Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Taxes and Olympic winnings.Follow

#27 Aug 04 2012 at 11:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Deployed soldiers don't pay taxes, why should "deployed" athletes representing their country be any different? The amount these athletes are "earning" during these 17 days of games is far less than a soldier on a 14 month deployment.


You can't be serious...

Both are serving their country. Both have made sacrifices to get there. Outside of combat/non-combat, there aren't too many differences between them. Not to mention that 90% of the athletes won't earn medals, whereas 100% of deployed soldiers do earn a paycheck. My guess is that if this has been proposed by a "liberal" member of Congress, you guys would think it a fantastic idea.

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 11:13am by Kastigir


How many of our returning troops will be offered multi-million dollar endorsement offers?


Counting Pat Tillman, negative one.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#28 Aug 04 2012 at 11:47 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,283 posts
Technogeek wrote:
How many of our returning troops will be offered multi-million dollar endorsement offers?
I hear ieatmice is shooting an "Secret" commercial.

EDIT:

Timelordwho wrote:
Counting Pat Tillman, negative one.
Too soon?


Edited, Aug 4th 2012 11:48pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#29 Aug 06 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 posts
Technogeek wrote:
How many of our returning troops will be offered multi-million dollar endorsement offers?
Do we count the ones that go on the talk show circuits, or ones that retire and start being "experts" on all the 24 Hour news networks?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Aug 06 2012 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Deployed soldiers don't pay taxes, why should "deployed" athletes representing their country be any different? The amount these athletes are "earning" during these 17 days of games is far less than a soldier on a 14 month deployment.


You can't be serious...

Both are serving their country. Both have made sacrifices to get there. Outside of combat/non-combat, there aren't too many differences between them. Not to mention that 90% of the athletes won't earn medals, whereas 100% of deployed soldiers do earn a paycheck. My guess is that if this has been proposed by a "liberal" member of Congress, you guys would think it a fantastic idea.

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 11:13am by Kastigir


How many of our returning troops will be offered multi-million dollar endorsement offers?


Counting Pat Tillman, negative one.


Err, maybe Brian Stann can get 'em back to even?
#31 Aug 07 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
He's not really getting them for the service though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Aug 07 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
How many of our returning troops will be offered multi-million dollar endorsement offers?
Do we count the ones that go on the talk show circuits, or ones that retire and start being "experts" on all the 24 Hour news networks?

Or a movie consultant, like George Clooney in Three Kings?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#33 Aug 07 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Working expenses are a tax writeoff for olympic atheletes. That includes equipment costs, training costs, room rentals, travel expendatures, paying an expoensive coach, etc. A Smart medal winner, assuming they don't make anywhere near as much money on endorsements as say your typical Michael Phelps probably won't pay a dime of taxes out of their own pocket simply because training for the olympics is generally really, really expensive unless you are getting everything donated, in which case yeah, you're probably going to pay a bit.


Pretty much this. It's a non issue IMO. We tax prizes and awards. It's not like someone singled out Olympic athletes or anything. And, as Kao correctly points out, they can deduct all the costs for their training from the value of any prize they win. For most of them, the costs outweigh the dollar reward, so there's no real tax involved. For those who do get major sponsorships and endorsement deals, the tax on their medals relative to the money they'll make because of them, is a really small amount.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Aug 08 2012 at 4:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
It's not like someone singled out Olympic athletes or anything.


That's actually exactly what Rubio did.

Did you not know or are you lying on purpose?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#35 Aug 08 2012 at 4:30 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
It's not like someone singled out Olympic athletes or anything.


That's actually exactly what Rubio did.

Did you not know or are you lying on purpose?


Gbaji means that no one targeted Olympians specifically for the taxes, not for the lack of taxes. Everyone gets their winnings taxed as income.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#36 Aug 08 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
I should only be taxed on the five bucks I spent on lottery tickets, not the two-hundred fifty million I won. Smiley: motz
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Aug 08 2012 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
We don't tax lottery winnings in Canada. Of course, we also don't have $250million draws.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#38 Aug 08 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
Our lotteries aren't taxed because they are all for charity and charitable causes aren't taxed in Canada.
#39 Aug 08 2012 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
I had no idea that the crown operated lottery corporations gave all of that money to charities...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#40 Aug 08 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
Yep

That is the Ontario regulatory body for all gaming and lotteries. (other provinces have their own setups)

Basically it's all a non-profit venture and all proceeds are intended for the betterment of society. The exception being reserve casinos which are a bit of a grey area but basically squeak by because we consider reserves to be a kind of charity for the sake of taxes.

That of course is an obviously biased link. Frankly I'm not invested enough to track down other links. It's effectively illegal to run a cash lottery in Canada without it being for some sort of charitable or at least non-profit cause since all lottery and gaming activities have to run through the respective province's gaming commission and said commissions distribute the revenue to various non-profits. Of course, nobody is going to hassle you for running a 50/50 draw in your office since it's not exactly a capital offense but if you're making any real money at it (say you make your own lottery tickets and sell them out of a store) they'll shut you down pretty quick.

Edited, Aug 8th 2012 3:29pm by Yodabunny
#41 Aug 08 2012 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Your link doesn't say what you think it says. Matter of fact, it flat out states that $2 billion went to the government of which $1.8billion was used for hospitals, other health related programs and other provincial priorities.

Some of it goes to charities, but the largest chunk goes back to the government itself. Or is the government a charity now?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Aug 09 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Or is the government a charity now?
"For only a percentage of your earnings, you can keep these talentless and skill-less individuals living a lifestyle they're accustomed to."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Aug 09 2012 at 7:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Matter of fact, it flat out states that $2 billion went to the government of which $1.8billion was used for hospitals, other health related programs and other provincial priorities.

Some of it goes to charities, but the largest chunk goes back to the government itself. Or is the government a charity now?


Provincial portion from the link:
$120 million – Gaming proceeds made available to the Ontario Trillium Foundation for local and provincial charities
$10 million – Support for amateur athletes through the QUEST FOR GOLD program
$1.8 billion – Hospitals, health-related programs and other provincial priorities


Hospitals are non-profits in Canada. This effectively makes most of the lottery profits a donation to hospitals. Not sure why that wouldn't be classed as charity. The other two provincial government amounts are obvious charities.

Edit: Ah Provincial priorities, yes that's quite vague I'll have to look into that. I can tell you that lottery money is not intended to make anyone rich it is entirely designated to the betterment of society through forms of charity (or supposed to be at least). I've worked with these people in the past, they're very very **** about how money is designated.


Edited, Aug 9th 2012 10:02am by Yodabunny
#44 Aug 09 2012 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Both are serving their country. Both have made sacrifices to get there. Outside of combat/non-combat, there aren't too many differences between them. Not to mention that 90% of the athletes won't earn medals, whereas 100% of deployed soldiers do earn a paycheck. My guess is that if this has been proposed by a "liberal" member of Congress, you guys would think it a fantastic idea.


Except for the ones that die.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#45 Aug 09 2012 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
I wouldn't refer to Government run health care as charity.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#46 Aug 09 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I wouldn't refer to Government run health care as charity.
Death camps!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Aug 09 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I wouldn't refer to Government run health care as charity.


On the flip side though, if you're going to fund government run health care, doing so via a lottery (aka: tax on the stupid) is a better way than by taxing success.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 09 2012 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm sure lottery money is great for funding specific projects and improvements and the like, but it's a pretty terrible way to fund something with a budget.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#49 Aug 09 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm sure lottery money is great for funding specific projects and improvements and the like, but it's a pretty terrible way to fund something with a budget.


I agree, a proper Skinner box needs more frequent, smaller rewards. Smiley: nod

Also there's something ironic about exploiting an addiction to fund a hospital or whatnot.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Aug 09 2012 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm sure lottery money is great for funding specific projects and improvements and the like, but it's a pretty terrible way to fund something with a budget.


I'd actually argue the other way around (shocking, I know!). The only reason I can think of why it might be a "terrible way to fund something" would be because of the variability of the revenue stream. But I think that's more problematic for programs which don't have set budgets than those that do. A non-discretionary item will be funded X dollars this year. So if your lottery revenue generates more than X, you've paid for it and the remainder can go into the pool for funding discretionary stuff. If your lottery generates less than X, then you've directly reduced the amount of other taxes you have to raise to pay for that thing, thus lifting the tax burden for something like health care somewhat.

Doing it the other way around is a recipe for those programs growing unnecessarily during high volume years (cause I've never met a government program that can't find ways to spend money if its available), then being unable (or unwilling) to cut that spending level when lottery revenues are down. So what happens is you think "we can use this lottery money to fund new projects A, B, and C and it wont cost the taxpayers a dime!". But it's folly to think that you can just fund them year to year based on the lottery revenue. It just wont work. And it'll always be the highest amount that ends out being used, resulting in greater overall tax burden over time, not lower.


This is the same kind of thinking that got California in so much economic trouble. When property values were high, the state was raking in the money. Because it had extra money, it spent the extra money. Our budget more or less doubled in size over a ten year period of time. Then, when the housing market crashed, the revenue stream dwindled, and resulted in massive deficits. But now that they've already created all that new spending, they can't figure out how to cut it. Had they never had access to that revenue in the first place, they'd have no problem at all managing. It's one of the reasons I don't see increasing revenue as a viable solution to a deficit problem. When you increase revenue, you *will* see increased spending down the line. Government (**** most people) can't help but increase spending to use up all the revenue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Aug 10 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm sure lottery money is great for funding specific projects and improvements and the like, but it's a pretty terrible way to fund something with a budget.


You have to keep in mind though it's not like we're going to stop treating people when the budget runs out. This is health care, not tourism. It's an absolute necessity, the health care system will just go into debt and keep on keeping on so a 1.8 Billion dollar donation from people's discretionary income through a voluntary lottery is a pretty **** good way to add some funds to the system, fund some extra research, hire a few more doctors etc all while giving people a little thrill while they check their numbers. It's a no loss situation.

Not only that but most winners end up donating a good chunk of money to various charities.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 126 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (126)