President's Budget Eliminates Donation Expense for Tix

[mu-rara]

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. 

Sultan, the top 10% of earners pay 68% of all the taxes when they earn only 45% of all income.  I am not an advocate of taxing the bottom 50% as they only earn 12% of all income, but come on......the top 10% pay enough. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

anyhoo, back to the topic of deducting B&G fund donations re: seats - if this deduction went away and supposing MU raises the actual ticket prices to compensate for the lost revenue, would MU have to report that as income if it isn't a charitable contribution?

[WarriorInNYC]

anyhoo, back to the topic of deducting B&G fund donations re: seats - if this deduction went away and supposing MU raises the actual ticket prices to compensate for the lost revenue, would MU have to report that as income if it isn't a charitable contribution?

If that is what occurred, then for sure that would be taxable income.

[rocket surgeon]

i am really concerned that some here seem to there is something inherently wrong with the notion of trying to keep more of the money YOU/WE EARN.  the problem is, when one finds legitimate ways to KEEP some of their own hard earned money, they usually spend it somewhere, i.e. donations, luxury boxes, etc.  many of these expenditures lead to other areas that still benefit the government-buying goods and services that provide jobs which in turn generate many other taxes-sales, gas, income etc. i am a  believer that we, the people can spend our money better and more efficient than the gubmint-that of course is a whole notha subject that would shirley get the "lock down" real quick-I have a toothache so fellas?

[g0lden3agle]

anyhoo, back to the topic of deducting B&G fund donations re: seats - if this deduction went away and supposing MU raises the actual ticket prices to compensate for the lost revenue, would MU have to report that as income if it isn't a charitable contribution?

I don't think MU would be obligated to change their pricing structure at all.  The contribution would just no longer be deductible for those buying the tix.

[WarriorInNYC]

I don't think MU would be obligated to change their pricing structure at all.  The contribution would just no longer be deductible for those buying the tix.

True, but I think MK's point was that if the deduction no longer exists, less people would then be willing to make that contribution for those tickets, and thus MU would be losing those contributions to fund their scholarships.  If MU needed to offset that, maybe an increase in the ticket price would occur, and that difference would help fund those scholarships.

[g0lden3agle]

True, but I think MK's point was that if the deduction no longer exists, less people would then be willing to make that contribution for those tickets, and thus MU would be losing those contributions to fund their scholarships.  If MU needed to offset that, maybe an increase in the ticket price would occur, and that difference would help fund those scholarships.

I wonder how noticeably the ticket sales would change if that deduction was removed.  I would assume not very much.  A noticeable change would imply that people are valuing the tax deduction more than the tickets themselves, which I would be very surprised if that was the case.

[jsglow]

I don't think MU would be obligated to change their pricing structure at all.  The contribution would just no longer be deductible for those buying the tix.

MU wouldn't be obligated to do anything.  But if the real cost of my season ticket went up by 25% (the aforementioned allowed deduction), I would by definition be less inclined to purchase.

[jsglow]

I wonder how noticeably the ticket sales would change if that deduction was removed.  I would assume not very much.  I noticeable change would imply that people are valuing the tax deduction more than the tickets themselves, which I would be very surprised if that was the case.

Therein lies the real question.  How elastic or inelastic is demand for MU tickets?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

LOL.  Yes, JFK...that right winger.  Sam Nunn...that right winger.  Etc, etc


Define fully, because that's not what I am saying.   If people don't understand the cost of something because it is free, then there is no true valuation tied to them that is linked.  This is Econ 101 \ public policy 101, not some talking point.  I think a flat tax is the fairest form of taxation, I also know it isn't going to happen.

My solution would be EVERYONE pays something, the problem today is 47% pay NOTHING in federal taxes. NOTHING.  Not one red cent.  That is a major problem.  So you can run along and say I want them taxed fully...define fully?   No, what I want that I think is practical is that they pay SOMETHING....not the current NOTHING they pay today.  If you don't pay for something and it's always there, one has no idea what it costs and you're fine just keeping it going.  That's great for that person, not so great for everyone else that has to pay for it. 

I always find it amusing one side keeps calling for tax increases....well, here's a tax increase that apparently that side doesn't like....ironic.

