derek bomar;1372204 wrote:so you think everyone on food-stamps should be kicked off? You're for no government assistance in any case?

Only assistance for those who cannot work.

Baby momma who pops out 5 kids and can't feed them is a negligent parent and should be charged and handled as such.

Damn. I thought this thread was gonna talk about the ailing Punxatawny Phil. I was worried he was diagnosed with cancer or something. Thank God he's OK. As for this Phil. Sell your clubs and find an easier job. That way, you can pay the same tax rate as all the peons do here on the Chatter....like Sleeper for example.

Phil must be dumber than I imagined. My guess is that a large portion of his income is squirreled away in investments which would effectively lower his tax rate. As much as he makes from golf and endorsements he'd be a fool if he didn't have a team of people handling his money. He probably wanted to make a political statement but forgot to look up the facts before he spoke. I'm sure that there are untold millions out there who can sympathize with him. After all, the many millionaires here on the OC always bemoan the fact that Uncle Sam is deep in their pockets. They would like to have Phil's financial problems, but in the real world they can only fantasize as they type away.

"After all, the many millionaires here on the OC always bemoan the fact that Uncle Sam is deep in their pockets."

Actually, we aren't millionaires exactly because Uncle Sam is deep in our pockets. Unless you are super-rich via sports, crazy IPO, rock star or Hollywood, it is impossible to become rich. Over the last 15 years my wife and I have paid more in taxes than our current net worth.

Let that sink in a bit.

Poor Phil, doesn't he know that he has a patriotic duty to suck it up and pay those taxes? How dare a rich person complain, hang him from the rafters.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/mickelson-likely-pays-less-taxes-he-thinks-1B8057229

Phil likely doesn't pay as much as he thinks.

Manhattan Buckeye;1372558 wrote:
Actually, we aren't millionaires

But.. you're a professional?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1372614 wrote:But.. you're a professional?

Grow up. :rolleyes:

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1372614 wrote:But.. you're a professional?

Yes, which is why we would never even ride in a POS car like your avatar. We do have some standards. The standard Comfort/City Cab Hyundai Sonata is better.

Manhattan Buckeye;1372722 wrote:Yes, which is why we would never even ride in a POS car like your avatar. We do have some standards. The standard Comfort/City Cab Hyundai Sonata is better.

Of course not. I wouldn't expect a professional to drive a car like that.

Tiger left because of taxes also.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266830/Tiger-Woods-admits-left-California-tax-rates.html

TedSheckler;1372822 wrote:Tiger left because of taxes also.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266830/Tiger-Woods-admits-left-California-tax-rates.html

Well yeah.. there's no other reason to live in Florida or Texas.

Yeah, it's really easy when you aare a liberal elitist to judge other people's pocketbooks. The same people have a hard time understanding why communism failed,.... after all, it should work on paper, right? The truth is that nobody wants to give up what they earn/have, no matter how much they make. Basically, society gets away with higher tax rates on the rich, because they guilty the wealthy into thinking that because they have more, they owe more to the have nots. To a large extent it works despite going against human nature.....but push too far and a form of economic natural selection takes place. In Phil's case...he no longer feels guilty enough to give up 50% or more of what he feels he earns.

HitsRus;1372866 wrote:Yeah, it's really easy when you aare a liberal elitist to judge other people's pocketbooks. The same people have a hard time understanding why communism failed,.... after all, it should work on paper, right? The truth is that nobody wants to give up what they earn/have, no matter how much they make. Basically, society gets away with higher tax rates on the rich, because they guilty the wealthy into thinking that because they have more, they owe more to the have nots. To a large extent it works despite going against human nature.....but push too far and a form of economic natural selection takes place. In Phil's case...he no longer feels guilty enough to give up 50% or more of what he feels he earns.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. None of us want to pay more. the problem with Phil complaining is that he makes millions on the tour. He makes millions more in endorsements and appearance fees. He, as are the other pros, is pampered at the tournaments he plays at (courtesy car, driver, etc.) and probably doesn't spent squat out-of-pocket. For him to expect either sympathy or outrage from the average Joe who, by either seeing him play or buying products he endorses, helps pay his way is nothing short of ridiculous. Rather than crying in public, he needs to put some of that money to use and contribute to political causes or candidates which might move things in a direction he prefers.

HitsRus;1372866 wrote:Yeah, it's really easy when you aare a liberal elitist to judge other people's pocketbooks. The same people have a hard time understanding why communism failed,.... after all, it should work on paper, right? The truth is that nobody wants to give up what they earn/have, no matter how much they make. Basically, society gets away with higher tax rates on the rich, because they guilty the wealthy into thinking that because they have more, they owe more to the have nots. To a large extent it works despite going against human nature.....but push too far and a form of economic natural selection takes place. In Phil's case...he no longer feels guilty enough to give up 50% or more of what he feels he earns.

You can add in the dehumanization of rich people as well. They aren't people because they have money; they can't feel sad or complain or have any human emotion because they have money. Well, here's a hint, money isn't everything and money doesn't make you happy.

HitsRus;1372866 wrote:Yeah, it's really easy when you aare a liberal elitist to judge other people's pocketbooks. The same people have a hard time understanding why communism failed,.... after all, it should work on paper, right? The truth is that nobody wants to give up what they earn/have, no matter how much they make. Basically, society gets away with higher tax rates on the rich, because they guilty the wealthy into thinking that because they have more, they owe more to the have nots. To a large extent it works despite going against human nature.....but push too far and a form of economic natural selection takes place. In Phil's case...he no longer feels guilty enough to give up 50% or more of what he feels he earns.

For one, progressive taxation is justified because of the declining marginal utility of dollars. As a consequence, since paying taxes on your labor is painful, it's an attempt to make high earners feel the same amount of pain in exchange for government services that lower earners feel. Additionally, as their per capita gdp requires more protection/services from the public at large for its support, it is like a higher insurance payment.

You're still caught up in the false moocher class narrative.

But, however you feel about the morality of progressive taxation the ultimate fallacy is that Phil is going to "Go Galt" and that all suffering golf-watchers will give a rats ass and will be worse off because he does so. Please retire Phil so we don't have to watch your man boobs all over the t.v. There will be somebody right behind him who capitalizes on his retirement. In reality, he's just going to work more and increase gdp and play in more tournaments instead of sit one out because he wants to retain the same after tax income and to buy the Padres. Understandable that he's miffed that he might have to work harder/more or move to achieve his dreams but he's not going galt and none of us would give a fuck if he did. It would be his loss, not ours. :laugh:

that's all a really long-winded way to say "punish success"

47% of people contribute NOTHING to defense, roads, bridges, etc...so they aren't feeling ANY of the pain of govt excess

Congrat's to Phil (although I was troubled by his semi-walkback yesterday, obviously made at the behest of some lawyer/agent types). It is high time the confiscation of productive labor by government gets it fair hearing, in the full public eye. I hope he makes the changes he believes are necessary and right, and I hope he decides to go public about it again. It is CRIMINAL for any government to confiscate more than 1/3 the productive labor of any member of its society (and frankly, the threshhold should be lower than that).

I hope Phil at least moves out of Taxifornia at a minimum; and hopefully he realizes he can do us all a world of good by remaining out front about the assinine and onerous tax policies being thrust upon all of us by the radical regime still in control.

QuakerOats;1373090 wrote:Congrat's to Phil (although I was troubled by his semi-walkback yesterday, obviously made at the behest of some lawyer/agent types).

Well, the ironic thing is he probably stood to lose more in endorsements than he was going to from the tax increases.

gut;1373086 wrote:that's all a really long-winded way to say "punish success"

47% of people contribute NOTHING to defense, roads, bridges, etc...so they aren't feeling ANY of the pain of govt excess

Exactly. That's why I support the elimination of the income tax and the introduction of a national sales tax. Make a living wage exception of $X and tax everything bought 10%. This will get everyone's skin in the game and we can start having a real discussion about what kind of services we want in exchange for taxation. If the services exceed the revenue we currently bring in, then the 10% tax will increase according to our needs until the masses decide they would like lower taxes in exchange for less service.

I just fixed America.

stlouiedipalma;1372913 wrote:Yeah, I get what you're saying. None of us want to pay more. the problem with Phil complaining is that he makes millions on the tour. He makes millions more in endorsements and appearance fees. He, as are the other pros, is pampered at the tournaments he plays at (courtesy car, driver, etc.) and probably doesn't spent squat out-of-pocket. For him to expect either sympathy or outrage from the average Joe who, by either seeing him play or buying products he endorses, helps pay his way is nothing short of ridiculous. Rather than crying in public, he needs to put some of that money to use and contribute to political causes or candidates which might move things in a direction he prefers.

No need to worry about Phil reducing his tax burden. When he dies, y'all will be able to confiscate half his wealth and snicker as you deposit it in the do-gooder cause kickback fund du jour.

And you will sleep better at night knowing that the evil rich motherfucking prick didn't get away with it. Who's showing envy and greed, again?

This will get everyone's skin in the game and we can start having a real discussion about what kind of services we want in exchange for taxation

When GWB cut taxes...everybody got a tax cut. The rich got 'more' because they contributed more. But now, the rich have their tax cut rescinded, but evrybody else skates. When the great majority of the people 'have no skin in the game' they couldn't care about demanding more and more services. A certain political party has gone to great lengths to divide (NOT UNIFY) us to their great political benefit and our country's continuing detriment.

sleeper;1373103 wrote:Exactly. That's why I support the elimination of the income tax and the introduction of a national sales tax. Make a living wage exception of $X and tax everything bought 10%. This will get everyone's skin in the game and we can start having a real discussion about what kind of services we want in exchange for taxation. If the services exceed the revenue we currently bring in, then the 10% tax will increase according to our needs until the masses decide they would like lower taxes in exchange for less service.

I just fixed America.

Good luck with that. The clowns currently writing the tax codes are far more likely to KEEP the income tax, increase our "progressive fair share", and add a national sales tax to keep the feeding frenzy humming.

For one, progressive taxation is justified because of the declining marginal utility of dollars. As a consequence, since paying taxes on your labor is painful, it's an attempt to make high earners feel the same amount of pain in exchange for government services that lower earners feel. Additionally, as their per capita gdp requires more protection/services from the public at large for its support, it is like a higher insurance payment.

.and you are still caught up in your elitist 'justification'. You think it's okay to charge them more because they 'have more to protect' ....but yet draw the same or even less on society for the money they put in. Do they receive more/better government services? Better roads? Do they get a higher medicare plan? All of this you have taken in...and formed your judgement...the correct judgement...that everyone should subscribe to.....because you know best.

believer;1373157 wrote:Good luck with that. The clowns currently writing the tax codes are far more likely to KEEP the income tax, increase our "progressive fair share", and add a national sales tax to keep the feeding frenzy humming.

Thats because the tax code is much more than revenue generation. Its the hand of power the government uses to get us to act in ways we would not and more in line with the elitist central planners. Lobbyists surround DC massaging the balls of congress looking for legislative favors in the tax code. Most in Washington believe the tax and spend clause is a separate and unique power. So long as its part of the federal tax code Congress has free reign. Just ask Justice Roberts.