Tax break for Olympic medalists? 1 guy votes no - what do you think?

[ringer]

Congress just voted on a bill that would give Olympic medalists a tax break on the USOC bonuses they earn for winning medals at the Games. Note: athletes who earn $1 million or more would not get the tax break.

One Congressman voted no. The comments from NYT readers were overwhelmingly on his side.

What do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/sports/olympics/american-athlete-tax-break-vote.html

 

[Buck]

No, there should be no tax break on the bonuses.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Yeah, I don't get it.

 

[SpeedTchr]

It's income just like the $25 a week I get for mowing old man Garcia's lawn. Tax it.

 

[FileNotFound]

Tax it.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Intellectually, tax it. Why's it different than the award any Joe gets from corporate, or a 1000 yard bonus for an NFL player, or anything else?

Then again there's a tax breaks for everything under the sun so why the hell not shoot through one more

 

[old_tony]

If you win an Olympic medal and don't cash in with at least some endorsements, you're doing it wrong. Each Olympic medalist is going to have significant endorsements. Why are we treating them as paupers in need of a tax break? More important, tax breaks should be used as a way to stimulate economies. What economic gains are to be had from this tax break?

 

[dixiehack]

If you win an Olympic medal and don't cash in with at least some endorsements, you're doing it wrong. Each Olympic medalist is going to have significant endorsements. Why are we treating them as paupers in need of a tax break? More important, tax breaks should be used as a way to stimulate economies. What economic gains are to be had from this tax break?

Eh, not much cashing in for rowers or fencers or modern pentathletes. They might get a few hundred for signing autographs down at the hometown Chevy dealership one Saturday if they're lucky.

Still though, I don't see the need in a tax break.

 

[User 11148]

What economic gains are to be had from this tax break?

Some members of Congress will be more likely to keep their jobs?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Two things always come to my mind whenever tax-related things come up.

1) Why can't we just treat everyone equally? If there is going to be an income tax, why can't we just make it a straight income tax. Stop cutting out a gazillion exceptions, one more complicated than the next -- usually in the name of how they are going to induce certain behaviors they think are beneficial (and always getting wrong, because they end up creating problems they didn't foresee). For one thing, you would cut out all of the corruption that has taken hold, of people being able to buy off politicians for legislated tax benefits -- the kinds that have turned our code into a tangled mess that is selectively and unevenly enforced (based on political grudges). And for another, it would make compliance so much easier and save billions of dollars. We waste so much money that could be used way more productively because of this mess we have created.

2) When did this notion take hold of someone not wanting to hand over their income or wealth in taxes make them a bad person or a criminal or somehow suspect? At worst, if you use that tangled tax code we have to minimize your tax burden (to zero if you are able to), all you have done is act within the ****ty tax code and held onto YOUR money. I know others disagree, but to me there is no virtue in handing over what you have earned to some authority that figuratively holds a gun to your head. Why is that virtuous? Especially if you are like me and see budgets of trillions of dollars of runaway bureaucracy, special-interest corruption, interest on runaway debt and unsustainable entitlement schemes that have gotten out of control, being what you are being forced to fund. The populist blather that has led to this notion of "pay your fair share" is beyond me. There is no "fair share," unless you start off from the vantage point of the mob having a claim on what others have earned. And there aren't enough rich people, anyhow, to demonize and pick the pockets of for the mess we have already created. The rhetoric reminds me a bit of Orwell's 1984 where they created a perpetual war to distract the public from reality. We sure have come a long way from the Stamp Act in the mid 1700s, when being forced to pay a tax actually brought about revolt and played a part in leading to a revolution.

 

[User 11148]

Why can't we just treat everyone equally? If there is going to be an income tax, why can't we just make it a straight income tax[?]

Because the people who influence the people who write the laws, and the people who help people navigate the laws, would have to go find something else to do?

 

[Starman]

Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. You want tax-free nirvana, go live in Somalia.

 

[User 11148]

Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. You want tax-free nirvana, go live in Somalia.

You're so deep ...

 

[MisterCreosote]

America: If you can dream it, we can tax it.

 

[bigpern23]

Two things always come to my mind whenever tax-related things come up.

1) Why can't we just treat everyone equally? If there is going to be an income tax, why can't we just make it a straight income tax. Stop cutting out a gazillion exceptions, one more complicated than the next -- usually in the name of how they are going to induce certain behaviors they think are beneficial (and always getting wrong, because they end up creating problems they didn't foresee). For one thing, you would cut out all of the corruption that has taken hold, of people being able to buy off politicians for legislated tax benefits -- the kinds that have turned our code into a tangled mess that is selectively and unevenly enforced (based on political grudges). And for another, it would make compliance so much easier and save billions of dollars. We waste so much money that could be used way more productively because of this mess we have created.

2) When did this notion take hold of someone not wanting to hand over their income or wealth in taxes make them a bad person or a criminal or somehow suspect? At worst, if you use that tangled tax code we have to minimize your tax burden (to zero if you are able to), all you have done is act within the ****ty tax code and held onto YOUR money. I know others disagree, but to me there is no virtue in handing over what you have earned to some authority that figuratively holds a gun to your head. Why is that virtuous? Especially if you are like me and see budgets of trillions of dollars of runaway bureaucracy, special-interest corruption, interest on runaway debt and unsustainable entitlement schemes that have gotten out of control, being what you are being forced to fund. The populist blather that has led to this notion of "pay your fair share" is beyond me. There is no "fair share," unless you start off from the vantage point of the mob having a claim on what others have earned. And there aren't enough rich people, anyhow, to demonize and pick the pockets of for the mess we have already created. The rhetoric reminds me a bit of Orwell's 1984 where they created a perpetual war to distract the public from reality. We sure have come a long way from the Stamp Act in the mid 1700s, when being forced to pay a tax actually brought about revolt and played a part in leading to a revolution.

I largely agree with this post. However, as it pertains to the GOP candidate, we are seeing that he is using his "charitable" foundation - and likely other means - to skirt the tax laws and commit fraud on his way to paying no taxes.

And I think for most of us, it's hard to fathom finding enough legal deductions to reduce our tax rate to $0.

 

[JC]

You're so deep ...

That's not what she said.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Two things always come to my mind whenever tax-related things come up.

1) Why can't we just treat everyone equally? If there is going to be an income tax, why can't we just make it a straight income tax. Stop cutting out a gazillion exceptions, one more complicated than the next -- usually in the name of how they are going to induce certain behaviors they think are beneficial (and always getting wrong, because they end up creating problems they didn't foresee). For one thing, you would cut out all of the corruption that has taken hold, of people being able to buy off politicians for legislated tax benefits -- the kinds that have turned our code into a tangled mess that is selectively and unevenly enforced (based on political grudges). And for another, it would make compliance so much easier and save billions of dollars. We waste so much money that could be used way more productively because of this mess we have created.

It's how we provide incentive for behavior that we want to encourage and disincentive for behavior we want to discourage. Having and caring for children benefits society, but is expensive. A tax break mitigates against the cost. Same with charity. This was also true about home ownership, though I can imagine someone wanting to revisit that decision.
I agree that there are real inefficiencies in the system, but we know why it exists. And without it, we would need a replacement.

 

[The Big Ragu]

It's how we provide incentive for behavior that we want to encourage and disincentive for behavior we want to discourage. Having and caring for children benefits society, but is expensive. A tax break mitigates against the cost. Same with charity. This was also true about home ownership, though I can imagine someone wanting to revisit that decision.
I agree that there are real inefficiencies in the system, but we know why it exists. And without it, we would need a replacement.

Our tax code does an excellent job of demonstrating to people how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

I'd also suggest stopping the feckless attempts at trying to encourage and discourage behaviors that have randomly gotten decided are good or bad. ... and let people figure out what they value (and how much it means to them) for themselves.

As for the reality (because that is NOT how our overly-complicated tax code has come about anyhow), I'd just get rid of the corruption in which some entities are rewarded at the expense of others (which creates economic costs) based on what politicians they have in their pockets.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I'd also suggest stopping the feckless attempts at trying to encourage and discourage behaviors that have randomly gotten decided are good or bad. ... and let people figure out what they value (and how much it means to them) for themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by this part.

 

[Buck]

In some cases, the government should not be in the business of encouraging or sanctioning behaviors once deemed beneficial in an outdated mindset.

Monogamy and children are prime examples. These are two distinct elements and covered distinctly as possible tax relief.

However, the model and notion of state-sanctioned monogamy is outdated. There is no overt benefit to citizens as a whole for the government to promote state-sanctioned monogamy. The issue is not one of heterosexual and homosexual inclusiveness; it is an issue of getting the government out of the business of sanctioning marital unions.

State-sanctioned monogamy is further outdated because state-sanctioned coupling does necessarily result in offspring, once considered a benefit to the citizenry. There is no equation in which marriage = children. Further, their are tax benefits available for children. Offering monetary benefits to monogamous unions AND bearing children is double dipping.

Lastly, have we not hit a population level at which child rearing is no longer an automatic benefit to the citizenry as a whole? Are we not currently at population level that will sustain a naturally occurring productive citizen replacement without the need for financial incentive?