtaxed over the year.
The amount deducted from one’s payroll tax is a guesstimate by the government on your tax obligation for the year. Those “moochers” are denied their rightful earned funds in overpaid taxes until the beginning of the year if they even bother to fill in the paperwork to get it back (there is a significant portion who do not).
Whereas the so-called “53%” have to pay additional income taxes because they are undertaxed during the year. They have spent up to 12 months, often longer happily spending, investing, using money that was not theirs because the government underestimated their tax obligation at the end of the year.
So by the actual life experiences, it is the 53% who are the ones who are getting a free ride, while many of the 47% are being denied money they are far more likely to need in the day to day until the government can confirm that they are indeed flat broke.
But hey, why let that get in the way of a good dog whistle?
Triassic Sands
Quite apart from a detailed analysis, when I first heard Romney’s 47% are parasites claim, I wrote it off as just another ridiculous lie/myth/tall tale used by the Republicans to further their cause.
On its face the claim is absurd. There is no way a country could have virtually half of its residents be non-productive takers and still be functional, not to mention prosperous.
Of course, I suppose idiots like Romney want idiots like his supporters to believe that this is something very new — somehow, magically, in January 2009 half the people of this country suddenly became parasites, something that, if not rectified by Romney, would soon destroy the country. And in that preposterous scenario Romney’s Bain skill set actually might be useful. Because what we need is someone willing to fire half the country — tell them to find work (elsewhere) or perish.
What does Romney bring to his candidacy? Tough love, without a shred of love.
Kay
@Anya:
Yay! We need help.
I want you to go to PA because IMO they’re in worse shape than Ohio. They haven’t dealt with this before and the PA law is draconian: it’s restrictive in every way possible. Their system is going to fail if a court doesn’t intervene. OH has early vote, so as many of half of our voters will be done by the final week. That’s a “goal”, so don’t rely on it :)
PA has now changed their voting rules at least 6 times since the law was passed in March. That’s insane. I don’t know what PA requires/offers right now, because I didn’t check on Friday. A voter would have to check once a week.
If you come to Ohio email me.
Calouste
So students are takers? Missionaries, are those takers as well? Can’t see them paying much tax. Being retired and living off the fruits of you previous labor makes you a moocher as well apparently.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Mitt Romney, the man who just qualified for Social Security, yet has been a moocher for about a third of his adult life.
Anya
@WaterGirl: Thanks! I am going with a friend so that makes it easier. I really want to do eveything I can in this election, so I am up for hardwork. The only thing is leaving the hubby for 8-days.
Kay
@Calouste:
I just love how they don’t examine these claims at all.
There are people who made enough money to pay $50,000 to see Mitt Romney, yet they ignore everything they know to be true, (even looking at their own past! Mitt Romney was a non-working student for years!) and not one of them asks him “wait a minute-where are you getting this?”
God almighty. They run financial markets. It’s scary.
West of the Cascades
Great article. The fact that the 47% of people who don’t pay federal income tax are still contributing to and important to our society is fairly easy to distill – I think that will end up being one of the President’s “zingers” that leaves a mark on Mitt in the first debate.
bemused senior
Also, too, this.
Jennifer
All good data, but it misses the larger point: the “makers,” or creators of wealth, are workers. The “takers,” who Republicans like to call the “productive” or the “job creators” are those who sit by and skim off the profits of other peoples’ labor.
Productivity increased by 20% in the U.S. during the 2000’s, the result of workers working harder and more efficiently. Wages didn’t go up at all. Who is “maker” and “taker” in this scenario?
The dirty little secret that conservatives and their wealthy patrons continually work to deflect our attention from is that no one – NO ONE – has ever become a billionaire or even a multi-millionaire on the basis of his own labor alone. People who are wealthy are wealthy because they have been successful in profiting from the labor of others. There’s nothing wrong with profiting from the labor of employees – that is, after all, the foundation of capitalism – but the question is how much profit should go to the takers and how much wages should go to the makers? Mitt Romney made a career out of bankrupting companies that were stable but not as profitable as the takers would have liked them to be – companies in which the takers weren’t getting as big a share of the pie as they could get in China, or Mexico, or some other place. A business with a low profit margin isn’t by definition a “failed business” or at least it wasn’t until Romney and his ilk started demanding that those who sit on the sideline and shift money around should get a larger share of the wealth than those who actually create it.
