Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 10

For how much liberals hate trickle down economics, they sure love trickle down government. 

For example,

look at Cristie in NJ, he had to lay off teachers because the government didn't renew the education funding. So basically they were out money they were using to hire teachers. This means that the education system in NJ was supported beyond there means, and inflated. When the whims of the government changed, he had to lay off teachers. Now lets say majority of the money for school funding was raised by local funds. That means, its more stable, because locally things wont change as much as they do nationally. 

So basically a better form of government is to invert the tax code, make local taxes 30%, state in the middle, federal government near 5-7%. This means, that the locals can support the projects for there own population size based on there ability. 

Really Federal government should only supply interstate roadways, defense, space travel, and be a system that examines programs by other local governments, then bring up ideas to spread through out the country. Imagine if each local government offered there own form of health care system. Now you have thousands of test subjects. The federal government can examine these and spread around good ideas. In the end, we probably would have one overall similar plan through out the nation, run locally, that works. Instead of this bloated monstrousity called obamacare. 

Basically we need a weak central government, and run more like a confederacy. 

Though i will say this, republicans need to get there head out of there ass. Especially in immigration, they could win over tons of votes if they just say, "we want to deregulate the government so you have a better shot at starting the life you want." Most latino's are very hard working people, and will be stout republicans, if republicans just show a bit of compassion, and actually work towards promoting making small business champions of America again. 

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. 

Income inequality might be rising but "poverty" standard of livings are as well!   Someone in poverty back in the 40's 50's 60's did not have the equivalents of today's large screen TVs, internet access, laptops, iPads, iPhones, central air, 2 cars, emergency health care etc etc.

Being poor in the US is not what it used to be.   Seems back in the day there was real hardship and people went without.  It made them want to get out of that postion and improve themselves.   Today, there is incentive to stay in that position.   52 weeks of unemployment?   Are you kidding me?

As opposed to the uber-rich people who say "What free stuff am I going to get from you if I help bankroll your campaign?"

This is odd ... you say this like you miss it fondly?  Not speaking to your actual argument about lazy people (others have already done that), just flabbergasted at how you worded this.  As if we really NEED to have poor people in situations of real hardship.  Wow.

Income inequality might be rising but "poverty" standard of livings are as well!   Someone in poverty back in the 40's 50's 60's did not have the equivalents of today's large screen TVs, internet access, laptops, iPads, iPhones, central air, 2 cars, emergency health care etc etc.

Being poor in the US is not what it used to be.   Seems back in the day there was real hardship and people went without.  It made them want to get out of that postion and improve themselves.   Today, there is incentive to stay in that position.   52 weeks of unemployment?   Are you kidding me?

Earlier in this thread, it was brought up that the top tax rate under Ike was 91%.    I did a little checking and discovered a few interesting facts about that.   First, the marginal tax rate under Ike peaked at 92%, however the number of filers affected by that rate was 0.3% and adjusting for today's dollars, to get into that tax bracket, you had to be making about $1.6 million.   At the same time, the lowest income tax rate was over 20%.   During those years, the number of filers who owed no income tax at all averaged 22% and of course, there was no EITC, so nobody got back more than they paid in.   Interestingly, the unemployment rate was in the 4% range. 

Comparing those numbers to today, approximately 1% of filers will fall into the top bracket (39.6%) and of course, we know that will be those making over $400K.  Our current lowest rate is 10%.  We also find that over 40% of filers now owe no income taxes and approximately 20% of those will get back more than they paid in.  The unemployment rate is currently just under 8%.

So, under Ike, a higher percentage of people paid taxes than they do now and no one was getting what amounts to a bonus check from Uncle Sam.   I wonder just how many of those who think it a good idea to those kinds of tax rates, would really be in favor of them if they also found that they were now also going to have to pay taxes and that about half of them were going to lose that bonus check as well. 

I bolded the next line.  It makes his point much clearer.

I get his argument, I just don't really like the "tone."  The longing for the days of a "real" lower class.

I get his argument, I just don't really like the "tone."  The longing for the days of a "real" lower class.

And, I don't agree with it.  I just don't believe that there are a lot of people out there scraping by on handouts from the government thinking to themselves "Woohoo, I got it made!"  I just don't see it.  The stories I hear of people doing things like that are not poor people, but rather middle class people whose unemployment checks are actually pretty nice.

I feel the same way towards the argument that successful people are going to give up trying to be successful if you keep punishing them.  (Both arguments have been made on this thread, although I'm not going to go back through all of the pages to find them)

Last I checked, all of us who work hard continue to work hard and pay our fair share, whatever that share ends up being.  (We complain when we need to , and vote how we feel we need to vote to change things we don't like, but that's about it)  If it goes up and I have to work overtime to make ends meet, or get a second job, I will.  Certainly, I'm not going to go "Well, the government wants to take more of my money in taxes?  Haha, I'll show them ... I won't make any!  Suck on that Feds!"

Where would that leave me?

P.S.  It's Wednesday afternoon ... has Phil had his press conference yet where he said he'd clarify his remarks?

I don't think he was "longing for the days of a real lower class."  I think he was longing for the days of a lower class that tried hard to better themselves.

Last I checked, all of us who work hard continue to work hard and pay our fair share, whatever that share ends up being.  (We complain when we need to , and vote how we feel we need to vote to change things we don't like, but that's about it)  If it goes up and I have to work overtime to make ends meet, or get a second job, I will.  Certainly, I'm not going to go "Well, the government wants to take more of my money in taxes?  Haha, I'll show them ... I won't make any!  Suck on that Feds!"

Where would that leave me?

Here is a very real scenario.  Citizen makes X amount of dollars.  Based on his family size he qualifies for quite a few government programs.  Citizen does well at work, so his boss gives him a 2.50 dollar an hour raise.  This amount puts him over the threshold for the government programs.  With the raise, his income is higher, but now he has to buy certain items and services that he previously got for free.  The raise actually gives his household a net loss.  What incentive does the worker have to improve and make more money?

Pride?  A sense of self worth?