Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I don't care what your job is or how much you make, the government shouldn't be entitled to more than 50% of your income.   This mentality that the rich will pay for all the poor spending decisions government makes has to stop. 

 

It's our money, the government is out of control with spending and until it's held accountable we're all at risk.  The focus is on the rich now but eventually their spending will exceed what the rich can cover and then it's going to be on you and me to pay. 

Agreed, but how come every time someone talks about Tax Code Reform or a flat tax, the wealthy oppose it?  The Ultra rich like Trump and Romney have ways around the code.  It surprises me that Phil's tax attorneys have not worked that out.  Romney paid far less than 14% in the last decade.  He was making about what Phil makes.

There is a lot of waste and pork on both sides of the aisle in Government.  Don't let them kid you that it is one side or the other, or it is just Medicare and Social Security.  It is everywhere.  The Tax Codes of both states and the Feds are filled with loop holes that corporations and even individuals get congress to sneak in.  We don't have access to those either.

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

Do they?  The most expensive places I can think of are LA, OC, San Francisco, New York ... pretty sure quite a few wealthy people still live in those places.  That argument sounds like the "If you punish people for working hard and succeeding then they're all going to stop trying to succeed" argument that people have been making lately.  I don't buy it.  Like I said before, maybe you do want to move out of California to Florida or wherever because of the state taxes ... but if you are inclined to do so, it seems to me that it's the 10.3% that makes you want to move ... not the extra 3%.

     Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81 

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.

Because that is exactly what they said.  If one wanted to, one could argue that it was an empty threat by the government, and maybe you are right.  But I have too many friends and relatives that are teachers, not to mention the kids, to take that chance.

I wasn't making a left or right argument, both sides spend too much, they just differ on how they waste our money. 

Romney's money comes from investments which is capital gains and gets taxed at a different rate than Phil who earns most of his from tournaments and endorsements.  The 14% that's keeps getting applied to Romney was only at a Federal level, no idea what his state tax bill was. 

I'm all for tax reform and a flat tax on all. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious 

Agreed, but how come every time someone talks about Tax Code Reform or a flat tax, the wealthy oppose it?  The Ultra rich like Trump and Romney have ways around the code.  It surprises me that Phil's tax attorneys have not worked that out.  Romney paid far less than 14% in the last decade.  He was making about what Phil makes.

 

There is a lot of waste and pork on both sides of the aisle in Government.  Don't let them kid you that it is one side or the other, or it is just Medicare and Social Security.  It is everywhere.  The Tax Codes of both states and the Feds are filled with loop holes that corporations and even individuals get congress to sneak in.  We don't have access to those either.

You or I aren't in a position to spend Phil's money so we have no idea what the deal breaker is/was.  Yes, rich people will still choose to live in NY and CA but that also doesn't mean some haven't left.  Tiger and Rory live in Florida, many golfers live there, and other states where year round golf is possible and taxes are low. 

My question is if Phil does move what's Prop 30's solution to replacing his $4.6M in tax revenue?  What if more people follow Phil's lead?   People will endure so much before you push them to take action, looks like the extra 3% was enough for Phil to take a stand. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Do they?  The most expensive places I can think of are LA, OC, San Francisco, New York ... pretty sure quite a few wealthy people still live in those places.  That argument sounds like the "If you punish people for working hard and succeeding then they're all going to stop trying to succeed" argument that people have been making lately.  I don't buy it.  Like I said before, maybe you do want to move out of California to Florida or wherever because of the state taxes ... but if you are inclined to do so, it seems to me that it's the 10.3% that makes you want to move ... not the extra 3%.

 

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

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. Of course it's not too expensive for someone as wealthy as Phil to live in California.

Addressing the marginal income lost if he moves, it's just that, marginal. It looks like the state's annual tax revenue is about 150 billion dollars. By the way, other than taxes, I'd much, much rather live in CA than Florida or Texas. Not even close IMO and worth the extra money if I was in Phil's tax bracket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

You or I aren't in a position to spend Phil's money so we have no idea what the deal breaker is/was.  Yes, rich people will still choose to live in NY and CA but that also doesn't mean some haven't left.  Tiger and Rory live in Florida, many golfers live there, and other states where year round golf is possible and taxes are low. 

 

My question is if Phil does move what's Prop 30's solution to replacing his $4.6M in tax revenue?  What if more people follow Phil's lead?   People will endure so much before you push them to take action, looks like the extra 3% was enough for Phil to take a stand. 

You're right, I have no idea.  I am speculating 100%, but aren't we all?   (I probably should have just stuck to my original promise of keeping my mouth shut until he clarifies his comments.) :)

You and me both

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

You're right, I have no idea.  I am speculating 100%, but aren't we all?   (I probably should have just stuck to my original promise of keeping my mouth shut until he clarifies his comments.) :)

Its like the old economic spiral that causes businesses to fail

You suddenly start loosing profits, so you raise cost, and you wonder why people still stop buying your product. When you get less people to buy your product you need to lower the prices. 

Lets say, you sell a product for 10 dollars, you have 10 people buying it. That's not enough money, so you raise the price, but now you get 9 people to buy, oh you just lost 10 dollars. But what if you lower the cost to 9 dollars, and get 13 people to buy it. Now you gained 17 more dollars, by lowering cost. This works with taxes, this is why states like Texas and Florida can survive on no income tax, because there sales taxes are higher, and they hit you with other fees, like on cars. but they are able to make up for it, in quantity of people. 

This is why California will go bankrupt, and loose all the wealth. Its cheaper to fly into LA, live in a hotel, do a movie shoot, and go back to Florida were there is no income tax. I mean that is like millions upon millions of dollars saved. Its absurd to live in California, just absurd. The only city in California i would possibly live in is San Francisco, even then i would live near Napa Valley. Other than that, it would be absurd to deal with those taxes if you have the mobility to move. 

For me, its like the Joker said in Batman, "If your good at something, never do it for free." 

This is why i have no issue with good actors making millions of dollars, or baseball players, or football players. The quantity of people who are willing to pay for Cable TV, sports packages, football tickets, shirts, ect... give them excessive amounts of money, to a small portion of people, of course these players are going to make millions, the math works out for it.

But for me, always, i mean always, a person should be able to take home a strong majority of there money. Meaning 2/3's, i think people have earned that right. 

Make no mistake, I like Phil. But he has been taking a beating in the sports press because of this. And from some fellow tour players. And I kinda agree, as reported on the golf channel Monday, Phil made 48 million dollars last year, the lion share of that from endorsements. It does not break my heart that he has to pay thoses taxes. And note, those are STATE taxes not federal. Me thinks Phil should move to Florida or Texas

Most people can't move. That plastic surgeon in LA making 2 million can't move to Houston, Tx. He needs to stay where his customers are. The VC on Sand Hill round can't move to Miami, FL because the companies and people in needs to deal with live in Palo Alto. And so on. There are some people that can move but others than can't.  But lets say that plastic surgeon moves. Guess what another plastic surgeon will move in and do the work. There are very few jobs (pro golfer is one of them) where the person doing the work isn't replaceable.  Now if that replacement is a good thing for the economy is a different story. This thing has been studied a lot. The general result is that very few people move for tax purposes for the small increases we are talking about. Bump the rates up to 75% and people get more motivated to move.

Long term this tax the rich will not work. We also need to tax the middle class. We couldn't afford the GWB cuts for them either. Hopefully they wait until the economy recovers and do it gradually instead of all at once.

From a tax point of view a guy like Phil should have left CA 20 years ago, made his millions, and then go live there when he retires. I sort of doubt Phil is going to make huge amounts of money when he stops golfing. He just isn't in the legends category like Arnold, Jack or Tiger.  If you still don't want to pay taxes, tax free bonds have a nice return once you do the math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

You or I aren't in a position to spend Phil's money so we have no idea what the deal breaker is/was.  Yes, rich people will still choose to live in NY and CA but that also doesn't mean some haven't left.  Tiger and Rory live in Florida, many golfers live there, and other states where year round golf is possible and taxes are low. 

 

My question is if Phil does move what's Prop 30's solution to replacing his $4.6M in tax revenue?  What if more people follow Phil's lead?   People will endure so much before you push them to take action, looks like the extra 3% was enough for Phil to take a stand. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BunkerShot 

Me thinks Phil should move to Florida or Texas

... or employ the services of KPMG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

.... Its absurd to live in California, just absurd. The only city in California i would possibly live in is San Francisco, even then i would live near Napa Valley. Other than that, it would be absurd to deal with those taxes if you have the mobility to move. ...

No offense taken ... in case you were wondering.

If you're tied to an area then you have to suck it up and keep taking the tax hits until you have enough money saved to sell your business or retire.  Movie stars, athletes, business owners aren't tied to the state and will leave when the price to live in a state becomes too high. 

I agree, the wealthy cannot make up the difference between what the government spends and what it collects in order to reduce the deficit.  The difference you and I seem to have is that I believe the government should reduce spending not increase taxes.  The government needs to cut defense budgets, cut financial aid overseas, cut entitlement programs, cut their benefits packages, the number of assistants, vacations and perks elected officials have.  The President should pay for his own vacations and all non-government travel.  Pork barrel legislation needs to end on both sides. 

Once you do that, there will be enough money to give those that serve in the military a raise and care for those that really need it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Most people can't move. That plastic surgeon in LA making 2 million can't move to Houston, Tx. He needs to stay where his customers are. The VC on Sand Hill round can't move to Miami, FL because the companies and people in needs to deal with live in Palo Alto. And so on. There are some people that can move but others than can't.  But lets say that plastic surgeon moves. Guess what another plastic surgeon will move in and do the work. There are very few jobs (pro golfer is one of them) where the person doing the work isn't replaceable.  Now if that replacement is a good thing for the economy is a different story. This thing has been studied a lot. The general result is that very few people move for tax purposes for the small increases we are talking about. Bump the rates up to 75% and people get more motivated to move.

 

Long term this tax the rich will not work. We also need to tax the middle class. We couldn't afford the GWB cuts for them either. Hopefully they wait until the economy recovers and do it gradually instead of all at once.

 

From a tax point of view a guy like Phil should have left CA 20 years ago, made his millions, and then go live there when he retires. I sort of doubt Phil is going to make huge amounts of money when he stops golfing. He just isn't in the legends category like Arnold, Jack or Tiger.  If you still don't want to pay taxes, tax free bonds have a nice return once you do the math.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

Its like the old economic spiral that causes businesses to fail

 

You suddenly start loosing profits, so you raise cost, and you wonder why people still stop buying your product. When you get less people to buy your product you need to lower the prices. 

 

Lets say, you sell a product for 10 dollars, you have 10 people buying it. That's not enough money, so you raise the price, but now you get 9 people to buy, oh you just lost 10 dollars. But what if you lower the cost to 9 dollars, and get 13 people to buy it. Now you gained 17 more dollars, by lowering cost. This works with taxes, this is why states like Texas and Florida can survive on no income tax, because there sales taxes are higher, and they hit you with other fees, like on cars. but they are able to make up for it, in quantity of people. 

 

This is why California will go bankrupt, and loose all the wealth. Its cheaper to fly into LA, live in a hotel, do a movie shoot, and go back to Florida were there is no income tax. I mean that is like millions upon millions of dollars saved. Its absurd to live in California, just absurd. The only city in California i would possibly live in is San Francisco, even then i would live near Napa Valley. Other than that, it would be absurd to deal with those taxes if you have the mobility to move. 

 

For me, its like the Joker said in Batman, "If your good at something, never do it for free." 

 

This is why i have no issue with good actors making millions of dollars, or baseball players, or football players. The quantity of people who are willing to pay for Cable TV, sports packages, football tickets, shirts, ect... give them excessive amounts of money, to a small portion of people, of course these players are going to make millions, the math works out for it.

 

But for me, always, i mean always, a person should be able to take home a strong majority of there money. Meaning 2/3's, i think people have earned that right. 

You are forgetting the reason people live in California. The weather for the most part especially Southern CA is fantastic. Moderate temperatures, low humidity and lots of sun. You are close to the ocean, the desert and the mountains. The Bay Area is one of the great places in the world to live. It's beautiful and sophisticated. The reality is that the wealthy including actors, athletes and retired athletes choose to live in California because of all it offers. And despite the high taxes. They still live in homes worth millions of dollars, shop on Rodeo Drive and eat at Spago and the like. It's a lifestyle. Miami offers some of this but in the summer it's unbearably hot and humid. LA has nearly perfect weather. Taxes are marginal income to these people and the only reason they move away is to get away from the corrupting influences.

I agree with this,

To break even, your looking at needing 1089 billion in new tax revenues, basically your going to have to double our total income tax revenue to cover that. 

The number of people who are not tied to an area is super small. You can't relocate your accounting, dental, law, or medical practice without having to build your customer base from zero. Your contracting business is going to be where houses need work. And so on. Phil happens to be a guy that could move. He would still owe CA when he plays in CA but that is a minimal part of his income.

For most mortals, taxes are not the problem in CA. The price of housing is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

If you're tied to an area then you have to suck it up and keep taking the tax hits until you have enough money saved to sell your business or retire.  Movie stars, athletes, business owners aren't tied to the state and will leave when the price to live in a state becomes too high. 

 

Wow..I am stunned at how many think someone is evil because they make a business decision.  It is none of anyone's business why Phil wants to get out...he should have just kept quiet.

But you cannot begrudge a person for wanting to hold on to their $$ no matter how much they make!  We all try and do that!

This whole 2012 election has pitted haves vs have nots and that is not the America I recall growing up.  Now, everyone wants to punish those that succeed and admonish someone not giving their "fair share."  

I am sure Phil has given way more than his fair share over his career and does not like where his fair share is being distributed.

This is (maybe) still America where you can vote with your feet.  

Geesh, no wonder the country is going down the crapper....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe 

Wow..I am stunned at how many think someone is evil because they make a business decision.  It is none of anyone's business why Phil wants to get out...he should have just kept quiet.

 

But you cannot begrudge a person for wanting to hold on to their $$ no matter how much they make!  We all try and do that!

 

This whole 2012 election has pitted haves vs have nots and that is not the America I recall growing up.  Now, everyone wants to punish those that succeed and admonish someone not giving their "fair share."  

 

I am sure Phil has given way more than his fair share over his career and does not like where his fair share is being distributed.

 

This is (maybe) still America where you can vote with your feet.  

 

Geesh, no wonder the country is going down the crapper....

I'm stunned that you think anybody on this thread thinks Phil is "evil."  I don't remember reading that. ;)