Anyone who is anyone is a fan of Matt Damon. He’s an outstanding, versatile actor. We’ve seen him in:
All these and so much more! But there’s more to Matt Damon than you may know. In addition to being a talented actor, he has long been politically outspoken. He recently had a stand-off with a conservative reporter:
“The wealthy are paying less than they paid at any time else, certainly in my lifetime, and probably in the last century. I don’t know what we were paying in the roaring 20’s; it’s criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don’t mind paying more. I really don’t mind paying more taxes. I’d rather pay for taxes than cut ‘Reading is Fundamental’ or Head Start or some of these programs that are really helping kids. This is the greatest country in the world; is it really that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break. Look at what you get for it: you get to be American”
Fine words by Matt Damon, in my opinion. Part of living in a democracy is paying taxes to support it. Taxes are a percentage of income, so the wealthier you are, the more you pay. But in my eyes, this is not a system that robs the rich of money they earned; it is not “unfair” to them. By paying more taxes they play a large part in keeping our country and our government up and running. Without their taxes, we could not be the country we are today. We could not be “American” as we know it.
Matt Damon, who supported Obama during his campaign, has become critical of our president:
“I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, ‘I no longer hope for audacity’. He’s doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education… the idea that we’re testing kids and we’re tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We’re training them, not teaching them”
I’ve certainly noticed that in my education. In my grade school years, my learning was very mechanical. We were “taught to the test”. We didn’t learn for the sake of learning. We cared about getting a high grade in the class, not about being knowledgeable. I experience much less of this in college. Being educated is valuable in and of itself, instead of a means to getting a job (but don’t get me wrong. Job =good!). Still, I’ve witnessed people choosing a major based on what will lead them to the highest-paying job, not based on what they’re genuinely interested in.
The whole damn package
So, Matt Damon scored major points with me. He’s a total stud, he’s an amazing actor, he’s knowledgeable. He’s the whole damn package!
President material?
Michael Moore thinks so. My initial reaction was, you’ve got to be kidding me. He’s great and all, but president? I don’t think so.
Now that I’ve had time to think about it, I still don’t think he’s cut out for president. But it’s not ludicrous to think of him going into politics in some capacity. He attended Harvard, but didn’t graduate. If he completed a degree in Political Science, then who knows, maybe he’d make a great politician.
What’s the worst he could do? Cause our country to go into massive debt and come dangerously close to default?
Haha. Been there, done that.
Future NYC mayor?
On a related note…Alec Baldwin is considering running for mayor of NYC. However, it wouldn’t be until after 2013 and he’d first like to get a Masters in politics and government, which he’s talked to a couple universities about already.
I’m still unsure…can a celebrity become a successful politician? Furthermore, what does it even take to become a successful politician??
Little Fish in a Big Pond 
Anonymous
August 11, 2011
Have you forgotten Ronald Regan? Of course a actor can be a politician.
Anonymous
August 11, 2011
Regarding your comment about “people choosing a major based on what will lead them to the highest-paying job, not based on what they’re genuinely interested in”, sometimes that’s peoples only option. Of course it’s sad when people totally neglect interests but sometimes practicality can be important. For example if someone loves art it may be wiser to major in art education instead of art exclusively. With the rising cost of higher education and living in general some people have to look at a career that will provide income not just satisfy their interests.
meredithancret
August 11, 2011
You know what I love about quotes like “I really don’t mind paying more taxes. I’d rather pay for taxes than cut ‘Reading is Fundamental’ or Head Start or some of these programs that are really helping kids.”?
It makes those of us who DO have a problem with paying more taxes, not because of wanting to defund programs to help children, sound like we want to hurt kids and abuse them. I have a problem with paying taxes because of the way the majority of that tax money is spent, the fact that SOME of the money is spent on worthwhile programs does not mean that I should be taxed more.
The vast majority of programs are not carried out well and the vast majority of our tax dollars are not spent wisely by the government.
Also, you think Damon is so amazing…why? Because he agree with you?
His opinions are not very well thought out honestly, not any more so than any other celebrities.
