This year’s Super Bowl,
scheduled to be played this Sunday, will be held in New Jersey,
even though a lot of news outlets covering the sporting event, and
even the NFL, may prefer to call what’s officially a “NY/NJ” Super
Bowl a New York affair. The football teams that play at the East
Rutherford, New Jersey stadium, the Giants and the Jets, are after
all New York (or NY/NJ) teams. Sunday’s televised coverage is sure
to include plenty of bump shots of New York City locations and few
actually from the area where the stadium is located, which is
basically a swamp. Even the NYPD has gotten in on the “let’s
pretend this thing is happening in New York” action; promising
unprecedented security at the event and
deploying 200 “temporary” security cameras in midtown New
York.
But one way to ascertain that, yes, in fact the Super Bowl is
being held in New Jersey, is to look at whose taxman the Colorado
and Washington players competing in the Super Bowl will pay. That
would be dirty Jersey, and according to K. Sean Packard, a CPA
writing at Forbes.com, Jersey will indeed treat the players dirty
when it comes to taxes:
If Manning is able to play next season, his New Jersey
income tax would be $46,989 on $92,000 for winning the Super Bowl,
or 51.08%. If they lose and he is able to play in 2014, he will pay
New Jersey $46,844 on his $46,000, which amounts to a 101.83% tax
on his actual Super Bowl earnings in the state—and this does not
even consider federal taxes!
Manning’s tax liability would be less, Packard explained, if the
38-year-old Denver Broncos quarterback were to retire after the
Super Bowl, because New Jersey looks at the total income, even when
not playing in the state, and because the Broncos play the Jets
next season, so New Jersey’s state government gets a take of that
too. The taxes paid by Manning and the other Broncos and Seahwawks
players for merely competing in New Jersey in a league event, will
also fall quite short of how much tax money New Jersey has
wasted holding the Super Bowl.
Bilking athletes, though, is nothing new. Jamaican track star
Usain Bolt, for example, is
boycotting sporting events in the United Kingdom until their
tax laws are loosened, while golf star Phil Mickelson was bullied
by wealth redistribution advocates for complaining about his
onerous tax rate, eventually
apologizing for quite rightly pointing out that onerous federal
and state (for Mickelson, California) tax laws would cause him to
consider drastic changes in his life. Mickelson pays
61 percent of his winnings in taxes, and uncomfortable fact tax
boosters tried to deny.
from Hit & Run
via IFTTT