• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rubio bill eliminates federal tax on Olympic medals

This is how innocent little political pandering proposals leads to this...


It's hard to reach a consensus on the exact size of the Internal Revenue Code, but lots of folks have tried.
Congressional speeches over the years have offered various ways to visualize the enormity of the tax code:

"One million words and nearly seven times the length of the Bible"
"The income tax code and its associated regulations contain almost 5.6 million words"
"At 1.3 million pages it is twice the length of Tolstoy's War and Peace"


:lol:
 
ARealConservative said:
they have to claim the the value of the medals as income, so your reply is not accurate
Click to expand...

1. the value of the medals is pretty nominal;
2. you can still offset this nominal income by the major expense of getting there; and
3. Why are Republicans wasting everyone's time with yet another piece of trivial legislation? I thought they were concerned about jobs? Oh yes, I forgot, they haven't a clue how to fix the economy and they have no real ideas of their own except to cut taxes in all circumstances (good economies, bad economies, morning, noon or evening... in their view tax cuts fix everything).

If it weren't for trivial legislation, we would have no legislation at all. Nice job 119th congress, the most inept in US history.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
1. a very nominal amount
Click to expand...

any amount makes me right and the person I responded to wrong.

2. you can still offset the income by expense, which will easily more than offset
Click to expand...

moot. If the medal wasn't claimed, the expenses would further lessen the tax hike of the money award.

3. Why are Republicans wasting everyone's time with yet another piece of trivial legislation? Oh yes, I forgot, they have no real ideas of their own except to cut taxes in all circumstances (good economies, bad economies, morning, noon or evening... in their view tax cuts fix everything)
Click to expand...

I am not defending the legislation in any way, it is stupid.
 
BWG said:
This is how innocent little political pandering proposals leads to this...


It's hard to reach a consensus on the exact size of the Internal Revenue Code, but lots of folks have tried.
Congressional speeches over the years have offered various ways to visualize the enormity of the tax code:

"One million words and nearly seven times the length of the Bible"
"The income tax code and its associated regulations contain almost 5.6 million words"
"At 1.3 million pages it is twice the length of Tolstoy's War and Peace"


:lol:
Click to expand...

Wow... 1.0 million words over 1.3 million pages. It must have lots of cool pictures?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I mean I wouldn't support the bill that would exempt it from income tax. I would, however, say that every single nickel spent by the family during that year be deducted from the award -- which, I would think, would put most recipients in the position of having to pay no tax at all.
Click to expand...

It should be treated as income in my opinion. I somewhat agree with you that they should get deductions for that since our society has deductions, however, I think do not think that anyone should ever get any deductions.
 
We exempt all sorts of things to incentivise them. This should be one of them IMO. The small number of winners doesn't account for much treasury income anyway.
 
clownboy said:
We exempt all sorts of things to incentivise them. This should be one of them IMO. The small number of winners doesn't account for much treasury income anyway.
Click to expand...

Fame, thousands of dollars in prize money, and potentially millions in endorsements is incentive enough. Not ot mention the incentive of competitive success alone.

No need to complicate the tax code further with this stupid laws playing favorites in one sector over the other.
 
muciti said:
It should be treated as income in my opinion. I somewhat agree with you that they should get deductions for that since our society has deductions, however, I think do not think that anyone should ever get any deductions.
Click to expand...

So you want income taxes on gross revenue? That is not that way income tax works as income, but definition, is gross revenue less the expenses of producing that revenue. Do you want business taxes computed on the gross? That would really put a damper on economic development as new businesses would be paying taxes before they really even made money. Not a good idea.

Perhaps you are thinking of sales and VAT taxes, which are levied on gross amounts.
 
ARealConservative said:
Fame, thousands of dollars in prize money, and potentially millions in endorsements is incentive enough. Not ot mention the incentive of competitive success alone.

No need to complicate the tax code further with this stupid laws playing favorites in one sector over the other.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In fact, that's the reason for incentivising. It's a loss leader for us (retail term, a deeply discounted item that sells highly marked up items). The business it generates brings in far more treasury income.

As you mentioned, a potential millions in endorsements, which would be fully taxed.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
I disagree. In fact, that's the reason for incentivising. It's a loss leader for us (retail term, a deeply discounted item that sells highly marked up items). The business it generates brings in far more treasury income.
Click to expand...

Counting all Olympics (winter/summer), we have 2,549 medals (1,106 gold)

The next closest country has 1,204 (473 gold)

The stats show we have no need to create more incentive. The incentive our athletes have is obviously plenty, so no need to complicate the tax code further.

All-time Olympic Games medal table - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
upsideguy said:
So you want income taxes on gross revenue? That is not that way income tax works as income, but definition, is gross revenue less the expenses of producing that revenue. Do you want business taxes computed on the gross? That would really put a damper on economic development as new businesses would be paying taxes before they really even made money. Not a good idea.

Perhaps you are thinking of sales and VAT taxes, which are levied on gross amounts.
Click to expand...

if they didnt make any money then they wouldnt have anything to tax and it would not be appliciable. That statement aside I do believe that every person and business should pay a flat tax without deductions. Everyone should pay X% of their gross income. I know most do not agree with me.
 
upsideguy said:
1. the value of the medals is pretty nominal;
2. you can still offset this nominal income by the major expense of getting there; and
3. Why are Republicans wasting everyone's time with yet another piece of trivial legislation? I thought they were concerned about jobs? Oh yes, I forgot, they haven't a clue how to fix the economy and they have no real ideas of their own except to cut taxes in all circumstances (good economies, bad economies, morning, noon or evening... in their view tax cuts fix everything).

If it weren't for trivial legislation, we would have no legislation at all. Nice job 119th congress, the most inept in US history.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that value of a medal is minimal. The cost may be minimal, but the value is a different story. Value would depend on the particular significance of a medal.

A historic baseball caught by a fan is not worth a few bucks, but the collector value, and is taxed that value. At least that is my understanding. May be that a medal is the same. Any thoughts?

Your third point seems to be a good start for a new thread, of a continuation of the several already started on the same subject.
 
I've been seeing people compare olympians to deployed soldiers on the grounds that they're "doing this for their country."

Look, I know some of the events involve shooting, but what they're missing is the part where somebody is shooting back.
 
muciti said:
if they didnt make any money then they wouldnt have anything to tax and it would not be appliciable. That statement aside I do believe that every person and business should pay a flat tax without deductions. Everyone should pay X% of their gross income. I know most do not agree with me.
Click to expand...

An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.

OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.

My argument stands, your really can't say you are against ALL deductions....
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
I'm not sure that value of a medal is minimal. The cost may be minimal, but the value is a different story. Value would depend on the particular significance of a medal.

A historic baseball caught by a fan is not worth a few bucks, but the collector value, and is taxed that value. At least that is my understanding. May be that a medal is the same. Any thoughts?

Your third point seems to be a good start for a new thread, of a continuation of the several already started on the same subject.
Click to expand...

The value is the taxable value that IRS has ascribed to it. If I remember correctly it was less than $1,000. Given that there is also an honorarium paid, the winner has the cash to pay the tax (again, assuming there are no costs to offset, but surely there are)

This whole thing is rather moot and nothing more than a curious sideshow of life.
 
upsideguy said:
An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.

OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.

I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
Click to expand...
 
muciti said:
upsideguy said:
An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.

OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.

I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand anything about economics?
Click to expand...
 
muciti said:
I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but as a business owner I can tell you that nothing would crush an economy faster than that policy. Thin margin businesses, such as supermarkets and distributors, would be crushed as would start-ups, which typically lose money for the first 18-24 months of operation. Revenue is not income. Deductions are necessary.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
Do you not understand anything about economics?
Click to expand...

For the record, you have commingled my comments with those of Muciti.

My comment was

upsideguy said:
An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.

OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.

My argument stands, your really can't say you are against ALL deductions....
Click to expand...



Muciti's response was:

muciti said:
I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
Click to expand...

I trust you were challenging muciti's understanding of economics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom