I disagree with Rubio's "olympic tax exemption"

[swizzlee]

From what I can determine, Olympic medal winners have "always" paid taxes on their cash winnings. And since they must declare this money as income, I must assume they are also able to take deductions for "occupational expenses."

It is quite likely most end up paying no taxes at all.

Since there is no question our current tax law is unbearably burdonsome while giving massive tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, what we most need is TOTAL TAX REFORM.

And since it is the Pubs who have been calling for tax reform [See Ryan], I'm surprised Rubio feels this law is somehow necessary.

We do not need more tax "loopholes" and more pages added to our current 6-ft high stack of tax law. No, I cannot provide a link to my statement that our tax code stacks up 6 feet high so please don't ask

 

[flacaltenn]

Too early to tell WHO signs on to co-sponsor this idea.. Don't really see partisianship in the idea.

My question is -- why are these AMATEUR atheletes getting cash rewards? It's NOT a lot of money. It's the principle of the thing. If the Prez can take time to CALL these winners personally, my feeling is -- we can excuse them from having the govt take a cut..

 

[swizzlee]

I've not determined what Rubio's agenda, if any, may be for writing this bill.

Neither do I know why amateur athletes are now being paid upon winning. That's not really the concern here.

The fact is that they ARE being taxed as they should since it's clearly income. While we all applaud their individual talents and have the deepest respect for the efforts that went into them making the Olympics, it's also true that many go on to very financially successful careers after their wins.

I would compare this situation to the budding entrepreneur who works his ass off and invests every spare dime to start a business. Four years later after all those 80 hr weeks, he finally wins the gold and makes a profit. And Uncle Sam taxes him. Should he get an exemption?

Both of them made choices. Sometimes you win. sometimes you lose. But when you win, the taxman is always there.

This is nothing more than an emotional feel-good bill that only adds to the extreme clutter we call the US tax system.

As a side note, I don't see his bill helping him in any way to nabbing the VP spot. Just the opposite, I think it shows his political youthfulness and naivete.

 

[hortysir]

Wasn't there a rule, at one time, that forbid Olympic athletes from profiting else they'd be stripped of their medals???

 

[swizzlee]

Remembering Jim Thorpe?

Jim Thorpe Biography (Olympian/Football Player/Baseball Player) — Infoplease.com

There was no rule about "profiting from" that I'm aware of but there was a rule that you couldn't perform an athletic event for pay BEFORE entering the Olympics.

But now we have professionals such as hockey and basketball players that show that rule has been eliminated somewhere along the way.

 

[hortysir]

Remembering Jim Thorpe?

Jim Thorpe Biography (Olympian/Football Player/Baseball Player) — Infoplease.com

There was no rule about "profiting from" that I'm aware of but there was a rule that you couldn't perform an athletic event for pay BEFORE entering the Olympics.

But now we have professionals such as hockey and basketball players that show that rule has been eliminated somewhere along the way.

Thank you for that.

 

[Vidi]

this whole issue is trumped up.

The argument that a gold medal costs the athelete $9000 is absolute nonsense.

First, it assumes the athelete is being taxed at the the upper income bracket of 35% which the vast majority of these atheletes wouldnt even come close to entering that bracket.

Secondly it assumes that the atheletes will deduct NOTHING in terms of "business" expenses, which they are legally allowed to do as well. This includes training and travel costs.

This entire thing is just bullshit political theatre.

 

[swizzlee]

The argument that a gold medal costs

Who's making that argument?

First, it assumes.....Secondly it assumes

What is "it"? The argument? The bill? Link to your source for figures and percents, please?

You're not making yourself very clear here nor do I know whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion.

 

[FA_Q2]

From what I can determine, Olympic medal winners have "always" paid taxes on their cash winnings. And since they must declare this money as income, I must assume they are also able to take deductions for "occupational expenses."

It is quite likely most end up paying no taxes at all.

Since there is no question our current tax law is unbearably burdonsome while giving massive tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, what we most need is TOTAL TAX REFORM.

And since it is the Pubs who have been calling for tax reform [See Ryan], I'm surprised Rubio feels this law is somehow necessary.

We do not need more tax "loopholes" and more pages added to our current 6-ft high stack of tax law. No, I cannot provide a link to my statement that our tax code stacks up 6 feet high so please don't ask

This ^

We need to desperately remove loopholes in the asinine tax code, not be adding new ones. This is particularly true in cases like this where the loophole is entirely pointless anyway. What are they trying to do?

 

[Desperado]

I started the other thread on this subject and upon further review I am starting to change my opinion on this subject. First I don't think there should be any actual tax on the medals themselves.
However, Taxing their winnings is only fair. Why should Olympic athletes go tax free?
The point that they have deductions which will nullify the tax is well taken.

 

[Vidi]

The argument that a gold medal costs

Who's making that argument?

First, it assumes.....Secondly it assumes

What is "it"? The argument? The bill? Link to your source for figures and percents, please?

You're not making yourself very clear here nor do I know whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion.

Youre right. I didnt cite my sources. Mostly because it was all in my head already. Luckily, I was able to find some.

The 35-percent tax rate applies to both the prize money and the raw value of the medal itself. Americans for Tax reform calculates that according to today's commodity prices, the value of a gold medal is about $675, silver is worth $385 and a bronze medal is worth under $5.

