StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) So, if you're an AT&T or Verizon customer, might be worth checking out your data plan to see if you're getting the best deal. I got some new phones and a plan with AT&T in February. I did the 2 year contract, not the ATT Next thing. 6gb a month for $160 (2 devices). In March they dropped their prices in their ongoing price war with Verizon (Verizon just responded today with a price drop). Anyways, I went over with our data this month and got to looking at our account and there was an option for me to change my plan to a 6gb plan for $130. No catches at all, just a new price. Took 5 minutes to confer with an ATT Rep that there was no hidden catch and make the change. FWIW I checked Verizon and only 8 or 10GB plan prices are changing.

WOOOOOOO!

His prescription may not have been all that good, but Marx pretty much nailed the diagnosis.

sigh

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) Why does Gardenhire get a challenge? It's after the 6th inning.....Plus, was the ball not thrown in to 2B just in case? Should be an out either way, all the would change is the runner. It's similar to a "booth review" in the NFL, the umpires can call it.

Just another way of saying the same thing or am I missing something?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) But remember, the people that have the money to spend are doing so for one reason; to make more money. Or to push their personal social ideology

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:15 PM) Which, again, has been the case from the start, from local elections to national elections. It has not always been universally true. For instance, Montana passed laws in the early 20th century in direct response to corrupt political financing (basically one or two wealthy mine owners were able to control the entire state).

relevant:

S&P 500 adjusted for inflation

psssh like anyone reads your posts.

This should come as a surprise to nobody, but torture didn't work and the CIA repeatedly lied about it.

That is where it will go first, and then possibly on to court challenges.

except that scholarships are still not currently taxable

They could rewrite the code to exempt scholarships (maybe even specifically athletic scholarships?) today if they wanted.

No, and I think Italy was pretty universally mocked for that earthquake trial.

So why would Congress want to rewrite the tax code to make scholarships taxable? Just to be vindictive?

Are scholarships taxable? Grad student scholarships are not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) I wonder if the players even want to go that far though. They want to be viewed as "employees" only so that they can become a union. They don't want to be compensated like employees. I wonder if the NLRB decisions can make that distinction or if it has to be done by law. I know the guy for ESPN was saying that being considered an employee for union purposes doesn't mean they have to start paying taxes on the scholarships/stipends they get. The law on taxation would have to change or the IRS would have to change an internal rule. I don't know that it would really be up to the employees after a certain point. The IRS may look at the NLRB ruling and issue its own ruling that NW's athletic program (athletic programs are usually separate entities from the schools themselves) no longer qualifies as a 501©3 because their team isn't amateur. The IRS wouldn't be changing a rule itself but its determination of whether or not a specific entity qualifies under that rule. edit: the difference between how this applies to grad student unions and how it would apply to athletic clubs, as I read it, is that grad students are still very much part of a non-profit-generating educational institution, and the institution still qualifies because it is educational in nature. The athletic club wouldn't meet any of the qualifying exemptions for a 501©3 if they weren't an amateur organization, though. On the other hand, the NFL itself (not the teams) is tax-exempt, so maybe NW would qualify under the same part of the tax code. i dunno I'm obviously not a tax lawyer.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) I don't think most of the private school are not-for profit. I know the public schools are. Could this be the difference? I think that's backwards, at least for most of the major private schools. The Ivies, NW, Stanford, UofC, IIT, etc. are all not-for-profit. The for-profit privates are the DeVry, Phoenix, etc. of the world. edit: what separates the non-profits and the for-profits is that, while they're both educational in nature, the for-profits generate profits for private shareholders/individuals. Harvard may generate a profit every year, but it gets plowed back into its giant endowment fund.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) Why would it change the NCAA's status? Other not-for-profit, tax exempt institutions have salaried employees (as does the NCAA). It's based on the 501©3 requirements: If the athletes themselves are compensated employees, then they aren't fostering amateur sports competition.

That actually explains really easily why the NCAA forbids them from being able to sell their autographs or memorabilia, sign outside endorsement deals, etc. The NCAA, the conferences and all of the teams would lose their tax-exempt status over it. Which arguably a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry probably shouldn't be tax-exempt in the first place, but at least their position makes sense.

I haven't really seen it discussed much, but does recognizing the players as compensated employees put the NCAA's and the individual programs' tax-exempt status at risk? It's based on the alleged amateurism of college sports.

That was the point the blog I picked that link up from made. In the long run, it might even be beneficial because their old, aging navy was a big resource drain. They can shift those resources to their army and air force, which are more important.

Ukrainian Navy cut down by Russian move into Crimea