• 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!

Tom Brady owes the IRS over 60 grand for winning Super Bowl.

In regards to getting paid "millions for playing a game".

I remember a player for the Colts, a first round pick defensive lineman.

He said sure he gets paid more than most people make in a lifetime.

but "most people won't be hobbling around on two artificial knees when they are 40"
 
In regards to getting paid "millions for playing a game".

I remember a player for the Colts, a first round pick defensive lineman.

He said sure he gets paid more than most people make in a lifetime.

but "most people won't be hobbling around on two artificial knees when they are 40"

Life choice. Use that free degree you got to get a JOB.
 
Poor baby.

He can afford it INCREDIBLY easily.

My empathy for him over this is ZERO.

What's with all the hate? Not once in the article did I read he was complaining.
 
I should point out that I don't have any especially strong feeling about high pay in (some) professional sports. I was really just turning around the OPs wording.

We are all paid in proportion to the value we create in business. Brady won the Super Bowl so he earned what he made.
Nice theory but it's not how it actually works in the real world. The method by which the perceived value of American Football player is calculated is entirely differently to that for, say, a professional tennis player, vastly different again to us regular salaried workers and different again to a number of other fields.

Anyway, here we're talking about the Superbowl game pay which I believe is the same for all the players on the winning team, regardless of the scale or quality of their individual contributions (and they say Americans don't do Communism :) ). It's interesting that this article chose not to look at Brady's "normal" in-season wages.
 
The reason we pay gift taxes on winning is because it can be written off as an expense by the donor. Eliminate the ability to expense prizes and there would be no need to tax winners. The first $13K or so of value he gave away in the truck is exempt, and after that he will have to pay gift taxes now or at his death or have the difference allocated against his $1M exemption, so he is getting taxed on both sides of that deal. It is why some people will negotiate around being the middleman and why people need to talk to a good tax attorney before they claim their lottery winnings. Once they take possession of it, they expose themselves to possibly avoidable taxes depending on what they plan to do with the money.

Or, we could just eliminate the tax on winnings, I don't see any reason the government is entitled to someone's winnings. Anyway, this more wages than winnings, wasn't like he won a lottery, he's being paid for what he's done.
 
Life choice. Use that free degree you got to get a JOB.

Really has nothing to do with a life choice or bad knees. He gets paid that much because it is worth it for them to pay him that money, plain and simple.

It is interesting to note that teams in the no income tax States have an advantage since the player will keep more of his money, sometimes millions.
 
Or, we could just eliminate the tax on winnings, I don't see any reason the government is entitled to someone's winnings. Anyway, this more wages than winnings, wasn't like he won a lottery, he's being paid for what he's done.

If you and I trade my old lawnmower for your old chainsaw, it is a taxable event. Why is because the government needs money to function. Government employees like to have food to eat too.
 
I'm not sure what the issue is...are you saying his income shouldn't of been taxed? That we create a "Super Bowl" Tax exemption?

There certainly is a precedent for it.
 
So basically RG3 owes money back.

Not really. He's actually been ridiculous cheap for an NFL starting caliber quarterback, and was instrumental in helping propel the Redskins to their first division championship since 1999 and their first rookie of the year since 1975. Griffin's jersey sales in 2012 also set a record, being the most sold in a single year ever. Note that teams get a portion of the Jersey sales. Combine that with Washington increasing the cost of their tickets in 2013 based off the 2012 season, and heavily used RG3 in promoting season tickets, and it would be absolutely reasonable to say...from a financial stand point...Washington has absolutely gotten their money's worth out of their roughly $5 million a year QB.

Now in terms of value in non-monetary means, such as draft picks, that's a whole other story. ;)
 
If you and I trade my old lawnmower for your old chainsaw, it is a taxable event. Why is because the government needs money to function. Government employees like to have food to eat too.

So do I, am I entitled to some of their wages/winnings? Things like that event being taxable is why we need to get rid of or seriously cut down the IRS.
 
So do I, am I entitled to some of their wages/winnings? Things like that event being taxable is why we need to get rid of or seriously cut down the IRS.

Yep, and even more so if you have dependents that you cannot (or will not) support by working. ;)
 
Being forced to give a percentage of your income to the government is wrong no matter what.
I'm sorry the regressive taxation you'd prefer is unrealistic and immoral.
 
I'm sorry the regressive taxation you'd prefer is unrealistic and immoral.

What taxation system do I support again? I was unaware I supported one in the first place.
 
I'm sorry the regressive taxation you'd prefer is unrealistic and immoral.

How is taking more from one group than another moral behavior anyway?

For that matter, how is taxation moral behavior?
 
I'm sorry the regressive taxation you'd prefer is unrealistic and immoral.

any tax system that causes Tom Brady to have to pay some of your citizenship dues is really immoral. Rich people subsidizing the benefits of slackers, the untalented or even the unlucky is hardly moral
 
Being forced to give a percentage of your income to the government is wrong no matter what.

You are only forced when you do not pay.

No one forces me to pay my taxes. I agreed and accepted the payment as a condition of my work career. I understood I would be paying taxes since before my very first job.

No one from the federal government ever came and strong armed me into anything.
 
You are only forced when you do not pay.

You must be a lawyer because that's a big heaping pile of word play right there.

No one forces me to pay my taxes. I agreed and accepted the payment as a condition of my work career. I understood I would be paying taxes since before my very first job.

No one from the federal government ever came and strong armed me into anything.

Well, that's good for you, but for me, I never agreed to pay taxes.
 
What taxation system do I support again? I was unaware I supported one in the first place.
You support services provided, which require some communal contribution. Taxation is a common term for such contributions.
 
How is taking more from one group than another moral behavior anyway?

For that matter, how is taxation moral behavior?
Taxation is obligatory in some form in order to ensure (at a minimum) the security of a nation. That's neither moral or immoral.

Demanding that citizens give equally requires many to give beyond their means. Requiring someone to be obligated beyond capacity is immoral.

any tax system that causes Tom Brady to have to pay some of your citizenship dues is really immoral. Rich people subsidizing the benefits of slackers, the untalented or even the unlucky is hardly moral
I'm of the belief that the income disparity that Tom Brady earns compared to the rest of the population is immoral.

Once we've balanced that discrepancy, more equal citizenship dues can certainly be discussed.
 
Taxation is obligatory in some form in order to ensure (at a minimum) the security of a nation. That's neither moral or immoral.

Demanding that citizens give equally requires many to give beyond their means. Requiring someone to be obligated beyond capacity is immoral.


I'm of the belief that the income disparity that Tom Brady earns compared to the rest of the population is immoral.

Once we've balanced that discrepancy, more equal citizenship dues can certainly be discussed.

I think the free market-while not perfect-is far better in deciding compensation levels than people who may be operating under the influence of envy
 
Taxation is obligatory in some form in order to ensure (at a minimum) the security of a nation. That's neither moral or immoral.

Demanding that citizens give equally requires many to give beyond their means. Requiring someone to be obligated beyond capacity is immoral.

I'll let this speak for me..

Force.jpg

On the note of equal taxation though, if your prior claim about taxes is correct and taxes are indeed to pay for those services provided to us, then it is only reasonable that people are charged equally for those services.
 
Back
Top Bottom