

Where Are the 47% of Americans Who Pay No Income Taxes? - Cieplak
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-taxes/262499/

======
Lazare
That article made me wince because it was apparently written by someone who
had never heard of Simpson's Paradox[1].

Just because Texas _as a whole_ tends to support Romney, and just because
Texas _as a whole_ has a lot of people who pay no income tax does not give you
the data needed to conclude that people who do not pay income tax tend to
support Romney, or even that they are more likely to do so.

And in fact, the exact opposite is true. It's been a staple of American
political analysis for decades that although poor _states_ tend to vote
Republican, poor _people_ tend vote Democratic. If you take Mississippi, you
will find that it is poor and thus (as expected) it votes Republican. But
_within_ Mississippi the poorest groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic
(regardless of skin colour, in case you think racism plays a role), while the
richest groups vote Republican. Look at a rich state and the same trends hold
- the poorest groups within that state will vote Democratic, while the richest
will vote Republican. (A ton of research exists on this; this blog post seems
to sumarrise it well[2].)

To quote from the article: "So Romney appears to be wrong about these voters.
But if calling for a less progressive taxation system was enough to alienate
poor voters in the Deep South, the Republican Party would have already lost
its stronghold there." This is something that could only be written by someone
who has no grasp of American politics.

You only have to glance at an exit poll - _any_ exit poll - to realize that
Republicans alienated poor voters _LOOOONG_ ago. Let's say 2004, presidential
election, Mississippi again[3]: Kerry beat Bush by 24 points among people
making less than $15k a year, but by only 9 points among people making $15k -
$30k. Look at people making $30k - $50k and he lost by 20 points, a massive 36
points among people making $50k - $75k, and an eye-popping 43% (71% to 28%)
among people making over $75k. And, again, the same trends exert themselves in
every state, every race, and every year, over and over and over. Texas in
2004? Kerry wins every income band up to $30k, and loses everything else by
increasing landslides (losing 92% to 8% for people making over $200k).
California in 2004? Same deal; Kerry wins every income band up to $100k, and
loses everything else by ever-increasing margins as you climb the income
scale. Congressional elections in 2010? Same thing: [4]

TL;DR: Today I learned that you don't need to have a good grasp of statistics,
logic, or American politics to be an associate editor of _The Atlantic_.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox>

[2]: [http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/red-state-
rising...](http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/red-state-rising.html)

[3]:
[http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MS...](http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MS/P/00/epolls.0.html)

[4]:
[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JGX1ch5CkN8/TZ9mEU7lnJI/AAAAAAAAAe...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JGX1ch5CkN8/TZ9mEU7lnJI/AAAAAAAAAeU/KIF8RJuRY0g/s1600/cnn.png)

~~~
OpieCunningham
Agreed.

But the larger point is that all of those poor people in red states who pay no
taxes are effectively disenfranchised. Their states are red - their blue votes
are meaningless.

The majority of those who pay no income tax are already non-entities in
Presidential elections.

~~~
Lazare
Of course, all those rich people in blue states who pay a huge slice of the
federal income tax take are also effectively disenfranchised. Their states are
blue, and their red votes are meaningless. Harder to get upset about all the
poor lawyers and bankers who don't have their votes counted, but it's just as
real.

Democracy is funny.

------
MartinCron
That conclusion about red states being overrepresented in the untaxed 47% was
the first thing I thought of. It makes me think that Romney mis-spoke, was
pandering, or has been seriously taken out of context. I have a hard time
buying into the narrative that he is so clueless about American demography.

~~~
elmuchoprez
My guess is that he was pandering. The statements were made at a fundraiser
where he's trying to echo the narrative of the crowd, not present a realistic
overview.

------
Evbn
I like how "my colleague Derek Thompson picked up the baton" and clobbered the
article by disproving its thesis.

