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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Slightly OT - New Tax Rules
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by flyered View PostThe 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."Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"
-
Originally posted by MDFAN View PostThat ain't nothin...... We had/have a "Rain Tax" here in Md. Yup!"Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by NoDakIggle View Postwhat in the world is a rain tax
Comment
-
Originally posted by MDFAN View PostA 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
-
Originally posted by NoDakIggle View PostI'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"Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Jukin View PostI 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."Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"
Comment
Comment