Fla. Sen. Rubio introduces bill to make Olympic prizes tax-exempt - CBS News

they get their 35% from Grover Norquists Americans for Tax Relief site, where you can find a better table for this info:

Americans for Tax Reform : Win Olympic Gold, Pay the IRS

Gold
Medal Tax $236
Prize Tax $8,750
Total Tax Burden $8,986

Silver
Medal Tax $135
Prize Tax $5,250
Total Tax Burden $5,385

Bronze
Medal Tax $2
Prize Tax $3,500
Total Tax Burden $3,502

Still, the experts we spoke to suggested that a $9,000 tax payment was unrealistically high. For most athletes, the payment will be less, and possibly quite a bit less

Business expenses

An athlete who wins a medal bonus would be free to deduct any unreimbursed expenses from the bonus, lowering -- or maybe even eliminating -- their tax hit. In fact, accountants say an athlete would be crazy not to.

So expenses for gymnasts might include tumbling classes, payments to coaches and travel costs to international meets. Cyclists would pay for new bikes and maintenance. An Olympian fencer told Forbes.com that her expenses for equipment and competitions run around $20,000 per year.

Not every athlete earns as much as Michael Phelps

Though the data is incomplete, we did find one study conducted by the Track & Field Athletes Association that found that about half of track and field athletes who ranked in the top 10 in the U.S. in their event made less than $15,000 annually from the sport in sponsorship, grants and prize money. About 20 percent of such athletes made more than $50,000 annually. And beyond marquee athletes such as sprinters, milers and distance runners it's toughest of all, the study found.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tax-reform/do-olympic-medalists-owe-9000-irs/

Of course Norquists hack job artists came back with a rebuttal ( youll find a link to it at the bottom of politifacts page ) that consists of MOST and MANYs as a reasonable argtument for this nonsense issue.

So do I agree with YOU?

well, I guess that would be a no, but not bevause youre wrong, but because I think youre making the wrong argument. I think youre falling into their trap and arguing over the subject they want you to argue about rather than the fact that this entire argument is political theatre used only to show what good guys these Republicans are by trying to remove the tax burden from these atheletes.

Its grandstanding for grandstandings sake.

The PROOF is that they arent screaming from the tops of their lungs that Romneys plan would RAISE taxes on anyone making less than $30,000 a year. THAT plan theyre all good with.

 

[swizzlee]

OK - good job, thank you......

But here's where I need to disagree with you.

I dismissed Norquist a long time ago as an extremist. He is a serious problem for moderate, reasonable Pubs just as Soros is for the moderate Dems. So I'm not familiar with his gruntings.....or with the rebuttals from wherever they came from.

My argument did not stem from any political ideology but simply from what I see as a stark, in-your-face fact. Our tax system is fucked! And Rubio appears to wish to add to it [for whatever reason - I don't really care].

My solution? FIX it. Don't add to this cluster.

Falling into "their" trap? Whose trap? You've lost me on that one. If applying cold, hard logic to what I see as an ongoing problem built brick by brick over decades of bi-partisan decisions is the definition of falling into a trap, may I suggest that perhaps about 51% of our voting population should fall into that same trap by USING THEIR HEADS once in a while instead of catering to blind party politics.

And, once again, your frequent use of "they" leaves me wondering who you're talking about.

This is not about politics at all and I don't care who's screaming or not screaming about whatever you think Romney's "plan" might be. He's not the focus of this debate.

The debate is simple - do you believe more exemptions should be added to our tax system or should we be attempting to simplify it?

 

[Vidi]

OK - good job, thank you......

But here's where I need to disagree with you.

I dismissed Norquist a long time ago as an extremist. He is a serious problem for moderate, reasonable Pubs just as Soros is for the moderate Dems. So I'm not familiar with his gruntings.....or with the rebuttals from wherever they came from.

My argument did not stem from any political ideology but simply from what I see as a stark, in-your-face fact. Our tax system is fucked! And Rubio appears to wish to add to it [for whatever reason - I don't really care].

My solution? FIX it. Don't add to this cluster.

Falling into "their" trap? Whose trap? You've lost me on that one. If applying cold, hard logic to what I see as an ongoing problem built brick by brick over decades of bi-partisan decisions is the definition of falling into a trap, may I suggest that perhaps about 51% of our voting population should fall into that same trap by USING THEIR HEADS once in a while instead of catering to blind party politics.

And, once again, your frequent use of "they" leaves me wondering who you're talking about.

This is not about politics at all and I don't care who's screaming or not screaming about whatever you think Romney's "plan" might be. He's not the focus of this debate.

The debate is simple - do you believe more exemptions should be added to our tax system or should we be attempting to simplify it?

If that is the parameters of the debate, then I say simplify do not complicate.

however, while YOU may dismiss Norquist, Rubio only brought this bill up because of the work of Norquist. Therefore he is far from irrelevent to the discussion.

BUT...because it is your thread and I do not wish to derail your thread I shall stay within your defined parameters of the debate.

 

[swizzlee]

Great! We agree.......!

Now if you want to debate why Rubio did or did not write this bill, I will also debate within your parameters.

Done deal!!

 

[Vidi]

Great! We agree.......!

Now if you want to debate why Rubio did or did not write this bill, I will also debate within your parameters.

Done deal!!

LOL


in that case...Rubio introduced this legislation for the reasons Ive already described...political theatre in an election year.

 

[swizzlee]

And I suspect you're right.

I don't know of any other reason for it.

See?? Wasn't that easy?

:-D

 

[Vidi]

And I suspect you're right.

I don't know of any other reason for it.

See?? Wasn't that easy?

:-D

LOL I thought my original consent to your proposition was implied. My mistake

 

[Politico]

First, it assumes the athelete is being taxed at the the upper income bracket of 35% which the vast majority of these atheletes wouldnt even come close to entering that bracket.

Yes and when they get done filing their taxes they will get most of it back like anyone else.