View Full Version : Why is this an issue? Seriously.



Prunepicker
01-22-2014, 11:46 PM
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 (http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/01/21/nfl-commish-makes-29-5-mil-a-year-15-times-more-than-tax-free-org-gives-to-charity-more-than-ceos-of-ford-heinz-fedex)
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 thatís not all. The NFL, if you didnít
realize it, exists as a 501 c 6 organization. Itís 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 itĖ$2.1 millionĖ
went to the NFL Hall of Fame.

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

More crazy: Goodellís salary is 1/10th of what the NFL claimed in total assets
for 2012Ė $255 million.

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

Ginkasa
01-23-2014, 12:32 AM
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
01-23-2014, 03:03 AM
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
01-23-2014, 07:16 AM
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
01-23-2014, 07:17 AM
A little quick research found this. Examining NFL's tax-exempt status, as challenged by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9342479/examining-nfl-tax-exempt-status-challenged-us-senator-tom-Coburn)

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
01-23-2014, 07:22 AM
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
01-23-2014, 07:38 AM
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
01-23-2014, 07:43 AM
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
01-23-2014, 07:44 AM
This is a pretty decent resource for seeing how your favorite non-profit is spending their money.

Form 990, 990 Tax Forms | Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/)

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
01-23-2014, 07:46 AM
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 (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9342479/examining-nfl-tax-exempt-status-challenged-us-senator-tom-Coburn)

OSUFan
01-23-2014, 07:56 AM
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
01-23-2014, 08:04 AM
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
01-23-2014, 08:07 AM
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
01-23-2014, 11:06 AM
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
01-23-2014, 12:25 PM
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
01-23-2014, 12:28 PM
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
01-23-2014, 12:34 PM
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
01-23-2014, 12:55 PM
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
01-23-2014, 01:32 PM
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.


http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

gopokes88
01-23-2014, 01:55 PM
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.




http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

The Problem With The Wealth Inequality In America Video. It Commits Worstall's Fallacy - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/09/the-problem-with-the-wealth-inequality-in-america-video-it-commits-worstalls-fallacy/)

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
01-23-2014, 02:01 PM
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.

mfKbaX4jE9U

G_Teo6veZOg

Snowman
01-23-2014, 02:15 PM
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
01-23-2014, 03:16 PM
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
01-23-2014, 06:01 PM
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
01-24-2014, 08:42 AM
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.

Just the facts
01-24-2014, 08:51 AM
If we went to a flat-tax all 501's would go away. That portion of the tax code only exists to avoid income taxes.

BBatesokc
01-24-2014, 02:50 PM
If we went to a flat-tax all 501's would go away. That portion of the tax code only exists to avoid income taxes.

Not necessarily, if you follow the flat tax debate/proposals - most every effort is actually a form of proportional tax rating or marginal flat tax as opposed to a true flat tax and most seem to take into account deductions for charitable organizations and even a total elimination of certain taxes for families whose income is below a certain level. At least that is my take on it.

CaptDave
01-24-2014, 03:15 PM
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.

This is why JTF is my favorite Tea Party person. :D

I do not like just about everything the TP is now; but its original intent was not all that bad even if I do not think some of the methods would have worked as intended.

Sorry Boulder, the real class warfare is a tiny number of people convincing the middle class that poor people receiving any assistance is the reason for all fiscal woes. This is where the Tea Party really lost me....

Just the facts
01-24-2014, 04:02 PM
This thread make me wonder which side people were rooting for in 'Braveheart'. I can only assume a fair number of people were pulling for Longshanks and the Nobles.

OKVision4U
01-24-2014, 04:16 PM
This thread make me wonder which side people were rooting for in 'Braveheart'. I can only assume a fair number of people were pulling for Longshanks and the Nobles.

I want "Freedom"....

...some people just want to be on the otherside, just to have an oposing view.

Servicetech571
01-25-2014, 05:54 AM
A Simple Solution (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks)

Swake
01-25-2014, 06:07 AM
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.

In a flat tax, the wealthy, that own the vast majority of wealth would pay the same as the poor, who have nothing. It's a scam, it's a massive tax break for the most fortunate paid for the on backs of the middle class and poor.

BBatesokc
01-25-2014, 05:49 PM
In a flat tax, the wealthy, that own the vast majority of wealth would pay the same as the poor, who have nothing. It's a scam, it's a massive tax break for the most fortunate paid for the on backs of the middle class and poor.

Guess its all in how you look at it and how truly 'flat' the tax is.

I've seen versions where the 'flat tax' (as in the percentage paid) is dependent on the total income made. So, someone making very little might only pay 2-4% and someone who's very wealthy may pay 10-25%.

Also, even if the rate was truly flat across the board (say 10%), then 10% of a million is far more than 10% of say $20,000 a year. Not to mention that many of the wealthiest already pay very little taxes - though most pay the majority.

Swake
01-25-2014, 06:02 PM
Guess its all in how you look at it and how truly 'flat' the tax is.

I've seen versions where the 'flat tax' (as in the percentage paid) is dependent on the total income made. So, someone making very little might only pay 2-4% and someone who's very wealthy may pay 10-25%.

Also, even if the rate was truly flat across the board (say 10%), then 10% of a million is far more than 10% of say $20,000 a year. Not to mention that many of the wealthiest already pay very little taxes - though most pay the majority.

The truly wealth don't have to take an increase in their wealth as income the way you or I do. If ten million in stock gains ten percent in value but is not sold, is that income? If a property gains 15% in value, is that income? If you own a company that increases in value is that income?

When Steve Jobs went back to Apple, he was famously "paid" one dollar. Tax that.

Plus on top of income taxes there are all the regressive sales taxes and fees which as a percentage of wealth is almost nothing to the wealthy, but to a poor person can be a huge percentage of their income. Today even with our progressive tax rate on federal income the effective tax rate is already nearly flat with the wealthy actually paying less then other income quintiles. Flatten the federal income tax rate and the poor and middle class will be plain losers who will end of paying a much greater share of income and wealth in taxes than the wealthy. The "flat" tax is a scam being pushed by certain very, very wealthy people.

There are 85 humans today that have equal wealth to the bottom 3.5 billion people. 85.

Snowman
01-25-2014, 06:38 PM
When Steve Jobs went back to Apple, he was famously "paid" one dollar. Tax that.

He also was payed with a lot of stock, which you could tax the transaction of ownership from the corporation to him, also the capital gain would be taxable if they ever sold the stock. Bonuses and dividents will also likely continue to be taxed as well.

MWCGuy
01-25-2014, 11:49 PM
QUOTE=Just the facts;736885]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. [/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying but, I see that argument as "I am jealous someone has more than I do." Truth be told if we were in the group many classify as one percent we would probably be doing the same thing. After all at tax time, I don't know of anyone who pays anymore than what they absolutely have to. If we can declare a deduction, that lowers our tax bill, we claim it especially if the IRS says we can. I have never heard anyone say" Yeah, I could have taken that deduction but, I thought it was better if I paid in a little more.

I would prefer we went to a tax system that taxed the goods and services we buy instead of our income. You could break the sales tax down to low rates for survival items and higher rates for luxury items. We work for the money therefore; we should get to keep everything we make. As it is most of us don't really pay that much tax. If you are, you need to go re-submit your W-4 form. I used to set my deduction to zero to make sure I never had to pay anything. I got a nice refund every year (many of us forget that every year until after the New Year starts and it's time to file our taxes again. Thanks to advice from an accountant I know, I only pay in what I have to. If I owe anything, I save the money and pay it by Tax Day every year. My tax rate really is not all that bad at all. I am working class guy like yourself. I probably pay more for car insurance (good driving record) than I do on my taxes.

BBatesokc
01-26-2014, 05:09 AM
The truly wealth don't have to take an increase in their wealth as income the way you or I do. If ten million in stock gains ten percent in value but is not sold, is that income? If a property gains 15% in value, is that income? If you own a company that increases in value is that income?

.....


I'm confused..... Are you saying the middle class and even lower income groups don't own any fluctuating stock, rental property or are self-employed? I've known plenty of people who qualify as 'poor' who own stock as part of their employment somewhere. I know people with little income that own rental property and even their own business. Or, are you just saying those evil rich people need to be taxed on those things?

I don't get this 'rich hate.' Personally, I've never known any 'poor' people living off the gov't that provided me with a job, technology, medical innovation or anything other than a headache.

I'm about as far from 'rich' as you can get, yet I own lots of stock, rent house, and my own company. Why should I (or anyone else) pay unrealized capitol gains taxes? Until they are realized I didn't directly benefit. No idea why this should not apply equally to all income levels.

Additionally, why in the world would anyone criticize Steve Jobs for agreeing to work for $1 a year? He also refused any other pay (bonus, performance, etc.). He already had more money than he could spend and he wanted to continue in his passion. Some people hate the rich so much, anything they do is 'evil.'

Servicetech571
01-26-2014, 05:43 AM
QUOTE=Just the facts;736885]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.

I understand what you are saying but, I see that argument as "I am jealous someone has more than I do." Truth be told if we were in the group many classify as one percent we would probably be doing the same thing. After all at tax time, I don't know of anyone who pays anymore than what they absolutely have to. If we can declare a deduction, that lowers our tax bill, we claim it especially if the IRS says we can. I have never heard anyone say" Yeah, I could have taken that deduction but, I thought it was better if I paid in a little more.

I would prefer we went to a tax system that taxed the goods and services we buy instead of our income. You could break the sales tax down to low rates for survival items and higher rates for luxury items. We work for the money therefore; we should get to keep everything we make. As it is most of us don't really pay that much tax. If you are, you need to go re-submit your W-4 form. I used to set my deduction to zero to make sure I never had to pay anything. I got a nice refund every year (many of us forget that every year until after the New Year starts and it's time to file our taxes again. Thanks to advice from an accountant I know, I only pay in what I have to. If I owe anything, I save the money and pay it by Tax Day every year. My tax rate really is not all that bad at all. I am working class guy like yourself. I probably pay more for car insurance (good driving record) than I do on my taxes.[/QUOTE]

It's already being proposed (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks)

Just the facts
01-26-2014, 09:06 PM
Silicon Valley billionaire compares treatment of America's rich to Nazi persecution of Jews - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10598265/Silicon-Valley-billionaire-compares-treatment-of-Americas-rich-to-Nazi-persecution-of-Jews.html)

What the hell! When I was a right-wing Republican I was called a Nazi. Then I realized I had been duped, became a follower of the Austrian Economic Model, and now I am a Nazi again. I can't freak'in win.

gopokes88
01-27-2014, 12:12 PM
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.

mfKbaX4jE9U

G_Teo6veZOg

Because those automated systems will manufacture and code themselves... Both of which are higher paying jobs then a minimum wage fast food job.

Chadanth
01-27-2014, 12:29 PM
Silicon Valley billionaire compares treatment of America's rich to Nazi persecution of Jews - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10598265/Silicon-Valley-billionaire-compares-treatment-of-Americas-rich-to-Nazi-persecution-of-Jews.html)

What the hell! When I was a right-wing Republican I was called a Nazi. Then I realized I had been duped, became a follower of the Austrian Economic Model, and now I am a Nazi again. I can't freak'in win.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you or I is a Nazi. Because it's very classy to compare people of differing opinions or methodology to a political movement that murdered 12 million people.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 02:32 PM
Because those automated systems will manufacture and code themselves... Both of which are higher paying jobs then a minimum wage fast food job.

But it only has to be coded once and if you ever watch "How it's made" there isn't a whole lot of human interaction left in the manufacturing world. Plus, if this didn't save money they wouldn't do it which kind of blows your "Both of which are higher paying jobs then a minimum wage fast food job" argument out of the water.

Prunepicker
01-27-2014, 03:55 PM
Personally, I am sick and tired of the 1% worming their way out of taxes the
rest of us have to pay.
The players, owners and anybody associated with the NFL pay taxes.

Prunepicker
01-27-2014, 03:59 PM
... Then I realized I had been duped, became a follower of the Austrian
Economic Model, and now I am a ... I can't freak'in win.
The nazi's (ym"sh) were Collectivists to the max. They didn't follow Austrian
economics. You are hereby absolved.

Just the facts
01-29-2014, 07:54 AM
The players, owners and anybody associated with the NFL pay taxes.

This is where the lines get blurred. The NFL is not paying taxes - that is the whole point. The teams pay taxes, but the teams are NOT the NFL. The NFL is a tax-exempt organization and if you think they are paying taxes (perception), they aren't (reality). If you consider your perception to be the preferred scenario then you should support the NFL losing their tax-free status. That way your perception and reality are in agreement.

Let's turn this around and see if it becomes clearer. If the NFL was applying for Tax Exempt status on the grounds that they were supposed to further the cause of football (knowing that they sued the USFL out of existence and did nothing to help the XFL or UFL) would you support that?

Just the facts
01-30-2014, 07:37 AM
It will be interesting to watch how this bill goes.

Senators try to sack NFL's non-profit status - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/senators-try-sack-nfls-non-profit-status/)


Sens. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, and Angus King, Maine Independent, have started a push to end the not-for-profit status for the National Football League, saying it’s only fair to taxpayers.


We are about to find out just how committed D.C. is to the 1%.

MWCGuy
01-31-2014, 03:20 AM
DC is a class of elitists by themselves. These days you have millionaires fighting with millionaires. All those millionaires are controlled by the billionaires that reside within their respective parties. The difference between the two is this: Democrats are born into money and most of them were allowed a lifestyle where all they had to do was ask and their wish was granted. Republicans were also born into money however, there respective familes made them kind of work for it but not really. (EX: Junior is already on the board of directors before he is 30 while other employees have to climb the ladder and land there in their late 40's and early 50's. Neither group has any earthly idea on what it takes to make it everyday in America. If they did, I think things would be working alot differently. People that could support themselves would not be allowed to participate in social programs that were designed to help those who are truly in need instead of those who want an easy way out. Big corporations would be turned away when they asked for big loans to keep their companies afloat. It would be sink or swim.

What it all comes down to is we are learning the hardway why children need to be taught a solid work ethic and not be given everything their heart desires. To be honest, I think we are heading for another Great Depression. It all stemmed from the phrase "I want my kids to have it better than I did." At one time that phrase meant, a roof over their head, meals on the table at every meal, running water and money to cover the needs of life like clothes, shoes, medical care, school supplies, etc. Now that phrase means a spoilled life with everything the kid could ever want. More or less a life Robin Leech would talk about on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

What happened to us? Why did we ever let ourselves stop having respect for money? When did we stop understanding the true value of a dollar and the work involved to earn it?

During my childhood years adults would be all over you for wasting money. Now it's pretty much encouraged.