• 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


The tax already exists. Berty Russell has nothing to do with it. The discussion is revolving around his potential liability, and by extension, the liability of others subject to similar taxes. Somehow you missed those most salient elements in your rush to condemn. Nobody is worried about Manning's ability to cope with such a tax. If you have a counterpoint, you might want to consider offering it. If not, as I said, drone on.
 
Thanks for the explanation, but I was once a CPA, so I know a little bit about taxes. Unfortunately, most of the people that got their panties in a bunch about this do not. I do not quibble with the calculation, only with the implication that he pays more in taxes than he makes. It is completely untrue and misleading.

The whole issue is about appointment of income amongst the states he worked.... if the calculation shifts income to New Jersey, it is somewhat offset by all of the other states he plays in where, by calculation, he would pay less tax. He pays state tax on the $15M, that is unchanged... its just what state gets to claim what allocation of income (and get the tax thereon). The article is misleading, designed to excite the ignorant as if this is some type of problem or just be a quip of interest for those that do. In either case, its silly as Peyton could care less. I am certain (speculating here) that Manning and most NFL players would be happy to play in the Bowl for gratis.

No quibbling with the calculations here. I'm not sure of the tax laws of each of the states, I'm mostly going by what is in this thread. Although I am sure there are players that would play in the Super Bowl for nothing, that is really beside the point, isn't it?

Of course, he does not pay more in taxes than he earns, and they need to use a player that makes that much money, because the lower payed players will pay much less in taxes than Manning will. But it does look like it is true, that in his situation, he could earn less money if they lose the Super Bowl than if he did not make it there at all.
 
It certainly is an option but thank God Peyton and the other atheletes have rejected the right's hysteria-driven aversion to govt.

Right, a realistic option. Don't think so. The part about the right and what the players think has got to be one of the biggest stretches ever, LOL! Sun might explode tomorrow, too.
 
Right, a realistic option. Don't think so. The part about the right and what the players think has got to be one of the biggest stretches ever, LOL! Sun might explode tomorrow, too.

We're not supposed to say anything when such a glaring inequality against a group like wealthy, successful people exists.
 
Did you follow the link I provided? It seems like a silly question that you can easily find the answer too, doesn't it?

Does your link prove that Obama caused Benghazi? I'm sure Republicans are still going on about that one, too.
 
Does your link prove that Obama caused Benghazi? I'm sure Republicans are still going on about that one, too.

"Caused" as in how? That's a pretty broad term...
 
"Caused" as in how? That's a pretty broad term...

So the answer is, yes, you guys are still going on about Benghazi. That helps establish the bar of credibility that you need to cross to convince me that the story in the OP is true in what it says. Hint: That bar is very, very high.
 
So the answer is, yes, you guys are still going on about Benghazi. That helps establish the bar of credibility that you need to cross to convince me that the story in the OP is true in what it says. Hint: That bar is very, very high.


Where'd I say that? I simply asked that you clarify your little attempt at the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question there....I noticed you failed entirely to even try and answer it....
 
Where'd I say that? I simply asked that you clarify your little attempt at the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question there....I noticed you failed entirely to even try and answer it....

Yep, I thought so. /stashes the OP into the "Waiting for Evidence" file
 
Does your link prove that Obama caused Benghazi? I'm sure Republicans are still going on about that one, too.

How much of a joke response was that? We are talking about the Jock Tax. You asked, does it exist. Have a great weekend.
 
How much of a joke response was that? We are talking about the Jock Tax. You asked, does it exist. Have a great weekend.

You too. Peace. :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom