Without Tiger it's just "golf".

stephenmick said:
I'm sure it is. But to imply that's the reason he does it is a bit judgmental.

And when his foundation helps thousands of kids, does it really matter why he does it?
Click to expand...

Jim Brennan said:
Yes it is. I sit on the Board of Directors of a non-profit in Colorado, and I work with quite a few others. That tax incentive does get people to donate at times.

But I would never pretend to know the motivation someone has in making a donation of time or money. I have worked with a couple of celebrity/athletes and their families in fundraising efforts. All the ones I have worked with have been genuinely dedicated to give something back to the community with their celebrity and resources. They are usually pretty humbled by the experience.
Click to expand...

No judging here.

But too assume it's for the greater good is it's own assumption in and of itself, isn't it ?

My point was, so what.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
No judging here.

But too assume it's for the greater good is it's own assumption in and of itself, isn't it ?

My point was, so what.
Click to expand...

I am not assuming that what Tiger has done with his charity work is FOR the greater good. That's my point. I will not assume his motivation. He may be a cold-hearted prick who only does it for the tax write-off. Or he may be a guy who really wants to make a difference. I don't know and I never will. Your comment of it being a tax-write off implied to me that you assumed that was his motivation. I could have been wrong in that assessment.

Either way, the people who benefit from charities aren't generally concerned with the motivation of their benefactors.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
It's a tax write off.
Click to expand...
This comment always bugs me. Do people seriously not understand how a "tax writeoff" works?

If you donate money as a "tax writeoff", you're still out dough. Just less dough. If you're in the top tax bracket in the USA, you'll shell out maybe 50% of your income in taxes.

Let's say you owe a hundred grand to the IRS. You could decide to give a hundred grand to a charity, and the IRS will let you "write that off". So now, you STILL owe the IRS fifty grand.

So if you don't donate to the charity, your overall net worth decreases by a hundred thousand dollars.

If you DO decide to donate to the charity, your overall net worth has decreased by a hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

"tax writeoffs" aren't some magical way the rich people make money, or "don't lose" or something. It lessens the blow some, but you're still giving.
 
Jim Brennan said:
He may be a cold-hearted prick who only does it for the tax write-off.
Click to expand...
Okay, but this is the point -- NOBODY WOULD DO THAT. Because they're still out MORE money than if they hadn't donated at all!

People have all sorts of reasons for getting involved in charities, and not all of them are necessarily motivated by pure altruism. Undoubtedly some get involved for the PR angle, maybe some get involved to ease their conscience about something, and certainly some get involved because they actually care about the cause.

But nobody donates to a charity specifically because it's a "tax writeoff". A tax writeoff is effectively a discount on what you're giving. But you're still giving. You don't break even, you donate to a charity and you're out the dough. It just impacts you a little less than it seems. If I gave St. Jude's Hospital $10,000 the net result would be it'd cost me maybe $7,000 out of pocket to do it. But if you think I'd give $10,000 to St. Jude's Hospital because of the value of a tax writeoff -- no way -- that's just a complete misunderstanding of what a tax writeoff is.

Your comment of it being a tax-write off implied to me that you assumed that was his motivation. I could have been wrong in that assessment.
Click to expand...
A tax writeoff is never a motivation for anyone to give anything. It just eases the pain of giving.
 
Any mllionaire or billionaire who didn't donate to charity would be a cold hearted prick btw.
 
I always prefer a good old fashioned game of full contact beach ball myself.
475684681_05a433fe5b.jpg
 
Barry_Green said:
This comment always bugs me. Do people seriously not understand how a "tax writeoff" works?

If you donate money as a "tax writeoff", you're still out dough. Just less dough. If you're in the top tax bracket in the USA, you'll shell out maybe 50% of your income in taxes.

Let's say you owe a hundred grand to the IRS. You could decide to give a hundred grand to a charity, and the IRS will let you "write that off". So now, you STILL owe the IRS fifty grand.

So if you don't donate to the charity, your overall net worth decreases by a hundred thousand dollars.

If you DO decide to donate to the charity, your overall net worth has decreased by a hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

"tax writeoffs" aren't some magical way the rich people make money, or "don't lose" or something. It lessens the blow some, but you're still giving.
Click to expand...

My point really was who cares.

:lipsrseal
 
J.R. Hudson said:
My point really was who cares.

:lipsrseal
Click to expand...
The people who care are the advertisers who spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year on him, in endorsements. Tiger probably makes $100 in endorsements for every $1 he earned on the golf course. Well, let's rephrase that -- Tiger probably USED to make that kind of dough. Several sponsors dropped him cold.

So now, they're very concerned and watching how this all plays out in the media, to see if Tiger has any endorsement appeal left anymore.

The other golfers care a lot too. One of 'em, John Daly or somebody, acknowledged that Tiger was responsible for a huge part of their paychecks. Without Tiger, nobody watches golf, the value of everyone's advertising and endorsements goes down.

Tiger Woods Inc. was a huge business. Lots of people with lots of vested interests in seeing how this all turns out.
 
I watched golf well before Tiger...and will continue to watch...he's just another great player of the game. (might be a pun there...)
Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Jack, Arnie...They were all great in their time and there will be others.

A quote from Jack Nicklaus back in the day:
"Arnold is the reason golf enjoys the popularity it does today. He ... made golf attractive to the television-viewing public.
There never has been anyone like him before in the game of golf, and there probably won't be another like him again."
 
They're hitting a little ball with a stick all over a field trying to put it in a little hole in the grass.

And you watch this sitting in front of your TV. On your ass.

The only people who care are the ones who make the little balls, and the ones who make the sticks.

You'll still buy the little balls, and some sticks.

And you'll still watch this sitting in front of your TV. On your ass.
 
We're pointing a microprocessor with a lens at stuff. Often on our ass.

We look at charged particles, turned into images, on our ass.

No one really cares except the people who make the processors, lenses and the other electronics.

And we still point lenses and look at charged particles, on our ass.
 
Pookie said:
Ahh true, but....

I don't watch a bunch of guys ever weekend for hours trying to win at it.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so you've never been on a student film, festival, or 48 hour shoot. :beer: Good for you. Wish I could say the same. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top