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

[teamroper60]

[QUOTE name="x129" url="/t/64338/phil-mickelson-paying-62-in-taxes-mickelson-expects-to-make-drastic-changes/90#post_801833"] 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. [/QUOTE] You are correct that just raising taxes on the rich will not work.   I don't think raising taxes on the middle class will work either.   What I believe will work is a combination of increasing the number of people paying taxes and reducing social program spending.  To do those, our government is going to have to come up with a strategy that creates sustainable private sector jobs.   Our economy cannot survive on government funded/supported jobs for much longer.

[Rick Martin]

Fun Fact: In 2012, Tiger Woods made $9,124,386 on the course and $77,000,000 off the course. Adds up to $86,124,386 and he lives in FLA. (Golf World).    Got a kick out of ESPN Around the Horn....all contestants ripped Lefty for opening his mouth.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Kokomo Joe

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."

It is not about giving my "fair share" for me.  I will gladly do that.  I just don't like to see my or others "fair share" going to people who do not even try to help themselves.

[saevel25]

There's the words i utterly hate, "Fair Share"

Like these people owe us anything for being successful, its stupid.

Would it be fair for me to walk into your home and say, "You make more money than men, i get to take your TV."

How about this, "You scored better than me at golf, i am going to give you some of my score, so it even's it out its only fair"

See the stupidity in the word's fair share, because life is unfair, and to think we as humans can claim to know what is fair, is the definition of stupidity. For all the liberal talk of fair, we must be unselfish, be one big society, they sure are selfish.

If you had two kids, and one took something from another because they didn't have it, maybe its a video game, you would punish that child.

[jgreen85]

If Phil is paying 62% in taxes, he should fire his accountant ASAP.

Taxes are not additive. That ~8% payroll tax is only on the first $112k after that it's zero until $450k when it becomes like 2%-3%. The 13% state taxes are directly tax refundable at the federal level. So that's really 49% instead of 55% on the vast majority of his income, and that doesn't even include the deductions he can take for all the business expenses he incurs (interesting whether he's able to deduct the cost of his plane for travelling to tournaments). After deductions his tax rate is down to 45% or lower. That's combined state and federal in the highest tax rate state in the nation.

So for just 1% of your income per year Phil, I'll do your taxes and save you $7.5million. PM me for my contact information.

[jgreen85]

Phil shouldn't really be mad at California. He should be mad at the conservative tax movement that has somehow convinced both the left and the right that UNearned income should be treated more favorably than earned income when it comes to taxes. Like was mentioned previously, 45% tax rate? That's a problem Mitt Romney and other unemployed Americans like him don't have. Hell they don't have the 33% tax rate problem that I and other working upper middle class families have.

If Phil is going to have this discussion, I highly encourage him to get on the phone w/ his accountant and make sure he's accurate in what he actually pays and why.

[Dave H]

IMO, one of the great fallacies out there of our time is that the "economy" is a fixed pie in which a very small percentage have the majority of money and the majority don't have any. But it's not really that, because on its face that's kind of what it seems like right? The wealthy have all the money and the rest of us have no shot so it's unfair and life sucks! Continue to ram this thought down peoples throats and it will probably be true one day. The reality is that economy is NOT a fixed pie and it's up to indivuals to go out and be creative, productive, etc. this supply and demand: I come up with something you want and so you buy it from me. Part of the problem, or what makes this conversation so difficult is the complicated and yes, unfair tax system. If people truly believed it was up to them to make something of themselves, and we all paid 25% to govt (made up number) who wouldnt want to "be all they could be" so to speak? Forget about hating on the rich, we all strive to do our best and hopefully everyone does better in the long run. I realize there will always be exceptions to the rule, but we have become a society of exceptions and excuses if you ask me. Feel disadvanted in life? Do something about it! What on earth is holding you back other than yourself? Our history is full of stories about folks who overcame difficult situations and changed their lives. We wouLd do well to remember them. My .02.

[CR McDivot]

The real question is "What right does either the Federal or the State government have to take ANY portion of my compensation for labor?" Excise tax, OK. Sales tax, OK. Import duty, OK. Corporate tax, OK... corporations are a creation of the state.

Individual and sole owner business income tax is an abomination that the founders of this nation would never have abided.

Oh, I forgot. We have been reclassified by the ruling class (politicos, judges, and their lackies) as slaves rather than freeborn!

[x129]

Why are you in favor of helping the elderly and the disabled? Shouldn't they have planned better so they wouldn't need help? After all at some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and not expect someone else to pay for their mistakes?

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.

Very few people hate the rich and if punishment is making 16 million a year, sign me up. People do hate giving millions of government dollars to private individuals as bonuses though.  Funny how the people that are ok with that tend to object to giving 5k to low income people. The debate is what the fair share is. Is it at the level of the 70s (much higher than today), 80s(a bit lower at some points), the 90s (a bit higher), or 00's(a bit  lower)? Personally (and there are some studies that suggest this is right but you can disagree with them) that the 39.6 tax rate is too high (35% is better) AND the capital gains tax rate is too low (25-30% is a better number) in terms of stimulating economic growth. The current spread distorts the market by encouraging financial manipulation jobs rather than jobs creating wealth. Making 1 million in a job where you can shift it to capital gains pays a lot better than the doctor making 1 million by doing a ton of procedures.  The second tends to be better for society though.

