Olympics winnings exempted from taxation

Obama just signed into law an exemption to Olympians for the cash prize money (10-25K depending on the medal). Now, in the general scheme of things this isn’t a big deal, but it underscores how the tax code gets ridiculously complicated, and it also tells us where our priorities are; we have no such exemption for Nobel prizes or Pulitzer prizes, or frankly any other prize which some (myself) would consider way more important than an Olympic medal.

Am I just being a spoilsport?

There’s a much narrower window for an Olympic medal and for many sports, part or all training costs are borne by the athlete.

Nobel and Pulitzer winners pay for decades of education. There are no endorsement deals to be had, and the careers that lead to these degrees are generally pretty poorly paid, so they have an even narrower window.

This is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. It’s an embarrassment.

If anything, this is just going to ensure that no future Olympian can ever run for President, since using legal means to minimize tax burden is, apparently, a no-no for presidential hopefuls.

This is what Obama wastes his time on? It’s not like we have poorly mismanaged wars going on or crumbling infrastructure in our own nation. Oh wait, we have both those issues.

This is what Congress wastes it’s time on. Obama only spent a few seconds signing his name.

Pretty sure he couldn’t have solved either of those problems in the 7 seconds it took to sign this bill into law.

There are dozens of threads for political sniping about tax evasion and Obama. I was really just curious about people’s opinion of this specific issue, which, from what I can tell appears to have passed through Congress with near unanimity thus can not be subject to partisan complaints.

I find it kind of ridiculous too. Certainly I’m not inclined to defend it.

I was also surprised to discover this summer that American college athletes who win cash prizes for Olympic medals are allowed to keep the cash without forfeiting their college eligibility. I’m not inclined to defend that one either.

All this complaining seems like a bunch of lobster arguments. You see if you put one lobster in a bucket it will crawl out. However, if you put two lobsters in when one tries to escape the other will pull him back down.

Can you explain how this analogy fits? I’m not seeing it.

I wouldn’t mind at all if the law made the value of the metal in the medal tax exempt, and that’s what I thought they were doing. But I think any cash award should be taxable income.

Why is that prize money any different than ,y salary?
So they train for years and pay for coaches/equipment/etc.
I studied for years, paid for professors/books/lab time/etc.
That prize money should be treated just like any other earnings.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of Olympians getting a cash reward at all, or any award at all save for the medals themselves. Is it just me?

The IOC just awards medals. But some national Olympic committees (including the US) pay bonuses to athletes who win medals. And, in some sports, the national sporting federation may also pay a bonus.

The next president will probably try to out-do this by passing some kind of law that says that Olympians don’t have to pay taxes on any advertising money they get from their Olympic sponsors.

Ah, but you see, the Nobel or Pulitzer laureate did not work for her achievements in the name of USA!USA!USA! and that makes all the difference to Congress in an election year in which they’d rather have been in an induced coma until November 9…
There was also some issue with how with Mike Phelps or the NBA basketball players it’s seat cushion change for them, but it may be a hit for some relative unknown kid who makes it to a gold in some less than marquee event.

Though now that I think of it… is this exclusively for USOC athletes? What about the medalists for other flags who are US permanent residents?

I’m skeptical that someone up for a Nobel or Pulitzer would be on the poorly-paid range of their career salary. Certainly, after winning either, I’d expect their salary to go up, regardless of endorsements. And remain higher for the remainder of their career life.

Olympians, on the other hand, have to move into another career after aging out of the Olympics. Except for an extremely small handful of athletes (e.g., Phelps), the Olympics isn’t their career. In some sports, like women’s gymnastics, they effectively have one or maybe two Olympiads to recoup all the costs of their training. And the endorsements end after they move on from the sport. They might get some residual income in later years from appearances and such, but again except for a handful of Olympians, it’ll be a relative pittance.

Meanwhile, they have to move on to a new career, handicapped by having missed out on career development in the years they were training.

Not that I’d object at all to a tax exemption for Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, but I can see why giving a relatively minor break to Olympians makes sense. And, really, most Olympians won’t even get this since they don’t medal and so won’t get any medal money.

Well, see, you have to put the lobster bucket on a fence post, and maybe fill it with slowly heating water…

Only if it’s being heated by the exhaust of an airplane on a treadmill. DOWN IN THE QUARRY.

:rolleyes: