|
|
Post by halverbk on Dec 16, 2017 9:24:41 GMT -8
For those of you that have been able to deduct up to 80% of your season ticket donations, the tax bill in Congress appears to eliminate that deduction. (I haven't seen a thread about this yet, and if you want to move it to a more appropriate location, please do Glove. However, my guess is the vast majority of season ticket donations are for football or multi-sport donors including football.) First, I want to make sure everyone impacted by this is looking into their options to donate this year for multiple years forward. To OSU's email Second, a debate: will this actually help OSU compete by bringing the impact of the ultra-high-level donors to other larger athletic depts. down? All schools will be impacted, but OSU not as much? Or is it worse for us because we don't have much of a cushion in this area? Educate me, oh wise ones. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 16, 2017 11:05:38 GMT -8
For those of you that have been able to deduct up to 80% of your season ticket donations, the tax bill in Congress appears to eliminate that deduction. (I haven't seen a thread about this yet, and if you want to move it to a more appropriate location, please do Glove. However, my guess is the vast majority of season ticket donations are for football or multi-sport donors including football.) First, I want to make sure everyone impacted by this is looking into their options to donate this year for multiple years forward. To OSU's email Second, a debate: will this actually help OSU compete by bringing the impact of the ultra-high-level donors to other larger athletic depts. down? All schools will be impacted, but OSU not as much? Or is it worse for us because we don't have much of a cushion in this area? Educate me, oh wise ones. The impact will be interesting to see. I have zero faith those that have authored this bill know their ass from a hole in the ground. We are back to trickle down economic theory that has failed in practice not once, but twice in the last 30 years. It failed with Reagan and it failed with Bush Jr. The belief is that cutting corporate tax from 35% to 21% will spur economic growth and that economic growth will spur hiring and wage increases. Anybody with any common sense knows that is a lie. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to return value to share holders. "excess" profits realized by tax savings will not go to workers, it will go to share holders. Coming full circle, eliminating tax deductions to fund this corporate welfare lie has tremendous ripple effects. One such ripple effect is what we are talking about. How many people that previously donated say, $2500 will now do the math and only donate $500? Or donated $10,000 and will now only donate $1,000 or $2,000? (also, I apologize for being political, and I suspect this conversation should go to the TAP) |
|
|
|
Post by beaverintheberg on Dec 16, 2017 11:18:31 GMT -8
Why should they be deductible?
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 16, 2017 11:46:33 GMT -8
Hey atown... something like 97% of middle-class workers have retirement programs available and roughly 74% do contribute towards their 401k or IRA. They'll benefit from the corporate tax cuts as well.
There are plenty of arguments for or against tax cuts, and there are plenty of bright intelligent people on either side of the issue. It's not a simple one sided issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Dec 16, 2017 11:48:46 GMT -8
Because they fund scholarships. Allegedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 16, 2017 11:50:35 GMT -8
Why should they be deductible? They probably shouldn't be. My guess is the success of the Loge level at our stadium is driven greatly by the ability to use it as a tax write off. If this deductibility change affects things it could slow down the west side stadium remodel significantly. |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 16, 2017 11:53:13 GMT -8
Hey atown... something like 97% of middle-class workers have retirement programs available and roughly 74% do contribute towards their 401k or IRA. They'll benefit from the corporate tax cuts as well. There are plenty of arguments for or against tax cuts, and there are plenty of bright intelligent people on either side of the issue. It's not a simple one sided issue. Move this to rotating tap.
Provide your sources, and I'll prove links to quadruple the amount of economists that thoroughly disagree and/or have an opposing opinion.
This is a ridiculous tax cut, at a ridiculous time when our economy is healthy, that will only do massive damage in the future and hurt the middle and lower class long term. And designed to be so. I make those statements as someone who owns a corporation, and will greatly benefit from the tax cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 16, 2017 12:14:44 GMT -8
For those of you that have been able to deduct up to 80% of your season ticket donations, the tax bill in Congress appears to eliminate that deduction. (I haven't seen a thread about this yet, and if you want to move it to a more appropriate location, please do Glove. However, my guess is the vast majority of season ticket donations are for football or multi-sport donors including football.) First, I want to make sure everyone impacted by this is looking into their options to donate this year for multiple years forward. To OSU's email Second, a debate: will this actually help OSU compete by bringing the impact of the ultra-high-level donors to other larger athletic depts. down? All schools will be impacted, but OSU not as much? Or is it worse for us because we don't have much of a cushion in this area? Educate me, oh wise ones. The impact will be interesting to see. I have zero faith those that have authored this bill know their ass from a hole in the ground. We are back to trickle down economic theory that has failed in practice not once, but twice in the last 30 years. It failed with Reagan and it failed with Bush Jr. The belief is that cutting corporate tax from 35% to 21% will spur economic growth and that economic growth will spur hiring and wage increases. Anybody with any common sense knows that is a lie. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to return value to share holders. "excess" profits realized by tax savings will not go to workers, it will go to share holders. Coming full circle, eliminating tax deductions to fund this corporate welfare lie has tremendous ripple effects. One such ripple effect is what we are talking about. How many people that previously donated say, $2500 will now do the math and only donate $500? Or donated $10,000 and will now only donate $1,000 or $2,000? (also, I apologize for being political, and I suspect this conversation should go to the TAP) |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 16, 2017 13:17:31 GMT -8
Apples and oranges. His "belief" that Trumpsky was in the loony bin in the 90s is just that -- belief. The Tweet which I linked, is economic fact. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Dec 16, 2017 13:18:00 GMT -8
The impact will be interesting to see. I have zero faith those that have authored this bill know their ass from a hole in the ground. We are back to trickle down economic theory that has failed in practice not once, but twice in the last 30 years. It failed with Reagan and it failed with Bush Jr. The belief is that cutting corporate tax from 35% to 21% will spur economic growth and that economic growth will spur hiring and wage increases. Anybody with any common sense knows that is a lie. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to return value to share holders. "excess" profits realized by tax savings will not go to workers, it will go to share holders. Coming full circle, eliminating tax deductions to fund this corporate welfare lie has tremendous ripple effects. One such ripple effect is what we are talking about. How many people that previously donated say, $2500 will now do the math and only donate $500? Or donated $10,000 and will now only donate $1,000 or $2,000? (also, I apologize for being political, and I suspect this conversation should go to the TAP) If that statement is correct, then looking at total federal tax revenues during the 80's under Reagan, tax revenues should have gone down, not up, right? I have looked at this before, I believe total tax revenues actually went up after the tax cuts, not down, due to increased economic activity. It was the congress during that time that spent more than the increased revenues, so don't tell me about the deficit increases at that time. Look at revenues. Unfortunately, whether true or not, the press then or now is not going to give either president (Reagan, Trump) a fair shake. In business or gov't, the volume at lower margin concept works. Just look at Costco - if it didn't work, they would have never succeeded in a very competitive retail environment. If the going corporate tax rate in the western world is also roughly 20%, then reducing the rate to be competitive with other industrialized countries makes sense to me. After all, we are a global economy, right? As I understand it, one of the items in the tax bill is increased write offs for Corporations that reinvest in equipment for their businesses. I am OK with that. By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am no fan of large corporations. (my apologies as well  ) |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 16, 2017 13:39:29 GMT -8
Apples and oranges. His "belief" that Trumpsky was in the loony bin in the 90s is just that -- belief. The Tweet which I linked, is economic fact. No, it isn't. You probably also think Paul Krugman is a brilliant economist. Krugman has a Nobel Prize. What you got? Every major economist -- including the entire economics faculty at U Chicago -- the bastion of libertarian economics -- and a dozen Nobel Prize winners [headed by Krugman and Stiglitz] said this was a crappy piece of legislation. You say it's great. Who you think I'm going to listen to? Oh, yeah, I have a Bachelor's degree and a Graduate minor in Economics. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 16, 2017 13:52:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 16, 2017 14:00:24 GMT -8
Where’s a moderator when you need one?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Dec 16, 2017 14:15:04 GMT -8
Where’s a moderator when you need one? Well here I am. The thread is not about OSU football so will be moved. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Dec 16, 2017 14:44:32 GMT -8
The CATO Institute is a notoriously Randian libertarian think tank. So, I'll pit my dozens of economists with international stature against the Cato Institute loony bin. |
|
)
