Rush to re-do contracts before Jan.1st coming?

[124]

Have heard this all over the radio and internet this morning / afternoon.

ProFootballTalk.com

RUSH TO REDO CONTRACTS COMING?

Posted by Mike Florio on November 5, 2008, 9:32 a.m.

Now that the American people have elected a President who has vowed to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 per year, baseball agents are already planning to get raises for their players before the end of current calendar year.

But will football agents do the same? The deadline for counting 2008 salary increases only against the 2008 salary cap came and went on Monday, with only Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers getting a huge boost in the money he

[Lil Bit Special]

I would certainly hope any player who voted for the president elect would not look for ways to skirt the proposed tax regulations...

They wanted him, they need to pay the price.

[jason423]

Very few if any NFL teams will be willing to do it. Since the owners opted out of the CBA there are a ton of restrictions on how much you can pay them and how the contracts can be structured. Teams wont be rushing to accommodate any players hoping to skirt a few tax regulations.

[Thai Jet]

I would certainly hope any player who voted for the president elect would not look for ways to skirt the proposed tax regulations...

They wanted him, they need to pay the price.

Oh yeah. Everybody put their cards on the table before yesterday, Now live with it.

[Thai Jet]

Very few if any NFL teams will be willing to do it. Since the owners opted out of the CBA there are a ton of restrictions on how much you can pay them and how the contracts can be structured. Teams wont be rushing to accommodate any players hoping to skirt a few tax regulations.

One would certainly hope not.

[aec4]

Someone needs to explain to me why taxes can't just be X % for everyone.. Explain to me how that screws the "middle class".. Last I checked in basic math, 20% of 50K is 10K, and 20% of 500K is 100K, so the guy making 500K does pay 10X more just like he makes 10X more.

Im sick of the "let's help the lazy" politics.

[Lil Bit Special]

Someone needs to explain to me why taxes can't just be X % for everyone.. Explain to me how that screws the "middle class".. Last I checked in basic math, 20% of 50K is 10K, and 20% of 500K is 100K, so the guy making 500K does pay 10X more just like he makes 10X more.

Im sick of the "let's help the lazy" politics.

Because politicians just do these things for votes, not whats right for the country. No politician cares about anything else but getting elected. That is their only goal. They arent there for us.

[nico002]

Just because someone has a lower income doesn't mean they are lazy you idiot.

Is the single father who works three jobs to feed his kids lazy?

[Lil Bit Special]

Just because someone has a lower income doesn't mean they are lazy you idiot.

Is the single father who works three jobs to feed his kids lazy?

No. Just stupid.

He could sell drugs or stage car accidents for insurance money and make a lot more money and spend more time with the kids.

[aec4]

Just because someone has a lower income doesn't mean they are lazy you idiot.

Is the single father who works three jobs to feed his kids lazy?

No, but why should his tax % be less than someone who makes more? I'm talking % here, not amount. Is he less of a burden on society because he makes less?

[lawngnome o-line]

You can't base it off of a pure percentage either, where you take everyone's income and set a flat tax rate.

If you were to do anything you would have to take it as a percentage of whatever is left after you take the total income and take away the amount of money it costs to live in the area that you live in.

Person A makes $50,000 & lives in a rural area/poor urban area

Person B makes $100,000 & lives in a rural/ poorer suburban area

Person C makes $250,000 & lives in a wealthy area

All three of these people live in different parts of the country. For person A, it costs them 30,000 to live; that is to pay for rent/mortgage, food, and other necessities. That means if you are going on basically a pure flat rate of 10% they should only be charged: $50,000-$30,000 = $20,000 X 10% = $2,000 for taxes.

Person B lives in a relatively similar situation, but with a slightly more expensive life as it takes him $50,000 for them to live.

$100,000-$50,000=$50,000 X 10% = $5,000.

Now Person C makes $250,000 but it costs them $70,000 to live, since he lives in an area where rent/mortgage is higher, clothing, and food are more expensive for where he lives (urban compared to rural for example). The taxes work out to be:

$250,000-$70,000=$180,000 X 10% = $18,000

Person A pays: $2,000

Person B pays: $5,000

Person C pays: 18,000

In this scenario Person C is paying more solely because he is making more, not because a skewed tax scale.

With a skewed scale for tax rate, you would greatly improve Person A, since he has less disposable income than Person C, who would be paying at a higher tax rate. In pure economic terms this would benefit the economy in the short term since it would give a direct influx of spending by those who have less money (The person A's of the world). It could hurt us in the long run because all of the Person C's of the world will have less money for saving, which will lead to less money for lending, which affects lending rates and other economic factors.

I could have added Person's D-ZZ if I wanted to, but when it comes down to it, tax plans need to be decided on the current needs of our country. Do we money now, or later. With a skewed tax scale, it will help us now, by giving more money (relatively) to those who are poorer, and only in pure numbers affect the rich, however their spending will not be severely affected by this raise in taxes.

Without getting political, this is the unbiased analysis.

[aec4]

You can't base it off of a pure percentage either, where you take everyone's income and set a flat tax rate.

If you were to do anything you would have to take it as a percentage of whatever is left after you take the total income and take away the amount of money it costs to live in the area that you live in.

Person A makes $50,000 & lives in a rural area/poor urban area

Person B makes $100,000 & lives in a rural/ poorer suburban area

Person C makes $250,000 & lives in a wealthy area

All three of these people live in different parts of the country. For person A, it costs them 30,000 to live; that is to pay for rent/mortgage, food, and other necessities. That means if you are going on basically a pure flat rate of 10% they should only be charged: $50,000-$30,000 = $20,000 X 10% = $2,000 for taxes.

Person B lives in a relatively similar situation, but with a slightly more expensive life as it takes him $50,000 for them to live.

$100,000-$50,000=$50,000 X 10% = $5,000.

Now Person C makes $250,000 but it costs them $70,000 to live, since he lives in an area where rent/mortgage is higher, clothing, and food are more expensive for where he lives (urban compared to rural for example). The taxes work out to be:

$250,000-$70,000=$180,000 X 10% = $18,000

Person A pays: $2,000

Person B pays: $5,000

Person C pays: 18,000

In this scenario Person C is paying more solely because he is making more, not because a skewed tax scale.

With a skewed scale for tax rate, you would greatly improve Person A, since he has less disposable income than Person C, who would be paying at a higher tax rate. In pure economic terms this would benefit the economy in the short term since it would give a direct influx of spending by those who have less money (The person A's of the world). It could hurt us in the long run because all of the Person C's of the world will have less money for saving, which will lead to less money for lending, which affects lending rates and other economic factors.

I could have added Person's D-ZZ if I wanted to, but when it comes down to it, tax plans need to be decided on the current needs of our country. Do we money now, or later. With a skewed tax scale, it will help us now, by giving more money (relatively) to those who are poorer, and only in pure numbers affect the rich, however their spending will not be severely affected by this raise in taxes.

Without getting political, this is the unbiased analysis.

This is where people over complicate the tax code. This is why we have what we have today and you need to hire a darn accountant to do your taxes or buy a $40 dollar program to do it.

Why does it have to matter where you live? Just like why should I pay more property tax on my almost IDENTICAL house as my neighbor because he makes less than me? What does taxing my PROPERTY have to do with my INCOME? NOTHING!!!!!! What does taxing my income have to do with my property? NOTHING.

Pick a %, any % and let's do it. My employer can then pull my taxes out and there is NOTHING for me to do.. or if I am self employed, I just say X * Y% = Z pay Z.

Either that, or go with a USE TAX. No income tax, but tax goods 30%.. yes, 30% sales tax. and it would be a GOOD THING. Use more, get taxed more. Buy only essentials, don't get taxed much at all. Hoard your money? Ok, well then you don't get taxed, but you're not living either.

For instance, you may pay 30% tax on a 30K car, or 9K.. BUT you wouldn't pay a dime of income tax.. so you'd make out.

[lawngnome o-line]

The problem with the use tax is if you hoard your money, you don't spend your money, and the economy does not expand.

The use tax would not affect the poor, as they will basically be "using" all of their income for pure survival. This will however affect the wealthy, who not only purchase more with their added disposable income, but through the purchase of luxury items, help drive more areas of our economy than those who are poor.

A use tax would cause the economy to regress, not pro-gress.