In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
#1 he could move to Florida or Tx because no state income taxes. #2 He doesn't have to "permanently" live in the states in order to play golf. You do know there are many foreign golfers that play in the states don't you??
He can't leave the country. He would lose popularity in a major way and he makes most of his money through endorsements. He makes most of his money through being popular with ordinary people, but he doesn't owe them shit!! Haha.
Obligatory post about how Mickelson will complain about his tax rates despite being able to potentially buy a major league baseball team while millions of Americans are still unemployed.
Obligatory first world/white people problems.jpg
Changing the subject won't help at all; but I'll bite. Gun control has to do with public safety. The trade-off between unemployment and spending is economic growth. The government can and should act on multiple front at the same time; remember how silly and incapable McCain looked when he suspended his campaign in 2008?
The real point of my post though is the thought that deficit spending is what is causing the economic problems, and I don't believe that is true; that is why the sequestration and defense cuts were going to put us into another recession (otherwise the reduced spending would help the economy, right?). On the economic front, I believe we will see more economic growth and less long-term consequences to the recent depression if we focused more on unemployment and less on deficit spending. We should focus on spending after unemployment has improved.
This really is unrelated to the gun control issues.
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
Great point, and it raises another. I believe that most states have sitused-source income rules, meaning that even if I am an NC resident and earn money in VA, I have to pay VA income tax attributable to those earnings. Phil, as a traveling professional golfer, likely files tax returns in every state where he enters a tournament. NFL players are paid on a per game basis and have to file taxes proportionately to include all the away games they play in. This is why retiring is the only way to reduce his tax burden and not simply moving.
One option may be to play in tournaments only in states that have no income tax.
I couldn't have said this any better. Good, thought out post.
We simply have different ideas of what is "fair" and that is okay. I would disagree with you that benefits are spread evenly across society. It is a well-known fact that funding for inner city schools is significantly less than funding for suburban schools. Also, disaster relief efforts disproportionately impact certain segments of the population, as do numerous provisions in the tax code such as caps for social security tax, preferential rates for investment income, loopholes around classification of income, etc.
Unfortunately, paying into the government money that all doesn't directly benefit you is a part of citizenship.
I think everyone in this thread has missed the point about taxes and spending. This country wants to take care of its poor and needy and there is no denying that. We have some very well run charities that are far less wasteful than the federal gov. Would you rather see $100 given to a charity that was 70% distributed to someone in need or $100 spend in taxes that is 25% effective?
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the private sector works. The example of the janitor making $20,000 a year and paying 20% taxes and not being able to get by would not be the case. If he made $20,000 and paid his taxes and his boss made 200,000 and saved money on his tax bill he could afford to pay the janitor more salary. Contrary to what most democrats think people who care about their employees and don't want them to starve.
My last thought is it goes way farther than just one man needs to pay more cause another guy is lazy. That's not the argument at all. The arguement is that the government is very inefficient in everything they do, so why would we want them in control of more things. Take a minute to look around everyday and you'll see a tremendous amount if government waste just in area. You show me that we can do things more efficiently and ill pay more money. That's the way it works.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports