Phil doing a little damage control


http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2013/01/phil-mickelson-apologizes-for-comments-on-taxes.html

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1371868 wrote:Phil doing a little damage control


http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2013/01/phil-mickelson-apologizes-for-comments-on-taxes.html

Sad that our liberal media pressured him into backing down from his original position. Why work hard? The harder you work, the more taxes you pay. Only in America.

I'm not fan of his, but I don't blame him one bit. No one deserves to have 2/3 of their money taken from them, no matter how much they make.

sleeper;1371881 wrote:Sad that our liberal media pressured him into backing down from his original position. Why work hard? The harder you work, the more taxes you pay. Only in America.

Sad that you're wrong about everything.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1371911 wrote:Sad that you're wrong about everything.

Really? You mean we don't have a progressive tax structure that punishes wealth so the "poor" can have their iPhones? Wake up.

""If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent,""

I think that is wrong - he's including FICA (which he pays the full 14.4% being self-employed), but @12.2% of that drops off just past $110k for SS. Of course, other taxes are rising at that point. But really his effective rate, excluding investment income, is going to be closer to 50%.

But perception being reality, it's hard work being a pro and he's done it a long time and made his money. To take home 1/3 of your winnings? Yeah, in his shoes you might really feel it's just not worth it. Which is the point frequently made about oppressive tax rates - people do reach a point where it just isn't worth the time/effort to work harder for less money, or perhaps to even work at all.

gut;1371926 wrote: But really his effective rate, excluding investment income, is going to be closer to 50%.

Does that 50% include sales tax & property tax? No sure what effective defines for real tax rate.

sleeper;1371914 wrote:Really?

really

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1371911 wrote:Sad that you're wrong about everything.

Milton Friedman and I agree with sleeper.

Sonofanump;1371966 wrote:Does that 50% include sales tax & property tax? No sure what effective defines for real tax rate.

I believe it looks something like this:
12.2% SS (capped @ $110k)
2.2% Medicare/Medicaid (no cap)
39.6% new top federal marginal rate (>$450k)
13.3% new CA top marginal rate (>$1M)
2.5% property tax??? (and depends on the value of his house, this is not linked to income)

So I guess his marginal rate could be as high as 55% range...although I'm not sure how deductions work now, which if he deducts state & property tax he's somewhere just north of 50%. There's also a potential impact from Obamacare I'm not sure of, could be as much as 3.5%.

Sales tax in CA is 7.5%, plus possibly some additional special district taxes. Depends on how much he actually spends in taxable purchases. Again, not an income tax....Mickelson supposedly makes $30M+ from endorsements, so even if he consumes generously that 7.5% sales tax is effectively less than 1%

All in all, the new federal and state tax increases are probably something @8% additional for him, plus however Obamacare impacts him. For the money he is making, it's a pretty expensive consumption choice to not establish residence in a state with no income taxes such as FL or NV.

sleeper;1371881 wrote:Sad that our liberal media pressured him into backing down from his original position. Why work hard? The harder you work, the more taxes you pay. Only in America.

To play devils advocate, you could also say the harder you work the more money you make for yourself which covers your greater tax liability, which in theory would go to the greater societal good thereby helping both you and your country. But that wouldn't jive with your rant.

derek bomar;1371998 wrote:To play devils advocate, you could also say the harder you work the more money you make for yourself which covers your greater tax liability, which in theory would go to the greater societal good thereby helping both you and your country. But that wouldn't jive with your rant.

True, but let's not forget the economic reality of diminishing returns. At the levels we are talking, most people won't work harder (may not even be able to or have the time) to get the same take home. Maybe they'll work the same amount, which in the ideal fantasy the economy isn't hurt and the govt collects its additional taxes. But on the assumption they already balanced leisure/production, when you increase that cost of production to them expect less because leisure is comparatively more valuable now.

derek bomar;1371998 wrote:To play devils advocate, you could also say the harder you work the more money you make for yourself which covers your greater tax liability, which in theory would go to the greater societal good thereby helping both you and your country. But that wouldn't jive with your rant.

Why should I work harder to pay more taxes? Why not just have a flat rate of 10% for everyone? The rich are still paying more taxes but that doesn't fit the liberal fairyland where poor people should have disproportional benefits to societal cost. If I want to contribute more to societal good, it's called charity; a much more efficient and productive way to spend my hard earned money on societal good rather than siphoning it through a conglomerate behemoth that is the federal government.

Honestly, want new revenue streams? Tax churches and anything affiliated with religion. Easy money right there.

sleeper;1372011 wrote:Why should I work harder to pay more taxes?

