[quote=SK in CV][quote=meadandale][quote=SK in CV]He’s overstated his tax rate by at least 10%. He doesn’t pay anywhere near 62 or 63% as he claimed. It can’t be anymore than 52%.[/quote]
Top Fed Rate (39.6) + Top CA Rate (12.3) + Full Fica + New surcharge (15.3 + 0.9) = 68.1%
Since he makes most of his money above the margin where these rates kick in most of his money is taxed at the full rates.[/quote]
No. I was wrong on the 52%, it’s closer to 55%.
FICA for 2012 was 4.2%. It’s 10.4% if he’s self employed. But only on the first $110K. For 2013 it’s 6.2 and 12.4 respectively on the first $113,700. Mickelson is reported to have earned $48 million. So the most he could have paid in 2012 was around $11,500. In 2013 it will be about $14K. Which is less than .03% of his income.
He’ll also be able to deduct 20% of CA tax, bringing his net tax down by 1%.
39.6 + 3.8% surcharge + CA tax 13.3%, FICA .03%, less value of state tax deduction of 1% = 56%. But he still gets the benefits of the lower rates on taxable income under $450K federal and $1M for CA, which would bring his net rate below 55%.[/quote]
I’d like to see how he came up with the 63%. Me thinks Phil needs to find a new accounting firm if he really is paying 63%. Also, it’s totally ironic and a bit funny that he has KPMG on his hat and sponsor.
I’m NOT saying that he doesn’t pay a lot of taxes and I think it should be less but definitely I think he didn’t give a realistic number which makes him look even sillier complaining about all the taxes he pays.
