"Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes because of political, economic climate"
That's the headline in his hometown paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune. Which means Phil Mickelson's Wednesday press conference at Torrey Pines for the Farmers Insurance Open should be quite the lively affair following his post round comments at Sunday's Humana Challenge.
Tod Leonard explains the circumstances and primary issue Mickelson intends to elaborate on Wednesday in his hometown.
Mickelson, 42, was responding to a question about why, in a conference call last Monday, he referred to “what’s gone on the last couple of months, politically,” when talking about the semi-retirement of fellow tour pro Steve Stricker.
“I think we’re all going to have to find things that work for us,” Mickelson said on the call. "I think we're all going to have our own kind of way of handling things, handling time in our career, handling what's gone on the last couple of months politically. I think we're all going to have to find things that work for us."
Asked if there was a correlation between his views and his withdrawal from interest in the Padres, Mickelson said, “Yeah, absolutely.”
I guess that rules out Phil watching the inauguration Monday or sending Governor Moonbeam some Callaways!
Alex Miceli fills us in on Mickelson's primary gripe.
Last fall, Californians approved Proposition 30, which boosts the state income tax to 13.3 percent on earnings of $1 million or more. That’s a 29.1 percent increase from the previous “millionaires tax” in a state with tremendous fiscal issues.
Compound that increased liability with the recent changes to the federal tax code, which bumps the top bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent to avoid going over the so-called fiscal cliff, and Mickelson’s tax hit is substantial.
And this...
“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 is 62, 63 percent,” Mickelson said. “I’ve got to make some decisions on what I am going to do.”
So here's the good news as I see it: this will take some of the focus off of Tuesday night's players meeting where the PGA Tour will be discussing a decidedly first world problem in the form of anchoring belly putters.
The bad news? Depending on how Mickelson presents his case (he's quite good and comes off as sincere when he's passionate about something), he could either (A) shed light on legitimate issues surrounding the tax code or (B) brand PGA Tour upper echelon golfers as suffering the firstest of first world problems and merely reinforce negative stereotypes about the sport and those who play it.
Should be an interesting day at Torrey Pines!
Geoff
**Tony Nitti of Forbes analyzed Mickelson's situation and was not sympathetic:
For starters, courtesy of President Obama’s re-election and the subsequent fiscal cliff negotiations, Mickelson will experience an increase in his top tax rate on ordinary income from 35% to 39.6%, and an increase in his top rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends from 15% to 20%. Clearly, when faced with tax hikes of that magnitude, it stops making economic sense for Mickelson to continue to swing a metal stick up to 70 times a day in exchange for the $48 million he earns on an annual basis.
But it gets worse. Thanks to the expiration of the temporary 2% reduction in the payroll tax rate on the first $113,700 of self-employment income, Mickelson will have to fork over an extra $2,274 in tax during 2013, an additional burden that makes it hard to justify briskly walking as many as five miles per day, four days a week. In long pants, nonetheless.
Reader Comments (106)
What's the answer? I don't know.
HE WAS NOT SAYING HE PAYS THAT IN S,L,AND F TAXES--- NOTE HIS REFERENCE TO SS, UNEMPLOYMENT ETC--HE WAS SAYING THESE NUMBERS IN REFERENCE TO A QUESTION ABOUT IF HIS COMMENTS WERE PART OF WHY HE GAVE UP POTENTIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PADRES.
This is a classic example of being quoted out of context. Sorry for the caps, but I didn't want everyone to keep posting as if PM didn't know what he was talking about.
Do you have any data on this "en masse" fleeing? I'm here in the People's Republic and I'm not seeing it!
In the wealthier enclaves around here, we're already back to the days when mansions, McMansions and homes you can't believe go for $2 million aren't even on the market for more than a day or two before being sold. So they may be fleeing but there appears to be no shortage of takers.
My opinion, and that is all it is, is PM should have kept his mouth shut about all this. IF he moves, he could throw out a little blurb, but as was said, all the political stuff, of which I am guilty as anyone, is a bit off the mark for the best golf spot on the interweb. On the other and, it is refreshing to see so many comments, and realize how aware we are as citizens, and perhaps real change will follow.
PM has always been a talker, and he has never been shy about it. So he opened this can of worms, but everywhere there are problems, and he is in a virtual paradise--as was said-would giving that up for a 5% difference in the bottom line be worth it--- can't he live on all those millions?
My fixed income is under a thousand dollars a month. When the new year broke, my wife's weekly income was docked over 30 bucks, from the WH being restored, and our insurance costs on medicine have almost doubled in the new year--- sadly, I'm one of those 4 people who got the free beer.
What was missing in that pure BS, is that the 4 who got the free beer got a 6 oz glass, while the 10th got a &*^^%%$ pitcher of beer to go with his 24 oz glass.
So don't think that ''analogy'' shed any light on anything.
I used to live on University Blvd, right down the road from Rice. We spent 200 bucks going out to eat, in the 80's- so that is a hell of a lot more now. But failing health took all that away, and we ended up on food stamps- so don't think you are so fucking tough or immune, with your paper money- what if apple tanked- it used to be under $10-- what if you became paralyzed, as what happened to me? You can't scare me- I never knew if I would move again, but for every dick who take advantage of ''the system'', thee is someone like me, who needs help, or a least who needed it to get back on his feet.
We spend more on defense that ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED. You want better tax rates? Cut the military to a realistic figure, and cut corporate welfare. That would solve it in a NY minute.
California *and* Bust
vanityfair (dot) com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111
Prett good read there. I get a chuckle out of the "leave if you don't like it" crowd...
...careful what you wish for.
We are going to have to cut way more than defense or corporate welfare . . .
Obviously, you haven't seen all the cars with California license plates here in Texas for the past 20 years. Most of them are not just visiting . . .
Additionally, I am not to sur of your figures- where did you get them, if you don't mind? Thanks. This is just the kind of posting we need, to arrive at figures that DTF will convert in to a solution. :)
Social entitlement spending: Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget, first pie chart
My point is these costs are increasing, and crowding out other spending. Our payroll taxes will not be able to keep up with these costs without crushing taxation.
That comes from always playing it down.
If Stricker is really Going Selectively Galt because of his taxes, well, that means he was making too much money in the first place. I really don't know how professional golf will get along without him. It will be a big loss, especially in Georgia, where we might not see him in the Masters. We are not a particularly high-tax state, which shows, but compared to Florida we have an infinite state income tax.
I read Travels with Epicurus by Daniel Klein over the weekend and have ordered several copies to give as gifts. For those of us who are more than half way to the end of the journey, I highly recommend this book. A favorite quote from Epicurus that explains where we are as a culture appears on p. 16: "Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little."
Smitty: No one on my side of the divide denies what you point out. However, Social Security is not part of the federal budget, except as a source of funds to raid. This was pioneered by Ronald Reagan, who in the immortal words of Dick Cheney, canned hunter extraordinaire, taught us that "Deficits don't matter." And they don't if you use the Social Security Trust Fund as a credit card and pay the money back with Treasury bonds, which Pete Peterson seems to think are worth nothing. I wonder if he thinks the same of the other Treasuries that are undoubtedly part of his vast wealth? One simple fix will go 90% of the way to repairing Social Security: raising the threshold from $113,000 to ~$250,000. Add a month or two to the retirement age and the system becomes a perpetual motion machine that benefits everyone. Those who need the money (most of us) will get it and people like Phil Mickelson will get tip money for their sojourns in Vegas. Medicare-for-All will fix the other problems, while removing the specter of medical bankruptcy from the land. We could also bring the troops home, so to speak. Win, win, win.
Here is a lengthy but interesting read:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UP1_8eR_CSo
I would humbly suggest that the expatriation of wealth is in its early stages but will gather momentum. Of course, I still live in NY, which has all the taxation and regulation of CA but without the temperate weather and uh, scenery. What it also has is a population that skews heavily to either end of the wealth spectrum, a bifurcation currently accelerating in CA. Which is fine and dandy for participants in deeply rooted industries like finance and entertainment, public sector employees, beneficiaries of trans-generational wealth and dependents. What it's not good for is growth. What it's also not good for is stability, once un-met spending obligations necessitate difficult choices like those in described in the Michael Lewis article linked to above, those currently occurring in San Bernandino or voted on last year in San Diego and San Jose.
My advice would be to fasten your chinstraps out there.
For political purposes in this country, I'd say the definition is transient and viewpoint dependent. Similar to George Carlin's definition of "maniacs" (anyone driving faster) and "idiots" (anyone driving slower) on the highway.
Anyone else? What defines "rich"??
Where do you live? I ''live in Victoria (halfway between Houston and Corpus Christi for those unknowing) and also dwell part time in Austin.
The 1st stage of the housing crash occurred with the collapse of the credit bubble beginning in 2006.
The 2nd stage of the housing crash will be a fiscal crash resulting in higher interest rates - the US federal government unable to pay its bills or its bondholders. This is related to the federal government coming to the "rescue" of the consumer, allowing for the deleveraging of the consumer by ramping up government debt in its place. We are in the beginning chapters of this.
The 3rd crash will be a monetary crash - this is where governments realize the only way out of a debt overhang is to inflate one's way out. Inflation will send rates even higher, creaming housing prices for a 3rd time. Expect this in about 5-6 years.
Today during Obama's inauguration speech....all in one breath...he actually said these words
'we need to reduce the debt' and 'we can not make spending cuts but must increase revenues'
We'll never reduce debt if our own president doesn't even believe we have spending problem.
Joe J.- Man this made me chuckle big time--- reminds me of the kid going in the batchroom after his Orphan Annie decoder ring finally arrives---'' son of a bxxxx It's a crummy commercial''
OK -- over under on mentions--- I say 2 name drops and 4 total mentions, assuming you are correct-AND if PM hasn't read Shack and seen you ''breaking the code''.
I appreciate your opinion, but where is the money for these future expenditures going to come from? This country is reducing our ability for people to have the jobs that will be necessary to pay into these programs. These programs have no assets, except for working people currently paying. 5000 baby boomers reach 65 every day, for the next 25 years. We do not have enough productive people to meet these future costs. Even if we let in 50 million undocumented people, it will still not be enough.
I am in the Dallas Metroplex, FYI.
Charlie- resorting to calling names is really weak. ''Libs'' Really? Look at why we are where we are and who is benefiting. Look who owns major interests in holding companies that make weapons. Realize what is actually happening, and not cliche name calling. MAn, everyone here is a liberal and a conservative on different matters..we ALL want less taxes--we ALL want less unemployment. We all want a strong milittary, but here is how I look at it
the military is ''insurance''
Social help is ''food, clothing, and shelter''
If you do not have the latter,, you really don't care a lot about having ''the best insurance''---good will do, if any at all.
We spend far too much on airplanes, that will end up in Arizona, just to begin.
Click on the link.
http://www.google.com/search?q=the+boneyard+arizona&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=6ZX9UO_NKdG_2QWAq4D4Dg&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1011&bih=535
Another big factor in super high profile markets like Beverly Hills or the West Village is a good sized flood international cash & buyers that continually mark up prices. The Inland Empire and Sacramento and Syracuse and such do not have a similar benefit.
Any thoughts yet on what defines "rich"? How much?
What does it matter?
Smitty, yes I agree with your post, but I see a resurgence in American industry and the till getting filled again;IF we can stop the robbing the middle class and turning America in to a 2 class country. There are very wealthy people , forget about parties, they are a toy that distracts the real power, who feel that poor on the govt hand outs, and them-the ultra rich , is the way it should be.
Sadly a lot of people who are ''small millionaires'' think they are ''rich'', but they are really just upper fringe middle class. And the middle class is endangered, if we don't let the politiciians know we are on to them.
Del- my definition of ''rich'' is coming- like Phil, I just don't want to make myself clear on that subject yet.
Smitty- I used to live in Farmers Branch- I worked for Custom Automotive- a longtime hot rod shop, and then performance parts distributor. Lots of good memories.