Phil Mickelson says changes coming because of taxes

I don't blame Phil at all.  He needs to leave Cali.  He is giving 63% to the government. 

https://www.cbssports.com/golf/blog/eye-on-golf/21589838/phil-mickelson-might-be-considering-retirement

Q: When you're asked about Stricker's semi-retirement, with the political situation the last couple months ... what did you mean by that? Do you find it an unsettling time in a way?

Phil Mickelson:

Well, it's been an interesting offseason. And I'm going to have to make some drastic changes. I'm not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes.

Q: Meaning leaving from California?

Mickelson:

I'm not sure.

Q. Moving to Canada?

Mickelson:

I'm not sure what exactly, you know, I'm going to do yet. I'll probably talk about it more in depth next week. I'm not going to jump the gun, but there are going to be some. There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn't work for me right now. So I'm going to have to make some changes.

Q: Is it a stance that you are taking because on the one hand, you've made a lot of money, and no matter how much they take out, you are left with a lot of money?

Mickelson:

Yeah. I'll probably go into it more next year or next week. But if you add up, if you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent. So I've got to make some decisions on what I'm going to do.

 

I dont blame him.....62% is ridiculous

guess that is why most of the pros live in TEX or FLA......at least he is honest about it!....

My understanding is that he pays taxes to the states where he plays.

I just became a Phil fan. Looking forward to his interviews this week at Torrey Pines.

it will be a domino effect and it wont matter what party ppl support.

people will look to protect what they have earned from our bloated, over spending, inefficient govt.

who didnt see any of this coming?

reminds me of the bar stool economics story

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Poor guy, he's only the 7th highest paid athlete in the world.  Hope he can still feed his family.

Yeah I dont have much sympathy for him.

Phil has a great life, huge media contracts and would not likely repeat his earnings if he were to move to Europe.

Lord:

perhaps the benefits of living in cali outweighs the taxes...

No, but being idiots didn't stop a lot of people from being wealthy.

 I'm wondering how Phil became rich by simply rolling a ball in a hole ? Was there money in that hole ? Hey wait a minute, did they charge those idiots 100 each to run around from hole to hole sweating to watch him ?

he got rich by dominating at what he does, after years of hard work

how did obama, your master, get rich donita?

of the public sector and being a corporate shill

and his personal choice is to prob going to be to move.

at some point the local, state and fed govts will have to tackle their spending ways bc sooner or later you run out of other peoples money (Margaret Thatcher)

have 65% of whatever you earn confiscated and you will sing a different tune.

and dont tell me that it wouldnt be fair to you bc you dont make millions.

Thats not the point

And Cali thinks raising taxes is the answer, it isn't, people will move. 

I hope the US government is taking notice.  Rasing taxes is not the answer. 

I'm surprised it's taken Phil this long to move to a state like Florida, at least the perception.

Ask Tiger how it works. They could be neighbors.

I'm surprised it's taken Phil this long to move to a state like Florida, at least the perception.

Ask Tiger how it works. They could be neighbors.

I'm surprised it's taken Phil this long to move to a state like Florida, at least the perception.

Ask Tiger how it works. They could be neighbors.

Basically, the only comments the libs here have made is that they don't feel sorry for him.

Don't get carried away with this.In reality he is paying about 50%, no more.

He can do what I did, move to Florida and buy a big house on a lake, and when his children are grown, move into a smaller house on a golf course. That's what I did. We are completely happy.

As for his millions, he doesn't need that much when your neighbor is homeless. It's a nightmare anyway worrying about who's going to take your money. It's like winning the powerball for 300 million., you don't know who your friends are.

Are you assuming that conditions when he moved to Cali will always be the same and never change for the worse?

Maybe you're stuck in that 'things never change' paradigm because you're so used to your patients in the same condition or worse after lying on your couch for years.

then does it follow that you dont need a house on a golf course when your neighbor is homeless as well?

where does the line get drawn?