Online Now 3348

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2092
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3360
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

taxes and Phil Mickelson

  • fat x nub said...

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    I don't really see anything on this website that disputes what I said and the link I provided above.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • #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??

    TOPCLASS

  • TOPCLASS said...

    #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.

    signature image

    !!!

    Grand Slam ●

  • 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

    ramssuperbowl99 ●

  • justinboze said...

    Apparently gun control is the most important issue right now so jobs and the economy are just going to have to wait. Afterall, every article on the subject has to remind us in the first couple of paragraphs about Newton, Connecticut because we are so dumb that we will forget about it without the media keeping it fresh on everyone's minds.

    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.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • TOPCLASS said...

    #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??

    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.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • sf2k4 said...

    Well, you could look at it this way: Say you've got two people, one making $20,000 a year working as a janitor and one making $200,000 a year working as a consultant. So, per month, that means the janitor is making roughly $1700 while the consultant is making $17,000. Say we tax both at 20% (just a random number). That means the janitor is paying $340 a month in taxes while the consultant is paying $3,400 (it's worth noting that one is still paying more than the other, obviously the nature of percentages). Now, that means the janitor is now making $1360 per month compared to the consultant who is now making $13,600 per month.

    Now, I'm not speaking with an agenda or saying I think things should be done a certain way; I don't support socialism or the lazy. However, let's not act like a flat tax rate of 20%, while on the surface "fair," doesn't affect some people more than others. While the richer of the two people in my example is technically paying more money, the other is now going down to the wire just to get by. I'm not saying we should make everyone rich, God no. But, as the example says, $2,000 means a lot more to the person making $20,000 than $20,000 does to the person making $200,000.

    To me, it always boils down to one of two points: (1) A lot of people generalize all poor people as "lazy" [and are under the false assumption that "moving up" is easy or attainable for everyone and/or refuse to acknowledge that jobs like our janitor's still have to be performed by someone] and (b) that we have to up-tax the rich to make up for not having to hurt the poor as much. Personally, I say we start with a comfortable tax on the rich and reduce spending, and that way we can reduce taxes on the poor and, IMO, everyone wins.

    I couldn't have said this any better. Good, thought out post.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DrStache

  • coolstorybro said...

    In part yes. It is unfair to tax one considered rich at a higher rate simply because he is worth more in the market. At the end of the day he gets the same protection and benefits from the usa as the one considered poor but he paid for poor man's share and many more.

    Like I said I don't know the best way to implement something like that but the idea is there

    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.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw ●

  • 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.

    TWGator

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports