Sign in to follow this  
LabMaster

New Tax "Reforms" offering D.C. Benefits

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BRASSO said:

For example, two of the sources he cited were on record about a decade ago for having supported a federal luxury tax on purchases of boats with price tags over 2 million dollars as a way to raise needed federal revenue. It was estimated by the tax increase proponents that it would raise between $5-6 billion in additional federal annual tax revenues.

Actually that was 1991. And the minimum purchase price for affected boats was $100,000. And it wasn't just on boats. And the projected revenues were $9 billion. And that was expected over a five-year period not annually. (You are correct that that bipartisan law was largely repealed two years later.)

(Source.)

And while a healthy skepticism is always advisable, you have to make decisions based on the best data you can get. If you don't like shofmon's sources, why not suggest some better ones?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2017 at 4:07 AM, shofmon88 said:

This study indicates there may be a reduction of donations across the U.S. of up to $13 billion, or 4.5%. This does not bode well for DCI or the corps involved. 

Many different sources indicate that benefits are overwhelmingly skewed towards higher income households, and many lower and middle income earners will actually see their tax burdens increase. Most of the corporate cuts are expected to go to shareholders instead of to investment or wage increases. The national debt will balloon over $1 trillion over the next ten years. All of this disincentivizes donations. 

DCI and most corps probably won't be affected immediately, but expect their financial situations to worsen over time with this trajectory, especially smaller corps or those with marginal finances. 

Fact ^^^

 

21 hours ago, shofmon88 said:

If you want to dig up a more non-partisan source than the TPC (which is very specifically non-partisan), I'll gladly link it in my post. 

I don't think DCI or the corps will be able to make up for the drop in donations via revenue from shows, media products, or other merchandise. From what I've heard in the past, the media portion breaks even, at best. Too, discretionary income has not kept pace with inflation since the 1980s, and the fastest growing DCI demographic, young people, are also the least economically well-off. I certainly anticipate my discretionary revenue to decrease next year, with the tax hike I'm seeing for my bracket certainly part of that impact. One of the first things I'll be cutting is DCI, and I'm already afraid I won't be able to afford to stream shows. I know I'm not the only one in this situation. 

No, the future of revenue for DCI is not a rosy one. 

Opinion^^^

(And I don't give a crap how fancy a name one sticks on their organization, I can find a dozen "more non-partisan" sources than the TPC.  "Partisan" is what one reads into the facts to create an opinion.  Mine's different than yours, but thanks for presenting the facts first.)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

except history shows, and i'm fiscally conservative, but tickle down always leads to recessions. If it's anything like the last one, does the government have the will to step up to the plate again?

I reject your history and insert my own.

Timing and dates are important.

If you truly are fiscally conservative, you'll never argue that "trickle down" was a component of the original Stockman design.  Historical fact shows that "Supply-Side" became "Trickle Down" through the art of redirection.  "Supply Side" was deemed too clinically-economic a description.

(Source: I was there and participated directly in the conversations as part of my profession.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, shofmon88 said:

I don't think DCI or the corps will be able to make up for the drop in donations via revenue from shows, media products, or other merchandise. From what I've heard in the past, the media portion breaks even, at best. Too, discretionary income has not kept pace with inflation since the 1980s, and the fastest growing DCI demographic, young people, are also the least economically well-off.

The DCI demographic to which you refer is not just "young people".  I would say it is more like "young adults with competitive marching band experience, and their parents".  That distinction matters because:

a.  The "young people" are old enough to work.

b.  The marching band activity we recruit from is overwhelmingly skewed away from impoverished areas, toward more affluent communities.

c.  Some of these "young people" bring the financial support and interest of their parents along with them.

So generally speaking, the "young people" of DCI are not the least economically well-off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So giving people a pay raise (lower taxes) is a bad thing. Sure. In politics. How did the republic survive without an income tax prior to 1913?  It must have been awful. No charity. Nobody giving (since it's not tax deductible why would you). Yeah, I'm not buying it. If there will be any effect it will be that the corps will benefit from more giving. 

The politics of class warfare and envy. And you're buying into it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Liahona said:

I have NEVER donated to drum corps looking for a tax deduction...but I guess others may have different motives...

I haven't donated specifically to use it as a tax deduction, but you are allowed to.  I look at it as getting to take a deduction from taxes, that allows me to donate a higher amount.  The corps benefits in that regard.

 Maybe I'm not saying this right but I feel like I can donate more.  Most donations though,  are done anonymously.  Also, the corps I donated to, at a fund raising auction purchase, provided all the tax deductable info to buyers.

I don't think of donating as a personal financial strategy, but as something that helps a "charity" that I care about and I get to see the results of that pretty quickly.  A tax deduction is smart money management that is on par with the smart money management of the org. that gets the donation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

 

And while a healthy skepticism is always advisable, you have to make decisions based on the best data you can get. If you don't like shofmon's sources, why not suggest some better ones?

 They are like political polls, ( they all tend to be more unreliable, then reliable, imo ) in the respect that I really don't like much of any of the tax law projections predicting revenues to be had, its effects on a host of people, things, etc.. As  a matter of fact, my comments above were to that very thing, ie " be leary of all of them ". There are too many moving parts, variables, imo. The tax projections all tend to be made with current interest rates, current GDP, and 50 other variables where if a mere 2 or 3 change ( and history tells us they usually do ) then all these projections tend to go completely out the window when reality sets in.. A long History of mostly inaccuracy tends to effect all these projections reliability, imo.

Edited by BRASSO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

 How did the republic survive without an income tax prior to 1913?  It must have been awful. No charity. Nobody giving (since it's not tax deductible why would you). Yeah, I'm not buying it. . 

 

 Good point, imo. And setting aside a " tax deduction issue to Corps donations",  economic recessions naturally can be considered much more impactful to Corps than comparatively small things like a " tax deduction " to a Corps as a motivator for the benovolent Givers to give . The US had a terrible recession in the mid 70's. Gas prices at the pump quadrupled overnite. Interest rates soared to double digits. The Economy went into the tank. Unemployment soared. Stocks plummented, Pension Plan holdings eviserated. The US President at the time lamented his " National malaise " with it all.

 Yet despite this,  DCI increased its attendance at shows during this severe US economic downturn,  increased its numbers of show offerings, and DCI was in an expansion mode, all when rich. middle class, and poor alike tended to have much less discretionary income than before too. So my sense is that this recent tax law will more than likely have little to no effect on Corps nor DCI itself. Those Corps that are successful in financially running their operations will continue to do so, and those that struggle financially ( unless they change their current modus operandi ) will most likely continue to struggle financially, imo.... A " tax deduction for Corps donations"  as a tax law consideration will neither save nor hurt  all these DCI Corps would be my sense. Same as it ever was, imo.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Do the 990s show DCI and the corps receiving donations at the same levels each year? Wasn't the G7 in part a reaction to the top corps, at the heart of the Great Recession, getting worried about their finances and wanting to to take more of the scraps for themselves? Didn't the number of active corps fall during those years, only stabilizing around 2014?

the G7 was all about power and control. Any other rationales used were a smoke screen.attendance was dropping during that time, with 2010 being one of the worst attended finals weeks ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, garfield said:

I reject your history and insert my own.

Timing and dates are important.

If you truly are fiscally conservative, you'll never argue that "trickle down" was a component of the original Stockman design.  Historical fact shows that "Supply-Side" became "Trickle Down" through the art of redirection.  "Supply Side" was deemed too clinically-economic a description.

(Source: I was there and participated directly in the conversations as part of my profession.)

 

i would have agreed with you until 2008. However I am fiscally conservative in that bloat and waste is an albatross we all pay way too much for, in addition to over regulation. However Reagan pushed trickle down, and in addition to the fluke 87 one day crash, it stalled the economy and cost Bush1 the election. And this was even after a war which usually boosts the economy. Then, slowly starting under Clinton, with the tech stock bubble, continuing into Bush2, with the housing bubble, excessive deregulation, and the credit freeze which brought us to the worst economy since the Great Depression. Far too often the economy is always based on the stock market, which is far from the only indicator. if and when companies invest in their businesses, it almost always involves technology that actually makes human workers obsolete. It took Greenspan over a decade to realize that, and when coupled with what he called "irrational exuberance", it was too late and kaboom.

 

A true fiscal conservative is about cutting waste and bloat. the problem is the ones that claim to be that are in office now, refuse to look in the mirror at the amount of waste and bloat they are responsible for personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.