The current conventional wisdom is that he’s likely to end up back with the Heat. Under NBA rules intended to help teams keep their stars, he can make the most guaranteed money with Miami — a five-year, $129 million deal, averaging $25.8 million a year. Other teams can offer him at most a four-year, $96 million deal (average: $24 million a year).

But in 2010, the last time LeBron was a free agent, he didn’t take the maximum available from his old team, Cleveland, or even from Miami. He took less money because he wanted to join a team ready to make championship runs, and that’s just what happened with the Heat, which made the finals four straight years, winning twice.

So what are the loaded teams this time around? Two teams jump out — the Los Angeles Clippers and the Houston Rockets, which each have two of the 20 or so best players in the league to team with LeBron.

Millions more available in Houston, Miami

But if money is at all a factor for LeBron — not just his salary but how much of a tax bite he faces on his estimated $42 million in annual endorsements — than Proposition 30 is going to hurt the Clippers’ chances badly.

The sting of Prop. 30 on high earners first was highlighted by a sports story in January 2013, when golfer Phil Mickelson said he was considering leaving Rancho Santa Fe and San Diego County because of high taxes. Another San Diegan, small-government crusader Richard Rider, subsequently explained why Mickelson had reason to grouse:

“Here’s the fact that EVERYONE (including me) initially undervalued concerning Mickelson and CA state income taxes. Starting in 2013, Mickelson’s NET state income tax has jumped 83.6%!  And yes, this huge increase hits most Californians making more than $2 million income.

“Here’s why. Until 2013, state income taxes were deductible for federal income tax purposes. Starting in 2013, for the really rich, this deductibility largely goes away (as does deducting property taxes and many other deductions). For people with over $2 million of income, they lose 80% of such deductions.

“With Proposition 30 passed in November, CA has raised its income tax on the wealthy by 29%. The combined tax increase is breathtaking. Do the math, and you find that in 2011 the net CA income tax for Mickelson was 6.7%. In 2013 his net CA income tax is 12.3% — an increase of 83.6%.”

Because of this huge bite, assuming James’ endorsements remained at $42 million, if he played for the Clippers and made $24 million, he would face a 51 percent effective tax rate on his $66 million in income, meaning he would take home a little bit more than $32 million.

Clippers fans can blame CA Dems if LeBron stays away

If he played for Houston, in a state that has no income tax, his 39 percent effective tax rate on $66 million in income means he would take home a little bit more than $40 million. That’s only slightly less then he would make if he returns to Miami, in another state that has no income tax. In Florida, his 39 percent effective tax rate on $67.8 million in income means he would take home about $41.4 million.

Now obviously this is a simplistic calculation of his taxes, which would be subject to other factors, especially given the complex ways many states target the income of visiting pro athletes. But the bottom line is pretty inescapable: Houston and Miami have huge advantages over the Clippers on the money front.

LeBron James may not care about how much money he makes at this point in his life. And one of his very best friends, Chris Paul, is a superstar point guard with the Clippers, where the coach is Doc Rivers, another LeBron favorite.

But if his decision is a close call and he doesn’t choose the Clippers, it’s fair to give some of the blame to Proposition 30 and the confiscatory policies of the California Democratic Party.

The San Diego native has made news for years with his gambling, showing his contempt for societal norms attempting to dictate to adults how they should enjoy themselves.

In January 2013, Mickelson made the Drudge Report (and Cal Watchdog)  for grousing about how high his income taxes had become because of the passage of Proposition 30 and federal deduction changes. Here’s Richard Rider’s sharp take on the flap.

Now it’s onto another area in which Lefty acts out in libertarian fashion: taking on (very indirectly) America’s weird and broad rules about insider trading.

So legendary investor Carl Icahn and pro golf superstar Mickelson have a casual golf buddy in common: Las Vegas gambling-biz figure William “Billy” Walters.

Icahn and Mickelson, however, don’t know each other.

Yet when Walters shares an Icahn tip with Mickelson, once again there are Drudge headlines about Mickelson, this time suggesting he is guilty of insider trading.

If that constitutes a crime, that’s insane. Some of the coverage hints that this is only the tip of the iceberg. But if this is all the FBI and SEC have, oh, my.

So let’s headline the obvious question:

What’s next for Phil, Stealth Libertarian Crusader?

Will he go speeding and then be bludgeoned for demanding that he be allowed to tape the interrogation after the CHP pulls him over?

Will he go rad and complain that the great majority of stop signs should be yield signs?

Or will Mickelson go micro and foment local civil unrest over the preposterous fact that the manager of the Rancho Santa Fe homeowners assocation makes at least $275,000 a year?

We’ll see. It’s an exciting time to be a Phil fan.

A guy works ceaselessly for three decades to reach the pinnacle of his profession. Then the government steals 61 percent of his income for its nefarious purposes. CBS reported:

“Thanks to his recent wins at both The Open Championship and the Scottish Open, Phil Mickelson pocketed more than $2.16 million in just two weeks.

“The world’s top golfer — who came under fire earlier this year when he complained about his supposed 60 percent tax rate as a California resident — is taking another hit on his recent earnings.

“According to Forbes, Mickelson has been subjected to the United Kingdom’s 45 percent tax rate for those who make more than £150,000 a year. In addition, the magazine reports, he will be taxed on a portion of the endorsement income he earned during his time in Scotland.”

Bottomline: a 61 percent tax rate.

Hey, didn’t we fight a revolution against the UK over “taxation without representation”? Does Mickelson get to vote in Brit elections? No.

As to America, Mickelson is one of those people President Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown — both themselves incredibly wealth millionaires because of their lives in politics — insist must “pay their fair share.” That is, Mickelson must be robbed to fund the politicians’ programs, much of which money goes to Crony Capitalist campaign donors.

It’s surprising that Mickelson hasn’t joined Tiger Woods in leaving Taxifornia for Florida, which has no state income tax. That way he could avoid multi-millionaire Brown’s Proposition 13 top state income tax rate of 13 percent.

By Chris Reed

In January, when Rancho Santa Fe pro golfer Phil Mickelson griped about the Prop. 30-mandated increase in state income taxes to 13.3 percent on California’s highest earners, he was widely pilloried as a heartless rich dude who had freaked out over a small increase in his taxes.

But as San Diego small-government/low-tax crusader Richard Rider subsequently pointed out, Mickelson was not grousing about small potatoes:

By Chris Reed

Richard Rider, the dean of the small-government/low-tax movement in San Diego County, has come up with some stunning number-crunching on his blog:

“Here’s the fact that EVERYONE (including me) initially undervalued concerning [Rancho Santa Fe pro golfer Phil] Mickelson and CA state income taxes. Starting in 2013, Mickelson’s NET state income tax has jumped 83.6%!  And yes, this huge increase hits most Californians making more than $2 million income.

“Here’s why. Until 2013, state income taxes were deductible for federal income tax purposes. Starting in 2013, for the really rich, this deductibility largely goes away (as does deducting property taxes and many other deductions). For people with over $2 million of income, they lose 80% of such deductions.

“With Proposition 30 passed in November, CA has raised its income tax on the wealthy by 29%. The combined tax increase is breathtaking. Do the math, and you find that in 2011 the net CA income tax for Mickelson was 6.7%. In 2013 his net CA income tax is 12.3% — an increase of 83.6%.”

This is mind-boggling. No wonder Phil said he was contemplating “drastic changes.”

Rider makes another great point as well:

“The big taxers love to point to a bogus study by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (the name says it all regarding their objectivity) ‘think tank’ which concluded that the California 1% millionaire’s tax increase in 2005 had little or no effect on millionaire’s leaving. While the study has since been largely discredited, the magnitude of that 2005 increase vs. the 2013 CA increase is worth considering.

“In 2005, the maximum CA income tax went up from 9.3% to 10.3% for those with over a million dollar income. At the time, the CA income tax was fully deductible. With a 35% maximum federal tax bracket, that meant that the increase cost the rich a net 0.65%.

With the changes I’ve discussed, the 2013 NET CA income tax increase is 5.6% — 8.6 TIMES HIGHER than the 2005 increase. Only a fool would think that such a massive increase would still not motivate many of the wealthy to depart the ‘Golden State.’

“Parenthetically might I add that California abounds with such fools.”

And many of them inhabit the newsrooms of the Golden State.

Will the Dan Morains and George Skeltons of the world give this context when writing about state tax policy? Don’t hold your breath. They are what they are — extensions of a Sacramento establishment in which the media’s and the Democrats’ conventional wisdom are often close to identical. That conventional wisdom has long held that the key to making life in California even more glorious is even higher taxes. Groan.

Thank you, Richard Rider, for your vigilance and smarts.

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — After hearing the criticism directed toward golfer Phil Mickelson for his modest comments about California’s highest-in-the-nation tax rates giving him cause to consider relocating, I was left wondering: What country do we live in? Did you ever have one of those moments?

“If you add up all the federal, and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate is 62, 63 percent,” Mickelson said. “So I’ve got to make some decisions on what I’m going to do.” He pointed to “drastic changes” that are driving his decision — an obvious reference to the income tax hikes California voters imposed on millionaires like him. Media and public critics were aghast and mocked this poor rich guy for his complaints.

The sight of Mickelson apologizing, then doing so a second time later in the week, was the worst part of this spectacle.

“I think that it was insensitive to talk about it publicly to those people who are not able to find a job, that are struggling paycheck to paycheck,” Mickelson said.

To an Associated Press reporter, Mickelson wasn’t sufficiently apologetic: “He didn’t apologize for what he said, only that he said it.”

Mickelson is just trying to get his mind back in golf, so I don’t begrudge him for using the lingo that our society requires from the chastened. It’s now “insensitive” for a wealthy person to complain about a confiscatory tax rate as long as there are other, less-fortunate people out there somewhere. That’s not a healthy attitude in a free and prosperous society.

“A generation ago, the vitriol his comments triggered would have been surprising, and somewhat isolated,” CalWatchDog.com’s Chris Reed argued.

“Griping about taxes used to be something of an American tradition. No more.” This attitude, Reed notes, now comes from the highest level of government.

Consider the president’s second inaugural address, which was a celebration of the wonders of government. It appears, at least from their rhetoric, that many Democrats who run the Golden State view private business as something ranging from a blight to a necessary evil that can be tapped to fund every new program they envision.

If you think the “blight” characterization is an exaggeration, consider this:

Recently, the California Air Resources Board issued a press release celebrating a $300,000 fine it imposed on a business. A quote from CARB’s chief enforcement officer included this warning: “All business owners should pay attention to this case.” That’s like something uttered by a villain in an Ayn Rand novel.

I’ve always sensed a deep understanding that transcends Left and Right in America: You can make it big and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

During the early days of the labor movement, the hard-leftists never made much headway because of that deep-seated idea that, no matter how humble one’s beginnings, an American can make it big someday.

Envy

Something has changed, even as our society has become wealthier. Sure, businesses have to comply with regulations, and millionaires need to pay taxes, but somewhere we’ve shifted from honoring success to envying it, from viewing government as a limited tool to achieve a few necessary things (infrastructure, enforcing the rule of law) to seeing it as the be-all and end-all of our society.

Why is it assumed by these moralistic Affluence Police that the rich are mainly greedy people who spend their money on luxuries?

Charities and nonprofits are funded by wealthy people. Real capitalists invest millions of dollars into ideas and often create good jobs in the process. I have no idea what Mickelson does with his money, but it isn’t any of my business. Given California governmental attitudes, one can’t blame him for looking to live elsewhere.

For instance, during a recent Capitol news conference, Orange County Register’s Sacramento reporter asked Gov. Jerry Brown about the spending increases in his supposedly austere budget. Brown joked about there being no hope for Orange County readers, according to a Register editorial referring to “this doctrine that government is the problem,” which he said is promoted by the “Orange County Register or whoever all these people are.”

At the Capitol, the free market is viewed by some as an arcane joke. Yet I look at everything government does — at all those programs and bureaucracies and entitlements that Brown and Obama seem to prefer. I see enormous debt, abuses of power, union-enrichment schemes, shoddy services and an endless sea of scandal and greed. Just read the newspapers.

But the scorn should be expected. The state uses a static model for calculating revenue. It assumes that if you raise taxes by, say, 20 percent, that the state will get 20 percent more money. In the real world, people move to lower-tax places or work less or hide more of their income, and the government gets 20 percent of a smaller pie.

If wealthy people keep leaving, then the state will have to pare back its budget. Perhaps the backlash against Mickelson is a sign of desperation by those who understand there just might be limits to how many golden eggs the geese can keep laying.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Write to him at: steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.

Jan. 23, 2013

By Chris Reed

We don’t have a clear verdict yet on the predictions that the sharp hike in income taxes paid by the rich in California, courtesy of Proposition 30, will drive them from the Golden State. Certainly it seems likely, based on how large groups of people have reacted to tax changes in, oh, a big modern nation like the United Kingdom. But if it does happen in California, expect those fleeing to face hatred and contempt.

I based that on the reaction to legendary San Diego golfer Phil Mickelson’s since semi-recanted Sunday comments that the increase in state and federal taxes will lead to “drastic” changes in his career and life. Most people assumed that Mickelson was specifically peeved about the push in the state income tax from 10.3 percent to 13.3 percent on those in his tax bracket thanks to Prop. 30’s passage, and took it as a sign he was ready to follow many golfers who have moved to Florida, which has no state income tax.

Mickelson may seem an unlikely candidate to be California’s version of Gerard Depardieu. But he is far more colorful than the usual bland PGA pro. So when he offered a gripe about taxes and Social Security consuming more than half his income, it wasn’t all that surprising.

A generation ago, the vitriol his comments triggered would have been surprising, and somewhat  isolated. Griping about taxes used to be something of an American tradition. No more. From President Obama on down, the Democrats who call for civility have sold a narrative for years that those who disagree with them are racists/contemptible fools/morons/know-nothings, etc., on every issue — including taxes.

Media hypocrisy

On ESPN’s popular and often-wonderful “Pardon the Interruption,” co-host Michael Wilbon called Mickelson’s tax gripes “garbage.” After the former Washington Post reporter got a huge pay hike to work at ESPN, Wilbon moved from high-tax Maryland to low-tax Arizona.

On the popular Deadspin sports website, whose ownership is incorporated in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes, Mickelson was hypocritically fricaseed for thinking his double-tax-whammy was unfair.

But what, to me at least, was most troubling of all was in the hundreds of comments on every online  iteration of this story that I saw. Mickelson was reviled as an evil pig. Here’s a sample … and even after the barrage of recent years, I still find this kind of confiscatory thinking  to be stunning:

“… Mickelson still gets to keep somewhere in the neighborhood of $24 million. That’s more than anyone needs. …. The point is that it’s up to the government to decide how much [income] is too much.”

Two of the founding fathers saw this mindset coming long ago, as Andrew Napolitano noted in a column last week:

“Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed on little publicly, but they did agree that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and the voters recognize that, they will send to the government only those who promise them a bigger piece of the government pie.”

You may have earned that money, but it’s not your money. It’s up to the government to decide how much you keep, so shut up and know your place — you scumbag 1 percenter.

These are scary times.