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

[CraiginKSA]

Is your post meant to be a joke? Because there's nothing funnier than a "Professor of History, Philosophy and Humanities" who's going to tune everyone up with something you read on the Huffington post. You think that's any more reliable than talk radio or Fox? And do you actually believe that "income inequality" is the most critical issue of our time?

And hey, let's study Pakistan and the Ivory Coast and try to become more like them, because of their superior income equality. Mainly because everyone is poor. Why don't we just cut to the chase and become Egypt where 138 million are starving to death because of the government.

Do you ever leave the US? Or even leave your campus? I doubt it. It looks like you just went to some left-wing web sites, or read your local fishwrap which is the same thing, and grabbed a couple of sound-bites of your own.

Do you remember 2010? When the GOP threw out Pelosi and the left suffered a major defeat? That was a tsunami. What kind of history are you teaching anyway? 2014 is not history. Back to school professor.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

American income inequality has skyrocketed over the past 30 years, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute.

From the report:

"In the United States as a whole, the poorest fifth of households had an average income of $20,510, while the top fifth had an average income of $164,490 — eight times as much, this top-to-bottom ratio exceeded 8.0. In the late 1970s, in contrast, no state had a top-to-bottom ratio exceeding 8.0."

The United States currently has more income inequality than Pakistan or the Ivory Coast, according to a study by ThinkProgress using data from the CIA factbook. Income inequality in the United States is actually higher than at any other time in modern history since the Great Depression, according to a Huffington Post article.

Are these the "parasites" you had in mind?:

Try to get past your hatred of your fellow Americans ....realize the truth about our economic inequity and join the process of common purpose and shared sacrifice necessary to uplift the least amongst us.....acknowledging FACTS is a critical first step.

"Facts are stubborn things."   John Adams

What is the solution?  Take from those who have worked hard for it and give to those that don't have it?

"The end of any great democratic country happens when the people who vote for a living outnumber those who work for a living"

[Kokomo Joe]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

As a Professor of History, Philosophy and Humanities now for over 30 years I am saddened but amused by your virtually complete stereotypes and Fox sounbites du jour regarding the current state of public affairs.....complete with the obligatory "parasites" reference...you certainly parrot your Rush, Fox and Friends well!

However in my profession we are function in the universe of FACTS....here are but a few :

American income inequality has skyrocketed over the past 30 years, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute.

From the report:

"In the United States as a whole, the poorest fifth of households had an average income of $20,510, while the top fifth had an average income of $164,490 — eight times as much, this top-to-bottom ratio exceeded 8.0. In the late 1970s, in contrast, no state had a top-to-bottom ratio exceeding 8.0."

The United States currently has more income inequality than Pakistan or the Ivory Coast, according to a study by ThinkProgress using data from the CIA factbook. Income inequality in the United States is actually higher than at any other time in modern history since the Great Depression, according to a Huffington Post article.

"Facts are stubborn things."   John Adams

Hmm, OK now a Professor of Liberal Arts is saying they function in the universe of facts?    It's a universe all right.  How about getting back to planet earth and reality.   And I love the HuffPo and ThinkProgress sources!

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?

[Chas]

I understand that Phil makes more money than almost all of us put together on this forum but. I run a small family practice in a small town and I employ 7 people  .  I do not make a half a percent of what Phils makes. so I would imagine that he has at least 10 - 15 full time people working for him , if not more..  He is a business. On top of the 39.6% federal taxes and the over 13% state income tax he does have to pay workers comp insurance premiums, FICA for his employes, retirement and now has to pay additional taxes for Obamacare. I do believe that he pays close to 63% of his income in taxes. The only thing he can control is the amount of state taxes he pays by moving to a low tax state . Also he might reduce his workier comp insurance depending on the state he moved to. So I do not blame him for trying to do something about it. Be realistic, if we were in his shoes wouldn't we do the same. I know this is not the forum for it but why do we punish success in this country?

Well said, you've clearly thought this through. I've never met him but Phil lives near me and I'd be sorry to see him leave the area - even if he did humiliate our golf course with a record score. He has contributed a great deal, around here and elsewhere but I fully understand his reasoning. If I were him, I wouldn't want to remain in the Ranch and pay those taxes either. I'm sure many of his friends want him and his family to stay; I would advise him to take his business to a state that appreciates and deserves his presence. I hope he keeps publically discussing his thinking on the matter, many in our state don't have a clue when it comes to finance, or they're ideologically opposed to wealth and commercial success of the kind he represents. But I dare say his advisors will try to keep him quiet the subject. Personally I don't think Phil should appease those envious of his personal wealth. Let them all move to NY or MA if they don't live there already.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

What is the solution?

Tackle the problem of legislative capture by the financial lobby.

[JerryTimes]

I'm annoyed with Phil because he took back what he said. I completely understands his point. If you made say 10 million in a year and boring home only 3.8 million of that money that you earned you'd be mad too. Sure he's rich but his money shouldn't be stolen from him be wise of that.

[x129]

Fine call it majority. Doesn't change the fact that there are very strict limits on what a president can do. If Obama had wanted single payer health care, he couldn't have passed some executive order to do it. A CEO can make those choices. Feel free to name a list of great presidants who were businessman. Here is a partial list of winners choose from: GW Bush, Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover

As far as the president abusing executive orders people have been whining about that for 40+ years. I much prefer the current tool to the previous one. But that is because I am self centered. I like that government employment is down and private employment is up. I like that my stock portfolio has gone up instead of flat. I like that our budget deficits have started to shrink (granted that 2009 bush budget set the bar super low).

Originally Posted by CraiginKSA

Since when does he need consensus?  I hate that term.  He needs a simple majority. I'm looking for the right answer, not consensus.

Consensus is the absense of leadership - Margaret Thatcher.

And this tool that we have in the white house right now IS leading by fiat.  Only it's not called a fiat.  It's called an Executive Order.

[Chas]

Since when does he need consensus?  I hate that term.  He needs a simple majority. I'm looking for the right answer, not consensus.  Consensus is the absense of leadership - Margaret Thatcher.

Same source: "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". Per your post, you might also approve: "So you think you have enemies? Good, that means that you've stood up for something in your life." Churchill. Another favorite: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw.

[Kokomo Joe]

Originally Posted by x129

I much prefer the current tool to the previous one. But that is because I am self centered. I like that government employment is down and private employment is up. I like that my stock portfolio has gone up instead of flat. I like that our budget deficits have started to shrink (granted that 2009 bush budget set the bar super low).

You lost me here...unless it is opposite's week,.  Aside from your portfolio maybe going up, the current admin is making sure gvment employment and budget (what budget?) deficits necessarily sky-rocket.

[GeorgiaGolfer]

Can't agree with that last part - have you ever visited the Deep South? Even in 2013, take a drive around on the other side of the tracks and you will see plenty of evidence of deep, residual, poverty. If you look at actual figures in something like American Factfinder via the U.S. Census, it's easy to find plenty of counties in the South where median family income is less than $20,000 per year. Look a little harder and you'll find many more counties where it's more likely between $10,000 - $15,000 per year.

How do these people live? Answer: in deep poverty.

I don't have a solution to this problem, but I'm certain that there's no incentive to continue to live like that, and I don't believe that all of those people are just lazy scroungers who don't want to work and prefer living in poverty.

Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe

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?

[MSchott]

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.

The fact that you say Obama has "vilified" the wealthy tells me you are not interested in reasonable debate. Can you cite one quote of his to back this up?

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by CraiginKSA

Since when does he need consensus?  I hate that term.  He needs a simple majority. I'm looking for the right answer, not consensus.

Consensus is the absense of leadership - Margaret Thatcher.

And this tool that we have in the white house right now IS leading by fiat.  Only it's not called a fiat.  It's called an Executive Order.

You should not bring up Executive Orders. It does not further your argument:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

[saevel25]

Quote:

Try to get past your hatred of your fellow Americans ....realize the truth about our economic inequity and join the process of common purpose and shared sacrifice necessary to uplift the least amongst us.....acknowledging FACTS is a critical first step.

Here's the thing though, you think that all this is perpetuated by big business, when its been perpetuated by big government. There are over 80,000 pages of Federal government regulations in this country, and they have increased from 45,000 in 1985.

Think about it this way, does golf has rules that seem unfair, yes, what do you do, most of people might think its unfair and just play by the rules. Or some will cheat because they think its unfair, and if they cheat then they get an advantage. Now look at regulations, many of them demonize the wrong people, and harm good business practices. But people need to get ahead in life, so what do they do, they see these obstructions as unfair and cheat. This gives them an advantage. Meaning that regulations, meant to even the playing field actually perpetuates survival of the fittest in business and increases inequality. Right now there is so much red tape to get a professional liscence, or start a business its hampering those who have really ingenuity. Then you strap on taxes, it goes to show you how awesome America is, and how powerful an economy we have that we can navigate all the BS the government has put out infront of us.

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.

[jetsknicks1]

Originally Posted by MSchott

The fact that you say Obama has "vilified" the wealthy tells me you are not interested in reasonable debate. Can you cite one quote of his to back this up?

Vilify might be a bit strong.......................................... But.

"There comes a point where you've made enough money"

"If you have your own business you didn't build that"

Telling "Joe the plumber" something along the lines of needing to redistribute the wealth.

Plus every campaign stop he made, his two favorite words were "millionaires and billionaires, millionaires & billionaires"

Like I said, vilified might be strong but there's no doubt that he is trying to convince the country that those on the top are not paying their "Fair share" and should be footing more of the bill. Funny thing is, he's never mentioned what he considers a "Fair share" to be.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by jetsknicks1

Vilify might be a bit strong.......................................... But.

"There comes a point where you've made enough money"

"If you have your own business you didn't build that"

Telling "Joe the plumber" something along the lines of needing to redistribute the wealth.

Plus every campaign stop he made, his two favorite words were "millionaires and billionaires, millionaires & billionaires"

Like I said, vilified might be strong but there's no doubt that he is trying to convince the country that those on the top are not paying their "Fair share" and should be footing more of the bill. Funny thing is, he's never mentioned what he considers a "Fair share" to be.

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.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies

As a Professor of American History and Public Policy Researcher I find your comments both ignorant and unworthy of any American seeking to address the critical issue of our time: income ineqaulity.  Fortunately the last election clearly demonstrates that yours is a minority view and the new American Majority is moving forward in addressing these issues -based on facts- not soundbites from Fox and Friends....this is precisely why the GOP extremists are now on the run politically and the Republicans face a demographic tsunami of biblical proportions -they are literally on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party....see 2014 for details.

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.

[x129]

Unfortunately the facts don't back you up.

in 2009 the budget defict was 1.4 trillion. It is down to 1.1 trillion. There are 600k less government jobs now than there were in 2009. Private sector jobs are up slightly (something like 500k).

Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe

You lost me here...unless it is opposite's week,.  Aside from your portfolio maybe going up, the current admin is making sure gvment employment and budget (what budget?) deficits necessarily sky-rocket.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by x129

Unfortunately the facts don't back you up.

in 2009 the budget defict was 1.4 trillion. It is down to 1.1 trillion.

You may be right and you may be wrong.   I'm not sure how you would know for sure, since Congress hasn't actually passed a budget since 2009.