or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 8

post #127 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by burtonda View Post

 

History doesn't support these claims.  The top income tax bracket in the 1950's and most of the 1960's hovered near 90% and the stock market was booming.  Many people worked hard and got rich during this time

 

There's a difference between wages and capital gains.  Try raising the income tax to 90% and see how that works.  People stop working overtime, they take stock options in lieu of wages, they invest in tax free muni's, they move to Belgium...

post #128 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies View Post

John Feinstein made it clear in his excellent book " A Good Walk Spoiled", that most of these pampered PGA Tour Players politics are "to the right of Atilla The Hun" none the less,

Phil should be ashamed of himself- not only has he done irreperable damage to his image but more importantly, revealed a more candid portrait of his true character -or rather lack thereof.

 

John Feinstein is to the left of Robert Mugabe.  He's a bloated, pampered, big-government, parrot.  His books are all but unreadable. Great content.  Horrible writer.

 

He's a taller, fatter Bob Costas.  Niether of those guys should be paid as much as a social worker, a mental health professional or an elementary school teacher.

post #129 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraiginKSA View Post

 

John Feinstein is to the left of Robert Mugabe.  He's a bloated, pampered, big-government, parrot.  His books are all but unreadable. Great content.  Horrible writer.

 

He's a taller, fatter Bob Costas.  Niether of those guys should be paid as much as a social worker, a mental health professional or an elementary school teacher.


I have no idea of Feinstein's politics but he's perhaps America's best and most respected golf writer. As far as his comments about the politics of pro golfers, there was a poll in either Golf or Golf Digest 10 or so years ago, along with some comments from tour pro's and the overwhelming majority were Republican. I don't think too many of them actually concern themselves with the nuts and bolts of politics but most come from country club backgrounds and that demographic is overwhelmingly Republican.

post #130 of 288

Did you read the article?  Phil isn't complaining so much about the Federal Income Tax hike as he is about Prop 30 in California.

 

What's unpatriotic is that there are people in this country that believe they are entitled to a free ride.  This country was founded on opportunity but now is stuck in the muck of voters asking their politicians "What free stuff am I going to get if I vote for you".  The wealthy overall have always been generous with their money, they are pushing back now because no matter how much they give, the government still wants more. 

 

The left, led by Obama has vilified the wealthy and convinced the voting public that the wealthy have enough and that everyone else is entitled to free stuff.  There was a time when people like Phil, Bill Gates, Tiger, Walton, Zuckerberg were admired because they represented the American dream.  Today they are the enemy because they won't willingly pay 70% of their income in the form of taxes so the parasites can get more free phones and beer. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies View Post

With so many people struggling to make ends meet it is truly apalling that someone generally as media savvy as Phil would make such a calous and boneheaded comment.

 

The "exorbitant" tax increase he is whining about is a paltry 3% (simply a restoration of the Clinton Era tax rate ) and  only impacts income over 450,000.....you'd think that he was paying his fair share or something akin to it for all his bitchin'.

 

Let's remember that under GOP President Eisenhower the top tax rate was 91%....Phil is only going to pay 39.6%....which provides badly needed revenue to invest in job-creating infrastructure projects that will build and upgrade the roads that Phil drives his Escalade upon to see the people who can then afford to attend his tournaments.

 

A Shameful display of unpatriotic and compassionless self entitlement when he should be thanking God that he has such a gig at which he is priviliged to be payed so much that he qualifies for that tax bracket.  According to Forbes Phil is the 7th highest paid athlete....he gets all that money for hitting a little ball into a little hole ...he does not educate children, work with the poor, assist the elderly nor seek a cure for cancer....his "added value" falls far short of your local public school teacher, social worker or mental health worker -all of whom do far more for far less with no such whining.

 

John Feinstein made it clear in his excellent book " A Good Walk Spoiled", that most of these pampered PGA Tour Players politics are "to the right of Atilla The Hun" none the less,

Phil should be ashamed of himself- not only has he done irreperable damage to his image but more importantly, revealed a more candid portrait of his true character -or rather lack thereof.

