Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 5

Having to apologize for paying over 50% of their EARNED income to the government has to be yet another sign of the apocalypse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

 

 

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

Oh good, he's learning.

Has he figured out yet that redesigning Torrey Pines isn't going to bring the cash strapped droves back to golf.

We can discuss that as long as you're open to a discussion why a single mother has 3 kids on a $30,000 income.  Where's the father (s) and if they died unexpectedly why didn't they provide for their wife and children? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuffluck 

 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.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

We can discuss that as long as you're open to a discussion why a single mother has 3 kids on a $30,000 income.  Where's the father (s) and if they died unexpectedly why didn't they provide for their wife and children? 

Are you advocating limiting the number of children one has based on their income? There are many, may families in difficult situations where there is no ability to provide insurance or savings by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

We can discuss that as long as you're open to a discussion why a single mother has 3 kids on a $30,000 income.  Where's the father (s) and if they died unexpectedly why didn't they provide for their wife and children? 

I guess if one believes in a "sins of the fathers" type philosophy, then that argument holds water. However, I think the question, "Why should children live in poverty just because they had the misfortune to be born to irresponsible or impecunious parents?" would serve as an adequate rebuttal.

Admittedly, it can be very frustrating to witness the distribution of taxpayers' money through entitlements. A while ago, the city where I live suddenly repealed some of its blue law ordinances, and now allows beer sales on Sundays. One Sunday a few months ago, while standing in line at the grocery store, a lady had the temerity to rebuke me for the six-pack she saw in my shopping cart. When she pulled out an EBT card to pay for her groceries, I couldn't help but say, "Well, as I'm spending MY money that I earned, I'll spend it however I please." Which, in hindsight, was just rather unkind on my part. At the end of the day, I was buying beer (a luxury item). She was buying groceries to (presumably) feed her family. The government, in its collective wisdom, has (rightly, I think) determined that the poor ought not be hungry, even if taxpayer subsidy is required to prevent that situation.

As regards Phil. Well, I concur with the arguments some others here have stated: be grateful to live in a part of the world where one can become a multi-millionaire through playing golf. Being obliged to contribute a bit more to the communal pot for the good of society doesn't negate that good fortune.

I am not advocating anything except that people take full responsibility for ones self and actions. 

I no more advocate limiting the number of children someone has based on income than I advocate people expecting strangers to pay for ones mistakes (regardless of how much money they make) in the form of government entitlements.  I am all for helping to care for the elderly, disabled and those that suffer some short term bad luck but at some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and not expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott 

Are you advocating limiting the number of children one has based on their income? There are many, may families in difficult situations where there is no ability to provide insurance or savings by the way.

Would you be happier if she was making 100k and then lost her job? Or if she was married to a guy and they were both laid off?   What if she was expecting 1 kid and had triplets? 

The OP point stands. Phil's life shouldn't (i.e. if he spent all the 100millions he made it might) change if the tax rates went to 90%.  He would still have enough money to live a lifestyle in the top .1% for the next 100 years.  It just isn't a situation that is going to get a lot of sympathy.  If he wants to move to FL. Just do it. Whoops wrong endorsement company....  You can either agree or disagree with his position but it seems to me a stupid position to take. It isn't going to help his situation in anyway. And given we have been through this type of thing (rich people whining about taxes) a couple dozen times in the past year, he has to be clueless to think it was going to end well for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

We can discuss that as long as you're open to a discussion why a single mother has 3 kids on a $30,000 income.  Where's the father (s) and if they died unexpectedly why didn't they provide for their wife and children? 

The poor should not go hungry, nor should the poor resent you because you worked hard and earned the money you chose to buy beer with. 

The poor should also not expect to collect a check or EBT card without providing some form of work or service in exchange.  There are plenty of VA hospitals, clinics, senior citizen housing that need volunteers as well as parts and highways that need to be cleaned.  If you want help I'll provide it but don't sit at home and do nothing for the assistance, give back. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgiaGolfer 

I guess if one believes in a "sins of the fathers" type philosophy, then that argument holds water. However, I think the question, "Why should children live in poverty just because they had the misfortune to be born to irresponsible or impecunious parents?" would serve as an adequate rebuttal.

 

Admittedly, it can be very frustrating to witness the distribution of taxpayers' money through entitlements. A while ago, the city where I live suddenly repealed some of its blue law ordinances, and now allows beer sales on Sundays. One Sunday a few months ago, while standing in line at the grocery store, a lady had the temerity to rebuke me for the six-pack she saw in my shopping cart. When she pulled out an EBT card to pay for her groceries, I couldn't help but say, "Well, as I'm spending MY money that I earned, I'll spend it however I please." Which, in hindsight, was just rather unkind on my part. At the end of the day, I was buying beer (a luxury item). She was buying groceries to (presumably) feed her family. The government, in its collective wisdom, has (rightly, I think) determined that the poor ought not be hungry, even if taxpayer subsidy is required to prevent that situation.

 

As regards Phil. Well, I concur with the arguments some others here have stated: be grateful to live in a part of the world where one can become a multi-millionaire through playing golf. Being obliged to contribute a bit more to the communal pot for the good of society doesn't negate that good fortune.

I think Phil's comments are incredibly unnecessary.  He has the financial wherewithal to do whatever he wants as it pertains to re-location.  Many other professional golfers have packed their bags and moved to Florida or Texas long time ago.  With the millions he makes playing the game and the millions in endorsements, why hasn't he just gone ahead and bought a nice multi million dollar house in a beautiful community in Florida and save all of us the need to hear these ridiculous comments. 

He plays golf for goodness sake.  Suck it up and move.  How is this even a discussion that us 9-5ers needs to hear about????  Are you kidding me???

The elite in America have found ways to hide their money for MANY generations.  Phil either just felt like hearing himself talk OR needs a new financial adviser.

Why does it always have to be a super rich vs. super poor argument?  It's not that black and white.

One of the things Phil was complaining about was the passage of Proposition 30 here in California (it passed by a roughly 55% to 45% margin).  It raised his state taxes by 3% (from 10.3 to 13.3) and also raised taxes on other less wealthy people by smaller fractions.  Additionally, there is a tiny spike in our sales tax.

This was not done to provide entitlements for really poor or lazy people, but rather to give the state the budget to pay their workers.  Had it not passed, there were going to be massive cuts to, among other things, schoolteachers salaries.  (Hard working, middle class, school teachers)

The government is certainly broken and I doubt anybody would disagree that there is wasted spending that couldn't be cleaned up.  Unfortunately, there isn't really much I can do about that.  What I can do, though, is decide if it's more important for hard working middle class teachers to continue to be paid somewhat fairly, or if it's more important for a hard working professional golfer (who's earned every penny he has) to keep an extra 2 million of the 60 he earned last year.

Sorry, Phil, you are going to lose that argument (with me) every single time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Why does it always have to be a super rich vs. super poor argument?  It's not that black and white.

 

One of the things Phil was complaining about was the passage of Proposition 30 here in California (it passed by a roughly 55% to 45% margin).  It raised his state taxes by 3% (from 10.3 to 13.3) and also raised taxes on other less wealthy people by smaller fractions.  Additionally, there is a tiny spike in our sales tax.

 

This was not done to provide entitlements for really poor or lazy people, but rather to give the state the budget to pay their workers.  Had it not passed, there were going to be massive cuts to, among other things, schoolteachers salaries.  (Hard working, middle class, school teachers)

 

The government is certainly broken and I doubt anybody would disagree that there is wasted spending that couldn't be cleaned up.  Unfortunately, there isn't really much I can do about that.  What I can do, though, is decide if it's more important for hard working middle class teachers to continue to be paid somewhat fairly, or if it's more important for a hard working professional golfer (who's earned every penny he has) to keep an extra 2 million of the 60 he earned last year.

 

Sorry, Phil, you are going to lose that argument (with me) every single time.

Where does the 62% he mentions come from?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I am not advocating anything except that people take full responsibility for ones self and actions. 

 

I no more advocate limiting the number of children someone has based on income than I advocate people expecting strangers to pay for ones mistakes (regardless of how much money they make) in the form of government entitlements.  I am all for helping to care for the elderly, disabled and those that suffer some short term bad luck but at some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and not expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.   

I agree that people should take responsibility for their actions but not every single mother of 3 living in poverty is trying to bilk the government. But those who do need help from the government should get it as long as it's to take responsible care of their children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith 

Where does the 62% he mentions come from?

The 62% is his total of federal taxes, state taxes, social security, disability, and maybe a couple of other things.

But it's not like this was just sprung on him.  3% increase in state, and even if his federal is also 3%, then he was OK paying 55/56% up until now?  That's why I was saying earlier on in the thread that it is unusual that he would be so vocal about it now.  It's not like it went from 12 to 62.

And his complaints also ring a little hollow with a lot of people because their taxes are going up too.

We agree 100%

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott 

I agree that people should take responsibility for their actions but not every single mother of 3 living in poverty is trying to bilk the government. But those who do need help from the government should get it as long as it's to take responsible care of their children.

Here's the issue and the potential reason Phil spoke out.  He was paying about $4.6M per year to the state of CA already.  They decided to raise it so he'd now have to pay $6M in taxes.  Now if he leaves CA, they lose not the extra 1.4M they decided to hit him with, they lose the 4.6M too.  How is that going to help the hard working middle class school teachers.  When you make an area too expensive to live in for the wealthy, they leave. 

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut and moved, maybe he tried to open some politicians eyes to the problem they were causing themselves.  In either case, if he moves, CA just lost $4.6M and if others do it, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than you did before you voted for Prop 30.  CA is nice, but it's not $6M a year nicer than Florida or Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Why does it always have to be a super rich vs. super poor argument?  It's not that black and white.

 

One of the things Phil was complaining about was the passage of Proposition 30 here in California (it passed by a roughly 55% to 45% margin).  It raised his state taxes by 3% (from 10.3 to 13.3) and also raised taxes on other less wealthy people by smaller fractions.  Additionally, there is a tiny spike in our sales tax.

 

This was not done to provide entitlements for really poor or lazy people, but rather to give the state the budget to pay their workers.  Had it not passed, there were going to be massive cuts to, among other things, schoolteachers salaries.  (Hard working, middle class, school teachers)

 

The government is certainly broken and I doubt anybody would disagree that there is wasted spending that couldn't be cleaned up.  Unfortunately, there isn't really much I can do about that.  What I can do, though, is decide if it's more important for hard working middle class teachers to continue to be paid somewhat fairly, or if it's more important for a hard working professional golfer (who's earned every penny he has) to keep an extra 2 million of the 60 he earned last year.

 

Sorry, Phil, you are going to lose that argument (with me) every single time.

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.  ---  Thomas Jefferson

(I had to look up felicities to see what that meant.   It means happiness.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Why does it always have to be a super rich vs. super poor argument?  It's not that black and white.

 

One of the things Phil was complaining about was the passage of Proposition 30 here in California (it passed by a roughly 55% to 45% margin).  It raised his state taxes by 3% (from 10.3 to 13.3) and also raised taxes on other less wealthy people by smaller fractions.  Additionally, there is a tiny spike in our sales tax.

 

This was not done to provide entitlements for really poor or lazy people, but rather to give the state the budget to pay their workers.  Had it not passed, there were going to be massive cuts to, among other things, schoolteachers salaries.  (Hard working, middle class, school teachers)

 

The government is certainly broken and I doubt anybody would disagree that there is wasted spending that couldn't be cleaned up.  Unfortunately, there isn't really much I can do about that.  What I can do, though, is decide if it's more important for hard working middle class teachers to continue to be paid somewhat fairly, or if it's more important for a hard working professional golfer (who's earned every penny he has) to keep an extra 2 million of the 60 he earned last year.

 

Sorry, Phil, you are going to lose that argument (with me) every single time.

A budget short fall is a budget shortfall.  How can you say the cuts would only need to be on state employees?  Why not cut a different program, and leave the wages where they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

We agree 100%

Add another one who agrees.  The problem is, there are many out there who bilk the system.  Something needs to be done about that, but that may be a bit off topic here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Here's the issue and the potential reason Phil spoke out.  He was paying about $4.6M per year to the state of CA already.  They decided to raise it so he'd now have to pay $6M in taxes.  Now if he leaves CA, they lose not the extra 1.4M they decided to hit him with, they lose the 4.6M too.  How is that going to help the hard working middle class school teachers.  When you make an area too expensive to live in for the wealthy, they leave. 

 

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut and moved, maybe he tried to open some politicians eyes to the problem they were causing themselves.  In either case, if he moves, CA just lost $4.6M and if others do it, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than you did before you voted for Prop 30.  CA is nice, but it's not $6M a year nicer than Florida or Texas

QFT

And the states that they move to gain.  Maybe this trend carries on long enough and teacher salaries have to be cut.  Good teachers find they can get paid more in other states, and they will leave as well.