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This topic has been archived.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

#97 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:13 PM

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

#98 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,030
  • Reputation: 443
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:15 PM

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


he doesn't.

#99 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:25 PM

Certainly felt pressure from people to...

I hope NC ditches the state income tax too

#100 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,030
  • Reputation: 443
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:27 PM

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.

#101 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:49 PM

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.

#102 FugginPoo

FugginPoo

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 31-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,968
  • Reputation: 485
HUDDLER

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:27 PM

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.

#103 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:15 PM

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

#104 FugginPoo

FugginPoo

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 31-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,968
  • Reputation: 485
HUDDLER

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:23 PM

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

#105 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

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

#106 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:05 PM

ahaha of course we're now going to shift this to the estate tax

hate to break it to you but i don't give one single fug about it. the only thing that concerns me about the estate tax is that it isn't higher.