And for what is worth, we haven't paid our fair share for the past 30 years. We have left the future a huge debt and unfunded liabilities. I blame the greatest generation and the baby boomers

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....

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by jgreen85

If Phil is paying 62% in taxes, he should fire his accountant ASAP.

Taxes are not additive. That ~8% payroll tax is only on the first $112k after that it's zero until $450k when it becomes like 2%-3%. The 13% state taxes are directly tax refundable at the federal level. So that's really 49% instead of 55% on the vast majority of his income, and that doesn't even include the deductions he can take for all the business expenses he incurs (interesting whether he's able to deduct the cost of his plane for travelling to tournaments). After deductions his tax rate is down to 45% or lower. That's combined state and federal in the highest tax rate state in the nation.

So for just 1% of your income per year Phil, I'll do your taxes and save you $7.5million. PM me for my contact information.

I hope Phil doesn't hire you, because you don't understand that the state income tax is a deduction (1040 Schedule A), just like home mortgage interest and medical expenses.  It is NOT a tax credit. Big Difference!

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by x129

Making 1 million in a job where you can shift it to capital gains pays a lot better than the doctor making 1 million by doing a ton of procedures.

Unless you are talking about company stock options or something similar that may increase sometime in the future, you cannot shift earned income to unearned income. You have to pay the income tax rate.  Of course, if you are able to put some of your already taxed income aside and buy some stock, then sell it at the profit, the government will gladly take some of that profit away from you as well, at the capital gains rate.

[x129]

You must have been under a cliff for the past 6 months and missed all the discussion of how companies like Bain (and every other private equity/hedge fund) use carried interest and the like to get capital gains tax rates instead of ordinary income.  Here is a link . Now the practice is more or less legal. You can debate if it is "fair".  It is actually pretty hard to get long term capital gains on stock options. With ISOs your run into problems with the AMT (and besides you can only get like 100k/year) and you don't really do it with NQSO or RSU.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Unless you are talking about company stock options or something similar that may increase sometime in the future, you cannot shift earned income to unearned income. You have to pay the income tax rate.  Of course, if you are able to put some of your already taxed income aside and buy some stock, then sell it at the profit, the government will gladly take some of that profit away from you as well, at the capital gains rate.

[newtogolf]

Because I have no issue with taking care of people that cannot take care of themselves.  I give to many charities not for the tax deduction or because I'm such a nice guy but because I believe in paying it forward.

I also resent having to pay for welfare families to sit at home and do nothing but collect checks from hard working people.  These parasites buy booze and cigarettes with EBT cards and make no attempt to get work.  I will gladly help those people who need help to get on their feet but in return I want them to pay it forward by going to a VA hospital and help our wounded soldiers, clean up the streets and parks in their neighborhood, volunteer at local homeless shelters, anything constructive besides sitting at home and collecting a check.

My grandfather had to drop out of school in 6th grade because his father died.  He worked to support his mother, brothers and sister.  He put his one brother through medical school.  In the end he made a good life for himself as a tailor and elevator operator.  He taught my father and uncle the importance of pride and hard work who then imparted it to us.

I in turn did not come from a family with much money but a lot of pride.  I paid my own way through college by working full-time.  It would have been easier to collect financial aide and party with my friends but that's not how I was raised.

Today I own my own business and employ close to 50 people.  I made it on my own with the opportunities this country offered me and a lot of hard work.  I expect no less from others who are capable of working hard, the opportunities are there but no one is going to hand them to you.

Originally Posted by x129

Why are you in favor of helping the elderly and the disabled? Shouldn't they have planned better so they wouldn't need help? After all at some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and not expect someone else to pay for their mistakes?

[CraiginKSA]

For every dollar the government takes in for a social program, they pay out 30 cents in benefits.  It's a bloated, corrupt, incompetent, parasite on the US economy.  If the government was a charity you wouldn't donate to it.  They could do a 60 Minutes style hit-piece show every day of the year just dedicated to exposing the idiots that populate Washington and rip off the taxpayers.

This idea that if you made Phil's money you would be perfectly happy to give 50% or 62% or 90% to the government is the way a child or a Hollywood airhead thinks. Why not just pile up all your money, get out a gas can and drop a match on it.  It's the same idiocy that happens with those "what I would do if I won the lottery" discussions. No critical thought, just an immediate, "hey, I could pay $55m to the government and keep $5m!"  Pathetic. That's the best you can come up with?  You think that's the best way to spend your money?  If Phil scratched out a check for $60 million and Fedex'd it to the IRS, it would keep the government running for exactly 10.4 minutes.

And as far as venture capitalists go, do you think Bill, Hillary, George Clooney, Barbara Steisand, Ed Asner, Matt Damon, Kathy Couric or basically 100% of the dumb-asses in the entertaiment world, do you think they're taking the standard deduction?  Do you think they're filing the short form?

The US is the brokest nation in history.  And even though we're printing $40 billion per month worth of currency, we're still running up a $1 trillion per year deficit.  Why would you willingly give even one penny to a group of morons like that?

I'm in the top 3% of wage earners in the US. I've got the fanciest Price Waterhouse accountants doing my taxes.  These guys specialize in overseas tax returns and I still paid over $40k in federal income tax.  If I could reduce that to $1 I would.  I've already paid my fair share for ever 35 years, and the government pissed it all away.

[stogiesnbogies]

With so many people struggling to make ends meet it is truly apalling that someone generally as media savvy as Phil would make such a calous and boneheaded comment.

The "exorbitant" tax increase he is whining about is a paltry 3% (simply a restoration of the Clinton Era tax rate ) and  only impacts income over 450,000.....you'd think that he was paying his fair share or something akin to it for all his bitchin'.

Let's remember that under GOP President Eisenhower the top tax rate was 91%....Phil is only going to pay 39.6%....which provides badly needed revenue to invest in job-creating infrastructure projects that will build and upgrade the roads that Phil drives his Escalade upon to see the people who can then afford to attend his tournaments.

A Shameful display of unpatriotic and compassionless self entitlement when he should be thanking God that he has such a gig at which he is priviliged to be payed so much that he qualifies for that tax bracket.  According to Forbes Phil is the 7th highest paid athlete....he gets all that money for hitting a little ball into a little hole ...he does not educate children, work with the poor, assist the elderly nor seek a cure for cancer....his "added value" falls far short of your local public school teacher, social worker or mental health worker -all of whom do far more for far less with no such whining.

John Feinstein made it clear in his excellent book " A Good Walk Spoiled", that most of these pampered PGA Tour Players politics are "to the right of Atilla The Hun" none the less,

Phil should be ashamed of himself- not only has he done irreperable damage to his image but more importantly, revealed a more candid portrait of his true character -or rather lack thereof.

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" - Oliver Wendell Holmes

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by x129

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.

Ironic, isn't it, that a few years back Phil criticized Tiger for playing with inferior equipment, but by Tiger moving to FL and Phil staying in CA, Phil is the one playing with inferior tax planning.  And what does that say about his KPMG sponsorship.

I'm one of those Californians who will be leaving the state upon retirement in a very few years.  The state has become increasingly dysfunctional.  And now that the majority has figured out it can tax the minority to give them their free stuff it is just going to get worse and worse.  And the sad thing is, historically, as goes California so goes the nation.  In neither case is it a problem that the government has too little revenue.  It is a spending problem.  People demand free stuff and the political hacks give it to them to get elected.  When there is a budget shortfall, don't cut all of the commissions that meet once a month and pay commissioners $100K a year, cut police, or courts, or something else to make it painful for the citizenry so they will agree to higher taxes.  Prop 30 just raised our taxes and the first thing the legislature is looking at is the many many ways they can spend that extra money, which will lead to another shortfall.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I also resent having to pay for welfare families to sit at home and do nothing but collect checks from hard working people.  These parasites buy booze and cigarettes with EBT cards and make no attempt to get work.  I will gladly help those people who need help to get on their feet but in return I want them to pay it forward by going to a VA hospital and help our wounded soldiers, clean up the streets and parks in their neighborhood, volunteer at local homeless shelters, anything constructive besides sitting at home and collecting a check.

There was a time when it worked like this.  The do-gooders provided for disadvantaged people but in exchange expected them to take action to improve their lives.  But then the talk-gooders decided that the do-gooders were being mean by holding the people they helped accountable and that therefore the government should take over and provide all of the disadvantaged with help with no strings attached.  The history of all of this is all laid out in a book called the Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/1433501104/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie;=UTF8&qid;=1358917599&sr;=1-1&keywords;=marvin+olasky

[CraiginKSA]

It doesn't matter what the marginal tax rate is.  People will adjust their behaviour.  If the tax rate gets too high, people will simply stop working or producing because it just isn't worth it.  There is a level of taxation that people are willing to pay.  It's between 10% and 20% of their income.  After that, they alter their behavior.  Here's a graph that shows tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.  The marginal tax rate is irrelevant to the percentage of tax reciepts.  But if you grow the economy, it's the same percentage of a larger number, so the revenue is larger.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by CraiginKSA

It doesn't matter what the marginal tax rate is.  People will adjust their behaviour.  If the tax rate gets too high, people will simply stop working or producing because it just isn't worth it.  There is a level of taxation that people are willing to pay.  It's between 10% and 20% of their income.  After that, they alter their behavior.  Here's a graph that shows tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.  The marginal tax rate is irrelevant to the percentage of tax reciepts.  But if you grow the economy, it's the same percentage of a larger number, so the revenue is larger.

History doesn't support these claims.  The top income tax bracket in the 1950's and most of the 1960's hovered near 90% and the stock market was booming.  Many people worked hard and got rich during this time.