President's Budget Eliminates Donation Expense for Tix

[Spotcheck Billy]

Technically, you should deduct the value of the adorable stuffed elephant from your donation when you declare it on your taxes.  However, because its value is de minimus, I doubt the IRS is going to be sending you an audit notice over it.  Good seats for a Marquette game, however, do have real value. 

kind of like when buying items on the Channel 10/36 Auction? If you win on an "Overbid" the amount of the overbid is deductible.

[brandx]

My father in law is retired and pays a minimal income tax every year.  He is AOK with his income tax.

He b*tches to high heaven when his property tax bill comes.

Everyone complains about taxes.  Mostly, the ones that they actually pay.

Just as we all take advantage of the tax breaks that we get and complain about those that others receive.

[Benny B]

Come to think of it, I would probably get rid of all deductions entirely.

Says the person who likely has nothing to deduct.

[warriorchick]

kind of like when buying items on the Channel 10/36 Auction? If you win on an "Overbid" the amount of the overbid is deductible.

Exactly.

Another fun fact:  Money you spend on charity raffle tickets isn't deductible, even if you don't win anything.  It's surprising how few people know that.

[GGGG]

Exactly.

Another fun fact:  Money you spend on charity raffle tickets isn't deductible, even if you don't win anything.  It's surprising how few people know that.

Put it this way.  If you get a receipt from the charity for the gift, it is deductible.  If you received anything of value for the gift, it would be disclosed on the receipt along with its value.  (Both are IRS requirements upon the charity.)

[jficke13]

All hail C_i, the only person qualified to opine what charities are "true." Verilly, C_i will warn us away from the profligate "false" charities whose practices and purposes do not meet his exacting truth standards.

Hail.

[mu03eng]

All hail C_i, the only person qualified to opine what charities are "true." Verilly, C_i will warn us away from the profligate "false" charities whose practices and purposes do not meet his exacting truth standards.

Hail.

I, for one, welcome our new overlord C_i

[Coleman]

Mechanically, it's probably better to collect from all and then based on your income level at the end of the year distribute a subsidy to obtain a "standard of living" level.

FYI, even at minimum wage, working 40 hrs a week for 50 weeks a year....You would achieve an income above the poverty line (assuming no dependents, but that's a whole other thing)

Correct, but in my plan you'd only pay taxes on your income after you've surpassed the poverty threshold, which would be a small minority of your income if you were only making minimum wage

Vote Bleuteaux!

[jficke13]

Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.

[warriorchick]

I, for one, welcome our new overlord C_i

I don't see how Macarena Shark could do any worse than any current elected official.

[brandx]

Says the person who likely has nothing to deduct.

So you think that since C_I has an opinion that differs from you (and most everyone here) that he lives in a van down by the river?

A tad arrogant.

[WarriorInNYC]

Maybe C_I is just referring more generally to abuses with people/companies getting Sports/Entertainment tax breaks and picked a bad example to make his point.

Having been the recipient of numerous visits to Brewers/Bucks luxury boxes and Lambeau Field with tickets from corporate vendors, I've often thought this is kind of a gray area. I've done a lot of eating, drinking, and partying on their dime for which they are receiving breaks, but conducting business was rarely a part of things.

I always thought they were getting a lot from the gov't simply for a meet 'n greet. When there was actual business to conduct, their reps would be on-site to get things accomplished.

Could you further explain this?  I'm trying to understand how the corporate vendor would be getting a break on this.  I'm assuming this is not a charitable contribution here since they are conducting business with you.  The only type of "break" that the corporate vendor would be receiving from a tax standpoint, is the offset of profit from the cost of those tickets * the corporate tax rate.

Example:  Your football ticket cost $100, food and beverage $50, corporate tax rate is 33%, the only tax "savings" that would occur, would be $50.  But then from an expense standpoint, they still spent $150, so they in essence spent $100 for your ticket and food.  And then that $50 of "tax saving" would be filtered down to the shareholders of the company.  So depending on what type of business you are dealing with, I'm just assuming a somewhat decently sized company, the "tax savings" that an individual would see would be immaterial.

I'm oversimplifying this, but I just want to drive the point that corporations don't necessarily receive tax breaks for entertaining clients, which is what I understand you are saying here.

[WarriorInNYC]

Exactly.

Another fun fact:  Money you spend on charity raffle tickets isn't deductible, even if you don't win anything.  It's surprising how few people know that.

Also on that note:  donated services are not tax deductible either.  For example, if a hair salon was to give away free haircuts for some charitable purpose, the retail value of those haircuts would not be tax deductible, even though they were done for a charitable purpose.  However, if that hair salon were to give away $20 giftcards for charity, and those were then used for free haircuts, those giftcards would be tax deductible.

[GooooMarquette]

Could you further explain this?  I'm trying to understand how the corporate vendor would be getting a break on this.  I'm assuming this is not a charitable contribution here since they are conducting business with you.  The only type of "break" that the corporate vendor would be receiving from a tax standpoint, is the offset of profit from the cost of those tickets * the corporate tax rate.

Example:  Your football ticket cost $100, food and beverage $50, corporate tax rate is 33%, the only tax "savings" that would occur, would be $50.  But then from an expense standpoint, they still spent $150, so they in essence spent $100 for your ticket and food.  And then that $50 of "tax saving" would be filtered down to the shareholders of the company.  So depending on what type of business you are dealing with, I'm just assuming a somewhat decently sized company, the "tax savings" that an individual would see would be immaterial.

I'm oversimplifying this, but I just want to drive the point that corporations don't necessarily receive tax breaks for entertaining clients, which is what I understand you are saying here.

I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there.  And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.

[brandx]

I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there.  And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.

Thank you, Gooo.

Like I said, I've eaten and drank more than I should, but never actually talked business.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there.  And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.

The funnier part to me if I read the quoted part of his post was to suggest no business was being done.  Yes it is.  The fact he knows what company paid for the luxury box alone is part of business.  Call it marketing, call it what you will, but I get this notion by some people that a deal has to be talked about at some of these functions.  Hardly.    Be it brand awareness, marketing, just thanking clients, or trying to sell wives and husbands on how big their company's schlong is because they have a box is part of business.  Someone has to be naive to think it isn't. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

It has little to do with logic.  It is because people have different definitions of the word "fair."

Correct.  I was being sarcastic.  I agree with you 100%.  The definition of fair is wildly different....take the notion of taxes at all and who pays, who doesn't....I find it unbelievably unfair that 47% pay no federal tax at all.  Everyone should have to pay something.  To understand that gov't programs cost real money and there is no free ride.   Others disagree and call that wildly unfair.  Just one of many examples.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd argue for a flat tax of all income above the poverty line. Its pretty simple.

Everyone gets a standard deduction for the amount of income at the poverty line, according to their legal family situation. For me, that's $11,670. You then find the right rate to tax across the board for all income over the poverty line to get to a balanced budget. I'm not sure what that is. 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%? Would need someone to do the math to get to the right number. No other deductions. Capital gains are taxed at the same rate. Everyone can do the simple math.

Persons in
Family Unit   48 Contiguous States
and D.C.   Alaska   Hawaii
1   $11,670   $14,580   $13,420
2   $15,730   $19,660   $18,090
3   $19,790   $24,730   $22,760
4   $23,850   $29,820   $27,430
5   $27,910   $34,900   $32,100
6   $31,970   $39,980   $36,770
7   $36,030   $45,060   $41,440
8   $40,090   $50,140   $46,110
Each additional
person adds   $4,060   $5,080   $4,670

I wouldn't oppose to that as a compromise....as long as everyone above that line is paying so they understand the true costs of programs, etc, we would eliminate tremendous waste in this country.  It's easy to say "YES YES YES" and vote for programs and politicians when it doesn't cost that person a damn thing.  Now, when it does, when those precious dollars are being taken by Uncle Sammy, now people get religion and actually give a damn about some of the wasteful programs and what is truly needed.  All of a sudden, it matters.  All of a sudden, fraud matters too....because when you are paying taxes it matters but when you aren't, fraud doesn't mean a hill of beans because the next actual taxpayer is going to pick up the check.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Part of the problem is there are too many people who don't have any skin in the game.  Everyone who has income of any kind (and basically everyone does, if you include entitlements) should pay something, even if it is $1 a week, and  even if you have to initially increase entitlements by the amount they would have to pay in taxes.

It's easy to say, "Yeah, tax the crap out of those people!"  when it doesn't affect your pocketbook. If everyone paid income taxes, the conversation would be more along the lines of "Raise taxes?  Aw, hell, no!  I can't afford what I am paying now!"

BBBBBB

IIIIIII

NNNNN

GGGGG


OOOOO


No skin in the game means people not paying don't give a chit, all programs are cool, waste doesn't matter, spend all you want, tax all you want because it isn't going to impact that dude one bit....well except more goodies and more goodies = more votes.

[reinko]

BBBBBB

IIIIIII

NNNNN

GGGGG


OOOOO


No skin in the game means people not paying don't give a chit, all programs are cool, waste doesn't matter, spend all you want, tax all you want because it isn't going to impact that dude one bit....well except more goodies and more goodies = more votes.

Just want to make sure I have this clear.  Your big idea, is to ensure the 47% who pay no federal taxes, have some skin in the game?  So we have the elderly (about a quarter of this group) and the working poor, folks with kids who make under 25K a year is your grand idea to fix America's fiscal problems.  If a politician proposed say a 5% minimum federal tax, to get your skin in the game, but with the trade off of a 5% increase in the capital gains, who say you?  DEAD ON ARRIVAL!

Lastly, you gush about the good old days of the 50s and 60s, any chance you want to revert back to the federal taxes rates of that time?

[Eldon]

Despite some bumps here and there, this debate about how the government spends are money has been relatively civil.  Relative, that is, to debates on Derrick Wilson's playing time.

The conclusion to draw, of course, is to hope and pray that Derrick Wilson never goes into politics.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

If you want any more evidence that nothing will be done about our ridiculous, rent-seeking tax laws, look no further than Chicos posts.

The guy is exercised because poor people don't pay much taxes, but thinks that donations to athletic departments and extravagant business entertainment budgets are perfectly acceptable deductions.

As others have said in this thread, everyone complains about the system until it benefits them.

By the way, I used to believe big business could do no wrong, ala Chicos. But, really, the ridiculousness of complaining about poor people when you're manipulating the tax code yourself is just too much.

[GGGG]

BBBBBB

IIIIIII

NNNNN

GGGGG


OOOOO


No skin in the game means people not paying don't give a chit, all programs are cool, waste doesn't matter, spend all you want, tax all you want because it isn't going to impact that dude one bit....well except more goodies and more goodies = more votes.

LOL.  Right wing talking point with no basis in reality.

Seriously how patronizing.  "Even though you make LESS THAN $20,000 we are going to tax you so you fully understand how the tax system works."

Doesn't surprise me that Chicos actually thinks this is a good idea. 

[WarriorInNYC]

I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there.  And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.

Yes there would be tax savings, but ultimately for the company there would not be savings, as they are taking on more expense.  I don't know why we would pick this out as working around the tax code.  Then we should also bring up buying a flat screen TV for the company break room, or taking the team out for drinks and bowling for a social event.  Those would all be business expenses, that when offsetting revenues would result in "tax savings".

[WarriorInNYC]

The funnier part to me if I read the quoted part of his post was to suggest no business was being done.  Yes it is.  The fact he knows what company paid for the luxury box alone is part of business.  Call it marketing, call it what you will, but I get this notion by some people that a deal has to be talked about at some of these functions.  Hardly.    Be it brand awareness, marketing, just thanking clients, or trying to sell wives and husbands on how big their company's schlong is because they have a box is part of business.  Someone has to be naive to think it isn't. 

This, and its not just about building brand awareness, but also about building relationships and networking.  There is much more to entertaining potential/existing clients than just talking business at these events.