2025 NFL Thread

[847badgerfan]

Hmm. Never had to do that in Wisconsin or Michigan but apparently you do now. I was never in LA or IN more than the required days, so I don't know about those.

I doubt LA would have hit me anyway. I was there after Katrina helping out.

[utee94]

It's true that he'd make that money whether they went to the Super Bowl or not. But the Seahawks play at the 49ers and at the Rams once each per year... I'm guessing they're paying this exact same tax for those two games. 

Now, I'm not necessarily saying I'm in favor of such a thing. I would think it much more fair that you only pay taxes in the state in which your team [your direct employer] is domiciled. That's how things work for us working schlubs who travel as part of our jobs.
Yeah, and how many states / localities just LOVE to jack up hotel taxes, much of which is likely paid by out-of-staters who don't get a vote. And Nevada makes their revenue mostly off of gamblers staying in hotels in Vegas/Reno/Laughlin. States just LOVE them some tourist tax dollars and they don't let them vote.

Taxing outsiders who can't vote is a favorite tactic of states and localities... Because they don't have the ability to vote to make the rates lower, and the people who vote to make them higher don't pay them!

Is it fair? Of course not. But it's not unique to CA.

There's a huge difference between taxing hotels-- which is really just a sales tax-- and taxing income, which is something historically done to residents. Residents who have the ability to vote to change the system, at least in theory.   

And I'm certainly not suggesting it's unique to California.  Google AI says it's common in many states.  Obviously, since the mechanism for collection is the state income tax, it can only occur in states that have a state income tax.  Take a look at that list, compared to the list of states with no income tax, and it's easy to see how this could become a political football.  No pun intended.

[847badgerfan]

I guess the golfers like winning in Texas and Florida. Those $4 Million payouts are worth a lot more in those states.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Hmm. Never had to do that in Wisconsin or Michigan but apparently you do now. I was never in LA or IN more than the required days, so I don't know about those.

I doubt LA would have hit me anyway. I was there after Katrina helping out.

You possibly had to, and didn't know it. But because nobody was reporting your "WI/MI income" to their state tax authorities, they didn't know to come after you for it. 

Maybe the infrastructure needed to seek out and hunt down every person who is in a state for a couple of days a year will cost more than they'll get in revenue, so they don't bother. But the revenue they'll get from pro athletes or major entertainers is high enough they DO spend that time. 

There's a huge difference between taxing hotels-- which is really just a sales tax-- and taxing income, which is something historically done to residents. Residents who have the ability to vote to change the system, at least in theory. 

And I'm certainly not suggesting it's unique to California.  Google AI says it's common in many states.  Obviously, since the mechanism for collection is the state income tax, it can only occur in states that have a state income tax.  Take a look at that list, compared to the list of states with no income tax, and it's easy to see how this could become a political football.  No pun intended.

Per the above, it'll only be a political football if they enforce it... You, Badge, and I have all traveled for work fairly extensively through our careers and have never even thought of it. 

Just as technically, I have to report any out of state purchases that would be subject to California sales tax every year. Do I? Nope. In truth, that number is very nearly zero. But when we were all in Hawaii, the girls saw places like Louis Vuitton in Waikiki and were all joking that b/c sales tax is only 4%, it'd be financial malpractice NOT to go spend a few thousand dollars on a handbag. (None of them did of course.)

Would I be worried that if we had bought a Louis Vuitton and brought it back to CA, that anyone from the state would show up at my door the following year wondering why I didn't pay CA sales tax on it? No. Because they can't track it. 

[MikeDeTiger]

There's a huge difference between taxing hotels-- which is really just a sales tax-- and taxing income, which is something historically done to residents. Residents who have the ability to vote to change the system, at least in theory. 

And I'm certainly not suggesting it's unique to California.  Google AI says it's common in many states.  Obviously, since the mechanism for collection is the state income tax, it can only occur in states that have a state income tax.  Take a look at that list, compared to the list of states with no income tax, and it's easy to see how this could become a political football.  No pun intended.

Right.  It's erroneous to equate income tax with sales tax.  Two different categories with different purposes and reasons for coming to be.  

What's crazy about this is that, as far as I understand it from reading brad's article, it must apply to every non-California team who plays @SF, @Rams, and @Chargers.  Also, presumably, the Lakers, Warriors, Clippers, Kings, Giants, Angels, Dodgers, A's, and Padres.  

And, there are other states doing it.  It is ridiculous, and yes, I'm surprised the PA's haven't bargained their way out of that.  

[utee94]

Right.  It's erroneous to equate income tax with sales tax.  Two different categories with different purposes and reasons for coming to be. 

What's crazy about this is that, as far as I understand it from reading brad's article, it must apply to every non-California team who plays @SF, @Rams, and @Chargers.  Also, presumably, the Lakers, Warriors, Clippers, Kings, Giants, Angels, Dodgers, A's, and Padres. 

And, there are other states doing it.  It is ridiculous, and yes, I'm surprised the PA's haven't bargained their way out of that. 

And you know, to be fair, perhaps some of the PAs have actually done so?

But who's gonna bother reporting something that came to a sensible resolution, when they could report other things that are super emotionally charged??

[MikeDeTiger]

Just as technically, I have to report any out of state purchases that would be subject to California sales tax every year. Do I? Nope. In truth, that number is very nearly zero. But when we were all in Hawaii, the girls saw places like Louis Vuitton in Waikiki and were all joking that b/c sales tax is only 4%, it'd be financial malpractice NOT to go spend a few thousand dollars on a handbag. (None of them did of course.)

Would I be worried that if we had bought a Louis Vuitton and brought it back to CA, that anyone from the state would show up at my door the following year wondering why I didn't pay CA sales tax on it? No. Because they can't track it.

Not my understanding.  You can't be hit with sales tax twice, I don't think.  What you're talking about is called a use tax, I believe.  And no states make any money from that for the reason you outlined, to the point where that's not even a common term people know.  

For now.  Your purchasing habits can easily be tracked by data collection and AI--and are.  Only a matter of time before the gub'ment gets their grubby little hands on that data.  

[MikeDeTiger]

And you know, to be fair, perhaps some of the PAs have actually done so?

But who's gonna bother reporting something that came to a sensible resolution, when they could report other things that are super emotionally charged??

Well, tbf, I disagree in principle that there can be a sensible solution to a dumb, unnecessary problem.  i.e., an out-of-state jock tax.  

[utee94]

Just as technically, I have to report any out of state purchases that would be subject to California sales tax every year. Do I? Nope. In truth, that number is very nearly zero. But when we were all in Hawaii, the girls saw places like Louis Vuitton in Waikiki and were all joking that b/c sales tax is only 4%, it'd be financial malpractice NOT to go spend a few thousand dollars on a handbag. (None of them did of course.)

Would I be worried that if we had bought a Louis Vuitton and brought it back to CA, that anyone from the state would show up at my door the following year wondering why I didn't pay CA sales tax on it? No. Because they can't track it.

Yeah, in my first job post-undergrad, I used to travel a lot.  I'd just finished college and was finally thinking about developing a wardrobe of something more than shorts and tank tops, when I happened to spend three months in Minneapolis where there was no sales tax (compared to the 8.25% back here in the ATX).  

I proceeded to spend maybe a thousand bucks on some better duds than I was used to having, nothing fancy, mostly just button-downs and some polo shirts and some decent pants.  It wasn't a lot, but it was a lot to me at the time, to be spending on clothes anyway, but I made myself feel a little better knowing I'd saved $80 or so on the total.

Hmm maybe that story wasn't all that interesting or informative now that I think about it.  Anyway, I liked no sales tax and I also like no income tax...

[847badgerfan]

I don't know about Illinois taxing stuff bought out of state, but we bought a ton of things in Wisconsin while we kept our boat up there.

They do it with cars, through the registration/title process.

As for working in Wisconsin and Michigan, I think those are new to the OOS taxing. My accountant (very reputable and big firm) knew all about it and never filed or even mentioned paying taxes on those states.

[utee94]

Well, tbf, I disagree in principle that there can be a sensible solution to a dumb, unnecessary problem.  i.e., an out-of-state jock tax. 

Fair enough.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Not my understanding.  You can't be hit with sales tax twice, I don't think.  What you're talking about is called a use tax, I believe.   

True. Although the rates are the same so it's basically the same thing. 

I think that if you've paid another state's sales tax, that portion could be exempted from the use tax. So I'd only pay a use tax of 3.75%, the difference between Orange County use tax (7.75%) and Hawaii sales tax (4%). 

Either way, technically you have to pay it, and nobody does. 

[MikeDeTiger]

Either way, technically you have to pay it, and nobody does.

Also, to demonstrate the consistency of my view wrt your example, I'll note here that I don't like uses taxes either, they should be done away with, and I'm glad most people don't have to pay them.  

[FearlessF]

the tax man cometh, and he's gonna get you