Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 3

My first reaction to his comments was thinking that he was whining.  That will almost always be my first impression when hearing a multi-millionaire (seemingly) complain about financial issues.

     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?

However, I think Harmonious is dead on here.  Especially, the bold part.  Everything is relative, and we (assuming "we" here is referring to the middle class) look at somebody making 10 or 50 times as much as us and think they have no right to complain.  Well, everybody reading this also has somebody out there who is making 1/10th or 1/50 as much as them, and those people are saying the same thing about us when we complain about taxes and finances.

That said, even though I believe his opinions, whatever they are, are valid ... he probably should just keep them to himself.  But he really didn't say anything yet, so I'll wait until Wednesday when he supposedly clears it all up, and see what he has to say then.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

However, I think Harmonious is dead on here.  Especially, the bold part.  Everything is relative, and we (assuming "we" here is referring to the middle class) look at somebody making 10 or 50 times as much as us and think they have no right to complain.  Well, everybody reading this also has somebody out there who is making 1/10th or 1/50 as much as them, and those people are saying the same thing about us when we complain about taxes and finances.

I like Gdads answer.  Bolded parts by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott 

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.

 

Ok then. I hope you're never in a position where the government wants to take the majority of your earnings, but to each his own.

I wouldn't be surprised if Phil is simply going to say that he is going to be moving his families primary residence to a state like Florida, Nevada or Texas where state income taxes are zero.  That will save him 14.36% alone based on California's 2013 state income tax rate.  It makes sense financially for his family.

Plus I believe he is going to address it this week at Torrey Pines for a few reasons...

1.) Because he is such a big figure here in San Diego. So I believe he thinks he owes it to the local San Diego community to address this type of situation here, rather than at this past weekends event in Palm Springs.

2.) Plus at Torrey, he can point to him giving back to SoCal and how he will continue to give back in various Philanthropic ways.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/phil-mickelson-offers-redesign-torrey-pines-north-course-191059961.html

It's more of a way to manage any PR blow back from any of the Occupy Wall St. angst against the 1%'s...

As long as you're okay with someone who makes less than you having the same opinion when they increase your taxes by 7%.  It's all relative. 

I don't get why in this country the wealthy are expected to pay the way for the rest.  We all have the same opportunity, Phil worked his butt off to become a professional golfer, no one handed him his money, why should he be expected to pay a higher percentage. 

You do realize that 7% of $45M is $3.15M which means just the tax increase alone is more than what most people will pay in taxes their entire life, but to you that's fair? 

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.

Hey, if he has the resources and capability to move, then let him move. I give him props for staying in California that long, most people move to Florida or Texas were there is no Income tax. For him to put up with that much taken from his pay every year, and just now decide to move, that is holding out longer than i would in his position, there are plenty of states with southern exposure to play golf year round with better living conditions than California. Honesty, why does he own California anything, or moving be anything bad. We bitch and moan like he should be punished for making a living on what he's good at, and we don't even remember he's given so much to charities and other endevours in life. We need to get of our high horse, if your pissed about your own economic standing, then do something about it, the less time you bitch and moan the more time you have to actually improve your own life. 

The bottom line for me is, the government should never get more of your income than you do, regardless of how much that income is.

Another reason why I'll wait to hear more about what he has to say to pass judgment is I really have no bearing on what he said.  Meaning I have no idea if the numbers he listed are accurate, or pulled out of thin air, nor do I have any idea how it compares to my numbers.  Do you guys think he's taking his total income and then adding up ALL taxes he pays (federal and state income, disability, SS, property, and even sales) and just adding them all together?  I guess it wouldn't be too hard to guesstimate for myself if I did that too.  Hmmm, now I'm curious.

Also, for the record, I voted yes on prop 30.  Just thought I'd throw that out there.

The folks who are saying that Mikelson paying extra millions in taxes is no big deal remind me of the 90's, when the Mariners were is jeopardy of leaving Seattle (before Nintendo stepped in).  Lots of people back then were calling into sports radio shows, almost demanding that Bill Gates buy the Mariners to keep them in Seattle.  After all, he wouldn't miss the money.  Who cares that he really has no interest in baseball, and spends billions on different charities and through his foundations. He should just do it because they wanted him to.

It's amazing that people have all these great ideas about what others should so with their money. Unfortunately, a lot of them are in the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Another reason why I'll wait to hear more about what he has to say to pass judgment is I really have no bearing on what he said.  Meaning I have no idea if the numbers he listed are accurate, or pulled out of thin air, nor do I have any idea how it compares to my numbers.  Do you guys think he's taking his total income and then adding up ALL taxes he pays (federal and state income, disability, SS, property, and even sales) and just adding them all together?

I suspect he has met with his accountant and gotten some numbers which indicated 60%+ of his income is going to government in one form or another (state, fed and possibly city).   What the makeup of those numbers is, I have no clue, though I suspect income taxes, disability, SS (which he would pay double on since he is basically self employed), as well as payroll taxes for his employees and the additional tax being levied on the wealthy as a part of Obamacare, would all be included.  

1. Knowing that Phil gives away millions...who do you think would accomplish more with his money? The treasury of the state of California? Or Phil and his wife? Maybe if he stays in California he can help fund their park system for millions where illegals are farming marijuana crops and post signs warning hikers to avoid certain areas due to suspicious activity seen in the area.  Don't believe me...google it.

2. He is responding because he feels that he was singled out by his government, a government that he supports generously.

3. There was talk about his involvement in a large business deal - I believe he was asked about that - he answers the question from a business standpoint. Why should he risk his capital in an fiscal environment that is hostile to business.  California residents, who have means are relocating by thousands. Phil is not alone. 

4. Income taxes should be used to collect revenue for the state and federal government. Instead, it is used to redistribute wealth - some people I know paid less than 2,000 in income tax this year and will get their check back from the government for 7,800 in just a few weeks. Of course, they dropped out of school as teens, one has served jail time for theft and dui (completely irresponsible in their lives).

5. I wouldn't care if Phil made 10 billion dollars a year...if he was able to pull it off, then he shouldn't be punished for his success. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old1964 

3. There was talk about his involvement in a large business deal - I believe he was asked about that - he answers the question from a business standpoint. Why should he risk his capital in an fiscal environment that is hostile to business.  California residents, who have means are relocating by thousands. Phil is not alone. 

He was seriously considering becoming an owner of the San Diego Padres. Evidently, that no longer will happen.  But let's wait until Wednesday at his press conference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Another reason why I'll wait to hear more about what he has to say to pass judgment is I really have no bearing on what he said.  Meaning I have no idea if the numbers he listed are accurate, or pulled out of thin air, nor do I have any idea how it compares to my numbers.  Do you guys think he's taking his total income and then adding up ALL taxes he pays (federal and state income, disability, SS, property, and even sales) and just adding them all together?  I guess it wouldn't be too hard to guesstimate for myself if I did that too.  Hmmm, now I'm curious.

 

Also, for the record, I voted yes on prop 30.  Just thought I'd throw that out there.

It is easy...

39.x for Federal

14.x for State

6.x for SS

That is pretty close to the number right there... And I'm not sure what Obamacare or Medicare or any other deductions he is including in the number... But he is pretty much hitting the 63% number easily...

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

As long as you're okay with someone who makes less than you having the same opinion when they increase your taxes by 7%.  It's all relative. 

 

I don't get why in this country the wealthy are expected to pay the way for the rest.  We all have the same opportunity, Phil worked his butt off to become a professional golfer, no one handed him his money, why should he be expected to pay a higher percentage. 

 

You do realize that 7% of $45M is $3.15M which means just the tax increase alone is more than what most people will pay in taxes their entire life, but to you that's fair? 

i don't care how much money you have, $3.15M is a ton of money, and having someone else say "well, you already have enough, let me just take this from you", is a terribly poor argument, and no, is not fair.

I'm in sales, and a lot of guys I work with here in Socal are trying to find ways to reduce their tax burden.  One buddy who lives in LA - but also covers Nevada for us... He is looking to buy a condo in Las Vegas for under $200K.  Set that up as his primary residence.  And then go to Las Vegas once a month on 'business' to show that he is there.

Basically saving himself the CA state tax burden....

I'm not sure the fine details of this... But I know a lot of companies are doing this as well.  Relocating their headquarters offshore, or reporting revenues offshore, to reduce their tax burden.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/134619750/how-offshore-tax-havens-save-companies-billions

Lefty is so unhappy with his life in a country where he makes millions by playing a game.

When's the next gubernatorial election?

He obviously had no problem living in the State of California for 40 some odd years to this point, so one can only assume that unless he plans on leaving the country (I find that pretty far fetched) then the only thing I can see that has "changed" is his state income tax.  As a person making over 1,000,000, his rate will go up from 10.3% to 13.3% for the next 7 years. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)

If he makes 60 million a year (I saw that estimate somewhere), continuing to live in California is going to cost him an extra 1.8mil per year in taxes, for a total of 12.6mil.