Why is this an issue? Seriously.

[Prunepicker]

I really don't get this. Maybe it's because I believe anyone should be able to
make as much as is possible.

From Show-Biz 411
As the Super Bowl approaches New York much like a blizzard, here are some
things to think about: in 2012, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was paid
$29.5 million to run the organization. And that’s not all. The NFL, if you didn’t
realize it, exists as a 501 c 6 organization. It’s not for profit!

In order to have that status, the NFL must be run as a charitable foundation.
In 2012, they gave away a meager $2.3 million. Almost all of it–$2.1 million–
went to the NFL Hall of Fame.

Goodell made 15 times what the group donated to other charities.

More crazy: Goodell’s salary is 1/10th of what the NFL claimed in total assets
for 2012– $255 million.

Or even crazier: the NFL only made charitable donations equaling one-one
hundredth of their annual income.

[Ginkasa]

From your blurb, it doesn't seem the issue is that people in the NFL make a lot of money, but that the NFL is, apparently, classified as non-profit even though they only donate a tiny percentage of what they pay themselves. It seems more like the context of the salary more than the salary itself.

[MWCGuy]

If you don't like it, don't support it. Plain and simple. Not so sure I like the non profit status. However, if it ever changed to a taxable operation it would probably fall apart overnight because the players would be paid less because the billionaires that own the teams would cut their losses and walk away. I'm not a big sports fan so it really does not matter to me. The sports fans are the ones paying the money for those salaries. They pay it everytime they buy offical team merchandise or buy a ticket. The money goes to the team and to the league.

[BoulderSooner]

Let us be clear. The teams are not non profits. They pay lots in taxes.

The league office "the nfl". Is the non profit.

[Bill Robertson]

A little quick research found this. Examining NFL's tax-exempt status, as challenged by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn - ESPN

I'm not sure whether I agree with the law or not but by the law the NFL front office is exempt. The teams are not and they pay taxes. I volunteered for United Way for many years on various funding committees. I was amazed when I learned that being non-profit doesn't mean the entity has to spend most of it's money on charitable causes. It only means that the entity itself can't show a profit on the bottom line. All of it's income just has to go somewhere other than back into the entity itself. Should Goodell, make that much while giving little to charities? That question applies to many large entities both profit and non-profit. Is Goodell responsible for the success of the NFL? A discussion on that would be long and heated. Again, I don't know how I feel about the issue being right or wrong. But it fits the law.

[Just the facts]

Personally, I am sick and tired of the 1% worming their way out of taxes the rest of us have to pay. Like it or not, we tax the transfer of money in this country and when we allow stuff like this to happen we are allowing ourselves to be divided and conquered. Does anyone else find it odd that the law just happens to specifically mention 'pro football'. How convenient.

[BoulderSooner]

Moving this to class warfare. Right. Or just a company that gives several million to charity. Fitting into the tax system.


You most likey want golf tourneys to lose their charity status also. Forget the fact that the charities they benefit would lose their funding

[Just the facts]

Reading that article is even getting me more pissed off. Serenity Now!

Now they are crying about double taxation - well welcome to the dammed party. When I get a paycheck I pay taxes on it. When I spend what is left of that paycheck I pay taxes again AND the person who receives that money in exchange for the goods pays taxes on the money I just gave him - that I already paid taxes on. Welcome to the real world NFL.

[BBatesokc]

This is a pretty decent resource for seeing how your favorite non-profit is spending their money.

Form 990, 990 Tax Forms | Foundation Center

We have plenty of local non-profits that pay their executives far more than they give back to the community - my former favorite (barf) DA, Wes Lane, is one of these creeps. Look over the Burbridge Foundation's tax returns for a good laugh. They claim his mother's $400,000 home in Bush Hills is the foundation's headquarters (I should call and ask for a tour) and thus right-off tons of household expenses - $77,000 in personal vehicles and $160,000 in building improvements, etc.

[Just the facts]

Moving this to class warfare. Right. Or just a company that gives several million to charity. Fitting into the tax system.


You most likey want golf tourneys to lose their charity status also. Forget the fact that the charities they benefit would lose their funding

You're right - it is class warfare and my side has been losing for far too long. Of course, I just recently figured out I have been fighting on the wrong side for the last 25 years but at least I finally 'woke up'. We aren't talking about charitable organization here - read the article linked to.

Examining NFL's tax-exempt status, as challenged by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn - ESPN

[OSUFan]

I could be wrong but I have a hard time believing the NFL only gives away $2.3 million and 2.1 of that goes to the Hall of Fame.

[Just the facts]

I could be wrong but I have a hard time believing the NFL only gives away $2.3 million and 2.1 of that goes to the Hall of Fame.

That is only the tax-exempt part of the NFL.

[Just the facts]

Under the law the NFL is supposed to represent all pro-football leagues, but they sued the USFL and put it out of business. They should have lost their tax exempt status at that point.

[Swake]

Let us be clear. The teams are not non profits. They pay lots in taxes.

The league office "the nfl". Is the non profit.

The teams do not lots in taxes. Please. they are great users of tax revenue. They get breaks all over the place like the Thunder get with the "Quality Jobs Act" that was altered just for the team. They get billions in spending on stadiums. They really, really cook the books to look like they are losing money. Don't get me wrong, I love sports too. But there's a huge public cost for these business that we all pay.

[Just the facts]

Yea - on the net, pro-sports are at best tax-revenue neutral and in some markets like here in Jax, the City is actually worse off financially for having the NFL. I know I know, everyone says, "but the Jags raises the city's profile and attracts other development." The problem we subsidies those 'other' development as well. OKC does the exact same thing. We enticed the Thunder to town with tax incentives and that helped us land GE, which we also had to give tax subsidies to.

[Dubya61]

Yea - on the net, pro-sports are at best tax-revenue neutral and in some markets like here in Jax, the City is actually worse off financially for having the NFL. I know I know, everyone says, "but the Jags raises the city's profile and attracts other development." The problem we subsidies those 'other' development as well. OKC does the exact same thing. We enticed the Thunder to town with tax incentives and that helped us land GE, which we also had to give tax subsidies to.

You make it sound like we're paying people to be our friends! Quit saying that! My self esteem just took a nose-dive! LOL!
I guess we're hoping that these sports stars and science stars will spend some of their money here and entice others to do so without us paying them.

[zookeeper]

Moving this to class warfare. Right.

Well, what would you call it? Except I see it as a one-sided war from the 1% against everyone else. Anytime the mega-wealthy get called out on extravagance, tax dodging, laws written just for them, they use this "class warfare" attack. Yes, they are right, that's exactly what it is and most of us have limited weapons and access to the powers-that-be to fire back.

[Just the facts]

Well, what would you call it? Except I see it as a one-sided war from the 1% against everyone else. Anytime the mega-wealthy get called out on extravagance, tax dodging, laws written just for them, they use this "class warfare" attack. Yes, they are right, that's exactly what it is and most of us have limited weapons and access to the powers-that-be to fire back.

This is where the Tea Party and the Occupy Movements got hijacked by the 1%ers in both parties. Could you imagine what would have happened if both groups had actually figured out we were fighting for the same thing? That might have produced French Revolution type activities.

[zookeeper]

I really don't get this. Maybe it's because I believe anyone should be able to
make as much as is possible.

Have you ever seen this short little clip? This isn't just "making as much as possible" this is about hoarding and cash making cash which makes more cash which makes even more cash which makes piles of cash which.....you get the idea...is that really "making" as much as possible? Or, is it stealing while the people who DO actually WORK for these people so often barely get by or have to be subsidized by the taxpayers just to buy food?

This is six minutes you really need to watch.

[gopokes88]

Have you ever seen this short little clip? This isn't just "making as much as possible" this is about hoarding and cash making cash which makes more cash which makes even more cash which makes piles of cash which.....you get the idea...is that really "making" as much as possible? Or, is it stealing while the people who DO actually WORK for these people so often barely get by or have to be subsidized by the taxpayers just to buy food?

This is six minutes you really need to watch.

The Problem With The Wealth Inequality In America Video. It Commits Worstall's Fallacy - Forbes

That video take to simplistic of a view. The video also assumes wealth is static when multiple studies has shown people go up and down in income brackets.

[Just the facts]

The other night I was think about this in the context of workers being replaced by automation. If we could fast forward a 100 years to a time where all work was being done by robots what kind of life do you envision the people living? If you are like me you envision everyone on perpetual vacations. However, if I start at today and look at each day over the next 100 years I see the exact opposite happening as we slowly one by one fall into the poor class with no way out. I think that is what the above video is showing happened over the last 30 years.

[Snowman]

I could be wrong but I have a hard time believing the NFL only gives away $2.3 million and 2.1 of that goes to the Hall of Fame.

Most of the charity programs money probably come out of the local teams budgets, so would not show up in league records.

[BBatesokc]

Well, I don't like tax exempt anything. Don't we need a class of any organization paying zero taxes. It is a part of doing business and taxes wouldn't cause all charities to go out of business either. That's an inaccurate cop-out.

If everyone, every single person and company, paid taxes at either an equal rate or at some kind of progressive rate, then I think we'd solve a ton of problems. The structure we have only ensure it will get more complex sith tax-exempt structures, the management and policing of those structures and huge volumes of subsidies to those capable of making the case to those holding the purse strings. The whole thing needs gutting and zero subsidies and tax exemption. That's my .02.

Actually, being a 501 (c) (3) doesn't exempt you from all taxes.

As someone who volunteers with several very small non-profits that do a lot of good, I can say with full confidence, the fact they are exempt from many taxes is the difference from being able to continue their operations and expand them, or not.

[BBatesokc]

Volunteered and served as a board member for many of them and founded one myself. I've balanced enough 501(c) (3) budgets to stand by what I said. They'd have less money no doubt, but most would not go under -- which is what I said and certainly stand by. That goes for churches too though. I'm not just singling out c3s.

I feel like you are doing exactly what you did on the other thread. You are taking what I said and twisting it a little to make a new argument. I never said it wouldn't put a hurt on some charities. It certainly would. But I said it wouldn't cause them all to go under. Which begs the question, how many would it cause? Now there is a debatable position.

Based on my experience, very, very few would have to close their doors. Considering about 75% of all income charities receive is through contract programing and grants, the tax shelter they provide to the wealthy (the vast, vast bulk of donors) is measurable.

I wonder if a study has been done? It wouldn't surprise me if one has.

I love it..... so, just because they 'wouldn't all go under' that's reason enough to take away their tax exempt status? Certainly you'd agree that every dollar they'd have to pay is a dollar less to use for necessary services....??

It's not all about keeping the lights on. Its about doing the most good with the few dollars the actually have. Most needs for services increase and so the non-profit's services must increase too.

Curious..... Did you publicly proclaim your stance on tax exempt status to the very boards you say you sat on?

FYI - I've sat on numerous boards of non-profits too. Every meeting was about raising funds and where to cut when the funds weren't there.

[BBatesokc]

And a dollar less for you to use. And a dollar less for me to use. It isn't like it is just all free money. Taxes go up to subsidize it.

We could pretty quickly get into a tax debate which isn't the topic of the thread but I do feel that when it comes to taxes, simple is better... even for the charities.

I would 100% agree that a MUCH simpler tax code would be beneficial to all (something closer to a flat tax works for me) - we obviously just disagree that non-profits which truly serve the community deserve a tax exempt status.