Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer 

 

 

Thus ends today's lesson in irony.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-24/culture-trumps-self-interests-for-southerners-getting-aid.html

Quoting Bloomberg for a liberal perspective is the same as quoting Fox News for the conservative stance.  We can all make the statistics say what we want but the reality is it's our government needs to cut spending everywhere, defense, entitlements, etc. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWBDD 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-24/culture-trumps-self-interests-for-southerners-getting-aid.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

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. :)

 

An attitude that's all too common among people of your persuasion.  Most unbecoming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Quoting Bloomberg for a liberal perspective is the same as quoting Fox News for the conservative stance.  We can all make the statistics say what we want but the reality is it's our government needs to cut spending everywhere, defense, entitlements, etc. 

Bloomies' liberal?

It's a business site ... I go there for ticker quotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

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 Chas 

An attitude that's all too common among people of your persuasion.  Most unbecoming.

Would you elaborate on this please?

I'm simply saying that there are a lot of things (in this case, I'm specifically referring to Prop 30) that we, as voters in California, get to help decide.  And I have just as much right as every other citizen in this state to vote on every item placed on my ballot.  (And my comment was in direct response to "what gives you the right to decide how much people pay in taxes" - hence my "voter" answer)

Exactly what is "unbecoming" about that?

Interestingly, no one has brought up the issue of pubic money supporting professional sports.

Not sure if it pertains to golf, but lots of tax money is spent on stadiums not unlike the one the Padres play in.

Phil "clarified" his comments yesterday. :) ...

From pgatour.com:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85 


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.
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%.

No. I sure he has considerable after tax investments, dividends, interest,(his tax advisers probably told him to change to tax exempt interest) royalties, rents, etc.  So his effective tax rate would be 3.8% higher in 2013 depending if it was taxed at capital gains rate, or ordinary income rate, on his net investment income.

I'm not lumping tax rates together? Phil is doing that.  He comes up with the 62% by adding 39.6 federal rate, 14.3% Ca rate(don't forget 1% mental health tax on millionaires), non-deductible part of social security 6.2%, and non-deductible part of medicare, 1.45%.  That equals 61.55%, close to what Phil was talking about, and true, not his real effective rate of taxes, because social security maxes out around $110,100 for 2012, and his state taxes are deductible, but I contend that he doesn't get the full value of the 14.3%.

I would think his effective tax rate is closer to 48% to 51% in 2013 if he didn't have any tax advisers.  But he does, so they probably have him set up to have a lower effective tax rate through careful tax planning and entity set ups.  I'm sure Phil was just blowing off steam and trying to make an observation of how bad Ca is being run.  We don't really know?

Edit:  I guess we do know.  See Golfingdad's post above mine. Sorry.

Phil has tried to apologize for his remarks. NBC's Chris Wallace discussed this in his weekly phone call to a local talk radio show. Wallace suggested that Phil may have been pressured by his sponsors to "tone it down" since Calif people buy a lot of golf equipment.

Phil runs counter to Michael Jordan, who tried to avoid inflammatory political issues because "Republicans buy Nike, too."

Lots of corporations have exited California because of the state tax rates, and pending financial insolvency, so Phil would just be another part of the long parade.

Quote WWBDD:

PGA doesn't get public money per se, but it is organized as a non-profit organization. The main PGA was tax-exempt for years, but the Tournament Player's Division (TPD) did not switch to non-profit until 1974, after Deane Beman became commissioner. Deane created a nice pension system for the TPD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WUTiger 

Phil has tried to apologize for his remarks. NBC's Chris Wallace discussed this in his weekly phone call to a local talk radio show. Wallace suggested that Phil may have been pressured by his sponsors to "tone it down" since Calif people buy a lot of golf equipment.

 

Barclays and KPMG are also FIRE, a sector that has had massive public bailouts as of late ... so I could see where they wouldn't want Phil to poke the proverbial hornets nest.

Plus there's this ... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-24/libor-suit-list-shows-barclays-probe-spanned-ny-to-tokyo.html

As stated above, California is a political basketcase.

Interesting ... thanks.

I personally wouldn't begrudge the PGA's non-profit status considering the amount of charity money it generates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWBDD 

 

Bloomies' liberal?

 

It's a business site ... I go there for ticker quotes.

My conservative friends use Bloomberg and quote it - can't be liberal, these guys are not liberal... they are upper management Fortune 100 execs.

Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama and his policies, so while he claims to be an independent politically he has taken sides.  Bloomberg has many facets to his empire, the financial news may be non-partisan but the editorial staff in Bloomberg View is not always. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond 

 

My conservative friends use Bloomberg and quote it - can't be liberal, these guys are not liberal... they are upper management Fortune 100 execs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama and his policies, so while he claims to be an independent politically he has taken sides.  Bloomberg has many facets to his empire, the financial news may be non-partisan but the editorial staff in Bloomberg View is not always. 

Sorry - that makes no sense.

It's okay for an individual to take sides. That does not indicate the man is liberal - lol, or because he endorsed Obama that his entire organization is liberal. If he had endorsed the other guy, then automatically he and his organization would be conservative according to your argument. Nonsense. One must look to a pattern of behavior.

It was merely a choice between two guys.

Bloomberg endorsed Obama because he recognizes science and believes man does have an effect on climate change. These are issues where many conservatives like Romney choose to stick their head in the sand.

But even some conservatives believe in science and climate change - like Jon Huntsman.

So just because Bloomberg believes in science and climate change does not make him a liberal - it means he is rational.

NY Times: 

"Mr. Bloomberg, a political independent in his third term leading New York City, has been sharply critical of Mr. Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, the president’s Republican rival, saying that both men had failed to candidly confront the problems afflicting the nation. But he said he had decided over the past several days that Mr. Obama was the better candidate to tackle the global climate change that he believes might have contributed to the violent storm, which took the lives of at least 38 New Yorkers and caused billions of dollars in damage."

He doesn't know what the hell he is, but until 2001 he was a democrat, then he was a republican, now he's an independent. 

I would say he's an independent, he is liberal on social issues, but more conservative on economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond 

Bloomberg endorsed Obama because he recognizes science and believes man does have an effect on climate change. These are issues where many conservatives like Romney choose to stick their head in the sand.

 

But even some conservatives believe in science and climate change - like Jon Huntsman.

"Proof" of man's invovlement in global warming is about as certain as the "proof" a few years ago that eating eggs causes a rise in human cholesterol.   Today, that is being disputed.

What is known is that the sun is expanding and this expansion is resulting in the earth being in closer proximity to the sun.   As our distance from the sun shrinks, the sun's heat affects the earth's weather, and as a resulte unusual weather patterns emerge.  That heat also causes the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise, the glacier pack to melt and oceans to evaporate.  (Sounds alot like what we refer to as global warming, doesn't it?)

Approximately a billion years from now, the earth's proximity to the sun will be close enough that the heat from the sun will burn up the CO2 in our air.  Since plant life requires CO2 inorder to survive, plant life will cease to exist at that time.   We need oxygen to breathe and the main source of our atmosphere's oxygen is derived from oxygenic photosnythesis which occurs in plants.   As a result, humans will also cease to exist.    

C'mon, everyone knows global warming is caused by mans use of fossil fuels, that's why the current government is investing billions of taxpayer dollars into electric car companies that go bankrupt.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

"Proof" of man's invovlement in global warming is about as certain as the "proof" a few years ago that eating eggs causes a rise in human cholesterol.   Today, that is being disputed.

 

What is known is that the sun is expanding and this expansion is resulting in the earth being in closer proximity to the sun.   As our distance from the sun shrinks, the sun's heat affects the earth's weather, and as a resulte unusual weather patterns emerge.  That heat also causes the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise, the glacier pack to melt and oceans to evaporate.  (Sounds alot like what we refer to as global warming, doesn't it?)

 

Approximately a billion years from now, the earth's proximity to the sun will be close enough that the heat from the sun will burn up the CO2 in our air.  Since plant life requires CO2 inorder to survive, plant life will cease to exist at that time.   We need oxygen to breathe and the main source of our atmosphere's oxygen is derived from oxygenic photosnythesis which occurs in plants.   As a result, humans will also cease to exist.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

"Proof" of man's invovlement in global warming is about as certain as the "proof" a few years ago that eating eggs causes a rise in human cholesterol.   Today, that is being disputed.

 

What is known is that the sun is expanding and this expansion is resulting in the earth being in closer proximity to the sun.   As our distance from the sun shrinks, the sun's heat affects the earth's weather, and as a resulte unusual weather patterns emerge.  That heat also causes the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise, the glacier pack to melt and oceans to evaporate.  (Sounds alot like what we refer to as global warming, doesn't it?)

 

Approximately a billion years from now, the earth's proximity to the sun will be close enough that the heat from the sun will burn up the CO2 in our air.  Since plant life requires CO2 inorder to survive, plant life will cease to exist at that time.   We need oxygen to breathe and the main source of our atmosphere's oxygen is derived from oxygenic photosnythesis which occurs in plants.   As a result, humans will also cease to exist.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

C'mon, everyone knows global warming is caused by mans use of fossil fuels, that's why the current government is investing billions of taxpayer dollars into electric car companies that go bankrupt.   

So what if we waste all of our tax dollars on energy efficient cars ... we're all gonna be dead in a billion years anyway. ;)