There May be no Future Superbowls in Ca After Next Year

100 percent of my income is taxed, after exemptions. So would yours be, if you had ever had a job.

It is not 100%. Did you fail math? 100% taxation would be if they taxed 100% of his salary, plus any bonus he earned in the state.

Tom, quite aside from his ugly and foolish political views, is a moron.

The reason for this tax enigma is simple, as outlined by AthlonSports: Darnold accrued eight incremental duty days by playing in the Super Bowl. While the $178,000 in additional compensation gets added to his total 2025 season take-home pay, his total contract, which is over $33 million dollars annually on average, will now face an incremental apportionment to the state of California. Darnold will owe an incremental $197,771 in California state income taxes despite only being paid $178,000.

He's getting paid a yearly salary, so in those eight days, he earned 8/365ths of that salary, or about $1 million.

Stupid Tom.

Players only get paid for the 17 regular season games not playoff games which are extra.  So all the players had already been paid.  In this case the $33m

Stupid kevin

Their pay is a SALARY. The pay they get for playoffs is a BONUS.

You really should stop digging.

If I had made $40 million for the season and I was told it would cost me 100%+ of the money I get from the league to play in the Super Bowl, I would play in the Super Bowl.

If I were asked to go to California and work for a week and be taxed 100%+ of the income I made there, I wouldn't go. Although if it was an incredibly fun job, and the income tax I paid was 0.49% of my earnings? I might.

Would you turn down playing in the Super Bowl because you had to pay 0.0049 of your yearly earnings?

But there is no conceivable situation where you or a professional athlete or anyone else would ever be taxed that much. Let's clarify, using the primary school English skills that Tom clearly lacks:

Income earned in California is taxed at the requisite rate, depending on amount, up to the maximum, which is 14%. Not 100%.

Income earned in a state other than the earner's primary state of residence is not counted as income in his home state. Thus, he pays less income tax in his home state than he would if all his work had been done there.

This seems to be an extremely difficult concept for Tom to grasp.

If you want to consider bonuses, they are earned because of the team's success, which is a work activity spread throughout the entire year. A Super Bowl bonus is earned via an entire year's work. Thus, it should be taxed proportionately in each state where the athlete plays.

Of course, this whole pseudo-topic is nothing more than MAGA Tom doing his usual bleat about California shit.

I've seen you've posted on several threads since I answered your question. You may have missed my post. I ask you as a courtesy, would you answer my question for me? A simple yes or no is fine, or expound on it if you would like. Thanks.