Don't you think it's shameful that Murphy might sell the Bonds ball?

Question

I think it is disgusting that he could be taxed over $200,000 for the ball. How could anyone do that? I mean it is a dream come true. Rarer than a onceinalifetime opportunity. So much for the American dream. The reality is that the regular person gets F*#$%d again and the rich get something they don't need. Why doesn't a rich person dish out the tax money for him??? Why not? If I was rich I would. He should not have to be forced to sell but pass on to his kids or something.

Answer 1

I do not think the guy is getting screwed unless he has to pay the taxes if he does not sell the ball. If he does sell it he has to pay taxes the same as anyone does that sells an asset. As far as selling the ball, he can make enough on it to pay his taxes and have a tidy sum leftover. You lash out at the rich, but let me ask you, who else is going to pay for the ball, you??, Me?? not likely. The ball is only worth what someone is willing to pay, that is called free market. Remember the guy getting screwed did nothing to provide any valu to the ball, he just happened to sit in the right chair and have the ball bounce off the right hands to land in his lap. If that is getting screwed I want my turn.

Answer 2

He should only be taxed if he sells the ball. The reason being: when a fan grabs a foul ball or a home run or a ground rule double they get to do whatever they want with it and they aren't taxed for it. He paid for the ticket to the game that should be enough. If he sells it he should be taxed but not if he keeps it as memorabilia. Bonds does not deserve the ball by any means. He is the most pompous player in the league, his teammates barely like him. He owes so much to the fans and he couldn't even participate in the derby in his own ballpark to show his gratefulness to the only fans in the league that has tolerated his sharrades over the past 10 years. If anybody deserves the ball other than the guy that risked injury to recover the ball its the baseball hall of fame.

Answer 3

This is a strange question. I assume you mean that should he sell the ball he will be taxed based upon what he sells the ball for. The basic answer to your question, leaving out all the ranting about the poor / rich issues is that he has a basis of $0 in the ball and whatever he sells it for is a gain. It's pretty much the same as a lottery ticket that you bought for a $1. If you win you have a gain on the amount of win minus your basis (the $1) and you pay tax on the rest. Why would any 'rich' person want to pay tax on something like this for anyone. If you were worth $10 million and someone won the lottery would you let them keep all the money and pay the taxes for them?

Answer 4

While I wouldn't pay a penny for it I strongly agree that taxes should ONLY happen if he sells the ball. First the principle of it. You should not be taxed for owning something period. Not a house, not a biz not an heirloom. That sets a very dangerous precident.

2nd how can you fairly tax something like that baseball. It won't be worth near as much in 6 or 7 years when one or two people pass Bond's mark. It won't be worth half as much in just 3 years because of the stigma of steroids associated with Bonds. So there is no way to fairly tax an item like that. It can go up or down in value rather dramatically. So the only way to fairly tax it is at the time of sale. In this case I think the value will dramatically decline just as the value of McGwire's ball did when Bond's broke McGwire's "record".

Answer 5

If the money from the ball will help him more than merely having the ball, then selll.

In this country we like to tax the rich. Our lawmakers say anyone who makes about $500,000 (the approx. value of the ball) in a year should pay about 40% (or $200,000). Maybe he should hire a good tax attorney.

Answer 6

It's an asset now, not just a ball. The sale of any asset for that much needs to be taxed, otherwise, why can't I sell my house tax free? If he'll be taxed over 200,000 that means he'll still be making more on the sale of that ball than most of America will make in 10+ years of 40 hrs per week work. I feel no sympathy for him having to pay taxes.

Answer 7

He is still gonna make 400k overall for it (after taxes)... not bad for being in the right spot at the right time.

I would sell that ball as fast as possible. For one, A-rod is going to break the record and the ball is going to lose value down the road. And two, the man is a fraud and an a jerk.

Answer 8

But we're taxed on everything. . .So why should that be any different? He's lucky, and he's still going to make a whole lot of money. More than he'd make probably in several years of working, just for being in the right spot at the right time. . . . .Although I gues you think that "rich" people who worked hard for their money should have to give it up, so someone can sell a baseball souviener. That's the American Dream alright- take what you can for free, and steal from the rich. . . =/

Answer 9

Okay, If he doesn't sell it, he gets nothing. If he does sell it, yes he will pay taxes but he does get some money. I would sell it in a heartbeat.

Answer 10

now you see why i said before bonds* hit his phony homer that i wouldnt want the ball... first you have to physically fight for it with people that think a million dollar bill fell from the sky into their laps, second, i wouldnt want a ball hit by the biggest stain on baseball and all that represents, third...whos gonna pay enough to cover the now imposed taxes.. my top bid for the ball is the 8 bucks i could buy one for, and another .12 cents for who hit it...send me the tax bill for 8.12.