President's Budget Eliminates Donation Expense for Tix

[jficke13]

I hope he comes after your mortgage interest deduction next.

Yes, let's remove tax-based incentives for behavior that virtually everyone agrees is a net positive for society! Disincentivize home ownership! The proletariat rents!

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Yes, let's remove tax-based incentives for behavior that virtually everyone agrees is a net positive for society! Disincentivize home ownership! The proletariat rents!

The home building market cheers your comment.

[g0lden3agle]

You're playing semantics. The reason that people make a donation is to get better seating at the Bradley Center. Your seating selection is not a charity.

But the fact remains it's a donation.  It's going to a charitable fund.  That is above the face value of the ticket.  That is tax deductible.  

The IRS limits charitable deductions in certain circumstances, including:

Donation for which you got something in return. Say you bought theater tickets at a charity auction. You can deduct only the amount you paid over the tickets’ face value.

[jficke13]

The home building market cheers your comment.

The housing rental industry cheers yours.

[GGGG]

You're playing semantics. The reason that people make a donation is to get better seating at the Bradley Center. Your seating selection is not a charity.

People make donations for all sorts of reasons.  The point of the charitable deduction on income taxes isn't to address the motivation of the donors, but because society as a whole wants to encourage support for charity.

The money that is donated does not go for entertainment expenses.  It goes to support scholarships for student athletes to attend Marquette.  They came up with the 80% rule because donors did receive a tangible personal benefit in return.  (The ability to purchase upgraded seats.)

Again if you think this tax rule is screwed up, I can't wait until you own a house, have kids in college, run a side business, have rental property, etc.  This rule will seem logical and straightforward in comparison.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The housing rental industry cheers yours.

Ok? So why exactly do you think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the housing market? Because you own a house?

[g0lden3agle]

Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.

Why would you want the money going somewhere else other than athletic scholarships?

[mu_hilltopper]

Guys .. it's pretty clear that C_i is not interested in understanding the subject, just wants to dig his hole deeper.

Give up, move on.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again, money you are paying to enhance your seating at the Bradley Center is not going to a charity. It's going towards your personal entertainment dollars. This isn't hard.

And there we have it.....the cherry on top that you absolutely do not understand what you are talking about.  Apparently, for you, it is hard.  Those dollars ARE going to charity. 

[Lennys Tap]

Everybody agrees the tax code is a mess - until it comes to their own precious deductions. Blow it up. No deductions, low, flat rate. Fair, transparent.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It took Obama six plus years, but he finally has me agreeing with him on something.

The only way we're going to get our federal budget in line is eliminating the ridiculous deductions like these, even if it causes some heartburn among the sweater vests on Scoop.

I hope he comes after your mortgage interest deduction next.

I'm fine with getting rid of the mortgage deduction....flat tax.  EVERYONE pays.  Solved. No more deductions.  No more handouts.  No more special cutouts.  Solved.

Now, back to your inability in the current tax structure to understand this is a donation.  You are buying the seats, the rest goes to charity.  Does it entice you to pay more to get better seats?  Absolutely.  That does NOT change the fact the $$$$ is going to charity.

This isn't hard.

[jsglow]

Guys .. it's pretty clear that C_i is not interested in understanding the subject, just wants to dig his hole deeper.

Give up, move on.

+1

Thanks.

It might be interesting to discuss if the MU model (ticket price plus required BG donation) is now the standard for high major football and basketball programs across the country.  I haven't researched but I suspect it is.  No doubt that eliminating the deduction for the charitable portion materially increases the cost and would lower demand across the board.  Simple micro economics.

[GGGG]

Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.

Why are you throwing out phrases like "pretend do-gooders?"  Why do you care about someone's motivations for making a charitable gift?  

Now, back to your inability in the current tax structure to understand this is a donation.  You are buying the seats, the rest goes to charity.  Does it entice you to pay more to get better seats?  Absolutely.  That does NOT change the fact the $$$$ is going to charity.

This isn't hard.

Exactly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.

You are mixing your arguments.  Not everyone is buying tickets to help student athletes.  There are some on this very board that could give two craps about women's sports, have a just win baby attitude, don't care if they go to class, think this is basically a minor professional league.  Guess what, their money is green also and if they want better seats it goes to scholarships.  Not everyone is in it to do "good".  Some are.  Some need the enticement.

Your argument could be made across the board in most charitable donations, be it goods or services.  Why donate a used car to Kars for Kids when I could sell it?  Tax writeoff.  

[mu03eng]

+1

Thanks.

It might be interesting to discuss if the MU model (ticket price plus required BG donation) is now the standard for high major football and basketball programs across the country.  I haven't researched but I suspect it is.  No doubt that eliminating the deduction for the charitable portion materially increases the cost and would lower demand across the board.  Simple micro economics.

It is the standard virtually across the board.

I doubt this deduction gets eliminated, but this is one of those subtle changes that upsets the apple cart with regards to college athletics and the money train.

<none of the following is an endorsement of a position, simply laying out the probable scenario as I see it>
If the donation gets eliminated, it will have a chilling effect on overall ticket sales, decreasing revenue generated by revenue sports.  This decrease will mostly hit the non-revenue sports as that is how they are funded.  This will be coupled with the new total cost of attendance arms race that will escalate the cost side at the same time the revenue side decreases.  Some schools with rabid, monied fan bases will be able to ride through but less significant schools will have very tough decisions to make.  As a consequence all sports suffer and we have a very tiered college sports scene with maybe 30-50 schools being the top tier and everyone else below.  TV revenue then follows that trend, with the gap widening further.  Whole thing could collapse as well depending on the TV revenue bubble thats going to pop at some point, and/or anti-trust litigation.

This is chaos theory in practice....this tax change is one of many "butterflies" that could flap their wings altering the entire system.

Again, I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad idea, but it is an idea with potentially profound impact that should be assessed before changing willy nilly.

[jficke13]

Ok? So why exactly do you think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the housing market? Because you own a house?

I rent.

[jficke13]

I'm fine with getting rid of the mortgage deduction....flat tax.  EVERYONE pays.  Solved. No more deductions.  No more handouts.  No more special cutouts.  Solved.
...

If C_i doesn't like tax code-based incentives for behaviors like charitable giving (or at least charitable giving to causes, funds, or in ways he doesn't agree with), then this is certainly an option that might appeal to him.

[jficke13]

Is C_i's objection to the deduction that the season ticket holder gets something in return? i.e. donation for better seats? Do you have the same objection to going to to a charity dinner for cancer research and being able to write off the donation/cost of doing so because you got a piece of steak and a glass of cab out of the deal?

[jsglow]

It is the standard virtually across the board.

I doubt this deduction gets eliminated, but this is one of those subtle changes that upsets the apple cart with regards to college athletics and the money train.

<none of the following is an endorsement of a position, simply laying out the probable scenario as I see it>
If the donation gets eliminated, it will have a chilling effect on overall ticket sales, decreasing revenue generated by revenue sports.  This decrease will mostly hit the non-revenue sports as that is how they are funded.  This will be coupled with the new total cost of attendance arms race that will escalate the cost side at the same time the revenue side decreases.  Some schools with rabid, monied fan bases will be able to ride through but less significant schools will have very tough decisions to make.  As a consequence all sports suffer and we have a very tiered college sports scene with maybe 30-50 schools being the top tier and everyone else below.  TV revenue then follows that trend, with the gap widening further.  Whole thing could collapse as well depending on the TV revenue bubble thats going to pop at some point, and/or anti-trust litigation.

This is chaos theory in practice....this tax change is one of many "butterflies" that could flap their wings altering the entire system.

Again, I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad idea, but it is an idea with potentially profound impact that should be assessed before changing willy nilly.

Who said you engineers couldn't think like businessmen?  

[rocky_warrior]

Well, honestly this isn't that big of deal.  While I'd love to see sweeping tax changes like a flat tax, that's not likely.

Instead, MU (and other schools) will no longer have the required (not optional as some have stated) donation for better seats -- but seating will be even more closely tied to a point system that is heavily weighted to current year (or prior year) donations.

i.e. - a higher number of "current year" B&G points will enable seating in better seats.  It's just that that number won't be a set amount.  Heck, without the amount being stated, B&G might even rake in more money each year.

[warriorchick]

From the little bit of reading I have done regarding this budget, it appears that it is basically a gigantic F.U. to the Republican Congress.  It has tons of stuff The President knows will never get through on both the spending and the revenue sides.

My favorite part is that it is $3.99 trillion.  Why not make it an even 4?  I guess a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.

[jsglow]

Well, honestly this isn't that big of deal.  While I'd love to see sweeping tax changes like a flat tax, that's not likely.

Instead, MU (and other schools) will no longer have the required (not optional as some have stated) donation for better seats -- but seating will be even more closely tied to a point system that is heavily weighted to current year (or prior year) donations.

i.e. - a higher number of "current year" B&G points will enable seating in better seats.  It's just that that number won't be a set amount.  Heck, without the amount being stated, B&G might even rake in more money each year.

That may be true rocky but you must account for the real cost of a season ticket.  What's being proposed alters that significantly.  It is not simply a scoring system.  Tax consequences of any purchase/sale transaction are real and are absolutely taken into account by rational parties.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Is C_i's objection to the deduction that the season ticket holder gets something in return?

Yes. And that "something in return" is clearly a substitution for paying higher tickets, which are non-tax deductible.

[Coleman]

Everybody agrees the tax code is a mess - until it comes to their own precious deductions. Blow it up. No deductions, low, flat rate. Fair, transparent.

I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.

The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently pay far and away the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.