Multimillionaire golfer Phil Mickelson risked his public image last week and later called it a “dumb, dumb mistake.” There were no prostitutes or drugs. He did not cheat at golf. Mickelson simply told reporters that being targeted for taxation “doesn’t work for [him] right now.”

Resenting high taxes should not endanger a wealthy person’s image, as it should not endanger anyone else’s image. It was Mickelson’s public display of self-interest plus his multimillionaire status that got him in trouble, and it should not be this way.

Due to both federal and state income tax hikes, Mickelson will now lose more than half of his income to taxation if he stays in California.

Assuming incomes measure achievement and effective tax rates measure the portion of one’s achievement made possible not by one’s self but by government or society, Mickelson’s effective tax rate of more than 50 percent means either he is less than half responsible for his own success or he is paying more than his fair share.

Because Mickelson likely believes other people are not more than half responsible for his success, it makes sense for him to question fairness.

Nevertheless, Syracuse University professor, prominent economist and author Leonard Berman criticized Mickelson in a Forbes Magazine piece published the day after Mickelson’s statements. He directed Mickelson to “stop whining and give thanks” for his ability to earn.

If Mickelson claimed that losing half of his multimillion-dollar income forced him to live in discomfort, one could accuse him of whining.

But Mickelson did not whine. The wealthy golfer announced intentions to make “drastic changes” to get a better deal; he refused to rule out leaving California to avoid high taxes. He accurately characterized his situation as being “targeted both federally and by the state.”

Mickelson is a victim of class warfare, and his reaction is justified.

Berman calls the golfer “lucky” to be be able to make a fortune playing golf when most people can not play professionally despite their best efforts.

But Mickelson is not lucky. He lives in a society where half of his efforts belong to other people — where refusal to submit is considered whining.

If those in our society attribute success more to luck than effort, it will likely attribute failure more to chance than lack of effort. If people feel factors beyond their control are mostly responsible for their level of success, they will feel entitled to goods or services they need or want but cannot afford.

This attitude makes unsustainable federal entitlement spending impossible to reform. For the United States to be successful and prosperous, we must stop demonizing those who succeed and prosper.

Berman says Mickelson fails to give thanks, but it is wholly possible for Mickelson to be thankful for his abilities and resent being punished for them via targeted taxation.

People, rich or poor, who believe Mickelson is mostly responsible for his own success can understand his indignation at losing the majority of his income to the government.

Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major and MBA candidate in the Martin J. Whitman School of Management. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.

 

Published on January 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm