[BostonCard]

I swear, mods.  This article only deals with "mandatory donations" for preferred seats:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...cid=SigDig

The issue revolves around donations that confer the right to buy top-tier football and basketball tickets. Modeled after seat licenses in pro sports, these “contributions” have historically been 80 percent tax deductible and have become one of the three main revenue streams in college sports. Ticket sales and money earned from media rights are the other two.

Without discussing the overall tax bill, I will say that this particular proposal is good policy.  Seat licenses should not be tax deductable.

BC

[BostonCard]

I swear, mods.  This article only deals with "mandatory donations" for preferred seats:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...cid=SigDig

The issue revolves around donations that confer the right to buy top-tier football and basketball tickets. Modeled after seat licenses in pro sports, these “contributions” have historically been 80 percent tax deductible and have become one of the three main revenue streams in college sports. Ticket sales and money earned from media rights are the other two.

Without discussing the overall tax bill, I will say that this particular proposal is good policy.  Seat licenses should not be tax deductable.

BC

[lex24]

Nicely played sir!

I swear, mods.  This article only deals with "mandatory donations" for preferred seats:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...cid=SigDig

The issue revolves around donations that confer the right to buy top-tier football and basketball tickets. Modeled after seat licenses in pro sports, these “contributions” have historically been 80 percent tax deductible and have become one of the three main revenue streams in college sports. Ticket sales and money earned from media rights are the other two.

Without discussing the overall tax bill, I will say that this particular proposal is good policy.  Seat licenses should not be tax deductable.

BC

[lex24]

Nicely played sir!

I swear, mods.  This article only deals with "mandatory donations" for preferred seats:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...cid=SigDig

The issue revolves around donations that confer the right to buy top-tier football and basketball tickets. Modeled after seat licenses in pro sports, these “contributions” have historically been 80 percent tax deductible and have become one of the three main revenue streams in college sports. Ticket sales and money earned from media rights are the other two.

Without discussing the overall tax bill, I will say that this particular proposal is good policy.  Seat licenses should not be tax deductable.

BC

[Mick]

I swear, mods.  This article only deals with "mandatory donations" for preferred seats:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...cid=SigDig

The issue revolves around donations that confer the right to buy top-tier football and basketball tickets. Modeled after seat licenses in pro sports, these “contributions” have historically been 80 percent tax deductible and have become one of the three main revenue streams in college sports. Ticket sales and money earned from media rights are the other two.

Without discussing the overall tax bill, I will say that this particular proposal is good policy.  Seat licenses should not be tax deductable.

BC

That's correct.  A sliver of sanity...

[Mick]

I swear, mods.  This article only deals with "mandatory donations" for preferred seats:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...cid=SigDig

The issue revolves around donations that confer the right to buy top-tier football and basketball tickets. Modeled after seat licenses in pro sports, these “contributions” have historically been 80 percent tax deductible and have become one of the three main revenue streams in college sports. Ticket sales and money earned from media rights are the other two.

Without discussing the overall tax bill, I will say that this particular proposal is good policy.  Seat licenses should not be tax deductable.

BC

That's correct.  A sliver of sanity...

[BobK]

I donate to the Buck Cardinal Club.  While I no longer have men’s basketball tix as I moved that donation paid for my seat license

I moved my football seats to be with friends and don’t need the license. 

Therefore my donation isn’t for seats.  But it was.

So you all are saying my donation should not be tax deductible?

[BobK]

I donate to the Buck Cardinal Club.  While I no longer have men’s basketball tix as I moved that donation paid for my seat license

I moved my football seats to be with friends and don’t need the license. 

Therefore my donation isn’t for seats.  But it was.

So you all are saying my donation should not be tax deductible?

[82lsju]

I donate to the Buck Cardinal Club.  While I no longer have men’s basketball tix as I moved that donation paid for my seat license

I moved my football seats to be with friends and don’t need the license. 

Therefore my donation isn’t for seats.  But it was.

So you all are saying my donation should not be tax deductible?

I believe that your current donation would be deductible since it is not required to buy your seats.

I'm the same, football seats in 134 which do not require a donation but I'm thinking that in 2019 they will add sections 134 and 132 to the required donation list in which case we will be moving as at least a third of our group has no interest in making a required donation unless it is pretty small per seat.

[82lsju]

I donate to the Buck Cardinal Club.  While I no longer have men’s basketball tix as I moved that donation paid for my seat license

I moved my football seats to be with friends and don’t need the license. 

Therefore my donation isn’t for seats.  But it was.

So you all are saying my donation should not be tax deductible?

I believe that your current donation would be deductible since it is not required to buy your seats.

I'm the same, football seats in 134 which do not require a donation but I'm thinking that in 2019 they will add sections 134 and 132 to the required donation list in which case we will be moving as at least a third of our group has no interest in making a required donation unless it is pretty small per seat.

[winflop]

While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

[winflop]

While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

[82lsju]

While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

of course they could just reseat people on periodic basis and tie the reseating to some sort of scoring system that takes into "overall level of engagement" which includes a heavy weighting for donations (like Stanford did in reseating the football stadium and Maples and does for bowl game seats), then 100% of the donation would be deductible.....wink wink nudge nudge

[82lsju]

While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

of course they could just reseat people on periodic basis and tie the reseating to some sort of scoring system that takes into "overall level of engagement" which includes a heavy weighting for donations (like Stanford did in reseating the football stadium and Maples and does for bowl game seats), then 100% of the donation would be deductible.....wink wink nudge nudge

[stupac2]

While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

I mean, sure, but they'd also be supporting the program if it was just a market transaction for the cost of the seats. A donation can't be mandatory, that just doesn't make any sense.

I'm also not convinced that there's any real justification for subsidizing the giving of money to a institution that's worth more than many countries. IIRC at least one of the tax bills includes a provision taxing endowments over a certain amount, that's probably the bigger deal than the seat deductibility thing.

And, really, if you're talking about ramifications for higher education, starting to tax implicit benefits for grad students is the much bigger deal. If that passes you're basically ending grad programs as they're currently organized for anyone but the independently wealthy.

[stupac2]

While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

I mean, sure, but they'd also be supporting the program if it was just a market transaction for the cost of the seats. A donation can't be mandatory, that just doesn't make any sense.

I'm also not convinced that there's any real justification for subsidizing the giving of money to a institution that's worth more than many countries. IIRC at least one of the tax bills includes a provision taxing endowments over a certain amount, that's probably the bigger deal than the seat deductibility thing.

And, really, if you're talking about ramifications for higher education, starting to tax implicit benefits for grad students is the much bigger deal. If that passes you're basically ending grad programs as they're currently organized for anyone but the independently wealthy.

[82lsju]

I'm also not convinced that there's any real justification for subsidizing the giving of money to a institution that's worth more than many countries. IIRC at least one of the tax bills includes a provision taxing endowments over a certain amount, that's probably the bigger deal than the seat deductibility thing.

if the cutoff is $1 billion looks like it would impact about 100 Universities.  If it is $10 billion about 10 Universities.

https://thebestschools.org/features/rich...-research/

[82lsju]

I'm also not convinced that there's any real justification for subsidizing the giving of money to a institution that's worth more than many countries. IIRC at least one of the tax bills includes a provision taxing endowments over a certain amount, that's probably the bigger deal than the seat deductibility thing.

if the cutoff is $1 billion looks like it would impact about 100 Universities.  If it is $10 billion about 10 Universities.

https://thebestschools.org/features/rich...-research/

[Snorlax94]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=18251.msg216515#msg216515 date=1512233676]
While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

I mean, sure, but they'd also be supporting the program if it was just a market transaction for the cost of the seats. A donation can't be mandatory, that just doesn't make any sense.

I'm also not convinced that there's any real justification for subsidizing the giving of money to a institution that's worth more than many countries. IIRC at least one of the tax bills includes a provision taxing endowments over a certain amount, that's probably the bigger deal than the seat deductibility thing.

And, really, if you're talking about ramifications for higher education, starting to tax implicit benefits for grad students is the much bigger deal. If that passes you're basically ending grad programs as they're currently organized for anyone but the independently wealthy.
[/quote]
Agree with Stupac. Taxing TAs and grad assistant as if they were on salary equal to tuition is the largest direct impact on Stanford and universities I am aware of.

But it’s not clear to me what will result after reconcilition.

[Snorlax94]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=18251.msg216515#msg216515 date=1512233676]
While I get that in some senses it looks like a bit of a boondoggle, at the same time the people who make these donations are also supporters of the program. Maybe 80% is too high, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

I mean, sure, but they'd also be supporting the program if it was just a market transaction for the cost of the seats. A donation can't be mandatory, that just doesn't make any sense.

I'm also not convinced that there's any real justification for subsidizing the giving of money to a institution that's worth more than many countries. IIRC at least one of the tax bills includes a provision taxing endowments over a certain amount, that's probably the bigger deal than the seat deductibility thing.

And, really, if you're talking about ramifications for higher education, starting to tax implicit benefits for grad students is the much bigger deal. If that passes you're basically ending grad programs as they're currently organized for anyone but the independently wealthy.
[/quote]
Agree with Stupac. Taxing TAs and grad assistant as if they were on salary equal to tuition is the largest direct impact on Stanford and universities I am aware of.

But it’s not clear to me what will result after reconcilition.

[stupac2]

But it’s not clear to me what will result after reconcilition.

You and me and everyone on the Hill, it seems. Hopefully the worst of the university-affecting things will get struck out.

[stupac2]

But it’s not clear to me what will result after reconcilition.

You and me and everyone on the Hill, it seems. Hopefully the worst of the university-affecting things will get struck out.

[cardcrimson]

Don't forget the elimination of the state tax deductions. Coaches in California, NJ, and New York will be hit the hardest. Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and perhaps Syracuse and Rutgers get hit pretty hard. The cost of living here is already bad enough, going to be more difficult to attract both head coaches, assistant coaches, and staffs.

[cardcrimson]

Don't forget the elimination of the state tax deductions. Coaches in California, NJ, and New York will be hit the hardest. Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and perhaps Syracuse and Rutgers get hit pretty hard. The cost of living here is already bad enough, going to be more difficult to attract both head coaches, assistant coaches, and staffs.

[Snorlax94]

Well the state tax deduction I think is getting off-topic. I don’t think it affects any kind of recruiting. It’ll amount to at most an increase of 2-3%. That’s a lot for a family making 80,000 in the Bay Area, but I don’t think Coach Shaw will suddenly be clamoring to exit to Tennessee over 3% of his millions and his high quality of life (I read he has a beach home in Capitola).

In terms of what will affect the university and sports, I think the taxation of TAs, grad assistants and research assistants is a brobdingnagian deal. It would be devastating if there is no workaround.

Second, taxing endowments is a significant deal. Of the elite sports universities, it would affect Stanford the most.

Third, not permitting stadium “donations” will shake things up. I’m not sure whom it’ll hurt the most. It will shift emphasis from stadium revenues to TV deals, and overall dent the size of college sports revenues. My guess it it hurts the Pac12 of the Power 5, because we have weak TV deals. It could seriously screw some programs that were really counting on those fees.

Those are the direct impacts to universities and college sports I am aware of.

I have very strong feelings about what will happen to the country as a whole and to Stanford indirectly, but I’m trying to stick to the Card.

[Snorlax94]

Well the state tax deduction I think is getting off-topic. I don’t think it affects any kind of recruiting. It’ll amount to at most an increase of 2-3%. That’s a lot for a family making 80,000 in the Bay Area, but I don’t think Coach Shaw will suddenly be clamoring to exit to Tennessee over 3% of his millions and his high quality of life (I read he has a beach home in Capitola).

In terms of what will affect the university and sports, I think the taxation of TAs, grad assistants and research assistants is a brobdingnagian deal. It would be devastating if there is no workaround.

Second, taxing endowments is a significant deal. Of the elite sports universities, it would affect Stanford the most.

Third, not permitting stadium “donations” will shake things up. I’m not sure whom it’ll hurt the most. It will shift emphasis from stadium revenues to TV deals, and overall dent the size of college sports revenues. My guess it it hurts the Pac12 of the Power 5, because we have weak TV deals. It could seriously screw some programs that were really counting on those fees.

Those are the direct impacts to universities and college sports I am aware of.

I have very strong feelings about what will happen to the country as a whole and to Stanford indirectly, but I’m trying to stick to the Card.

[cardcrimson]

Well the state tax deduction I think is getting off-topic. I don’t think it affects any kind of recruiting. It’ll amount to at most an increase of 2-3%. That’s a lot for a family making 80,000 in the Bay Area, but I don’t think Coach Shaw will suddenly be clamoring to exit to Tennessee over 3% of his millions and his high quality of life (I read he has a beach home in Capitola).

In terms of what will affect the university and sports, I think the taxation of TAs, grad assistants and research assistants is a of exceedingly large proportions deal. It would be devastating if there is no workaround.

Second, taxing endowments is a significant deal. Of the elite sports universities, it would affect Stanford the most.

Third, not permitting stadium “donations” will shake things up. I’m not sure whom it’ll hurt the most. It will shift emphasis from stadium revenues to TV deals, and overall dent the size of college sports revenues. My guess it it hurts the Pac12 of the Power 5, because we have weak TV deals. It could seriously screw some programs that were really counting on those fees.

Those are the direct impacts to universities and college sports I am aware of.

I have very strong feelings about what will happen to the country as a whole and to Stanford indirectly, but I’m trying to stick to the Card.

Help me understand why the elimination of the state tax deduction is off topic. Won't schools in high tax states have to pay even more to entice coaches? A million dollar salary won't be worth the same in CA as it is in FL or TX.

[cardcrimson]

Well the state tax deduction I think is getting off-topic. I don’t think it affects any kind of recruiting. It’ll amount to at most an increase of 2-3%. That’s a lot for a family making 80,000 in the Bay Area, but I don’t think Coach Shaw will suddenly be clamoring to exit to Tennessee over 3% of his millions and his high quality of life (I read he has a beach home in Capitola).

In terms of what will affect the university and sports, I think the taxation of TAs, grad assistants and research assistants is a of exceedingly large proportions deal. It would be devastating if there is no workaround.

Second, taxing endowments is a significant deal. Of the elite sports universities, it would affect Stanford the most.

Third, not permitting stadium “donations” will shake things up. I’m not sure whom it’ll hurt the most. It will shift emphasis from stadium revenues to TV deals, and overall dent the size of college sports revenues. My guess it it hurts the Pac12 of the Power 5, because we have weak TV deals. It could seriously screw some programs that were really counting on those fees.

Those are the direct impacts to universities and college sports I am aware of.

I have very strong feelings about what will happen to the country as a whole and to Stanford indirectly, but I’m trying to stick to the Card.

Help me understand why the elimination of the state tax deduction is off topic. Won't schools in high tax states have to pay even more to entice coaches? A million dollar salary won't be worth the same in CA as it is in FL or TX.

[Snorlax94]

To me that is like asking why anyone would go to Stanford when tuition is cheaper and taxes are lower if they go to the University of Southern Alabama School of Engineering.

And sure, to some people, those lower fees and lower taxes will be unbeatable and there will be no convincing them otherwise.

[Snorlax94]

To me that is like asking why anyone would go to Stanford when tuition is cheaper and taxes are lower if they go to the University of Southern Alabama School of Engineering.

And sure, to some people, those lower fees and lower taxes will be unbeatable and there will be no convincing them otherwise.

[stupac2]

Help me understand why the elimination of the state tax deduction is off topic. Won't schools in high tax states have to pay even more to entice coaches? A million dollar salary won't be worth the same in CA as it is in FL or TX.

Well, that's already true, the differential would be 38% (or whatever, I'm not in the top bracket) bigger than before.

[stupac2]

Help me understand why the elimination of the state tax deduction is off topic. Won't schools in high tax states have to pay even more to entice coaches? A million dollar salary won't be worth the same in CA as it is in FL or TX.

Well, that's already true, the differential would be 38% (or whatever, I'm not in the top bracket) bigger than before.

[Goose]

Help me understand why the elimination of the state tax deduction is off topic. Won't schools in high tax states have to pay even more to entice coaches? A million dollar salary won't be worth the same in CA as it is in FL or TX.

I agree with you, it is germane to the discussion. It was already true that the high state taxes already required a proportional increase in coaching salaries vs. states with lower taxes. That will be made worse by this change in the tax law. Whether that is significant can be discussed, but it is for sure a factor.

[Goose]

Help me understand why the elimination of the state tax deduction is off topic. Won't schools in high tax states have to pay even more to entice coaches? A million dollar salary won't be worth the same in CA as it is in FL or TX.

I agree with you, it is germane to the discussion. It was already true that the high state taxes already required a proportional increase in coaching salaries vs. states with lower taxes. That will be made worse by this change in the tax law. Whether that is significant can be discussed, but it is for sure a factor.

[Card Fan in OR]

Don't forget the elimination of the state tax deductions. Coaches in California, NJ, and New York will be hit the hardest. Stanford, ןɐɔ, UCLA, U$C, and perhaps Syracuse and Rutgers get hit pretty hard. The cost of living here is already bad enough, going to be more difficult to attract both head coaches, assistant coaches, and staffs.

I am certainly with cardcrimson that the elimination of the state and local income tax deduction is germane for recruiting paid employees. There have also been a number of good points regarding taxation of grad students, seat license deductibility, and others.

However--although not limited to sports--there is one significant effect of the elimination of the SALT deduction (save a capped amount of property taxes) that has not received much attention. Currently slightly more than 30% of taxpayers itemize on their returns, and that number averages around 40% in high tax states, like NY, NJ, MA, CA, OR, etc. The rough doubling of the standard deduction to $24,000 (m) will (probably sharply) reduce the number of people who itemize--and even more so with possible caps for mortgage interest deductibility, the elimination of deductibility of home equity loans, and other changes.

What does this mean? For many mid- to upper middle income taxpayers, itemizing will no longer be favorable. As a result, charitable contributions will cost 100 cents on the dollar, as opposed to 50 or 60 cents for those taxpayers today. We know that the elasticity of charitable contributions with respect to their aftertax cost is fairly high. I expect the impact on charitable giving will be quite noticeable if not bordering on dramatic.

We can debate what should or should not be tax-favored activity, but changes such as these will have significant individual and sectoral effects.

[Card Fan in OR]

Don't forget the elimination of the state tax deductions. Coaches in California, NJ, and New York will be hit the hardest. Stanford, ןɐɔ, UCLA, U$C, and perhaps Syracuse and Rutgers get hit pretty hard. The cost of living here is already bad enough, going to be more difficult to attract both head coaches, assistant coaches, and staffs.

I am certainly with cardcrimson that the elimination of the state and local income tax deduction is germane for recruiting paid employees. There have also been a number of good points regarding taxation of grad students, seat license deductibility, and others.

However--although not limited to sports--there is one significant effect of the elimination of the SALT deduction (save a capped amount of property taxes) that has not received much attention. Currently slightly more than 30% of taxpayers itemize on their returns, and that number averages around 40% in high tax states, like NY, NJ, MA, CA, OR, etc. The rough doubling of the standard deduction to $24,000 (m) will (probably sharply) reduce the number of people who itemize--and even more so with possible caps for mortgage interest deductibility, the elimination of deductibility of home equity loans, and other changes.

What does this mean? For many mid- to upper middle income taxpayers, itemizing will no longer be favorable. As a result, charitable contributions will cost 100 cents on the dollar, as opposed to 50 or 60 cents for those taxpayers today. We know that the elasticity of charitable contributions with respect to their aftertax cost is fairly high. I expect the impact on charitable giving will be quite noticeable if not bordering on dramatic.

We can debate what should or should not be tax-favored activity, but changes such as these will have significant individual and sectoral effects.

[cardcrimson]

To me that is like asking why anyone would go to Stanford when tuition is cheaper and taxes are lower if they go to the University of Southern Alabama School of Engineering.

And sure, to some people, those lower fees and lower taxes will be unbeatable and there will be no convincing them otherwise.

Silly me, you're right. I'm sure a talented assistant would much rather coach at Stanford with our rich football tradition than at programs such as Alabama, Auburn, Texas, TAMU, Florida, FSU, Miami, or the like with their lackluster history and programs. Good grief.

BTW, it extends beyond just coaches at colleges. As it's hot stove time, I heard similar concerns regarding major league baseball players and teams in high tax states. Basketball and football are in the same boat.

[cardcrimson]

To me that is like asking why anyone would go to Stanford when tuition is cheaper and taxes are lower if they go to the University of Southern Alabama School of Engineering.

And sure, to some people, those lower fees and lower taxes will be unbeatable and there will be no convincing them otherwise.

Silly me, you're right. I'm sure a talented assistant would much rather coach at Stanford with our rich football tradition than at programs such as Alabama, Auburn, Texas, TAMU, Florida, FSU, Miami, or the like with their lackluster history and programs. Good grief.

BTW, it extends beyond just coaches at colleges. As it's hot stove time, I heard similar concerns regarding major league baseball players and teams in high tax states. Basketball and football are in the same boat.