The article reports:<\/p>\n
According to Forbes<\/a>, Mickelson<\/a> has been subjected to the United Kingdom<\/a>\u2019s 45 percent tax rate<\/a> for those who make more than \u00a3150,000 a year. In addition, the magazine reports<\/a>, he will be taxed on a portion of the endorsement income<\/a> he earned during his time in Scotland<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n While Mickelson can take a foreign tax credit<\/a> to avoid being taxed again by the U.S. government, he still has to pay self-employment taxes, the new Medicare<\/a> surtax<\/a>, and hand over 13.3 percent of his wages to the state of California<\/a>, which does not have a foreign tax credit, Forbes reported.<\/strong><\/p>\n To put it simply, Phil Mickelson gets to take home 39 per cent of what he earned. Out of 2.16 million, it is estimated that he will take home $842,700. I don’t care how much you are into class envy, that seems a little unfair. He earned it, why should everyone else reap the benefits?<\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n Over taxation is a worldwide problem. It seems as if anytime anyone does something extremely well and reaps a large financial reward, the vultures start circling. One of the more recent examples of the vultures circling was reported in yesterday’s … Continue reading ![\"Enhanced](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/zemified_e.png?x-id=ab48524c-41d8-4b18-a07d-cbe832117962\")
<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"