Phil Mickelson's Tax Comments

[klunderbunker]

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8868333/phil-mickelson-says-regrets-airing-opinion-taxes

For those of you that likely missed it, over the weekend Phil Mickelson said he might have to leave California because of how high his taxes had become. Mickelson said that with all of the taxes combined, he was facing a tax rate of over 60%. While this sounds insane, keep in mind that Mickelson has earned approximately $70 million from golf in his career and earned over $40 million in endorsement deals last year alone. Note that I am not saying that his tax rate is far or that he has no right to complain about it.

What I am asking is the following:

1. Should Mickelson have brought this up?

2. Is this something that has a place in sports?

3. Is Mickelson being treated unfairly?

Remember that while this is in the sports section, if the discussion is related (with a heavy emphasis on that word) to the topic, you won't be in trouble for spam. Also don't limit your responses to just these questions. If there is something else you want to address about this, please do.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I feel a deep sense of pity and sadness for Phil Mickleson. Over his illustrious and successful golf career, he has amassed over $70M in earnings. For the sake of simplifying the math, let's suggest his $40M in endorsements from last year alone was a career total (which of course is a gross underestimate). $110M dollars, taxed at 60%, meaning he would have to pay $66M in taxes, leaving the poor destitute man the undesirable calamity of having to eke out a living on $44M for his career. My hands are shaking here in sadness as my heart is absolutely breaking.

Bearing in mind, he has not been taxed at 60% for his whole career, otherwise he would have addressed his plight sooner. In all likelihood, he paid far less taxes on his career earnings than I indicated above. And as I already said, the $40M referenced above is not a career total, it is for just last year, meaning he's likely made grossly in excess of this over his lengthy career. All things considered, the $44 million dollars mentioned above is nowhere near the money the man has put in his pocket for playing GOLF for a living. He, his family, and anyone else close to him is likely set for life. And did I mention this is all for smacking a little white ball across the grass with a shiny club?

Should Mickleson have brought this up, hell no. The financial status of the country over the last while being considered, with Joe Public struggling to make ends meet, perhaps he shouldn't be boo hooing publicly, considering his extensive wealth, even at his elevated tax rate. I don't blame the man for being pissed at having to pay such a lofty amount in taxes, any of us would hate that too. But seriously, shut up about it and drive over to your accountant's mansion in your brand new Porsche, and try to find a few tax loopholes. Even if you have to move out of your mansion in California, I'm sure you'll find suitable accommodations in one of the other 49 states.

Such discussions have no place in sports. All of the pro athletes make obscene amounts of money, and frankly, I have no problem with that at all. But don't cry poor mouth about it, just because you have to pay a lot of taxes. It reminds me of that time when some athlete (I'm thinking I was Iverson, but I'm not certain) was complaining about his financial situation being so dire, he might have to sell a couple of his sports cars. Come on.

Is Mickleson being treated unfairly? Probably so. I have no problem with taxing the wealthy more extensively than Johnny Lunchbox, but even still, 60% seems a little bit extreme. I'm not sure anyone should lose more than half of their income to taxes. But for shame sake, don't complain about it in the public forums when times are so tough across the board. Perhaps he should choose to suffer in silence, comforted by the tens of millions of dollars he's already made, and will continue to make for the forseeable future.

 

[Slyfox696]

If his 60% tax on $48 million for doing nothing more than playing a game is just too high for him, I'll happily accept him donating $46 million of that to me and allow me to pay 60% tax on it. Or I'll just trade him salaries every year, and he won't have to worry about that 60% tax rate.

It sure is rough to make $48 million a year for playing a game.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

1. Should Mickelson have brought this up?

I don't see how it benefits him or will change his situation. He is free to say what he wants but he comes off as greedy to most when he complains this way.

I mostly pity his kids. If he moves them out of state for this reason it seems to set a poor image they have for their dad. Who wants to leave their friends and home behind because daddy doesn't like his tax rates?

2. Is this something that has a place in sports?

When it comes to sports anything done or said by the top guys has become a media tale. It's probably not right but I can't argue with ESPN printing the story since I chose to read it.

3. Is Mickelson being treated unfairly?

Unless he plans on leaving the country, clearly his beef is with CA. They are hurting financially but I recently read that they are likely to have or be close to a surplus this year. I guess the money can come from other people/programs but in a state with such large gaps in wealth and income it's hard to argue against going after those with the highest income.


I would like to see the math to understand how they get to over 60%. Are CA tax rates progressive? He's clear not paying much of a percentage of his income in SS since that is capped at 12.4% of his first $113,000.

Of well, I've got my own mortgage to worry about.

 

[shattered dreams]

If he is really paying over 60% then I have no problem with him bringing this up. Should he have? Probably not because of what it opens himself up to from people like Sly who talk about how frivolously people spend their money yet chastise Mickelson for mentioning that it might not be worth at least 4 mil a year to him just to live in California. Considering the number of people that end up broke in sports maybe it is the type of thing that should be mentioned more. It does amuse me when people get outraged over someone complaining about a tax rate over 50 percent while they will flip their shit if their personal tax rate might go up a couple percent to something still probably less than 25 percent. Interesting world we live in. Also, do I think Mickelson pays 60 percent in taxes? No, unless their is a new sin tax on gambling losses that I haven't heard about.