[oldalum]

And if the concern is that costs are rising, then charge more for the tickets. The price of the good should meet the costs to produce it. The "required donation" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) is simply a dubiously quasi-legal way around being taxed for the full price of the ticket, and it chiefly benefits rich alums who benefit from itemizing their deductions. It also cheats taxpayers, because Stanford alums who "donate" for good season tickets enjoy a consumption good that is provided without taxes being charged on it. Why should Stanford football tickets be taxed differently than Warriors tickets? They're both frivolous entertainment, not the Little Sisters of the Poor.

That is an excellent policy argument for why the tax policy should be changed, but as long as the donation remains legal Stanford would be foolish not to take advantage of it. The people who will take the deduction figure it into the after-tax cost of the tickets when they are deciding whether and where to buy. This allows Stanford to keep the effective price to the fan lower while getting the same $ benefit as a higher price. If you believe that higher prices will reduce attendance (which I do), then voluntarily not taking advantage of the legal loophole would reduce attendance further than taking advantage of it. As well as put us at a disadvantage vis-a-vis our competitors who do use the donation route.

[oldalum]

And if the concern is that costs are rising, then charge more for the tickets. The price of the good should meet the costs to produce it. The "required donation" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) is simply a dubiously quasi-legal way around being taxed for the full price of the ticket, and it chiefly benefits rich alums who benefit from itemizing their deductions. It also cheats taxpayers, because Stanford alums who "donate" for good season tickets enjoy a consumption good that is provided without taxes being charged on it. Why should Stanford football tickets be taxed differently than Warriors tickets? They're both frivolous entertainment, not the Little Sisters of the Poor.

That is an excellent policy argument for why the tax policy should be changed, but as long as the donation remains legal Stanford would be foolish not to take advantage of it. The people who will take the deduction figure it into the after-tax cost of the tickets when they are deciding whether and where to buy. This allows Stanford to keep the effective price to the fan lower while getting the same $ benefit as a higher price. If you believe that higher prices will reduce attendance (which I do), then voluntarily not taking advantage of the legal loophole would reduce attendance further than taking advantage of it. As well as put us at a disadvantage vis-a-vis our competitors who do use the donation route.