 

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" - Oliver Wendell Holmes

post #131 of 288

The wealthy will always lean right because most of them are business people who know the proper way to run a business and recognize that the federal government is a cesspool of waste and abuse. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post


I have no idea of Feinstein's politics but he's perhaps America's best and most respected golf writer. As far as his comments about the politics of pro golfers, there was a poll in either Golf or Golf Digest 10 or so years ago, along with some comments from tour pro's and the overwhelming majority were Republican. I don't think too many of them actually concern themselves with the nuts and bolts of politics but most come from country club backgrounds and that demographic is overwhelmingly Republican.

post #132 of 288
Quote:
There's a difference between wages and capital gains.  Try raising the income tax to 90% and see how that works.  People stop working overtime, they take stock options in lieu of wages, they invest in tax free muni's, they move to Belgium...

 

He's right, when the capital gains is 20%, and income is 90%, most people will defer to stock options, and make money that way. 

Also, stock market has nothing to do with income. Of course there will be a downturn in the stock market if taxes are raised higher, there's a drop in the stock market when congress can't decide on a tax plan period. The reason the stock market boomed, was because it was still rebounding from the great depression, baby boomers returned from WWII giving an influx of workers to the system, and times were stable. Stock market isn't directly related to taxes, though taxes can have short term effects on the stock market. Once things are settled for long periods of time, stock market will normalize and its business as usual. But this isn't a logical way to think that we should condone taxing people at such a high rate, just because the stock market will survive. Its a matter that, those who want lower taxes believe that people have the right to keep what they earn, and the rest think that hardwork shouldn't be rewarded. 

 

Profits, sales, services, you all pay a price for them, you don't have to buy that Flat Screen TV, you don't have to buy that new car, but you do, and you are basically accepting that you agree that is a price worth paying. You have no right to complain about how much the CEO of that company gets when you pay for a good. No one's twisting your arm here. 

 

 

 

Quote:
The left, led by Obama has vilified the wealthy and convinced the voting public that the wealthy have enough and that everyone else is entitled to free stuff.  There was a time when people like Phil, Bill Gates, Tiger, Walton, Zuckerberg were admired because they represented the American dream.  Today they are the enemy because they won't willingly pay 70% of their income in the form of taxes so the parasites can get more free phones and beer. 

 

I have to agree, we have went from a country that celebrates success to one that condemns it. 

post #133 of 288

The ordinary income tax rate was over 90%. But it isn't an apples to apples comparision. There was an incredible amount of tax shelters and the like. Great for accountants. Not so much for the economy. If you look at the stats from back then guys making over 1 million paid about 30% (note 1 million back then is probably more like 10 today) while in 2011 the number for that guy (actually 5 million but close enough) was a bit over 22%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraiginKSA View Post

 

There's a difference between wages and capital gains.  Try raising the income tax to 90% and see how that works.  People stop working overtime, they take stock options in lieu of wages, they invest in tax free muni's, they move to Belgium...

 

 

The government is not a business.  There is a reason why the people with the best business creds have been the worst presidents. A CEO can lead by fiat. The president can't do that. He needs to build consensus and persuade people to follow him. The poor also lean towards the right (look at any election map). At the top it is split. The tech billionaires I know are pretty liberal. The VC's (in the same 10 mile radius) are a lot more conservative (would still be a Texas Liberal though:)). 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

The wealthy will always lean right because most of them are business people who know the proper way to run a business and recognize that the federal government is a cesspool of waste and abuse. 

post #134 of 288

I would like to give a possible scenario regarding taxes.

There are two electricians working side-by-side.  They earn the same amount, have similar sized families, similar bills, etc.  They both decide they need a little extra to help them get by.  One decides to create a small farm in his backyard (he has the knowledge or learns how to do this). He raises animals that he can eat.  He grows a large garden and cans veggies so he can eat them year around.  The other electrician decides the small farm route is not feasible for him (not enough room in his yard), so he finds a part time job.  At the end of the year one electrician is asked to share some of his earnings (taxes) and the other is not.  Just does not seem right to me.

post #135 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuffluck View Post


i get the philosophy, but most of his money is from being an entertainer.  that's one of those professions that i think people involved should wipe their forehead and go, "phew, i am sure lucky this occupation pays a lot."  you don't see the world's best janitor get paid millions, and i would argue we *need* people like him more than phil.  like i said earlier, if he were curing AIDS or about to initiate world peace, i would probably argue his contribution to society is ample enough to warrant lower taxes.  just playing golf for a living...come on.  he needs to keep his mouth shut and take 35% of his paycheck and go home.  if you want to talk "drastic changes," go ask a single mother of 3 with a 30k income that just lost her job what she thinks of phil's comments.

 

i know he is a philanthropist and i like that about him, but donations don't come without their fair share of tax benefits.  it is nearly a moot point in this argument.

This entire post just seems to ooze wealth envy. He should just take his 35%, shut up & go home? Really? Does that apply to you as well? And what difference does it make when it comes to what he does for living? Does the fact that he's not a janitor mean he should be grateful to keep whatever money you think he should have? Where's the line, what jobs do you think deserve lower taxes?

 

As for your comparison with the single mother. Why does she have 3 kids she can't afford to pay for? Why should others have more money taken from them in order to help cover the expenses of such an irresponsible person? Perhaps the "Drastic change" that woman could've made was to decide to not have kids that she couldn't afford on her own.

post #136 of 288

Government can be run as a business if the policies are sound and fair.  The reason it's so difficult today is because the agendas of the two parties differ so greatly and neither party is concerned about running the country efficiently.  There are a number of issues I disagree with the GOP on, but fiscally their plan is more sound than the democrats. 

 

BTW, everyone is a liberal outside of Texas. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

The government is not a business.  There is a reason why the people with the best business creds have been the worst presidents. A CEO can lead by fiat. The president can't do that. He needs to build consensus and persuade people to follow him. The poor also lean towards the right (look at any election map). At the top it is split. The tech billionaires I know are pretty liberal. The VC's (in the same 10 mile radius) are a lot more conservative (would still be a Texas Liberal though:)). 

post #137 of 288

Why didn't the old person take care of themselves? They had 50 years to prepare for retirement. It is a lot harder for a 3 year old to prepare themselves for being born to a poor mom.

 

No one buys booze or cigs with EBT cards. They buy them with the cash they save from using EBT cards. If the VA has work available, they would have no problem hiring people to fill those jobs. Having the government provide free labor is a real bad idea. Read about the prison work programs to see how well that goes.  The studies of welfare suggest there are few long term receiptants (most go on and off as their employment situation changes) and the ones that are long term ones, tend to be stupid (i.e. IQs under 80) and have mental problems.

 

 

Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Because I have no issue with taking care of people that cannot take care of themselves.  I give to many charities not for the tax deduction or because I'm such a nice guy but because I believe in paying it forward. 

 

I also resent having to pay for welfare families to sit at home and do nothing but collect checks from hard working people.  These parasites buy booze and cigarettes with EBT cards and make no attempt to get work.  I will gladly help those people who need help to get on their feet but in return I want them to pay it forward by going to a VA hospital and help our wounded soldiers, clean up the streets and parks in their neighborhood, volunteer at local homeless shelters, anything constructive besides sitting at home and collecting a check. 

 

 

 

 

Your graph has nothing to do with tax rates.  There is a number that effects actions. Most economists put it at about 60-75%. We are on the backside of the Laeffer curve. Raising rates will raise revenue.  Again if someone offered you a job paying a 1 million a year, would you turn it down if you had to pay 60% taxes?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraiginKSA View Post

It doesn't matter what the marginal tax rate is.  People will adjust their behaviour.  If the tax rate gets too high, people will simply stop working or producing because it just isn't worth it.  There is a level of taxation that people are willing to pay.  It's between 10% and 20% of their income.  After that, they alter their behavior.  Here's a graph that shows tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.  The marginal tax rate is irrelevant to the percentage of tax reciepts.  But if you grow the economy, it's the same percentage of a larger number, so the revenue is larger.

 

File:U.S. Federal Tax Receipts as a Percentage of GDP 1945–2015.jpg

 
post #138 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetsknicks1 View Post

 

As for your comparison with the single mother. Why does she have 3 kids she can't afford to pay for? Why should others have more money taken from them in order to help cover the expenses of such an irresponsible person? Perhaps the "Drastic change" that woman could've made was to decide to not have kids that she couldn't afford on her own.

     I am not sure anyone plans to lose their job or raise kids on their own which was the example put forward in the earlier posts. Granted their are people that could have made better decisions but I find it interesting that in this scenario you blame the woman. That is very telling about our society and they way we appoint blame to gender within the framework of parental responsibility.  Was it immaculate conception? Also, even if we accept that "the woman" is to blame why should the kids suffer? 

post #139 of 288

To be fair to Phil, the poor bloke has to go work everyday wearing a shirt advertising Barclays Bank. No amount of money in the world would compel me to that.

post #140 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

     I am not sure anyone plans to lose their job or raise kids on their own which was the example put forward in the earlier posts. Granted their are people that could have made better decisions but I find it interesting that in this scenario you blame the woman. That is very telling about our society and they way we appoint blame to gender within the framework of parental responsibility.  Was it immaculate conception? Also, even if we accept that "the woman" is to blame why should the kids suffer? 

It is the ultimate responsibility of the woman of the woman in this case as to whether she gets pregnant or not. Are all 3 kids by the same man? Does he not pat to support them? If not, then go after him and make him pay. My more general point was that there is now a large segment of our population that live their lives irresponsably(sp) and then expect others to help pay for their mistakes and bad decisions.

post #141 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

The government is not a business.  There is a reason why the people with the best business creds have been the worst presidents. A CEO can lead by fiat. The president can't do that. He needs to build consensus and persuade people to follow him. The poor also lean towards the right (look at any election map). At the top it is split. The tech billionaires I know are pretty liberal. The VC's (in the same 10 mile radius) are a lot more conservative (would still be a Texas Liberal though:)). 

 

Since when does he need consensus?  I hate that term.  He needs a simple majority. I'm looking for the right answer, not consensus. 

 

Consensus is the absense of leadership - Margaret Thatcher. 

 

And this tool that we have in the white house right now IS leading by fiat.  Only it's not called a fiat.  It's called an Executive Order.

post #142 of 288

This isn't your father's economy.

post #143 of 288
To be honest Im glad to hear him speaking straight from his head, it definitely gives more insight than the usual political BS we get in interviews.
post #144 of 288

As a Professor of History, Philosophy and Humanities now for over 30 years I am saddened but amused by your virtually complete stereotypes and Fox sounbites du jour regarding the current state of public affairs.....complete with the obligatory "parasites" reference...you certainly parrot your Rush, Fox and Friends well!

 

However in my profession we are function in the universe of FACTS....here are but a few :

 

American income inequality has skyrocketed over the past 30 years, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute.

From the report:

"In the United States as a whole, the poorest fifth of households had an average income of $20,510, while the top fifth had an average income of $164,490 — eight times as much, this top-to-bottom ratio exceeded 8.0. In the late 1970s, in contrast, no state had a top-to-bottom ratio exceeding 8.0."

The United States currently has more income inequality than Pakistan or the Ivory Coast, according to a study by ThinkProgress using data from the CIA factbook. Income inequality in the United States is actually higher than at any other time in modern history since the Great Depression, according to a Huffington Post article.

 

Are these the "parasites" you had in mind?:

 

Nearly 16 million children in the United States – 22% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $23,021 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

Most of these children have parents who work, but low wages and unstable employment leave their families struggling to make ends meet. Poverty can impede children’s ability to learn and contribute to social, emotional, and behavioral problems. Poverty also can contribute to poor health and mental health. Risks are greatest for children who experience poverty when they are young and/or experience deep and persistent poverty.

 

As a Professor of American History and Public Policy Researcher I find your comments both ignorant and unworthy of any American seeking to address the critical issue of our time: income ineqaulity.  Fortunately the last election clearly demonstrates that yours is a minority view and the new American Majority is moving forward in addressing these issues -based on facts- not soundbites from Fox and Friends....this is precisely why the GOP extremists are now on the run politically and the Republicans face a demographic tsunami of biblical proportions -they are literally on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party....see 2014 for details.

 

Try to get past your hatred of your fellow Americans ....realize the truth about our economic inequity and join the process of common purpose and shared sacrifice necessary to uplift the least amongst us.....acknowledging FACTS is a critical first step.

"Facts are stubborn things."   John Adams

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes