What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Lefty's taxes/TobiasFunke is killing it in here with great posts (1 Viewer)

IC FBGCav

Footballguy
Not so fast with that cash, Lefty.

According to a report by Forbes magazine, Phil Mickelson will sacrifice 61% of his earnings for winning both the 2013 Open Championship and the Scottish Open, all of which will go in taxes to the British and U.S. governments and to the State of California.

Great Britain still collects taxes in Scotland, where the Open Championship was held this year. (Scotland will start collecting its own taxes in 2016.)

The explanation for how Mickelsons tax rate can get to 61% is decently long and involved, including parts on escalating tax rates and also the fact that the UK is one of few countries that collects taxes on endorsement income for non-resident athletes that compete in Britain. Forty five percent of Mickelsons winnings will go to Great Britain, with 13% going to California and the remaining going to the United States government.

The long and short is that 61% will go to taxes, and thats before Mickelson pays his caddie, pays for his hotel and expenses, pays his agent, etc. All in, Mickelson will probably walk away with about 30% of the money he earned.

Doubling the pain? Mickelson also won the Scottish Open the week before the Open Championship, which will be taxed at the same rate. For winning both tournaments, Mickelson earned £1,445,000, or about $2,167,500. After taxes, hell take home $842,700, with a bit over $1.3 million going to taxes. We assume all of the money taxed by Britain will go directly to the Royal Babys Binkie Fund.

Now, its tough to feel any sort of sympathy at all for Mickelson, who just won the Open Championship, makes a boatload of money in endorsements and such (he was ranked as Forbes #7 highest-paid athlete), and all-in-all seems to have a pretty good life. This is also the guy who said he might move away from California because of the state taxes there. No tears shall be shed for him. But man. Sixty-one percent is a lot of percent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
I can't believe they forced him to play in that tournament.
5 minutes in the thread and this is what you come with. Back to the Shark Pool.
Sorry, you're right. This is a fascinating subject. I should have treated the important issue of British tax rates on superstar golfers with 8 figure incomes more seriously. It's obviously influencing behavior- look how many top Americans skipped the event because they couldn't bear the tax burden.

 

IC FBGCav

Footballguy
I can't believe they forced him to play in that tournament.
5 minutes in the thread and this is what you come with. Back to the Shark Pool.
Sorry, you're right. This is a fascinating subject. I should have treated the important issue of British tax rates on superstar golfers with 8 figure incomes more seriously. It's obviously influencing behavior- look how many top Americans skipped the event because they couldn't bear the tax burden.
Apology accepted! :thumbsup:

 

gandalas

Footballguy
If they have a problem with the British taxes, then they should start a competing tournament in a friendlier taxing environment and see how they can do with it. Until then, I am sure that he will be happy taking home "only" 8/10th of a million for his weekend job. :)

 

Christo

Footballguy
Not so fast with that cash, Lefty.

According to a report by Forbes magazine, Phil Mickelson will sacrifice 61% of his earnings for winning both the 2013 Open Championship and the Scottish Open, all of which will go in taxes to the British and U.S. governments and to the State of California.

Great Britain still collects taxes in Scotland, where the Open Championship was held this year. (Scotland will start collecting its own taxes in 2016.)

The explanation for how Mickelson’s tax rate can get to 61% is decently long and involved, including parts on escalating tax rates and also the fact that the “UK is one of few countries that collects taxes on endorsement income for non-resident athletes that compete in Britain.” Forty five percent of Mickelson’s winnings will go to Great Britain, with 13% going to California and the remaining going to the United States government.

The long and short is that 61% will go to taxes, and that’s before Mickelson pays his caddie, pays for his hotel and expenses, pays his agent, etc. All in, Mickelson will probably walk away with about 30% of the money he earned.

Doubling the pain? Mickelson also won the Scottish Open the week before the Open Championship, which will be taxed at the same rate. For winning both tournaments, Mickelson earned £1,445,000, or about $2,167,500. After taxes, he’ll take home $842,700, with a bit over $1.3 million going to taxes. We assume all of the money taxed by Britain will go directly to the Royal Baby’s Binkie Fund.

Now, it’s tough to feel any sort of sympathy at all for Mickelson, who just won the Open Championship, makes a boatload of money in endorsements and such (he was ranked as Forbes’ #7 highest-paid athlete), and all-in-all seems to have a pretty good life. This is also the guy who said he might move away from California because of the state taxes there. No tears shall be shed for him. But man. Sixty-one percent is a lot of percent.
Wouldn't those be deductions before taxes?

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
Not so fast with that cash, Lefty.

According to a report by Forbes magazine, Phil Mickelson will sacrifice 61% of his earnings for winning both the 2013 Open Championship and the Scottish Open, all of which will go in taxes to the British and U.S. governments and to the State of California.

Great Britain still collects taxes in Scotland, where the Open Championship was held this year. (Scotland will start collecting its own taxes in 2016.)

The explanation for how Mickelson’s tax rate can get to 61% is decently long and involved, including parts on escalating tax rates and also the fact that the “UK is one of few countries that collects taxes on endorsement income for non-resident athletes that compete in Britain.” Forty five percent of Mickelson’s winnings will go to Great Britain, with 13% going to California and the remaining going to the United States government.

The long and short is that 61% will go to taxes, and that’s before Mickelson pays his caddie, pays for his hotel and expenses, pays his agent, etc. All in, Mickelson will probably walk away with about 30% of the money he earned.

Doubling the pain? Mickelson also won the Scottish Open the week before the Open Championship, which will be taxed at the same rate. For winning both tournaments, Mickelson earned £1,445,000, or about $2,167,500. After taxes, he’ll take home $842,700, with a bit over $1.3 million going to taxes. We assume all of the money taxed by Britain will go directly to the Royal Baby’s Binkie Fund.

Now, it’s tough to feel any sort of sympathy at all for Mickelson, who just won the Open Championship, makes a boatload of money in endorsements and such (he was ranked as Forbes’ #7 highest-paid athlete), and all-in-all seems to have a pretty good life. This is also the guy who said he might move away from California because of the state taxes there. No tears shall be shed for him. But man. Sixty-one percent is a lot of percent.
Wouldn't those be deductions before taxes?
How dare you suggest that a column featuring lines like "we assume all of the money taxed by Britain will go directly to the Royal Baby's Binkie Fund" may have possibly made a mistake in their scholarly analysis of this subject.

 

IC FBGCav

Footballguy
What a Deal: Poker Champ Pays No Taxes on $8.7 Million

by Ron Dicker Nov 15th 2011 5:03PM

Updated Nov 16th 2011 8:54AM

Poker Champ Pius Heinz Pays No Taxes on $8.7 Million There's Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan. There's the Buffett Rule.

But of all the tax plans we've heard lately, Pius Heinz's All for Me deal is our favorite.

Heinz is the German ace who recently won the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, earning $8,715,636 -- tax-free.

Under the U.S.-Germany Tax Treaty, Germans' gambling income earned on U.S. soil isn't taxed by the IRS, reports Taxabletalk.com. Back in Germany, gambling winnings are also tax-exempt. So Heinz won't have to ante up one penny to any government, while most of his competition is paying a full house or more.

"All power to him," Taxable Talk author Russell Fox told DailyFinance.

Second-place finisher Martin Stazko of the Czech Republic doesn't owe anything to Uncle Sam for his $5,433,086 in winnings, but back home, he'll cough up $814,963.

Third-place finisher Ben Lamb of Tulsa, Okla., won $4,021,038 in the Texas Hold 'Em tournament, but he won't hold 'em all once the IRS is done with him. Fox estimated he'll fork over $1,524,011 in taxes.

Fourth-place finisher Mark Gianetti of Las Vegas will surrender $1,048,642, or 35%, of $3,012,700.

The biggest winner/loser of them all is Eoghan O'Dea of Dublin, Ireland. The sixth-place finisher will have to fold on 40% of his $1,720,331. Amateur Irish gamblers get to keep all their winnings, but O'Dea is a professional, so Ireland's Office of Revenue Commissioners gets a $695,018 share of his green.

But he got off easy compared to 2008 poker champ Peter Eastgate. As a citizen of Denmark, Eastgate was flushed out 73% of his $9,152,416. Comparatively, "U.S. tax law looks very friendly," Fox said.

20026900

 

CGRdrJoe

Footballguy
this is the ffa now? not even worth visiting this site when everyone feels the need to repost what the guy above him says. oof...

 

Apple Jack

Footballguy
The US and the UK have a tax treaty so that any tax paid there is a credit in the US. I don't think the story is entirely accurate.
That's what I thought.

Also, poor Phil made the effort to fly all the way over there on his own airplane, he certainly deserves more than $800k for playing golf for a couple weeks. This is appalling.

 

Henry Ford

Footballguy
So this is the ffa now? Not even worth visiting this site when everyone feels the need to repost what the guy above him says. Oof...

 

ncc2

Footballguy
Not so fast with that cash, Lefty.

According to a report by Forbes magazine, Phil Mickelson will sacrifice 61% of his earnings for winning both the 2013 Open Championship and the Scottish Open, all of which will go in taxes to the British and U.S. governments and to the State of California.

Great Britain still collects taxes in Scotland, where the Open Championship was held this year. (Scotland will start collecting its own taxes in 2016.)

The explanation for how Mickelson’s tax rate can get to 61% is decently long and involved, including parts on escalating tax rates and also the fact that the “UK is one of few countries that collects taxes on endorsement income for non-resident athletes that compete in Britain.” Forty five percent of Mickelson’s winnings will go to Great Britain, with 13% going to California and the remaining going to the United States government.

The long and short is that 61% will go to taxes, and that’s before Mickelson pays his caddie, pays for his hotel and expenses, pays his agent, etc. All in, Mickelson will probably walk away with about 30% of the money he earned.

Doubling the pain? Mickelson also won the Scottish Open the week before the Open Championship, which will be taxed at the same rate. For winning both tournaments, Mickelson earned £1,445,000, or about $2,167,500. After taxes, he’ll take home $842,700, with a bit over $1.3 million going to taxes. We assume all of the money taxed by Britain will go directly to the Royal Baby’s Binkie Fund.

Now, it’s tough to feel any sort of sympathy at all for Mickelson, who just won the Open Championship, makes a boatload of money in endorsements and such (he was ranked as Forbes’ #7 highest-paid athlete), and all-in-all seems to have a pretty good life. This is also the guy who said he might move away from California because of the state taxes there. No tears shall be shed for him. But man. Sixty-one percent is a lot of percent.
Wouldn't those be deductions before taxes?
How dare you suggest that a column featuring lines like "we assume all of the money taxed by Britain will go directly to the Royal Baby's Binkie Fund" may have possibly made a mistake in their scholarly analysis of this subject.
I found this interesting:

Asset valuation agency Brand Finance said the monarchy was one of Britain's most valuable brands, run professionally like a firm and set to contribute about $2.9 billion to the British economy this year while costing $380 million.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top