Golden-Road.net
Studio 33 - Price is Right Discussion => The TALK Is Right => Topic started by: Snuffleupagus on August 12, 2013, 01:37:12 PM
-
The AV Club has the answer.
Marah Eakins interviewed 11 April 2012 Showcase Showdown winner Andrea Schwartz and reveals several interesting stuff.
http://tinyurl.com/n6zyy7g
-
I love the question, "What would I do if I won the Showcase Showdown?", because the obvious answer is, "Proceed to the Showcase round."
-
That article sort of comes off as depressing. Sure, you have the thrill and excitement and allure of winning fabulous prizes, but then there's the unhappy aftermath reality of having to actually pay the taxes on all of those things. Really makes you wonder how many people actually accept (or can afford to accept) the prizes they've "won."
When she said all of her Plinko winnings were deducted by the taxes, that's a real downer. If anything, this article reinforces better than anything else that the draw of going to and being a contestant on The Price is Right is more for the experience rather than actually winning anything.
-
That article sort of comes off as depressing. Sure, you have the thrill and excitement and allure of winning fabulous prizes, but then there's the unhappy aftermath reality of having to actually pay the taxes on all of those things. Really makes you wonder how many people actually accept (or can afford to accept) the prizes they've "won."
When she said all of her Plinko winnings were deducted by the taxes, that's a real downer. If anything, this article reinforces better than anything else that the draw of going to and being a contestant on The Price is Right is more for the experience rather than actually winning anything.
I'd like to think otherwise. Even after taxes and selling the prizes for much less than retail, I'd sure be happy with $17,000+ in cold hard cash after everything was said and done, she sure sounded like she was!
-
Whaddaya know, vadernader and I agree on something.
-
I think it is stupid how some of the people who commented on the interview think the plinko board is rigged. There is no way in heck it can be.
-
I think it is stupid how some of the people who commented on the interview think the plinko board is rigged. There is no way in heck it can be.
Well, they proved a few years ago that it can be. It isn't, however, because CBS and Fremantle don't want to have to deal with the severe backlash that would accompany it.
-
CBS and Fremantle don't want to have to deal with the severe backlash that would accompany it.
Especially since part of that "backlash" comes in the form of prison time.
I love the question, "What would I do if I won the Showcase Showdown?", because the obvious answer is, "Proceed to the Showcase round."
Maybe the fact that no one outside of this board knows that the Showcase Showdown is really the Big Wheel round is an indication that it was unwisely named.
-
Maybe the fact that no one outside of this board knows that the Showcase Showdown is really the Big Wheel round is an indication that it was unwisely named.
Wait, what? That's the first time I've heard of that!
I always thought the Showcase Showdown = Big Wheel and Showcase = Showcase Showdown.
-
Wait, what? That's the first time I've heard of that!
I always thought the Showcase Showdown = Big Wheel and Showcase = Showcase Showdown.
According to you, you're saying that the Showcase= the Big Wheel, because if the Showcase Showdown= the Big Wheel and the Showcase= the Showcase Showdown, then the Showcase must also equal the Big Wheel
-
Perhaps the confusion regarding "showcase showdown" stems from the fact that the showcase round pits two contestants against each other, hence, it's a showdown.
The big wheel certainly pits three contestants against each other, but, I believe the term "showdown" is more readily recognizable in the public vernacular when it involves two people or two parties, i.e. the showdown between the United States and Iraq or the showdown between the Wyatts and the Earps.
-
I see that they're liberally using the terms "Expert Witness" and "industry insider," considering that they are interviewing a contestant (understandably overwhelmed by being selected but therefore less likely to remember specific details) who strongly implies that making a custom t-shirt gives you an advantage and that audience members are secretly being watched via security cameras to determine their suitability as contestants.
(When I was a page, I occasionally had to turn down an innocuous offer of candy or the like to avoid any perception of impropriety. I can't be positive that all of the employees working with the audience members know to do that, but if one or more of them accepted a doughnut, well, they really shouldn't have.)
-
I think the idea might have been more along the lines of, "You're not supposed to eat food while on duty". I can't see the harm with accepting candy or something from another state that cannot be found locally, and consuming it with lunch. Otherwise it's the same as when I was an arena usher (special events for a local hockey team; at the time the building easily sold out 5,000+ fans per game). There was one time I had been sick with a nasty 24 hour flu bug or something and didn't eat dinner, thinking I'd be fine since I couldn't eat...then I suddenly felt better AND hungry as the shift started at 6 p.m. I had to seek supervisor permission to quickly chow down a hot dog somewhere out of sight of most people (not too hard since not many were there yet) so I'd get through the evening.
-
That article sort of comes off as depressing. Sure, you have the thrill and excitement and allure of winning fabulous prizes, but then there's the unhappy aftermath reality of having to actually pay the taxes on all of those things. Really makes you wonder how many people actually accept (or can afford to accept) the prizes they've "won."
When she said all of her Plinko winnings were deducted by the taxes, that's a real downer. If anything, this article reinforces better than anything else that the draw of going to and being a contestant on The Price is Right is more for the experience rather than actually winning anything.
This is something that angers me. I don't understand why the government gets to stick their hand into every game show winner's pocket; in fact, it's the government who must find game shows to be a windfall! I heard that Ken Jennings got only about half of his $2.5 million; that's a huge loss. And as Jeff Kent famously said on Survivor last year, "it's only $600,000 after Obama gets his part of it." Rather ridiculous for them to take away almost half your winnings.
This is also why I'd hate to win a trip on The Price Is Right unless it was to somewhere outside the 48 states. Especially if it was to a crime-ridden city such as Chicago or New York. I'd really like to know what percentage of non-cash prizes are turned down, and especially what percentage of non-cash, non-car prizes are turned down. I'd bet it would be around 20%.
-
Let's try to leave politics out of this as much as possible, guys (even if I do agree with the majority of the above post). Generally doesn't end well 'round these parts. :)
-
I don't understand why the government gets to stick their hand into every game show winner's pocket; in fact, it's the government who must find game shows to be a windfall!
Game show winnings are a form of income. The government doesn't treat it any differently than it treats any standard form of income. Could they exempt it? Sure, but it's wrong to imply they're making a special effort to single out game shows.
This is also why I'd hate to win a trip on The Price Is Right unless it was to somewhere outside the 48 states. Especially if it was to a crime-ridden city such as Chicago or New York.
You honestly think vacations in Chicago and New York are undesirable because of crime? You're missing out.
-
You honestly think vacations in Chicago and New York are undesirable because of crime? You're missing out.
Not to mention that while things aren't perfect here, New York's crime rate has gone down considerably from its notorious highs in the 70s and 80s.
It would definitely be a worthwhile trip to take.
-
This topic shows why it would only be worth being a contestant on TPIR (or any game show) if your winnings are so large that you can lose a lot of them to taxes and still come out with a fair amount. I heard a story once of a WOF contestant who won a car,a Hawaii trip,and a large cash amount and turned down the Hawaii trip an agent's advice. The contestant,after taxes,walked away with $10,000 but would have had no net gain had the trip been accepted. With the taxes involed,there's not much to be gained from being a contestant unless your winnings are so large that you can lose a large amount to tax and STILL come away with a fair amount.
-
You honestly think vacations in Chicago and New York are undesirable because of crime? You're missing out.
There are so many things wrong with his statement I'm not even sure I want to take the time to break them down...until I realized he's a crazy Packers fan, so he might be right to stay out of Chicago. ;-)
-
Game show winnings are a form of income. The government doesn't treat it any differently than it treats any standard form of income. Could they exempt it? Sure, but it's wrong to imply they're making a special effort to single out game shows.
...which is why casino and lottery winnings should also be exempt, IMO. Europe has this one right - you hit a massive slot payoff over there, or win the Euromillions, or get on a game show and clean up, every penny of it's yours.
-
Not to mention that while things aren't perfect here, New York's crime rate has gone down considerably from its notorious highs in the 70s and 80s.
It would definitely be a worthwhile trip to take.
I'll second the Chicago trip! I've been to NY only a couple times, in the Brooklyn area, but from what I've seen, there are TONS of people walking back and forth, or in this case, RUNNING to escape the massive rain storm! I picked a bad day to come to NY for sure. As for Chicago, as long as you stay in the north area, you'll be fine. Chicago's transportation system is also MUCH better than NY, and the only CROWDED area you'll run into is The Magnificent Mile. For me, Chicago's city is FAR better than Baltimore City. Yes, the Inner Harbor is nice for the most part, but you have to go through patches of iffy territory just to get there, and the buses SUCK. There is a light rail, but it's limited as to where it goes, and some of the stops along the way are in crappy areas of Baltimore, so unfortunately there may be some people on board that are a little crazy or unsavory looking.
Forget the "luxury restaurants and hotels" that TPiR offers... Chicago has the BEST deep dish pizza, also be sure to go to the Billy Goat Tavern on Michigan Ave (the ORIGINAL one), the place that inspired the Olympia Diner sketches on SNL. You'll feel that you've walked into an SNL skit! Comedy is also king there, as they have Comedy Sportz, Improv Olympic, Second City, and The Annoyance Theatres which produce FUNNY improvised shows (The Annoyance Theatre is in an intimidating area of Chicago... it's pretty safe, it just LOOKS a bit seedy, but it's a few doors down from a speakeasy once owned by Al Capone)
-
This begs the question of how different would TPIR be in terms of prizes offered if winners didn't have to pay any taxes on any of the prizes? Without having to pay taxes I would've thought that the amount of prizes accepted would increase, which would affect the prize budget.
I've always been under the impression that the trip overload in recent seasons is related to trips not being able to be sold if accepted, therefore being declined more often due to the taxes involved and therefore being offered more frequently as they are not actually being 'given away' even if they are won.
-
Here's a Yahoo article (http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/price-8230-taxes-high-174700410.html) with contestant Andrea Schwartz about coughing up taxes on her winnings on the show.
-
Here's a Yahoo article (http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/price-8230-taxes-high-174700410.html) with contestant Andrea Schwartz about coughing up taxes on her winnings on the show.
The AV Club has the answer.
Marah Eakins interviewed 11 April 2012 Showcase Showdown winner Andrea Schwartz and reveals several interesting stuff.
http://tinyurl.com/n6zyy7g
Sorry. I couldn't resist. :P
-
Europe has this one right - you hit a massive slot payoff over there, or win the Euromillions, or get on a game show and clean up, every penny of it's yours.
The same applies here in Canada. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Canadian contestants can be reimbursed the taxes paid on US game show winnings by our own government.
-
This begs the question of how different would TPIR be in terms of prizes offered if winners didn't have to pay any taxes on any of the prizes? Without having to pay taxes I would've thought that the amount of prizes accepted would increase, which would affect the prize budget.
I've always been under the impression that the trip overload in recent seasons is related to trips not being able to be sold if accepted, therefore being declined more often due to the taxes involved and therefore being offered more frequently as they are not actually being 'given away' even if they are won.
Although taxes aren't nearly the only reason a trip might be rejected by a contestant, the thought of the show being tax free is interesting. With the way the show throws themes and specials at us now, perhaps one could be a Tax Free week on the week of April 15 or even just on April 15 since it's income tax day. Perhaps have H&R Block or another tax service company sponsor it and take care of the taxes like they did on Millionaire a while ago.
-
Keep in mind that "paying the contestant's tax bill" is more than just covering tax liability you'd have if you paid it yourself. Whatever amount they add in to cover the tax liability is itself a prize, meaning it's also subject to income tax. You have to do some algebra to figure out the sweet spot where the amount of the bonus prize covers the tax liability for both the original prize AND the bonus itself.
And then you still have to report it on your taxes. :-?
-
Wouldn't the H&R Block tax-coverage "winnings" be taxed separately since CBS/TPiR winnings are one prize and H&R Block tax-coverage is technically the second "prize" from a different source? If that's the case, it would still make a big difference for the contestants. For example, if the taxes on TPiR winnings is 15% and the contestants won $10,000, they'd owe $1500 in taxes. Then H&R Block steps in and says "we're going to award you $1500 to cover those taxes" and now all the contestant has to pay is 15% of $1500 (which would be $200) instead of $1500. So even if they still have to pay something, it would certainly help more contestants keep a larger chunk of the prizes/cash they win if they did indeed have a "tax-free" week. I think it's a great idea!
-
The experience is definitely worth the price of the hotel and flight (although doing it again, I might try to travel with more friends).
I will admit the taxes can slightly diminish some of the joy, especially when it comes to trips. If you are lucky to get cash during your time on stage, then it isn't so bad, because the cash can pay the taxes. You can enjoy the trip without worrying about taxes, or sell stuff at a guaranteed profit, like Schwartz did with her car.
Sadly, I would recommend doing a LOT of planning before you seriously try out to be a contestant. See if you have enough in a savings or a checking account to pay taxes on a trip or large prize. So it's really not "planning", it's "start growing your savings account". =(
If you win, check for prices on EBay, and slash 20% off. That is around what you will ACTUALLY be able to sell it for. Forfeit any prizes that cost too much to deliver. A heavy Bar B Q, looking at an old delivery form, cost about $2000 to deliver from California to Virginia. Now imagine paying for taxes, AND delivery on your own, and that BBQ doesn't seem like something you'd want to keep. That's where Schwartz made a mistake. She should have just forfeited the pool table if she didn't know of anyone looking for a pool table and was willing to pay the taxes in writing.
On the one hand, maybe instead of advertising it as a "fortune in fabulous prizes", it should be "a fortune in fabulous discounts". =D
On the other hand, it helps attract real fans who appreciate the experience, and aren't looking to get rich quick (not that there's anything wrong with that, but I've heard some stories about ungrateful contestants). I agree with Schwartz, and would rather be a contestant despite the red tape, no matter how many prizes I end up forfeiting. Taxes are for a year, but The Price is Right is FOREVER!
-
In addition to having to pay all those taxes, here's another drawback for winning a trip. They are always departing from Los Angeles, so I would imagine you would have to pay your own way back and forth from LAX if you don't happen to reside in Southern California. This article really brings a dose of reality to winning on a game show. As much fun as it might be, I could never afford it.
-
In addition to having to pay all those taxes, here's another drawback for winning a trip. They are always departing from Los Angeles, so I would imagine you would have to pay your own way back and forth from LAX if you don't happen to reside in Southern California.
Not necessarily. People who don't live in Los Angeles are sometimes able to make arrangements with other airports.
-
This begs the question of how different would TPIR be in terms of prizes offered if winners didn't have to pay any taxes on any of the prizes? Without having to pay taxes I would've thought that the amount of prizes accepted would increase, which would affect the prize budget.
If the show opted to pay the taxes for the contestants, that'd be even MORE money coming out of the show's budget. If this prompted contestants to accept more prizes rather than forfeiting them, there'd be less opportunity for the show to recycle and reoffer prizes, which would be a double hit to the prize budget.
I'm pretty sure it's entirely possible for the show to pay taxes FOR the contestant if it wanted to without the contestant then being liable for additional taxes. I'm certain I've read about such a scenario, but that game shows rejected that idea from the earliest days because of the very issues I mentioned in the last paragraph. There ARE lotteries that offer a set amount of money "tax free," which simply means that the lottery agency pays the taxes and the winner keeps the grand prize amount. Obviously, the lottery itself pays out more than the grand prize to satisfy taxes on behalf of the contestant.
