"Win the Super Bowl? Face a Big Tax Bill" - February 6, 2015; http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25334&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD [AS I SEE IT: This article is almost funny (I was cheering for the Seahawks, so..). But of course it points out how ridiculous our tax code is and how its way past time there were some fundamental changes made to it. Let's pray for leaders with the courage and wisdom to do it and to do it right. - Stan]
There's another aspect to the Super Bowl that Americans might not have thought about -- taxes. Americans for Tax Reform have analyzed quarterback Tom Brady's tax bill after the Super Bowl, and it's not small. According to their analysis:
Brady won a 2015 Chevy Colorado truck for being MVP. The truck is taxable and has a fair market value of $34,000. Brady faces a 39.6 percent income tax rate, meaning he must pony up $13,500 to the IRS in taxes.
Brady plans to give the truck to his teammate, so he's also subject to a gift tax. Under the U.S. tax code, a person can give up to $14,000 before he faces taxes. Because the truck is worth $34,000, Brady will probably be taxed 40 percent on the $20,000 ($34,000 minus the $14,000 exclusion) -- $5,000 for giving a gift to a friend.
Each player on a winning Super Bowl team receives $97,000 from the NFL. That income will be taxed at the 39.6 percent rate. His winnings will also be taxed by a 3.8 percent Medicare tax.
In all, Americans for Tax Reform put Brady's tax bill at $42,000 for winning the Super Bowl.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Source: Ryan Ellis, "IRS to Steal Tom Brady's Superbowl MVP Truck," Americans for Tax Reform, February 4, 2015. http://www.atr.org/irs-steal-tom-bradys-superbowl-mvp-truck
"Cutting the Budget: Welfare Spending" - February 6, 2015; http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25337&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
The Heritage Foundation has released a new report on the American budget -- but rather than call for new spending, they suggest 106 different ways to cut the federal budget and decrease the size of government. These suggestions span sectors, from national defense to housing policy to agriculture. Consider [just 3 of ] their suggestions for cutting back on "income security" spending:
1)Capping means-tested welfare spending then tying it to inflation would save $100 billion in 2016 alone and $2.7 trillion over a decade. Why the cap? It would require lawmakers to send money to the place and people that really need it, rather than letting it grow from year to year. Since the 1960s, welfare spending has increased sixteenfold.
2)Require able-bodied adults to work or look for work in order to receive food stamps. This would save the country $5.4 billion each year. Current policy has made it easy to get on food stamps and creates little incentive for people to get back to work.
3) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) consistently loses money due to fraud. By instituting more rigorous controls and penalties for erroneous claims, the government could save $80 billion over a decade.
These are just three of Heritage's 106 budget proposals.[F8or more of their ideas, check out their article noted below] [bold and italics emphasis mine]
Source: "The Budget Book: 106 Ways to Reduce the Size and Scope of Government," Heritage Foundation, February 2015. http://budgetbook.heritage.org/
"Getting Rid of the Federal Gas Tax" - February 6, 2015; http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25338&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Policymakers have renewed calls for a gas tax hike, but what about getting rid of the federal gas tax altogether? That's what Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center suggests. While the federal gas tax is struggling to fund highway projects, she says getting the federal government out of the gas tax business would be a better way to deal with infrastructure spending.
De Rugy says it "makes little sense" that the current tax structure taxes people at the pump and sends the money to the federal government, then the federal government sends that money to the states. Instead, she says states should be the only ones levying gas taxes to deal with problems within their borders. Moreover, she says states that need more revenue for road funding could experiment with better ways to raise money -- ones that call for competition and innovation. And without the federal gas tax in the way, state taxpayers might be more willing to agree to new gas taxes to fund needed projects in their states.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "The Federal Gasoline Tax Should Be Abolished, Not Increased," Mercatus Center, February 2, 2015. http://mercatus.org/publication/federal-gasoline-tax-should-be-abolished-not-increased
There's another aspect to the Super Bowl that Americans might not have thought about -- taxes. Americans for Tax Reform have analyzed quarterback Tom Brady's tax bill after the Super Bowl, and it's not small. According to their analysis:
Brady won a 2015 Chevy Colorado truck for being MVP. The truck is taxable and has a fair market value of $34,000. Brady faces a 39.6 percent income tax rate, meaning he must pony up $13,500 to the IRS in taxes.
Brady plans to give the truck to his teammate, so he's also subject to a gift tax. Under the U.S. tax code, a person can give up to $14,000 before he faces taxes. Because the truck is worth $34,000, Brady will probably be taxed 40 percent on the $20,000 ($34,000 minus the $14,000 exclusion) -- $5,000 for giving a gift to a friend.
Each player on a winning Super Bowl team receives $97,000 from the NFL. That income will be taxed at the 39.6 percent rate. His winnings will also be taxed by a 3.8 percent Medicare tax.
In all, Americans for Tax Reform put Brady's tax bill at $42,000 for winning the Super Bowl.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Source: Ryan Ellis, "IRS to Steal Tom Brady's Superbowl MVP Truck," Americans for Tax Reform, February 4, 2015. http://www.atr.org/irs-steal-tom-bradys-superbowl-mvp-truck
"Cutting the Budget: Welfare Spending" - February 6, 2015; http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25337&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
The Heritage Foundation has released a new report on the American budget -- but rather than call for new spending, they suggest 106 different ways to cut the federal budget and decrease the size of government. These suggestions span sectors, from national defense to housing policy to agriculture. Consider [just 3 of ] their suggestions for cutting back on "income security" spending:
1)Capping means-tested welfare spending then tying it to inflation would save $100 billion in 2016 alone and $2.7 trillion over a decade. Why the cap? It would require lawmakers to send money to the place and people that really need it, rather than letting it grow from year to year. Since the 1960s, welfare spending has increased sixteenfold.
2)Require able-bodied adults to work or look for work in order to receive food stamps. This would save the country $5.4 billion each year. Current policy has made it easy to get on food stamps and creates little incentive for people to get back to work.
3) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) consistently loses money due to fraud. By instituting more rigorous controls and penalties for erroneous claims, the government could save $80 billion over a decade.
These are just three of Heritage's 106 budget proposals.[F8or more of their ideas, check out their article noted below] [bold and italics emphasis mine]
Source: "The Budget Book: 106 Ways to Reduce the Size and Scope of Government," Heritage Foundation, February 2015. http://budgetbook.heritage.org/
"Getting Rid of the Federal Gas Tax" - February 6, 2015; http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25338&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Policymakers have renewed calls for a gas tax hike, but what about getting rid of the federal gas tax altogether? That's what Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center suggests. While the federal gas tax is struggling to fund highway projects, she says getting the federal government out of the gas tax business would be a better way to deal with infrastructure spending.
De Rugy says it "makes little sense" that the current tax structure taxes people at the pump and sends the money to the federal government, then the federal government sends that money to the states. Instead, she says states should be the only ones levying gas taxes to deal with problems within their borders. Moreover, she says states that need more revenue for road funding could experiment with better ways to raise money -- ones that call for competition and innovation. And without the federal gas tax in the way, state taxpayers might be more willing to agree to new gas taxes to fund needed projects in their states.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "The Federal Gasoline Tax Should Be Abolished, Not Increased," Mercatus Center, February 2, 2015. http://mercatus.org/publication/federal-gasoline-tax-should-be-abolished-not-increased
No comments:
Post a Comment