[warriorchick]

If that is what occurred, then for sure that would be taxable income.

Unless I am mistaken, (I am an accountant, but not a tax expert) Marquette and its athletic programs  are IRS-recognized Not For Profits, so the income would not be taxable to Marquette. I don't think that Marquette is really affected by whether or not the required donations are tax-deductible by the ticketholder, other than any impact it would have on demand.

[GGGG]

Sultan, the top 10% of earners pay 68% of all the taxes when they earn only 45% of all income.  I am not an advocate of taxing the bottom 50% as they only earn 12% of all income, but come on......the top 10% pay enough. 

I don't think you heard me state otherwise.  I just have a problem with the condescending attitude.

[GGGG]

LOL.  Yes, JFK...that right winger.  Sam Nunn...that right winger.  Etc, etc


Define fully, because that's not what I am saying.   If people don't understand the cost of something because it is free, then there is no true valuation tied to them that is linked.  This is Econ 101 \ public policy 101, not some talking point.  I think a flat tax is the fairest form of taxation, I also know it isn't going to happen.

My solution would be EVERYONE pays something, the problem today is 47% pay NOTHING in federal taxes. NOTHING.  Not one red cent.  That is a major problem.  So you can run along and say I want them taxed fully...define fully?   No, what I want that I think is practical is that they pay SOMETHING....not the current NOTHING they pay today.  If you don't pay for something and it's always there, one has no idea what it costs and you're fine just keeping it going.  That's great for that person, not so great for everyone else that has to pay for it. 

I always find it amusing one side keeps calling for tax increases....well, here's a tax increase that apparently that side doesn't like....ironic.

I have not argued for tax increases.  I have not argued that the tax system should be more "progressive."

I have argued that "THEY HAVE TO PAY SOMETHING!!!" attitude is condescending and patronizing.  But that's really who you are....so...I am not surprised.

[WarriorInNYC]

Unless I am mistaken, (I am an accountant, but not a tax expert) Marquette and its athletic programs  are IRS-recognized Not For Profits, so the income would not be taxable to Marquette. I don't think that Marquette is really affected by whether or not the required donations are tax-deductible by the ticketholder, other than any impact it would have on demand.

Ahhh, you are correct.  I had mistakenly forgot that Marquette and the athletic programs are Not For Profits.  So yes, it would not be taxable income.

[warriorchick]

Ahhh, you are correct.  I had mistakenly forgot that Marquette and the athletic programs are Not For Profits.  So yes, it would not be taxable income.

Not yet, anyways.   

[GGGG]

Ahhh, you are correct.  I had mistakenly forgot that Marquette and the athletic programs are Not For Profits.  So yes, it would not be taxable income.

Non-profits *can* have unrelated business income that is considered taxable if it is outside the intended purpose of the organization.  For instance, if Marquette decided to open a few bars around the City to generate some money, the net income from those would be considered taxable because the income isn't related to the charitable purpose of the organization.

The fear that Marquette (and others) have to live with is that right now athletic income (tickets, TV rights, donations) are considered "related income."  If Congress decides that athletic income is "unrelated," and therefore taxable, that is when the sh*t hits the fan.

[WarhawkWarrior]

Example: You purchase two preferred seats with a recommended $3,600 Blue & Gold Fund donation each. The tax deduction will be the $7,200 Blue & Gold Fund donation minus the cost of the parking pass ($340) multiplied by 80%. You would be allowed $5,488 in tax deductions.

Recommended Preferred Blue & Gold Fund Seat Donation   $7,200
Less: Cost of Parking   ($340)
Total Donation Less Benefits Received   $6,860
20 % IRS Discount   x .80
IRS Tax Deduction   $5,488

In this case where a premium seat buyer of two premium seats, they would lose the $5488 deduction or if we assume a 35% tax bracket (fed + state) they would lose $1,920 out of their pocket.  Crazy!  It will drive people to less expensive seats and the B&G will be stressed.

Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.

This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop.  Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper.  Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%.  Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it.  There is a pretty significant incentive to do nothing.  BP couldn't even hire locals at $15 an hour for the Gulf oil spill.
They ended up housing people from as far away as New York. 

[reinko]

Example: You purchase two preferred seats with a recommended $3,600 Blue & Gold Fund donation each. The tax deduction will be the $7,200 Blue & Gold Fund donation minus the cost of the parking pass ($340) multiplied by 80%. You would be allowed $5,488 in tax deductions.

Recommended Preferred Blue & Gold Fund Seat Donation   $7,200
Less: Cost of Parking   ($340)
Total Donation Less Benefits Received   $6,860
20 % IRS Discount   x .80
IRS Tax Deduction   $5,488

In this case where a premium seat buyer of two premium seats, they would lose the $5488 deduction or if we assume a 35% tax bracket (fed + state) they would lose $1,920 out of their pocket.  Crazy!  It will drive people to less expensive seats and the B&G will be stressed.

Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.

This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop.  Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper.  Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%.  Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it.  There is a pretty significant incentive to do nothing.  BP couldn't even hire locals at $15 an hour for the Gulf oil spill.
They ended up housing people from as far away as New York. 

So poor people and the elderly don't have to pay the gas tax? 

[Coleman]

Example: You purchase two preferred seats with a recommended $3,600 Blue & Gold Fund donation each. The tax deduction will be the $7,200 Blue & Gold Fund donation minus the cost of the parking pass ($340) multiplied by 80%. You would be allowed $5,488 in tax deductions.

Recommended Preferred Blue & Gold Fund Seat Donation   $7,200
Less: Cost of Parking   ($340)
Total Donation Less Benefits Received   $6,860
20 % IRS Discount   x .80
IRS Tax Deduction   $5,488

In this case where a premium seat buyer of two premium seats, they would lose the $5488 deduction or if we assume a 35% tax bracket (fed + state) they would lose $1,920 out of their pocket.  Crazy!  It will drive people to less expensive seats and the B&G will be stressed.

Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.

This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop.  Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper.  Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%.  Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it.  There is a pretty significant incentive to do nothing.  BP couldn't even hire locals at $15 an hour for the Gulf oil spill.
They ended up housing people from as far away as New York.  

If they have purchased their own gasoline, everyone who has driven over a bridge has helped build it. As far as I know, the government does not give poor people gasoline.

[brandx]

Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.

This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop.  Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper.  Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%.  Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it.

Wow. You say some good things here. But.... the bolded sentence? In the real world? Com'n, man.

[jesmu84]

i am really concerned that some here seem to there is something inherently wrong with the notion of trying to keep more of the money YOU/WE EARN.  the problem is, when one finds legitimate ways to KEEP some of their own hard earned money, they usually spend it somewhere, i.e. donations, luxury boxes, etc.  many of these expenditures lead to other areas that still benefit the government-buying goods and services that provide jobs which in turn generate many other taxes-sales, gas, income etc. i am a  believer that we, the people can spend our money better and more efficient than the gubmint-that of course is a whole notha subject that would shirley get the "lock down" real quick-I have a toothache so fellas?

Trickle-down economics has been shown as ineffective

I agree with the flat tax as a percentage of income for EVERYONE. Caveats being that capital gains tax, estate/inheritance tax and poverty line also be raised.

[warriorchick]

Trickle-down economics has been shown as ineffective

I agree with the flat tax as a percentage of income for EVERYONE. Caveats being that capital gains tax, estate/inheritance tax and poverty line also be raised.

The estate tax is the most B.S. tax there is.  That wealth has already been taxed at least once as income.  Why should dying be a taxable event? If some geezer blows his savings on booze and whores, the government wouldn't see a penny of it.  But if he lives beneath his means so he can leave something (especially something like a family business) to his loved ones, the government swoops in and takes a huge cut off of the top.

[WarhawkWarrior]

I just notice the "no politics" rule on this board.  I believe tax code changes affecting our student athletes by impacting donations is absurd but I apologize that it has gone the usual route of libs vs libertarians.

[rocky_warrior]

I just notice the "no politics" rule on this board.  I believe tax code changes affecting our student athletes by impacting donations is absurd but I apologize that it has gone the usual route of libs vs libertarians.

I've been letting this one slide for the most part.  But try to keep if on the topic of ticket deductions (I know, there have already been several that were not....)

[chapman]

Though I don't want a bunch of mostly-political threads filling the 'bar, this has been more civil than the average Buzz / Crean debate thread, I'll give it that.  We should have a giant religious debate next.