Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 2

I read the transcript of his short discussion, and I didn't get the impression he was whining.  He was just stating that he was going to have to make some changes going forward. As we all do, when it comes to where we live.

Unfortunately, government actions regarding what is best for us may not be what we think is best.  When that occurs, we have to either accept their decisions, or make a change.

For those who think Mikelson should be happy with whatever he makes, I would turn it around and ask them whether they are happy with what they make (compared to the vast majority of the world, we are ALL extremely wealthy), and if they could realize an immediate 13.3% increase in income, would they do it?

Exactly this, no one should pay more taxes than they have to (unless you're Warren Buffet and like paying more).  That said, unless Phil has some political aspirations he'd be better served to keep sensitive political issues and his financial concerns out of his interviews.  The country is very polarized right now, and I'm sure he has fans in both parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious 

I read the transcript of his short discussion, and I didn't get the impression he was whining.  He was just stating that he was going to have to make some changes going forward. As we all do, when it comes to where we live.

 

Unfortunately, government actions regarding what is best for us may not be what we think is best.  When that occurs, we have to either accept their decisions, or make a change.

 

For those who think Mikelson should be happy with whatever he makes, I would turn it around and ask them whether they are happy with what they make (compared to the vast majority of the world, we are ALL extremely wealthy), and if they could realize an immediate 13.3% increase in income, would they do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo 

It's also possible Phil lost some money in a business investment sometime along the line and is hurting more than just with taxes.

 

Well, T-bone steak prices did become so expensive that Waffle House had to stop serving them.

Actually, they kept the T-bone and deleted the Chop Steak from the new menu. Bummer (for me, anyway).

Phil certainly comes across as being a greedy crybaby who doesnt want to pay his taxes, even though he makes more than enough to get by.  If Phil wants to trade incomes with me, I'll gladly pay his taxes.  Maybe Phil needs some time living in the real world where you dont make $15 million a year playing golf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer 

Phil certainly comes across as being a greedy crybaby who doesnt want to pay his taxes, even though he makes more than enough to get by.  If Phil wants to trade incomes with me, I'll gladly pay his taxes.  Maybe Phil needs some time living in the real world where you dont make $15 million a year playing golf.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. If you truly made what Phil made, you wouldn't want to pay a larger percentage of taxes than other people do either. Phil makes a lot of money because he has incredible golf skills, has worked hard to maximize his earnings via tournaments, and turned himself into a brand name. It's called success and anyone who's interested in being successful doesn't want to be penalized for doing so. It's not Phil's fault he makes a lot of money at golf. If you want to be mad at something or someone, be mad at yourself for being a fan of golf and doing your part to make it a huge business. 

Somewhat off topic, but if this country would just do away with the ridiculous tax system and implemented a flat tax rate where we all pay the same percentage this stuff would be a non-story imo. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H 

Sorry but this is ridiculous. If you truly made what Phil made, you wouldn't want to pay a larger percentage of taxes than other people do either. Phil makes a lot of money because he has incredible golf skills, has worked hard to maximize his earnings via tournaments, and turned himself into a brand name. It's called success and anyone who's interested in being successful doesn't want to be penalized for doing so. It's not Phil's fault he makes a lot of money at golf. If you want to be mad at something or someone, be mad at yourself for being a fan of golf and doing your part to make it a huge business. 

 

Somewhat off topic, but if this country would just do away with the ridiculous tax system and implemented a flat tax rate where we all pay the same percentage this stuff would be a non-story imo. 

Does Phil have to pay more than others that have similar incomes? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

Does Phil have to pay more than others that have similar incomes? 

I don't know, probably not though. Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by walk18 

I don't blame him one bit, if I was him I'd be pissed too. It's not about the fact that he's gonna be rich regardless, it's about the fact that government(s) have no right to that much of HIS earnings.

It's a matter of allocating resources - instead of giving to his charitable foundations, he will give more to another entity - the government; or he will have less in his pocket. No matter, Phil and his family will not suffer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H 

I don't know, probably not though. Why?

I just wasn't sure if you meant "others" as in the general population or for some reason he paid he even more than people with similar incomes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

I just wasn't sure if you meant "others" as in the general population or for some reason he paid he even more than people with similar incomes.

I meant as in the general working population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81 

Where would you draw the line at what amount would be acceptable to make plan changes to maximize income?

I don't know. Only he can decide if the loss of that % of income is worth moving to another state and away from where he raises his children. It's not always about maximizing income.

It reminds me of British rock musicians in the 1960's and 70's. Many moved to the US or Switzerland to get away from the tax rates for the ultra wealthy that approached 90%. That's much worse than what Lefty is dealing with. Mainly, what he said is a bad PR move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H 

Sorry but this is ridiculous. If you truly made what Phil made, you wouldn't want to pay a larger percentage of taxes than other people do either. Phil makes a lot of money because he has incredible golf skills, has worked hard to maximize his earnings via tournaments, and turned himself into a brand name. It's called success and anyone who's interested in being successful doesn't want to be penalized for doing so. It's not Phil's fault he makes a lot of money at golf. If you want to be mad at something or someone, be mad at yourself for being a fan of golf and doing your part to make it a huge business. 

 

Somewhat off topic, but if this country would just do away with the ridiculous tax system and implemented a flat tax rate where we all pay the same percentage this stuff would be a non-story imo. 

I don't think Phi is being a greedy crybaby but if I made what Phil makes, I'd be happy to pay my part. I don't begrudge the wealthy their income but it certainly is a minor inconvenience for someone making that sort of income to pay another 7%. It affects their savings and lifestyle not one significant bit.

I don't care what your job is or how much you make, the government shouldn't be entitled to more than 50% of your income.   This mentality that the rich will pay for all the poor spending decisions government makes has to stop. 

It's our money, the government is out of control with spending and until it's held accountable we're all at risk.  The focus is on the rich now but eventually their spending will exceed what the rich can cover and then it's going to be on you and me to pay. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott 

I don't think Phi is being a greedy crybaby but if I made what Phil makes, I'd be happy to pay my part. I don't begrudge the wealthy their income but it certainly is a minor inconvenience for someone making that sort of income to pay another 7%. It affects their savings and lifestyle not one significant bit.

So what is "your part"? Why should Phil's be 62% and yours something much less (assuming you don't make 60mil a year). It's easy to say stuff like that when it's someone else's money. IMO, it's irrelevant how it affects their savings, lifestyle, etc. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by setexmd 

I understand that Phil makes more money than almost all of us put together on this forum but. I run a small family practice in a small town and I employ 7 people  .  I do not make a half a percent of what Phils makes. so I would imagine that he has at least 10 - 15 full time people working for him , if not more..  He is a business. On top of the 39.6% federal taxes and the over 13% state income tax he does have to pay workers comp insurance premiums, FICA for his employes, retirement and now has to pay additional taxes for Obamacare. I do believe that he pays close to 63% of his income in taxes. The only thing he can control is the amount of state taxes he pays by moving to a low tax state . Also he might reduce his workier comp insurance depending on the state he moved to. So I do not blame him for trying to do something about it. Be realistic, if we were in his shoes wouldn't we do the same. I know this is not the forum for it but why do we punish success in this country?

I agree with this post.  I live in CA, and the state taxes here are pretty damn high (insane).  And only getting worse with the recent election which passed proposition 30 - which will increase our state income tax burden over the next four years by 0.25%... And Phil will be in the 14.63% tax bracket in 2013 for state taxes alone.  In addition, our sales tax is 8% in San Diego...  And property taxes are ~ 1.2% of the price of the home, and some newer communities have an additional Melo-Roos tax which adds another ~1%+ to that tax burden.  

When it's all said and done... You definitely pay a premium to live here!!! But this is the forecast for the week of January 21st...After I've lived in Central Ohio, Chicago and Phoenix for the first 32yrs of my life... I'd say it's worth it?   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H 

So what is "your part"? Why should Phil's be 62% and yours something much less (assuming you don't make 60mil a year). It's easy to say stuff like that when it's someone else's money. IMO, it's irrelevant how it affects their savings, lifestyle, etc. 

My part is what the government tells me to pay. To me it is completely relevant if it does not affect their lifestyle or savings. I doubt you and I will ever find common ground on this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

I agree with this post.  I live in CA, and the state taxes here are pretty damn high (insane).  And only getting worse with the recent election which passed proposition 30 - which will increase our state income tax burden over the next four years by 0.25%... And Phil will be in the 14.63% tax bracket in 2013 for state taxes alone.  In addition, our sales tax is 8% in San Diego...  And property taxes are ~ 1.2% of the price of the home, and some newer communities have an additional Melo-Roos tax which adds another ~1%+ to that tax burden.  

 

 

When it's all said and done... You definitely pay a premium to live here!!! But this is the forecast for the week of January 21st...After I've lived in Central Ohio, Chicago and Phoenix for the first 32yrs of my life... I'd say it's worth it?   

 

The taxes are ridiculous but like you said, the weather is a huge premium.  I grew up in Northern Cal, so for us SoCal seems more cost effective.  With the Melo-Roos, I almost look at it like our kids are going to semi-private schools.  They're in one of the best districts in the state, brand new facilities, great teachers but once they're done, we're moving.