Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slightly OT - New Tax Rules

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Slightly OT - New Tax Rules

    The new tax rules limit tax free exchanges to “real property”. Some folks believe that on their face player trades in pro sports could now be taxable events, particularly in baseball (where established players often get traded for prospects) and basketball (where trades often have salary cap / luxury tax implications). Seems a bit far-fetched, but bears watch.
    Russian reporters to Bobby Clarke: Can you imagine hockey without fights?
    Robert Earle Clarke's response: Can you imagine vodka without alcohol?

  • #2
    Originally posted by flyered View Post
    The new tax rules limit tax free exchanges to “real property”. Some folks believe that on their face player trades in pro sports could now be taxable events, particularly in baseball (where established players often get traded for prospects) and basketball (where trades often have salary cap / luxury tax implications). Seems a bit far-fetched, but bears watch.
    They'll be taxing clean air next.
    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

    Comment


    • #3
      Nah, not much revenue potential there.
      Russian reporters to Bobby Clarke: Can you imagine hockey without fights?
      Robert Earle Clarke's response: Can you imagine vodka without alcohol?

      Comment


      • #4
        Taxing player trades. What can we think of next
        Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
        Hope is not a strategy
        RIP

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NoDakIggle View Post
          Taxing player trades. What can we think of next
          That ain't nothin...... We had/have a "Rain Tax" here in Md. Yup!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
            That ain't nothin...... We had/have a "Rain Tax" here in Md. Yup!
            No shit. We've got one too. I think that it's even some federal mandate, at least that's the way it was presented to us. And the way that they decide how much you pay is a joke too.
            "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

            Comment


            • #7
              what in the world is a rain tax
              Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
              Hope is not a strategy
              RIP

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NoDakIggle View Post
                what in the world is a rain tax
                A rain tax is an additional tax based on the amount of land you have covered so tha the rain runs off. If you gave a parking lot, or shopping center or cemented back yard or even big drive way..... You were taxed on how much rain runoff you caused. Yep, a rain tax!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
                  A rain tax is an additional tax based on the amount of land you have covered so tha the rain runs off. If you gave a parking lot, or shopping center or cemented back yard or even big drive way..... You were taxed on how much rain runoff you caused. Yep, a rain tax!
                  Government insanity at its finest. I honestly never heard of such a thing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've never heard of that either. Why aren't they taxing people with a big back yard for sucking up too much of the rain that falls on it. Makes about as much sense
                    Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
                    Hope is not a strategy
                    RIP

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NoDakIggle View Post
                      I've never heard of that either. Why aren't they taxing people with a big back yard for sucking up too much of the rain that falls on it. Makes about as much sense
                      Their claim is that rain comes off of your roof and goes into your sewer pipes and has to be filtered. After all it's common knowledge that the rain that hits the ground magically avoids the sewers and gets filtered by itself and goes into your house for free.
                      "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I deal with this all the time. Impervious surfaces (i. e. parking lots, roads, driveways etc.) all alter the natural water flow that impacts the local aquafers. So if we build a mall for example with a surounding parking lot it can cause significant changes to the aquafer under the mall as the rain no longer refills the water way below. If there is a farm down stream they may find that their well can no longer provide enough water for their crops.

                        At the same time the rain from the impervious surfaces of the roofs, roads and parking areas has to be collected, treated and then piped back to the farmer who now needs municipal water to do what his well used to do. This may also mean new water lines and storage tanks are needed by the municipal government to meet demand and they are respnsible for those costs. All of this is due to the fact that a developer decided to build a mall on his property.

                        This is one example of the imact the built environment has on the natural environment. This doesn’t even consider wildlife, pollution, heat and light islands, traffic or zoning impacts associated with development. I need to consider so many variables in how any building will help and hinder quality of life for building occupants, users and nonusers alike.

                        Having owners of large structures pay to offset costs others incur from the project is fair. Taking this to down individual homeowners is asinine though. IMO the only reason for this is to deter future development but doing it this way just deters people from buying existing homes. Charge the developer and indirectly the buyers paying to build new homes. But a yearly tax is unfair IMO.
                        Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
                        Bleedin' Green since birth!

                        "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

                        ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jukin View Post
                          I deal with this all the time. Impervious surfaces (i. e. parking lots, roads, driveways etc.) all alter the natural water flow that impacts the local aquafers. So if we build a mall for example with a surounding parking lot it can cause significant changes to the aquafer under the mall as the rain no longer refills the water way below. If there is a farm down stream they may find that their well can no longer provide enough water for their crops.

                          At the same time the rain from the impervious surfaces of the roofs, roads and parking areas has to be collected, treated and then piped back to the farmer who now needs municipal water to do what his well used to do. This may also mean new water lines and storage tanks are needed by the municipal government to meet demand and they are respnsible for those costs. All of this is due to the fact that a developer decided to build a mall on his property.

                          This is one example of the imact the built environment has on the natural environment. This doesn’t even consider wildlife, pollution, heat and light islands, traffic or zoning impacts associated with development. I need to consider so many variables in how any building will help and hinder quality of life for building occupants, users and nonusers alike.

                          Having owners of large structures pay to offset costs others incur from the project is fair. Taking this to down individual homeowners is asinine though. IMO the only reason for this is to deter future development but doing it this way just deters people from buying existing homes. Charge the developer and indirectly the buyers paying to build new homes. But a yearly tax is unfair IMO.
                          I had a 4 family home that I used to rent out and they decided to tax it like a business. The homeowner of a 3 family home next door paid $20 a year for a house as big as mine and I paid $200. The monster homes in the rich neighborhoods also pay $20. My house was built in 1880 and the town has been safe until 2010 when they decided it was time to declare it a disaster area and tax it. Only in America.
                          "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X