• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey Taxes Could Eat Up All Of Peyton Manning's Super Bowl Earnings

Manning has only $46k in income?

Nah.

From the site in the OP:

Manning is due $15 million next season, which would push his 2014 earnings to $15,157,000 or $15,111,000, and bump him into Jersey’s highest 8.97% tax bracket. Luckily, his duty day ratio would go from 7/33 to 7/200, without regard to the Broncos’ game at MetLife Stadium against the Jets next season.​

I thought your post sounded out of whack.

Manning will make about $42K if he loses the Super Bowl this week. New Jersey will tax him more than that for THIS WEEK alone.

And he doesn't live in New Jersey. He lives in Denver right now.
 
FWIW, I am a long tern Nevada resident. In 1998 I bought what was to be a vacation home in Rio Nido (near Santa Rosa). After all was said and done, I talked myself out of it and sold the house. I had to file a CA return and pay taxes on the $15K profit I made.

Not saying if it's right or wrong but it seems that you are liable for income earned in other states. My state has no tax so I don't know how that might have affected anything. Would both states have wanted taxes? Would the tax paid to one have credited the other? IDK.

But how is Manning earning income in New Jersey? They aren't paying him.
 
And those NFL bonuses are being paid for work done in NJ. And they aren't 100%, that's just a stupid accounting trick Forbes tried to pull over on you.

So does a salesman from Nebraska who signs a contract in New Jersey have to pay personal income taxes in New Jersey for the commissions made from that sale?

No.

What money is Manning making from New Jersey here?
 
But how is Manning earning income in New Jersey? They aren't paying him.

I don't know. I was just trying to contribute my (very limited) knowledge regarding multi-state taxation based on my anecdotal experience. I don't follow sports so I'm a little out of my depth here. I assumed (and we all know how that goes:)) that Mr. Manning was playing a game in New Jersey which would effectively mean that he was working in New Jersey at the time he got paid this income. Maybe I'm completely off track here - did he "work/play" in New Jersey? If he did, then NJ has a claim on the revenue he earned in NJ. If not, no, they should have no claim at all. Please forgive my ignorance that lead me to incorrectly make my statement.
 
More CON crap! The tax isn't on 100% of his income but on less than 9% of his annual salary. What the article you cited doesn't say is quite a few states use this tax, not just for the Super Bowl, and not an 'all of a sudden' tax.

That ring means FAR more to him than the tax, perhaps that is why he is so focused and successful a player.

But do whine on....

9% is still outrageous for anyone to pay.
 
So where's your outrage for Hillary/Obama over Benghazi?

Oh, never mind.

Oh yea, Benghazi, the fake story that CBS ended up retracting when the guy who spilled the beans on it turned out not to have even been there, and made it all up? Oh yea, I am outraged allright.... At fake news stories. I heard FOX News had an orgasm over that one, though. :mrgreen:
 
Wait, they keep saying on the TV that the Super Bowl is in New York City this year. How does New Jersey come into play in this? ;)
 
I bet De Blasio is preparing tax collecting base jumpers to surprise both teams late in the 4th quarter. They'll land at the line of scrimmage and nab all those hard working patriot's wallets while they're bent over and take everything they can.

Won't somebody please protect these makers?!?!
 
Manning will make about $42K if he loses the Super Bowl this week. New Jersey will tax him more than that for THIS WEEK alone.

And he doesn't live in New Jersey. He lives in Denver right now.

Yes, if you compare a years worth of taxes to a weeks worth of work, things sure look out of whack.
 
FWIW, I am a long tern Nevada resident. In 1998 I bought what was to be a vacation home in Rio Nido (near Santa Rosa). After all was said and done, I talked myself out of it and sold the house. I had to file a CA return and pay taxes on the $15K profit I made.

Not saying if it's right or wrong but it seems that you are liable for income earned in other states. My state has no tax so I don't know how that might have affected anything. Would both states have wanted taxes? Would the tax paid to one have credited the other? IDK.
I don't know either.

How anyone could owe all of what they've earned in a state they don't live in is a question. Why they have to pay taxes in a state they don't live in at all is another. It just seems to me to be a ripoff.


but, then, we do pay hotel/motel taxes to cities we don't live in. How is that justified?
 
9% is still outrageous for anyone to pay.

Perhaps, however I didn't say it was 'good', just not 100%... and it is a fraction of the 15 million annual salary that gets the 9% applied, just the part earned in the State of New Jersey.

The article had to cherry pick Manning as the example to be so have that headline. Players making less than 15 million a year will not pay that amount and thus the headline loses a bit of 'WOW' factor. Guess the Players should be happy the value of the Super Bowl ring isn't figured in- though to the winners it means FAR more than the 9%... :mrgreen:

Not to hone the point too finely but the amount of tax Payton will pay is the rounding error of his endorsements- a princely sum to the trailer park crowd but not even half the cost of one personal assistant.

Another thing the 'article' fails to mention is many states do this to many professional athletes, and has been part of the game since Michael Jordan was active. Sorta late for those not having to pay the tax to suddenly be up in arms.

Now the best judge of if this tax is 'outrageous' is more the players than the fans in the stands. I'd imagine if the players thought it was 'outrageous' they would either as a union or individually have their own little Mickelson moment and have a rant about all the taxes they pay.

But the end result might be a push for most of the players depending on their resident state's income tax laws. I know my state allows you to count state income tax paid to other states against your tax bill here. For example if I owe my state 5K in personal income tax but have to pay another state 3K, I only owe 2K to Oklahoma.

It however doesn't give a refund if you paid more in some other state than what Oklahoma wants... :(

Still I wouldn't cry for the professional athletes who for the most part can barely function in the real world and laugh all the way to the bank by playing a game...

For them life is good and for the most part they know it... :peace
 
He's earning income in that state, though.

Not really. He is paid in his home state. NJ gets taxes from all the people attending the game. its idiotic to tax him in NJ
 
Typical liberal. It's OK to steal more than 100 percent of his income since he already has a lot of money.

Mislead by a misleading article, eh? In no case is he paying more than the 8.7% New Jersey tax. They are playing on your ignorance of taxes and your hatred for them. This is all about income allocation: how do you allocated your income for state tax purposes based upon where it was earned. Peyton Manning is NOT being taxed at 100% of earnings. He might have to allocate more of his earnings to NJ than he would like, but that is all that is at play here.
 
Last edited:
So where's your outrage for Hillary/Obama over Benghazi?

Oh, never mind.

And this has what to do with the OP or Your Star's concerns? Wow you guys are obsessed with this dead horse.
 
Mislead by a misleading article, eh? In no case is he paying more than the 8.7% New Jersey tax. They are playing on your ignorance of taxes and your hatred for them. This is all about income allocation: how do you allocated your income for state tax purposes based upon where it was earned. Peyton Manning is NOT being taxed at 100% of earnings. He might have to allocate more of his earnings to NJ than he would like, but that is all that is at play here.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Bottom line: If Denver loses and Manning plays football next year, he'll owe New Jersey $46,844 on the &$46,000 he will earn in the Super Bowl. If he wins and plays next year, he'll still pay over 50 percent.

New Jersey taxes a player for the calendar year, not just for the week he's there. So if he doesn't retire, he's going to get jacked in taxes.
 
Show me proof that New Jersey has a tax bracket greater than 100%. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Did you read it?

New Jersey will impose a jock tax for the calendar year on Manning, so if he loses and plays next year, he'll be taxed more money than he'd earn as the losing quarterback in the Super Bowl.

This is because the NJ tax will also apply to his earning later this year if he continues playing.

And again, if the game was in Texas, his tax obligation to that state would be $0.
 
Did you read it?

New Jersey will impose a jock tax for the calendar year on Manning, so if he loses and plays next year, he'll be taxed more money than he'd earn as the losing quarterback in the Super Bowl.

This is because the NJ tax will also apply to his earning later this year if he continues playing.

And again, if the game was in Texas, his tax obligation to that state would be $0.

What the hell is this "jock tax," and why should I even believe it exists? I've heard so many Right Wing lies that I can never be sure when they're actually telling the truth for once.
 
Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Bottom line: If Denver loses and Manning plays football next year, he'll owe New Jersey $46,844 on the &$46,000 he will earn in the Super Bowl. If he wins and plays next year, he'll still pay over 50 percent.

New Jersey taxes a player for the calendar year, not just for the week he's there. So if he doesn't retire, he's going to get jacked in taxes.

If he plays next year he will play in NJ beyond this week so while you are factoring in the taxes from later events you are purposefully choosing to ignore the income he'll be making during those later events.

I guess I should be outraged that the state taxed me more last year than i made this week too.
 
If you read the article and understand what is written and how it is being worded to make an outrage over something that isn't there.

I think the point here is if the game where held in a state that didn't have a Jock Tax or as high of a Jock Tax, he would not be paying this money to NJ or the state it would be held in. There is a possibility that he will be taxed for over 100% of his earnings for the 1 day of work he is doing in NJ.
 
I think the point here is if the game where held in a state that didn't have a Jock Tax or as high of a Jock Tax, he would not be paying this money to NJ or the state it would be held in. There is a possibility that he will be taxed for over 100% of his earnings for the 1 day of work he is doing in NJ.

that is entirely untrue.
 
that is entirely untrue.

Which part is untrue? He is getting paid for working in NJ either 46,000 or 96,000 depending on the result of the game. 1 day of work. This is the ONLY TIME he will work in NJ this year unless he plays for the Broncos next year. If he plays for the Broncos next year, he will make enough money that the state of NJ will tax him more than the money he made during his 1 day of work in NJ.

Which part of that is untrue?
 
If he plays next year he will play in NJ beyond this week so while you are factoring in the taxes from later events you are purposefully choosing to ignore the income he'll be making during those later events.

I guess I should be outraged that the state taxed me more last year than i made this week too.


The point is, if the game was in Texas, he would pay nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom