RealGM

Mostly how does this affect us getting Pekovic here? With the amount of taxes he's going to have to pay on his contract, I think we're going to have to cut Pekovic a hefty check unless he's really motivated to come over or Obama works some kind of miracle strengthening the dollar and I'm not holding my breath on that.

big3_8_19_21 wrote:Mostly how does this affect us getting Pekovic here? With the amount of taxes he's going to have to pay on his contract, I think we're going to have to cut Pekovic a hefty check unless he's really motivated to come over or Obama works some kind of miracle strengthening the dollar and I'm not holding my breath on that.

The dollar has gained strength as of late. In the event that the tax rate goes up on high income wage earners, I doubt 3% does much of anything to be honest. an extra ~200k/yr covers that ezpz on a 6m contract.

Will the dollar continue to increase in the foreseeable future, though?...I wish I actually knew more about the economy...

I was reading an article about Obama and McCain's tax plans, it said that the top tax rate would go from 35% to 39% under Obama. That would be $240,000 more in taxes on a $6 mil contract, which isn't huge in comparison to the size of the full contract, but you better believe that Pekovic is going to take into account that lost quarter million.

I guess it shouldn't be a huge roadblock, but it's something to consider

IDK. I think you would have to factor in cost of living. Athens, for example, is the 29th most expensive city in the world. Minneapolis/St.Paul doesn't rank in the top 50 (Los Angeles is 42 for comparison). So he may have to pay more in taxes but everything else costs much less. Doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.

C.lupus wrote:IDK. I think you would have to factor in cost of living. Athens, for example, is the 29th most expensive city in the world. Minneapolis/St.Paul doesn't rank in the top 50 (Los Angeles is 42 for comparison). So he may have to pay more in taxes but everything else costs much less. Doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.

I don't know if its typical of all contracts for Euro-stars, but when I was reading about Childress, the team paid all his living expenses.

During an election period, the party that's not in office tries to make the economy sound as bad as possible, and while this economy isn't strong, McCain was correct that the fundamentals behind it are -- at least compared to much of the rest of the world. We are frustrated by our "bail out" but our cheap interest rates, which brought in a lot of foreign capital, has caused things to be worse in other countries who wanted cheap credit and didn't have the stronger financial underpinnings that the US did. This has caused a huge strengthening of the US dollar over the last month, and it might make it easier to bring in Euro's.

However, I don't disagree that Obama will raise the rate on top earners to 39%, and I hope he's smart enough to not increase taxes on capital gains to strengthen our stock market, but the money for these increased government programs is going to have to come from somewhere (surprise middle class!). I also think that anybody who has to eat $250,000 is not going to think its not a big deal, because that much money buys a lot. Hopefully the dollar continues to strengthen, and it will have a greater effect on the NBA's ability to bring over Euros like Pekovic.

I really don't think this will be a major issue. If he wants to play here, he will come. He could probably get paid more in europe anyway.

shrink wrote:I don't know if its typical of all contracts for Euro-stars, but when I was reading about Childress, the team paid all his living expenses.

More than just stars. Its pretty much protocol for all teams. My brother had free housing too.

shrink wrote:

C.lupus wrote:However, I don't disagree that Obama will raise the rate on top earners to 39%, and I hope he's smart enough to not increase taxes on capital gains to strengthen our stock market, but the money for these increased government programs is going to have to come from somewhere (surprise middle class!). I also think that anybody who has to eat $250,000 is not going to think its not a big deal, because that much money buys a lot. Hopefully the dollar continues to strengthen, and it will have a greater effect on the NBA's ability to bring over Euros like Pekovic.

250k is a pitance. Yes you can buy a ton of "stuff" with 250k, but meh when you put it on "scale". It's really not that much money even when applied to the middle class. A person making 50k a year its 1500? ~28 bucks a pay week? Realisticly that doesn't hurt that bad and it's "fair". I don't care either way if the rich get taxed more or less. Or even if I do meh money you can't take it with you.

Sure if the rich get bumped up 3% it sucks, but lets not forget that the rich have far more in terms of money making vehicles since they have money they don't use and can invest VAST sums of it. That vehicle isn't available to the middle class at the scale the wealthy have so imo it evens out.

I'm more of a fan of a sales tax on "nonessential" goods so everyone has to pay it. The rich end up paying more since they buy more expensive junk, and more often. It's also fair since the tax rate would be the same across goods.

I would actually favor all brackets 50k+ getting a bump in taxes, and giving a tax credit based on what they paid in towards paying off debt. So if a taxpayer pays an extra 1500 due to the new tax, but they pay down credit card debt, mortgage debt, etc(maybe rent since some ppl may be debt free and not have a mortgage). so the gov would kick that $$ back to the taxpayer. There would be a cap limit on the amount the gov would reimburse, but that makes it "fair" across income brackets and helps the debt stricken US economy. This sort of tax forces consumers to save and at year end or tax time they become more powerful consumers since the gov has essentially forced them to save some cash. They don't end up paying 20% on that credit card debt compounded for years and adding up forever, they actually end up saving some cash long term. People understand how to use tax credits, they don't understand how not to use credit.

All in all I would rather gradually eliminate the income tax all together, but that's another post.

bruceallen61 wrote:

shrink wrote:

C.lupus wrote:However, I don't disagree that Obama will raise the rate on top earners to 39%, and I hope he's smart enough to not increase taxes on capital gains to strengthen our stock market, but the money for these increased government programs is going to have to come from somewhere (surprise middle class!). I also think that anybody who has to eat $250,000 is not going to think its not a big deal, because that much money buys a lot. Hopefully the dollar continues to strengthen, and it will have a greater effect on the NBA's ability to bring over Euros like Pekovic.

250k is a pitance. Yes you can buy a ton of "stuff" with 250k, but meh when you put it on "scale". It's really not that much money even when applied to the middle class. A person making 50k a year its 1500? ~28 bucks a pay week? Realisticly that doesn't hurt that bad and it's "fair". I don't care either way if the rich get taxed more or less. Or even if I do meh money you can't take it with you.

Sure if the rich get bumped up 3% it sucks, but lets not forget that the rich have far more in terms of money making vehicles since they have money they don't use and can invest VAST sums of it. That vehicle isn't available to the middle class at the scale the wealthy have so imo it evens out.

Spoken like someone who doesn't make over $250K a year. People don't get rich when they don't care about $250,000 here or there, thinking they can get it back elsewhere. They aren't out putting it on a scale, because it buys real world goods. And whether its an education for their kid, or the sexy sports car, its not something "the rich" easily dismiss.

bruceallen61 wrote: I'm more of a fan of a sales tax on "nonessential" goods so everyone has to pay it. The rich end up paying more since they buy more expensive junk, and more often. It's also fair since the tax rate would be the same across goods .

I like this idea as well.

bruceallen61 wrote: I would actually favor all brackets 50k+ getting a bump in taxes, and giving a tax credit based on what they paid in towards paying off debt. So if a taxpayer pays an extra 1500 due to the new tax, but they pay down credit card debt, mortgage debt, etc(maybe rent since some ppl may be debt free and not have a mortgage). so the gov would kick that $$ back to the taxpayer. There would be a cap limit on the amount the gov would reimburse, but that makes it "fair" across income brackets and helps the debt stricken US economy. This sort of tax forces consumers to save and at year end or tax time they become more powerful consumers since the gov has essentially forced them to save some cash. They don't end up paying 20% on that credit card debt compounded for years and adding up forever, they actually end up saving some cash long term. People understand how to use tax credits, they don't understand how not to use credit.

All in all I would rather gradually eliminate the income tax all together, but that's another post.

I'm not getting it. You're giving taxpayers a credit for paying off personal debt, but wouldn't that be less money available for the government to pay off its own debt?

shrink wrote:Spoken like someone who doesn't make over $250K a year.

Don't assume this as a fact Shrink(as I have)

shrink wrote:People don't get rich when they don't care about $250,000 here or there, thinking they can get it back elsewhere. They aren't out putting it on a scale, because it buys real world goods. And whether its an education for their kid, or the sexy sports car, its not something "the rich" easily dismiss.

You are mixing 2 different points (250k total & 250 k/yr). If you make 8m in 1 year 250k really isn't that much to them(especially since they probably make 300k yr in investments off that money anyway), they easily make that back via other investment vehicles. Whether you want to make the arguement that it's not fair that they pay more real world dollars doesn't matter to me. It just looks mean because it doesn't scale well with real world goods and services. I don't think the gov is very good at spending money and don't want the money in their hands either, but the economy is really in a place where this sort of action must happen. We were put into this place by greed over new sorts of investments and greed of the middle class to buy more things on credit to appear more "rich".

We will have a fundamental disagreement here, as your point can't be disproven. Money(money is actually just a vehicle to trade services) does buy real world goods and most people(including the middle class & poor) are greedy and they always want more\better.

As I stated I'm more of the mindset that income tax is fundamentally flawed and that it should be gradually phased out.