Froth Slosh B'Gosh

Poor Little Rich Boy

Phil Mickelson whines about his taxes.  Doesn't understand how progressive taxation works, or the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates.  Golfers don't have to be smart, but there's some world class stupid going on in his head.

Mickelson had suggested "drastic changes" were in store for him -- perhaps moving from his native California -- because of changes in federal and state taxes that he says tap into more than 60 percent of his income. He said it "absolutely" was a factor in deciding against becoming part of the San Diego Padres' new ownership group.

The four-time major champion didn't back away from his outlook, only his decision to talk about it...

"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 had said. "So I've got to make some decisions on what I'm going to do."

First of all, Mickelson would only pay more than 60% in taxes if the higher rates applied to his total income.  They don't.  He only pays the higher federal rate on income over $400,000.  His income up to that point is taxed at the lower rates.  Likewise, his California taxes only increase an additional 3.3% on his income over 1 million dollars.  He pays the lower rate on everything under that amount. To be sure, the bulk of his income has the higher rate applied, but that's the marginal, not the effective rate. As for social security taxes, he only pays that on his first $113,700 in income.  Everything over that amount isn't taxed at all.  His belief that he'll pay 62 or 63 percent of his income in taxes is simply wrong. Without knowing what he's able to claim in deductions, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that his total tax bite is closer to 45%, if not lower.  I don't understand why so few in the SCLM ever explains the rather simple concept of progressive taxation whenever a story likes this crops up.  To his credit,  Len Burman has a piece up in Forbes telling Mickelson to put on his big boy pants. 

...suppose Mickelson’s upper estimate on his tax bill–63%–were right. Is he saying that a $10 million endorsement deal wouldn’t be worth doing if he only got to keep $3.7 million after tax? Really? Mr. Mickelson, do you understand that the typical American would have to work about 75 years to earn that much money before tax?

Sir, you get paid astonishing amounts of money for playing golf–directly through the purses you win at tournaments and indirectly through all the endorsement deals that come with golf success.  According to Forbes, you are the seventh highest paid athlete in the world, with $4.8 million in salary and winnings and $43 million in endorsements?

Do you have any idea how lucky you are?

Please stop whining and give thanks for being able to earn a fabulous living playing a game and selling golf clubs (even after tax).  99.999% of people would never have that option, no matter how hard they worked on their swing.

Mickelson made 48 million dollars last year according to Forbes.  Even if he DID have to pay 60% of his income in taxes (and he doesn't) he'd still be left with $28.8 million dollars  to roll around in, Scrooge MacDuck style. We should all have his "problems." 

Pat Toomey...Deadbeat

So, Toomey thinks defaulting on the debt is a good idea, because we "need to get off the road to Greece?"  Does Looney Toomey understand that by defaulting on the debt we will go the way of Greece, full throttle??

Let me 'splain it to you simply Pat.  Lets say you buy a hottub on credit. You install it, and enjoy it.  Then when the bill comes, you just toss it in the trash, because well, just because.  What do you think would happen to your personal credit rating?  Its the same sort of thing with the debt "ceiling."  Congress has already approved the spending, and in many cases spent the money.  Now we (as in We The People) have to pay for the spending we (via are lawfully elected representatives in congress) approved. 

Of course, Toomey has no real stake in this.  He's a wealthy man, and is far, far more interested in reducing his taxes than he is in governing. 

Oompa Loompa In Deepity Doo

Orange Julius can't control his wackaloon caucus.  Taxes will go up on everybody because the Plutocratic Party cannot stomach seeing the top 400,00 income earners seeing a small bump in their contributions to society.  Worst Speaker Ever?

A Summary?

Why a summary?

Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of about 14 percent last year, his campaign said Friday while also announcing that the Republican presidential nominee had paid an average annual effective tax rate of about 20.2 percent between 1990 and 2009.

Romney made good on his pledge to release his tax returns from 2011 before the election, and went a step further than was previously anticipated in releasing a certified summary of his tax returns over a two-decade period preceding 2010.

Why release a "certified summary" for the past 20 years, instead of the actual returns?  I doubt there's anything in there showing that Romney committed tax fraud (I'm sure his tax attorneys are capable, and the IRS would be all over that if there was any "there" there.  We all know that he uses tax shelters and squirrels money away in tax havens, so finding confirmation of what we already know wouldn't be that damaging.

But there is something fishy there. Could it have anything to do with this?

Tax returns require taxpayers to state their residence address, and the Romney returns already produced, although partially redacted, state clearly that they lived in "Belmont, MA 02478" in 2012 (tax year 2011) (pdf) and 2011 (tax year 2010) (pdf):

But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) – which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. So here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

For all the noise Republicans make over voter fraud, it would be absolutely fatal to his campaign if those tax returns showed he was living in California while voting in Massachusetes.  We'd have an actual, verifiable case of deliberate voter fraud, one committed by the Republican nominee.  And I suspect that is the real reason why those returns are not being released.

 

 

And In Other News....

Water is wet.

There is no clear correlation between tax cuts for high earners and economic growth, according to a new study by Congress’ nonpartisan policy analyst.

“There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth,” concluded a report by the Congressional Research Service released Friday. “Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.”

 

Taxing

For me, the issue isn't why Romney pays less than 15% of his income in taxes, the real issue is why is investment income taxed at a much lower rate than earned income?  If I'm lucky enough to be born into wealth, I never have to work, and I'm rewarded for my idleness by paying a lower rate than someone struggling to get by on two jobs.

Tax The Poor To Save The Wealthy!

Huntsman shows he's just as bug-eyed insane and batshit crazy as the resto of the Rethuglican field.

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman is releasing an economic plan today that is as bad for the middle-class — and as nutty — as any proposed by his rivals. It would pay for a half-million-dollar tax break for the richest 0.1 percent of Americans with tax increases on the middle-class and new taxes on seniors, veterans, and poor families.

The quest to out-crazy each other continues.

Romney's Tax Plan Benefits Wealthy At Expense Of Poor

No real surprise there.

Mitt Romney's tax plan would cut taxes for fewer than half of American households, with the wealthy getting most of the benefits, according to an independent analysis released Thursday.
Some taxpayers at the lower end of the scale — those who make less than $40,000 a year — could face a tax increase under Romney's plan....

The plan also would "add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit"

Again, Republicans don't really care about the deficit, or jobs, or the economy. They only care about culture war issues and making the wealthy and powerful even more wealthy and powerful.

Feudalism, here we come!

 

Assess THIS!

While I certainly agree with new Allegheny County Exec Rich Fitzgerald that its unfair for Allegheny County to do regular property assessments while no other county in the Commonwealth needs to, I'm not sure that defying the court is the proper way to go about getting the system changed.