Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 15

How did we get from Mick to global warming? Sorry I didn't read all 9 pages. All I know is its a little insensitive but if you put real numbers on the dollars he pays in taxes, most reasonable people would understand his ill-timed public comments

Noone disputes your legal right to vote as you wish or express your opinion.  This is still a relatively free country.  Whether it is moral for taxes to be raised to confiscatory levels is another question.

 

If you don't think that "homophobic morons" is unbecoming in the context of your post then you're beyond redemption. 

 

I hadn't read about Bloomberg voting for Obama because he believes that the storm was "linked" to climate change.  What a joke that man is ....

Read it again ... I said Mormons not morons. The Yes on Prop 8 campaign a few years back was funded largely by the Mormon church in Utah. My point is simply that if they get to have a say in what happens in this state socially, certainly I shouldn't be criticized for exercising my right to vote on props that affect me here, even if they also affect others more (Phil). Agreed? So be careful before you call people names in the future please. (Unbecoming and beyond redemption)

As to your point about Bloomberg, he stated that was a principal reason for endorsing Obama, but let's read between the lines.

 

Bloomberg is a businessman but he is more centered than the GOP. He is more inclined to welcome an intellectual discussion with Obama than Senator DeMint, Paul, or even Mitt Romney. It's evident that the GOP is far right of the majority of the country. You may not want to admit it, you will protest, but the election showed that the country is shifting and the GOP is a lackey for the ultraconservatives.

 

There is a place for conservatives with intellectual capacity - that place is not the current GOP. I wish they would show up. We need to work together for solutions. Even Jindal said the GOP must stop being "stupid."

Bloomberg is a businessman but he's more left than center.  He's big government and government intervention. 

 

Rather than address major issues like excessive taxes, the real estate market collapse, unemployment, disaster preparedness and the huge drug problem in NY he'd rather waste taxpayer money outlawing Big Gulps, trans fats and pass laws that make it illegal for honest people to own guns.  He's as far left as one can go without calling themselves a democrat. 

 

I do wish the GOP would lose the religious right and focus on the fiscal issues, but I'm not sure that's possible. 

Another great read written by two conservative constitutional scholars from the rightwing American Enterprise Institute is "It's Even Worse Than It Looks" -by Mann and Ornstein

They explain accurately the condition of "asymetrical polarization" which plagues the nation and blocks every effort to resolve social ills...the GOP/Teaparty has moved hard right while the Dems have essentially held their usual middle-left position ...while the two party's have polarized only the GOP has shifted to rightwing extremism ..which prevents progress and dangerously tends to shift the national discourse from the middle -best represented now by Obama to a new more rightist "middle" which is in fact further right than traditional republican policies had been...

 

Amazon link to book and reviews :      http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Obama is middle?????????  Maybe it looks that way from your end of the spectrum.

 

The significant differences between Dems and Reps are social red herrings ... abortion, gay marriage, guns etc.

 

Economically, they are both firmly corporatist.

 

Free trade, union erosion, financial deregulation and legislative capture by the FIRE sector were just as significant under Clinton as there were under Bush II. The Wall Street bailouts that started under Bush II were followed through by Obama.

 

The culturally conservativism vs. liberalism shtick is all theatre ... imo.

 

FD: I'm Canadian so I have no skin in the game beyond the financial fallout of the reckless economic policy of both parties.

 

Interesting ... here's another;

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=john+dean+conservatives+without+conscience&sprefix=john+dean%2Cstripbooks%2C334

This guy makes sense ... http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/mccaffery-mickelson-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Yes, I'm in favor of a single digit consumption tax, and a simple, progressive low rate income tax. In this way, you capture revenue at both ends - if you consume, you choose to pay tax. If you do not consume, you should pay some tax. Of course, essentials like food and low priced goods may be exempt.

Last I saw of Phil at Muirfield last year, he still owned his own Gulfstream II. Nice jet. I'm not feeling his pain. I'm laughing. His hat says KPMG. They are the most sophisticated tax advisors in the world. If Phil wanted the lowest possible tax rate, they could bring it down to at least 50%. Taking home $23 million a year after taxes isn't a bad deal. You could probably eat out every night and go to a few Padres games. Too many sports stars and celebrities who make absurd sums of money have lost touch with the every person trying to pay the rent and buy a used set of golf clubs and play at the muni on the weekends. They have truly hit the lotto and become so arrogant they don't know how the average person lives. Sadly, Phil appears to have become such a person.

Does it matter that he can't relate with someone who's poor. I can't, i never lived that life, i can try to empathize, but i don't know what its like to go with out a meal, or out a home, ect... Does that make me a bad person, what if i say something like, "Oh i really don't like i have to pay more in taxes," I don't make 6 figures, but i do good for being single, i live a comfortable life, not extravegant. But i like the way i live, but does me complaining make me a bad person, or since i am closer to middle class, i get the right to say it? 

AS to the OP I could only tell Phil that there is a reason many touring Pros live in Florida and it isn't the weather.

 

As to taxes I am also in favor of consumption (user) taxes and am not in favor of income taxes.  If we believe citizens having income is a good idea then we should not tax it.  As long as we in the US tax income the battle to define "income" in a favorable way for the donors to political campaigns will continue.  It just encourages the wrong behavior whereas consumption, IMO, encourages the correct the behavior. But both systems have their good and less good points that have to be taken care of.

I agree with that in principle, long term, consumption taxes are the better solution for our country.  Short term the behaviors it will encourage (saving versus spending) will cause a reset within the business world and stock markets.  Our economy and government revenue system is currently driven by the complete opposite mentality, i.e. politicians use tax cuts to motivate us to spend more so businesses grow and hire more people that will pay taxes. 

 

When I lived in Virginia there was an annual 4.5% personal property tax (estimated value) on vehicles and boats.  The year before I left, they were doing away with it because of the impact it was having on car and boat sales in the state.  There will always be those wealthy enough that can afford to buy luxury cars and boats and pay the taxes but to the average person that 4.5% annual tax was a deal breaker. 

 

As a country we'd need to brace ourselves for the reset until people adjust to the new tax method.  Long term I agree the best way to tax people is not on what they make but on what they consume and use. 

 

He's got to have one terrible accountant.  Top federal tax rate isn't even 40%.  Now at 10% CA taxes, and that being a deduction on federal returns, that's only 46%.  The largest part of payroll taxation is FICA and that maxes out at around $120k.  So, he doesn't pay any of that on the other $44.88 million.  That means his tax rate is around $8500 out of $45 million.  That's under two hundredths of a percent.  So, he has to pay both halves.  Now we're around 3 eightieths of a percent.

 

Since some part of his income is yield on what he already made in the past, he's paying 15 to 30% on those monies.  And there would be no payroll tax impact on that money.

 

Methinks he really doesn't know how much he's paying in taxes.  No rich people pay that much in taxes.  Even Warren Buffet, who has 100 times what Phil has, has acknowledged publicly that he pays under 30%.  He made the comment that his secretary's total tax burden is lower than his, and she pays a total of 30%.  It was in Fortune Magazine.

 

Not only should he have shut up about this, but if was going to puke his feeling out, he should have at least been right.

Ah...................I think I have Phil figured out.

 

He could win lots of tourneys but doesn't want to pay more in taxes. Those collapses we've seen over the years have all been staged. (slaps forehead)

 

He really should check and see if Ricolas are tax deductable.

Following Phil for a few holes over two days at TP this year, he spent more time interacting with spectators and signing cards for kids than anyone else on the course.  The notion that this guy is out of touch with the average person is absurd - he's much too smart for that, and much too involved with charity work (along with his wife and family).  He wants to keep more of the money that he has earned, and IMO he'll probably spend his charity money much more effectively than the government would.

 

Let's see, those self-important dimwits in Hollywood can go on and on to their adoring fans and the general public about their political views but Phil Mickelson shouldn't tell us why he's considering leaving the state?  Ridiculous.

 

Desmond: I stand corrected, misread on my part.  But "....the GOP is a lackey for ultraconservatives" ..... there you go again .

 

The Obama administration more and more reminds me of the Wilson government (Harold Wilson, that is) in Britain in the 1970s - 'lackey' (to use your term) of the unions and the public sector.   Obama is a class warrior of the old school - almost makes me feel nostalgic for the days of my youth.  Actually Obama is more like Michael Foot than Harold Wilson, and not because Wilson was smarter.

Edited by Chas - 1/28/13 at 2:09pm