« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Phil Mickelson hints tax changes may spur career change.

Let me use short words, here*: if you want less of something, tax it. Because if you tax it, you will get less of it:

On the day President Obama was sworn in for his second term, [top professional golfer Phil] Mickelson sent shock waves through the Humana Challenge when he said the political landscape in the United States was causing him to seriously contemplate his future in golf.

[snip]

“If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and state, my tax rate is 62, 63 percent,” Mickelson said. “So I’ve got to make some decisions on what to do.”

[snip]

In December, Mickelson, who was part of a group that had bought the San Diego Padres four months earlier, abruptly announced that he was no longer involved in the business deal. His reversal came shortly after California voters approved Proposition 30, which imposed a 13.3 percent tax rate on incomes of more than $1 million.

Asked Sunday if the election results played a role in his decision to sever his ties with the Padres’ ownership group, Mickelson replied, “Yeah, absolutely.”

Mickelson made 43 million dollars last year in celebrity endorsements alone; and there’s no real reason to think that he can’t make a similiar amount of money this year, too. But… if he’s losing sixty-two cents of every dollar that he sees, what’s Mickelson’s incentive to hustle for more? Particularly when he could, perhaps, combine hustling for less with moving to a state that’s much less likely to kill the goose to get at the golden eggs? After all, to paraphrase Barack Obama: at some point you have to ask yourself whether you’ve made enough money.

…I certainly hope that every tax bureaucrat in the country gasped in horror when the President said that, by the way. Unlike Barack Obama, they should be expected to understand that you don’t eat your seed corn.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Mostly for the indirect benefit of the people assigned to monitor right-wing sites; they’ll probably be passing the gist of this post along, and I consider them to be considerably more intelligent than their political masters in the Democratic party. Which is, admittedly, not particularly hard to do.

COMMENTS

  • rightlane1111

    I posted this on another thread. I found this very interesting that every single items…Obama gets an A+ on.

    Here is something interesting in the bulletin ..”There are
    six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to Him: Haughty
    eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that
    devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false
    witness who pours out lies and man who stirs up dissension among
    brothers” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

    SOUND LIKE ANYONE WE KNOW???????????

    This man is out to destroy our country, our lives, our way of life. Pretty soon, people that do make money (which I do not consider bad) are going to say “why even bother” and leave. Who will be left with the bill? The middle class…until they suck that dry also…and then we are back to slavery…and what a good day to use that word…MLK’s Day.

  • timmcg

    I would be willing to struggle through playing golf for a living and scraping by on $20 million a year.

    Arnold Palmer never made more than $200k in a year of playing golf. Wonder what drove him? Maybe to be the best in the world?

  • twinelm

    Hey Phil, Texas is a GREAT PLACE to live and play golf!

  • Jack_Savage

    Then why don’t you give it a shot? You know, because golfers get paid for all those hours on the range, and they get paid millions for just showing up at tournaments, and travel, and Q School and all that.
    Give it a shot. It’s just like being a business owner, dontcha know – easy money.

  • rabun1016

    To be successful in golf you must “read the green” and this is what Phil is doing. I can’t for the life of me figure out why any golfer would live in a state with an income tax. They take the risk, and pay it all, and have no guarantees. But on the other hand, they can live where they want.

  • almostacowboy77

    So, give the gov’t 63% of what you make and say, “I’m just like Phil”.

  • Jim_Riggs

    Maybe he could buy the Cowboys. He can’t be worse than Jerry.

  • PowerToThePeople

    The amount of money he makes has nothing to do with how much of his, notice the word his, money the tax pimps take. It also does not matter how much Arnold Palmer made, it only matters what is being done to his earnings.

    Your class warfare crap is obnoxious. Who are you to say how much a person should make before being able to complain about 2/3 of their money being taken for the government to waste. I do not believe for one minute you are a business owner, but that is just as irrelevant to this discussion as your assertions about what he makes and what Palmer made.

    I make much more than many of my counterparts. I make much more than others who were doing similar things 30 years ago. Am I not entitled to my money and to keep as much of it as I can without hearing BS from you when I have a problem with the enormous amount they take. The answer is yes.

  • rbdwiggins

    I’m guessing Phil will choose Florida. There’s no state income tax, and there’s an extended practice season. Tiger’s home course is in Jupiter, Florida and Dustin Johnson moved from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to Jupiter just before the beginning of the 2013 season.

  • jimmyg

    I am no tax guy but you better believe that Phil is incorporated, pro golfers have investors who pay there expenses, in addition they have expenses when they go on the tour, Pay agents, pay state taxes in the states that they win tournaments, etc. pay employee salaries and expenses. The corporation pays the corporate rate, and the golfer gets a salary and dividends. Phil is sponsored by KPMG, and it is likely they have a team of accountants working on Mickelson Inc.

    I would bet that Phil, no matter where he lives, does not pay anywhere near a 63% tax rate. He certainly would lower his tax rate if he moved to Florida from California, but not by the amount you may think.

  • rbdwiggins

    Tiger wouldn’t have incorporated if he wasn’t concerned about taxes. Phil wouldn’t have formed his trust or even consider moving out of California if he wasn’t concerned about taxes. Both generate more in corporate endorsements than they could ever win on the PGA Tour.

    Jack and Arnnie didn’t make that much money playing golf, but both own golf course design firms that are incorporated. The income generated by those design companies dwarf anything they earned on the PGA Tour.

    In short: Only a fool wouldn’t be concerned about the amount of taxes the government forced them to pay.

  • rbdwiggins

    You would lose that bet. Phil said his personal effective tax rate was 62-63%. He will save at least 13.3% just by moving out of California to a no income tax state such as Florida. And since you admit that you’re no tax guy, that equals $133,000.00 per million dollars earned. By the way, those sponsor paid expenses and endorsements are taxable income.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Oh yes, hoping to win a major always outweighs highway robbery. You really are dumb, really, really dumb.

  • PowerToThePeople

    But that would be like a person considered to be retarded making fun of a genius. Your laughter is misplaced, it should be directed towards the mirror.

  • Jack_Savage

    Well then, it looks like some decisions have been made for you that are going to help you not max out the money. Just like Phil.

  • Jack_Savage

    No, you are a drive by coward. That’s who you are.

  • jimmyg

    Attached is a link to a Hot Air article based on a study of tax rates. Lefty was exaggerating somewhat. The top personal tax rate in California would be 52%. .http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/05/if-u-s-hikes-taxes-high-income-californians-might-pay-almost-52-percent/

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    LIkely Phil is referring to his maximum marginals plus sales, which (back sheet of the napkin) is 39.6%+13.3%+8%=60.9% (fed income plus CA income plus sales) plus a bit more in CA property taxes, which are not large.

    Yes, he will actually pay somewhat less than that. but is not the point made? Using the Clinton years as a guide, Phil will pay about 34%+10% plus sales tax on what he buys, so you’re looking at 44% plus “stuff”. So, figure close to 50%.

    That’s just wrong, to take 50% of a person’s labor in taxation.

    Now, can he do better in Florida or Texas? Maybe a little. You take away the 10%, but Florida and Texas have godawful property tax rates which are going to consume some portion of that 10%.

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    Don’t forget sales and property taxes.