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 11

post #181 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post

I hope Phil doesn't hire you, because you don't understand that the state income tax is a deduction (1040 Schedule A), just like home mortgage interest and medical expenses.  It is NOT a tax credit. Big Difference!


I do understand that. Let's use numbers since you don't understand. 100k in income. 13% state rate and 39.6% federal rate. He'll pay $13k to the state. Deductions reduce taxable income, so he'll owe 39.6% on $87k. That's $34.45k. You now add the $13k state taxes to the $34.45k federal taxes, which is $47.45. That is a tax rate of 47.45% rather than the 52.6% rate Phil would like to claim he pays.

 

To be fair, Phil will not receive the full benefit of the deduction because of the cap on itemized deductions. I don't know a lot about this and I'm not going to calculate the rate. I will say I think state taxes should always be fully tax deductible.

 

The main thrust of my point, tho harmonious here tried to distract from it, was that Phil is flat out lying and/or he needs a new accountant if he repeats his claim of a 62% tax rate.

post #182 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post

For you and I maybe.  Many don't have that.  They don't have to try hard to better themselves.  They are given what they need.

For the record, I am not against all government programs.  I feel they are necessary to help those who can't help themselves.  I don't feel it is for those who won't help themselves.

Fair enough.

 

You can call me an idealist, a romantic, a dreamer, even delusional (I will accept them all :)) but I just refuse to believe that this is really the bane of our society.  Certainly there are "some" like that.  But many?  I could certainly be wrong, but I don't believe it.

post #183 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Pride?  A sense of self worth?

 

For some, the sense of self worth has been replaced by a sense that the government owes them something.   The number who fall into that category seems to be growing rather quickly.

 

Like 14ledo81,   I feel there is a place for some of these programs, especially for those who absolutely can't help themselves but the number who can't is much lower than the number who won't.   IMHO, aside from programs for those who absolutely can't help themselves, most other governmental social programs should be designed as short term with a clearly defined end point so there becomes an incentive for people to improve themselves. 

post #184 of 288

The question is who are you to say the wealthy aren't paying their fair share?  Phil's paying $4.5M per year in taxes, I'm guessing that's more than all of us having this discussion are paying in taxes combined.  Is Phil getting any additional military support for his money, does CA close down the highways for him so he doesn't have to sit in traffic? We're getting the same goods and services he is for a fraction of the cost, so what's his fair share? 

 

We're all sitting here on a golf forum debating discussing Phil's finances, yet we're all doing well enough to pay for clubs and play golf on a semi-regular basis. To the poverty stricken, we're wealthy, but I don't see anyone here volunteering to cough up some more of their disposable income to help these poor souls that some of you are so concerned about. 

 

Some of us are honest enough to say, it's time people got off their butts and earned their keep rather than looking for a handout because we can't have 53% of the population paying the bills for everyone.  Once we get all the parasites off the gravy train there will be plenty of money to take care of those that really need to be taken care of. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

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?

post #185 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Fair enough.

 

You can call me an idealist, a romantic, a dreamer, even delusional (I will accept them all :)) but I just refuse to believe that this is really the bane of our society.  Certainly there are "some" like that.  But many?  I could certainly be wrong, but I don't believe it.

I would say not to many in Orange County CA.  Where I live, I see quite a few.

post #186 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

The question is who are you to say the wealthy aren't paying their fair share?  Phil's paying $4.5M per year in taxes, I'm guessing that's more than all of us having this discussion are paying in taxes combined.  Is Phil getting any additional military support for his money, does CA close down the highways for him so he doesn't have to sit in traffic? We're getting the same goods and services he is for a fraction of the cost, so what's his fair share?

I'm a voter.  If old, retired people with no grandkids get to decide what's best for our schools, and homophobic mormons from Utah get to have a say in whether or not gay people can get married here, then guess what?  I get to decide if I think rich people are paying enough in taxes. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

We're all sitting here on a golf forum debating discussing Phil's finances, yet we're all doing well enough to pay for clubs and play golf on a semi-regular basis. To the poverty stricken, we're wealthy, but I don't see anyone here volunteering to cough up some more of their disposable income to help these poor souls that some of you are so concerned about.

I voted yes on Prop 30.  (As did 55% of the rest of the state.  Pretty sure that's not the poverty stricken voting for themselves, cuz you know, if they're too lazy to work, I'm pretty sure they're also too lazy to register to vote, let alone educate themselves on what the props are and what vote means what ;))  I vote yes on most school bond props that come through.  I frequently vote democrat, and they're supposedly the "tax and spenders."  And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, so I have to disagree with this part. :)

 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Some of us are honest enough to say, it's time people got off their butts and earned their keep rather than looking for a handout because we can't have 53% of the population paying the bills for everyone.  Once we get all the parasites off the gravy train there will be plenty of money to take care of those that really need to be taken care of.

I don't see people on the "right" ever being satisfied that enough "parasites are off the gravy train" for this to ever be the case.  (I don't like the terms "right" and "left" but didn't know what else to say there)

post #187 of 288

Maybe CA is different from NY but I don't consider someone with a big screen television, cell phone, and late model car poor, but take a walk down some of the "poverty stricken" areas of Long Island and that's what you'll see, house after house, block after block.   Are there some really poor people out there, yes, but why does the "left" believe that we're doing them any long term good by handing them a check?  Shouldn't we be focused on getting them to be self sufficient rather than keeping them at a level slightly above poverty so we can feel better about ourselves?  I'd rather send these people to a trade school or even college and require they get good grades than just hand them a check for doing absolutely nothing. 

 

IMO, there should be zero parasites on the gravy train.  If they collect a check and aren't disabled they should be doing something for the money. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I don't see people on the "right" ever being satisfied that enough "parasites are off the gravy train" for this to ever be the case.  (I don't like the terms "right" and "left" but didn't know what else to say there)

post #188 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Maybe CA is different from NY but I don't consider someone with a big screen television, cell phone, and late model car poor, but take a walk down some of the "poverty stricken" areas of Long Island and that's what you'll see, house after house, block after block. 

I don't know those areas.  For several years (from '06 to '11) I would frequent Long Island, which I don't believe is one of the areas you are referring to, and other than the drive to/from JFK on Southern State, and the drive to/from the city on LIE or Northern State, all I know is the East Meadow, Merrick, Wantagh area. :)

post #189 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe View Post

 

Hmm, OK now a Professor of Liberal Arts is saying they function in the universe of facts?    It's a universe all right.  How about getting back to planet earth and reality.   And I love the HuffPo and ThinkProgress sources!

 

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?

Yep...being poor in the USA is soooo good now, eh?   Why dont you try it for a while??...say a month living on food stamps should be more than enough to change your tune of ignorance ...at the very least it will work wonders on your waistline You'll be livin' high off the hog on $4.32 per DAY , Sparky.....LOL

Your arrogance and ignorance warrants no further discourse ....you are uneducable ...but the good news is you are now in a small and  rapidly shrinking minority.....soon to be discarded appropriately to the political ashbin of history where your ideas belong.

post #190 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen85 View Post


I do understand that. Let's use numbers since you don't understand. 100k in income. 13% state rate and 39.6% federal rate. He'll pay $13k to the state. Deductions reduce taxable income, so he'll owe 39.6% on $87k. That's $34.45k. You now add the $13k state taxes to the $34.45k federal taxes, which is $47.45. That is a tax rate of 47.45% rather than the 52.6% rate Phil would like to claim he pays.

I'm sorry, it must have been a different jgreen85 who wrote " The 13% state taxes are directly tax refundable at the federal level. " A tax deduction is not a tax refund. Or maybe I didn't understand that, either.a4_sad.gif

post #191 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen85 View Post


I do understand that. Let's use numbers since you don't understand. 100k in income. 13% state rate and 39.6% federal rate. He'll pay $13k to the state. Deductions reduce taxable income, so he'll owe 39.6% on $87k. That's $34.45k. You now add the $13k state taxes to the $34.45k federal taxes, which is $47.45. That is a tax rate of 47.45% rather than the 52.6% rate Phil would like to claim he pays.

 

To be fair, Phil will not receive the full benefit of the deduction because of the cap on itemized deductions. I don't know a lot about this and I'm not going to calculate the rate. I will say I think state taxes should always be fully tax deductible.

 

The main thrust of my point, tho harmonious here tried to distract from it, was that Phil is flat out lying and/or he needs a new accountant if he repeats his claim of a 62% tax rate.

Phil is subject to AMT, so he doesn't get the value of his deductions for paying state taxes.  Also, in 2013 there is going to be another extra medicare tax of 3.8% on net investment income for people making over a certain amount, and an extra .9% medicare tax on earned income for people over $200K, so he can add some more to his tax burden. lol

post #192 of 288

I'm impressed not bad for a guy on the other coast.  The towns I was referring to were Suffolk county like Bayshore, Brentwood, Central Islip.     

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I don't know those areas.  For several years (from '06 to '11) I would frequent Long Island, which I don't believe is one of the areas you are referring to, and other than the drive to/from JFK on Southern State, and the drive to/from the city on LIE or Northern State, all I know is the East Meadow, Merrick, Wantagh area. :)

post #193 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

I'm impressed not bad for a guy on the other coast.  The towns I was referring to were Suffolk county like Bayshore, Brentwood, Central Islip.     
Lol, wife grew up in EM and until in laws retired and moved our here we were frequent guests! :). (Only been to Islip airport once)

Basically what I think is that I'd rather help people that need help and risk also giving out to some lazys who don't need it than to cut off the lazys and risk also hurting those who need it. (Hard to write well or a lot from stupid iPhone) :)
post #194 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


Basically what I think is that I'd rather help people that need help and risk also giving out to some lazys who don't need it than to cut off the lazys and risk also hurting those who need it. (Hard to write well or a lot from stupid iPhone) :)

Fair enough.  I just wish there was a better way to make sure those who recieve actually do need it.

post #195 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post

Fair enough.  I just wish there was a better way to make sure those who recieve actually do need it.
Here, here. You are not going to get any argument from me on that one. :)
post #196 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies View Post

Yep...being poor in the USA is soooo good now, eh?   Why dont you try it for a while??...say a month living on food stamps should be more than enough to change your tune of ignorance ...at the very least it will work wonders on your waistline You'll be livin' high off the hog on $4.32 per DAY , Sparky.....LOL

Your arrogance and ignorance warrants no further discourse ....you are uneducable ...but the good news is you are now in a small and  rapidly shrinking minority.....soon to be discarded appropriately to the political ashbin of history where your ideas belong.

 

 

I've stood in line behind people paying for their groceries with food stamps.    Many of them are eating better than I am and from the looks of their waistlines, they have been for quite some time.   Your view of the living conditions of those being subsidized by our government smacks of the arrogance and ignorance you accused him of.

 

Yet again, you refer to a changing political tide as if it were a permanent thing.   It is not.   But again, IF you really are a history professor, you already know that.   Perhaps you've forgotten.   So maybe I should refresh your memory a bit.  In 1972, Richard Nixon carried 49 states (the lone exception was Massachusetts).   He collected 23% more of the popular vote and his electoral victory was by over 500 votes.  It was one of the top 5 most lopsided Presidential elections in history.    By contrast, Obama won this election by winning 26 states, collected  4% more of the popular vote and 126 more electoral votes.   So by comparison, Obama's purported landslide was nothing when viewed next to Nixon's. 

 

Watergate not withstanding, using your assertion that a large electoral college victory is a certain indication of the death of a political party, there should not have been a Democratic party in existence to contend with during the next election cycle.  Yet since 1972 we have elected 6 different Presidents, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Ford was not elected to the Presidency).   So I find your prediction to be both premature and most likely erroneous.  

 

I seriously hope you don't lecture on politics since you seem to have a poor understanding of just how the political winds of this country change from election cycle to election cycle.  But if you do, I hope you do a much better job of hiding your political leanings when lecturing students than you have expressed here.   You are certainly entitled to your own political biases but it is NOT the job of a teacher/professor to impart their particular biases onto their students.   Rather it is their job to educate the students to both sides of the political picture without interjecting their own opinions and biases and allow their students to make up their own minds which side they support.

post #197 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post

I'm sorry, it must have been a different jgreen85 who wrote " The 13% state taxes are directly tax refundable at the federal level. " A tax deduction is not a tax refund. Or maybe I didn't understand that, either.a4_sad.gif

Sorry for that misstatement. Way to nitpick. Thanks for conceding my actually point that if Phil is paying anywhere near 62%, he's lying and/or needs a new accountant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggie13 View Post

Phil is subject to AMT, so he doesn't get the value of his deductions for paying state taxes.  Also, in 2013 there is going to be another extra medicare tax of 3.8% on net investment income for people making over a certain amount, and an extra .9% medicare tax on earned income for people over $200K, so he can add some more to his tax burden. lol

Phil would LOVE to pay the amt. top rate is 28%. Also you seem to have phil syndrome where you just add up every tax and lump them together. Phil's primary source of income is earned and not unearned, so we're really only talking about the .9%.
post #198 of 288

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 46 million people.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."

 

Thus ends today's lesson in irony.

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