Thanks, Obama!

Stuck inside the POTUS’ latest budget proposal is this (h/t):

Obama’s budget proposal sent to Congress Monday would end the deduction available to some fans for donations they make to get seats at college sporting events. This is a new proposal by the administration.

By closing what the White House calls a loophole in the system, people would pay about $2.5 billion over the next decade in higher taxes. Currently, college sports fans can deduct 80 percent of the cost of such donations.

It’s not going to be the taxpayer who’s going to be screaming about this.  It’s the schools.

While some alumni and fans would give money to schools regardless of tax benefits, ending the deduction would hurt revenue at some sports programs, said Robert Spielman, a senior tax partner at Marcum LLP who advises high-net-worth clients.

Some U.S. colleges use the tax benefit to generate more revenue from sports. They set a price for season tickets and then demand donations in the hundreds or thousands of dollars on top of that cost as a condition of the sale. Part of the pitch is that fans can claim the expense as a charitable deduction when they itemize their tax return.

Required Donations

At certain universities, fans can’t buy tickets unless they make a donation, and at other schools the donations help people get premium seating on the 50-yard line.

One athletic department that uses the donation is the University of Louisville, whose men’s basketball team made $40.5 million in revenue in 2013-2014, about $15 million more than the next closest program.

Louisville requires a donation to the Cardinal Athletic Fund for most of its season tickets — contributions that range from $2,500 to $250 a seat. Of the university’s $40.5 million in men’s basketball revenue, $21.7 million come from donations, according to the school’s annual report to the NCAA.

Yeah, that could leave a mark.

Given the make up of the current Congress, it’s not like Obama’s budget proposal is going anywhere soon.  But as a marker for how the President feels about college athletics administration, it’s worth keeping in the back of your mind when the NCAA gets serious about lobbying for that antitrust exemption it’s shuffling towards.

125 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, Political Wankery

125 responses to “Thanks, Obama!

  1. Spence

    Oh God, you said the O word and brought taxes into it. This liberal now has to decide whether I’m going to read the comments on this post or not…

    Anyone want to gamble on the number of times the word communism is used in the comments today? I’ll set it at 35.5.

    Like

    • David K

      As a liberal I dread these comments as well. BTW, Democrats and Republicans both enjoy spending as much as the other, it’s just for different stuff. (And Democrats are at least more honest with themselves about paying for it.)

      Like

    • Or the number of times I get lectured about mentioning politics on a football blog…

      Like

    • 3rdandGrantham

      Given that the stock market is up almost 300% since he took office, and the top 1% increasing their net worth just under 70% since ’09; to call him a socialist/commie only serves to show your complete ignorance if not stupidity.

      Like

      • Rick

        In fairness, the top 1% increased their net worth by that much because it had decreased by nearly the inverse during the crash of late 2008. That’s what it means to have assets in stocks. Not that inequality isn’t one of the greatest challenges facing our country at the moment, I just tire of statistics like this 🙂

        Like

        • 3rdandGrantham

          According to the CBO, their net worth only decreased in the 20’s, so they have benefited far more than any other group during his admin (whether they like the guy or not).

          Like

        • Cojones

          And what produced the crash in 2008? If we did not have govt intervention, I’m of the opinion that this would continue to be the blackest of times for us all.

          Obama hasn’t inserted cfb into politics since it was already there. It just makes us look closer at the antitrust exemption. Sometimes when our ox is getting gored we may become a little more altruistic in our outlook.

          What are you worried about? Giving to our govt as you would give to our school? Don’t worry, the Koch bros (your other form of govt) are on this for you fat-cats.

          Oh, almost forgot – 🙂

          Like

          • Cojones

            Oh. And my stocks took their worst hit around 2000. I’ll put it this way: my large automatic yearly deduction for loss back then won’t be used up until year 3000. Sheesh!

            Like

          • Hackerdog

            Government intervention LESSENED the crash? That’s adorable. 🙂

            Along the same lines of logic, I always tell people driving cars that when heading for a cliff, floor it. The crash will be lessened. You can thank me later.

            Like

      • Charles

        Because, as we all know, upper class largesse is rarely observed in socialist economies.

        Like

    • Cosmic Dawg

      Because everyone who criticizes the president is soooo boorish, right?

      You’re choosing to take on an extreme, uneducated, distorted view of reality to unfairly paint all Obama’s critics (roughly 50% of the country) as uneducated extremists with a distorted view of reality – got it.

      Of course, many of the president’s critics are polite and rational, and many of his defenders are not. Nevertheless, his defenders often adopt the pedantic tone you exhibit above – so enlightened and above it all, yet somehow still full of nasty schoolboy snark. I rarely hear people on the right mocking uneducated people in the solidly Democratic ghettos or union towns of the rust belt, btw, and if they did, what purpose would that advance but scoring cheap points?

      I can’t stand McCain, Graham, McConnell, Bush, et al, but if you really call yourself a liberal you ought to be more pissed about this president and the last few congresses than anybody. You had the whole show for a couple years and it was massive cronyism and dirty business as usual – who but a blind partisan leaps to defend that?

      Like

    • pitbull

      higher taxes means more deficit spending, bigger piles of national debt fewer real jobs, more people living off welfare and disability checks, and less respect for private sector charitable giving, and less charitable giving as a result of the usual anti-freedom, anti-capitalism and anti-Christian bias of the news media, entertainment mafia and race-baiting fool wings of the Democrat party.

      Obama is just a fool on the hill running it however George Soros wants him to.

      Worst. President. Ever.

      Like

      • higher taxes means more deficit spending

        Um, no. Higher spending can mean more deficit spending, but higher taxes means more government revenue. Or, as we saw during the Bush years, lower taxes can mean more deficit spending, as government revenues decrease. Add in a trillion-dollar War on Terror and now you’re talking some real money.

        Math is hard.

        Like

  2. DC Weez

    I’m not worried about it. That will be DOA as will a lot of Mr. O’s budget proposals.

    Like

  3. paul

    Well, as we all know, we’re making a contribution to the Hartman Fund. I’m not sure how others are structuring their programs. The tickets themselves are not actually directly connected to the contribution. You can contribute to the Hartman Fund and still not get tickets. So, it seems like that contribution is a stand alone donation to a scholarship fund. I’ll be interested to find out more details about this proposal. I have to admit though, I’m with them on banning the use of tax exempt bonds to build professional sports facilities. If you want a stadium you should build it yourself.

    Like

  4. georgiajeepn

    Hussein Obama left out the part that all Muslims will be exempt from the donation tax.
    Seriously if he gets the tax at 35 percent by asking to negate the 80 percent current mark he will have won big anyway.

    Like

  5. Bright Idea

    This will hurt the small schools the most won’t it? I thought O was champion of the little man. O has no agenda against athletic administrations, just trying to grab as much of our $$$ wherever he can find it.

    Like

    • watcher16

      I doubt the small schools are requiring donations to be eligible ffor seats at sporting events

      Like

      • Cojones

        Let’s see. How is the free education thingy being perceived by colleges? Probably in the same manner as Obamacare was to the AMA (they supported it because they would get mo’ paying patients and mo’ money in their pocket. Of course, prior to that, they probably got more debt subtraction by running up the bill on patients unable to pay, but who’s counting). Would think that more people would be enrolled and the burden for paying changes, not the monies received by colleges. And parents would lose deductions just like docs.

        What the hell, folks, it looks like Obama just wants to use more of the money that’s going into fat-cat’s pockets to build better roads and bridges not to get your families killed on and create more commerce that can put more money into the pockets of the fat-cats, but inevitably also to the added benefit of the middle class. A rising tide floats all boats.

        Like

        • Hackerdog

          So, fat cats are bad for the economy until their money has been cycled through the government an extra time, and then they’re good for the economy? What kind of investing behavior do they change from before to after?

          Like

  6. Spike

    I look at it as “his marker” about how he fells about more and more and more taxes…

    Like

  7. Silver Britches

    HOT TAKE COMING:

    Ehh. I feel like if an 80% deduction on $500-$2500 is that big of a deal to your bottom line, you probably shouldn’t be buying season tickets anyway.

    Like

    • The other Doug

      You are missing the point. The deduction allows the schools to charge more because the buyer will get a deduction.

      Like

      • Silver Britches

        But do the vast majority of season ticket holders look at it as a perk, or is it a vital part of the decision to donate? I’d consider myself an “average” donor. This wouldn’t affect my decision-making.

        Like

        • Bulldawg165

          It raises the actual impact of the donation to the donor’s wallets, so yes, it will impact even “average” donors. To argue otherwise is silly. If that $1,000 donation only costs you $760 ($1000 – ($800 X 30% tax rate)) and it now costs you the full $1,000, of course it’s going to impact the amount the average donor can contribute.

          Like

          • 3rdandGrantham

            As SB put it succinctly above, if (using your example) a mere $240 is going to impact you that much, then you have absolutely no business whatsoever buying season tickets, as your priorities are totally misguided from the outset.

            Like

            • Bulldawg165

              Wow. So if you’re not willing to have 30% more money leaving your pocket, then you shouldn’t have been donating in the first place. Sound logic.

              Newsflash: It has NOTHING to do with priorities and everything to do with how much one is willing to part with. Nobody is arguing that someone won’t be able to put food on their table because of this. Stop pretending such.

              One isn’t wrong for WANTING to shell out $500 as opposed to $600, $2,500 as opposed to $3,000, or $100K as opposed to $130K. Ability has nothing to do with it.

              Like

              • 3rdandGrantham

                No, my point is to stop complaining over potentially losing a deduction that, frankly, has no business being in place anyway. We all complain that college athletics is big business, in which the top programs rake in over 100 mil annually, yet you and others want to hold onto a deduction which only serves to allow you to renew your previous season tickets for watching football. And as mentioned, closing of such a loophole will hurt big time AD’s most.

                The fact that you get the same deductions that someone else gets for donating to the American Cancer Society and similar charitable organizations is absurd. And again, we’re talking about a select leisure activity here, which is season tickets for watching football. Many, if not most would consider that a luxury. I recently faced a situation where I either had to choose between keeping my luxury Euro SUV (and losing a specific business deduction), or trading it in for a similar SUV that was certainly nice, but not in the luxury category, which would have afforded me an extra $700 annual yearly deduction. I bit the bullet and chose the former because I love the car and its safety features, not to mention the fact that I can afford it and nobody was putting a gun to my head to decide either way.

                Like

                • Bulldawg165

                  “yet you and others want to hold onto a deduction which only serves to allow you to renew your previous season tickets for watching football”

                  Is football the only sport nationwide that accepts donations?

                  “The fact that you get the same deductions that someone else gets for donating to the American Cancer Society and similar charitable organizations is absurd. ”

                  Is it? This doesn’t just apply to UGA football, you know. This applies to all donations. Is throwing money down a cancer research rabbit hole really better for society than funding a student-athlete’s scholarship? This doesn’t just impact revenue generating sports. It impacts ALL athletic departments (with an admittedly bigger impact on major ones such as UGA’s).

                  “I recently faced a situation where I either had to choose between keeping my luxury Euro SUV (and losing a specific business deduction), or trading it in for a similar SUV that was certainly nice, but not in the luxury category”

                  LOL. Not sure this part really warrants much of a response beyond me laughing at you for attempting to brag to strangers over the internet

                  Like

                • 3rdandGrantham

                  Not bragging whatsoever, as many people can afford a luxury car payment if they choose to do so. Besides, my SUV still costs less than some domestic SUV’s, like a well equipped Grand Cherokee. You obviously didn’t get the point, which is that, when it comes to wants, splurges, perks, etc. (such as season tickets or nice cars), you have no room to bitch and moan over potentially losing out on a deduction in relation to your precious splurges. We’re not exactly talking about eliminating deductions on basic needs here.

                  Like

                • Bulldawg165

                  You clearly overlooked this part of my post:

                  “s it? This doesn’t just apply to UGA football, you know. This applies to all donations. Is throwing money down a cancer research rabbit hole really better for society than funding a student-athlete’s scholarship? This doesn’t just impact revenue generating sports. It impacts ALL athletic departments (with an admittedly bigger impact on major ones such as UGA’s).”

                  This proposal reaches much farther than Hartman fund contributions.

                  Like

                • “Obama’s budget proposal sent to Congress Monday would end the deduction available to some fans for donations they make to get seats at college sporting events.”

                  Where exactly do you think it reaches?

                  Like

                • Bulldawg165

                  Every athletic department that requires a minimum donation, however small. Those donations aren’t always used by the AD specifically for the sport one wants tickets for. They help fund ALL of the athletic programs, and therefore people donating less (which they will because people respond to incentives – Economics 101) will impact ALL college sports.

                  Like

                • Charities are big business too. I don’t think the deduction is going away. If you feel that strongly about it don’t take the deduction. 😉 Last Euro car I had was a Volvo 240 station wagon with the third seat that rolled out. Great little car. Red. Put 300,000 on it and sold it to a UGa professor. Still see it around town. Went through the brakes though. Heavy car. If I wanted an SUV I like the look of the XC60. My brother in law has one. And if no one was holding a gun to my head not to… I might like that Porsche Macan. But somehow turning a Porsche into an SUV is wrong. Wonder if Bluto would have one. 😉
                  American Cancer Society rating.
                  http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VNEHZi6PPqE

                  Like

                • 3rdandGrantham

                  You have great taste in cars. We drive XC60/90. Wow, the example I pulled from the top of my head (ACS) isn’t exactly looking so good, is it? In the defense of someone who gives to ACS or other charitable organizations, at least they are doing it out of sheer generosity alone, and not because of some ulterior motive for acquiring something (tickets) as a part of a requirement from the organization to receive said tickets.

                  I love the fact that Volvo’s are heavy cars. Brakes and reduced mpg sucks but I’ll take it knowing I’m in one of the safest cars out there.

                  Like

            • DawgPhan

              $240 is still $240. I dont waste money and I dont like spending more for something than I have to.

              Like

              • 3rdandGrantham

                Then don’t buy season tickets if you don’t like wasting money. Season tickets are a handsome perk, if not an outright luxury item for many. I can easily afford season tickets, yet I choose not to do so as a lifestyle choice. “Spending more for something than I have to”? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy season tickets. You making this sound like you just had your property taxes reappraised upward, in which you have no recourse in the matter.

                Like

                • Then don’t buy season tickets…

                  Isn’t that the point? The deduction may be a minor inconvenience to those of us that donate to purchase season tickets. However, it is one more push in the direction of fans staying home to watch on TV, which I think has the bigger impact than a $240 itemized deduction on your 1040. If college football attendance is waning across the board due to better TV coverage, deteriorating facilities, and everything in-between, the last thing athletic departments want is another reason – no matter how minor – for you to keep your money and stay home.

                  Like

            • JTP

              You sounds like a dick.

              Like

            • Cosmic Dawg

              People make decisions at the margins. There is a curve along which you can “zoom in” and get more and more micro until you see every increment by which you raise the price of something causes one more person to refuse to buy it.

              So there are X number of people (and probably not an insignificant number at a 20% or whatever price swing) for whom season tickets minus $240 is not irresponsible/implausible, but season tickets at a flat rate is implausible.

              Like

    • DawgPhan

      Some how I doubt it is the people donating $1000/year that will be the ones complaining loudly about this. Imagine getting a deduction for the money you spend on buying influence. Those people might mind if their sweet 80% deduction on the $100k they donate suddenly goes away.

      Like

      • Silver Britches

        I’m not sure how many people donating $100K per year are affected by an $80K deduction. Maybe it’s a lot, but maybe it isn’t. I tend to think it’s not.

        Like

        • Bulldawg165

          The whole “if you can’t afford to pay blah blah blah amount you shouldn’t be spending….” combined with “well if you are rich then who cares about paying blah blah blah” is easily the most ridiculous assertion thus far.

          If you can’t pay it then you’re too poor to be having fun, and if you CAN pay it then shut up and deal with it. Is that really your position?

          Like

          • 3rdandGrantham

            I don’t know about you, but where I come from, having season tickets is a perk, and certainly isn’t a necessity to “have fun.” There is such a thing called a tv, which I’ve utilized for watching every UGA game sans the 5-6 I’ve witnessed in person over the past 7-8 years. And I’ve had a ton of fun watching them on tv…many times more fun than in person.

            As for those who can pay, you do realize we’re talking about eliminating a deduction, right?

            Like

            • Bulldawg165

              Who/what are you responding to in your first paragraph?

              Eliminating the deduction causes the actual cost of your donation to increase. You do realize that, right? Everyone from Bill Gates to Homeless Homer responds in some way or another to incentives (in this case, rising costs) and it doesn’t mean they had “out of line priorities” to begin with.

              Like

          • Silver Britches

            Look, you’re clearly upset about it. I’m not thrilled, either.

            My only point is this: there are currently approximately 13,000 Hartman donors. Will some people stop contributing because the deduction goes away? Of course. Will it be so impactful that it changes UGA’s pricing/donation policies? I don’t think it will.

            Like

    • 3rdandGrantham

      +34

      Like

  8. 3rdandGrantham

    As a small business owner who relies on deductions, and as someone who is a fiscal conservative who didn’t vote for Obama in either election, I have no problem whatsoever with a proposal to eliminate the deduction.

    We all bellyache about how college athletics is big business anyway, masked as a vehicle to “support student athletes” (sic), so they might as well close that loophole.

    Like

    • Rick

      Thumbs up to you, sir, for evaluating Obama’s proposals on whether or not they actually make sense. As a libertarian who has been turned off by the increasing insanity of my libertarian/fiscal conservative brethren when it comes to the president, it is refreshing to see.

      Like

      • 3rdandGrantham

        I never hated Obama and stopped my innate dislike of him a long time ago. Life is too short for that and, besides, his predecessor (GWB) was a total train wreck anyway. Same goes for the GOP going back 30 years and their litany of broken promises.

        Like

        • Cojones

          Uh…..would you be interested in furthering causes that speak to your sense of values? You can vote Libertarian ’til the cows come home, but if you want to see your vote mean something, vote Democrat next time so as to even up the numbers wanting to vote scalawags from both big parties out. It’s all better when the congressional seats are more even. The tendency for legislators to vote honestly on honest merits of legislation essential to the welfare of the general population increases when the seating is more equal.

          Tune into Fox “News” if you want to appreciate the opposite; also, read all the mass communication publications owned by the Koch bros.

          Like

    • DawgPhan

      If you can’t run a business successfully without deductions, you shouldnt be running a business.

      Gee that really sounds a little dickish, doesnt it.

      Like

  9. Ant

    I think Obama will probably be gone before it is passed. Although, I expect there to be a large majority in Congress to be supportive maybe even enough to override any veto.

    Like

  10. Bulldawg165

    I’m not necessarily opposed to eliminating the deduction as much as I’m opposed to the obvious inability of congress (either party) to stop wasting ridiculous amounts of money.

    Like

  11. Bourbon Dawgwalker

    Meh. As someone who didn’t vote for the man either time and generally disagrees with his proposals, this makes sense and I completely agree with it. Save the tax deductions for donations to the academic side of the University, not for the privilege of buying football tickets.

    Like

  12. When Kessler is done with college athletics and the NCAA, the AAs are no longer going to be tax-exempt organizations because they aren’t going to be providing educational opportunities with scholarships. They are going to be taxable entities with the athletes as employees. Good bye, contributions. Hello, PSLs.

    As to the politics of this, why don’t we go to a consumption-based system or a flat tax and these contributions won’t matter anymore to governments at various levels?

    Like

    • Because a consumption based system would offer simplicity and clarity…and the last thing any government wants is either of those.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I Wanna Red Cup

        Neither do the lawyers. 🙂

        Like

        • brown timbercale

          1 to you and Lamont. The current tax system is nothing but a jobs program for thousands of unnecessary federal employees. And it provides power for the ego inflated, entitled politicians and a money tree for the attorneys.

          Like

        • I wish people would quit taking shots at lawyers. Seriously. I go out to dinner with my wife and her business associates. They find out my kid is in law school at UGa and everyone thinks they are Johnny Carson doing stand up. After awhile my response is not too polite. My wife is threatening to just leave me at home.
          Now get off my lawn! 😉

          Like

          • Cojones

            Yeah? Well I’m just sittin’ here watchin’ the hawks circle the wife’s pet chickens. And she’s asking me why I don’t gun them down. You think you got problems! 🙂

            Like

          • brown timbercale

            Easy there AHD…..I’m sure your law school student is going to be an ethical and problem solving lawyer- not a problem causer for the sake of billing time on the clean up effort. Those are the ones I seem to encounter in the business world (real estate) and it’s cost me truckloads of cash through the years. If my freshman Dawg were to make it to law school in about three years, I’d be very proud.
            BTW, my wife leaves me at home all the time!

            Like

    • Bulldawg165

      Because then politicians can’t create loopholes for their corporate buddies

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Charles

    “But as a marker for how the President feels about college athletics administration, it’s worth keeping in the back of your mind when the NCAA gets serious about lobbying for that antitrust exemption it’s shuffling towards.”

    Maybe so. On the other hand, I’d say ending this particular deduction has more to do with trying to find spare change under the sofa than anything else.

    If last month’s 529 taxation debate revealed anything, it’s that the government is running out of all the usual sources of funding. Jacking up the marginal income tax rates would be too transparent, politically.

    Like

    • Charles

      BTW, how’s this for an unintended consequence: if this step means athletic associations will no longer organize as non-profit entities, then what’s to be done with all of those retained earnings…

      a.k.a. the “reserve fund.”

      Like

  14. PansyTheDawg

    This is infuriating despite it probably never passing thanks to Congress being as contrarian as possible, but while billionaires and huge companies have laughable tax loop holes available to them, our clearly corrupt government wants to push the tax burden on the middle and lower classes who can’t afford it.

    (I apologize if that seems political, but to me, it’s simply acknowledging a wrongdoing.)

    Like

    • DawgFlan

      I don’t understand how this particular change would “push the tax burden on the middle and lower classes who can’t afford it.”

      #1) Tax deductions are for people who itemize over and above the standard deduction, thus eliminating many in the so-called “middle and lower classes” of which you speak.

      #2) There nothing being pushed on anyone. You can avoid this completely by not donating to an athletic association.

      In general, the price of tickets have gone up much more than 26% over the years for reasons not related to the tax code, and if they go up another 26% for some due to a change in the tax code, then people may re-asses if they can or cannot “afford it” or if the influence and prestige that comes with being a donor is worth the additional cost, and act accordingly – regardless of socioeconomic status.

      This blog has covered this before, but you can already buy very good single-game tickets from a reputable reseller for whichever games you want and usually come out way ahead of the full donation + season ticket prices anyway. So rationally, the donation has very little to do with one’s ability to buy tickets in general.

      Like

      • Bulldawg165

        “Tax deductions are for people who itemize over and above the standard deduction, thus eliminating many in the so-called “middle and lower classes” of which you speak.”

        Nearly everyone who owns a home can itemize the interest on their mortgage and this usually exceeds the standard deduction (or at least it used to, with the record low rates of the past few years this might not still be the case)

        Like

  15. PTC DAWG

    How about just selling the tickets for what they truly cost? Donate if you want to to the school.

    Like

  16. Uglydawg

    Before I give my approval fot the govt. (any level, but esp. Fed) to take any more money from me, I would like to see them quit wasting the money they already take. Govt. waste is so bad that it is impossible to describe. The number of gov employees will soon be higher than it was in WW2. They can’t do a fucking thing right or honestly (See IRS and VA for starters).
    Take away AF-1 and most of the executive branch perks…take away the congressional pensions…install term limits….and we might actually get some dedicated and honest people running this country. As it is right now, they’ll eventually take every penny they can while feathering their own nests.
    Those of you who don’t have any problem with losing deductions “because you can afford it”….you must have been born with that silver spoon instead of working for it. Our govt…and esp. this administration, are out of control, wasting our national fortune and ruining the future for our children.
    Some taxtation is necessary..most is simple theft.

    Like

    • The number of gov employees will soon be higher than it was in WW2.

      Maybe you haven’t noticed that the USA has grown somewhat in the past 70 years.

      By the way, all installing term limits will do is give lobbyists even more control over legislation than they already have. Don’t take my word on that, just check out what’s happened in states that have set term limits.

      Like

      • Uglydawg

        Yes..but I think the statistics is based on a percentage of the workforce and not sheer numbers. I can’t prove it without doing a lot of research, which I’m too lazy to do.

        Like

        • Uglydawg

          As far as term limits go…you have to admit there are too many career politicians..(you’re not a REAL Senator, are you?) and lobbying is a huge problem. All lobbying should be required to be conducted in an open town-hall setting and advertised in advance. Our country is drowning, Senator, in corruption and special intrests. I don’t know the answers, but I know there’s a problem.

          Like

      • Hogbody Spradlin

        Blutarsky I’m not too sure about the lobbyists thought. I think legislators are are more influenced by contributors (I know it raises its own issues) than lobbyists. Plus, the whole idea of a career in Congress is corrupting by itself. Nobody’s indispensable.

        Like

        • The contributors are the people behind the lobbyists.

          Here’s what I don’t get about the love for term limits: if a legislator is doing a bad job, vote him or her out. But if someone is serving his or her constituents well, why should there be some imposed limit on the service?

          Like

          • Hogbody Spradlin

            The natural advantages of incumbency, fortified by fund raising advantages and gerrymandered districts, etc. At the core my belief is that the founders never envisioned nor condoned lifetime congressmen, and that everybody should have to live ‘out there’ under the laws they pass. In more cynical terms, I think the grossest people on both ends of the spectrum are the ones who have been running for office since before they were old enough to vote.

            Like

  17. I Wanna Red Cup

    I will continue to buy season tickets and give my donation. The deduction is like a cherry on the top. I was pleasantly surprised to get a deduction for getting seats to the Dawgs games just as when I learned I could get a deduction for drinking with clients. What a win win! But really, should it be that way? What a crazy tax code. Tax reform would be great but alas may put alot of accountants and lawyers out of work. What politician wants to put people out of work? On the bright side, G Day is only 2 months away.

    Like

  18. 69Dawg

    FYI IF you donate to the Hartman Fund and don’t buy season tickets you get the full deduct. The 80% is what is known as a rebuttable presumption. Donate for the education and it is deductible. This is really no different than any charitable deduction that has a benefit attached to it. You go to a banquet for the rubber chicken but have to pay $1,000.00 bucks for the charity, the charity has to tell you that the cost of the meal is not deductible so you get to deduct only $975.00. This law has been around for a long time and guess what it like most of the IRS Code is not enforced except if you are one of the lucky 1% of individuals who get audited. When I was an IRS agent even we called it the audit lottery. You’ve got to be real unlucky to get audited.

    Like

  19. Billy Mumphrey

    “Given the make up of the current Congress, it’s not like Obama’s budget proposal is going anywhere soon.”

    God Bless the party of small government!

    Like

    • Studawg

      Finally, some common sense.

      Like

    • S

      “God Bless the party of small government!” Which party is that? If you look at the percentage of the US population employed by the government, you see these end-of-term numbers (these come from Forbes):
      Reagan 7.2%
      GHW Bush 7.3%
      Clinton 7.3%
      GW Bush 7.4%
      Obama 6.9%
      The highest number there is from W, who had a Republican House and Senate for 6 of his 8 years, as well as a Supreme Court that rolls 5-4 along Republican lines. So, really, the Republican Party claiming that it’s the party of small government is like Todd Grantham talking about how physical and successful his defenses were at UGA. Talk is one thing, but the numbers don’t add up at all, and people need to have the sense to do a tiny bit of research instead of taking a political party at its (or at FoxNews’ or MSNBC’s) word.

      Like

      • Billy Mumphrey

        Thanks for the response. I obviously should have laid the sarcasm on a little thicker 🙂

        Like

      • Ant

        That’s a little deceptive. If your read the article “the number of government employees includes federal, state, local”. And for the decline under Obam “This decline is largely a result of the financial crisis. With revenue in shorter supply, state governments which have a mandate to balance their budgets, cut staff”. It would be interesting to only see that percentage for Federal Workers (not including the military) only.

        Like

      • Invernessdawg

        I know you don’t think “employment” is what everyone is talking about when it comes to big government. If it was then cool stat.

        Like

      • Bulldawg165

        Both parties are for bigger government, just in different areas.

        Like

        • I don’t normally get into politics here, but 165, you are absolutely spot on. The establishment of both parties suck. We could probably take the commenters here and come up with some common sense solutions that we could all agree with and put the country on the right track.

          Like

          • here is a start get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments Both would get power out of Washington which is a great start..
            Back to original topic does this mean that the company matching donation will also go the way of the dodo? If the company can’t write it off I doubt they’ll continue matching. I love the unintended consequences of everything our Dear Leader comes up with.

            Like

            • My company doesn’t match donations to university athletic departments, and I don’t think a lot of large companies match for ticket privileges.

              It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when athletic associations eventually lose their tax-exempt status.

              Like

  20. Hogbody Spradlin

    In isolation, trying to keep my thinking as objective as possible, the deduction is a loophole and a favor to an interest group. The donor knows what s/he’s getting and fully expects a ticket quid pro quo for the money. That’s not an educational contribution, nor does it bear charitable motive.

    Like

  21. PRAISE THE LORD! Obama’s useless, but he and/or is people get credit for seeing that extortion is not the same as a true charitable deduction.

    Put it this way: over time if ticket holders had been told you can have your club level tickets at face value, or you can choose to make an $X donation to get them, how many would have volunteered the donation.? Exactly.

    Like

  22. Cojones

    Bluto, I tried to stir the pot in my own inimitable way, but very few are taking the bait. Sorry. Posters seem to be more reserved about spewing trash as they used to do. We’ve become a gtp army of concerned citizens …. wait!…. .that sounds politically familiar.

    What’s happened? Not having as much political fun as when pissing off Republicans and embarrassing the Democrats, dad-blame it.

    Like