If a conservative celebrity with no degree and minimal experience in actual politics was given opinions on taxes what would your opinion on their intelligence be?
buck
August 15, 2011
“The vast majority of programs are not carried out well and the vast majority of our tax dollars are not spent wisely by the government.”
the vast majority of tax dollars are spent on interest, social security, medicare, medicaid and dept of defense, these 5 programs are responsible for 88% of the entire budget and they together currently exceed fed revenue by 30 cents of each dollar taken in. how are they “unwise”?
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
Social programs, social security, medicare and medicaid all need to be reworked because they are currently a huge drain on the country and they are not effective.
So I still think spending money on them, without solving many of the issues inherent in the programs themselves, is unwise.
buck
August 15, 2011
“reworked”
how?
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
Some need to be cut entirely. Social Security needs to cut and while I do not have exact ideas on how to do that (phasing it out as the current people on Social Security die out seems the best option).
Many social programs should be cut from the federal government and taken over by the state governments or private charities. (That’s what churches and charities are supposed to be doing anyway isn’t it?) because the federal government is not constitutional supposed to be involved in these programs. These programs started under FDR and were a bad plan then, that kept the country limping through a depression, but would have never solved the problem on their own.
buck
August 15, 2011
“should be cut from the federal government and taken over by the state governments or private charities.”
i hear this argument often, however programs like medicaid, and social security didn’t always exist and yet at some point in history the voters/citizens of this country decided that these problems were not being addressed by states and charities and that they needed a more reliable long term solution.
in the 1920’s the highest homeless demographic was 60+, social security was the answer. we could go back, end soc. sec. and see if we get the same result, i think we would.
buck
August 15, 2011
“Social Security needs to cut and while I do not have exact ideas on how to do that (phasing it out as the current people on Social Security die out seems the best option). ”
i commend you for being specific, unsurprisingly i do not agree, given that most people don’t understand how ss works, i can’t imagine voters being to happy paying in to ss while waiting for the current beneficiaries to die, knowing they can never collect themselves. so it is a bit a political problem.
moreover, social security currently holds 5.5 trillion of our national debt, so either that debt, owed to ss, is real in which case social security is just fine for the next 30 years or so or it isn’t owed in which case you just took 5.5 trillion off the national debt Yippie! and our debt is not 14.5 trillion but 9 trillion. but you can’t take two bites at the same apple.
JPW
August 13, 2011
Damon… another out of touch, limo liberal… his simplistic statements on Taxes is a joke. The super wealthy is about 1% of the US population. If you live in California, and earn $500,000.00 a year.. believe me, you are working your ASS off and paying half in taxes… Someone please define the “rich”… most small business owners form C Corps; and all of their hard earn, highly risky efforts (i.e. profits) are passed through as PERSONAL INCOME…this is NOT “gift” money people!!! Damon is in a privileged income category of earners; and he is OUT OF TOUCH with reality….
meredithancret
August 13, 2011
Limousine liberal, thank you. I was trying to remember that term yesterday in a conversation.
meredithancret
August 14, 2011
Cradle to grave entitlement programs. Ayn Rand knew how that would end, she saw it before. She wrote about it Atlas Shrugged when she told the story of the Twentieth Century Motor company.
http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/favorite-passages-from-atlas-shrugged/the-story-of-the-twentieth-century-motor-company-atlas-shrugged-part-ii/
Very long, but everyone (Include Grace, the author of this blog) should read this story. It’s the story of what happens when the producers are expected to care for every other person from birth to death, regardless of the fact that those people should be working to support themselves.
As for Damon, my dad said something interesting about that tonight. He said “If he really believes in the idea that giving money to the government is the best way to help people then he should donate half of his money to the government and let them do with it whatever they want.”
Limousine liberals, they talk a big game as long as it doesn’t affect their own bottom line. Ask them to actually give up their wealth and perks and suddenly they are a lot less agreeable.
buck
August 15, 2011
“Ayn Rand”
do enforced traffic laws take away from your personal liberty or do they add to your personal liberty?
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
Buck:
Benjamin Franklin said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I understand that traffic safety laws are a necessary part of my security and the security of others. However that does not mean that they add to my personal liberty. They add to my personal security. I’m willing to give up some of my liberty for some security, but I also would not want to live in a world where every one is always secure, but my every action is watched and I am told how I can and cannot live.
Now. What did traffic laws have to do with what I posted at all? Can you not discuss the topic at hand? That is usually why people pull out completely ridiculous side arguments that barely tie in to the original topic.
buck
August 15, 2011
“They add to my personal security.”
not merely security by which i think you mean safety. assume all cars could only drive 25 mph and were made of foam rubber, as fun as that would be, we would still need agreed enforced traffic laws or the chaos of the road would always lead to traffic jams. or in other words government is how we organize and that order increases liberty.
“Can you not discuss the topic at hand?”
you brought up Ayn Rand and the topic at hand is the size and scope of government and how to pay for it. i was merely making the classic anti objectivist argument for government.
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
Problem there is that, while I do agree with a lot of what Ayn Rand says, I’m do not completely agree with her on every topic.
I agree that there have to be laws, I’m not an anarchist. However raising taxes on a small percentage of the population, to pay for livelihood of a larger portion of the population is a completely different topic from laws that decrease chaos in our country.
buck
August 15, 2011
“most small business owners form C Corps; and all of their hard earn, highly risky efforts (i.e. profits) are passed through as PERSONAL INCOME…”
this is true of course, (i think you meant S Corp.) however we are talking about net profits, not gross profits so this only includes business income after all expenses including payroll, occupancy, selling, semi fixed etc… if joe the plumber were ever to pay more in taxes (4.9%) by pres. obama’s proposal that would only be on the net profit gained after 250K. a closely held small business is average at a net profit of 5% of sales, so that equates to plumbing sales of 5 million dollars annually. so yes joe the plumber would have a slightly rate on his sales in excess of 5 million dollars each year, conversely he would also enjoy a higher tax deduction rate as well.
now some people call hedge funds, small business because they employ so few people. hedge fund gains and commissions on hedge funds are not considered earned income but capital gains instead and are not subject to employment taxes (medicare, ss) and are taxed at 15% total. why should investment bankers pay a much lower rate than joe the plumber?
paul ryan’s plan calls for lowering spending down to 18% of GDP (a tough pill indeed), tax revenue is currently 14% of GDP how do you get to balance without increasing revenue rates?
meh, maybe it is just easier to call all taxes robbery and call the president a socialist.
buck
August 15, 2011
this is true of course, (i think you meant S Corp.) however we are talking about net profits, not gross profits so this only includes business income after all expenses including payroll, occupancy, selling, semi fixed etc… if joe the plumber were ever to pay more in taxes (4.9%) by pres. obama’s proposal that would only be on the net profit gained after 250K. a closely held small business is average at a net profit of 5% of sales, so that equates to plumbing sales of 5 million dollars annually. so yes joe the plumber would have a slightly rate on his sales in excess of 5 million dollars each year, conversely he would also enjoy a higher tax deduction rate as well.
now some people call hedge funds, small business because they employ so few people. hedge fund gains and commissions on hedge funds are not considered earned income but capital gains instead and are not subject to employment taxes (medicare, ss) and are taxed at 15% total. why should investment bankers pay a much lower rate than joe the plumber?
paul ryan’s plan calls for lowering spending down to 18% of GDP (a tough pill indeed), tax revenue is currently 14% of GDP how do you get to balance without increasing revenue rates?
JPW
August 14, 2011
No problem… Can we all agree, that paying “more in taxes” for Damon will not affect his Hollywood lifestyle. He speaks from such an elite point of view. Damon should put his money where his mouth is and “self fund” a ‘Reading is Fundamental” program… Maybe he does? but, for the rest of us that don’t earn $20 million a movie; I would rather NOT send my hard earned dollars to the Federal Government. By the way, I know very very poor people that actually take the time to read with the children; and they do very well in school… but, I guess that asking too much in this world??
Look this is a Liberal site, everybody on this blog somehow believes it’s the Federal Governments job to provide the entire country with food, medical, education, retirement… cradle to grave entitlement programs? I guess.
I earn good money, and I am always one pay check away from losing everything. So I work my ass off. Watching MSNBC liberals is like a comedy show in the evenings until I realize they really believe this crap… God help us all… just look at Europe? Total disaster coming our way…
buck
August 15, 2011
“Look this is a Liberal site, everybody on this blog somehow believes it’s the Federal Governments job to provide the entire country with food, medical, education, retirement… cradle to grave entitlement programs? I guess. ”
i am a liberal progressive, so are most of my friends and family, and i have never met one person that “somehow believes” that its “the Federal Governments job to provide the entire country with food, medical, education, retirement… cradle to grave entitlement programs”.
not one.
that is just a lazy way out. i don’t assume that conservatives “somehow believe” in no safety nets ever. i’d be surprised if the tea party wants medicare ended for example.
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
How many people do you know that are ON welfare and social programs? Because I’ve met PLENTY who think that exact thing. They may not phrase it that way, but they use all sorts of other terms…which all boil down to the same thing. “The government needs to take care of me!”
buck
August 15, 2011
quite a few meredith, quite a few (i have an unfair advantage being an old man)
i was responding to the suggestion that All Liberals, All somehow believe that every person is entitled to food, shelter forever for free, blah blah blah, that is a lazy straw man.
and most everyone i know on medicare and social security wants their cancer treatment and their checks. and i want them to have them.
and most everyone on public assistance wants to get off of it, and furthermore ever since the welfare reform act, those programs have time limits anyway (with the exception of food stamps)
buck
August 15, 2011
also, you are confusing lazy free riders (no doubt they exist) and people who think government is best positioned to administer social safety nets. they are not one and the same.
jackcurtis
August 15, 2011
Hmnn…a liberal site, it says. And all the comments (indicating morivated readers) seem rather illiberal to me. The author quite politely offered some thoughts about an actor and his political statements and unerringly out of the great blue yonder netted only the opposition? Impressive!
Grace may be feeling persecuted about now or at least, “Why me?” But it’s really a good start for a new blogger; getting noticed ain’t easy, especially by the opposition. And dealing with opponents will sharpen one’s game faster than anything else. It’s no challenge to write for the choir.
Re Mr. Damon, I don’t know actors; not my interest. But folks volunteering to pay taxes, that I’m more familiar with. I believe they’re usually posturing. The IRS has standing provisions for anyone wishing to give extra money to Uncle Sam, it’s not hard. If Mr. Damon is serious, he can easily do that without leaving home. I’m guessing he won’t do that; he was just expressing his feelings for public consumption. No reason he shouldn’t. But (had to have a “but” right?) one actor’s feelings don’t translate into good tax policy; too many ramifications left our.
That said, it likely reinforces his popularity with the demographic he depends upon for his career; no reason it shouldn’t do that, either. President? Damfino. Maybe, if he grows up and learns the ropes; as someone pointed out, Reagan made it. Not when he was young…
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
As I’ve pointed out before, tax law states that the “rich” are those that make over $250,000 a year. That is not rich by any stretch of the imagination, especially not in California…the home of Hollywood.
I’m all for changing tax law to get rid of the loopholes that allow millionaires and billionaires to hide money from the IRS and not pay taxes on it. I think you will find that most conservatives have not problem with that.
However raising taxes will not help the situation. The government needs to rework tax law to remove loopholes, without doing that…well, raising taxes will only hurt the middle class because people as rich as Damon will still have loopholes to hide their money in.
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
Damn, this response was for Grace’s comment below. I hit the wrong reply button.
buck
August 15, 2011
of course mr damon can volunteer a higher tax share for himself, some do just that, however a trillion dollar problem can not be solved by the charity of an inspired few, and that is the point. i believe he is also making the point that not everyone of high means, sees the current tax rate as confiscatory.
meredithancret
August 15, 2011
That “trillion dollar problem” cannot be solved by raising taxes either. Not if the country continues to spend money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse.
I have a friend who did the math related to raising taxes, even if we confiscated all the money of the “wealthy” (anyone who makes over $250,000 a year) we would still not be able to handle the amount of money being spent on entitlement programs.
http://conservativenewager.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/why-raising-taxes-cannot-solver-our-problem/
buck
August 15, 2011
this now becomes a debate over definitions between the words wealth, income and capital gains. income has shifted towards capital gains ever since the rate was dropped to 15%. i am not interested in a “soak the rich” vs “lazy welfare queens” debate. we can all watch ed schultz and sean hannity belabor that empty tripe every night. it appears from your positions above that we are not as far apart as you might think. it is a question of closing the gap between 14% of gdp in revenues, 25% of gdp in spending and growth. through a combination of spending cuts and revenue enhancement (tax reform) we can get both back to their historic levels of 18%. the spending cuts will require entitlement reform (with means testing, deductibles, cola caps, and increasing the ss tax cap of 106k) and cuts to defense, the revenue side will require a dramatic claw back in “tax expenditures” just as was done in 1986 under reagan and hopefully a recovery in growth will come eventually. or in otherwords exactly the path the president has been outlining (not specifically enough, granted).
Grace
August 15, 2011
Ok, I’ve been on vaca for a few days and I’ve got a lot to respond to…I’ll do my best! Now, Meredith and JPW…you argue that Damon isn’t affected a bit by paying a lot of taxes. Exactly! All people that rich should be paying their taxes because it’s something they are capable of doing with sacrificing all that much. And the fact that Damon is willing to do that is great. Obviously if you two are struggling to get by as it is, then you shouldn’t be paying the taxes that Damon does. If all the millionaires and billionaires in this country payed the taxes that they SHOULD, then the weight of it wouldn’t fall so much on middle class Americans like it does now. I totally understand you two not wanting to pay more taxes…if you’re working hard for your money and still don’t have a lot of “breathing room”, then of course you wouldn’t want to give more of it up! Really what I have a problem with is the uber rich who come by a LOT of money easily but STILL bitch about paying more taxes. This is America, that’s your duty. Of course, you two do make a valid point (I think it was Meredith who said this)…can we really trust our government to use our taxes wisely? See, it’s tricky. I think tax money could be used for such good! But those in government are greedy…and I don’t think we can trust them. Boy, it’s just so complicated isn’t it!?!?
In response to Jack, you’re right…Damon might be speaking about taxes/education to please fans. Who really knows! Maybe he is giving more of his money to the government…I’ll try to look into that!
JPW
August 16, 2011
Grace: You may have noticed that I am always provoked by hypocrisy; and when it comes for Hollywood its even worse. I live in L.A.; and everybody in Hollywood is cut throat, rich and totally “affected.” Unfortunately there are actually people that listen to them! Trust me, they look “down” on you and I. The are elitist. But I digress.
However, you may have also notice, I jump in on TAXES. There is ZERO chance that the so called “middle class” will get a TAX CUT. The Democrats are looking for “Revenue” (i.e. Taxes). And taxing the “uber” rich is not enough!!!! So, the Democrats claim the “average” person only make $30k; and then claim $250K is RICH.
I think you missed my point with Damon too. He obviously has some special “Talent” that the average joe doesn’t. The fact that he makes 20 million or whatever; doesn’t give the government the right to take it away!? (even if he can afford to pay it)
Given your argument; maybe the governments should just confiscate ALL income over $5 million? NOBODY should have a net worth of over $5 million. Lets make it a USA Fed Governmental “CAP”… I mean after all, if you have $5 million you are not going to starve?
You see, that is NOT capitalism. Damon should be able to spend his money any way he wishes. And, if he wants to pay it to the Government, then he can. But, If I makes $20 million and wants to buy 5 homes, then please allow me. I don’t feel like it should be confiscated by the US Fed Gov just because others don’t have as much.
And, by the way, if I make 20 million, that means I have created a lot of wealth, jobs, “real” revenue (taxable, of course); and pay property tax and luxury tax… its goes on and on…
Grace
August 16, 2011
I am not saying that the government should suck as much as money as it can from people as rich as Damon just because they won’t starve from it. My argument is certainly not that the government should impose an income cap. I am merely arguing that people that rich should be willing to pay their taxes just like everyone else instead of finding loopholes. What’s wrong with that? Paying taxes is part of living in a democracy. Maybe that’s something you are against, but as long as we live in a system that is supported by taxes, everyone should pay. The millionaires and billionaires should not skirt around it. That’s all I’m sayin!
meredithancret
August 16, 2011
I don’t think anyone here is claiming that no one should pay taxes. I completely agree that the loopholes in tax law need to written out of existence.
That’s not all you are saying though, not from what I’m reading. What you seem to be saying is that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their wealth than anyone else. How is that fair? If we all paid the same percentage in taxes, the rich would still pay more money, but the system would be fair and would not be punishing people for making money.
