are you a maker or a taker??

[rod anode]

just curious how many believe the percentage given by mit romney about the 47 % being takers in this country?

[Rev. Elizabeth]

I believe that, on some level, we are all takers and givers!!!  After all, I drive on roads paid for with tax dollars; I am eligible for social security; I am protected by the armed forces; I enjoy national parks; I have worked in a vocational program partially funded by the government; but I have also worked all my life; I have both given and received.  And, having seen and read about much of the world, I am grateful ( and blessed) to live here.  We are not oppressed,tyrannized, threatened, intimidated by the government. 
And, I know reasonable, kind and decent  people who would not survive had they not been the recipient of some support from the government.

[rod anode]

i just wanted to know if you thought the statement is correct ,i didnt ask for personal info,but if you want to give it thats ok to

[Rev. Elizabeth]

..just sayin', how can anyone even come up with a percentage like that...how do you sort out what's the taking, what's the giving???

[Thor]

Ed,

        Makers vs takers. Tough to put a percentage on that. As Rev Liz stated, there are well intentioned, deserving, individuals who need assistance along the way. But there are also the parasites who work the system. Is the 47% number accurate? Probably, when taken in the context of who receives federal subsidies without paying federal taxes on them. But not all of the folks who receive, say federal retirements, get it tax free. I believe Romney was using the wrong description.

        But the research shows that the numbers of american households that pay no federal taxes is somewhere between 42% and 50%. This could be due to low income level, or they have the ability to utilize enough write offs to reduce their income to below federal taxable levels. In 2006 the estimate was that 41% paid no federal taxes, while that number increased in 2010 to about 45%.

       I think (my opinion), Romney was referring to what we had posted on previous threads here on Henrys' website, to the ability for Obammy to purchase the welfare vote. Promising more free stuff (provided by the makers) for the takers, if they voted for him. Guess it worked.

       The real concern is what happens when we turn the corner and there are more takers than makers? Per capita, Vermont (not California or Mass. or Illinois) is the highest taxed state. To bad the pain isn't really spread "per capita". Perhaps one way to turn the tide is to establish a law that says if you don't pay federal taxes, you don't get a refund. We have to find the way to eliminate the guarenteed votes coming from the folks who want more free stuff.

[mkr]

Nicely put Thor. I could never wrap my head around about the Fed Tax return..... I pay in plenty and someone who does not gets back more than me??

[Norton]

Per capita, Vermont (not California or Mass. or Illinois) is the highest taxed state.

Thor, do you have a source for that?

[Norton]

Rod, I don't know where the 47% comes from but I have heard that it includes people on social security, active duty-troops (exempt from fed taxes), and anybody making less than the minimum.  Many of these folks are working, and they are not necessarily getting public assistance, so they may not be "takers" (except as Rev Liz points out).

[Norton]

And, I know reasonable, kind and decent  people who would not survive had they not been the recipient of some support from the government.

So do I.

Saw an interesting video, an interview with Mitt Romney's mother, in which she said that she appreciated the help they got when she and her husband were on welfare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guUubewpdLk

[Stand Alone Defense]

active duty-troops (exempt from fed taxes),

Norton,

Active Duty troops pay taxes unless they are serving in a tax free zone like the Middle East or Afghanistan.  they are exempt from paying taxes on anything under 80 thousand a year and civilian contractors have this same perk.

[Trekr]

We can argue on why there are takers. The basic problem is when the takers outnumber the makers, we have a very serious problem. We seem to be speeding toward that situation faster and faster.

[nhibbard]

I'm a maker who receives a lot of public resources for my tax dollars. I don't get public assistance but the amount of taxes I pay as compared to the roads I use, the technology I have, the food I eat and other items seems low. I've always been in favor of flat tax or use tax, but I don't ever see that working. And I don't see a sales tax as an effective use tax because in that case you pay a tax on items that you might now use if you gift it.

[Norton]

Active Duty troops pay taxes unless they are serving in a tax free zone like the Middle East or Afghanistan.  they are exempt from paying taxes on anything under 80 thousand a year and civilian contractors have this same perk.

Thanks for that clarification

[nhibbard]

Why the exemptions? The government is still paying them, why would it matter where the person is? Are they not still utilizing services themselves for which we all should be sharing an equal cost. This isn't to debate anything to do with military service. This comment is meant to question the rationality of tax breaks to one group and not another in which one persons income then becomes proportionally taker over maker without the intent of the maker.

[woodstoves2]

That's an absurdly reductive open-ended question useful only in creating grossly inaccurate divisions in the moment. Unless the taking or the making are much more  clearly defined, we are each and everyone of us BOTH!    Most of us better off than others got that way by taking  for what we make.  Please note how many so-called "makers" take hefty profits by avoiding taxes and by paying low wages or (more profitable yet) by taking jobs away and sending them overseas, in the process "making" hordes of so-called "takers". Of course, life isn't fair. But it isn't black OR white, either.