I remember this being publicized some years back when a Super Bowl was being held in California, and someone calculated that one team would have to pay California more in taxes for their presence in the state than they would themselves be paid for the privilege of losing the Super Bowl.
CA taxes the income for the time period you work in the state. They couldn't pay more in taxes than they earned. The amount they paid in taxes for CA was likely quite low, as their income during that time probably wouldn't come close to the top bracket for yearly income.
>States tax a player based on their calendar-year income. They apply a duty day calculation which takes the ratio of duty days within the state over total duty days for the year. That ratio is then multiplied by the player’s salary to arrive at a state’s allocable income.
This article is misleading, inaccurate, and reflects poorly on forbes. It's phrased as if they're paying that much tax on the superbowl winnings, but they're being taxed on their normal earnings, during the time they are in CA, which is the case for a number of states with income tax. The article also claims they're paying the top rate, without considering marginal taxes.