Businesses and individuals are increasingly looking to leave CA, especially with the new higher rates. But it's still a pretty difficult thing to uproot, especially a business with dozens or hundreds of employees. However, I think we are definitely seeing businesses choose increasingly not to incorporate in CA.

The more you raise taxes, the more the base shrinks as people always actively seek ways to avoid/reduce their tax liability. We should seek out optimal rates, simplify the system, then set it and forget it. Remove the incentive to shelter and defer income.

sleeper;1371477 wrote:Or he could move to another state; or hire a new tax accountant and mess around with his tax liability. Pretty sad in this country we demonize wealth so people on welfare can have an iPhone and steak every night. Woe is them. :rolleyes:

"the illusion of knowledge" :laugh:

BoatShoes;1372057 wrote:"the illusion of knowledge" :laugh:

It's true. Pray tell how baby momma with 5 kids carries around an iPhone? Cut her funding, if she can't feed her children, put her in jail and remove her ovaries. The problem would be solved in 2 months.

sleeper;1372011 wrote:Why should I work harder to pay more taxes? Why not just have a flat rate of 10% for everyone? The rich are still paying more taxes but that doesn't fit the liberal fairyland where poor people should have disproportional benefits to societal cost. If I want to contribute more to societal good, it's called charity; a much more efficient and productive way to spend my hard earned money on societal good rather than siphoning it through a conglomerate behemoth that is the federal government.

Honestly, want new revenue streams? Tax churches and anything affiliated with religion. Easy money right there.

well, if you had a 10% (effective) tax on everyone, what's to stop poor working-class from doing the same thing Phil is talking about doing? You'd then run into the obvious problem of sending even more people onto welfare and having a huge budget gap because your now depleted revenue stream has to cover an even bigger dependent base. Doesn't make a ton of sense.

derek bomar;1372099 wrote:well, if you had a 10% (effective) tax on everyone, what's to stop poor working-class from doing the same thing Phil is talking about doing? You'd then run into the obvious problem of sending even more people onto welfare and having a huge budget gap because your now depleted revenue stream has to cover an even bigger dependent base. Doesn't make a ton of sense.

Hunger is a pretty strong incentive to get back to work. There is no obligation to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves.

sleeper;1372105 wrote:Hunger is a pretty strong incentive to get back to work. There is no obligation to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves.

food stampz

and I think you missed my point. There's a lot of people now who don't pay federal income tax but are working (60% of those not paying income tax do work per http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/). They pay payroll taxes and SS taxes, but not income. What you're suggesting is for these people to now fork over money they were using for food (these people work, but are poor and use their money working from say, McDonalds, to feed themselves and cover basic necessities). What I am suggesting is that if this were to happen, they'd face a similar choice that Phil is facing:

Do I want to continue to work and pay more? Or do I stop working/work less and receive the same benefit (they'll get foodstamps/welfare/etc...).

derek bomar;1372160 wrote:food stampz

Get rid of them.

derek bomar;1372164 wrote:and I think you missed my point. There's a lot of people now who don't pay federal income tax but are working (60% of those not paying income tax do work per http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/). They pay payroll taxes and SS taxes, but not income. What you're suggesting is for these people to now fork over money they were using for food (these people work, but are poor and use their money working from say, McDonalds, to feed themselves and cover basic necessities). What I am suggesting is that if this were to happen, they'd face a similar choice that Phil is facing:

Do I want to continue to work and pay more? Or do I stop working/work less and receive the same benefit (they'll get foodstamps/welfare/etc...).

They won't get food stamps or welfare if we cut the programs. Sorry!

sleeper;1372169 wrote:They won't get food stamps or welfare if we cut the programs. Sorry!

so you think everyone on food-stamps should be kicked off? You're for no government assistance in any case?

A coworker of my wife gets food stamps and housing assistance every month. Her and her boyfriend ( they have 6 kids together but won't get married) just got back from Jamaica .

She told my wife that she feels bad for us because we won't qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit

gport_tennis;1372209 wrote:Her and her boyfriend ( they have 6 kids together but won't get married).

Of course not. While I believe you have to have a job to qualify for food stamps in most cases, two single people making $22k a year could qualify (more with kids) while as a married couple making $45k they wouldn't.

That's a big part of the problem. How do you police it, though? Certainly there are many people who need and deserve these assistance programs, but for many it goes beyond assistance and into redistribution/handouts. That's what many of us taxpayers have a beef with.