|
Post by mln59 on Jun 7, 2024 15:39:16 GMT -5
I haven't been following the NCAA lawsuit talks that closely, other than the headlines about being able to pay SAs - if that goes through, don't scholarship counts basically become meaningless Then one day you get a tax statement from the school showing you owe taxes on more than 100 thousand dollars of non-monetary compensation to the state, local, and federal governments... that sounds bad
|
|
|
Post by BOBšković on Jun 7, 2024 15:39:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hopefuldawg on Jun 7, 2024 15:51:45 GMT -5
Listen, I'm a Texas volleyball fan, but my alma mater needs some Nguyens. Please don't snag their local prospect 😭
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jun 7, 2024 15:58:24 GMT -5
a lot schollies to go around. Rules are going to be changing too. PS - it’s a great day to be a Longhorn! Beginning 2025-26, all Power 4 VB programs (and some others) will have the same ammunition - a piece of 21.5 million cap for each athletic program. Football players will get a huge chunk of that. After FB gets their free money, men’s BB will get their bag of money. Each institution determines how the revenue will be shared. The SEC is going to push for minimal Title IX compliance - meaning very few dollars for women sports. For those schools who can raise 21.5 million, the playing field will be even. That might seem unfair to Texas supporters who love having a big bag of money to help them stack players on their roster - many who will be four-year practice players. That's not really how it's going to go down. There may be no program more advantaged for the coming changes than TExas. It may actually increase their advantage over other teams. It'll all come down to the exact details of the implementations. Texas generates more revenue as a school than any other program. There is no question it will max out the revenue share. Start going down the list of top volleyball programs and there aren't that many other programs who are going to be able to afford to do that. On top of the revenue share, NIL still exists. Texas will still have it's big bag of money, so Texas can still leverage NIL on top of whatever the revenue share is. Also, taxes and tuition costs suddenly become very important, especially if this all becomes employment. Texas has no state income tax so all of these payments will instantly be 5-14% more valuable in Texas than many other states. There will also never be a bigger premium on in-state players becuase in-state players pay in-state tuition, which is a far smaller expense to be taxed as a fringe benefit than out-of-state tuition. Texas has great in-state recruiting. Madi Skinner, Asjia O'Neal, Ayden Ames, Jenna Wenaas, Reagan Rutherford, Averi Carlson, Molly Phillips, Reese Emerick, Callie Kreuger, Addison Gaido, and Macaria Spears are all native Texans. In-state cost of attendance at Texas is 30k a year, out-of-state cost of attendance (70% of their roster) at Nebraska is 46k. Nebraska's gonna have to spend 60k per year on almost all of it's volleyball players just to pay for their school cost of attendance. Texas is only gonna need to spend about 35k for the majority of it's roster. If Texas is paying out so much less for most of it's players it can then pay out more money from the revenue share on top what each student gets to keep and do whatever they want with.
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jun 7, 2024 16:08:45 GMT -5
Then one day you get a tax statement from the school showing you owe taxes on more than 100 thousand dollars of non-monetary compensation to the state, local, and federal governments... that sounds bad Yep. That's how things are nowadays. Not to get too political, but this isn't any different than politicians raising your minimum wage and promising you'll make more money and have a better life. Then the changes come and you wake up one morning and are told you don't have a job anymore. Everyone is being promised rainbows and butterflies and only some will get them. That's genuinely good for them, but everyone else gets screwed. It's all helping some people by hurting others.
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jun 7, 2024 16:21:49 GMT -5
Then one day you get a tax statement from the school showing you owe taxes on more than 100 thousand dollars of non-monetary compensation to the state, local, and federal governments... that sounds bad It's really not. Paying taxes means you're making money. A 20% effective tax rate on $100k still means you keep 80k. Before this decision, you walked on and paid 0% of $0. Also, the school will need to withhold and issue W-2s. Yes SAs being paid will have to file taxes, but proper withholding means it's very unlikely there will be a big out-of-pocket payments in April - more likely refunds
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jun 7, 2024 16:25:08 GMT -5
It's really not. Paying taxes means you're making money. A 20% effective tax rate on $100k still means you keep 80k. Before this decision, you walked on and paid 0% of $0. eyeroll coming in hot with the maths
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jun 7, 2024 16:30:34 GMT -5
It's really not. Paying taxes means you're making money. A 20% effective tax rate on $100k still means you keep 80k. Before this decision, you walked on and paid 0% of $0. eyeroll coming in hot with the maths
I've lived and paid taxes in 3 separate countries now (US, UK, Singapore). Tax rates in the US are not high and you get far more for your tax dollar here.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 7, 2024 16:37:39 GMT -5
It's really not. Paying taxes means you're making money. A 20% effective tax rate on $100k still means you keep 80k. Before this decision, you walked on and paid 0% of $0. Also, the school will need to withhold and issue W-2s. Yes SAs being paid will have to file taxes, but proper withholding means it's very unlikely there will be a big out-of-pocket payments in April - more likely refunds Umm, I don’t think you’re reading it right. What biodog is saying is that previously a student received a $90k in scholarship without tax consequences. In the new world that $90k scholarship plus compensation will ALL be taxed as benefit compensation. Also in California you have state taxes on top of federal taxes. To be honest, no one knows how it’s all going to play out. Everything is going to shift around the settlement, but policy through the court system has never been effective. Then you’ll have state legislatures getting involved, with the most proactive attempting to give their instate schools competitive advantages schools in other states won’t have. We’ll keep going around this mulberry bush lurching from court case to court case and reacting to them until there’s some kind of federal legislation. Maybe in 2032 or so.
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jun 7, 2024 16:43:38 GMT -5
It's really not. Paying taxes means you're making money. A 20% effective tax rate on $100k still means you keep 80k. Before this decision, you walked on and paid 0% of $0. Also, the school will need to withhold and issue W-2s. Yes SAs being paid will have to file taxes, but proper withholding means it's very unlikely there will be a big out-of-pocket payments in April - more likely refunds Umm, I don’t think you’re reading it right. What biodog is saying is that previously a student received a $90k in scholarship without tax consequences. In the new world that $90k scholarship plus compensation will ALL be taxed as benefit compensation. Also in California you have state taxes on top of federal taxes. To be honest, no one knows how it’s all going to play out. Everything is going to shift around the settlement, but policy through the court system has never been effective. Then you’ll have state legislatures getting involved, with the most proactive attempting to give their instate schools competitive advantages schools in other states won’t have. We’ll keep going around this mulberry bush lurching from court case to court case and reacting to them until there’s some kind of federal legislation. Maybe in 2032 or so. Why would the availability to pay SAs change the tax status on scholarships? The IRS code provisions are still there. Unless you think this means there will be no more sports scholarships and it's only payments from now on?
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jun 7, 2024 16:44:01 GMT -5
It's really not. Paying taxes means you're making money. A 20% effective tax rate on $100k still means you keep 80k. Before this decision, you walked on and paid 0% of $0. Also, the school will need to withhold and issue W-2s. Yes SAs being paid will have to file taxes, but proper withholding means it's very unlikely there will be a big out-of-pocket payments in April - more likely refunds Umm, I don’t think you’re reading it right. What biodog is saying is that previously a student received a $90k in scholarship without tax consequences. In the new world that $90k scholarship plus compensation will ALL be taxed as benefit compensation. Also in California you have state taxes on top of federal taxes. To be honest, no one knows how it’s all going to play out. Everything is going to shift around the settlement, but policy through the court system has never been effective. Then you’ll have state legislatures getting involved, with the most proactive attempting to give their instate schools competitive advantages schools in other states won’t have. We’ll keep going around this mulberry bush lurching from court case to court case and reacting to them until there’s some kind of federal legislation. Maybe in 2032 or so. all around the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 7, 2024 16:47:42 GMT -5
Umm, I don’t think you’re reading it right. What biodog is saying is that previously a student received a $90k in scholarship without tax consequences. In the new world that $90k scholarship plus compensation will ALL be taxed as benefit compensation. Also in California you have state taxes on top of federal taxes. To be honest, no one knows how it’s all going to play out. Everything is going to shift around the settlement, but policy through the court system has never been effective. Then you’ll have state legislatures getting involved, with the most proactive attempting to give their instate schools competitive advantages schools in other states won’t have. We’ll keep going around this mulberry bush lurching from court case to court case and reacting to them until there’s some kind of federal legislation. Maybe in 2032 or so. Why would the availability to pay SAs change the tax status on scholarships? The IRS code provisions are still there. Unless you think this means there will be no more sports scholarships and it's only payments from now on? I don't have an opinion on it, other than I'm confident there will be all kinds of unintended consequences, which will then be addressed in various ineffective ways until the next court case. I'm just saying that's what I read biodog to be saying. He's not talking about an additional $100k in compensation that didn't exist before. He's saying $90k scholarship plus $10k in compensation which makes for $100k taxable income. I have no idea whether that's correct or not. We'll find out. It feels like something that could be addressed positively for the athlete in any case. Don't know. I'm just saying that's how I read biodog's post.
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jun 7, 2024 19:43:16 GMT -5
Umm, I don’t think you’re reading it right. What biodog is saying is that previously a student received a $90k in scholarship without tax consequences. In the new world that $90k scholarship plus compensation will ALL be taxed as benefit compensation. Also in California you have state taxes on top of federal taxes. To be honest, no one knows how it’s all going to play out. Everything is going to shift around the settlement, but policy through the court system has never been effective. Then you’ll have state legislatures getting involved, with the most proactive attempting to give their instate schools competitive advantages schools in other states won’t have. We’ll keep going around this mulberry bush lurching from court case to court case and reacting to them until there’s some kind of federal legislation. Maybe in 2032 or so. Why would the availability to pay SAs change the tax status on scholarships? The IRS code provisions are still there. Unless you think this means there will be no more sports scholarships and it's only payments from now on? slxpress is right about what i was saying. I harp on this issue because employment is probably a necessary component to revenue sharing. The NLRB has already ruled atheletes as employees. I think revenue sharing basically makes that ruling a slam dunk. You're literally paying them directly to play the sport with revenue generated from media rights and ticket sales. I don't think it's possible to spin that as anything other than employment. They will almost certainly be employees unless congress or state legislatures step in for federal and state labor law exemptions. As far as i can tell, right now, students are on scholarships and receive a wide host of other benefits. That scholarship and benefits have a certain monetary value but are not actually direct financial compensation. It is written in to the tax code that a scholarship to a student and many of the benefits are tax exempt. What other benefits that aren't tax exempt typically fall below the standard deduction anyway so no taxes would be owed either way. So each student athlete receives a package of nonmonetary compensation that they don't need to pay any taxes on. It's all free. But that is only because they are students and not employees. As soon as they become employees, everything changes. That entire suite of benefits is no longer a scholarship to a student, it becomes employee compensation and fringe benefits. It all becomes taxable. For example, tuition. The schools paying for your tuition is a taxable form of compensation. It gets categorized under "educational asssistance", but the tax-free limit on that is like 5k per year. So if the schools is paying your 50k tuition to attend said school, you owe taxes on 45k of compensation. Where is the athlete going to get the money to pay that tax bill? It's got to come from the school. So instead of the school paying itself 50k for tuition, it has to pay itself 50k in tuition plus an extra 10k in federal taxes it has to send the governement. The student doesn't lose any money, but the athletic department's spending just increased by 20%. For tuition, that's highly variable. There will be huge variations in public vs private and in-state vs out-of-state. Now play that forward for all the other benefits wrapped up in a scholarship that are now fringe benefits. These schools spend up to 250k per year per student. What percentage of that spending is now taxable? It's an incredibly complicated problem with incredibly disastrous possible outcomes. 20 million spread across 500-1000 athletes at a school is just 20-40k per person. It's entirely possible that we end up with a situation where almost all of the revenue share to certain athletes is eaten up completely just by taxes. Especially if football gets an unequal share. That's why the employment status of these players is still the lynch pin in the future of college sports. That's also a huge reason you're seeing smaller roster limits suddenly become a huge talking point. 20-40k per person isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jun 11, 2024 12:15:33 GMT -5
🤘👀 6/15
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jun 11, 2024 14:28:08 GMT -5
|
|