Our beloved Boxers should have their Tax burden lowered

Floyd Mayweather should not be paying 35-38% in taxes. Manny should not be paying high taxes. More like 5% flat tax. I'd add Bob Arum, Oscar Delahoya and Richard Schaefer to the list as well. These guys deserve to keep more of their money. I want my money to stay in Bob Arum's pocket instead of indirectly transferring it to the Govt. Bob Arum > Barack Obama...in every which way. Is there a particular reason that you think boxers/boxing promoters should pay less tax? Or do you think everyone should pay less tax? In which case there is no reason that this should be posts in NSB.

are you implying only working class people should pay taxes? If you are then fvck you! No...I'm leaning more towards them paying 0% taxes as in abolishing the income tax completely like it was before 1912.

It is relevant if the are earning 70% of the total income they should pay at least 70% of the taxes should they not? No...I'm leaning more towards them paying 0% taxes as in abolishing the income tax completely like it was before 1912. But that's just me. On a sidenote...here is a joke related to what you just said: A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share? Imagine the following: Ten good friends go out for dinner at a restaurant every night. The combined bill for the ten totals $200. Since they all make differing amounts of money they decide that they divide the payment as follows: The four first - the poorest of the lot - don't pay at all. The fifth pays $2. The sixth pays $6. The seventh pays $14. The eigth pays $24. The ninth pays $36. The tenth and the richest pays $118. They were all pretty content with this way of splitting the bill and they went out to eat together every day. One day, however, the restaurant's owner decided he'd give them a discount. "Since you're such good customers", he said, "I'll give you a discount of $40." The ten's dinner would then cost $160. The group of friends decided they still wanted to keep splitting the check in the same fashion as previously. Therefore, the four first - whom paid nothing - were not affected and could keep eating for free. But how would the remaining six - those who were paying - divide the cost amongst them? How were they to split the value of the discount so that everyone got their fair share? The six realized that $40 divided by six equals $6.66. However, if they subtracted that amount from each person's share - the fifth and the sixth persons would get paid to go out and eat (by paying a negative amount). The restaurant owner suggested that it'd be fair to reduce each person's share roughly proportionally and he crunched the numbers to calculate the amount each person was to pay. He came to the conclusion that the fifth person too could eat free - just like the 1st through 4th did originally -, the sixth was to pay $4, the seventh $10, the eigth $18, the ninth $24 and the tenth $104 in contrast to his previous $118. As a result, ALL SIX paid a lower price than before and the four who paid nothing originally kept paying nothing. But one night after finishing their dinner, they all started comparing what they had saved. "I only saved $2 of the discount's total value of $40", said the sixth person. Then he turned and pointed to the tenth person who still paid the lion's share and said "But he saved $14!". "That's right", concurred the fifth person and added "I too only saved $2! It's unfair he saved seven times the amount I did". "That's right!", the seventh person yelled. "Why should he save $14 when I only saved $4? The rich always get the unfair advantage!". Then the four first - who never payed a penny - cried "Wait a minute! We didn't save anything at all from the discount! This system exploits and takes advantage of the poor!". The first nine persons then jumped the tenth and beat him up. The following night, he didn't show up for dinner - causing the other nine to sit down and eat without him. When the check arrived they realized a little something. They were $104 short to pay for dinner.

How much do the top 10% earn compared to remaining 90%? This is irrelevant. You can thank the Govt's increasing regulations and barriers to entry for lack of growth and stagnant jobs. However trying to bring the rich down to everyone's level is not the solution, but the problem.

This is pure horsesiht! Record revenue? Yeah compared to the 1960s. The US revenue problem is directly tied to the uber rich not paying their fare share of tax all the while receiving tax break after tax break. It's rightfully called corporate well fair. Giving large tax breaks to large corporation has NOT and will NOT create jobs. The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes. The remaining 90% pay just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all. http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/ The US revenue problem There is no U.S. revenue problem...there is a SPENDING problem. The govt spends too much. You're being too hysterical which tells me that you're a leftist. I already told you that the Govt is collecting record numbers in revenue in the last 3 years. Also "fair share" is a misnomer. There is no fair share and is entirely subjective. And LOL@ your name "just the facts". More like "just hysteria".

On paper....there were more loopholes and deductions back when the tax rate was at 90%. That graph is nominal. The U.S. govt is receiving record numbers in revenue...that's the number you ought to pay attention to. This is pure horsesiht! Record revenue? Yeah compared to the 1960s. The US revenue problem is directly tied to the uber rich not paying their fare share of tax all the while receiving tax break after tax break. It's rightfully called corporate well fair. Giving large tax breaks to large corporation has NOT and will NOT create jobs.

Cayman islands are only good for hiding money if you're a investor and subject to a Dividend Tax. Not earned income. You can't hide income from a job with your job in the U.S. and your purse publicly posted for everyone to see. American's living outside of the States still have to pay income taxes depending on how much they make, unless they renounce their citizenship. And then there is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSBRE97D17U20130814 outside the US, the first 81k is tax free are you implying only working class people should pay taxes? If you are then fvck you!

So with that in mind: Do you think Mayweather would rather go back up to 90% because there were 'more loopholes and deductions' or keep it at the 35% of today ? As for this part. Boxers are prone to getting taken advantage of...especially in the 1940-50's for a variety reasons...so this is a non- sequitur. But ignoring all the social "injustice" and govt targeting...yes he would be statistically better off in the early to mid 1900's as the IRS wasn't nearly as efficient at cracking down on tax cheats as they are today. And as already mentioned....there were thousands of more loopholes in the tax code than there are today, as they've been closing them gradually for years.

How about we just stick to the numbers you made the thread about, instead of muddying the water. No you muddied the water by coming in here with a useless graph when nobody was arguing about Taxes from the past Vs present but actually cutting taxes for boxers. But now since you brought it up...it's time to correct you. You might wanna read this for some perspective: liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%. True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%***8212;but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then. In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%. So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? "The confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today," he writes. Full read:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808

On paper....there were more loopholes and deductions back when the tax rate was at 90%. That graph is nominal. The U.S. govt is receiving record numbers in revenue...that's the number you ought to pay attention to. How about we just stick to the numbers you made the thread about, instead of muddying the water. And because the chart doesn't include the last 6 years is that supposed to negate the trend of the previous 80+ that is left on the chart? Because if it would have included 2008 and shortly after, there would have been another dip due to the bush tax cuts. So I'd be happy to find you another one that include that as well. There are plenty out there, but it doesn't matter.. because I see that you agreed with me in your first line; that the rate was at one time 90%. So with that in mind: Do you think Mayweather would rather go back up to 90% because there were 'more loopholes and deductions' or keep it at the 35% of today ?

The highest earning boxers of today are paying less taxes than the highest earners of the past. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg Something tells me this has nothing to do with boxing. Also...you might not wanna take the first picture you find from google and post it immediately as that one stopped at 2008.

The highest earning boxers of today are paying less taxes than the highest earners of the past. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg Something tells me this has nothing to do with boxing. On paper....there were more loopholes and deductions back when the tax rate was at 90%. That graph is nominal. The U.S. govt is receiving record numbers in revenue...that's the number you ought to pay attention to.

The highest earning boxers of today are paying less taxes than the highest earners of the past. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg Something tells me this has nothing to do with boxing.

If a boxer moved to and lived in a tax haven like the Cayman Islands but fought in the States wha kind of tax would he pay? Cayman islands are only good for hiding money if you're a investor and subject to a Dividend Tax. Not earned income. You can't hide income from a job with your job in the U.S. and your purse publicly posted for everyone to see. American's living outside of the States still have to pay income taxes depending on how much they make, unless they renounce their citizenship. And then there is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSBRE97D17U20130814

If a boxer moved to and lived in a tax haven like the Cayman Islands but fought in the States wha kind of tax would he pay?

no one pays 35% taxes unless your a complete blithering idiot. i garantee you. boxers have plenty of deductions to work with. travel, food bills while theyre training. hotel writeoffs. medical costs. to name a few. Boxers would qualify as idiots. The Loopholes are not good enough.

Getting punched in the face for a living while making chump change working your way up. I have to agree.

Think you've miscalculated how much boxers pay in taxes mate!! There is no sure way to know as the progressive tax code is complicated. But the Marginal Tax rate has been raised above 35% last year and Floyd & Manny are upper earners.

Ugh this guy is still here? I think he already made a post somewhere that he was Cupo303(Or whatever the numbers are his name is Cupo) I think he has BHop as his avi.

Floyd Mayweather should not be paying 35% in taxes. Manny should not be paying high taxes. More like 5% tops. I'd add Bob Arum, Oscar Delahoya and Richard Schaefer to the list as well. These guys deserve to keep more of their money. I want my money to stay in Bob Arum's pocket instead of indirectly transferring it to the Govt. Bob Arum > Barack Obama...in every which way. Think you've miscalculated how much boxers pay in taxes mate!!