105 replies to this topic

[mmmbeans]

rich people are
"evil"
"out of touch"
"cheap"
"mean"

poor people are
"lazy"
"fatter"
"stupid"
"annoying"

[SZ James]

tiger woods is

"a jerk"
"asian"
"a lousy tipper"
"dead"

To this day I still have a 50 dollar bill that Tiger left at a restaurant for 'the next group of people that sits here' which happened to be my fam.

[mmmbeans]

To this day I still have a 50 dollar bill that Tiger left at a restaurant for 'the next group of people that sits here' which happened to be my fam.

TIL: Black people reverse tip.

[longtriad]

He's nice to his fans

When you type "Phil Mickelson is..."

you can choose from... A douche
A jerk
A phony
A scumbag
Etc.

I'd probably start there but since you're his fangirl you probably don't want your fantasy crushed

Typical golfer.

[Happy Panther]

I never get tired of hearing rich people cry about money. It's my favorite kind of news. Much better than actual poor people who work their asses off crying about money.

Crying about taxes is different than crying about money.

When you hear an NBA player talk about needing to feed their family, that is a rich person crying about money..

[Darth Biscuit]

Typical golfer.

I see that just like Sheikh Zula, you didn't actually bother to do the search either...

[g5jamz]

Why should Phil have to apologize for what he said...

[mmmbeans]

Why should Phil have to apologize for what he said...

he doesn't.

[g5jamz]

Certainly felt pressure from people to...

I hope NC ditches the state income tax too

[mmmbeans]

Certainly felt pressure from people to...

I hope NC ditches the state income tax too

sorry that's the free market. when you get paid millions upon millions of dollars because people like watching you put a ball in a hole... your public image is important.

[longtriad]

Taxes are already, disgustingly high. It is not like we live in Canada where they provide health care in exchange for a 40% tax rate. Our version of universal health care: You have to buy health insurance of get penalized.

[FugginPoo]

Mickleson is only making 26 cents on every dollar he earns
..........

Defending Phil Mickelson

Brian S. Wesbury – Chief Economist
Bob Stein, CFA – Senior Economist
Date: 1/28/2013

Top golfer Phil Mickelson became a social-media whipping boy last week for saying high taxes were forcing him to consider “drastic changes,” in his life. We suppose these could include moving away from California, or possibly quitting golf.

Liberal bloggers had a field day, with some sarcastically saying we should all chip in to help the poor guy out with his burdens. But this criticism masks the facts.

Even if Mickelson retired from playing golf, he would earn enough from ads, appearances, and maybe golf-course design to put him in the top tax bracket. He would pay 39.6% in federal income tax and 13.3% in state taxes to California. Factoring-in the deductibility of state income taxes (as well as the “Pease” phase-out of those deductions), his combined tax rate is 49%. Medicare taxes push his marginal rate to 52%. So, the government takes more than half of what he earns. If we add sales taxes on consumption, the total moves to 55%.
But it gets worse. Mickelson already has enough wealth to satisfy him and his wife for the rest of their lives. So, in effect, he’s really just working for his kids. But his estate, which is grown using after-tax dollars (just 48% of income) will get taxed at a 40% rate when he dies. After this death tax, his children will be able to consume only 29 cents for every $1 their dad earned, 26 cents if we include California sales taxes.

No one is arguing his kids are headed for the poorhouse. But knowing how little extra spending he can generate from extra work, Mickelson and other high earners would be crazy not to consider “drastic changes.” When golfers, business executives, brain surgeons and many others retire early because of high tax rates, we all end up losing. We pay more for what they produce and the government gets less revenue.

Free citizens have choices, like where to live and whether to work. When the government breaks the basic link between how much government costs and the benefits it provides to taxpayers, it is the government that should come under scrutiny, not the citizens that consider making changes to avoid the cost.

French actor Gerard Depardieu recently fled France’s confiscatory tax hikes, taking up Russian citizenship and heading for Belgium, instead. The only way to stop this migration is for politicians to make “drastic changes” in the size, scope and cost of government. Until then, individuals, like Mickelson, will react to protect themselves.

[thatlookseasy]

Mickleson is only making 26 cents on every dollar he earns
..........

Defending Phil Mickelson

Brian S. Wesbury – Chief Economist
Bob Stein, CFA – Senior Economist
Date: 1/28/2013

Top golfer Phil Mickelson became a social-media whipping boy last week for saying high taxes were forcing him to consider “drastic changes,” in his life. We suppose these could include moving away from California, or possibly quitting golf.

Liberal bloggers had a field day, with some sarcastically saying we should all chip in to help the poor guy out with his burdens. But this criticism masks the facts.

Even if Mickelson retired from playing golf, he would earn enough from ads, appearances, and maybe golf-course design to put him in the top tax bracket. He would pay 39.6% in federal income tax and 13.3% in state taxes to California. Factoring-in the deductibility of state income taxes (as well as the “Pease” phase-out of those deductions), his combined tax rate is 49%. Medicare taxes push his marginal rate to 52%. So, the government takes more than half of what he earns. If we add sales taxes on consumption, the total moves to 55%.
But it gets worse. Mickelson already has enough wealth to satisfy him and his wife for the rest of their lives. So, in effect, he’s really just working for his kids. But his estate, which is grown using after-tax dollars (just 48% of income) will get taxed at a 40% rate when he dies. After this death tax, his children will be able to consume only 29 cents for every $1 their dad earned, 26 cents if we include California sales taxes.

No one is arguing his kids are headed for the poorhouse. But knowing how little extra spending he can generate from extra work, Mickelson and other high earners would be crazy not to consider “drastic changes.” When golfers, business executives, brain surgeons and many others retire early because of high tax rates, we all end up losing. We pay more for what they produce and the government gets less revenue.

Free citizens have choices, like where to live and whether to work. When the government breaks the basic link between how much government costs and the benefits it provides to taxpayers, it is the government that should come under scrutiny, not the citizens that consider making changes to avoid the cost.

French actor Gerard Depardieu recently fled France’s confiscatory tax hikes, taking up Russian citizenship and heading for Belgium, instead. The only way to stop this migration is for politicians to make “drastic changes” in the size, scope and cost of government. Until then, individuals, like Mickelson, will react to protect themselves.

So is that first line a true/ false question? I'm going with false

[FugginPoo]

True. See federal plus State Income Tax plus CA sales taxes plus Death Tax

[thatlookseasy]

True. See federal plus State Income Tax plus CA sales taxes plus Death Tax

Did you even read what you pasted? Thats the hypothetical tax rate his kids would pay if Phil was a dick and didnt give his kids any money until after he dies.

aka not his tax rate