I just heard on the Radio that...

[ursusminor]

I really don't understand why there's all this chatter about the parent's responsibility for the student's tax burden.
Scholarships/tuition remission and tuition charged should cancel each other out. Scholarship is income, but tuition is a tax write-off, so net taxable income is zero on a full scholarship. Unless your school is stupid and bills you for the spring in December, but doesn't process your remission until January, putting your write-off and your income into different tax years. I hate my husband's grad school.

Every school has a system in place to pay work-study undergrads and/or graduate student assistants. A stipend isn't scholarship money. It's a paycheck. It goes to the student, and the student is responsible for the taxes on it. Students get the tuition tax forms, stating how much tuition they paid and how much was covered in scholarships, and they also get a W2 for their stipend income. The parents may be responsible for the tuition tax situation if they're footing the bill for a dependent, but the student has to file for their own W2 income.

 

[2Husky]

No matter what benefits you want to attribute to women's basketball - and most other teams - at smaller colleges, the fact is that they are big money-losers, even after every possible benefit is put into the equation. If it was merely a matter of profit/loss, most of these teams would be disbanded.

Most nba teams "lose" money, and yet they sell for hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Profit and loss depend on the accounting.

People can deduct a portion of income used for tuition, the difference in taxes for normal income and scholarships it's based on the fact you can spend normal income on anything, and scholarships are stuck paying tuition. Paying students above cost of attendance doesn't change that or hurt the student in anyway

 

[UcMiami]

Education is and has been for a long time one of the 'socialist' aspects of the US (thankfully.) Anyone who owns property pays for elementary and secondary education through property taxes whether they have zero children or twenty. Same goes for municipal, state, and federal taxes that go into subsidies for elementary, secondary, and high levels of education. So tax 'breaks' are not the only form of 'non-representative' treatment of education costs.
There was a specific issue in Springfield, MA a number of years ago - they basically defunded primary and secondary education in a local tax revolt. The people actually voting were disproportionally older without children or their children were already out of school so they didn't want to continue paying higher taxes. (It had certain racial overtones as a much higher percentage of children were minorities compared to the percentage of people who owned property.)
Whatever the motivation and process involved in paying for education it does come down to the 'greater good' of our society as a whole - the economics of an educated work force are pretty indisputable. The higher the quality of education, the better a nation, or a state or a region does economically. Less clearly quantified, but I would also argue the better it does socially as well.

 

[BroadwayVa]

No matter what benefits you want to attribute to women's basketball - and most other teams - at smaller colleges, the fact is that they are big money-losers, even after every possible benefit is put into the equation. If it was merely a matter of profit/loss, most of these teams would be disbanded.

Ah--yes someone who only see "profits" in terms of dollars and cents. Sometimes the calculations are not mathematical. However your point that if the losses exceed the profits in most non Governmental or externally financial supported institutions, that institution shall cease to exist.
But that does not apply to Division One schools and many of the smaller ones either. Those that go belly up are usually mismanaged and have failed by fund losses that may indeed include sports, but not solely because of sports.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Isn't that exactly what they do to parents of non-scholarship students?

If, like some contend, scholarship athletes should be treated like employees, then schools would have to pay them enough to not only cover the cost of the education, but also the taxes due on that "salary". If a company gives an employee a car to drive back and forth to work the value of that vehicle to the employee is taxed as ordinary income. The tax is surely less than than the value of having the car.

What I am in favor of is some sort of lifetime health insurance for football players (and other athletes) to cover them for the later life illnesses that they have been shown to suffer from as a result of their sport. I would have it written so that it would not have to be proven that football was the cause of the injury. Right now there are thousands who are suffering from brain diseases caused by repetitive trauma to the head. Like the tobacco industry before them the football profiteers are trying the same tactic of denying that there is any proven link between football and these injuries/diseases. Right now the focus is on the NFL but it would seem that the NCAA and the colleges (and probably high schools) have a role in this also.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Taxation is by ruling or laws--not by assuming that the opposite not being taxed is taxed. A huge leap of intellect.
However I agree with life time insurances for ALL students athletes and additional insurance life long for Pro's. No one can predict (accurately) who shall die in their 60's because a head bump in their teens. The head bumping between MoJeff and Nurse brought that home to me big time. I have lived long enough to know that that bump, bruise, tackle taken, accident you escaped from--you didn't escape. It will come back to nail you, the guy that gave you this body said take care of it or pay before you end, or end because of it.
Concussions --my beliefs, rattle the brain in that cage (cranium) and the start of cell destruction begins.
Sue Bird's hip replacement are only the start for her--women's bodies were not designed to take the years and year of pounding WBB offers. Replacement parts never work as well as the original--or last as long--trust me.
So forgive me--I love the game and watching them play--I cringe at ACL's, knee knocking, ankle sprains, concussions!!!
We agree on that!!!

 

[BroadwayVa]

You can blame the NCAA for a lot but the tax code isn't one of them. Its been a little while since i've looked, but I thought most scholarships for full time students, applied to school costs aren't taxed. And anyway no students at Stanford are paying any tuition unless their parents make more than 130K per year. Even if athletes end up getting paid and taxed above the scholarship amount, that still gives them more money than not being paid at all.

EDIT: Why would the parent get the students scholarship? if it is treated as income it would be the students not the parents, and any tax bill on it is lower than the amount of the scholarship. plus the 28% rate doesn't kick in below 90k, and tax rates are marginal only applying to values over the threshold. 60K would have the amount over 37K taxed at 25%

Income is taxed as income--usually the student can't pay the taxes on income used for school expenses and the parent get to pay--those on financial scholarship I believe don't have that problem.
My reply is below--I screwed up a punched reply and then again and kept typing and too long to delete.
However it starts with--- Taxation is by law--you can't make not being taxed the opposite of being taxed ---That's a leap.
But we agree with much of protecting Student Athletes --anything less than making them "employees".

 

[BroadwayVa]

Most nba teams "lose" money, and yet they sell for hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Profit and loss depend on the accounting.

People can deduct a portion of income used for tuition, the difference in taxes for normal income and scholarships it's based on the fact you can spend normal income on anything, and scholarships are stuck paying tuition. Paying students above cost of attendance doesn't change that or hurt the student in anyway

How individuals and businesses construct "gain or loss" can be very close to a sci-fi movie. And terrible creative. Look at the Quarterly report that come in from the major corps--creative. You didn't lose money this quarter it was consolidated, compressed, anti-successed, and although your dividends dropped the company is solvent. Aren't you happy???

I think this thread got lost in the Taxations and gain loss attirbutions--

 

[BroadwayVa]

Isn't that exactly what they do to parents of non-scholarship students?

If, like some contend, scholarship athletes should be treated like employees, then schools would have to pay them enough to not only cover the cost of the education, but also the taxes due on that "salary". If a company gives an employee a car to drive back and forth to work the value of that vehicle to the employee is taxed as ordinary income. The tax is surely less than than the value of having the car.

What I am in favor of is some sort of lifetime health insurance for football players (and other athletes) to cover them for the later life illnesses that they have been shown to suffer from as a result of their sport. I would have it written so that it would not have to be proven that football was the cause of the injury. Right now there are thousands who are suffering from brain diseases caused by repetitive trauma to the head. Like the tobacco industry before them the football profiteers are trying the same tactic of denying that there is any proven link between football and these injuries/diseases. Right now the focus is on the NFL but it would seem that the NCAA and the colleges (and probably high schools) have a role in this also.

After screwing up- many times my reply to YOU is below. But Taxation is by law--not paying taxes is not the opposite of being taxed.