Floyds "tax issue" for the year, for possibly not fighting in 2010?

[Horus]

No.... you can't.



If he makes more, he pays the SAME percentage.


It doesn't matter if he makes 100 million this year, or 50 million this year and 50 million next year.

It's all the same.



Actually, he will pay more for earnings in 2011 because of the bush tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010.

Yeah he pays the same $108,421,25 + 35% (total revenue)

http://www.themoneyalert.com/Tax-Tables.html

Obviously, you are going to pay more taxes if you make more money.
Someone who made 25 Million is going to pay more taxes of someone who made 5 Million.

Reason: Because they are paying 35% of their total income.

35% of 25,000,000

is more than

35% of 5,000,000

So i can see why some people argue this point, I mean I have heard all sides on this issue, and this argument I am giving is a valid argument that was given to me.

[THE REED]

Yeah he pays the same $108,421,25 + 35% (total revenue)

http://www.themoneyalert.com/Tax-Tables.html

Obviously, you are going to pay more taxes if you make more money.
Someone who made 25 Million is going to pay more taxes of someone who made 5 Million.

Reason: Because they are paying 35% of their total income.

35% of 25,000,000

is more than

35% of 5,000,000

So i can see why some people argue this point, I mean I have heard all sides on this issue, and this argument I am giving is a valid argument that was given to me.

It isn't a valid argument, though.


ONCE AGAIN.


If you make 100 million this year, then you pay 35 million in taxes.

If you make 50 million this year and 50 million next year, then you pay 17.5 million in taxes this year, and next year.

It is all relative.. it is all the same.


It isn't a valid excuse.


If he pays more in taxes this year because he makes more... that's because he MAKES MORE money.


At the end of the day, it's all the same.. and it isn't a valid argument.


So find someone elses argument to defend Floyd, because the argument you found, isn't working.

[THE REED]

*****s grasping at straws to defend his *****ness...

Leave that **** out of my thread.

This is for adults.

[Mr Punch.]

Are Mayweather fans arguing about money now? Jesus Christ, they are fcuking unbelievable.

[Chups]

Of course you pay more taxes if you earned more but YOU EARNED MORE.

If an idiot don't want to pay more taxes then he should only strive earning less than 350K a year. Or less than 30K. Good luck!
Why is Bill Gates even trying to make more money....he's gonna pay more taxes...........LOL!!!

[deanrw]

There is really no possible way financially that Floyd should not fight again in 2010. He could fight only that once, make 50 million and take home 25 million (after taxes, paying his crew etc.

He could fight twice and make 100 million, take home 50 million (after paying taxes, crew etc.

He would basically make twice the money that would make it into his bank account. He already far exceeded the maximum tax bracket so the percentage would be the same regardless if he fought once or 10 times in a year.

They only thing that may benefit him, but I doubt it, is specific dollar amount limits on specific tax shelters. I doubt there would be that type of situation though as there are many who make much more than Floyd and have no problems.

[PrtyBoyDlicious]

Leave that **** out of my thread.

This is for adults.

******ed adults?

[street bully]

Paying 35% of 20 million, and 35% of 80 million are the same thing.

It will probably be even worse to wait a year.

[rizkybizness]

35% is 35%

end of

i dont see why that's hard to understand

[Horus]

It isn't a valid argument, though.


ONCE AGAIN.


If you make 100 million this year, then you pay 35 million in taxes.

If you make 50 million this year and 50 million next year, then you pay 17.5 million in taxes this year, and next year.

It is all relative.. it is all the same.


It isn't a valid excuse.


If he pays more in taxes this year because he makes more... that's because he MAKES MORE money.


At the end of the day, it's all the same.. and it isn't a valid argument.


So find someone elses argument to defend Floyd, because the argument you found, isn't working.

Listen Reed, You are correct they pay the same percentage.
Which is 35%.

I agree with you on that. All the facts support that argument.
But here is the problem.

The more money you make the more taxes you pay.
Just because you pay the same percentage doesnt mean you pay the same taxes.

You can add the numbers up yourself on 1040.com But for the sake of discussion I did it for this thread. As of right now, according to all reports Mayweather has made 65 Million this year, and according to the Federal Tax Estimator he will be paying $23,268,870 in taxes.

Federal Tax Estimator Results
Adjusted Gross Income: $65,000,000
Earned Income Credit: $0
Tax: $22,724,837
Total Tax: $22,724,837
Taxable Income: $64,991,867
Federal Balance Due: $23,268,870

http://www.1040.com/site/taxtools/federaltaxestimator/tabid/227/default.aspx

2010
Mayweather already owes 22 or 23 Million in taxes for this fiscal year.
Now let's say Mayweather vs. Pacquiao happens this year and Mayweather
makes an additioal 55 Million.

Now according to the Federal Tax Estimator Mayweather would now have to pay $42,979,715 in taxes.

Federal Tax Estimator Results for Mayweather if he Fights Pacquiao and earns 55 Million.
Adjusted Gross Income: $120,000,000
Earned Income Credit: $0
Tax: $41,974,837
Total Tax: $41,974,837
Taxable Income: $119,991,867
Federal Balance Due: $42,979,715

http://www.1040.com/site/taxtools/federaltaxestimator/tabid/227/default.aspx

2011
Now say they fight in 2011, and Mayweather makes that same 55 Million

Federal Tax Estimator Results
Adjusted Gross Income: $55,000,000
Earned Income Credit: $0
Tax:$19,224,837
[B]Total Tax:$19,224,837
Taxable Income[/B]: $54,991,867
Federal Balance Due:$19,685,080

Now according to the Federal Tax Estimator Mayweather would now have to pay $19,685,080 in taxes for a Pacquiao fight.


So once again I understand this argument because based on the numbers it is a valid argument.

So too completely dismiss this argument is not fair because it has some validation.