"Darnold net loses $14k in Cali taxes for winning Super Bowl"

Republican Math is a dangerous thing, kids!

You'll recognize it by the identifying equation: One, plus one, equals Whatever today's talking points require!

In this case, it's laughable this even passes the smell test. This is "Melania got 99%" territory.

"Comparing the total tax bill for all income just to the bonus is what's called a "meaningless sum.""

It's actually either called "gaslighting" or "lying", if he knows the actual numbers; ignorance if he doesn't.

And if he doesn't know the actual numbers, he should STFU before he embarrasses himself further.

And apologize for the BS thread concept. Darnold most certainly did NOT pay a greater than 100% tax due to winning the Super Bowl.

"The franchise pays for all of those services."

The franchise pays for the QB's publicist?!?

You really don't know how any of this works, do you?

"Whatever is owed is a small price to pay for being in the history books for all time. "

The point of the matter is: Headline is a Lie.

"His estimated $249,000 tax bill exceeds his $178,000 game bonus"

Nonsense. You're not including other pay he received for playing in CA, including, duh, playing the Rams and the 49ers earlier in the season, and playing the Rams at SOFI in January 2025 as the last game in the prior season..

"So it would have cost Darnold more to play in the Superbowl, so he lost even more money?"

No; some idiots are leaving out other income, and pretending CA has a super-secret tax rate OVER 100%.

"So it would have cost Darnold more to play in the Superbowl, so he lost even more money?"

No. After taxes, there was still money left over...AFTER TAXES.

" The tax is over his 8 day stay in California. But he did receive a $2.5M bonus for Superbowl appearance."

The 8-day stay is meaningless, unless he had other income that week (commercial shoots, etc). The bonus is pro-rated over the season, so the $2.5 is not ALL subject to CA taxes.

What websites are "educating" you with this horse manure???

"resulting in a net loss of over $70,000 on the game itself."

Stupid Republican Math.

Just admit you don't understand the ------- equation, and leave it at that.

" He makes 30 million a year, he works X days a year, he spend Y of those days working in California, he owes California Y/X income tax."

Not exactly.

He gets paid different amounts for different days.

He pays taxes on what he earns in CA. The only time "days" come in is when the number 183 is involved. 183+ days in CA, and you're a RESIDENT that year.

Otherwise, he owes taxes where he earns the money. If 20% is earned in CA, he'd owe taxes to CA on 20% of his income, regardless if he spent one day or 100 days in CA.

And if his home state has an income tax, they have to credit what was paid to CA, up to the rate they'd charge on the same income.

"Not a lie, but an equivocation."

Gee...thanks, Kellyanne.

"I suppose it's a little steep to pay 15.5% state tax."

If that was the concern, annual SBs would be played in Texas, Florida, Las Vegas, or Washington exclusively.

Or, of course, New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Dakota, or Alaska. I hear SDS seats almost 19,400!

"why would anybody need to file a state tax return for playing a game or multiple games in a certain state."

Because that's where the work was done, and the money earned.

BTW, that's EVERY state's default, if they have a tax code. The central tenet is WHERE was the money earned. If you're in Kansas, and design something for a company in PA, your work was done in Kansas, therefore they have claim on that income.

"Entertainers, athletes, even insurance salesmen generate income from work performed in multiple states. That doesn't require a state return in those states."

Yes it does, if they're doing taxes correctly, and following each state's tax code.

Most look the other way, assuming roughly the same amount goes FOR them as goes AGAINST them.

"He doesn't get a salary. Thought Danforth would correct this."

Unless you're redefining the word, he ABSOLUTELY gets a salary.

What, exactly, was I supposed to correct?

Every state has a claim on income earned in their state, either active (like salaries) or passive (like rent).

Every state also has a claim on all residents and all their taxable income. So if a KS resident plays football in Houston, he owes no taxes to Texas, and KS imposes a tax on ALL his income in KS.

The states must also give credit for any income tax paid to any state or locality which they would've charged taxes for. For example, if that Kansas resident plays in St. Louis, Missouri, he will owe state tax to Missouri, and city tax to St. Louis.

The state of Kansas then must give him credit for the amount of tax Kansas would have charged on that money. If Missouri's rate is lower, Kansas will give full credit, and charge the taxpayer the difference. If Missouri's rate is higher, Kansas will only give credit up to what they would've charged.

In other words, anyone who works in two states ends up paying the higher rate of the two.

The route for preparation with multiple states is federal first, then any and all nonresident states and localities, and finally your home state.

The last question in multi-state returns is always "How much credit will the Home state give for income taxes paid to each of the other states?"

Answer that question, and I'm done!