Taxing the Ryder Cup

[zeg]

I'll steer clear of the Politics on this one. But a tax on "direct earning in country" sounds legitimate if it is reasonable. But taxing the Ryder Cup players based on "indirect earning" such that in order to represent your country you have to pay, is really short sighted and stupid. I would be the having the Ryder Cup venue in country is worth a lot of revenue to UK if Tiger and Phil come and if they don't not so much.

Agree. When you go somewhere and earn money as a result of your working there, you are making use of the infrastructure that makes your activities possible, so it's sensible that you would be taxed locally on that. Most US states do this and I believe the federal government does as well, though I'm not sure (plus it's clouded by tax treaties). For indirect income, that's pretty absurd. Tying that to any location other than the residence of the earner, where the contract is executed, or the location of the payer is silly---those are the only locations that would have jurisdiction over the terms of the contract, so no other areas really support that transaction.

All this is independent of the amount of the tax, socialism vs capitalism, etc. None of that has any bearing on this issue...

[Shindig]

Nice and balanced comment on UK tax laws I see. As the US

I found the topic refreshing to see that silly laws aren't a strictly American thing

Doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense given the implications I have to admit and it does throw up some potentially dim scenarios. HMRC can be

They're taxed on it, because it's income. However, most places treat it as though it were earned at your residence; sometimes at the headquarters of the company involved. When Tiger endorses Nike, it's treated (I believe) as happening in Florida (Tiger's primary residence), although I would understand if it were treated as happening in Oregon (Nike HQ). Both involve Tiger paying FedGov taxes on it, and if it's treated as in Oregon, he'd pay their state income tax (Florida hasn't a SIT -- hence its popularity for athletes who can choose their home state).

[misty_mountainhop]

I found the topic refreshing to see that silly laws aren't a strictly American thing

Nice to know such things are, in all likelihood, universal

.

They're taxed on it, because it's income. However, most places treat it as though it were earned at your residence; sometimes at the headquarters of the company involved. When Tiger endorses Nike, it's treated (I believe) as happening in Florida (Tiger's primary residence), although I would understand if it were treated as happening in Oregon (Nike HQ). Both involve Tiger paying FedGov taxes on it, and if it's treated as in Oregon, he'd pay their state income tax (Florida hasn't a SIT -- hence its popularity for athletes who can choose their home state).

Thanks. Makes sense.