New tax law's potential impact on college sports

[vu84v2]

1. When nonprofit institutions pay someone greater than $1M per year, they will have to pay a 21% tax on the salary above $1M. Note that, for coaches, universities might be able to circumvent this by using the new pass-through deductions for LLCs.
2. Eighty percent of seat licenses/donations that allow someone to purchase season tickets had been deductible as a charitable contribution. That has been eliminated.

I am not sure that I really have a problem with either of these changes (though I have big problems with the overall new tax law).

[wh]

I'm assuming you'll be donating your windfall to charity or back to the government? And how will you and yours handle whatever residual financial benefits that may come your way from the impending explosion in GDP? 

[vu84v2]

It's that little problem of costing $1.63 trillion with optimistic impacts from GDP growth lowering the costs to $1 trillion that I cannot get past. Perhaps I should just save any additional proceeds, because Democrats, Republicans and (especially) Populists don't seem to care about the national debt and one day I, along with everyone else, is going to have to pay for it....and far more than any savings and residual benefits from this tax plan.

[bbtds]

It's that little problem of costing $1.63 trillion with optimistic impacts from GDP growth lowering the costs to $1 trillion that I cannot get past. Perhaps I should just save any additional proceeds, because Democrats, Republicans and (especially) Populists don't seem to care about the national debt and one day I, along with everyone else, is going to have to pay for it....and far more than any savings and residual benefits from this tax plan.

That problem doesn't seem to bother the Republicans who are glad to kiss Trump's ass because he is making these rich politicians even richer on the backs of the poor. Although it won't happen for many years when a new generation of politicians will be in office and the Democrats will be reminding the electorate that it was the Republicans who passed this tax bill without any Democratic support. The new Republicans will say that most of us newly elected politicians had nothing to do with that decision, even an older Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

[valporun]

There are times, with some of the politicians we always see, where terms limits would have been a blessing. The midterms are going to be a peach, considering how most people are going to vote based on hate of the president or a party, rather than voting based on making the country better.

[bbtds]

There are times, with some of the politicians we always see, where terms limits would have been a blessing. The midterms are going to be a peach, considering how most people are going to vote based on hate of the president or a party, rather than voting based on making the country better.

Truth is the impact of the tax money in their pocket will greatly effect how independents that rarely vote will respond in the 2018 elections. I don't believe the midterms will be a peach. This is the problems with the Democrats. Without really trying to put up better candidates they feel they will win based solely on the ineptitude of the Republican party. Not true. The Democrats must recognize when they don't have winning candidates. Look how close the Alabama election was with Roy Moore as a candidate. Jones didn't win it. Moore lost it but could have still won it if he had avoided more of his mistakes.   

[wh]

It's that little problem of costing $1.63 trillion with optimistic impacts from GDP growth lowering the costs to $1 trillion that I cannot get past. Perhaps I should just save any additional proceeds, because Democrats, Republicans and (especially) Populists don't seem to care about the national debt and one day I, along with everyone else, is going to have to pay for it....and far more than any savings and residual benefits from this tax plan.

That problem doesn't seem to bother the Republicans who are glad to kiss Trump's ass because he is making these rich politicians even richer on the backs of the poor. Although it won't happen for many years when a new generation of politicians will be in office and the Democrats will be reminding the electorate that it was the Republicans who passed this tax bill without any Democratic support. The new Republicans will say that most of us newly elected politicians had nothing to do with that decision, even an older Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

I'm not aware of a single entitlement benefiting "the poor" that has been that has been cut, or even reduced, as a result of this tax bill. In fact, the "working poor" are going to benefit greatly from doubling the standard deduction. The only "backs" this tax bill may be on are future generations, if it doesn't pay for itself.  We foolishly doubled our national debt over the past 8 years. You can only spend like drunken sailors for so long.  As a paleocon, that concerns me.   

[bbtds]

It's that little problem of costing $1.63 trillion with optimistic impacts from GDP growth lowering the costs to $1 trillion that I cannot get past. Perhaps I should just save any additional proceeds, because Democrats, Republicans and (especially) Populists don't seem to care about the national debt and one day I, along with everyone else, is going to have to pay for it....and far more than any savings and residual benefits from this tax plan.

That problem doesn't seem to bother the Republicans who are glad to kiss Trump's ass because he is making these rich politicians even richer on the backs of the poor. Although it won't happen for many years when a new generation of politicians will be in office and the Democrats will be reminding the electorate that it was the Republicans who passed this tax bill without any Democratic support. The new Republicans will say that most of us newly elected politicians had nothing to do with that decision, even an older Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

I'm not aware of a single entitlement benefiting "the poor" that has been that has been cut, or even reduced, as a result of this tax bill. In fact, the "working poor" are going to benefit greatly from doubling the standard deduction. The only "backs" this tax bill may be on are future generations, if it doesn't pay for itself.  We foolishly doubled our national debt over the past 8 years. You can only spend like drunken sailors for so long.  As a paleocon, that concerns me.   

Answer the question: How long does the corporate tax break last and how long does the individual tax break last?

[wh]

It's that little problem of costing $1.63 trillion with optimistic impacts from GDP growth lowering the costs to $1 trillion that I cannot get past. Perhaps I should just save any additional proceeds, because Democrats, Republicans and (especially) Populists don't seem to care about the national debt and one day I, along with everyone else, is going to have to pay for it....and far more than any savings and residual benefits from this tax plan.

That problem doesn't seem to bother the Republicans who are glad to kiss Trump's ass because he is making these rich politicians even richer on the backs of the poor. Although it won't happen for many years when a new generation of politicians will be in office and the Democrats will be reminding the electorate that it was the Republicans who passed this tax bill without any Democratic support. The new Republicans will say that most of us newly elected politicians had nothing to do with that decision, even an older Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

I'm not aware of a single entitlement benefiting "the poor" that has been that has been cut, or even reduced, as a result of this tax bill. In fact, the "working poor" are going to benefit greatly from doubling the standard deduction. The only "backs" this tax bill may be on are future generations, if it doesn't pay for itself.  We foolishly doubled our national debt over the past 8 years. You can only spend like drunken sailors for so long.  As a paleocon, that concerns me.   

Answer the question: How long does the corporate tax break last and how long does the individual tax break last?

According to CNN, Senate budget rules preclude permanently lowering individual tax rates by a simple majority vote. Since none of the Dims were on board, the only way the Reps could get past the rule was to time limit individual tax reductions to 10 years. If you want to know why the same rule doesn't apply to Corp. tax rates, you'll have to ask CNN. The article I read didn't go into that.

[valpopal]

It's that little problem of costing $1.63 trillion with optimistic impacts from GDP growth lowering the costs to $1 trillion that I cannot get past. Perhaps I should just save any additional proceeds, because Democrats, Republicans and (especially) Populists don't seem to care about the national debt and one day I, along with everyone else, is going to have to pay for it....and far more than any savings and residual benefits from this tax plan.

That problem doesn't seem to bother the Republicans who are glad to kiss Trump's ass because he is making these rich politicians even richer on the backs of the poor. Although it won't happen for many years when a new generation of politicians will be in office and the Democrats will be reminding the electorate that it was the Republicans who passed this tax bill without any Democratic support. The new Republicans will say that most of us newly elected politicians had nothing to do with that decision, even an older Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

I'm not aware of a single entitlement benefiting "the poor" that has been that has been cut, or even reduced, as a result of this tax bill. In fact, the "working poor" are going to benefit greatly from doubling the standard deduction. The only "backs" this tax bill may be on are future generations, if it doesn't pay for itself.  We foolishly doubled our national debt over the past 8 years. You can only spend like drunken sailors for so long.  As a paleocon, that concerns me.   

Answer the question: How long does the corporate tax break last and how long does the individual tax break last?

According to CNN, Senate budget rules preclude permanently lowering individual tax rates by a simple majority vote. Since none of the Dims were on board, the only way the Reps could get past the rule was to time limit individual tax reductions to 10 years. If you want to know why the same rule doesn't apply to Corp. tax rates, you'll have to ask CNN. The article I read didn't go into that.

Speaking of CNN:


Jake Tapper questioning Bernie Sanders: "Next year, 91% of middle income Americans will receive a tax cut. Isn't that a good thing?"


Bernie Sanders: "Yeah, it is a very good thing. And that's why we should've made the tax cuts for the middle class permanent."


So, "it is a very good thing," but the Republicans couldn't make it permanent only because they would need 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats refused to give their votes to this "very good thing."


[tweet]945788931940986884[/tweet]

[justducky]

The midterms are going to be a peach, considering how most people are going to vote based on hate of the president or a party, rather than voting based on making the country better.

Define better because this one is tricky. If you haven't been following we are now almost into our 9'th year of economic expansion, at full employment, and are closing down our cheap supply of excess manpower to the south. Great! So now lets throw a trillion and a half dollar tax cut with no spending reductions on top of all this just so we can see what happens. The "starve the beast" bunch is convinced that they will have to create a crisis in order to solve some longer term issues. I don't agree that we need this crisis but there is no doubt in my mind that we will get one.   

KABOOM! The 35 year bull market in bonds is done. I don't care what your age is I would not own any. Not a friggin nickels worth. Re inflation here we come. "Demand pull", "cost push" we going to see it all. How did that work out for middle class working folks last time? Was the Volker recession 3 years or was it just 2.5? Did it peak at 13% unemployment or was it even higher?

But that was then and this is now. I won't worry about finding 3 months of work per year again because I've been retired for a decade annnnnd I won't worry about going broke again either. I got way too much local, national and international diversification (except for US bonds)  , for that to happen.

So maybe I will take my modest tax cut and send it to the stupidest, crookedest, lyingest, con man who has ever and I repeat EVER occupied the White House. I mean he just scratched my back so I must owe him a favor and after all the haves must take care of the haves because the rest of you don't have anything. What part of that don't you poor folks understand?

[agibson]

1. When nonprofit institutions pay someone greater than $1M per year, they will have to pay a 21% tax on the salary above $1M. Note that, for coaches, universities might be able to circumvent this by using the new pass-through deductions for LLCs.

Interesting. I may have missed this one. Maybe hard to argue with.

Some of the draft tax bills had some pretty ugly stuff for higher education, education more generally, and STEM higher education in particular. Much of it, fortunately, didn't make the final bill.

One of the provisions that more famously stayed in was a sort of an annual wealth tax on the endowments of the 25 or so universities with the highest endowment per student. Also a little hard to argue with. (Albeit there are taxes I'd have raised, or not lowered, before I started taxing any higher ed...)

(I think spending tax-deductible 529 funds on private elementary and secondary education stayed in too - which seemed ugly to me, and may have particular impact in Indiana with fairly generous state 529 laws.)