Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Taxes, Benefits, and Transfer Payments
This editorial in the NY Times today, in response to Mitt Romney's comments about 47% of Americans being recipients of government handouts, broadly describes the US's current system of redistributive taxes and benefit programs. Specifically, the article examines the extent to which Romney's statement is true, but also the ways that it is misleading. Although many Americans have essentially no tax liability at the moment, many of them are elderly or children, and although they do not presently pay into the system, in the prime of their lives, most will pay for their benefits during their working years. The editorial ends with a link to this article, which explains the corundum of benefits in America today. The current political discourse seems disingenuous to the legitimate debate about the place of government and redistributive services in our society, and obscures the legitimate debate from the public with partisan rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As we discussed in class, Romney obviously had no idea he was being filmed when he made these comments. However, after looking at the breakdown of how that 47% is distributed, it really makes his statement lose credibility. And although he stated that he wasn't going to even bother with that 47%, if there were any voters on the fence thinking about choosing him at the polls, I'm sure they have since fallen off after hearing these very blunt comments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex. The problem is that the people receiving the help really need it. I know its difficult to know if the money is being used properly, but like we discussed in class, maybe some improvements or new programs can guarantee it. This type of comments from the candidates are what we need to see. I'm sure Romney has lost several followers and probable some of them are not part of the 47%.
ReplyDeleteI think the statements are more interesting in context. After all, as a political strategy, writting off a group that will not vote for you doesn't seem like an in-effective route to me. I'm not saying this in his defense, however I am wondering how succesful the fund raiser was. I don't know much about political strategies at all, but I know it is a mind set of it's own, at times devious one. In the video, Mitt Romney stresses the entitelment of the 47% among his rich potential donors. Furhtermore, he speaks about "our messege" of tax cuts for the rich. Misleading? Absolutely. Most importantly, to crowd of people in that room who he has convinced of a very in-accurate statistic, in a speech that illustrates two groups of Americans. The first, that constitues a dependent and "entiteled" corwd. The other, a group that Mitt Romney is either assuming or implying to be adequately represented in that room, while subtly adding himself to it. I'm going to go ahead and assume the people in that room then felt they needed protection. Protection from the poeople "who believe that they are entiteled to health care, to food, to housing, you-name-it". Why? Because "the government should give it to them" And they will vote for this president no matter what."
ReplyDeleteImagine if he had said; the government should give it to them no matter what. And they will vote for this president. This makes more logical sense but it doesn't create a group that needs Mitt Romney to defend it.
I think this was about money more than anything, which is why I'm wondering how well the fund raiser went.