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

[saevel25]

Deficit is an idiotic way of measuring anyting, all that means is for this year we added another 1.1 trillion to our debt.

That's like say, "Oh i made 50K this year, and speant 60K, so i ran a defecit of 10K, and my i still own the bank 90K, but were doing good"

Stupid, how can people be so stupid to think that just because we lowered our defecit we are doing anything good. What would be good is if we alternated years of surplus and defecit, so we are not wasiting money, but not hording money to the point were not allocating resources.

Quote:

IF you truly are a professor of American History, then you should know that the political leanings of this country shift every few years.  Predicting the permanent fall of the Republican party simply because a sitting President was re-elected is more than a bit premature.

This is true to, majority of major party changes have occured after a split in the party. Republicans are pretty unified here. But i can see maybe a third party come into play, those republicans who are not so stringent on non-economic republican issues, and those democrats who hate our spending ways, an actual Moderate party.

A historical example would be when Teddy ran for office, creating his own party in the process. Or when the south divided during the Civil War over the slavery issue. Usually major issues are the ones lead towards political party changes. Its just that these two parties have polarized the agenda so much, and made us believe its a black and white view of the world, its hard to see a new political party.

Though i will say this, republicans need to get there head out of there ass. Especially in immigration, they could win over tons of votes if they just say, "we want to deregulate the government so you have a better shot at starting the life you want." Most latino's are very hard working people, and will be stout republicans, if republicans just show a bit of compassion, and actually work towards promoting making small business champions of America again.

[x129]

I also like hot fudge trickling down my sundae. Doesn't mean I have to believe in trickle down economics since they are unrelated matters.

The confederacy approach has been tried 2x in American history. Didn't work too well either time.  Just for a random example for something that isn't on your list, I think it would suck to have to deal with 50 different currencies. I am think it would also suck to have 50 different environmental laws. It would suck if every medication had to be approved in all 50 states and the drug manufactor decided to skip mine because it wasn't worth the time. The good news is that all your overhead that you are adding to the system would create a lot of government jobs. Lets see it would also suck to be forced to invest in a state retirement plan with a 20 year cliff. Imagine you want to move to another state to take a job paying 2x as much but you would lose your last 10 years of retirement savings. Or if a state is forced to let in people that never paid into their health care system. Imagine all the texans deciding to retire to CA for the free healthcare after not paying into the system for their working careers.

Personally I have always found it better to deal with the feds than the locals. They are more professional. Your experience may vary.

Originally Posted by saevel25

For how much liberals hate trickle down economics, they sure love trickle down government.

For example,

look at Cristie in NJ, he had to lay off teachers because the government didn't renew the education funding. So basically they were out money they were using to hire teachers. This means that the education system in NJ was supported beyond there means, and inflated. When the whims of the government changed, he had to lay off teachers. Now lets say majority of the money for school funding was raised by local funds. That means, its more stable, because locally things wont change as much as they do nationally.

So basically a better form of government is to invert the tax code, make local taxes 30%, state in the middle, federal government near 5-7%. This means, that the locals can support the projects for there own population size based on there ability.

Really Federal government should only supply interstate roadways, defense, space travel, and be a system that examines programs by other local governments, then bring up ideas to spread through out the country. Imagine if each local government offered there own form of health care system. Now you have thousands of test subjects. The federal government can examine these and spread around good ideas. In the end, we probably would have one overall similar plan through out the nation, run locally, that works. Instead of this bloated monstrousity called obamacare.

Basically we need a weak central government, and run more like a confederacy.

[jclark]

It's a matter of allocating resources - instead of giving to his charitable foundations, he will give more to another entity - the government; or he will have less in his pocket. No matter, Phil and his family will not suffer.

It's not about how much he makes and what he can stand to lose, it's about unfair taxation. 62 percent is rediculous no matter what you make! Millionaire or not, the government shouldn't punish you for being successful, and IMO the state of California has put themselves in this mess. The state legislature failed the people and now are making the people pay for their incompetence.

[3putter]

Though i will say this, republicans need to get there head out of there ass. Especially in immigration, they could win over tons of votes if they just say, "we want to deregulate the government so you have a better shot at starting the life you want." Most latino's are very hard working people, and will be stout republicans, if republicans just show a bit of compassion, and actually work towards promoting making small business champions of America again.

That part almost seems to imply that stout democrats aren't hardworking people. Almost fits the general narrative that you see out there on most media outlets

[Dave H]

It's campaign rhetoric and the American people obviously agree that the wealthy should pay higher taxes. Actually the issue was more the refusal of one party to accept higher taxes even though the higher taxes are more show than go. The average American does not take kindly to the wealthy getting large tax breaks and congress fighting to keep the status quo. By the way some of the quotes you show are taken out of context.

I know you and I already agreed we wouldn't see eye to eye on this issue, but I want to ask you a question. Since you have the pulse of "the average American" (more on that later) what would the average American think if we all paid the exact same percentage, no loop holes credits, etc. make 100 grand, pay 25. Make a million, pay 250. And we can leave out the lowest income earners, say current poverty level and below. Let's just say they don't have to pay taxes. Regarding the average american, I think you're wrong on this. I think the country is pretty well divided on this issue. The fact that prop 30 didn't pass by huge margin is an indicator of this.

[European Macca]

Boo hoo Phil!:-( is this a golf thread?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by European Macca

Boo hoo Phil! is this a golf thread?

Ummm, no.  Taxes.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Did you read the article?  Phil isn't complaining so much about the Federal Income Tax hike as he is about Prop 30 in California.

What's unpatriotic is that there are people in this country that believe they are entitled to a free ride.  This country was founded on opportunity but now is stuck in the muck of voters asking their politicians "What free stuff am I going to get if I vote for you".  The wealthy overall have always been generous with their money, they are pushing back now because no matter how much they give, the government still wants more.

The left, led by Obama has vilified the wealthy and convinced the voting public that the wealthy have enough and that everyone else is entitled to free stuff.  There was a time when people like Phil, Bill Gates, Tiger, Walton, Zuckerberg were admired because they represented the American dream.  Today they are the enemy because they won't willingly pay 70% of their income in the form of taxes so the parasites can get more free phones and beer.

As opposed to the uber-rich people who say "What free stuff am I going to get from you if I help bankroll your campaign?"

Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe

Income inequality might be rising but "poverty" standard of livings are as well!   Someone in poverty back in the 40's 50's 60's did not have the equivalents of today's large screen TVs, internet access, laptops, iPads, iPhones, central air, 2 cars, emergency health care etc etc.

Being poor in the US is not what it used to be.   Seems back in the day there was real hardship and people went without.  It made them want to get out of that postion and improve themselves.   Today, there is incentive to stay in that position.   52 weeks of unemployment?   Are you kidding me?

This is odd ... you say this like you miss it fondly?  Not speaking to your actual argument about lazy people (others have already done that), just flabbergasted at how you worded this.  As if we really NEED to have poor people in situations of real hardship.  Wow.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Dave H

I know you and I already agreed we wouldn't see eye to eye on this issue, but I want to ask you a question. Since you have the pulse of "the average American" (more on that later) what would the average American think if we all paid the exact same percentage, no loop holes credits, etc. make 100 grand, pay 25. Make a million, pay 250. And we can leave out the lowest income earners, say current poverty level and below. Let's just say they don't have to pay taxes.

Earlier in this thread, it was brought up that the top tax rate under Ike was 91%.    I did a little checking and discovered a few interesting facts about that.   First, the marginal tax rate under Ike peaked at 92%, however the number of filers affected by that rate was 0.3% and adjusting for today's dollars, to get into that tax bracket, you had to be making about $1.6 million.   At the same time, the lowest income tax rate was over 20%.   During those years, the number of filers who owed no income tax at all averaged 22% and of course, there was no EITC, so nobody got back more than they paid in.   Interestingly, the unemployment rate was in the 4% range.

Comparing those numbers to today, approximately 1% of filers will fall into the top bracket (39.6%) and of course, we know that will be those making over $400K.  Our current lowest rate is 10%.  We also find that over 40% of filers now owe no income taxes and approximately 20% of those will get back more than they paid in.  The unemployment rate is currently just under 8%.

So, under Ike, a higher percentage of people paid taxes than they do now and no one was getting what amounts to a bonus check from Uncle Sam.   I wonder just how many of those who think it a good idea to those kinds of tax rates, would really be in favor of them if they also found that they were now also going to have to pay taxes and that about half of them were going to lose that bonus check as well.

[European Macca]

Then why is this forum not called the tax trap, doh! Boring! I'm off to read about golf!

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

As opposed to the uber-rich people who say "What free stuff am I going to get from you if I help bankroll your campaign?"

This is odd ... you say this like you miss it fondly?  Not speaking to your actual argument about lazy people (others have already done that), just flabbergasted at how you worded this.  As if we really NEED to have poor people in situations of real hardship.  Wow.

Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe

Income inequality might be rising but "poverty" standard of livings are as well!   Someone in poverty back in the 40's 50's 60's did not have the equivalents of today's large screen TVs, internet access, laptops, iPads, iPhones, central air, 2 cars, emergency health care etc etc.

Being poor in the US is not what it used to be.   Seems back in the day there was real hardship and people went without.  It made them want to get out of that postion and improve themselves.   Today, there is incentive to stay in that position.   52 weeks of unemployment?   Are you kidding me?

I bolded the next line.  It makes his point much clearer.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Earlier in this thread, it was brought up that the top tax rate under Ike was 91%.    I did a little checking and discovered a few interesting facts about that.   First, the marginal tax rate under Ike peaked at 92%, however the number of filers affected by that rate was 0.3% and adjusting for today's dollars, to get into that tax bracket, you had to be making about $1.6 million.   At the same time, the lowest income tax rate was over 20%.   During those years, the number of filers who owed no income tax at all averaged 22% and of course, there was no EITC, so nobody got back more than they paid in.   Interestingly, the unemployment rate was in the 4% range.

Comparing those numbers to today, approximately 1% of filers will fall into the top bracket (39.6%) and of course, we know that will be those making over $400K.  Our current lowest rate is 10%.  We also find that over 40% of filers now owe no income taxes and approximately 20% of those will get back more than they paid in.  The unemployment rate is currently just under 8%.

So, under Ike, a higher percentage of people paid taxes than they do now and no one was getting what amounts to a bonus check from Uncle Sam.   I wonder just how many of those who think it a good idea to those kinds of tax rates, would really be in favor of them if they also found that they were now also going to have to pay taxes and that about half of them were going to lose that bonus check as well.

I would be guessing very few.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I bolded the next line.  It makes his point much clearer.

I get his argument, I just don't really like the "tone."  The longing for the days of a "real" lower class.

And, I don't agree with it.  I just don't believe that there are a lot of people out there scraping by on handouts from the government thinking to themselves "Woohoo, I got it made!"  I just don't see it.  The stories I hear of people doing things like that are not poor people, but rather middle class people whose unemployment checks are actually pretty nice.

I feel the same way towards the argument that successful people are going to give up trying to be successful if you keep punishing them.  (Both arguments have been made on this thread, although I'm not going to go back through all of the pages to find them)

Last I checked, all of us who work hard continue to work hard and pay our fair share, whatever that share ends up being.  (We complain when we need to , and vote how we feel we need to vote to change things we don't like, but that's about it)  If it goes up and I have to work overtime to make ends meet, or get a second job, I will.  Certainly, I'm not going to go "Well, the government wants to take more of my money in taxes?  Haha, I'll show them ... I won't make any!  Suck on that Feds!"

Where would that leave me?

P.S.  It's Wednesday afternoon ... has Phil had his press conference yet where he said he'd clarify his remarks?

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I get his argument, I just don't really like the "tone."  The longing for the days of a "real" lower class.

I don't think he was "longing for the days of a real lower class."  I think he was longing for the days of a lower class that tried hard to better themselves.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I get his argument, I just don't really like the "tone."  The longing for the days of a "real" lower class.

And, I don't agree with it.  I just don't believe that there are a lot of people out there scraping by on handouts from the government thinking to themselves "Woohoo, I got it made!"  I just don't see it.  The stories I hear of people doing things like that are not poor people, but rather middle class people whose unemployment checks are actually pretty nice.

I feel the same way towards the argument that successful people are going to give up trying to be successful if you keep punishing them.  (Both arguments have been made on this thread, although I'm not going to go back through all of the pages to find them)

Last I checked, all of us who work hard continue to work hard and pay our fair share, whatever that share ends up being.  (We complain when we need to , and vote how we feel we need to vote to change things we don't like, but that's about it)  If it goes up and I have to work overtime to make ends meet, or get a second job, I will.  Certainly, I'm not going to go "Well, the government wants to take more of my money in taxes?  Haha, I'll show them ... I won't make any!  Suck on that Feds!"

Where would that leave me?

P.S.  It's Wednesday afternoon ... has Phil had his press conference yet where he said he'd clarify his remarks?

Perhaps we live in very different places but I have heard people say on several occasions that because of the number of kids they had, they make more by staying home and collecting government assistance than they would by working.   So, I believe it is happening.

Regarding middle class bilking the unemployment benefit, I see people who were laid off and are not looking for work at all, waiting for their old job or one that pays what their old job paid.   Unfortunately, many of them will be hard pressed to see that kind of money again in the foreseeable future.   So rather than take a lower paying job, they milk the government for all they can get.

I used to work some OT to make some extra cash, until I discovered that doing so moved me to a higher tax bracket and Uncle Sam was getting more of that OT money than I was.   At that point, I quit working the OT.   Personal choice for sure but that is how I viewed it.

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I don't think he was "longing for the days of a real lower class."  I think he was longing for the days of a lower class that tried hard to better themselves.

This is exactly how I took his post.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Last I checked, all of us who work hard continue to work hard and pay our fair share, whatever that share ends up being.  (We complain when we need to , and vote how we feel we need to vote to change things we don't like, but that's about it)  If it goes up and I have to work overtime to make ends meet, or get a second job, I will.  Certainly, I'm not going to go "Well, the government wants to take more of my money in taxes?  Haha, I'll show them ... I won't make any!  Suck on that Feds!"

Where would that leave me?

Here is a very real scenario.  Citizen makes X amount of dollars.  Based on his family size he qualifies for quite a few government programs.  Citizen does well at work, so his boss gives him a 2.50 dollar an hour raise.  This amount puts him over the threshold for the government programs.  With the raise, his income is higher, but now he has to buy certain items and services that he previously got for free.  The raise actually gives his household a net loss.  What incentive does the worker have to improve and make more money?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Here is a very real scenario.  Citizen makes X amount of dollars.  Based on his family size he qualifies for quite a few government programs.  Citizen does well at work, so his boss gives him a 2.50 dollar an hour raise.  This amount puts him over the threshold for the government programs.  With the raise, his income is higher, but now he has to buy certain items and services that he previously got for free.  The raise actually gives his household a net loss.  What incentive does the worker have to improve and make more money?

Pride?  A sense of self worth?

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Pride?  A sense of self worth?

For you and I maybe.  Many don't have that.  They don't have to try hard to better themselves.  They are given what they need.

For the record, I am not against all government programs.  I feel they are necessary to help those who can't help themselves.  I don't feel it is for those who won't help themselves.