That’s the most offensive part of the whole “47%” bullshit. It’s that it denies that the people who actually generate the wealth are the ones who are generating it, and pretends that piles of money magically grow without any input whatsoever. There’s a way to put the lie to that idea, but it would involve a good portion of the populace simply refusing to show up for work for a few weeks to spell it out.
J. Michael Neal
@Cerberus: This is entirely incorrect.
1) The 47% number is not those who do not receive a tax refund and has nothing to do with whether or not there was a sufficient amount deducted from paychecks. It’s about total tax liability for the year.
2) The payroll tax withholding is not an estimate. The income tax withholding is, because there is more than one tax bracket and so it is impossible to know what the proper withholding is based upon a particular paycheck. This is not true of the payroll tax, which is a flat amount on all wages up to a certain amount. So it can be accurate each time.
There are many things wrong with the 47% claim. What you outline is not among them.
Anya
@Kay: They’re leaning towards us going to PA for the same reasons you’ve mentioned. They also said that they will give more training once they determine where we’re going. They’re probably coordinating this with the local offices.
I’ll definitely contact you if I come to Ohio.
Kay
@Jennifer:
One of the reasons I like union advocates is they’re the only people in the country that even mention this. I don’t know when we decided that the only work that had any value was that done by managers and executives, but it’s everywhere. It doesn’t even make any sense. Anyone who has ever run anything knows they’re wholly dependent on the quality of the work at all levels. I think it started when media turned CEO’s into celebrities, so in the 1980-1990 range. That worked to their advantage, because if it’s ALL up to management, they can justify why they pay themselves so much money. It’s a way of thinking about work and its value. In a very real way, it demeans the whole idea of “work”, because it excludes a vast number of workers, makes them not value their own work. No one else does. Why should they?
Kay
@Anya:
Please do. We already have our final plan, and it’s all canvass, no (local) phone callerss, but there’s only 15,000 voters here and it’s 60/40 GOP/Dem lean.
Gian
what I don’t understand is how the earned income tax credit, started under Ford, and greatly expanded by Reagan is a major reason the working poor don’t pay more in federal income tax.
it’s republican plan, a republican idea, a republican policy of freaking st. ronald that Mitt’s 47% line is shitting on.
and_that_ is my prediction for Obama’s “zinger” for the debates
different-church-lady
That article is a brilliant intellectual takedown of Romneymind. But in a larger way it’s also a moot point. Romney’s description of the “takers” in that video is nothing more than a cartoon. He simply lumped so much stuff into one greasy heap that it’s utterly impossible to break it down into anything that resembles any form of reality. The very idea that EVERY person in the country who doesn’t pay income tax is going to vote for Obama (or vice versa) is simply absurd on its face, and we haven’t even thrown in any of the rest of the items on the rant.
Instead the takeaway (and the pay foward) is that a whole lot of people listened to his rant and say, “Hey, this guy is trying to turn me into a cartoon bad guy just because I’m struggling. Why the F should I vote for him?”
Data is a good thing, but it’s not very useful against people who live in a comic book world.
Montysano
I’m going to print color copies of the linked article, carry them around with me, and staple them to appropriate foreheads.
SFAW
@Jennifer:
Jennifer –
I was going to express similar thoughts (e.g. that Mittens is a “taker”, not a “maker”), but you did it far more eloquently than I ever could. Thanks very much for a great comment.
...now I try to be amused
@reflectionephemeral:
The GOP has let tactics substitute for strategy. Sun Tzu had something to say about that:
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
Starlit
@JoeShabadoo: Thank you for the link.
I couldn’t help but notice that page where Nicholas Berggruen asked for permission to steal a French fry.
I have certainly asked for permission to steal a French fry when I wasn’t responsible enough to order my own serving of French fries. And I’m just so impressed by someone who can be homeless in five-star hotels and his own Gulfstream IV.
What I can’t wrap my mind around is why he thinks it’s reasonable to reinstate autocracy in a country that rejected it from its very beginning. Perhaps if the request to just abandon the Constitution is smoothly phrased on polished German, or English, with a description of just how much simpler it will be to “get things done,” the radical evil of the idea will be lost.
Winston Churchill got it right and still has it right. The point of democracy is not to be efficient. Listening to people who don’t think like you, value what you value, or have what you have, or even want what you have, is what keeps the justice system serving everybody. EVERYBODY. Not just the agenda of people who are bored and need a new toy, like a government, to play with.
Jamie
For the record, when was the last time young Ryan earned a paycheck that wasn’t paid by taxpayers?