Skip to main content

View Diary: Multimillionaire golfer Phil Mickelson sorry for lamenting his mere eight-figure disposable income (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •   CBS said his tax rate "spiked". (8+ / 0-)

    When the second story was released that Mickelson was backing off his public complaint, the CBS Morning Show described his tax rate as having "spiked" due to new laws.
    So to his fellow millionares at CBS a couple % increase in tax rates is a "spike".   Yet more "pity the billionares" crap.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:38:58 PM PST

    •  His tax rates did spike! (0+ / 0-)

      For his income taxed at ordinary rates comparing 2011 and 2013 for CA income taxes, tax increases from ACA and rise of the top Federal rate his marginal after tax income was cut by almost 24%.

      From these current tax rates if he were to move to a state without income taxes his marginal after tax income would increase by 27.6%

      It is not surprising that he is considering moving from California.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:22:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How the heck (0+ / 0-)

        do you come up with 24%?

        •  Just do the tax rate calculations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pravin

          Federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%
          New federal ACA tax of 3.8% on income of high earners
          State tax increase from 10.3% to 13.3%
          Deductibility of state income tax reduced from 100% to 20% for those with high incomes.

          Look at a marginal $100 in pretax income.

          In 2011 the after tax income was $58.30 which drops to $44.35 in 2013.  This is an after tax reduction of income of 24%.

          When one is already heavily taxed, a small increase in rate becomes a large decrease in after tax income.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:07:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, but when you're already making (0+ / 0-)

            a whole lot of money before that $100 comes into play, it decreases the hit a whole lot more, too. Besides, if he doesn't want to pay that money to the government, he can donate it to charity. His choice. He's fortunate to have that choice, because 99.9% of humans on the planet don't.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:14:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Issue is more so counterproductive tax policy (0+ / 0-)

              that was made in the hopes of increasing tax revenues having the effect of decreasing tax revenues.  

              I think California is overreaching in its tax rates on the wealthy and business.  I expect this tax increase to lower CA income tax revenues as many of the wealthy leave the state and those that stay change their economic activity that also decreases their state income taxes.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:43:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess we'll see, won't we? (0+ / 0-)

                Although I'd like to see where these wealthy will go. Name me 1 other state in the nation that has what California offers--do you really think they live here because of the tax benefits?
                If you truly think we are still on the far side of the Laffer curve, and that increasing tax rates will decrease revenues, then I have some prime Louisiana swampland that will suit your investment portfolio perfectly.

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:05:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Many of the wealthy live in many places over the (0+ / 0-)

                  year - they are generally not home bound.  If poor people from Mexico can migrate, why would one think the wealthy would not?

                  Many of Hollywood have left long ago.  Harrison Ford and Robert Redford have left, John Cameron recently moved to New Zealand, most recently Tina Turnner is becoming Swiss.  As they want to stay in the public's favor, most don't talk about it very much or why.

                  Several friend of mine who were early Google and Facebook employees have left.  Many who achieved great wealth in Silicon Valley are planning to leave after they retire.

                  Most of the very wealthy travel in various places and frequently have multiple home sometimes even in multiple countries.  

                  They are not excluded from living part of the year in California.

                  For example, Warren Buffet has a home in CA, but home for tax purposes is NE.

                  The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                  by nextstep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:31:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Economists debated for years, how will the wealthy (0+ / 0-)

                  react to a significant tax increase.

                  We have a very powerful test in CA right now.  Data to arrive in about 3-4 years from now.

                  The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                  by nextstep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:46:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But this isn't a *significant* (0+ / 0-)

                    tax increase--it's not all that much of one at all. I wouldn't consider a low single digit increase of any kind significantly greater . . . People (in days of yore) used to get more of an increase in pay just for cost of living adjustments!
                    All those people you mention left because of other considerations, and were replaced by plenty of other wealthy people. If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to share with evidence, because right now, you simply sound like a Fox News "press" release . . .

                    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                    by bryduck on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:28:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site