Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Congress Might Snuff Out The Green Bay Packers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 574664"><p>The fact that the Packers are a public company is irrelevant when it comes to federal tax treatment. All of the teams are for-profit entities and subject to federal tax.</p><p></p><p>In the great scheme of things, a football team is going to pay a lower amount of tax per revenue $ than, say, manufacturers which have high capital costs and material input costs. I'm not sure what you mean by "business and entertainment costs" being astronomical. A team's biggest expense deduction is clearly salary, akin to an investment bank. What seems to get lost in these discussions is the obvious point...<em>nobody </em>gets taxed on revenue; everybody is taxed on net profits.</p><p></p><p>This Atlantic article, too, conflates the federal taxation issue with the state and local taxation issues. It is typical of how this issue is framed in the popular press.</p><p></p><p>Congress' joint committee on taxation estimates that if the league's tax exempt status was revoked it would net the Treasury $10 million per year. C'mon...talk about a tempest in a teapot. That's 1/10 of 1% of the NFL's total revenue. It's less than one minimum rookie contract per team. It is clear evidence that a whopping percentage of NFL revenue flows through to the teams who are taxable.</p><p></p><p>And let's say the federal tax exempt status was revoked to collect that scant $10 million per year. What does that have to do with state and local jurisdictions funding stadiums with tax dollars, as liberally documented in the Atlantic article? There's no connection whatsoever. Whether the NFL pays that pittance in federal tax or not, teams will still seek and get state and local stadium funding just as they always have.</p><p></p><p>You're right...the NFL has a far greater cultural impact than a financial one. A $10 billion revenue operation just isn't that big in the great scheme of things...well down the Fortune 500 list. You mentioned Goldman and BOA; certainly there's no comparison. I was speaking of hedge funds, the top 10 of which I would venture a guess 90% of the posters on these boards never heard of which is probably why there's no outrage about how the managers of those funds avoid paying taxes at ordinary income rates...some of whom are billionaires.</p><p></p><p>That big, 'ol stadium is easy to understand and looms as a constant reminder of it's cost. At least half the population doesn't care about NFL football and nobody likes paying for something they don't use. It's something easy to make into a hot button. Hedge fund carried interest is not easy to understand; bring up the subject and people just turn the channel or turn the page; it's not an issue with which you can sell advertising.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 574664"] The fact that the Packers are a public company is irrelevant when it comes to federal tax treatment. All of the teams are for-profit entities and subject to federal tax. In the great scheme of things, a football team is going to pay a lower amount of tax per revenue $ than, say, manufacturers which have high capital costs and material input costs. I'm not sure what you mean by "business and entertainment costs" being astronomical. A team's biggest expense deduction is clearly salary, akin to an investment bank. What seems to get lost in these discussions is the obvious point...[I]nobody [/I]gets taxed on revenue; everybody is taxed on net profits. This Atlantic article, too, conflates the federal taxation issue with the state and local taxation issues. It is typical of how this issue is framed in the popular press. Congress' joint committee on taxation estimates that if the league's tax exempt status was revoked it would net the Treasury $10 million per year. C'mon...talk about a tempest in a teapot. That's 1/10 of 1% of the NFL's total revenue. It's less than one minimum rookie contract per team. It is clear evidence that a whopping percentage of NFL revenue flows through to the teams who are taxable. And let's say the federal tax exempt status was revoked to collect that scant $10 million per year. What does that have to do with state and local jurisdictions funding stadiums with tax dollars, as liberally documented in the Atlantic article? There's no connection whatsoever. Whether the NFL pays that pittance in federal tax or not, teams will still seek and get state and local stadium funding just as they always have. You're right...the NFL has a far greater cultural impact than a financial one. A $10 billion revenue operation just isn't that big in the great scheme of things...well down the Fortune 500 list. You mentioned Goldman and BOA; certainly there's no comparison. I was speaking of hedge funds, the top 10 of which I would venture a guess 90% of the posters on these boards never heard of which is probably why there's no outrage about how the managers of those funds avoid paying taxes at ordinary income rates...some of whom are billionaires. That big, 'ol stadium is easy to understand and looms as a constant reminder of it's cost. At least half the population doesn't care about NFL football and nobody likes paying for something they don't use. It's something easy to make into a hot button. Hedge fund carried interest is not easy to understand; bring up the subject and people just turn the channel or turn the page; it's not an issue with which you can sell advertising. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
coulomb
Latest posts
2025 Packer Free Agent News/Tracker
Latest: McKnowledge
Today at 5:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers Roster Assessment, 2025 Off-Season
Latest: McKnowledge
Today at 5:26 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
CB Nate Hobbs Signed In FA 2025
Latest: Sanguine camper
Today at 4:27 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 NFL Free Agency
Latest: DoURant
Today at 4:26 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Good Bye J’aire Alexander
Latest: mradtke66
Yesterday at 5:24 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Congress Might Snuff Out The Green Bay Packers
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
