Darnold lost $71k for winning the Superbowl?

Welcome to the sheep following lives of...... That is the end of your scheduled programming lol

Gavin Newsom and the land of missing billions (California) thank Sam for his contribution

If that’s the case the nfl really needs to cover that lol.

Poor guy, maybe we can start a Go-Fund-Me campaign…!  :cool: :angel:

Now imagine being a Patriot and losing both your money and the Super Bowl.

Kentis wrote:
Poor guy, maybe we can start a Go-Fund-Me campaign…!  :cool: :angel:

I'm down. It's the least we can do to help poor Sammy pay his California jock tax balance, which amounts to 1/464th of his yearly income.

I wonder if Darnold gets hit harder on the CA taxes because he lives in CA in the offseason.

Here’s another tragic but true story. Won’t you please join me in lifting up brother Curry and his family in prayer this evening?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2026/02/10/sam-darnold-won-the-super-bowl---but-lost-money-due-to-the-jock-tax/

badgervike wrote:
I wonder if Darnold gets hit harder on the CA taxes because he lives in CA in the offseason.

NFL players pay full income taxes to their state of residence. Darnold is a resident of California. 

To avoid double taxation, players can generally claim credits on their home state tax return for taxes paid to other states.

Darnold lost money on the game,  Esiason is correct. That has not been disputed.

1/464 is close to the 400 or so days since  Darnold‘s 2014 Vikes end-of-year meltdown that culminated in his subsequent Seattle 30 mil/per yr contract. 

Thus, VikeFans are morally obligated to cover Sam’s SB LX $ loss.

Kentis and MaroonBells (his 1/464 est is correct) have proffered 36k each. 

Expecting them posting their receipts, since it is trivial :)

Actually, Sam Darnold purchased a home in Seattle shortly after signing his contract in  March 2025, FYI…  :D

My heart bleeds for super-rich athletes burdened by taxation across the nation.

No, actually tbh I don't give a flying fuck.

IMaroonBells wrote:

I'm down. It's the least we can do to help poor Sammy pay his California jock tax balance, which amounts to 1/464th of his yearly income.

Yeah because other people deserve his money.  Especially the govt so they can give it away to people that will keep them in office so they can continue to steal from people.  It make a lot of sense to take what’s not yours if you can.

I beleive we are all taxed to much. Taxed on earned money, taxed on spent money and taxed on investing/saving money is criminal.

Still Hurtn wrote:
I beleive we are all taxed to much. Taxed on earned money, taxed on spent money and taxed on investing/saving money is criminal.

Everyone thinks we are taxed to much,  just nobody agrees on what should be cut to ease the tax burden.  I sit and listen to people talk about cutting taxes,  but they dont want to cut what those taxes provide,  they just want to shift their tax burden to somebody else.

JimmyinSD wrote:

Everyone thinks we are taxed to much,  just nobody agrees on what should be cut to ease the tax burden.  I sit and listen to people talk about cutting taxes,  but they dont want to cut what those taxes provide,  they just want to shift their tax burden to somebody else.

I can agree on a lot of cuts.  It all starts with enttitlemenys at the federal level and state pensions at the state level.  Convert SS to mandatory 401k. Get rid of all COLA over the next twenty years as you phase both full pay out pensions and SS out.  Medicare eliminated for illegals and lessened for those without consistent work histories for no cause. Get rid of all foreign aid.  Penalize states that are found to have fraud issues. There are many opportunities and not enough courage to bite the bullet.

Waterboy wrote:

I can agree on a lot of cuts.  It all starts with enttitlemenys at the federal level and state pensions at the state level.  Convert SS to mandatory 401k. Get rid of all COLA over the next twenty years as you phase both full pay out pensions and SS out.  Medicare eliminated for illegals and lessened for those without consistent work histories for no cause. Get rid of all foreign aid.  Penalize states that are found to have fraud issues. There are many opportunities and not enough courage to bite the bullet.

I'm betting your targeted cuts are met with a lot of opposition from those that dont think like you.  And therein lies the problem.

We are being robbed. The path is not sustainable. Multiple cities are in budget deficit because of promised retirement benefits. The federal government has trillion dollars in deficit.. spend like a trillion a year just on interest payments.

About 1 out every 10 adults work for city, state, federal government including teachers. About 50 million people pay zero federal income tax. Its bloated and needs a chain saw for cuts.

Still Hurtn wrote:
We are being robbed. The path is not sustainable. Multiple cities are in budget deficit because of promised retirement benefits. The federal government has trillion dollars in deficit.. spend like a trillion a year just on interest payments.

About 1 out every 10 adults work for city, state, federal government including teachers. About 50 million people pay zero federal income tax. Its bloated and needs a chain saw for cuts.

I agree that it isn't sustainable,  but how do you fix SS/Pensions/Retirement  for people that have worked for years counting on that as part or all of their income in their post working years?  Those are damn tough areas to focus on.   Same with other entitlements,  unfortunately we have created generations of people that have not prepared themselves to suddenly having to take care of themselves financially,  if we were to slash those expenses as some suggest I think we would see cities burn and turn into bigger crime zones than they already are as people would be come even more desperate.  There are no real easy answers,  but I've said it for years,  we all are going to need to bleed a little if this is ever going to get resolved.  Higher taxes for earners,  and incremental social program cuts, as well as belt tightening for other gov't areas like defense,  but of course they always take their budget cuts out on the working soldiers and their families and not where the cuts should likely come from.

I met a young guy running for office from my district this weekend,  we talked about a lot of areas, but one we spent time on was school lunches,  he said despite being fiscally conservative,  he did think school lunch programs should be free for all,  followed up with no kids should  go hungry.  I told him that it is very very unlikely that kids are going hungry,  most school districts have a policy that kids that dont have lunch can get a free lunch,  it might just not be what all the others are getting served.  He thought that was to shameful,  I said I agreed,  its sad that the kids get hurt,  but that schools already make countless attempts to get the parents to fill out the federal forms for free/reduced lunches,  but they often never hear back from the parents,  I told him instead of putting that burden on the already tapped education system,  how about coming up with a way to make those negligent parents legally bound to either fill out the forms or face legal troubles if they arent paying for their kids lunches. ( seems like a social services issue to me )

this will likely need to get relocated,  but since we are keeping it pretty neutral thus far it can ride,  if it turns a little to the partisan blame game its gone though. ( which it shouldnt as neither party should try and point a finger on our govt financial issues.)

JimmyinSD wrote:

I agree that it isn't sustainable,  but how do you fix SS/Pensions/Retirement  for people that have worked for years counting on that as part or all of their income in their post working years?  Those are damn tough areas to focus on.   Same with other entitlements,  unfortunately we have created generations of people that have not prepared themselves to suddenly having to take care of themselves financially,  if we were to slash those expenses as some suggest I think we would see cities burn and turn into bigger crime zones than they already are as people would be come even more desperate.  There are no real easy answers,  but I've said it for years,  we all are going to need to bleed a little if this is ever going to get resolved.  Higher taxes for earners,  and incremental social program cuts, as well as belt tightening for other gov't areas like defense,  but of course they always take their budget cuts out on the working soldiers and their families and not where the cuts should likely come from.

I met a young guy running for office from my district this weekend,  we talked about a lot of areas, but one we spent time on was school lunches,  he said despite being fiscally conservative,  he did think school lunch programs should be free for all,  followed up with no kids should  go hungry.  I told him that it is very very unlikely that kids are going hungry,  most school districts have a policy that kids that dont have lunch can get a free lunch,  it might just not be what all the others are getting served.  He thought that was to shameful,  I said I agreed,  its sad that the kids get hurt,  but that schools already make countless attempts to get the parents to fill out the federal forms for free/reduced lunches,  but they often never hear back from the parents,  I told him instead of putting that burden on the already tapped education system,  how about coming up with a way to make those negligent parents legally bound to either fill out the forms or face legal troubles if they arent paying for their kids lunches. ( seems like a social services issue to me )

this will likely need to get relocated,  but since we are keeping it pretty neutral thus far it can ride,  if it turns a little to the partisan blame game its gone though. ( which it shouldnt as neither party should try and point a finger on our govt financial issues.)

The hard core reality is that you'll likely have to raise the age for SS to younger people much as we did when it was raised from Age 65 to age 67.  When SS was enacted, the age to collect was 62 and average life expectancy was 63.5 years old...a difference of 1.5 years.  The age expectancy is now 79 years and climbing..and the age of full SS is 67...a difference of 12.5 years.  That's a big, big difference.  

You also likely need to increase contribution percentages for younger payees to cover that difference. 

Also, should richer retirees really collect social security?

With declining birthrates and the baby boomers coming of age, this needs to be addressed.  Politicians are cowards, however.  Any changes to SS...even if it's just for younger participants...is met with a chorus of politicians choosing to "kill Grandma".