Fact-checking Romney's "47 percent" comment

Updated: 4:00 p.m. ET

(CBS News) In a video unearthed yesterday by Mother Jones, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was captured making some inflammatory comments about people who don't pay income tax in America - the people he says will vote for President Obama "no matter what." Below, CBSNews.com looks into the validity of his controversial statement.

The Quote "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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 -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.

In order to assess whether or not, as Romney claims, these non-income tax payers "will vote for the president no matter what," it's helpful to look at a breakdown of who they are. According to 2011 data from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes.

Overall, according to the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor."

Moreover, only 18.1 percent of American households paid neither federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9 percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year, which include low-income families and students. About one in 20 is non-elderly with income over $20,000.

At least one of the demographics that is less likely to pay income taxes (or income and payroll taxes) tends to vote Republican: In 2008, voters 65 and over voted for Republican nominee John McCain over President Obama 53 percent to 45 percent, an eight-point margin. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll also shows Romney winning the support of these voters nationally: 53 percent of voters 65 and older support Romney and 38 percent support Mr. Obama.

Voters in households with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year tend to favor Mr. Obama, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, with 61 percent supporting the president and 32 percent supporting Romney. The president's margin narrows significantly when only white voters in this income group are sampled: Among white voters earning less than $30,000, 52 percent supported Mr. Obama and 40 percent supported Romney. The race is even tighter when you look at white voters with household incomes under $50,000. Forty-six percent of those voters say they support Mr. Obama, and 47 percent support Romney, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.

Additionally, according to 2008 data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, eight of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability are Republican-leaning states. The other two are Florida, a battleground state, and New Mexico, which CBS News rates as likely Obama territory.

Jennifer DePinto contributed to this report.

[js_biggs]

Al Qaeda also buys their support in the same way that the Democrats do. They do it by giving people free chit.

[GhostF1ghter]

Actually, it was the attitude as much as the number.To blithely assume that low income equals a Democratic vote was insulting not only to those earners, but to those earners in his own party.

We dodged the bullet with this jerk. Big time.

[kerwoo106]

When will people start being honest with themselves. We have a real problem in this country with people taking advantage of a welfare system that was created to help out people during a crises or in the event of job loss. Dont start justifying things as a result of the current economy. This problem has been going on for years long before the current crash. Doesnt matter if they are Black, Brown, White, Red, Yellow what ever color you want to attach to this issue, they are all wrong. In California the EBT cards that are handed out are like a Debit Card every month the cards were "Recharged" with money to help by food for those people who qualified for Goverment Assistance. Then California started to audit the usage and what did they find? People were using these cards at Casinos, Strip Clubs and Liquor stores. What do you know. Even before we had the Economy Crash people we taking advantage of the system buy finding the loope holes and defrauding the Goverment. Quit defending people who steel from us. There are people who lie about the situation they are in claiming they are single with 3 kids with no support from one of the parents and they get their money and the truth is they are single legally they are single but the other parent is living in the same house with a job and they are just keep getting the money because we our Goverment wont do its job and protect the tax payer from fraud. If our welfare system was run like the IRS and tracked every purchase investigated for fraud then people who really need support would get it and the others would be fined or in jail. There was talk about making people who are on welfare take classes to get a better education and then back to the work force. Groups spoke out on it and it was dropped. Be honest we have a huge fraud problem and our goverment is allowing it to happen. Thank God for all the wealthy Millionairs and Billionairs and the pro sports teams and the hard working Business owners who pay the huge percentage of the taxes in this country. Groups will standup for or against animals, prayer in schools, what we eat, what we say, how we say it, protect fish, gun control and a thousand other causes many are good. Where are the groups standing up and demanding the Goverment to stop the fraud of people steeling the tax payers money. Dont point out the 70 year old women who needs Medicare point out the Doctors and business who are commiting fraud and steeling our money. Honesty is good for the sole.

[steverino56]

CBS fact checking anything is laughable, at best. The only thing more laughable is how all these posters jump on one band wagon or the other, not realizing that any one of them is racing down hill toward a massive concrete wall.

[js_biggs]

Remember when CBS fact checked the Documents that proved that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard? I guess at SeeBS quality is job none.

[chismarklee]

Romney is correct.

Chris
Owner Cel Financial Services
IRS Registered Tax Return Preparer
Registered bonded California CTEC Tax Preparer
Please visit my website for all your Income Tax Fillmore needs.
http://www.taxprepfillmore.com/

[IHC312]

"As a military service member making $45,000 in taxable income with two kids in college, I paid $550 in income tax last year. I did however pay 100% of my FICA and state income taxes. I wonder how many of those that paid no income tax are military service members?"

Back in 2006 when I was a private in the Army I got paid about $17k and paid about $3k in Federal income taxes, not including payroll taxes, not including state income taxes. So it's funny how somebody who gets paid nearly three times as much can wind up paying less than 1/5 in federal income taxes, or how for 2011 the president claimed more than $13k in tax breaks from his mansion alone.

The 47% of Americans not paying income taxes are not all working poor, they're not all people who got dealt a bad hand, many of them are homeowners who are being subsidized by renters. Claims of callousness are necessarily coupled with speculation, projection and distortion. The housing bubble was caused by the personal irresponsibility of millions of people, and very few Americans save any of their money, not because they get paid so little but because we are a society of mass consumption. Our tax code benefits people who are already pretty well off while leaving the very poor to shoulder the burden for the middle class, and simultaneously taking money out of the hands of investors who create sustainable jobs.

[simonbricklin]

It is mathematically impossible to pay 3,000 Federal Tax from 17,000 income to begin with. Plus your refund was probably equal or even higher that you paid in Federal Tax

[Maestro_82]

As a military service member making $45,000 in taxable income with two kids in college, I paid $550 in income tax last year. I did however pay 100% of my FICA and state income taxes. I wonder how many of those that paid no income tax are military service members?

[jlrlee]

One of the things never discussed concerning the 47% who pay no federal income taxes is the number of local, state and federal government employees. The census bureau puts the total of those workers at 16 million. Based on the 38 million "tax units" mentioned in this article not paying federal income taxes, there are approximately 80 million tax units in the country. Therefore if you add the 16 million government tax units plus the 38 million tax units who pay no income tax, that brings the total of non-federal tax payers to approximately 54 million which is equal to about 67.5 % of the total tax units who pay no federal income taxes. Wait a minute you say...the government workers pay taxes. Actually, they don't. All taxes withheld from a local, state or federal worker's paycheck (federal income, state income, Social Security or Medicare) and then local taxes they may remit otherwise, are actually paid by other tax payers who pay their salary. The government workers are just giving back part of what the real tax payers gave them in the first place. I don't believe we can continue to function as a country when one-third of the population is supporting the other two-thirds.

[supercentrist]

So now we begin to see the ultimate solution for the fatherland: elect Mitt and have him fire every one of them. After all, he likes firing people. Just allow a little time for Bain Capital to first suck the life out of as many companies and communities as possible. Then, it will be open season on the "forty-seven percent" leaches. For big, quick savings certain to please Grover et al, terminate all uniformed and civilian employees of the Defense Department and Homeland Security/Border Patrol. Toss in the FBI, Treasury Department/Secret Service. Wipe out those "three R's" pinkos at Education, and definitely get rid of the evil, godless Sesame Street. Stuff the kids with Skittles and Jolly Ranchers, then tell them to learn about life by watching educational soap operas. To spread Mitt's fun, let's skip to state/local leaches: wipe out law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services, hospitals and health departments, public utilities and, of course, those pinko school teachers. Surely you will deem these to be positive steps toward the day when we proudly can "function as a country." Pass the sauerkraut, please.

[Soyqueen01]

This is an interesting point.

But you are making the assumption that Government Employees = Freeloaders. You should at least admit that assumption. In reality, state and federal employees are just that - Employees. That means they work for a living. and they get paid less than they would if they were working for the private sector doing the same job. Why would someone do this? - Well, it may be hard for someone who uses the phrase "real tax payers" to understand, but some people care more about what they do than how much money they make doing it. as long as they can make a living wage.

I'm a college graduate (chemical engineering). I then went on for a PhD, and then did 4 years of postdoctoral research. All that time I was mooching off "real tax payers". In grad school I received a stipend of nearly $20k per year! I was grateful for that money and for that opportunity, but it was not a fun or easy process, and was definitely not financially lucrative! With my engineering degree I could have gone straight out of college (10 years ago) into the oil/gas industry and would have been making more money than I ever did as a govt employee. But that was never my plan.

As of 6 months ago, I work for a small company, and immediately saw a pay increase of 30% (and I'm on the low end of the pay scale due to my pay history). I am essentially doing the same work that I did at the govt lab and yet I'm making 30% more now. I would have stayed working for govt, despite receiving lower pay, but I was laid off. I would have stayed because I liked that the research I did at the govt lab was not necessarily tied to money. I didn't have to sell anything, except new ideas, and that's why I got the PhD in the first place.

Note, though, that even at this private company, much of the money comes from small business (SBIR) grants from the federal government.

I'm just saying that it's not as simple as you portray it. Govt employees are not mooches. They work hard too. and they usually get paid less (and have less job security these days, to boot).

I really believe the ones with the "entitlement problem" are the ones who make > $250,000 per year. Why does anyone need more money than that?????? Yes, I think the problem is greed.

I would gladly take a $20k pay cut to get my govt job back.

[JDoSPS]

It's disingenuous to spin this, and we know exactly what the spin is, don't we. The conversation was specifically about INCOME TAX. Sales taxes, property taxes, etc are not part of the point. We all pay all of those, so that's beside the point. INCOME TAX, that is the tax you pay for EARNING income, not for spending it. The Federal Government has little to do with the spending taxes, so why would that be part of the conversation? Besides, who has time in a stand up, post-meeting interim conversation to include ALL the points for the hidden microphones? It would take hours to meet with each person. Is that expected of all new and re-elected politicians? No. We all know it.

All people of reason should be expressing their disapointmentin this approach of spinning the facts to fit the goal; to deride the opposition. As far as "FACT CHECK", we can see clearly that this FACT CHECK group has it's ulterior motives. That ruins their credibility dramatically. The approach of the left and their supporters is childish at best. Very childish and deeply disingenuous.

Even more ironic is the claim that the left is more intellectual than the right, which could be true - until they stoop to these acts of prejudice and desparation. That completely invalidates their claim.

[humane17]

Re: "It is a welfare in the fact that by the time you can draw on it, you will have put in a small fraction of what you draw on it."

Well, no. Ever heard of compound interest? The government can lend, and earn interest on, our payroll taxes, meaning that our contribution grows in value over time.

Let's use a simplified-for-quick-consumption-yet-still-entirely-valid example: Pat earns $40,000 annually and pays $3000 in payroll taxes (the payroll tax for every employee is 15%; employee and employer each pay half). Let's assume that Pat's salary remains constant over Pat's 40-year worklife. After 40 years, Pat has contributed $120,000 -- but thanks to compound interest, that sum is worth about $380,000 (we're assuming a 5% annual return, and YES I know that interest rates have been lower than that for the past few years, but they vary and average out over the long term, plus we're not giving Pat a raise). Factor in the employer's 7.5% and we're talking about $720,000. If Pat receives $3000/month for 20 years, Pat will have drawn $720,000. (The current monthly maximum is $2513; the monthly maximum is likely to be higher when Pat retires, but $40K-per-year Pat will not be receiving the max.)

Social Security is essentially a government-mandated savings account. The govt takes a portion of your paycheck and invests it so you have something to live on when you're no longer able to work. This is a good thing. Think, for like six seconds, about the number of people who have impulse-control issues -- for example, bankers who chose not to think about the consequences of their insane lending practices and their insane "financial instruments" -- and what their final years would be like if they had zero to live on. (For you, uh, pragmatists out there, keep in mind that poverty/its concomitant social problems cost us a bundle.) I rejoice in what some morons dismiss as the "nanny state," because humans have provided ample evidence lo these 5000+ years of their desire to destroy (others, themselves). Not to mention that whole pesky *moral* issue: Do we actually believe, as our allegedly cherished Declaration of Independence asserts, that all people are created equal -- meaning, do we actually give a crap about *everyone* or just about a select few?

Social Security is not welfare. And, "welfare" is not a dirty word. Check the dictionary. "Welfare" = "well-being." Why *wouldn't* a society work for a mutually beneficial goal (such as safeguarding everyone's well-being)? Jesus *and* Darwin are in agreement on that one.

Finally, all of you who use "welfare" as an epithet gotta keep in mind that it's an equal-opportunity epithet. Loads of highly profitable corporations (and well-paid individuals and wealthy investors) pay very little in other taxes and/or engage in tax-break extortion ("If you don't give my business a massive tax break, I'll outsource every last job"). If the U.S. federal tax code wants to stuff Romney's mitts with cash, then the U.S. government darn well better look after the poor.

[marechabazen]

I must take issue with your statement: "Social Security is essentially a government-mandated savings account. The govt takes a portion of your paycheck and invests it so you have something to live on when you're no longer able to work."

Are you familiar with the treasury's accounts? They don't do much "investing", unless of course you are talking about "investing" in bombs and drones and other instruments of war and death.

Another problem is with your 5% return on investment (assuming that the government was actually investing the money, instead of immediately sending it off to those with more political juice then the average schmuck paying payroll taxes.) I think a better estimate of a risk-free ROI these days is between 0.1% and 0.5%. However, if you do know where I can buy US Treasuries with a 5% yield, please let me know.

[Prad_Putter]

Romney's 47% comment was a true statement. Just like Obama has a constituency of 99% of the black voters, Romney has his constituency of blue and white-collar workers who are tired of paying for Obama's gravy train. No difference between the 47% (liberal socialists) who wouldn't vote for Romney under any circumstance and the 47% (conservatives) who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstance.
Further, Obama started this decisiveness contest when he created the 99% mantra and continued his divisive attacks on business owners and the job creators. He promised to be the president of ALL Americans.
You need to take a serious look at any Administration that demonizes a true statement. Team Obama has done this numerous times lately and it's a bit scary that they attack the truth while lying about everything themselves, such as 'recovery'. WHAT recovery?