well said Junior
We have debated this before and agree to disagree, but the 10% flat includes SS which depending on how you want to define is anywhere from 6.75 to 13.5%
Last edited:
Is this OK?
- Thread starter Nbergbuck
- Start date
- Status
Well it is a drop in the bucket but using 2022 numbers of those 60+ million only 2.5 million die. So if you look at the 750,000 in the context of 2.5 million it becomes much more significant.
so the number over 65 went up 20% and Medicaid went up 166%. - yep nothing to see here
Let me answer your question with a question. If you google what is the net worth of all US citizens you get a number of $164 trillion. Where did that number come from?Fair enough (never happen) but just for grins, what is a 3.5% "wealth tax?" What is wealth? If I own a 1967 Dodge Dart, would that be taxed as part of my wealth? And if so, how does one identify the value if one looks like the top versus the bottom? How about my Mick Jagger autographed guitar, Roberto Clemente rookie card, or my Yayoi Kusama painting?
For the record, I am not against a wealth tax but have no idea how it is operationalized. If you decide to tax, say, investment funds, precious metals will go through the roof. If you decide to include those too, look for people to start buying overseas items (real estate, paintings, collectibles) and live them tax-free.
3.5% btw is $5.74 trillion. If you further google what was total US income you get 23 trillion. Take off $3 trillion in charitable cont you get 20 trillion. 10% is $2 trillion total for a total revenue of $7.74.T We will spend this year about 6.8T and have a 1.8T deficit I actually did a detailed review a few years back that calculated the impact of the $500,000 deduction etc. We don't need to count your Roberto C card.
Would it change some behavior? Probably a little but we are talking 3.5% not 10-20%. I also think the impact of a 10% income tax and ZERO corporate income tax would create an economic boom and stocks would skyrocket. Much more IMO than the 3.5% tax burden.
right on cue, the family that owned the Boston Celtics agree to sell the franchise for over $6B, the largest sports franchise sale in US history. The family purchased the Celtics in 2002 for $360m. So they made a cool $5,800,000,000 profit in 23 years. I'll bet they paid very little taxes on the franchise in those years. I don't know if this is considered long or short term but the max appears to be 28% (a cpa can correct me on this). As a comparison, if this were income, the vast majority income tax rate would be 37%. And since it happens only once, when the franchise is sold, the assets are compounded whereas income taxes are assessed on each payday (settled up at year-end).
Last edited:
As usual, Obliviax is all over the map.
Yes, ownership of a sports franchise is one of the great money-making schemes of this, or any other generation. Without getting into too many specifics, it's a tax code unicorn ... and it got even better under the orange molester ... you largely don't treat it as a standalone "business entity" - it's split up into parts (contracts, etc.), and you're able to amortize many of these parts. One of the many great features of this is that you're able to recognize these accounting "losses" for tax purposes, and it's not even limited to your sports franchise interests - you can write them off against your other sources of income ... so you can not only lessen your tax burden to nil for your club ... which is actually making you money (but you can claim it's not), you can do so for the rest of your business/income portfolio. Of course, eventually that all comes due ... but that's only when you're selling your interests ... and, of course, at that point, it's regular income (not cap gains), but you're OK with it, because your appreciation is so great, you just made even more bank.
It's a fabulous racket. And it's all funded by the folks who you think are going to save you, monetarily ... spend less and reduce middle class tax burden. Idiots.
Meanwhile, the owners are making money each year, and crying poor and saying they're losing money and can't spend/compete ... and some idiot fans of small markets lap it up, just like the owners want ... then they're saving a sh!t ton each year on taxes ... and when the tax bill eventually comes due, they have more than enough appreciation to make it all worth their while (and then some) ... and the next owner is willing to pony up such extravagant prices because it's such a tax benefit. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Oh, and then they convince municipalities to fund their facilities because it allegedly helps said locales, even though this is almost never the case.
you have no idea what you are talking about. It is far too complex for you, on one hand, and too simple on the other. This isn't about "sports unicorns" but privately held versus publicly held organizations.
This is a trick I leaned from my in-laws:
- Buy an undervalued property for 10% down and as low an interest rate as you can for 15 year loans
- Stop buying properties at age 50
- Add up the monthly payments for the loan and property taxes plus insurance...whatever your fixed monthly fees are
- rent the property out for the monthly fee, above, plus 10% for unexpected costs (new furnace, damage..etc) while making sure the renter is responsible for utilities
- The idea is to break even for the 15 years the property is owned by the bank (mortgage)
And it isn't "a racket"...it has been this way for my entire life. But I do agree, only the idiots think the govt is going to save you.
It's literally what I did for a living for a number of years, as an attorney ... and I was the best ... I worked on business org and reorg (M&A, etc.), from a tax planning perspective. I'm an actual expert on the subject.
Buying rental properties is a complete non sequitur. Holy crap.
Please shut up. Seriously. Knock it off. Stop the lies, the exaggerations, the crazy conspiracy nonsense. Stop it all.
For those of you who aren't Obliviax, and want some reality ...
That explains, in a fairly straightforward manner, one of the unique advantages that sports owners have over other business owners who can chose to depreciate certain capital assets, but can't make use of what was singularly given to sports owners. Note, also, that the orange molester is only threatening to take away what he already gave ...
Trump Threatens to Eliminate Tax Breaks for Sports Owners
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt outlined Trump’s tax plan priorities, which include eliminating “special tax breaks for sports team owners.”
frontofficesports.com
That explains, in a fairly straightforward manner, one of the unique advantages that sports owners have over other business owners who can chose to depreciate certain capital assets, but can't make use of what was singularly given to sports owners. Note, also, that the orange molester is only threatening to take away what he already gave ...
well, you weren't very good at it then.
If you don't understand the difference between capital gains and income tax, and what it means to individuals, you were horrible. Compound that by not understanding the differences between private and publicly held organizations, and what capital gains mean to those investors, you weren't worth the five minutes of time consulting with a single client.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Holy sh!t, this is so frustrating.
Where would you get the idea I have no idea of the difference between CG and "income tax"? Show me what I actually stated that would give you that idea.
Similarly, where would you get the idea I don't know the difference between private and publicly held orgs? Show me what I actually stated that would give you that idea.
But, before we go any further ... "capital gains" IS income. Capital Gains Tax IS Income Tax. It's simply treated differently than "Ordinary Income," if it meets the definition of being "long-term." You have to get the basics correct before we move on.
You are so far over your skis, you have no idea what's going on.
You're randomly shouting out terms and ideas, and have no idea what you're saying, nor do you have any idea what I'm saying.
I spoke directly to the unique nature of owning a sports team. That's it. What I have said is entirely correct. Among other preferential tax treatment, they get to amortize "intangible assets," unlike other businesses, and they also get to treat certain things - like contracts - in a unique manner. If they elect to amortize these things, upon disposition, the amortized amount is "recaptured" (like depreciation - amortization is the rough equivalent to depreciation for non-capital-assets). They are a tax code unicorn ... and even Trump, who granted them extra advantages, on top of what they already had, is threatening to pull back on this entirely unique and beneficial treatment.
You two are arguing over semantics. Yes realized capital gains are treated as taxable INCOME that gets preferential treatment for tax purposes. I think you use the more appropriate language but why the argument over this rather than substance.
he does this all the time. he doesn't affirm the overall point and gets into pedantic issues to claim some kind of intellectual superiority when he really just makes a mess of things. It is why I have him on ignore. He's one of those guys that if you said "grass is green" will start to talk about Kentucky "bluegrass" and when Bermuda grass goes brown during dormant seasons.
Thanks for the article. I don't follow the details of sports team ownership and taxes so it was a good read. That said I think the article was a bit incomplete.For those of you who aren't Obliviax, and want some reality ...
Trump Threatens to Eliminate Tax Breaks for Sports Owners
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt outlined Trump’s tax plan priorities, which include eliminating “special tax breaks for sports team owners.”frontofficesports.com
That explains, in a fairly straightforward manner, one of the unique advantages that sports owners have over other business owners who can chose to depreciate certain capital assets, but can't make use of what was singularly given to sports owners. Note, also, that the orange molester is only threatening to take away what he already gave ...
Owners might be able to take deductions faster by using 15 year amortization but they are in fact deducting real costs. It's just a timing thing. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that the deduction reduces their cost basis which means a higher capital gain when the team is sold.
The issue of active ownership is no different than it is on any limited partnership where you cannot deduct passive losses if you aren't an active manager.
I agree that the value of top level professional sport teams has only gone up but that doesn't mean they won't hit a ceiling and decline in the future. And what about minor league teams, woman's teams, etc?
Regardless I think it makes sense to review how these things are taxed. Nothing has been decided yet you feel compelled to make it political with insults.
Right. And amortization isn't specific to sports franchise ownership and their tax obligations. I do this with rental properties. But in the end, when that property is liquidated, the capital gain is calculated against the depreciated value. This means I have to declare a higher profit and thus, higher capital gain taxes. The article simply points out that the details, the specifics, of sports ownership make it unique. For example, my rental properties don't get TV royalties and I don't have player salaries.
False.
Read what was written. All of it.
We're "arguing" over the treatment business owners re taxation, during the life of ownership and during disposition.
Correcting him regarding proper characterization of capital gains was only an aside. And it's far from semantics, given that he's mischaracterizing ordinary income as cap gains elsewhere in his argument.
Be better.
Last edited:
You are incorrect. Holy sh!t. This is like talking to special needs people. You're misunderstanding entirely.
Let's take a break here for a minute, and appeal, not to your logical side, or your literate side ... both of which, I believe, are lacking ... but to your cult side ... riddle me this ... would your cult leader be threatening sports franchises re taking away special tax treatment if they did not, in fact, currently receive special tax treatment? Your suggestion is absurd.
The issue of active ownership has nothing to do with this discussion.
The issue is that sports owners are allowed to "break up" the value of their company largely into intangible assets - player contracts, media rights, goodwill, etc. ... and then they are granted the ability to amortize these values, despite these assets not degrading over time. Because the value of these assets comprises the large, large majority of the value of an acquired business, sports owners can largely amortize a virtual entirety of their business, and then use those yearly deductions, not just against their sports business income (which is often quickly wiped out), but against their other personal income.
And, no, none of this results in a higher cap gain when sold. Again, as stated prior, recaptured, it's ordinary income. Guys, get with it.
One of the main points is that this is a self-perpetuating money-saving machine. You buy something for $50M, even though the books say it's worth $5M ... you have $45M in "goodwill" ... you amortize that over 15 years to wipe out operating income (and therefore income tax) and then sell it to the next schmoe for $250M. Now, you had actual operating profits (not accounting ... real world, in your pocket) during that time, you've saved millions in taxes over the life of your ownership, and now you've made at least $200M on your sale, you take the personal income tax hit, and you've cleared more than $100M on the sale itself. And so the next schmoe takes that now $200M in goodwill, and he amortizes it over the life of the deal, so on. The point of depreciation and amortization is to, over time, reflect the gradual loss of value of something that has a finite useful life. Except goodwill is doing nothing but going up. Other "intangible assets" on the books also increase in value or maintain most of their value. Yet they're amortized.
This is the very reason rich people love to own sports franchises. They're an incredible tax savings machine, so they self-perpetuate by exponentially increasing in "value."
Christ, you don't even know your rental property taxation, even though you keep wrongfully bringing it up, because you wrongfully think it proves something. The depreciation you recapture upon disposition of the property is NOT capital gains ... it's ordinary income. Only once you've recaptured all the recognized depreciation over the lifetime of your ownership interest, do you then engage in the determination if there's any cap gains (and the nature/treatment of said cap gains).
This is a basic truth of rental property of which ANY actual rental property owner would be aware ... so stop trying to pawn off your momma-in-law's rental property biz (if it even exists), as something in which you engage.
Bills' Josh Allen agrees to 6-year extension with record-setting guarantee: reports
Josh Allen, fresh off an MVP campaign, just got paid as the Buffalo Bills announced a six-year extension, which reportedly is worth $330 million with $250 million guaranteed.www.foxnews.com
I have a master's and did OK career-wise. Allen will make as much for 1 game as I made in an entire career. Let's not get into Juan Soto. It isn't just sports, the rich continue to get richer and the vast majority of Americans are either stuck in place or going backwards.
Wow, lies, deflection, acting like you know more than you really do all rolled up with your political bias and personal insults in one post.
Translation: I was entirely correct and you couldn't rebut anything I said, so you just whined and threw out random false and unsupported accusations.
You really should have stopped when you were long behind, a long time ago. You are the worst kind of know-it-all. You think you know everything and refuse to acknowledge you need to learn a lot. You do it all the time and you don't respond to whoever calls you out until some other idiot chimes in on your (incorrect) side.
- Status
