Obama '08?

The military does not pay taxes nor do the elderly and the disabled.

— 53.6 percent of households pay the federal income tax. Presumably Romney is okay with these folks.

— 28.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax, but they do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they don’t need Mitt Romney to convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” They already have jobs.

Most of the households in this group don’t pay any federal income tax because they qualify for enough deductions that their income tax liability has shrunk to zero. See this Tax Policy Center report for more, which gives an example of “a couple with two children earning less than $26,400. They get an $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700, and that takes their liability to zero.” Indeed, it’s worth noting that many of these deductions and credits were part of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which Romney wants to extend.

— 10.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax because they’re retired and elderly. Many retirees aren’t taxed on their Social Security benefits, which they earned by paying into the system over many years. If Mitt Romney secretly thinks that these households are all irresponsible freeloaders, he has a weird way of showing it, as he keeps insisting that he doesn’t want to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits for those over the age of 65.

— That leaves 6.9 percent of households which are non-elderly and have incomes less than $20,000 per year and aren’t paying the payroll tax. These poorer households pay neither income taxes nor payroll taxes. Perhaps Romney thinks that they should all pay more in federal taxes. It’s hard to say. But this is also a much smaller fraction of Americans.

Meanwhile, just as a reminder, the vast majority of Americans still pay state and local taxes — in fact, these taxes tend to be more regressive. When you add up all the different types of taxes, most income groups in the United States tend to pay an amount that’s roughly commensurate with their share of the national income.

I just assumed the military don't pay. Turns out some do in some states and don't in others.

Does not mean they are no good dead beats without a care for their lives and vote democrat. In fact, according to most studies, the states with the most people on welfare are red states.

From US Census: U.S. 314,533,339

White Americans are the majority in forty-nine of the fifty states, with Hawaii as the exception. The District of Columbia, which is not a state, also has a non-white majority.[13] Non-Hispanic Whites, however, are the majority in forty-six states, with Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas, as well as the District of Columbia, as the exceptions.[14] These five have "minority majorities", i.e. minority groups are the majority populations.
The non-Hispanic White percentage (66% in 2008[5])

About 12.4% of the American people (37.6 million, including about 885,000 Hispanic or Latino) are Black or African American

314533339 x 66% = 207592000 = whites
314533339 x 12.4% = 39002000 = blacks


From: http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/black-history-month-welfare-in-black-and-white/
Program                   Recipients      Black      White
Social Security (1)
Retirement insurance     26 Million       7.7%      90.4%
Disability insurance    3.7 Million      18.3%      79.3%
Survivor’s benefits     1.8 Million        24%        72%
Widow’s benefits        4.9 Million         9%      90.1%
Supplemental
Security Income       5.8 Million        26%      48.2%
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (2)
3.8 Million      39.2%      55.2%
Medicare                   37 Million       8.1%        88% (3)
Medicaid                 33.4 Million      25.1%      46.1% (4)
Food Stamps              27.5 Million      34.9%      42.3% (5)
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Food Program (6)
5.8 Million      27.8%      44.3%
National Student Lunch Program (7)
44.5 Million        17%         75%
Veterans’ Benefits         26 Million       8.0%       86.4% 8
Housing Subsidies         4.7 Million        40%         46% (9)

Economist Paul Krugman summarized as: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan—and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."

Historian Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has called "Starve the Beast "the most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history", and blames it for the increase in US government debt since the 1980s.