Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on August 01, 2012, 12:49:54 PM
-
Why does EVERYTHING have to be taxed?
Because conservatives are scrooges, the good folks at Americans for Tax Reform have gone through the fine print to find out what our Olympians will have to cough up to the IRS should they be lucky enough to win any medals in London.
Even by the standards of our government, the numbers are insane.
For instance: Americans who win bronze will pay a $2 tax on the medal itself. But the bronze comes with a modest prize—$10,000 as an honorarium for devoting your entire life to being the third best athlete on the planet in your chosen discipline. And the IRS will take $3,500 of that, thank you very much.
There are also prizes that accompany each medal: $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze.
Silver medalists will owe $5,385. You win a gold? Timothy Geithner will be standing there with his hand out for $8,986.
So as of this writing, swimmer Missy Franklin—who's a high school student—is already on the hook for almost $14,000. By the time she's done in the pool, her tab could be much higher. (That is, unless she has to decline the prize money to placate the NCAA—the only organization in America whose nuttiness rivals the IRS.)
ATR notes that the real twist of the knife is that most other Olympians won't pay any taxes on their medals because America is one of only a handful of countries which taxes "worldwide" prize income earned overseas.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/go-gold-pay-irs_649187.html
I hope those Olympians understand the gold member they were awarded? They didn't build that.
-
Wench posted this on facebook, and I'm not sure if it made it's way to the board or not...
http://blog.robballen.com/Post/5713/great-news-you-will-be-receiving-an-olympic-medal
Great news - You will be receiving an Olympic medal soon
Team America, dressed in their fanciest Chinese made uniforms, will soon be competing to bring home medals for practically every person in the US. I don’t think they’ve worked out the logistics yet of how to appropriately separate the combined metal into over 300,000,000 pieces, but I assure you each and every one of you deserve the Gold, Silver, and Bronze, just as much as the Olympians themselves.
If you’ve been a successful athlete, you didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, “well it must be because I worked hard at getting in shapeâ€. There are a lot of in shape people out there. “It must be because I worked harder than my competitors.†Let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hardworking athletes out there. If you made it to the Olympics, somebody along the line gave you some help. If you receive a medal, you didn’t earn that. Somebody else made that happen.
Each athlete had coaches. They had trainers. Doctors to fix their injuries. Parents who worked that second job so they could spend more time focusing on their sport. There were countless people who built and manufactured their equipment. People built the gyms they practiced in, dug the pools they dove into, mixed the Gatorade they drank when they were thirsty. Someone had to make their clothing, cook their food, fix their cars, put the toothpaste in the tubes, package up the towels, and so on and so on.
So you see, it doesn’t matter if they happen to be better than everyone else. It doesn’t matter how hard they worked, how much they sacrificed so they could face off against the entire world’s best – they did not do this on their own and should receive no glory for something others did!
Not only that, but athletes could not have even been invited to the Olympics if it weren’t for the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and politicians that ensure this country allows them the ability to go. You see, how could they fly there if it weren’t for the TSA to grab their Olympic sized genitalia? How would they be able to afford quality sporting gear if it weren’t for millions of lines of tax codes? And really, what good would winning a medal for something so trifling as being the best at a sport be if you didn’t have an awesome President to thank?
So, rest assured you who adorn your couches. Even though you get winded hitting the fridge for another beer, you can take pride in the fact that you are responsible for those athletes bringing home the gold!
-
Because conservatives are scrooges? :facepalm:
-
Because conservatives are scrooges? :facepalm:
Yeah that line alone could be an entire topic in itself.
Why are we so determined to start another Civil War in this country? It's like with EVERYTHING we do, we have to portray it as negative for the other side and positive for our side.
I mean, we're willing to brawl over a fucking chicken sandwich.
But anyways, back to the topic.
-
Yeah that line alone could be an entire topic in itself.
Why are we so determined to start another Civil War in this country? It's like with EVERYTHING we do, we have to portray it as negative for the other side and positive for our side.
I mean, we're willing to brawl over a fucking chicken sandwich.
But anyways, back to the topic.
It's usually just one side too. The Chick Fil A thing is def something the 'left" has sparked and then of course the right retaliates. Don't start no shit won't be no shit!
-
Someone fark a pic of a gold medal winner with a caption like:
Gold medal = $25000
Taxes on medal $8900
President saying you didn't earn this on your own = priceless.
-
Because conservatives are scrooges? :facepalm:
Wow. I know the Weakly Standard are a bunch of neo-Cons but...wow...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--ciwVR1shk0/T9jYzf66QDI/AAAAAAAABYg/LvVB_uRnqTA/s1600/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg)
-
It's usually just one side too.
:blink:
-
There is no exemption for monetary rewards earned at the Olympics, or monetary rewards earned elsewhere. Any monetary reward is income to you, and it will be reported on a 1099.
The article is misleading in that it makes the reader believe that the I.R.S. has a standard 35% tax rate for all Olympic monetary rewards; it does not. The example of $3,500 in tax liability on a $10,000 monetary reward assumes a 35% tax rate for the individual.
The only way an Olympian would not be taxed on their rewards is if legislation were passed which allowed an exemption for that type of income.
-
There is no exemption for monetary rewards earned at the Olympics, or monetary rewards earned elsewhere. Any monetary reward is income to you, and it will be reported on a 1099.
The article is misleading in that it makes the reader believe that the I.R.S. has a standard 35% tax rate for all Olympic monetary rewards; it does not. The example of $3,500 in tax liability on a $10,000 monetary reward assumes a 35% tax rate for the individual.
The only way an Olympian would not be taxed on their rewards is if legislation were passed which allowed an exemption for that type of income.
Even though the author of this article is obviously an agenda-driven, leftist the examples that he provided in his article were sourced to another article which appeared on the Americans for Tax Reform website which explicitly said that Olympians were subject to either a 35% tax under US Law (or a 40% tax under British law). That may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer or an accountant) but I had to point out where this lefty got his figures. In short, I think that the author thinks that there is a standard 35% tax because that is what his source said was the case.
Unless you were being sarcastic...in which case...you got me again.
-
Even though the author of this article is obviously an agenda-driven, leftist the examples that he provided in his article were sourced to another article which appeared on the Americans for Tax Reform website which explicitly said that Olympians were subject to either a 35% tax under US Law (or a 40% tax under British law). That may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer or an accountant) but I had to point out where this lefty got his figures. In short, I think that the author thinks that there is a standard 35% tax because that is what his source said was the case.
Unless you were being sarcastic...in which case...you got me again.
There is no separate tax rate for Olympians, and the source (Americans for Tax Reform) didn't state that there is.
http://www.atr.org/win-olympic-gold-pay-irs-a7091
American medalists face a top income tax rate of 35 percent. Under U.S. tax law, they must add the value of their Olympic medals and prizes to their taxable income.
Like I said, there's no special taxation on Olympic athletes. They're just treating the monetary rewards (and objects of worth) as income to the athlete. They're taxed on their winnings at a rate that is contingent upon their total taxable income, just like everyone else.
-
There is no separate tax rate for Olympians, and the source (Americans for Tax Reform) didn't state that there is.
http://www.atr.org/win-olympic-gold-pay-irs-a7091
Like I said, there's no special taxation on Olympic athletes. They're just treating the monetary rewards (and objects of worth) as income to the athlete. They're taxed on their winnings at a rate that is contingent upon their total taxable income, just like everyone else.
Not sure why a fuck is given. By the time they deduct every penny they've spent for the entire year they'll probably get a refund anyway.
-
Not sure why a fuck is given. By the time they deduct every penny they've spent for the entire year they'll probably get a refund anyway.
Or they could just hire four accountants and still not have any idea how taxes work.
-
There is no separate tax rate for Olympians, and the source (Americans for Tax Reform) didn't state that there is.
http://www.atr.org/win-olympic-gold-pay-irs-a7091
Like I said, there's no special taxation on Olympic athletes. They're just treating the monetary rewards (and objects of worth) as income to the athlete. They're taxed on their winnings at a rate that is contingent upon their total taxable income, just like everyone else.
Yes, they certainly did, in my opinion, but I suppose this can be read in different ways: American medalists face a top income tax rate of 35 percent. Under U.S. tax law, they must add the value of their Olympic medals and prizes to their taxable income. It is therefore easy to calculate the tax bite on Olympic glory.
Anyway, they are paying their fair share which should make the Democrats happy along with the "scrooge" conservatives.
-
Like I said, there's no special taxation on Olympic athletes. They're just treating the monetary rewards (and objects of worth) as income to the athlete. They're taxed on their winnings at a rate that is contingent upon their total taxable income, just like everyone else.
Why?
That's my beef. Why is every penny awarded to a person taxed?
-
Why?
That's my beef. Why is every penny awarded to a person taxed?
Why? Because that's what the law says.
-
Why? Because that's what the law says.
I didn't accept that when it was rephrased as "because I said so" from my mother.
-
Or they could just hire four accountants and still not have any idea how taxes work.
Or they could listen to a message board sage who doesnt know how businesses work.
Come out just as well.
-
Or they could listen to a message board sage who doesnt know how businesses work.
Come out just as well.
Parsely, Rosemary and Thyme were wondering where he went
-
:blink:
Care to tell me who started the CFA "uproar"? After that it simply became an action/reaction tennis match.
-
Or they could listen to a message board sage who doesnt know how businesses work.
Come out just as well.
:rofl:
-
Or they could listen to a message board sage who doesnt know how businesses work.
Come out just as well.
So says the business owner who audaciously and incorrectly suggested that a $50,000 expense for a computer server couldn't be deducted in one year.
-
Care to tell me who started the CFA "uproar"? After that it simply became an action/reaction tennis match.
I never said that one side or the other hasn't started anything. I merely disagree with the statement that it's "usually one side."
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that all of the photoshopped images of Obama (and claims that other images of him are photoshopped when they're not) are being propagated by the left as well.
-
I didn't accept that when it was rephrased as "because I said so" from my mother.
You don't have to accept it, I'm just telling you why it is how it is. Not saying that this is the way it should be, just pointing out what the relevant laws are within the realm of this particular topic.
-
You don't have to accept it, I'm just telling you why it is how it is. Not saying that this is the way it should be, just pointing out what the relevant laws are within the realm of this particular topic.
You need to shut the fuck up on the subject and be figuring out what they are gonna do to the inheritance tax bullshit.
-
You need to shut the fuck up on the subject and be figuring out what they are gonna do to the inheritance tax bullshit.
They'll either pass an extension or they won't. Does that help?
-
You need to shut the fuck up on the subject and be figuring out what they are gonna do to the inheritance tax bullshit.
I believe they just voted to extend the Bush tax cuts yesterday. Don't follow it enough to know if that includes what you're axing
-
The House approved the Republican plan Wednesday to extend all the Bush-era tax rates for a year, in another vote that served to put lawmakers on record over the issue but did not appear to bring Congress any closer to a deal.
The GOP plan was approved on a 256-171 vote. Only one Republican, Rep. Timothy Johnson of Illinois, voted against the plan, while 19 Democrats voted to approve.
The roll call was held Wednesday evening shortly after House lawmakers rejected Democrats’ plan to extend the Bush-era tax rates for families making less than $250,000 while letting them rise for top earners. The Democrat-backed plan was the same as the one that narrowly passed the Senate last week.
The votes Wednesday, though, only served to put lawmakers on record as backing the positions that they’ve generally held for months. Unclear is where lawmakers, and President Obama, will go from here to try to avert at least some of the looming tax hikes set to go into effect in January when the Bush-era rates expire.
Obama is on the campaign trail, touting the Democrats' plan as the only responsible route for extending the Bush-era rates. But he is not meeting with congressional leaders about how the two sides might iron out their differences and strike a compromise package.
Technically, the House and Senate could take their dueling proposals to a so-called conference committee after the Wednesday vote. But for now, that is not likely, and the prevailing Washington wisdom is that lawmakers won't tackle the tax crisis in earnest until after the election -- and possibly until the next presidential term begins.
Many economists think allowing all tax rates to snap back to Clinton-era levels could drive the economy back into a recession, especially if it is hit at the same time with automatic spending cuts, which were designed as punishment for Washington's failure to enact another deficit-cutting bargain.
Republicans say Obama's insistence on raising taxes on wealthier earners will sting small-business owners who create jobs. Democrats counter that the taxes only apply to the earnings of individuals exceeding $200,000 yearly and couples surpassing $250,000 -- exempting 98 percent of taxpayers.
"This should be an easy vote for an overwhelming majority of members to say, 'Let's extend these tax cuts we agree on and then debate what we don't agree on,'" said No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "It should be easy."
But GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California suggested Democrats should just extend all the rates, as they’ve done before.
"Two years ago the Democrats controlled everything in Washington. The same question stood before Congress," said GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California on Wednesday. “At that time 139 Democrats voted to ... stop a tax increase."
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/house-defeats-democrat-backed-plan-to-raise-taxes-for-top-earners/#ixzz22Pg06jsl
-
I believe they just voted to extend the Bush tax cuts yesterday. Don't follow it enough to know if that includes what you're axing
The Senate had previously voted to extend many tax cuts, but not all; their proposed bill didn't extend the estate tax thresholds. The House rejected the Senate's tax bill yesterday by voting to keep all of the tax cuts, including the estate tax thresholds.
From what I've read, the Senate won't allow it to pass, and Obama has said that he would veto it.
-
The Senate had previously voted to extend many tax cuts, but not all; their proposed bill didn't extend the estate tax thresholds. The House rejected the Senate's tax bill yesterday by voting to keep all of the tax cuts, including the estate tax thresholds.
From what I've read, the Senate won't allow it to pass, and Obama has said that he would veto it.
Obama. Can't you see that man is a ni......oh sorry.
Can't you see that man is a ni...
-
The House approved the Republican plan Wednesday to extend all the Bush-era tax rates for a year, in another vote that served to put lawmakers on record over the issue but did not appear to bring Congress any closer to a deal.
The GOP plan was approved on a 256-171 vote. Only one Republican, Rep. Timothy Johnson of Illinois, voted against the plan, while 19 Democrats voted to approve.
The roll call was held Wednesday evening shortly after House lawmakers rejected Democrats’ plan to extend the Bush-era tax rates for families making less than $250,000 while letting them rise for top earners. The Democrat-backed plan was the same as the one that narrowly passed the Senate last week.
The votes Wednesday, though, only served to put lawmakers on record as backing the positions that they’ve generally held for months. Unclear is where lawmakers, and President Obama, will go from here to try to avert at least some of the looming tax hikes set to go into effect in January when the Bush-era rates expire.
Obama is on the campaign trail, touting the Democrats' plan as the only responsible route for extending the Bush-era rates. But he is not meeting with congressional leaders about how the two sides might iron out their differences and strike a compromise package.
Technically, the House and Senate could take their dueling proposals to a so-called conference committee after the Wednesday vote. But for now, that is not likely, and the prevailing Washington wisdom is that lawmakers won't tackle the tax crisis in earnest until after the election -- and possibly until the next presidential term begins.
Many economists think allowing all tax rates to snap back to Clinton-era levels could drive the economy back into a recession, especially if it is hit at the same time with automatic spending cuts, which were designed as punishment for Washington's failure to enact another deficit-cutting bargain.
Republicans say Obama's insistence on raising taxes on wealthier earners will sting small-business owners who create jobs. Democrats counter that the taxes only apply to the earnings of individuals exceeding $200,000 yearly and couples surpassing $250,000 -- exempting 98 percent of taxpayers.
"This should be an easy vote for an overwhelming majority of members to say, 'Let's extend these tax cuts we agree on and then debate what we don't agree on,'" said No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "It should be easy."
But GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California suggested Democrats should just extend all the rates, as they’ve done before.
"Two years ago the Democrats controlled everything in Washington. The same question stood before Congress," said GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California on Wednesday. “At that time 139 Democrats voted to ... stop a tax increase."
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/house-defeats-democrat-backed-plan-to-raise-taxes-for-top-earners/#ixzz22Pg06jsl
We ought to blow Washington up and try again.
-
So says the business owner who audaciously and incorrectly suggested that a $50,000 expense for a computer server couldn't be deducted in one year.
That credit worked out pretty damn well for my father-in-law's business, actually.
-
In other knee jerk reaction news, a couple of Congresspeople introduced measures today that would exempt Olympic winnings from taxes.
-
I never said that one side or the other hasn't started anything. I merely disagree with the statement that it's "usually one side."
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that all of the photoshopped images of Obama (and claims that other images of him are photoshopped when they're not) are being propagated by the left as well.
Only one side can start it. True statement.
No, those pictures are funny! Of course, when John Stewart or any of the other non funny fag "comedians" say it, it's called just sattire. Let the right make up some funny pics, its hate mongering.
-
Only one side can start it. True statement.
Both sides attempt to discredit the other, blast the other, or otherwise spread propaganda about the other. These are incidents which recur; it's not a one-time event that can only be started once. Your initial statement acknowledges this fact, as you claimed that it was one side that "usually" starts it. If there's more than one thing being "started," then you can have more than one instigator.
No, those pictures are funny! Of course, when John Stewart or any of the other non funny fag "comedians" say it, it's called just sattire. Let the right make up some funny pics, its hate mongering.
Many of the pictures that I am referring to were not put out there for humor. They were put out there and identified as real, unedited pictures which showed that Obama was dumb/unpatriotic/whatever. I don't believe that Jon Stewart puts photoshopped pictures on his show and claims that they are real.
At any rate, focusing on people like Jon Stewart ignores people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Both sides of the political fence have people that spread propaganda, start meaningless debates to distract the public, etc. It's not just one politician or political party that has derailed the entire system.
-
Both sides attempt to discredit the other, blast the other, or otherwise spread propaganda about the other. These are incidents which recur; it's not a one-time event that can only be started once. Your initial statement acknowledges this fact, as you claimed that it was one side that "usually" starts it. If there's more than one thing being "started," then you can have more than one instigator.
Many of the pictures that I am referring to were not put out there for humor. They were put out there and identified as real, unedited pictures which showed that Obama was dumb/unpatriotic/whatever. I don't believe that Jon Stewart puts photoshopped pictures on his show and claims that they are real.
At any rate, focusing on people like Jon Stewart ignores people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Both sides of the political fence have people that spread propaganda, start meaningless debates to distract the public, etc. It's not just one politician or political party that has derailed the entire system.
I say they are funny. I saw they are sattire. End of story. See how easy a cop out that is?
Stewart and Colbert get their true opinion out there in the guise of sattire. Real slick.
-
I say they are funny. I saw they are sattire. End of story. See how easy a cop out that is?
Stewart and Colbert get their true opinion out there in the guise of sattire. Real slick.
I find their content funny, but yes, they hold absurd political views...assuming their political views are truly reflected in their routines.
The pictures of Obama, however, were not intended for humorous purposes. Or, at the very least, they weren't being spread by others from their initial source for humorous purposes, because they were posted on this forum at one point and portrayed as real.