-
I'm pretty sure it's entirely possible for the show to pay taxes FOR the contestant if it wanted to without the contestant then being liable for additional taxes. I'm certain I've read about such a scenario, but that game shows rejected that idea from the earliest days because of the very issues I mentioned in the last paragraph. There ARE lotteries that offer a set amount of money "tax free," which simply means that the lottery agency pays the taxes and the winner keeps the grand prize amount. Obviously, the lottery itself pays out more than the grand prize to satisfy taxes on behalf of the contestant.
It could be argued that they use the "tax free" element as a way to lower the grand prize. That is, they intend to give out 40 million, but decide, hey, let's offer 30 million and pay the taxes because it will cost us less.
-
It could be argued that they use the "tax free" element as a way to lower the grand prize. That is, they intend to give out 40 million, but decide, hey, let's offer 30 million and pay the taxes because it will cost us less.
Certainly.
But still, there are cases in which the prize winner isn't the one who has to pay taxes. As long as taxes ARE paid, the government really doesn't care where the money comes from. :)
-
I guess I don't get how they can get away without paying taxes upfront on prizes. If I were to walk into a store here looking for a prize for some giveaway, I'd have to pay the taxes to get the item out of the store. I've already paid the taxes. How have game show producers always gotten away with not having to pay them or disclose them? I swear that the government of California enacted this law requiring full taxes on any received item simply because they realized lots of game shows take place there, so they saw a good revenue stream.
-
I guess I don't get how they can get away without paying taxes upfront on prizes. If I were to walk into a store here looking for a prize for some giveaway, I'd have to pay the taxes to get the item out of the store. I've already paid the taxes. How have game show producers always gotten away with not having to pay them or disclose them? I swear that the government of California enacted this law requiring full taxes on any received item simply because they realized lots of game shows take place there, so they saw a good revenue stream.
Taxes are due on purchased items, so when you go to a store to buy something, the store can either charge you taxes as part of the bill or not charge you taxes and pay them themselves. Stores rarely if ever decide that they'll cover your sales tax for you. Most of the prizes involved in game shows are either donated (so there's no sales tax) or purchased at a lower cost (so some sales tax may be involved).
What we're talking about here, though, would amount to something more along the lines of either a gift tax or an income tax, which is totally different than a sales tax.
-
I guess I don't get how they can get away without paying taxes upfront on prizes. If I were to walk into a store here looking for a prize for some giveaway, I'd have to pay the taxes to get the item out of the store. I've already paid the taxes. How have game show producers always gotten away with not having to pay them or disclose them? I swear that the government of California enacted this law requiring full taxes on any received item simply because they realized lots of game shows take place there, so they saw a good revenue stream.
Ah, he beat me to it...
Most of the prizes involved in game shows are either donated (so there's no sales tax) or purchased at a lower cost (so some sales tax may be involved).
(http://i.imgur.com/omTFzGn.jpg)
-
Changing the subject, isn't that a stylish orange jacket there?
-
Taxes are due on purchased items, so when you go to a store to buy something, the store can either charge you taxes as part of the bill or not charge you taxes and pay them themselves. Stores rarely if ever decide that they'll cover your sales tax for you.
In most states, that's actually illegal. Stores are technically required to add their tax to the subtotal rather than roll it into the price for the sake of transparency (and to make sure stores don't try to market themselves by claiming, "You don't have to pay sales tax here!")
-
In most states, that's actually illegal. Stores are technically required to add their tax to the subtotal rather than roll it into the price for the sake of transparency (and to make sure stores don't try to market themselves by claiming, "You don't have to pay sales tax here!")
That makes sense, although I've mostly seen it happen in some smaller restaurants, though they make it clear in the menu that sales tax is included in the price, so there's at least no question that sales tax is being paid even if they don't spell out the exact figure.
-
That makes sense, although I've mostly seen it happen in some smaller restaurants, though they make it clear in the menu that sales tax is included in the price, so there's at least no question that sales tax is being paid even if they don't spell out the exact figure.
Yes, they have to make it clear how they're doing it. Personally, I wish more establishments included tax in the price so people don't think, "Damn, I can afford that, but I can't pay the tax. <BLEEP> this government!" and walk out without buying it.
Granted, people will still say "<BLEEP> this government" for other reasons, but still.
Are they allowed to even do that in California due to their wonky rules?
-
Personally, I wish more establishments included tax in the price so people don't think, "Damn, I can afford that, but I can't pay the tax. <BLEEP> this government!" and walk out without buying it.
I live in a VERY red, Tea-Party-loving state, and I've never ONCE heard anyone say that. Ever.
-
That makes sense, although I've mostly seen it happen in some smaller restaurants, though they make it clear in the menu that sales tax is included in the price...
Small mom-and-pops will do that sometimes. If no one complains, it's no big deal.
I grew up in a city that had a very old-fashioned Dairy Queen that didn't have cash registers. They did the "tax included" thing there because it wasn't very practical for their mostly high school-age workforce to try to scribble down the tax percentage on their order pads.
-
Forfeit any prizes that cost too much to deliver. A heavy Bar B Q, looking at an old delivery form, cost about $2000 to deliver from California to Virginia. Now imagine paying for taxes, AND delivery on your own, and that BBQ doesn't seem like something you'd want to keep.
I was under the impression that the show would arrange deliveries for the contestant. Is this not the case? $2,000 just seems outrageous to deliver a B.B.Q. cooker, even one of the larger ones the show sometimes has. I'm sure there are real nice ones you could buy for that much, and if bought locally, including delivery.
-
I was under the impression that the show would arrange deliveries for the contestant. Is this not the case? $2,000 just seems outrageous to deliver a B.B.Q. cooker, even one of the larger ones the show sometimes has. I'm sure there are real nice ones you could buy for that much, and if bought locally, including delivery.
IIRC, the show arranges for the supplier to deliver the product to the winner's address as it appears on his/her identification documentation.
-
Here's what I remember about prize deliveries from my appearance in 1996:
--Any sponsored prizes were shipped directly from the manufacturer and any non-sponsored prizes were shipped from the TPIR warehouse. The TerraPax luggage, Royal Prestige china, and Conair Hair Dryer were all shipped separately from the respective manufacturer via UPS and the Ashley dining room came in on one of their own 18-wheelers. The mixer and globe arrived in one box from CBS via UPS. In any event, I was never charged any delivery fees. Within 60 days of the original (and, I believe, only) air date, I had all my prizes, but the prizes coming from the TPIR warehouse arrived well before everything else.
--Since I did not intend to keep the dining room set, I just had the delivery people offload the boxes into my garage and tipped them $10. Had I asked them to assemble the table and chairs, I would have tipped them $100.
-
I was under the impression that the show would arrange deliveries for the contestant. Is this not the case? $2,000 just seems outrageous to deliver a B.B.Q. cooker, even one of the larger ones the show sometimes has. I'm sure there are real nice ones you could buy for that much, and if bought locally, including delivery.
IIRC, the show arranges for the supplier to deliver the product to the winner's address as it appears on his/her identification documentation.
For the record, it was a 400 pound BBQ. I'm guessing it was delivered from the Price is Right warehouse, since the address was in Los Angeles, or somewhere in California. But something that heavy going across the country?
Or maybe I was looking at the total of the BBQ PLUS the delivery. I probably should have kept the receipt. =/
Anyway, if you can afford to go to LA, you can afford to be a contestant on the Price is Right. It's whether you can afford to WIN at The Price is Right that is questionable.
But I'd forfeit all the prizes in the world to do it again!