In simplistic terms, if I make $100 and pay 10% in taxes, I pay the government $10. The wealthy would pay the same percentage on a higher amount of income. $100 of taxes on $1000 of income. This is far preferable to punishing people and charging them higher tax rates because they have managed to make money and become wealthy.
Grace
August 16, 2011
Okay, looking back I can see how it seems that I am saying the wealthy should pay a greater percentage of their income, but I am in favor of exactly what you’re saying. The rich are supposed to pay a certain percentage (the same as everyone else), but with the loopholes they pay a much less percentage. When I say they should pay more taxes, I mean they should pay the amount they should (which is obviously more than they are paying now), not a greater percentage than everyone else. Sorry that wasn’t clear!
meredithancret
August 16, 2011
and see, Grace, I can agree with YOU when you make yourself clear.
Unfortunately, look at what Damon is saying. He blatantly said “is it really that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break. Look at what you get for it: you get to be American” In reference to the wealthy. He is saying that the wealthy SHOULD pay a higher percentage in taxes than anyone else.
Unless he means that EVERYONE should pay 6% more in taxes? And I don’t think that was what he meant. If it was…he didn’t make it clear.
Grace
August 16, 2011
I’m not actually sure if Damon means 6% more than the flat rate. He might mean 6% more than what the wealthy are currently paying, and considering the wealthy pay a smaller percentage compared to everyone else, then 6% more might even it out. I don’t want to get picky about this. Damon’s overall statement is that the wealthy should pay their taxes. Maybe he means a higher percentage than everyone else, or maybe he means the same percentage as everyone else. Either way, he’s against the wealthy paying a lesser percentage than everyone else. And that is what I was agreeing with. And you appear to agree with that too, which I’m happy about!
meredithancret
August 16, 2011
But you can see what I mean about how he is not making his meaning clear?
When talking about a subject as divisive as tax law you need to be VERY clear what you mean by “6% more” taxes. Either Damon does not know what he means, or he lacks the ability to make himself clearly understood. Neither of which show very good education…or even, possibly, intelligence.
meredithancret
August 16, 2011
Do you mean the wealthy pay a lower percentage in actuality (if they take advantage of tax loopholes) or in tax law, because they definitely do not pay a lower percentage in tax law….even with the loopholes I would not say they pay a lower percentage in actuality.
Grace
August 16, 2011
Well no, Damon isn’t completely clear whether he means the wealthy should pay the same flat rate as others or a higher rate. But he’s not a politician, he’s a celebrity. He gets across his main point that as is, the wealthy are not paying enough taxes. Maybe he has what it takes to be a politician, maybe he doesn’t. But he is speaking up about something important instead of going to rehab or making sex tapes or whatever else those big celebrities do in their spare time. So I commend him for that, at least.
The wealthy do pay a smaller percentage of taxes than the poor and middle class through loopholes. Here’s a quote from an article I read:
“In 2007, at a $4,600-per-seat fund raiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet stood up and told the crowd, “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
As an example, he noted that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent”
The tax rate that the wealthy are paying has been dropping too:
“On average, the wealthiest Americans pay only 17 percent of their income in taxes, a dramatic decline from the 26 percent they paid in 1992” (this is from the Atlantic Wire)
And this is from The Source Weekly:
“Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007”
…it seems unfair to me.
JPW
August 16, 2011
Grace:
I am not a tax accountant. But, these loopeholes are LEGAL tax advantages. The loopholes like the “Corp Jet” write offs that our wonderful president speaks of; are meaningless!!! If I buy a Corp Jet for my company, that is an EXPENSE; and I sure write if off!!!! These uber rich pay and Corps pay a LOT in taxes… payroll taxes, Corp taxes, personal income taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, property taxes… MY LORD its goes on and on… etc.
More importantly, the super rich buy more cars, boats, luxury items that create JOBS…
We have a “spending” problem in Washington, not a “REVENUE” problem. Washington needs to REFORM itself before anybody sends more money.
By the way, YES, I am against INCOME TAXES in general. National sales tax, maybe? But people who have a lot of money, pay the MAJORITY of taxes…
Anyway, this could go on and on… Once Washington can balance its budget and cut spending, then I will worry about guys like Damon…