• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

is this even fair?

Superman

You may worship me
Moderator
Forefather
Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
21,073
Reaction score
24,543
Points
113
Location
Trampa, FL
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...cam-newtons-super-bowl-earnings/#31a3073050a6

California Taxes Will Eat Up All Of Cam Newton's Super Bowl Earnings

by K. Sean Packard

Remember when Peyton Manning paid New Jersey nearly $47,000 in taxes two years ago on his Super Bowl earnings of $46,000? Manning has nothing on the state taxes facing Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton for Super Bowl 50 in Santa Clara, Calif. Newton is looking at a tax bill more than twice as much, which will swallow up his entire Super Bowl paycheck, win or lose, thanks to California’s tops-in-the-nation tax rate of 13.3%.

Before we get into the numbers, let’s do a quick review of the jock tax rules applied to professional athletes (similar tax rules apply to anyone doing business across state lines, but they are rarely enforced). States tax a player based on their calendar-year income. They apply a duty day calculation which takes the ratio of duty days within the state over total duty days for the year. That ratio is then multiplied by the player’s salary to arrive at a state’s allocable income.

In 2014, Manning would have paid New Jersey a 51% rate on his $92,000 earned had the Denver Broncos won Super Bowl 48. Unfortunately for them and Manning’s legacy, they were blown out by a Seattle Seahawks team that knew the right plays to call all night. So Manning paid a whopping 102% tax to New Jersey on his $46,000 consolation prize.

Skip ahead two years and now Manning is back in the Super Bowl against the highly-talented and highly-compensated Cam Newton, who signed a five-year, $103.8 million contract extension in June. Newton has already earned $58,800 so far this year for week 17 of the 2015 season and $71,000 in playoff bonuses. Newton is due a $10 million signing bonus and $13 million in base salary for the 2016 season, which he will receive the full amount during the regular season. Luckily, week 17 next season will occur on New Year’s Day 2017, thus shielding about $765,000 from California’s grasp.
Recommended by Forbes

If the Panthers win the Super Bowl, Newton will earn another $102,000 in playoff bonuses, but if they lose he will only net another $51,000. The Panthers will have about 206 total duty days during 2016, including the playoffs, preseason, regular season and organized team activities (OTAs), which Newton must attend or lose $500,000. Seven of those duty days will be in California for the Super Bowl and another four will be in the Golden State for road games against St. Louis Los Angeles and Oakland next season.

Win on Sunday, and Newton will pay California a total of $159,560 in taxes in 2016. Lose, and he will pay $159,200, based on an income reduction of $51,000.

To determine what Newton will pay California on his Super Bowl winnings alone, we will ignore the four 2016 season duty days and pretend they are being played elsewhere. In looking at the seven days Newton will spend in California this week for Super Bowl 50, he will pay the state $101,600 on $102,000 of income should the Panthers be victorious or $101,360 on $51,000 should they lose.

The result: Newton will pay California 99.6% of his Super Bowl earnings if the Panthers win. Losing means his effective tax rate will be a whopping 198.8%. Oh yeah, he will also pay the IRS 40.5% on his earnings.

It is a good bet that the more dabbing we see Cam Newton doing on Sunday, the better the Panthers’ chances are of winning Super Bowl 50. Either way, California’s tax man will be dabbing right along with him all the way to the bank.

This is a guest post from K. Sean Packard, CPA, who is Director of Tax at OFS. He specializes in tax planning and preparation of tax returns for pro athletes. He can be reached at sean.packard@ofswealth.com and on Twitter at @AthleteTax.
 
But they can afford it....
 
Look for the player's union to demand that all Super Bowls be played in Florida or Texas where there is no state income tax.
 
Two comments.

1 ) Very unfair to the non-millionaires in the NFL.

2 ) Could not have happened to a nicer guy.
 
The NFL should take that into consideration when choosing a Super Bowl site.

The real unfairness is what players get paid for the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl generates a ton of money for the NFL.
The players in the game should get a fair share. Winning players should at least get a million a piece and losers half
million.
 
The NFL should take that into consideration when choosing a Super Bowl site.

The real unfairness is what players get paid for the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl generates a ton of money for the NFL.
The players in the game should get a fair share. Winning players should at least get a million a piece and losers half
million.

I'd rather see taxation reduced to acceptable levels. Nice of you to propose exactly what you support in your political life - more income redistribution. The solution to every problem!

There's no issue at all with California taxing 100% of a player's earnings. Nope, that's no problem at all. Instead, the problem is the NFL isn't sharing enough with the players.

But wait...100% of that would be lost in taxes anyway...so the redistribution is irrelevant.

Libs. SMH.
 
Last edited:
53 players times the $102,000 = $5,406,000. 30 second ads were going for close to 5 mil,
so 1 30 second ad pays the winning players. The players need to get new representation.
 
53 players times the $102,000 = $5,406,000. 30 second ads were going for close to 5 mil,
so 1 30 second ad pays the winning players. The players need to get new representation.

Let's do some simple math. If the NFL or owners shared this revenue you mention with the players, would that money be looked at as income?

The IRS says yes.

We've established the tax rate is effectively 100%.

If I give Cam Newton $100,000 for playing in the Super Bowl, or I give him $100,000 + $2Million revenue shared ($2.1Million) and the effective tax rate is 100%, which scenario will allow Cam to make more money?
 
Everybody needs to pay their fair share dammit! Hillary said so.
 
That's insane. Why would CA be entitled to that much of their earnings? I get that they're rich and all but still.
 
Who paid for all the security at the Super Bowl and how much did that cost?
 
That's insane. Why would CA be entitled to that much of their earnings? I get that they're rich and all but still.

Frankly I think that ought to violate the Commerce Clause. Maybe one of the SN lawyers can weigh in.
 
53 players times the $102,000 = $5,406,000. 30 second ads were going for close to 5 mil,
so 1 30 second ad pays the winning players. The players need to get new representation.
Don't be a KKK hood wearing racist. California needs to pay for all of their sanctuary cities.Therefore they deserve this money. Just ask Bernie.
 
Frankly I think that ought to violate the Commerce Clause. Maybe one of the SN lawyers can weigh in.

The commerce clause only seems to come in to play when screwing someone over is an option.
 
The commerce clause only seems to come in to play when screwing someone over is an option.

Or when congress is reaching for powers the Constitution doesn't give them.
 
yeah, these jock taxes are ludicrous. Regardless of whatever these guys earn it's still unfair and extremely creative accounting by the states.
 
They should just start having Superbowls in Montana and North Daokota lol. Just use the college stadiums.
 
yeah, these jock taxes are ludicrous. Regardless of whatever these guys earn it's still unfair and extremely creative accounting by the states.

That's why Rush Limbaugh moved from NY to FL and said for several years he was still audited by NY and had to prove how many days he was or was not there because they wanted to tax him on the portion of his income for the time he spent there.
 
Let's do some simple math. If the NFL or owners shared this revenue you mention with the players, would that money be looked at as income?

The IRS says yes.

We've established the tax rate is effectively 100%.

If I give Cam Newton $100,000 for playing in the Super Bowl, or I give him $100,000 + $2Million revenue shared ($2.1Million) and the effective tax rate is 100%, which scenario will allow Cam to make more money?

I'll make it even simpler for the simple minded. If you have one apple and I take it and kick you in the nads how many apples will you have?
 
The NFL should take that into consideration when choosing a Super Bowl site.

The real unfairness is what players get paid for the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl generates a ton of money for the NFL.
The players in the game should get a fair share. Winning players should at least get a million a piece and losers half
million.

That's your solution? Are you ******* kidding me?
 
Top