More athletes becoming tax refugees...

You just tacked a bunch of unrelated points onto a discussion about moving away from high tax states to low tax states.

It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Let's pick through the stupidity of your points: Originally Posted by ExNYer

That was really one of RaggedyAndy's stupider posts, which in itself is an achievement. Apparently he missed his afternoon tea. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's a shame both of you took the time, ExNYer much more that gritsboy, to illustrate complete inability to read with comprehension. Certainly, ExNYer, you're a little short in following your own advice. As for C. O. Grits, we all know he has a magic stove.

Comphrehension....I'm not sure that the word means what you think it means.

Under the Clinton tax plan actors, directors, producers, and athletes were exempted from many taxes.

Cornyhole, your tiara is sitting a little cockeyed. It must be getting warm where you are.

It's a shame both of you took the time, ExNYer much more that gritsboy, to illustrate complete inability to read with comprehension. Certainly, ExNYer, you're a little short in following your own advice. As for C. O. Grits, we all know he has a magic stove. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

You called low-tax advocates "numb-nutted klowns" and "illiterates" and said our "lovers" were Romney and Ryan.

And you wrote one of the most illogical, off-topic, downright dumb posts I have read on here in a LONG time.

But hey, WE are the one with reading comprehension problems, right?

So, please, enlighten us. Just what the fuck was the point of your peevish post above?

I actually agree with ExNYer on this one. What the hell did you mean, RaggedyAndy?

That was really one of RaggedyAndy's stupider posts, which in itself is an achievement. Apparently he missed his afternoon tea. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

or snort

Other states are starting to stick regular people that travel on the job with income taxes. If I travel to a state with income tax and spend more than five days there, I will be having to file in that state, too. Originally Posted by pyramider

California has been doing that to pro athletes for years. However many games a team plays in CA, that percentage of their pay, games in CA versus total games in schedule, is considered California income. In fact, until Clinton got a law through Congress outlawing it, they tried to come after retirees who had moved to another state claiming that their retirement income was actually "earned" while they worked in CA.

...they tried to come after retirees who had moved to another state claiming that their retirement income was actually "earned" while they worked in CA. Originally Posted by chefnerd

Jesus. So their theory was that they owned you for life (or at least your money), even after you moved to another state?

There is no end to the rapaciousness of a near-bankrupt welfare state.

God forbid they should, you know, cut spending.

I think that was their theory. Ironically, this was under the leadership of GOP governors. Even though the Democrats held the majority in both houses, minus 94-96, it was nowhere near being veto-proof.

You called low-tax advocates "numb-nutted klowns" and "illiterates" and said our "lovers" were Romney and Ryan.

And you wrote one of the most illogical, off-topic, downright dumb posts I have read on here in a LONG time.

But hey, WE are the one with reading comprehension problems, right?

So, please, enlighten us. Just what the fuck was the point of your peevish post above? Originally Posted by ExNYer

I actually agree with ExNYer on this one. What the hell did you mean, RaggedyAndy? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hmmm, OK fellers, I'll get out the crayons and draw you two a picture.

Illiterates = moot vs mute - learn the difference and was meant for anyone who can't figure out how to use those words - if the foo shits, bear it; not a tax issue - high. low or otherwise

Numb-nutted klowns = Teawipes and anyone else who spends their life scouring the www for anything, regardless of the reliability of the source, that can make the coincidental conspiratorial, etc., etc., etc. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Romnuts and Whyan lovers = the REAL 47% lololol! While unfettered capitalism is real good at making lots of money for the capitalists and some money for everyone else, it's not all that bueno for those who work for them if the employer feels that employees are liabilities rather than assets. Until we come up with a 100% entrapeneural society (that's really practical) there will always be those who work for others. I haven't figured out why it is a mortal sin, character flaw or whatever other negative connotation for a lot of people to work for others and be part of facilitating the employers' realizing their goals.

I wanted to have us take a look at the "dilemma" these athletes face and what might happen if the rat wang anti-unionistas got their way completely. Basically, people who make a lot of money shouldn't cut and run away from the system that allowed them to make that money to begin with. But, that's a character issue and after spending many years grabbing for every buck that can be found, there's not a lot of character left. A few "characters," perhaps. If unions go down for the count, the professional athletes' unions will too.

Doubling down on ignorance, eh, RaggedyAndy?

You would think the high dollar celebs would flee as well.. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're nuts. And leave LA? Great climate, great restaurants, pretty coast, nice mountains, etc. There's a reason people live there. Now whey they don't move Hollywood to San Diego, Santa Barbara, or San Francisco -- that might be a more difficult question.

You're nuts. And leave LA? Great climate, great restaurants, pretty coast, nice mountains, etc. There's a reason people live there. Now whey they don't move Hollywood to San Diego, Santa Barbara, or San Francisco -- that might be a more difficult question. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Perhaps not.

Tiger Woods has already stated that he considered taxes when he moved from California to Florida.

Lots of places have nice restaurants and good climates. Colorado, AZ, UT and NM also have mountains. Half the country has coasts, including Florida. And if you are rich, you can take a vacation to go see the mountains and coasts any time you want. Do you really need to live there?

A $10M/year jock loses $1.3M right off the top to California every single year. You can play elsewhere for 10 years - that's all most jocks get - and pocket all that extra money.

Then, when you are out of sports, you can move to California. Your taxable income will be much less, so California can't hit you for $1.3 M per year anymore. You will still be in your 30s and you will have an extra $10M+ in the bank.

Best of both worlds.

TTH, why not move your businesses to California? You'd be more welcome there than Texas.

Oh, from the Orange County Register:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ta...new-state.html

Hmmm, OK fellers, I'll get out the crayons and draw you two a picture.

Illiterates = moot vs mute - learn the difference and was meant for anyone who can't figure out how to use those words - if the foo shits, bear it; not a tax issue - high. low or otherwise

Numb-nutted klowns = Teawipes and anyone else who spends their life scouring the www for anything, regardless of the reliability of the source, that can make the coincidental conspiratorial, etc., etc., etc. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Romnuts and Whyan lovers = the REAL 47% lololol! While unfettered capitalism is real good at making lots of money for the capitalists and some money for everyone else, it's not all that bueno for those who work for them if the employer feels that employees are liabilities rather than assets. Until we come up with a 100% entrapeneural society (that's really practical) there will always be those who work for others. I haven't figured out why it is a mortal sin, character flaw or whatever other negative connotation for a lot of people to work for others and be part of facilitating the employers' realizing their goals.

I wanted to have us take a look at the "dilemma" these athletes face and what might happen if the rat wang anti-unionistas got their way completely. Basically, people who make a lot of money shouldn't cut and run away from the system that allowed them to make that money to begin with. But, that's a character issue and after spending many years grabbing for every buck that can be found, there's not a lot of character left. A few "characters," perhaps. If unions go down for the count, the professional athletes' unions will too. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

You should quit while you are behind.

Your first three paragraphs above are just more dopey name calling to distract from the fact that your initial post makes no sense.

And now you are making even less sense.

Again, what does player unionization - or the lack thereof - have to do with moving from a high-tax state to a low-tax state to save more of your income?

And what "system" are players cutting and running from that made them a lot of money? A baseball player who leaves the SF Giants to play for the TX Rangers is not quitting baseball, he is only quitting California. And Califormia did NOT make him any money. His baseball skills did.

So again, what was your point?

Can't you just be straight and say "As a progressive, I am angered when someone practices tax avoidance and tries to keep more of their money"?

It would be a lot closer to the truth. And it would make a lot more sense.