Quote:Forbes provides a breakdown. First, he'll forfeit over 44% to the United Kingdom, despite spending all of two weeks there.
Then, U.S. tax collectors get in on the fun. Although Mickelson can avoid being double-taxed by writing off his gains as a foreign tax credit, he'll pay in other ways. Mickelson is still subject to a self-employment tax and a Medicare surtax. To the state of California, he's obligated to pay another 13.3% of his earnings. In total, one of the world's most successful golfer's is losing 61% of the money he made from the tournaments.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/25/phil-m...s-loses-61
Criminal.
Not Phil, the theft.
I thought he moved away from California a couple of years ago in order to avoid this exact scenario.
And if he didn't, he certainly ought to do so now.
Yet he still went to Britain anyway. Guess it isn't so anti-competitive
(07-26-2013 10:49 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Yet he still went to Britain anyway. Guess it isn't so anti-competitive
+1
I wonder what the morons at Occupy would have to say about this.
(07-26-2013 10:49 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Yet he still went to Britain anyway. Guess it isn't so anti-competitive
It may not effect somebody with a real shot to win it all ... but those rates can DEFINITELY effect the undercard ... the people who tend to not make the first cut. But of course you'll never hear about the people who didn't go. As usual the liberal disconnect over the seen vs the unseen and the fatal conceit.
To his credit, he's one of the few professional golfers still living in California. But I still can't feel sorry for him when he makes maybe $750,000 in two weeks in golf winnings (the money he does collect after taxes), and countless millions more in new endorsements he'll get down the road (you think the folks who still use Tiger as their endorser wouldn't drop him in a second for Phil now if they could?).
I do feel sorry for professional athletes whose career shelf life is small - taxes take away much of their income before they can invest it properly and those are the folks who end up hurting for money. We have a famous football player at Rice who briefly made it into the NFL before concussions and other injuries ended his career basically before it began. He just suffered a stroke at age 42 and didn't even have health insurance because he couldn't afford it.
But Mickelson makes perhaps 50 million a year from endorsements alone and may continue to rake in that type of money for another 5-10 years (and probably at least a million or more every year if he is lucky enough to live into his 70's and 80's like Nicklaus and Palmer). And I suspect he has tax lawyers smart enough to keep much of that money in his portfolio. Put it this way - Mickelson's wins are going to make him a lot more money down the road than the taxes he's paying to Great Britain and California.
I'd rather see articles focused on the Trevor Cobbs of the world (and there are quite a lot of them) who are hurting, rather than the Phil Mickelson types - who will continue to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
(07-27-2013 12:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what the morons at Occupy would have to say about this.
They'd want in on some of the money. That way they still wouldn't have to work and could use Phil's money for Starbucks.
(07-27-2013 07:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]To his credit, he's one of the few professional golfers still living in California. But I still can't feel sorry for him when he makes maybe $750,000 in two weeks in golf winnings (the money he does collect after taxes), and countless millions more in new endorsements he'll get down the road (you think the folks who still use Tiger as their endorser wouldn't drop him in a second for Phil now if they could?).
I do feel sorry for professional athletes whose career shelf life is small - taxes take away much of their income before they can invest it properly and those are the folks who end up hurting for money. We have a famous football player at Rice who briefly made it into the NFL before concussions and other injuries ended his career basically before it began. He just suffered a stroke at age 42 and didn't even have health insurance because he couldn't afford it.
But Mickelson makes perhaps 50 million a year from endorsements alone and may continue to rake in that type of money for another 5-10 years (and probably at least a million or more every year if he is lucky enough to live into his 70's and 80's like Nicklaus and Palmer). And I suspect he has tax lawyers smart enough to keep much of that money in his portfolio. Put it this way - Mickelson's wins are going to make him a lot more money down the road than the taxes he's paying to Great Britain and California.
I'd rather see articles focused on the Trevor Cobbs of the world (and there are quite a lot of them) who are hurting, rather than the Phil Mickelson types - who will continue to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
You can't justify the government taking 61% of what you earn no matter what type of spin you'd like to apply.
(07-27-2013 12:19 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2013 10:49 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Yet he still went to Britain anyway. Guess it isn't so anti-competitive
+1
If either of you think that a 60% tax burden in fair?..You are sick MOFO's.
BTW...Going to the UK shows how much respect for competition and love for the game he has..nothing else.
(07-27-2013 09:17 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2013 07:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]To his credit, he's one of the few professional golfers still living in California. But I still can't feel sorry for him when he makes maybe $750,000 in two weeks in golf winnings (the money he does collect after taxes), and countless millions more in new endorsements he'll get down the road (you think the folks who still use Tiger as their endorser wouldn't drop him in a second for Phil now if they could?).
I do feel sorry for professional athletes whose career shelf life is small - taxes take away much of their income before they can invest it properly and those are the folks who end up hurting for money. We have a famous football player at Rice who briefly made it into the NFL before concussions and other injuries ended his career basically before it began. He just suffered a stroke at age 42 and didn't even have health insurance because he couldn't afford it.
But Mickelson makes perhaps 50 million a year from endorsements alone and may continue to rake in that type of money for another 5-10 years (and probably at least a million or more every year if he is lucky enough to live into his 70's and 80's like Nicklaus and Palmer). And I suspect he has tax lawyers smart enough to keep much of that money in his portfolio. Put it this way - Mickelson's wins are going to make him a lot more money down the road than the taxes he's paying to Great Britain and California.
I'd rather see articles focused on the Trevor Cobbs of the world (and there are quite a lot of them) who are hurting, rather than the Phil Mickelson types - who will continue to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
You can't justify the government taking 61% of what you earn no matter what type of spin you'd like to apply.
I agree. It is nothing more that an abomination.
Surprised the PGA of America hasn't tried to put its foot down. The British Open becomes a much smaller event if the Americans aren't involved.
Getting to keep < 40% of what you earn. Let that sink in. Does the the dollar amount really matter when a number that criminal is allowed?
Do you think any of this (the tax rate) comes as a surprise to the elite golfers? Phil went across the pond a week early to cement his legacy (and did a very nice job of that), not to bring in extra cash.
This goes both ways. Why do you think Rory McIlroy plays in the states so much? Same with Luke Donald and others. It's also why the European Tour has so few tournaments that actually take place in the UK (although I couldn't tell you what the tax rate is in Russia, which is where this week's European Tour event is).
I will say this - the tax rate in the UK is the #1 reason there will never be a professional NFL team in London.
(07-27-2013 09:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2013 09:17 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2013 07:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]To his credit, he's one of the few professional golfers still living in California. But I still can't feel sorry for him when he makes maybe $750,000 in two weeks in golf winnings (the money he does collect after taxes), and countless millions more in new endorsements he'll get down the road (you think the folks who still use Tiger as their endorser wouldn't drop him in a second for Phil now if they could?).
I do feel sorry for professional athletes whose career shelf life is small - taxes take away much of their income before they can invest it properly and those are the folks who end up hurting for money. We have a famous football player at Rice who briefly made it into the NFL before concussions and other injuries ended his career basically before it began. He just suffered a stroke at age 42 and didn't even have health insurance because he couldn't afford it.
But Mickelson makes perhaps 50 million a year from endorsements alone and may continue to rake in that type of money for another 5-10 years (and probably at least a million or more every year if he is lucky enough to live into his 70's and 80's like Nicklaus and Palmer). And I suspect he has tax lawyers smart enough to keep much of that money in his portfolio. Put it this way - Mickelson's wins are going to make him a lot more money down the road than the taxes he's paying to Great Britain and California.
I'd rather see articles focused on the Trevor Cobbs of the world (and there are quite a lot of them) who are hurting, rather than the Phil Mickelson types - who will continue to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
You can't justify the government taking 61% of what you earn no matter what type of spin you'd like to apply.
I agree. It is nothing more that an abomination.
The fact that some people think the govt should get to keep 60% of whatever someone makes, even it one makes a BILLION dollars, is beyond comprehensible to me. I mean, it's like folks say it's OK for the govt to take that much merely because the person that EARNED the money still has a lot left over after the taxes are taken. That line of reasoning, I don't know, I just don't see how anyone could think that is the right way to go.
(07-27-2013 02:22 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Getting to keep < 40% of what you earn. Let that sink in. Does the the dollar amount really matter when a number that criminal is allowed?
Is it a secret that European nations have a tax rate that high? It's not like it was a surprise, and it's not like any of us are a) paying rates that high or b) able to do anything about what a totally different country decides to do with their economy.
(07-27-2013 03:46 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2013 02:22 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Getting to keep < 40% of what you earn. Let that sink in. Does the the dollar amount really matter when a number that criminal is allowed?
Is it a secret that European nations have a tax rate that high? It's not like it was a surprise, and it's not like any of us are a) paying rates that high or b) able to do anything about what a totally different country decides to do with their economy.
No, it's no secret. No, I'm not paying it. No, I can't do anything about it.
This is still an internet message board, though, yes?
High European tax rates?
The 44% UK rate compares favorably to the 35% federal plus 13% California tax he'd pay if he made the same money here. Where he really gets hammered is the Social Security/Medicare tax, plus still having to pay California taxes. Those are the things that get him up from a pretty normal range (toward high end of range for all OECD countries, but not THE highest) to 61%.
There's a reason why, as FBO notes, there are very few professional golfers who still live in Cali.
And we can do one thing about what another country does with it's tax rates--we can set ours to attract businesses and jobs away from those other countries, or we can set ours up to lose businesses and jobs to those other countries.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Socialism is costly $$$$$$$$$$$$$