Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer Gets Billion-Dollar Tax Write-Off For Being Basketball Baron
McGruber (1417641) writes "According to a report published by The Financial Times (paywalled), ex-Microsoft CEO Billionaire Steve Ballmer will be able to write off about a billion dollars of his basketball team's purchase price from the taxable income he makes over the next 15 years. "Under an exception in US law, buyers of sports franchises can use an accounting treatment known as goodwill against their other taxable income. This feature is commonly used by tax specialists to structure deals for sports teams. Goodwill is the difference between the purchase price of an asset and the actual cash and other fixed assets belonging to the team."
On the other hand, the person who receives payment has to pay taxes on the overvalue.
And the loopholes are there because of the influence the rich have over the government. You can be mad at the people who made a loophole and the people who abuse it simultaneously.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
he would pay more in tax in a single year than 99% of the population pay in there entire lives.
Except he won't, he'll exploit exceptions and loopholes until he's paying less tax than a top-level middle manager. You don't seem to understand how taxation works.
he would pay more in tax in a single year than 99% of the population pay in there entire lives.
Except he won't, he'll exploit exceptions and loopholes until he's paying less tax than a top-level middle manager. You don't seem to understand how taxation works.
Actually, this is only sort of true. On a percentage-of-annual-income basis, it's correct. But in terms of dollars and cents paid in taxes annually, it is incorrect.
The fact that Ballmer is involved in this is the only reason it's on Slashdot...let's face it. This situation relates to capital investment, and it happens several times a day with regard to transactions of varying sizes. We could argue about whether or not it's about the taxpayer that gets stuck with this or that, or whether capital will flee if we tax the rich more, but one thing is true: Ballmer is no more to fault for leveraging available, documented, and legal tax write-offs than we are when we all claim a write-off for our mortgages, business expenses, or even just the standard deduction (if we don't even itemize).
None of us seek to maximize the amount of taxes we pay. But we demonize the ultra-wealthy, by name, when they do the same thing as us but on a larger scale. Don't fault them, fault the system...and then change it.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Waiting 15 years is a better deal than everybody else gets. Everybody else gets to wait indefinitely; most have to realize a loss before it can be claimed. In other words, if you overpay for an asset you don't get to claim a loss until you sell that asset to somebody else.
We fault them because they design the system expressly to create loopholes that only they can afford to exploit, via legalized bribery and the good 'ol boys network.
Stop being an apologist shill. Fuck off. You're never going to be that rich unless you're a sociopath who doesn't mind screwing over everyone in your path.
Sure, but only if I can get a tax credit for 50% the price of my next house. I mean, if the house was not sold, there wouldn't be any tax revenue.
They have lots of ways to steal, and they are really good at it. First, of course is their monopoly status. It's what every giant corporations dreams of. All the benefits of pretend capitalism, none of that pesky competition.
Then there's the stadium scam. Get a city to build you a stadium, along with getting a bunch of tax breaks. Pretend that you are bringing in "jobs". In fact most of the jobs are low level minimum wage jobs for running the physical plant and selling food. Not much in the way of real economic benefit.
The media contracts are where they real big time theft happens. If you have cable or any high speed media link, you are automatically paying for sports. Then if you want to watch something not in your area, you have to pay extra for the privilege. It's like the MicroSoft Tax, only worse. The only way to opt out is to stick to terrestrial HD broadcast.
No wonder Ballmer joined the owners club. He finally achieved 100% monopolist status, which he was never quite able to get at Microsoft.
Personally, I hope he chokes to death on some greasy stadium food.
Why is Snark Required?
If it's not that much to Ballmer, I'll gladly take just a month of that. 5 million is plenty to me.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
And who do you think tells the politicians what to do? Hint: it's not the general public.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Someone who makes $10 million (or more) a year could afford to pay 90% tax and still live comfortably. But in what way is that fair? Presumably this person is providing a service to a business that they have both agreed is worth $10 million a year, and that they are both happy with the arrangement. Why should the government be allowed to take such a large amount of money as taxes? The rich person doesn't really get much extra out of the deal. At the end of the year, they may have only paid $100,000 in taxes, which is 1% of their earnings, but the have paid the same in taxes than 10 people making $30,000 who may have paid $10,000 each.
The rich person gets to harvest most of the productivity of a vast number of people who receive many services from the government but don't personally cover the entire cost through their taxes.
Also, some may argue that the wealthy do get more out of their taxes, but that is something that should be changed. We should fix the system so that they get exactly as much as everyone else. Not make them pay more because we know they get more out of the system.
Sounds fair. We'd have to stop them from absorbing so much of the value that others produce.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Most of society, including wildly successful people across all faiths, disciplines, and cultures.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The successful ones aren't really watching. They're just playing a different game. It's amazing what you can get sports fans to do with a ticket to a suite.
*sighs*
A billion over FIFTEEN YEARS. Amounts to about $70 million a year.
Considering that Ballmer is worth north of twenty Billion, we're not actually talking about a huge tax break here.
What we are talking about is an article that combines fifteen years of tax deductions in order to put that magic "B" in the title to get people excited....
We shouldn't need a 'B' to get excited. A billion is a billion whether it gets paid in a year or 15. And $70 million in taxes is $70 million no matter how you cut it. Under what type of cynic logic can this be justified?
This is not $70 millions in non-taxable charities, but an investment on a money machine in the sports/entertainment industry.
It's actually a lot more simple than that. As currently written, the tax code preferences capital over labor because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. All of the complexity is mostly a red herring. Increase the capital gains rate to match ordinary income, and the effective rate on the wealthy will increase substantially.
And as passive income that billion a year is taxed at a 15% rate after all of his other deductions and loopholes. Whether or not you think a $70 mil writeoff is insignificant to a hundred billionaire, it's just this kind of insult to injury loophole (available only to the hyper rich) that makes a travesty of the notion that we're all in this together. But, of course, we're not - and apparently CrimsonAvenger is fine with that...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Basketball tickets are a luxury. If you buy them, it's because you chose to give Ballmer money. I can't help you with that.
Thats right, we can choose not to buy basketball tickets (and I'm already in that camp), but we can't choose not to subsidize Balmers purchase of the team because a set of, long since gone, politicians wrote that nice little loophole into our tax code for us. The way I do the math, those assholes transferred about $10 from my pocket into Blamers pocket with just this one transaction. I had no say in the matter. I had no interest in the stupid basketball team (or the sport for that matter), and yet here I am subsidizing it...
I want to know: What humanitarian need did my $10 fill? In what way is the world a better place than it would have been if Balmer had to cough up the price without my subsidy? I could fully support the idea if my money had gone towards curing cancer, or helping dying children, or something equally righteous, but how is supporting Basketball, a sport that is fully capable of paying its own way, helping better humanity? How is this anything other than yet another way in which those with the power and the money are stealing from the rest of us?
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted