Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 4

Your friend would be commiting tax fraud. He would need to live 6+months of the year in Vegas. California might still be able to go after him for income earned in the state.  Doing something like sending your kids to CA schools also tends to make you a state resident as it shows intent.  

Corps do this all the time but they live by different rules. And then they get stuck with things like 60 billlion dollars in offshore accounts that they can't spend without having to pay taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

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

 

Why stop at percentage? Why should he have to pay any more total money than anyone else.  A simple 12k/ citizen tax would be more than enough to pay the budget.  Personally I would love a 75% tax reduction.   I am guessing the family of 4 making 50k/yr would feel differently about a 95%+ tax rate. It is easy to say the rich should pay less in taxes. Not many people have the courage to state the other side of that which is that taxes on the middle class have to go up to balance that out.   Or you can try and balance the budget through spending cuts. I haven't seen a plan that comes close to that (unless you make really optimistic growth expectations and are willing to wait 20+ years). I just see political posturing.  How many people would vote for the "Kick Grandma out of the nursing home" bill that would cut medicaid spending by almost half? About zero. How many would vote of the "reasonable defensive and not pork spending" bill that would do the same to the DOD? And so on.

 

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. ]

This whole thing should be a nonstory. Phil should have just said what he was doing and moved on. Whining about taxes doesn't make anyone look good and isn't going to help his brand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

  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. 

 

 

All do respect but there is no way that opportunities can be considered equal across the population, that is absolutely ridiculous. Growing up in San Diego and Arizona not in Detroit plays a huge role in becoming a professional golfer. Having parents who can afford to have their kid play golf and pay for golf lessons. Being able to devote time to golf and not have to work after school or watch their siblings etc because their parents work the nigh shift are all akin to opportunities that others do not have. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81 


So Phils parents worked hard to give there son the opportunity. What is the difference? Instead of complaining, maybe some parents should work hard and sacrifice so their own kids will have more opportunities.

     Yes but they also had opportunities that many do not as well. It is no accident that social class is consistent from generation to generation (on average). My point is that the best golfer on the planet may live in India or South Central or the Northwest Territories  but they were never given the opportunity to play golf (apparently because their parents do not work hard enough). If you think that all people have to do is work hard and they can achieve anything then you need to spend some time with those who have been marginalized by society who face social barriers that make success in anything almost impossible, especially professional golf. Poor does not equal lazy.

 If Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones were african-american would those names mean anything to golfers?

Back in 1977, with JImmy Carter as president, a young engineer like myself and my school teacher bride were in the 42% tax bracket, higher than the top bracket today. The top then was 70%. I thought we did fine. Reagan came along soon about that time and tax rates did fall. Back then, I bought into the progressive tax system and still do.

Not gonna quote any of the tst members here regarding their pissy attitude toward Phil, but I will say it sucks.

His character and life speaks for itself. 

And, for those of you who think that doing the best you can with the opportunity that this life provides you somehow deserves anything other than congrats on a life well-lived, you need to take another look at your value set. I feel sorry for you if you fell for the line of crap that your 3rd grade teacher told you about how wonderful life is and that it should be fair for everyone. Life isn't fair. Never has been. Never will be. As Frank Sinatra said, "That's life."

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

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.

Cool, then he should work within the framework of this democracy and change it. Or, as others have said he can move to some other state or he can move to Grand Cayman where the only tax is consumption. Nobody is "making" Mickelson pay this much tax. I'm sure there are all types of creative ways his accountant knows where it will be much less than 62%.

This democracy stuff is a bitch if it doesn't turn our how you want it to.

phil isn't about to break through with a cure for AIDS or world peace, he's a frickin' entertainer.  and he makes millions still well after the government gets their share.

and the government is never going to make any money by taxing 65% on the average american, whose salary is about 30k.  nope, the rich people are going to have to suffer more from a percentage perspective, or america is going to have to suffer (or right now, both).  that's the reality we live in and phil probably knows all that. 

i see really no reason for a top .1% earner (guess) in the entertainment industry to go public with a reiteration of that fact.  it just makes him look selfish IMO.  i'd gladly take his salary and give 90% of it to the government.  i'd still be making millions.

that aside, i love phil as a golfer/person.  i just think entertainers (read: rich entertainers) need to be tread carefully when it comes to politics, especially when they insinuate politics are unjust towards them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris E 

 

Cool, then he should work within the framework of this democracy and change it. Or, as others have said he can move to some other state or he can move to Grand Cayman where the only tax is consumption. Nobody is "making" Mickelson pay this much tax. I'm sure there are all types of creative ways his accountant knows where it will be much less than 62%.

 

This democracy stuff is a bitch if it doesn't turn our how you want it to.

His point was that he was looking at moving to another state. 

He did speak up when asked I think to draw attention to what it is like to do business in California (of which I'm guessing 8/10 Californians are clueless).

And, if you heard his comments, he was not whining, just didn't appreciate being branded by his state and federal governments as the kind of person who hasn't been paying "his fair share". 

***

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. - Ben Franklin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris E 

 

Cool, then he should work within the framework of this democracy and change it. Or, as others have said he can move to some other state or he can move to Grand Cayman where the only tax is consumption. Nobody is "making" Mickelson pay this much tax. I'm sure there are all types of creative ways his accountant knows where it will be much less than 62%.

 

This democracy stuff is a bitch if it doesn't turn our how you want it to.

Since when do we live in a democracy? A representative government is what we have, not a democracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuffluck 
and the government is never going to make any money by taxing 65% on the average american, whose salary is about 30k.  nope, the rich people are going to have to suffer more from a percentage perspective, or america is going to have to suffer (or right now, both).  that's the reality we live in and phil probably knows all that. 

 

i see really no reason for a top .1% earner (guess) in the entertainment industry to go public with a reiteration of that fact.  it just makes him look selfish IMO.  i'd gladly take his salary and give 90% of it to the government.  i'd still be making millions.

 

that aside, i love phil as a golfer/person.  i just think entertainers (read: rich entertainers) need to be tread carefully when it comes to politics, especially when they insinuate politics are unjust towards them.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

For those who have no problem with Mikelson (or anyone else) paying 62% in taxes just because he is rich, that quote probably sounds pretty good. Quite progressive thinking, wouldn't you say?

Here's the thing, you would say that becuase of the position your in now. But what if you were like Phil, been making tons of money for the past two decades. He had money from the tech boom as well. Now what if your him, and you spend a ton of money on non-profit organizaitons, charities, ect.. That is part of there budget, like you making a car payment. They impact more people than you do. So lets say the government takes away 15% more of his paycheck, now that is 15% more he can't help people. 

He's earned his money, he should have the right to spend it how he wants to. We shouldn't judge him for it. The government isn't a tool of the poor to be used for vindictive selfish judgemental class warfare. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

Here's the thing, you would say that becuase of the position your in now. But what if you were like Phil, been making tons of money for the past two decades. He had money from the tech boom as well. Now what if your him, and you spend a ton of money on non-profit organizaitons, charities, ect.. That is part of there budget, like you making a car payment. They impact more people than you do. So lets say the government takes away 15% more of his paycheck, now that is 15% more he can't help people. 

 

He's earned his money, he should have the right to spend it how he wants to. We shouldn't judge him for it. The government isn't a tool of the poor to be used for vindictive selfish judgemental class warfare. 

I'm not judging Phil but this comment is about the wealthy. Those in that tax bracket have basically unlimited amounts of disposable income and they also have the ability to give vast amounts to charity and to shelter their income in various ways. Nothing wrong with that but these are the tax advantages of wealth. I give what I can to charity but I don't have the kind of other tax shelters available to those with higher incomes. This is not class warfare, this is just the reality. No one should feel sorry that a multi-millionaire can't shelter more income or has to pay a relatively incrementally larger amount of their vast income. You just cannot convince me that paying about 3 million more in taxes on 48 million is a burden in any possible way. That said, he has the right to do whatever he wants in terms of legally minimizing his tax burden. My point is it worth it to uproot his family to do so?

Ben Hogan grew up working from the time he was 11.  He became involved in golf because he heard caddying paid better than delivering newspapers.  Ben Hogan became a great golfer because he wasn't afraid of hard work, nothing was handed to him. 

Changing ones situation is hard work, but it can be done.  The problem today is people are typically lazy and prefer to play the cards dealt than bust their butt to change. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

     Yes but they also had opportunities that many do not as well. It is no accident that social class is consistent from generation to generation (on average). My point is that the best golfer on the planet may live in India or South Central or the Northwest Territories  but they were never given the opportunity to play golf (apparently because their parents do not work hard enough). If you think that all people have to do is work hard and they can achieve anything then you need to spend some time with those who have been marginalized by society who face social barriers that make success in anything almost impossible, especially professional golf. Poor does not equal lazy.

 

 If Ben Hogan or Bobby Jones were african-american would those names mean anything to golfers?

People have been complaining about how lazy society has gotten for at least the last 2300 years or so (I forgot the exact greek philospher who wrote about it). I am guessing it goes back even farther but we just don't have records.  I am sure people have been complaining about taxes almost as long. 

Phil has come out and apologized for his comments. I am sure he realized they made him look like an insensitive jerk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Ben Hogan grew up working from the time he was 11.  He became involved in golf because he heard caddying paid better than delivering newspapers.  Ben Hogan became a great golfer because he wasn't afraid of hard work, nothing was handed to him. 

 

Changing ones situation is hard work, but it can be done.  The problem today is people are typically lazy and prefer to play the cards dealt than bust their butt to change. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

Here's the thing, you would say that becuase of the position your in now. But what if you were like Phil, been making tons of money for the past two decades. He had money from the tech boom as well. Now what if your him, and you spend a ton of money on non-profit organizaitons, charities, ect.. That is part of there budget, like you making a car payment. They impact more people than you do. So lets say the government takes away 15% more of his paycheck, now that is 15% more he can't help people. 

 

He's earned his money, he should have the right to spend it how he wants to. We shouldn't judge him for it. The government isn't a tool of the poor to be used for vindictive selfish judgemental class warfare. 

i get the philosophy, but most of his money is from being an entertainer.  that's one of those professions that i think people involved should wipe their forehead and go, "phew, i am sure lucky this occupation pays a lot."  you don't see the world's best janitor get paid millions, and i would argue we *need* people like him more than phil.  like i said earlier, if he were curing AIDS or about to initiate world peace, i would probably argue his contribution to society is ample enough to warrant lower taxes.  just playing golf for a living...come on.  he needs to keep his mouth shut and take 35% of his paycheck and go home.  if you want to talk "drastic changes," go ask a single mother of 3 with a 30k income that just lost her job what she thinks of phil's comments.

i know he is a philanthropist and i like that about him, but donations don't come without their fair share of tax benefits.  it is nearly a moot point in this argument.