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

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Chas

Desmond: I stand corrected, misread on my part.  But "....the GOP is a lackey for ultraconservatives" ..... there you go again .

The Obama administration more and more reminds me of the Wilson government (Harold Wilson, that is) in Britain in the 1970s - 'lackey' (to use your term) of the unions and the public sector.   Obama is a class warrior of the old school - almost makes me feel nostalgic for the days of my youth.  Actually Obama is more like Michael Foot than Harold Wilson, and not because Wilson was smarter.

Sorry, I don't live in the 1970's. It is now 2013, and in 43 years,  the world has turned upside down.

I try to deal with reality, not nostalgia. So in that way, your musings are reminiscent of our GOP, which, before the 2012 elections, would have loved to bring back the 1950's. I mean, I enjoyed Ozzie and Harriett and Lassie when I was a child, and could ignore the social issues of which I was not aware - but today? We can't turn back the clock.

While I agree with the GOP that entitlements and government must be reformed to curtail spending - they typically go to the extreme in their solutions. Looking at who funded Romney and the State Republican Governments versus who funded Obama, I think it's safe to say the GOP is the lackey of the ultraconservative wealthy.

Now the GOP is beginning to see that they are a party of losers at certain federal levels (the White House) unless they change their tune. So they are beginning to change policy on the surface.

As to Obama and unions, he supports the middle class where unions exist. I don't blame him - the middle class has lost jobs that we will never recover. And while we can blame our businessmen and unions for jobs going overseas, that is the past. The present is that technology is eliminating middle class jobs. More technology means more robots and less humans. Those jobs are not coming back.

We need to retrain our people to software and software maintenance, and have them consider new avenues of employment. The '70's-90's are gone, and those jobs aren't coming back. So Obama must support the middle class - he must also get Congress involved. We need an imaginative plan to renew the middle class.

C'est tout.

[ScouseJohnny]

Originally Posted by CraiginKSA

Consensus is the absense[sic] of leadership - Margaret Thatcher.

Well, seeing that we've wandered from Phil Mickleson griping about his taxes to British Prime Ministers of yore (Harold from 'uddersfield, or Baron Wilson of Rievaulx as he subsequently became)....

I notice that today's conservative hagiography of Thatcher seems to smugly revel in quotes of this type, especially that hoary old chestnut about, "...running out of other people's money."

Here's another to try:

"There is no such thing as society" (a quote from 31st October (an appropriate date when you think about it) 1987).

Then there's that other one to the general import of: "A man aged 26 or older who finds himself still riding on a bus can count himself a failure in life," (probably a bit of a paraphrase, but that's the general gist of it).

When the miners' strike ended, whereupon Mrs. T. and her government set about ruthlessly destroying the mining industry in the UK: "Of course, people tell me that I shouldn't gloat. Well, I am gloating."

Hum.

Nasty old witch, Mrs. T. Certainly seemed to have it in for the industrialised North of England. A Prime Minister who laboured long and hard to turn nationalised industry into private monopolies propped up by taxpayer provided subsidies (best example: British Rail  - OK it was technically privatised under Major, but it was Mrs. T. who set the ball rolling, and hence gifted to us today's shambles of exorbitant fare increases, continuing subsidy, and a fragmented system for providing what is, in Britain, a vital transportation system). Essentially a Prime Minister who gave the impression of supporting aspiration, but really just promoted greed for a few through a callous indifference towards many. Her old adversary in the Commons, Neil Kinnock, best summarised life in Thatcher's Britain.

" I warn you not to be ordinary, I warn you not to be young, I warn you not to fall ill, and I warn you not to grow old."

Conservative hagiography aside, I suspect that appraisals of the Thatcher governments a quarter of a century after she was ousted from office will become increasingly less favourable. Some of this may be as a result of documents being released under the 30 year rule, or new evidence coming to light as events of the Thatcher decade come under scrutiny today, (I wonder whether the IPCC investigation into the police cover-up of the Hillsborough Disaster will find evidence of governmental complicity in that process? I shouldn't be at all surprised...)

It's easy to throw out pithy Thatcher quotes that seem to be poster slogans for free market capitalism or fiscally responsible government. Thatcher and her legacy (in terms of her indelible marks on British politics and the British way of life from 1979 onwards, that endure to this day) were decidedly darker.

All of which has very little to do with Phil and his taxes, but hey, this thread had deviated slightly from that course in any case.

[Chas]

The success of Thatcher(ism) effectively put an end to Clause 4 socialism in the Labour party - note spelling - and gave rise to the party of Tony Blair ('New Labour'), which was a step in the right direction at least.  I don't see it heading back in the near future.  The dark days in Britain, when the country was "the sick man of Europe", were when Labour and weak Conservative governments ruled.  The DNC is going the other way, but I'll agree that it's got a ways to go yet.  The state of CA is doing its best to rid itself of wealthy, successful people like Phil - to be expected of a state run by the unions largely in the interests of the public sector.

Enough of this already .... sayonara chaps.

[Lefty-Golfer]

Originally Posted by Chas

The state of CA is doing its best to rid itself of wealthy, successful people like Phil - to be expected of a state run by the unions largely in the interests of the public sector.

This is awesome - what could go wrong with this plan? other then the Unions not having anyone but themselves to bully and steal from it seems perfect!!

[ScouseJohnny]

Originally Posted by Chas

The success of Thatcher(ism) effectively put an end to Clause 4 socialism in the Labour party - note spelling - and gave rise to the party of Tony Blair ('New Labour')

I'm glad Blair's image consultants or faceless PR people sat down in their offices in the Millbank Tower one day in the mid-1990s, and inserted the "New" before "Labour" - one of the few honest acts of the Blair years. The thought of Blair presuming to lead the party of Aneurian Bevan was so utterly repulsive and preposterous that it is well a clear distinction was made. If part of Thatcher's legacy was Blair, then part of Blair's legacy is, undoubtedly, Cameron. The creeping outsourcing in the NHS under Blair has enabled Cameron to contemplate that which not even his idol Mrs.T. dared broach - attempted wholescale privatisation motivated by ideology.

[14ledo81]

Check out this.  I thought it interesting.

I think we know what belief Phil has.

[Lefty-Golfer]

2 things from this thread i am willing to agree to

1. Phil pays lots of taxes but should have kept his mouth shut. Poor people who think they should make more money won't use logic to understand what the intended message was.

2. Obama is a lacky

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

2 things from this thread i am willing to agree to

1. Phil pays lots of taxes but should have kept his mouth shut. Poor people who think they should make more money won't use logic to understand what the intended message was.

2. Obama is a lacky

That's "lackey."

Well, he is a public servant, so in that sense ...

[JerryTimes]

I checked my last pay statement from last year. I'm just a middle class guy with a ranch house and a 9 to 5 job. I made roughly 60,000 last year. I paid almost 12,000 in taxes. Sure, ill probably get some back when I file my tax returns, but that's a joke and this year ill be paying more.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by JerryTimes

I checked my last pay statement from last year. I'm just a middle class guy with a ranch house and a 9 to 5 job. I made roughly 60,000 last year. I paid almost 12,000 in taxes. Sure, ill probably get some back when I file my tax returns, but that's a joke and this year ill be paying more.

Get back to us when you find your liability - I had clients who paid in 20k in taxes and would get 10k back - I'd tell them to reduce withholding but they liked the big refund. Didn't make sense to me not to have use of your money.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Get back to us when you find your liability - I had clients who paid in 20k in taxes and would get 10k back - I'd tell them to reduce withholding but they liked the big refund. Didn't make sense to me not to have use of your money.

This drives me nuts. Why do people not want their money in their paycheck every week? Isn't it better to have the money in the first place? I get that it feels good to get a big refund check but I'd much rather have that money today to put to work for me.

[AndyTNgolfer]

Totally agree Dave H.  I've been trying to explain this concept to my family for years but they just don't get it.  If you are getting a refund you are basically giving the gov't an interest free loan.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by AndyTNgolfer

Totally agree Dave H.  I've been trying to explain this concept to my family for years but they just don't get it.  If you are getting a refund you are basically giving the gov't an interest free loan.

"But it's like getting a bonus!!!" sigh.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Dave H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Get back to us when you find your liability - I had clients who paid in 20k in taxes and would get 10k back - I'd tell them to reduce withholding but they liked the big refund. Didn't make sense to me not to have use of your money.

This drives me nuts. Why do people not want their money in their paycheck every week? Isn't it better to have the money in the first place? I get that it feels good to get a big refund check but I'd much rather have that money today to put to work for me.

Agreed. Just be careful you don't owe too much when you file, otherwise you'll owe a penalty for that.  That's right, a penalty for not giving the IRS enough in advance . Don't get me started on how pissed off that makes me.

[Lefty-Golfer]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Agreed. Just be careful you don't owe too much when you file, otherwise you'll owe a penalty for that.  That's right, a penalty for not giving the IRS enough in advance. Don't get me started on how pissed off that makes me.

this always pisses me off.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Dave H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Get back to us when you find your liability - I had clients who paid in 20k in taxes and would get 10k back - I'd tell them to reduce withholding but they liked the big refund. Didn't make sense to me not to have use of your money.

This drives me nuts. Why do people not want their money in their paycheck every week? Isn't it better to have the money in the first place? I get that it feels good to get a big refund check but I'd much rather have that money today to put to work for me.

Because most people are not very good at managing their money, so for them it's easier to "save" if they never see it.  Then they get this "bonus" from the government which is actually planned for as a vacation fund, or for the smarter ones, it goes straight into an investment.  For most people, if it comes in dribbles on the paycheck, it just gets spent.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Because most people are not very good at managing their money, so for them it's easier to "save" if they never see it.  Then they get this "bonus" from the government which is actually planned for as a vacation fund, or for the smarter ones, it goes straight into an investment.  For most people, if it comes in dribbles on the paycheck, it just gets spent.

This...

My wife does the money managing in our household.  It is far easier for her (and me) to save, if we never see it in the first place.  Call it lack of will power if you would like, but it is true.

[GeorgiaGolfer]

I'll never understand giving an interest-free loan to the IRS for a year. I try and calculate my taxes so that I get a refund that covers my preparer's fee and basically end up each April with $0 refund/money owed. Usually I'm within a few bucks.

Worse still is the slimy industry that has grown around refunds for poorer people. "Hey, given Uncle Sam a 0% interest loan out of your pay check; then, the following year, claim that money back - best of all we'll roll the cost of returning that money to you plus an advance on the money itself (i.e. money you already earned) into one big bundle as a Refund Anticipation Loan at a usurious APR and cut you a check. Then you can take the check to the scumbag check cashing place next door (which we probably own, too) and get it turned into cash for a modest fee of 10% of the face value. Hey folks, it's like winning the lotto once a year!"