Phil Mickelson Faces 61 Percent Tax Rate Following Back-To-Back Wins

[calamity]

What? Are we supposed to feel sorry for pampered athletes having to pay taxes now? Sheesh.

 

[505]

Until you have to fork over 53% yourself I don't think you're in any position to suggest that rate is appropriate for others.

Amazing that the gov is taking more than he gets to take home, and we have people in here defending it. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I don't have to win a lottery to comment on what % the govt should collect.

"Winning the lottery" is a poor strategy for making it in this world. I would suggest choosing a career that you find both rewarding and challenging. Then apply yourself and strive to succeed. With some hard work and maybe a little luck, too, you may one day find yourself flirting with those top tax brackets. THEN you can offer an opinion that is worth more than half a squirt of... well, you know.

The amount he pays on winnings is not representative of his tax rate on his total earnings.

The amount he pays on his total earnings is apparently too high for his tastes and he seems to be expressing that dissatisfaction with his feet.

And I can comment on that without earning it too.

Sure you can. But just like I said before, that commentary is worth about half a squirt of... you know.

You know where you can put your opinion on my ability to comment....Mr "Constitution".

I can put it in a lot of different places. Right now I choose to hang it in front of your face.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

"Winning the lottery" is a poor strategy for making it in this world. I would suggest choosing a career that you find both rewarding and challenging. Then apply yourself and strive to succeed. With some hard work and maybe a little luck, too, you may one day find yourself flirting with those top tax brackets. THEN you can offer an opinion that is worth more than half a squirt of... well, you know.

It is about the same odds as making it in the PGA.....and here you are defending such a "success".

Ironic, isn't it?

The amount he pays on his total earnings is apparently too high for his tastes and he seems to be expressing that dissatisfaction with his feet.

Um, I haven't seen him releasing tax returns, he hasn't talked about his total earning or tax levels on totals.

Sure you can. But just like I said before, that commentary is worth about half a squirt of... you know.

As are your about mine....but you can't recognize IRONY even when it smacks you up side the head.

I can put it in a lot of different places. Right now I choose to hang it in front of your face.

And the total blindness to your own irony still escapes you, along with a blindness to everyone having a right to express their views.

Try to find something that doesn't blow up in your face, jack.

 

[ocean515]

I can't imagine that some are blessed with being able to whack little white balls with some given skill....which sponsors shower with riches to promote a sport that earns all concerned untold wealth from less talented hacks and spectators?

You are right, I just don't understand why we obsess over such silliness, holding these freaks up as some "ideal".....and then desperately try to defend their wealth.....when they could give a frig what you think.

This is not the Horatio tale you are looking for.

But of course it is.

That you can't understand that is why you are who you are...

 

[Jack Fabulous]

It is about the same odds as making it in the PGA.....and here you are defending such a "success".

Ironic, isn't it?

There are lots of successful people outside of the PGA. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and businessmen of all sorts earn the top rate. Don't pigeonhole yourself.

Um, I haven't seen him releasing tax returns, he hasn't talked about his total earning or tax levels on totals.

As are your about mine....but you can't recognize IRONY even when it smacks you up side the head.

I think the fact that he wants out of California pretty much says it all.

And the total blindness to your own irony still escapes you, along with a blindness to everyone having a right to express their views.

Try to find something that doesn't blow up in your face, jack.

This is what losers do. You fail in the real world and not only do you blame that failure on other's success, you take it a step further and present this kind of false intellectualism in a pathetic attempt to be perceived as superior to those that you envy.

Hows that for irony?

 

[ocean515]

Tax the poor. Sounds like a winning strategy.

Hmmm. So the ones not paying any federal income tax are poor?

Are you sure about that?

 

[Sisyphus]

Very justified!

Ca will miss his tax money when he leaves.

Indeed. The economy in CA will no doubt collapse, what with having to get by on taxing Google, Intel ...

 

[specklebang]

Most of my personal fortune was generated between 1986-2000, so the early part was Reagan taxed and the rest Clinton taxed.

I was thrilled to be a top bracket earner. My earnings were well in excess if my needs. Since virtually all my income was "on the books" business earnings that flowed through my S Corp channel, I paid the full freight unlike those who earn "capital gains" and pay lower rates. I was anything but sad.

Looking at the paychecks of more average workers, I realized that I got a huge discount when I hit the FICA cap. Lets say you make just $100K a year. Almost $15K will be paid to FICA. Now lets say you make 1 million a year, why you'll not pay that once you get to $150K (or whatever the cap is right now). So in a way, the lower incomes share a higher burden than the higher incomes do.

Nobody enjoys paying taxes. Why would you? But it's an integral part of the system since my suggestion that they stop taxing and increase printing has fallen on deaf ears in Washington. They didn't pick this up either despite the sheer brilliance of my plan SPECKLE-TAX

Living well is the best revenge

I'm sorry, but when I see "it must be tough to make, etc., " in a discussion about tax liability, the sentiment is usually obvious. Perhaps you're an exception to the rule.

 

[haymarket]

the article makes clear that 45 of the so called 60 points are levied by a foreign country - NOT the USA.

According to Forbes, Mickelson has been subjected to the United Kingdom’s 45 percent tax rate for those who make more than £150,000 a year. In addition, the magazine reports, he will be taxed on a portion of the endorsement income he earned during his time in Scotland.

 

[haymarket]

Until you have to fork over 53% yourself I don't think you're in any position to suggest that rate is appropriate for others.

That is blatantly false. As an American citizen, the poster has a Constitutional right to speak on matters of public policy and it is anti-American to suggest that it is wrong for him to speak out on this issue.

 

[notquiteright]

:lamo All I can say is I hope you're right. I'll bet all the people he employs hope he stays rich and gets richer.That's the curious thing about progressives, you envy the rich, but then latch all your plans to their money. I would think you'd be smart enough to understand such a scheme requires them to keep earning the big bucks. Instead, you want to denegrate and penalize. Very curious indeed.

What is curious to me is I didn't lay claim to one red cent of his, yet you try and spin the discussion as if I did. I never said he should pay 61% of his gross income in taxes, what I said was he damn sure doesn't and he has offered ZERO proof he does.

I AM smart enough to know foundations and trusts are set-up for the day when the big bucks stop rolling in. At 5% of the endowment a foundation never runs out of money.

Multimillionaires are very coy about their worth, but let us say he is worth between 150 and 200 million. (I read 180 million according to Forbes awhile back) I'd say he really doesn't have to work too hard from here on out, don't you agree?

Now I never denigrated nor called for a loud mouth snook penalty on Phil, but what i find curious is some want to have a pity party for the man over taxes when he is worth MILLIONS, is increasing that by hefty jumps so his 61% lament is utter BS, has his tax dodges set-up, AND changing states- which last I heard he had walked back- wouldn't dent the bulk of any tax burden he didn't have accountants dodge, that bulk being federal.

I wish him nothing but continued success, but this country has been nothing but good to him so he ought to just smile, say thank you very much and go back to his wonderful family and the Family compound.

Or move to whatever country he thinks he will get a better deal in... eace

 

[ocean515]

Most of my personal fortune was generated between 1986-2000, so the early part was Reagan taxed and the rest Clinton taxed.

I was thrilled to be a top bracket earner. My earnings were well in excess if my needs. Since virtually all my income was "on the books" business earnings that flowed through my S Corp channel, I paid the full freight unlike those who earn "capital gains" and pay lower rates. I was anything but sad.

Looking at the paychecks of more average workers, I realized that I got a huge discount when I hit the FICA cap. Lets say you make just $100K a year. Almost $15K will be paid to FICA. Now lets say you make 1 million a year, why you'll not pay that once you get to $150K (or whatever the cap is right now). So in a way, the lower incomes share a higher burden than the higher incomes do.

Nobody enjoys paying taxes. Why would you? But it's an integral part of the system since my suggestion that they stop taxing and increase printing has fallen on deaf ears in Washington. They didn't pick this up either despite the sheer brilliance of my plan SPECKLE-TAX

Living well is the best revenge

Well, as to FICA, when they remove the cap on distributions, then they should remove the cap on contributions.

The greatest folly of the tax the "rich" scheme is the volitility of the income the "rich" receive. One year taxable income could be tens of millions, the next year it could be zero.

If the demand if for the rich to carry the burden of supplying revenue to the government, then everything possible should be done to keep them rich, and have them get richer.

Absurdly, that is not how liberal/progressives act. California is the greatest example of this tax the "rich" absurdity. Unfortunately, it seems they plan to continue this path to irrelavance and fiscal mediocrity.

 

[ocean515]

What is curious to me is I didn't lay claim to one red cent of his, yet you try and spin the discussion as if I did. I never said he should pay 61% of his gross income in taxes, what I said was he damn sure doesn't and he has offered ZERO proof he does.

I AM smart enough to know foundations and trusts are set-up for the day when the big bucks stop rolling in. At 5% of the endowment a foundation never runs out of money.

Multimillionaires are very coy about their worth, but let us say he is worth between 150 and 200 million. (I read 180 million according to Forbes awhile back) I'd say he really doesn't have to work too hard from here on out, don't you agree?

Now I never denigrated nor called for a loud mouth snook penalty on Phil, but what i find curious is some want to have a pity party for the man over taxes when he is worth MILLIONS, is increasing that by hefty jumps so his 61% lament is utter BS, has his tax dodges set-up, AND changing states- which last I heard he had walked back- wouldn't dent the bulk of any tax burden he didn't have accountants dodge, that bulk being federal.

I wish him nothing but continued success, but this country has been nothing but good to him so he ought to just smile, say thank you very much and go back to his wonderful family and the Family compound.

Or move to whatever country he thinks he will get a better deal in... eace

Okie dokie.

Or you could thank him for the $10's of millions he pays in taxes as a result of his individual effort, as opposed to bitching about his complaints over how much of his own money he has to pay out.

As I have written, since progressives are so dependant on people like him to fill the larder, allowing a complaint or two shouldn't be that hard a thing to do.

It suggests much that is seems that is unlikely to happen.

 

[head of joaquin]

It's always inspiring to see conservatives defending the desire of oppressed multimillionaires to pay less to the society that made them wealthy.

 

[head of joaquin]

Okie dokie.

Or you could thank him for the $10's of millions he pays in taxes as a result of his individual effort, as opposed to bitching about his complaints over how much of his own money he has to pay out.

As I have written, since progressives are so dependant on people like him to fill the larder, allowing a complaint or two shouldn't be that hard a thing to do.

It suggests much that is seems that is unlikely to happen.

Pssst: you got it reversed. Progressive modern societies make it possible for guys like Mickleson to become multimillionaires. Aren't too many progolfers in Afghanistan and Somalia -- the conservatives' paradise of low taxes.

 

[head of joaquin]

61 percent rate...
The world’s top golfer —who came under fire earlier this year when he complained about his supposed 60 percent tax rate as a California resident — is taking another hit on his recent earnings

How will California -- the largest US state economy and the 10th largest economy in the world -- survive without Phil Mickelson ? This is a disaster.

I hope he enjoys living in Alabama. He can watch the polluted swamp water flow by his porch.

 

[Baralis]

61 percent rate...

And with California looking to confiscate over 13%, it's no wonder Phil has put his Southern California home up for sale.

Phil Mickelson Faces 61 Percent Tax Rate Following Back-To-Back Wins « CBS Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Thanks to his recent wins at both The Open Championship and the Scottish Open, Phil Mickelson pocketed more than $2.16 million in just two weeks.

The world’s top golfer —who came under fire earlier this year when he complained about his supposed 60 percent tax rate as a California resident — is taking another hit on his recent earnings.​

Is he justified to complain about his tax bill, or is he just another greedy 1%'er?

Meh, when you make $2.16 million in just two weeks to play golf I just cant feel any remorse.

 

[notquiteright]

Okie dokie. Or you could thank him for the $10's of millions he pays in taxes as a result of his individual effort, as opposed to bitching about his complaints over how much of his own money he has to pay out. As I have written, since progressives are so dependant on people like him to fill the larder, allowing a complaint or two shouldn't be that hard a thing to do. It suggests much that is seems that is unlikely to happen.

More vague, pointless partisan hackery. First he isn't paying any 'more' than his due, same as the rest of us and he gets several sweeeeeet tax dodges the vast majority of us don't have assess to. Second HE and a few harpies are bitching over his taxes, not me, again you twist what is said. Third I pay my taxes and am not dependent on him. The F35 project maybe but not me.

Like I said, he oughta shut-up, pose with the big check, have his accountants bury the tax liability like a cat does crap, and smile all the way home. He, and for that matter, NO ONE has shown where he pays anymore than 25% of his after all tax deductions income in taxes. His 61% percent lament is pure bull crap. (Seeing how KPMG is a major Phil backer he ought to stop embarrassing them- they are a major player in tax consulting, he is saying they can't help him :shock: )

But let him move, I'll hold the door for him and make sure it closes firmly after he leaves. This nation really doesn't need his money- as long as he takes his happy ass on out the country :2wave:

 

[Lukas105]

Not many people with money there to tax. Plus the way those countries are, they don't rely on taxes as much as the western world.

Pssst: you got it reversed. Progressive modern societies make it possible for guys like Mickleson to become multimillionaires. Aren't too many progolfers in Afghanistan and Somalia -- the conservatives' paradise of low taxes.

 

[specklebang]

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

Tell you what, I'll give you the win on the FICA cap. Now, you explain capital gains to me. If I go to work and get paid $1M, I'll end up paying about 1/3 of my income net.

If I place my money with an investment banker and make $1M, I'll pay 15%.

While I don't think taxing "the rich" is a terrible thing in and of itself, and I don't think exempting the poor is a wisdom either, I'd say that the tax rates are pretty reasonable and functional. All these thoughts are predicated on the assumption that we need taxes at all.

Now CA is, well, special. You get the best weather in the world. You have miles of beautiful coastline. You have Rodeo Drive, you have surfers. So yeah, they do hit you pretty hard. But I see that 32 million of you still like living there while I live in a state so barren that the USG owns 90% of the land. So, you sort of get what you pay for.

As for income volatility, yes, I'm very familiar with that. That's why I have always chosen to live modestly, below my means. I don't have mortgages or car payments. I don't have "rob-me" Rolexes. During the fat times, I saved for the lean times. During the early lean times, I saved every possible penny I could to enhance my ability to transcend the barriers to entry for the good times. Nobody is being charged 100% of their income.

Even though I do understand your dismissal of the FICA fees, no matter your income, you will pay sales tax on everything you buy. So if you are rich and buy a Scion and Joe is poor and buys a Scion, you will pay the identical amount of tax. Same goes for FICA, you and Joe will max out at $150K and when you retire, you and Joe will get the same maximum payout.

Balance. It's all about balance. Thats why I keep pushing my tax plan since it matches everyone with their finances. Is it form before function or function before form?

Good conversation. Thanks.

Well, as to FICA, when they remove the cap on distributions, then they should remove the cap on contributions.

The greatest folly of the tax the "rich" scheme is the volitility of the income the "rich" receive. One year taxable income could be tens of millions, the next year it could be zero.

If the demand if for the rich to carry the burden of supplying revenue to the government, then everything possible should be done to keep them rich, and have them get richer.

Absurdly, that is not how liberal/progressives act. California is the greatest example of this tax the "rich" absurdity. Unfortunately, it seems they plan to continue this path to irrelavance and fiscal mediocrity.

 

[head of joaquin]

Not many people with money there to tax. Plus the way those countries are, they don't rely on taxes as much as the western world.

Yeah, I wonder if there is a relationship between low tax low productive primitive economies and high tax productive advanced economies?

Wait, there is -- a direct relationship.

Like I say, typical of market evangelists -- they got it ass-backwards. Modern economies that make pro-golfers rich require lots of public revenue.

NEXT RIGHTWING MEME!

 

[PeteEU]

Got to love he (and others in this thread) are blaming California for high taxes, when most of the taxes are taken in the UK.

News flash... if he wants to complain about taxes, then dont go play golf in the UK.. then he wont have to pay the high taxes.

Phil keeps justifying my dislike of his arrogant ass..

 

[Jack Fabulous]

That is blatantly false. As an American citizen, the poster has a Constitutional right to speak on matters of public policy and it is anti-American to suggest that it is wrong for him to speak out on this issue.

Blatantly false!:lol: Constitutional right!:lol: Anti-American!:lol:


Sure, every citizen has the right to tell us how much of other people's money they think they are entitled to. Just don't expect those opinions to resonate with those of us who see class envy for what it really is.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

It's always inspiring to see conservatives defending the desire of oppressed multimillionaires to pay less to the society that made them wealthy.

As it is to see progressives professing to be the rightful beneficiaries of the personal achievements of others.