Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Crazy lefties that want to continuously raise the taxes received from corporations don't seem to understand (or just don't care, as the left never met a tax it didn't like) that the CUSTOMERS of those corporations pay the taxes thru higher prices.

I don't see a problem.

We had a great real world example that shows just how stupid that argument really is recently. I think it was last year.

When congress let one of our many funding/appropriation bills expire last year they also let the funding for the FAA expire.

Which also meant that the taxes on the airlines & consumers expired. The airlines collect those taxes on tickets, but for a short time last year they were gone. $25 million a day that the airlines didn't have to send to the mean old government.

So according to the usual "taxes are being passed on the consumers!" argument we should have seen savings for all the consumers right?

Nope, instead of passing on the savings (if taxes get passed on to the consumers, then getting rid of taxes would be better for consumers right?) they raised their fares and kept the difference. Who would have thought....

Sources:

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2011/07/faa-taxes-go-away-which-airlines-are-passing-the-savings-to-customers/

http://consumerist.com/2011/07/airlines-not-passing-on-savings-of-not-having-to-pay-faa-taxes.html

Mannahnin wrote:Our government doesn't sponsor our Olympic athletes.

Of course it does. They don't have to be on the government payroll in order for government to give them a massive boost in training facilities and professional coaching staff.

Phanatik wrote:Crazy lefties that want to continuously raise the taxes received from corporations don't seem to understand (or just don't care, as the left never met a tax it didn't like) that the CUSTOMERS of those corporations pay the taxes thru higher prices.

No, it doesn't work like that. First of all, like fraz said your claim above assumes zero competition. It also assumes no price sensitivity on the part of the consumer. In any situation other than zero competition/zero price sensitivity (ie 99.99% of all markets) then the corporation's optimal response will only pass on some portion of the cost (the exact amount being dependant on market conditions).

Second of all, there's the issue that company tax is targetted at profits. A company will do anything to maximise profits regardless of tax policy, so if there is scope to raise prices on consumers to increase revenue, they will do that regardless of tax policy.

So, like you having complaints about tax policy despite having no idea how tax policy actually worked, you've also decide to complain about other people's economic policies even though you have no idea how economics actually works.

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Our government doesn't sponsor our Olympic athletes.

Of course it does. They don't have to be on the government payroll in order for government to give them a massive boost in training facilities and professional coaching staff.

No, no Olympic athlete receives any funding from the US Gov. The USOC receives no continuous financial assistance from the U.S. government. As a non-profit organization, the USOC is wholly dependent on private contributions and corporate sponsorship. They are the ones that provide training and coaching.

There was a rather famous instance were the US ice skating team would be unable to attend due to lack of funds until they were sponsored by stephan colbert and the 'cobert nation'

Phanatik wrote:

pretre wrote:

Phanatik wrote:"Some" is right, as about 47% of Americans pay NO income taxes.

That oft-quoted fact doesn't seem to hold up. Someone pulled this on another forum and then couldn't back it up with data.

First of all, I reserve the right to express my opinion with absolutely no concern for producing one shred of evidence to support it. If it floats someone's boat (and they can do so) to produce evidence to refute my opinion, so be it. I'm a big boy and I can take it.

It appears no one else seems to have caught this gem, or, quite possibly - and reasonably - decided a sentiment this silly didn't actually merit refuting. But, just for the sake of completeness, I'd like to point out there is a difference between stating an opinion, and stating a fact. Stating that 47% of all Americans pay no income tax is not an opinion. Stating that "too many people don't pay adequate taxes" is an opinion.

Personally I like the part where a self-proclaimed "big boy" openly talks about putting people on ignore.

Maybe its just me, but that seems like something we should have moved past in high school.

Ouze wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

pretre wrote:

Phanatik wrote:"Some" is right, as about 47% of Americans pay NO income taxes.

That oft-quoted fact doesn't seem to hold up. Someone pulled this on another forum and then couldn't back it up with data.

First of all, I reserve the right to express my opinion with absolutely no concern for producing one shred of evidence to support it. If it floats someone's boat (and they can do so) to produce evidence to refute my opinion, so be it. I'm a big boy and I can take it.

It appears no one else seems to have caught this gem, or, quite possibly - and reasonably - decided a sentiment this silly didn't actually merit refuting. But, just for the sake of completeness, I'd like to point out there is a difference between stating an opinion, and stating a fact. Stating that 47% of all Americans pay no income tax is not an opinion. Stating that "too many people don't pay adequate taxes" is an opinion.

That was the most random link I have ever followed on Dakka.

IMHO tax happens to all of us (apart from Gary Barlow... and Jimmy Carr), granted it is a large amount but the Olympics isn't about the money they win. It is simply about winning that Medal, if some money comes with it then all the merrier, no matter how much it is.

When I first heard about this I will admit I was pretty pissed at the thought of them getting taxed. Then I thought on it a bit, and realized, yea its the way things should be. I mean, 8grand sounds a little steep, is that higher then a normal tax rate? Its too early for me to really care enough to figure it out , but still, the athletes arnt going to care to much about the tax (Or shouldnt really) because in my mind, they care about the win, and not to mention Im sure they make a killing from endorsements once they do win a medal. That tax isnt going to matter once Wheaties comes calling.

What I find odd is that they are trying to class it as income earned overseas. The money comes doesn't come from the IOC or the UK, it comes from the US, and the athletes are not paying tax on it in the UK. It's not like the coaches or other support staff are paying UK tax whilst they are here.

St. Luke's has been breached - 4 zeds

Okay, 3 zeds.

Athletes who win a gold medal also earn a $25,000 honorarium — and with it an $8,986 tax bill to the IRS, according to Americans for Tax Reform, which crunched the numbers. That covers both the honorarium and the tax on the value of the gold in the medal itself.

The silver medal tax comes to $5,385, and the bronze medal tax is $3,502 — including $2 for the value of the bronze medal itself, and the $10,000 honorarium.

That could leave amateur athletes — in many cases still teenagers — facing stiff tax bills when they return to the U.S.

$8,986 is roughly 27% of 25,000. That's a higher federal tax rate than I pay.

If a teenager earns $25,000, and has no other income that year, their tax debt is $2,549 (they can still claim a small standard deduction even if they are a dependent.)
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf

Whoever is saying that kids are due to pay $8,986 are playing politics, plain and simple. The actual tax owed is much less. It is earned income, and they should contribute to the country like the rest of us do when we earn income.

d-usa wrote:We had a great real world example that shows just how stupid that argument really is recently. I think it was last year.
...
So according to the usual "taxes are being passed on the consumers!" argument we should have seen savings for all the consumers right?

2011 fuel prices averaged more than 20% higher than 2010, which had a big impact on the profitability of airlines (who mostly saw declines in value through the same period; American Airlines, for example, went bankrupt).

Google tells me that the US commercial airfleet consumes almost 50 million gallons of jet fuel each day. An annual 20% increase in fuel prices on 50 million gallons a day would completely obliterate the savings of the tax break.

The reason the "savings" was not passed on to consumers is because you were looking at a short period of time during which core margins were under significant strain. Over long periods of time, in competitive industries, all cost savings and increases are ultimately passed on to the consumer. In this particular case, the net increases were greater than the savings. That's why your real world "example" did not work, because it ignored other factors that were at least as significant as the one you observed in isolation.

labmouse42 wrote:

Athletes who win a gold medal also earn a $25,000 honorarium — and with it an $8,986 tax bill to the IRS, according to Americans for Tax Reform, which crunched the numbers. That covers both the honorarium and the tax on the value of the gold in the medal itself.

The silver medal tax comes to $5,385, and the bronze medal tax is $3,502 — including $2 for the value of the bronze medal itself, and the $10,000 honorarium.

That could leave amateur athletes — in many cases still teenagers — facing stiff tax bills when they return to the U.S.

$8,986 is roughly 27% of 25,000. That's a higher federal tax rate than I pay.

If a teenager earns $25,000, and has no other income that year, their tax debt is $2,549 (they can still claim a small standard deduction even if they are a dependent.)
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf

Whoever is saying that kids are due to pay $8,986 are playing politics, plain and simple. The actual tax owed is much less. It is earned income, and they should contribute to the country like the rest of us do when we earn income.

If I were to get $25,000 check today I would have the same amount of tax withheld even though I am t a lower bracket. If you get a big wad of cash at once, you get a lot of taxes taken out at once. And it's not like the "kids" are having to go door to door selling magazines to come up with the money, they got a $25,000 dollar check to pay $8,000 with. And they will get almost all of that $8,000 back next year.

This whole affair is just pure political republican "successful people are being penalized with taxes" crap.

Successful anything get taxed. Why not athletes?

If you are a successful hot dog vendor you have to pay tax, so why not these guys?

Fact is, any fether that gets a gold medal ain't ever going to be poor, so who gives a gak?

I'm more concerned about a poor bus driver who works 50 hours a week and pays tax than a gold medal winning athlete, its a fething non story.

d-usa wrote:If I were to get $25,000 check today I would have the same amount of tax withheld even though I am t a lower bracket. If you get a big wad of cash at once, you get a lot of taxes taken out at once.

Does that apply to the case of these kids? Think about it, their not employed by the olympics, so they don't have their taxes deducted automatically.

Would it not be more like me giving you a $25,000 check for painting my army? At the end of the year you would to claim $25,000 income and send a check to the IRS. Again, the check would not be for 8 grand, it would be closer to 2 grand.
Edit : Unless the athlete already is in the highest tax bracket from endorsements. If their making over $250,000 a year in endorsements, they can fork out the 8 grand in taxes for this $25,000 earnings.

As someone previously mentioned, the endorsement opportunities the athletes will get will vastly outweigh the tax burden they must face.

d-usa wrote:This whole affair is just pure political republican "successful people are being penalized with taxes" crap.

I agree. Its a ploy to make Mark Rubio look like he champions our athletes and success. Its that simple. If the democrats vote against it, they can be strawmaned into saying 'they vote to punish success'.

Bromsy wrote:St. Luke's has been breached - 4 zeds

Okay, 3 zeds.

What? How did no one respond to this before now?

Grakmar wrote:

Bromsy wrote:St. Luke's has been breached - 4 zeds

Okay, 3 zeds.

What? How did no one respond to this before now?

I think it is called 'ignoring'.

Grakmar wrote:

Bromsy wrote:St. Luke's has been breached - 4 zeds

Okay, 3 zeds.

What? How did no one respond to this before now?

I felt that it was important enough to go on this thread....

or,

I may have still been a little drunk when I woke up.

Grakmar wrote:Also, to be super clear:

No one is given money by the Olympics itself for winning an Olympic event. It is up to each individual country to reward it's Olympic athletes however it sees fit.

US athletes are rewarded by the United States Olympic Committee (which is a non-profit organization based in Colorado).

So, these are US Citizens, getting paid by a US organization, with US dollars.

How can this be considered not taxable?

Well put.

They were paid money, so now they pay taxes. After they show all of their business expenses associated with this payment (gym fees, specialized gear, trainers, travel, and so on), they'll get most of it back, anyway.