|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
This is the forum for talk about SMU Football
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by leopold » Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:03 am
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/sport/ca ... index.htmlGenuinely interested in people's ideas on this, especially Stallion's, considering his legal background. For the record, Washington and Colorado are also looking at similar bills.
-

leopold

-
- Posts: 4112
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Columbia, SC
by JasonB » Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:57 am
It doesn't matter because the NCAA would declare them ineligible. But it opens up an opportunity to create a different organization that schools would eventually migrate to.
-
JasonB

-
- Posts: 7226
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 3:01 am
- Location: Allen, Tx, USA
by ponyte » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:41 pm
This hasn't got crap to do with athletes. It’s about taxpayers. California is in a financial bind and needs more tax dollars. What better source than kids. They get to pay huge tax rates if they are really special athletes and some taxes if just a so-so guy. Most athletes will get nothing of course but the state doesn't care about that. It only wants more money. These kids will not be a non-profit or state entity shielded from tax liabilities.
It may force big time college sports to face some type of consideration. Imagine all the sports (mainly women's but many men's as well) that do not benefit. How does the university deal with that? This may create two categories of college athletes with the majority being left behind financially.
What sounds like a great idea after a few drinks too many in Sacramento may turn out to be a nightmare.
-

ponyte

-
- Posts: 11206
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Nw Orleans, LA region
-
by leopold » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:17 pm
See, people are saying that is what California wants. They want the NCAA to declare them ineligible so they can sue them for monopolistic practices. I'm not sure where it goes from there, but that sounds potentially catastrophic.
-

leopold

-
- Posts: 4112
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Columbia, SC
by SMU_Alum11 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:21 pm
Catastrophic is california in a nutshell.
Insert "this is fine" GIF
-
SMU_Alum11

-
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:55 am
by 78pony » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:14 pm
ponyte wrote:This hasn't got crap to do with athletes. It’s about taxpayers. California is in a financial bind and needs more tax dollars. What better source than kids. They get to pay huge tax rates if they are really special athletes and some taxes if just a so-so guy. Most athletes will get nothing of course but the state doesn't care about that. It only wants more money. These kids will not be a non-profit or state entity shielded from tax liabilities.
It may force big time college sports to face some type of consideration. Imagine all the sports (mainly women's but many men's as well) that do not benefit. How does the university deal with that? This may create two categories of college athletes with the majority being left behind financially.
What sounds like a great idea after a few drinks too many in Sacramento may turn out to be a nightmare.
So you are saying/implying that a good idea (theoretically) originated in SAC or the state of CA? I think not. But, you are so on the mark regarding what this is all about. Tax dollars. The cities/state are financial disasters and now the state is led by Gavin Newsom, left wing nut job. The future does not look bright in the Golden state.
-
78pony

-
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
by bubba pony » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:29 pm
the income tax angle is very interesting. now throw in state income tax. very high in California, none in Texas. If you play an away game in California, do you file a state income tax like the professional team players are required to do?
If you are from California and some of your away games are played in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington or Wyoming with no state income tax, do you deduct that from your endorsement income?
-
bubba pony

-
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 3:01 am
by EastStang » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:49 pm
We were just ahead of our time.
UNC better keep that Ram away from Peruna
-
EastStang

-
- Posts: 12659
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:01 am
by malonish » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:52 pm
bubba pony wrote:the income tax angle is very interesting. now throw in state income tax. very high in California, none in Texas. If you play an away game in California, do you file a state income tax like the professional team players are required to do?
If you are from California and some of your away games are played in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington or Wyoming with no state income tax, do you deduct that from your endorsement income?
If I work on location in FL I am still paid in TX. That's just my situation.
Leader of the Band-itos. Mustangsabu wrote: Malonish! You are the man! PonyPride: I think malonish is right peruna81: God bless you, malonish. 
-

malonish

-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:42 am
- Location: Nope
by smitty329 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:14 pm
malonish wrote:bubba pony wrote:the income tax angle is very interesting. now throw in state income tax. very high in California, none in Texas. If you play an away game in California, do you file a state income tax like the professional team players are required to do?
If you are from California and some of your away games are played in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington or Wyoming with no state income tax, do you deduct that from your endorsement income?
If I work on location in FL I am still paid in TX. That's just my situation.
I use to work at a company that got fined for not recording time/paying taxes for employees working remotely. There may be a % associated with it but I had to log time by client/location - one year I had to file taxes in 5 states. Hope you are legal.
-

smitty329

-
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:10 pm
- Location: McKinney, TX
by malonish » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:00 pm
I might spend 4-5 days once a year, and not even every year. Definitely working most of the year in TX and it's not even close.
Leader of the Band-itos. Mustangsabu wrote: Malonish! You are the man! PonyPride: I think malonish is right peruna81: God bless you, malonish. 
-

malonish

-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:42 am
- Location: Nope
by well travelled pony » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:51 pm
ponyte wrote:This hasn't got crap to do with athletes. It’s about taxpayers. California is in a financial bind and needs more tax dollars. What better source than kids. They get to pay huge tax rates if they are really special athletes and some taxes if just a so-so guy. Most athletes will get nothing of course but the state doesn't care about that. It only wants more money. These kids will not be a non-profit or state entity shielded from tax liabilities.
It may force big time college sports to face some type of consideration. Imagine all the sports (mainly women's but many men's as well) that do not benefit. How does the university deal with that? This may create two categories of college athletes with the majority being left behind financially.
What sounds like a great idea after a few drinks too many in Sacramento may turn out to be a nightmare.
Laughable statements. You might want to know facts before opening your mouth. California currently sits on a $21 billion surplus. The economy boomed since 2011. You may disagree with Newsome, but he is no fool. Go Ponies!
-

well travelled pony

-
- Posts: 863
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:29 pm
- Location: Castle Rock, CO
by Pony ^ » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:02 am
well travelled pony wrote:ponyte wrote:This hasn't got crap to do with athletes. It’s about taxpayers. California is in a financial bind and needs more tax dollars. What better source than kids. They get to pay huge tax rates if they are really special athletes and some taxes if just a so-so guy. Most athletes will get nothing of course but the state doesn't care about that. It only wants more money. These kids will not be a non-profit or state entity shielded from tax liabilities.
It may force big time college sports to face some type of consideration. Imagine all the sports (mainly women's but many men's as well) that do not benefit. How does the university deal with that? This may create two categories of college athletes with the majority being left behind financially.
What sounds like a great idea after a few drinks too many in Sacramento may turn out to be a nightmare.
Laughable statements. You might want to know facts before opening your mouth. California currently sits on a $21 billion surplus. The economy boomed since 2011. You may disagree with Newsome, but he is no fool. Go Ponies!
Just please don't California my Texas.
-
Pony ^

-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:23 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
by well travelled pony » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:36 am
Pony ^ wrote:well travelled pony wrote:ponyte wrote:This hasn't got crap to do with athletes. It’s about taxpayers. California is in a financial bind and needs more tax dollars. What better source than kids. They get to pay huge tax rates if they are really special athletes and some taxes if just a so-so guy. Most athletes will get nothing of course but the state doesn't care about that. It only wants more money. These kids will not be a non-profit or state entity shielded from tax liabilities.
It may force big time college sports to face some type of consideration. Imagine all the sports (mainly women's but many men's as well) that do not benefit. How does the university deal with that? This may create two categories of college athletes with the majority being left behind financially.
What sounds like a great idea after a few drinks too many in Sacramento may turn out to be a nightmare.
Laughable statements. You might want to know facts before opening your mouth. California currently sits on a $21 billion surplus. The economy boomed since 2011. You may disagree with Newsome, but he is no fool. Go Ponies!
Just please don't California my Texas.
Okay. Can we please move on from bs political leanings? Go Ponies!
-

well travelled pony

-
- Posts: 863
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:29 pm
- Location: Castle Rock, CO
by malonish » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:07 pm
3
Leader of the Band-itos. Mustangsabu wrote: Malonish! You are the man! PonyPride: I think malonish is right peruna81: God bless you, malonish. 
-

malonish

-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:42 am
- Location: Nope
Return to Football
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests
|
|