First They Get The Vote, Now This: No Tax Breaks For Boy’s Clubs?
Published by Alex April 4th, 2007 in Sports, Women. Share This
US Representative Carolyn Moloney has introduced a bill before congress that seeks to remove the tax breaks for expenses at male-only domains, such as the Augusta National Golf Club, where the Masters golf championship is being held this week. Says Maloney,
Men who belong to clubs like Augusta National reap financial benefits - either directly through tax deductions for business expenses or indirectly through career opportunities and board appointments - that women can’t get just because they are women.
The idea is seemingly less to knock out the boy’s club institutions, and more to relieve the US taxpayer from paying for what is effectively discrimination against 51% of the national population.
Of course, the inevitable question does present itself: If said male-centric institutions were available to both genders, would the bill still be proposed? -To say nothing of the matter of the tax breaks only being afforded to the affluent echelon who can afford to pay the yearly dues at Augusta National, where the yearly dues are reported to range between $25,000 and $50,000.
US lawmaker takes aim at Augusta National’s no-women policy [rawstory.com]
(Image: allposters.com)
good for them. this reminds me of the whole boy scout thing. after it was decided that the boy scouts could exclude the gays, since they were a private company (which i’m okay with, i suppose), a bunch of public schools said, “well, okay, but you can’t meet on our grounds for free, then.”
I want to know whether female-only clubs (I can’t think of an example off the top of my head, but I’m sure they exist) get the same tax breaks. If not, then this is long overdue… otherwise, kind of jacked up. I mean, I recognize that the female-only clubs are fewer and farther between, but that isn’t the dudes’ fault. Either way though, I’m all for yanking tax breaks for rich people.
I believe the drive is just to remove this tax break in particular, since its been ripe with abuse. People routinely write off EVERY trip to the links as a business expense, even if there was no business to be had there.
If this is specifically targeting all male establishments then that legislation is total shit. Either you target all exclusionary clubs or you don’t target any of them, end of story.
Let’s take a look at what Rep. Maloney says and see how it holds up to scrutiny and the law. Unfortunately, we only have snipets from an article, not anything authoritative or substantial from her office, much less the bill’s language. But we’ll work with what we’ve got.
“Golf courses are set up to allow fair competition between men and women.”
No, golf courses are set up to play golf. In fact, women even have separate tees on most courses (and in pro play), so there is no “fair” competition. Besides, if you are setting up a private golf club (or any private club), you can allow in whomever you want or don’t want. NOTE: this does not apply to EMPLOYMENT, just MEMBERSHIP.
Let’s take a quick look at the opening statement of the Civil Rights Act, and I’ll emphasize what it was designed to protect/allow:
“To enforce the constitutional RIGHT TO VOTE, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in PUBLIC FACILITIES and PUBLIC EDUCATION, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”
Agusta has violated none of this. Private organizations are allowed to set up rules that do not conflict with the Constitution or federal & local laws. This is commonly called “liberty”. If citizens don’t like it, they have every right to voice their complaints. This is commonly called “free speech”.
“But at the Augusta National clubhouse, men have long had an unfair advantage”
This is totally designed to rally the troops. Nothing substantial here. In fact, it doesn’t even make sense since woman have had NO opportunity or advantage, much less an unfair one.
“The American taxpayer shouldn’t be subsidizing discrimination.”
They’re not. Tax breaks are not the same as subsidies. This is a common misdirection tactic some politicians use. A “subsidy” is, essentially, a cash grant from the government. This can be a straight transfer of money (like farm subsidies) or less direct (like guaranteeing a loan).
A “tax break” is someone keeping money they are entitled to (for whatever reason). We all benefit from tax breaks on one level or another. It doesn’t matter if that person is “rich” and doesn’t “need” the money. Entitlement to the money one makes has nothing to do with need or how much one already has. This is a founding principle of America—you get to keep what you earn. The government doesn’t DESERVE our money—we do.
Back to Maloney.
“These unfair writeoffs should be driven off the golf course and out of the tax code.”
I find it interesting that she used the word “unfair” here as opposed to “illegal”. If they’re legal—as they currently are—I would think there is a burden of proof to show it’s being abused. Which she is not. Rep. Malony is using her position as a politician to go hunting against something she doesn’t like, but is entirely LEGAL.
Are there no golf courses open to women in Agusta? If there aren’t and there is a demand for one, there is an incredible opportunity for someone to open a non-exclusive golf club. They’ll make millions. It’s not like Agusta has the monopoly on golf courses and women have no opportunity to play.
Is Agusta discriminating? Yes. It’s the same sort of discrimination that doesn’t let boys join the Girl Scouts or men play in the WNBA. We walk a precarious line when we start to legislate against private organizations we don’t like that are neither illegal nor unconstitutional simply because we don’t like them.