If former NFL great and current WFAN host Boomer Esiason has his way, the state of California will have hosted its last Super Bowl.
On Monday, the former Jet laid out the case that California’s punitive “jock tax,” which hit Super Bowl-winning quarterback Sam Darnold so hard that he actually lost money after playing in the big game, should prompt the league’s union to prevent the state from hosting any more Super Bowls.
The reasoning goes like this: The “jock tax” affects non-resident athletes and entertainers based on the number of “duty days” spent working in the state. Typically, this doesn’t hit NFL players traveling to California for a game. But since the buildup to the Super Bowl is longer than that for a regular-season game, it does affect visiting athletes.
To make matters worse, the tax rate is based on a player’s salary, not the check amount they receive from playing in the Super Bowl.
So, in the case of Darnold, he made $178,000 from winning the Super Bowl. However, because he spent the week in California and the state factored the tax based on his salary, not on what he made from the Super Bowl, he had to pay a whopping $249,000 in taxes.
I mean, why the hell not? It's the same scam, just a different scope.
Which of course, is the purpose of this theatre. You will allow it, you will accept your sheepdom, all the way up until the point you are forced to stand up.
If former NFL great and current WFAN host Boomer Esiason has his way, the state of California will have hosted its last Super Bowl.
On Monday, the former Jet laid out the case that California’s punitive “jock tax,” which hit Super Bowl-winning quarterback Sam Darnold so hard that he actually lost money after playing in the big game, should prompt the league’s union to prevent the state from hosting any more Super Bowls.
The reasoning goes like this: The “jock tax” affects non-resident athletes and entertainers based on the number of “duty days” spent working in the state. Typically, this doesn’t hit NFL players traveling to California for a game. But since the buildup to the Super Bowl is longer than that for a regular-season game, it does affect visiting athletes.
To make matters worse, the tax rate is based on a player’s salary, not the check amount they receive from playing in the Super Bowl.
So, in the case of Darnold, he made $178,000 from winning the Super Bowl. However, because he spent the week in California and the state factored the tax based on his salary, not on what he made from the Super Bowl, he had to pay a whopping $249,000 in taxes.
So, Darnold won a ring but lost $71,000.
130% income tax...
I mean, why the hell not? It's the same scam, just a different scope.
Which of course, is the purpose of this theatre. You will allow it, you will accept your sheepdom, all the way up until the point you are forced to stand up.
Gonna meme that.
It's silly, but after seeing his annual salary is $105 million, i don't think he's upset.
You have completely missed the point.
He should just tell them to go fuck themselves.
Is this going to be in place for the olympics?
The remedy is simple stay out of California
Newsom may have suffered a few wedgies as a student.
Lawsuit against California incoming…
Named the wrong team he played for, but this was posted yesterday. https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASFhNysUi/pats-qb-california-tax-bill-exce/c/