Lou,
What do you think of a charity structure based on rich dudes playing in Pro ams? Should skipping work to play golf be a tax deduction?
As you probably know (and are baiting me), the politics of taxation make my Galician blood boil.
In general, I think that the fairest tax is one that is broadly applied, next to impossible to avoid, and levied at the lowest possible rate to raise the necessary revenues for a frugal, effective government. IMO, current income is the best base to apply this broad, minimalist rate.
In my world, charity would still be a highly-valued societal trait, one that is best done quietly, but for those who need to broadcast their extraordinary virtue by attaching their names to roads, buildings, parks, foundations, etc., all is good. Results are what counts after all. Of course, all charitable contributions are done AFTER tax, i.e. zero deductions from income of any type.
The application of taxes to property is also of great interest as it creates a variety of incentives and disincentives which are often overlooked. In Lou's world, all properties, whether they'd be a TPC course, a church, a government building, our homes, our places of work, etc. would be included in the tax base and no matter what the tax status is of its owner, they would be required to pay those property taxes. Afterall, in may states, property taxes are a main source of revenues to fund public education, and what is more important than our precious children!
IMO, it is unfair for my ISD to remove 40 acres of prime commercial land for a typical high school from the tax rolls and shrinking the base, forcing the remaining taxpayers to take up the slack through a higher (mill) rate. Surely schools would have to consider just how big their Taj Mahals need to be if they had to include ad valorem taxes in their operating budgets. Ditto for churches like the one I attend which is building its fourth area campus (circa $20 Million?) while its other three campuses seldom reach more than 65% occupancy. Better asset utilization is achieved, I think, by incurring the full costs of decisions.
How the PGA Tour maintains its non-profit status with all its many opaque businesses and enviable balance sheet is beyond my understanding. I do wonder who benefits most by this special treatment. At least the players pay huge income taxes including in those states where they play but don't reside there.
JVB-
I assume that Tour employees are paid based on committee and consultant recommendations which reflect market levels suggested by surveys. I am ok with all that. And perhaps I don't understand the need for such high levels of assets, hopefully properly allocated toward earning high tax-advantaged income as a buffer for an unforeseeable future catastrophe.
My preferences: sweeten the pension pot for past players who helped make the Tour such a success; review the purse structure to see if compensation is commensurate with that of other sports after considering the differences in income streams; be a bit more generous to the volunteers by improving such simple things as required uniforms, basic food, and scheduling.
Before Phil's tongue got loose and Norman doubled-down on his competitive league, somebody might ask why bother fixing the PGA Tour since it seems to be at historic peak performance. It may resist change and opening up, but I wouldn't be so sure that this current challenge will whither quickly and things go back to normal. All organizations benefit from continual assessment with an overriding objective to always improve. Having watched Colonial CC in person recently reduced to hitting greens out of the rough with mostly wedges offers one such opportunity: bifurcation of balls and clubs for tournament play.