Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Higher Taxes may force Phil Mickelson into Retirement


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
105 replies to this topic

#25 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • Joined: 12-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,718
  • Reputation: 35
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:36 PM

Anyone giving almost 40% of what they earn to the government is pretty disgusting. He should move to another country with lower tax rates.

#26 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

Anyone giving almost 40% of what they earn to the government is pretty disgusting. He should move to another country with lower tax rates.


Doesn't work that way

#27 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,303
  • Reputation: 483
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

He'd take flack from liberals claiming he's running from his obligations. Another country, another county, another state, another bank in a Carribean island...it's about covetting what people have that drive liberals.

#28 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,448
  • Reputation: 1,586
SUPPORTER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

It was fuzz who drove me into detail.

I felt like I had to break it down to the ridiculous for him to comprehend.



I understand what you are saying. I don't think that you and I have the same definition of quitting.

If I turn in my 2 weeks notice, now or in 6 months, I am still quitting my job.

I just think that it's funny that a program that you so very badly wanted, is not nearly as nice as the program that you have now.

#29 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,448
  • Reputation: 1,586
SUPPORTER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

Anyone giving almost 40% of what they earn to the government is pretty disgusting. He should move to another country with lower tax rates.



That's not even talking about property taxes, sales taxes, and the sort.

#30 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,799
  • Reputation: 6,974
Moderators

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:50 PM

I just think that it's funny that a program that you so very badly wanted, is not nearly as nice as the program that you have now.


Who on earth argued that public insurance would be better than private? Do you make up stances for people then argue with them like they said it?

I feel like our resident conservatives have swung so far right they've become almost certifiable

The option is needed and I stand behind the fact that it will work and benefit us as a whole.


#31 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

http://readingisfors...nal-golfer.html

Whoa. Sounds kind of drastic to quit your career entirely, but I guess if the government is confiscating that much of your hard earned money, then there's probably really little incentive to continue, right?

Well, I was curious to see how much money the poor guy would be left with after Obama's IRS Gestapos were through raiding his wallet. It seems in 2011, he was merely the second highest paid athlete, with a pitiful $62 million (both salary and endorsements).

So let's do some quick calculations. If we take that number and tax it at the rate Mickelson claims, 63% (it almost certainly wouldn't actually be that high since we have progressive taxation, and things like Social security taxes only apply to the first $108k, but I digress), his after tax income comes in at an utterly depressing $23 million. Who the hell can live on such a meager amount, I ask?! You might as well make nothing!



Q. How do you balance that against the TOUR’s retirement plan which by all standards is the best retirement plan in sports?

PHIL MICKELSON: I don’t understand. What do you mean?

Q. Well, I mean I understand the 60 percent part of the equation, but in the TOUR’s plan, you guys put about as much money aside as you want. It’s treated differently under tax laws than most anybody else’s tax plans. Where most people can only put away $45,000 or $50,000, you guys can put as much away as you want. And so at the end you guys end up with a much larger pot of gold than most people can.

PHIL MICKELSON: But when it comes out, it’s still taxed at the same 62 percent rate.

Q. Well, you’re still making that kind of money. That’s if you’re still in that bracket.

PHIL MICKELSON: (No response.)


let us all weep for some dipshit professional golfer

#32 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,926
  • Reputation: 3,141
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:37 PM

well, he is sponsored by KPMG.

#33 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • Joined: 12-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,718
  • Reputation: 35
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:50 PM

Doesn't work that way

You hear about corporations moving out of the US every day. Surely making his $$$ he'd be incorporated.

#34 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,189
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:53 PM

I don't blame him for wanting to leave Cali.

Personally I don't blame anyone for wanting to leave California, at least the urban parts of it anyway.

#35 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,189
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:11 PM

You hear about corporations moving out of the US every day. Surely making his $$$ he'd be incorporated.


That is the perception, but its not necessarily the reality. Relatively speaking, very few companies move their hq from one country to another. And outsourcing is not as popular as it use to be. The rising cost of transportation has leveled the playing field to an extent.

Factories leaving China

U.S. companies are leaving China and heading to other parts of the world, including back home. One of the reasons, of course, is rising wage costs in mainland China compared to other nations in the region, and declining wages in the U.S.
Highlighted in a feature report in China Daily on Wednesday, a California LED light company called Seesmart said it was building factories in California and Illinois, instead of expanding their presence in China.
“When we do the numbers we’re actually ahead manufacturing here instead of paying for air freight and dealing with the logistical issues that we’re having in China,” Raymond Sjolseth, the company’s president and co-founder, was quoted as saying in the paper on Wednesday


Taxes are only one of the issues to consider when deciding where to put a company or its manufacturing centers.

#36 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    Blazing Trails Thru the NFC South

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,331
  • Reputation: 4,583
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:20 PM

Phil, Phil, Phil.

Now come on Lefty you know you're not going to quit just because the tax man takes 10s of millions per year out of your pocket.

Make your primary residence somewhere other than Ca yeah. Feinstein, Pelosi and Brown are doing their best to tax and spend this state into oblivion
And like Biscuit says, work on that putter.