Athletes are employees...

[NYCSUGrad]

This is probably the most frustrating thing about liberals - they cannot conceive that conservatives are not activists. They just want to adhere to the Constitution. They do not want to change it. he Constitution is a document designed to enhance individual freedom and restrain gvt. Liberals cannot accept this fact. Therefore, they think that conservatives are activists trying to reinterpret the Constitution to make it a conservative document. It is a conservative document. You are the ones that want a living, ie a meaningless Constitution.

If the constitution was not meant to be changed then why did the founding fathers create the means to amend it?

 

[Fly Rodder]

The median FBS school spent $14.7 million to help subsidize its athletics department in 2014, up from a little more than $11 million in 2013. That level of spending isn’t unique to FBS schools – median Football Championship Subdivision and non-football schools spent roughly $11 million to help fund athletics in 2014.

C'mon now. The biggest beneficiary of revenue generated by "student-athletes" says that they really aren't making any money. Amazing. Additionally, the linked spreadsheet shows that the single largest outlay is ... drumroll please, coaches and staff. Tuition/grants are second. Those two costs are totally controlled by the school both the actual value and the nominal value. And the school sets the value tuition based on ... what? It's not reality. There's not a single private school that doesn't factor in discounted tuition into their budgets. They know that they need x students on full cost, y students on discounts to meet their revenue needs. Projecting a little shortfall? Offer more students at a discounted rate, squeeze a couple extra into classes and voila, extra revenue.

Scholarships aren't compensation, they're a benefit. University employees get to take free classes. That's not classified as salary. My wife is an administrator at a university, she gets reciprocal tuition benefits for dependents (i.e., tuition). We don't have dependents so that benefit is worthless to us. You want us to be taxed on it? Or, alternatively, every person who takes advantage of this version of tuition reimbursement to be taxed on it as revenue? Not gonna happen. Go into your supervisor's office, tell them you love making widgets for the company and you no longer want a salary. They can pay you in widgets. The company will trip over themselves to make that deal.

NCAA revenue athletics are a con. Full stop.

 

[djcon57]

This is just categorically wrong.

It's just not...Here's an article with an explanation of these numbers you posted. (And before anyone wants to blast Deadspin and Vice as sources...go ahead, I'm with you, but Andy Schwarz is actually an economist)

College Sports Programs Are Playing Poor, Here's How to Fix It | VICE Sports

http://deadspin.com/how-athletic-departments-and-the-media-fudge-the-cost-1570827027


"In her informative book, Saturday Millionaires, sports business writer Kristi Dosh provides an excellent example of this by detailing all of the various ways that Ohio State imposes fictional costs on its athletic department (rather than real, cash-based expenditures), with the seeming goal of moving profit from sports (mostly football) to the general coffers of the school.

Among the expenses the school charges its athletic department are $8.5 million for "overhead," "physical plant assessment," "cost containment" and "university fundraising," and another $1 million for "library renovations." (There's also $15.7 million in scholarship costs, but you can read about the fictionalization of scholarship costs elsewhere.)"

 

[sutomcat]

Yes it is.

College athletic departments are taking in more money than ever – and spending it just as fast

Whatever money colleges make on the big 2 is almost always spent in the facilities and staffing wars.

If you are saying more colleges could be making money if they stopped doing these kinds of things, I will agree with that. And I will agree Ohio State is one of the 24 FBS schools that is making money on college athletics today.

 

[djcon57]

Yes it is.

College athletic departments are taking in more money than ever – and spending it just as fast

Whatever money colleges make on the big 2 is almost always spent in the facilities and staffing wars.

If you are saying more colleges could be making money if they stopped doing these kinds of things, I will agree with that. And I will agree Ohio State is one of the 24 FBS schools that is making money on college athletics today.

Right. So saying "There isn't a pot of gold to finance all these great ideas to help college athletes" is untrue. There IS a pot of gold. It's going to facilities and coaches, not the players. That's the point.

Also, as explained above, the scholarships are included in the"spending" which is a complete accounting trick.

 

[djcon57]

FWIW, I should add, I don't believe the schools should be paying the players as I've stated many times in the past.

I think they should be able to have jobs and make money of their likeness.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Well, it doesn't seem as simple as you are making it. You claim liberals cannot conceive conservatives are not activists. It works both ways is my very point. A skunk can't smell his own stink. Everyone is blind to their own prejudices and bigotries. All language is imprecise. All language is interpretative. Our founding fathers knew this which is why we have a judicial branch in the first place.

Let's just accept human imperfections are being constant and the we will never stop striving towards forming "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

Well, it doesn't seem as simple as you are making it. You claim liberals cannot conceive conservatives are not activists. It works both ways is my very point. A skunk can't smell his own stink. Everyone is blind to their own prejudices and bigotries. All language is imprecise. All language is interpretative. Our founding fathers knew this which is why we have a judicial branch in the first place.

Let's just accept human imperfections are being constant and the we will never stop striving towards forming "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" which is a work that will never be done, completed, or "RIGHT". What this means is very different for conservatives and liberals. You claim there is an absolute "RIGHT". Liberals do not believe in absolutes.

general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" which is a work that will never be done, completed, or "RIGHT". What this means is very different for conservatives and liberals. You claim there is an absolute "RIGHT". Liberals do not believe in absolutes.

STop with the gobbly gook. just because libs want activist judges does not mean that conservatives want activist judges. They just want judges that go with original intent. WHy is that concept impossible for you to comprehend?

 

[Dave85]

STop with the gobbly gook. just because libs want activist judges does not mean that conservatives want activist judges. They just want judges that go with original intent. WHy is that concept impossible for you to comprehend?

You obviously have proven a skunk can't smell his own stink. All judges are activist judges.

 

[Dave85]

Absolutely Dave. Both the late Scalia and Thomas had close relatives working FOR the Bush campaign (Scalia's son, Thomas' wife) yet NEITHER recused themselves from the case. Contrast that with numerous cases my HS classmate Elena Kagan has recused herself from when she served as Solicitor General in the Obama administration prior to the SC appointment. I am sure other justices have recused themselves at appropriate times in the past.

The problem is there is no MANDATORY recusal system, or indeed ANY system of checks and balances for Supreme Court justices as there is in the rest of the federal judiciary. There is some talk about reforming this, though. I don't know if an act of congress is needed or it is done within the judiciary system.

I think the way the federal judicial system is fine. Judges interpret the laws. People are going to hate what happens no matter what. The problem with the conservatives is they think there is one "right" way to interpret the law. It's funny how the people who claim to have the most common sense turn out to be the very same ones with the most outrageous beliefs!

 

[Dave85]

if college athletes are employees, then will the full dollar value of their tuition waivers become part of their taxable compensation? If so, this "win" could become a net negative for some players.

A scholarship is not compensation and can certainly be considered not taxable. I don't understand why people who are so against taxes of any form are okay with taxing students.

Obviously, if they are being paid for the time spent at practice and games then taxes would be taken out of what they are paid.

 

[Dave85]

In short, it should. The IRS considers taxable income any form of compensation that can be feasibly calculated to an individual. Tuition - yes, pizza party for employees - no.

The law could be written so scholarship is not considered compensation. The law could be written so scholarship is considered non-taxable income. No problem.

 

[texascpa]

The law could be written so scholarship is not considered compensation. The law could be written so scholarship is considered non-taxable income. No problem.

The issue becomes if it's a scholarship now that they are considered employees.

 

[texascpa]

A scholarship is not compensation and can certainly be considered not taxable. I don't understand why people who are so against taxes of any form are okay with taxing students.

Obviously, if they are being paid for the time spent at practice and games then taxes would be taken out of what they are paid.

Sorry, but if the athletes want the benefits and considerations of being certified as "employees" then there should be no exceptions. Remember, it's the student-athletes that drove this.

 

[Oráiste]

I don't understand why people who are so against taxes of any form are okay with taxing students.

what makes you think I am "against taxes of any form?"

 

[texascpa]

what makes you think I am "against taxes of any form?"

I'm actually against all forms of income tax. I'm also against favoritism and hypocrisy.

 

[Dave85]

what makes you think I am "against taxes of any form?"

Why do you want to tax students athletes?

 

[Dave85]

The issue becomes if it's a scholarship now that they are considered employees.

Pass a law making an exception.

 

[texascpa]

Pass a law making an exception.

I think they should also pass a law that all CPA's should be exempt. Hell, we're the ones that have to deal with tax law crap.

 

[Townie72]

This thread has taken a turn and moved into the "dumb" category when the idea that the athletes might actually earn less money if their compensation (Salaries, meal money, scholarships, etc) were taxed fully.

Of course wages are going to be taxed and of course that would include Social Security tax.

But if you were transferred to a higher tax location with a small increase in salary such that you would be making less net, what would you do?

Ask for more money, right?

So the Universities would have to set wages at a high enough level so that the athlete would have a satisfactory amount after taxes.

Then, of course, the whole conversation will shift into differential State taxes and then differential cost of living. Why should an athlete in high tax, high cost of living New York, be paid the same as an athlete living in lower cost (Taxes and Cost of Living) Texas?

This seems like such a simple concept at first glance. But then as you start to peel the onion, levels and levels of complexity are exposed.

 

[Townie72]

If the constitution was not meant to be changed then why did the founding fathers create the means to amend it?

Amend it? Sure.

But disregard it?

Circumvent it through tortured logic?

Inventing new "rights"?

Using the courts to do the job that Congress was intended to do?

I'm pretty sure the Founding Father's didn't intend that.

Of course the zealots and ideologues don't care if the wreck the court or the separation of powers, because they are so convinced in the rightness of their positions.

 

[Oráiste]

Why do you want to tax students athletes?

I don't, I simply asked a question about the tax implications

 

[Hoo's That]

The problem with your foresight is that it doesn't include A) the continuous and egregious extension of Federal government in state issues, and 2) the fact that public universities get Federal money. All the Feds need to do is say "do it or we pull your funds". why do think the state speed limits were 55 mph for so many decades?

If a Democratic-controlled Congress did anything, it would be to force the schools to go to the D-3 model and put sports "in their place." You have to remember the majority of students at most colleges these days are women and they can satisfy that constituency. Also forcing schools to the D-3 model and rigidly enforcing Title IX could be the final nail in football-as-we-presently-know-it's coffin and force the NBA and NFL to get up off their collective azzes and form minor leagues like baseball has always had.

 

[AlaskaSU]

You obviously have proven a skunk can't smell his own stink. All judges are activist judges.

Do you define activist as someone that adheres to original intent?
Or, do you deny that honorable officials adhere to original intnt? Believe it or not, many conservatives wish nothing more than adherence to original intent. Adherence to original intent is not activism. Activism is divergence from original intent. You cannot tell the difference and I am not surprised by it. Admission that adherence to original intent is not activism would destroy your ignorant ediface.

 

[Dave85]

Do you define activist as someone that adheres to original intent?
Or, do you deny that honorable officials adhere to original intnt? Believe it or not, many conservatives wish nothing more than adherence to original intent. Adherence to original intent is not activism. Activism is divergence from original intent. You cannot tell the difference and I am not surprised by it. Admission that adherence to original intent is not activism would destroy your ignorant ediface.

First of all, I prefer to think of myself as apolitical at this point in my life. My problem with politics is it seems to me that it has practically nothing to do with my life. In my current thinking, culture is a more important part and influence in my life. Playing cards with a group of friends will have a greater impact on the happiness in my life than anything that is done in Washington DC. So to be honest with you, what the judges do on the Supreme court seems kind of meaningless to me.

That said, if you google "what is meant by the term activist judges" and read some of the articles you will get a better argument than I can present for the liberal point of view. My comments to you had more to do with my understanding of the limitations and nature of the English language. Language is inherently ambiguous. Each person has their own interpretations of what is important and what words mean based on each person's life experiences. To be honest with you, I see no problem with what the judges do from either side of the political spectrum. Each judge brings their own life interpretation to law.

Law has nothing to do with absolute truth because language lacks precision. The problem with all law is it lacks accuracy and completeness. So judges are needed to make rulings about how the law is going to be applied and what the law means. You seem to think language is some kind of act of God and that language is perfect in its construction. And therefore, language is not open to interpretation. I cannot hold to that way of thinking. The English language is full of limitations.

Again, I'm not an expert in the arguments for or against activist judges. Here's an except from one of many articles written by people who have spent much more time thinking about this topic than I have:

"To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," Judge Napolitano said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing the things the Legislature wants to do." Many legal experts agree that accusations of judicial activism are nothing more than political name-calling, and that judges are supposed to interpret the law and rule according to their own interpretations.

So the core of the argument is the role of the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of the judiciary branch; it differs from the other two branches in several significant ways. For instance, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. The reasoning behind lifetime tenure is that sometimes justices must make decisions that are unpopular or counter to the will of the majority. Because they are not elected, they are free to uphold the law in spite of potential political fallout.
​

Activist Judges: Why are they creating such a stir?

 

[NYCSUGrad]

I'm actually against all forms of income tax. I'm also against favoritism and hypocrisy.

So how do you propose to pay for necessary government services?