Right vs tax subsidies

Right vs tax subsidies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> Right vs tax subsidies (9/22/2013 9:09:39 PM)
Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/

joether -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/22/2013 10:47:36 PM)
When you arrive at an actual question, let us know.... Why do you want it to end?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 3:49:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/ Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 4:27:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/ Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? I'll take a piece of this. I am a HUGE football and baseball fan (I'm hoping that rugby will catch on in the States, someday). I love the games for different reasons. I wish every state had two teams for each sport. I really do feel bad for states like South Dakota that have no professional sports teams. Having said that, why the bloody fuck should tax payers pay to build stadiums for which a small portion will get raped for PSLs, tickets, parking, food, and merchandise? Fuck sports teams. They're a private business and should get no more consideration than the local print shop.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 4:37:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/ Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? I'll take a piece of this. I am a HUGE football and baseball fan (I'm hoping that rugby will catch on in the States, someday). I love the games for different reasons. I wish every state had two teams for each sport. I really do feel bad for states like South Dakota that have no professional sports teams. Having said that, why the bloody fuck should tax payers pay to build stadiums for which a small portion will get raped for PSLs, tickets, parking, food, and merchandise? Fuck sports teams. They're a private business and should get no more consideration than the local print shop. So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? Please don't leave Ohio out of your list of states that need help. Rumor is that there are pro teams here, but I have yet to find one. [:D]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 4:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? Please don't leave Ohio out of your list of states that need help. Rumor is that there are pro teams here, but I have yet to find one. [:D] Didn't the Browns just fuck someone up, yesterday? Isn't Ohio the suburb of Cleveland? [:D] Actually, I am *not* saying that sports franchises don't help the local economy. Of course they do. I am saying that sports teams can well afford to support themselves, build new stadiums and *still* benefit the local economy without reaching into the tax-payers' pockets. Now, I'm not completely opposed to "reduced sales tax zones". We had them in NJ where some businesses were able to only charge half the normal sales tax. I would have to do some research, I guess but, as I understand it, I wouldn't have any issue with a city/county/state offering this kind of dispensation to ALL businesses in a certain area to which they are trying to draw business.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 5:06:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? Please don't leave Ohio out of your list of states that need help. Rumor is that there are pro teams here, but I have yet to find one. [:D] Didn't the Browns just fuck someone up, yesterday? Isn't Ohio the suburb of Cleveland? [:D] Actually, I am *not* saying that sports franchises don't help the local economy. Of course they do. I am saying that sports teams can well afford to support themselves, build new stadiums and *still* benefit the local economy without reaching into the tax-payers' pockets. Now, I'm not completely opposed to "reduced sales tax zones". We had them in NJ where some businesses were able to only charge half the normal sales tax. I would have to do some research, I guess but, as I understand it, I wouldn't have any issue with a city/county/state offering this kind of dispensation to ALL businesses in a certain area to which they are trying to draw business. The Cleveland Browns are just like Bigfoot. Every once in a while, there is a sighting, but it's so random that it can't be verified. [:D] I understand what you're saying about sports teams and supporting themselves. I'm neither supporting or coming out against a local government deciding on it's incentive offering to a team. That's up to the City, and those residents, isn't it?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 5:16:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The Cleveland Browns are just like Bigfoot. Every once in a while, there is a sighting, but it's so random that it can't be verified. [:D] I understand what you're saying about sports teams and supporting themselves. I'm neither supporting or coming out against a local government deciding on it's incentive offering to a team. That's up to the City, and those residents, isn't it? Of course you're right about the democratic rule of law. If it weren't for the citizenry riding to the rescue in Green Bay, the NFL would have been deprived of their wonderful showing, yesterday. Seriously, though, if a city puts it to a vote and the people decide that they want to help finance a sports team, that is absolutely their decision. I think it's a pretty dumb one but in some specific cases, it may actually work out for the tax payers (but, I doubt it). There was a time, a few years ago, when the JAY! EEE! TEE! ESS! JETS!!! JETS!!! JETS!!! were wanting to build a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan. Forget the fact that the people that live in that area absolutely did not want the stadium there. The city went ahead and courted the team ... heavily. The city assumed that if they put it to a vote, they could screw the neighborhood association and "blame" the public for voting the measure in. Ooooops! Bloomberg and his cronies lost. I have rarely been more proud of the NYC voters.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 5:19:34 AM)
quote: So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? *What does the fact that a sports franchise is an asset to the local economy entitle it to taxpayers money?**

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 6:07:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The Cleveland Browns are just like Bigfoot. Every once in a while, there is a sighting, but it's so random that it can't be verified. [:D] I understand what you're saying about sports teams and supporting themselves. I'm neither supporting or coming out against a local government deciding on it's incentive offering to a team. That's up to the City, and those residents, isn't it? Of course you're right about the democratic rule of law. If it weren't for the citizenry riding to the rescue in Green Bay, the NFL would have been deprived of their wonderful showing, yesterday. Seriously, though, if a city puts it to a vote and the people decide that they want to help finance a sports team, that is absolutely their decision. I think it's a pretty dumb one but in some specific cases, it may actually work out for the tax payers (but, I doubt it). There was a time, a few years ago, when the JAY! EEE! TEE! ESS! JETS!!! JETS!!! JETS!!! were wanting to build a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan. Forget the fact that the people that live in that area absolutely did not want the stadium there. The city went ahead and courted the team ... heavily. The city assumed that if they put it to a vote, they could screw the neighborhood association and "blame" the public for voting the measure in. Ooooops! Bloomberg and his cronies lost. I have rarely been more proud of the NYC voters. I have never really understood why two of the NY franchises play in NJ. I mean, for NJ, they could make a statement that even NY teams didn't want to play in NY. But, NY could play it up that neither team was willing to ID themselves with NJ. Oddly enough, the OP had as much to do with our not being deprived of GB's "wonderful showing" (they ~~played~~ were located in Cinci). [:D] Citizens have the ability to exert pressure on their elected officials. The elected officials have the duty to represent their constituents and to govern in a way that is for the good of the people. If it's decided that helping a sports franchise pay for a stadium will materially benefit the locale (and locals), then why shouldn't they strike that deal? At times it might seem like it's a bad deal. But, without all the info, you're not going to know. $33M payment for the stadium vs. $23.5M for HHS? Without any idea how much revenue comes in from the Reds and the Bengals, how are we to know what's right or not? What happens if it's determined that those two franchises bring in $25M/yr.? Spending $33M to get $50M (2-year budget number) isn't a bad deal, is it? What would the HHS budget be without the MLB/NFL franchises adding to the revenue coffers? Not enough information to truly weigh in on whether or not it was a good idea for Cinci.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 6:10:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? *What does the fact that a sports franchise is an asset to the local economy entitle it to taxpayers money?** 1. Where did I say they were entitled to taxpayer money? 2. I don't live in Cinci, so I have no say in Cinci's deal with the Reds or Bengals. 3. What economic benefit is coming into that area because of those franchises? 4. What would have happened, regarding those franchises, if the Queen City didn't strike the deal they are in? 5. What would the budget be if those franchises weren't adding to the economy? 6. Who are you to decide what is right or wrong for that area?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 6:49:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I have never really understood why two of the NY franchises play in NJ. I mean, for NJ, they could make a statement that even NY teams didn't want to play in NY. But, NY could play it up that neither team was willing to ID themselves with NJ. Actually, the Giants were known as the NY/NJ Giants for a couple of seasons, I think but the fans didn't dig that. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Oddly enough, the OP had as much to do with our not being deprived of GB's "wonderful showing" (they ~~played~~ were located in Cinci). [:D] Citizens have the ability to exert pressure on their elected officials. The elected officials have the duty to represent their constituents and to govern in a way that is for the good of the people. If it's decided that helping a sports franchise pay for a stadium will materially benefit the locale (and locals), then why shouldn't they strike that deal? At times it might seem like it's a bad deal. But, without all the info, you're not going to know. $33M payment for the stadium vs. $23.5M for HHS? Without any idea how much revenue comes in from the Reds and the Bengals, how are we to know what's right or not? What happens if it's determined that those two franchises bring in $25M/yr.? Spending $33M to get $50M (2-year budget number) isn't a bad deal, is it? What would the HHS budget be without the MLB/NFL franchises adding to the revenue coffers? Not enough information to truly weigh in on whether or not it was a good idea for Cinci. I really don't want to check numbers but I find it hard to believe that many sports teams contribute the kind of monies you're talking about. I'm not even sure there's an accurate way to measure the difference between with and without a sports team. I would need some compelling proof that Wilkes-Barre (right near where I live) would actually benefit from building a new arena for the Penguins (Minor League affilliate of the Pittsburgh club). If I recall correctly, Trenton, NJ got screwed by The Thunder. The team kept talking about all the revenues that they'd bring to the community. They privatized their parking facility, they built a horrid restaurant, that was over-budget and probably a ptomaine palace, and right across the street continues to be a toilet. Now, the team can't be blamed for all the crime in the area. The city needed to do their part, also but word went out, pretty quickly that visitors/fans needed to confine themselves to the Thunder's "compound". It's been almost 20 years but it's in my head that Trenton got screwed on the deal. They helped pay for the stadium, undertook a road rebuilding and redirection and (I think) are still owed on the original financing. I'm sure, as I said, that there are some places that would benefit but I'm also sure that it would have to be under very specific conditions.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 7:02:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? *What does the fact that a sports franchise is an asset to the local economy entitle it to taxpayers money? 1. Where did I say they were entitled to taxpayer money? I did not say that you did I asked what entitles a sports franchise to taxpayers money?** quote: 2. I don't live in Cinci, so I have no say in Cinci's deal with the Reds or Bengals. 3. What economic benefit is coming into that area because of those franchises? 4. What would have happened, regarding those franchises, if the Queen City didn't strike the deal they are in? 5. What would the budget be if those franchises weren't adding to the economy? 6. Who are you to decide what is right or wrong for that area? If a business cannot compeat without government help then that is prima facia evidence that that is not a viable business. If the state has a compelling interest in subsidizing that business that would be a different case. I fail to see a compelling interest for the state in subsidizing a sports franchise.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 7:21:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? *What does the fact that a sports franchise is an asset to the local economy entitle it to taxpayers money? 1. Where did I say they were entitled to taxpayer money? I did not say that you did I asked what entitles a sports franchise to taxpayers money?** Nothing entitles a sports franchise to taxpayer money. And, no one claimed that. You brought that in. You responded to my post with that question. quote: quote: 2. I don't live in Cinci, so I have no say in Cinci's deal with the Reds or Bengals. 3. What economic benefit is coming into that area because of those franchises? 4. What would have happened, regarding those franchises, if the Queen City didn't strike the deal they are in? 5. What would the budget be if those franchises weren't adding to the economy? 6. Who are you to decide what is right or wrong for that area? If a business cannot compeat without government help then that is prima facia evidence that that is not a viable business. If the state has a compelling interest in subsidizing that business that would be a different case. I fail to see a compelling interest for the state in subsidizing a sports franchise. Ease up, Thompson. You are treading in very difficult waters there. Just because you don't see a compelling interest in subsidizing a sports franchise (or to grant a period of freedom from paying property taxes, which is a typical move by governments, too) doesn't mean there isn't one. And, regardless of what you, DS, or I think, it's up to the locale that is entering into the contract with the franchise.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 7:50:55 AM)
quote: Just because you don't see a compelling interest in subsidizing a sports franchise (or to grant a period of freedom from paying property taxes, which is a typical move by governments, too) doesn't mean there isn't one. What exactly would those compelling interest be?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 8:11:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/ Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? A sports franchise aids the local economy but it aids the pocketbook of the owner a hell of a lot more. Hell, my business aids the local economy. People come in from Florida and elsewhere with their bank accounts and buy property putting all that nice money in the hands of locals. Tens of millions have come into the local economy due to the efforts of my company. Do you see the taxpayers paying my mortgage? It is totally unnecessary for the taxpayers to subsidize a profitable sports arena. Want an example? The Bristol Speedway around here was built and is maintained by 100% private funding. The only taxpayer funding it receives is traffic control during race week. I have a feeling that the property taxes paid take care of that nicely.

Phydeaux -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 8:32:26 AM)
Desi, We have to hold tight to the principle of limited government not only when it are things and causes we don't like - but especially when its things we do like. I see no compelling tax payer interest in preferntial tax treatment for sports franchises. And personally, if it was me, if a town is going to build the stadium, they damn well better own the team.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 9:05:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/ Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? A sports franchise aids the local economy but it aids the pocketbook of the owner a hell of a lot more. Hell, my business aids the local economy. People come in from Florida and elsewhere with their bank accounts and buy property putting all that nice money in the hands of locals. Tens of millions have come into the local economy due to the efforts of my company. Do you see the taxpayers paying my mortgage? It is totally unnecessary for the taxpayers to subsidize a profitable sports arena. Want an example? The Bristol Speedway around here was built and is maintained by 100% private funding. The only taxpayer funding it receives is traffic control during race week. I have a feeling that the property taxes paid take care of that nicely. Bristol cost $600k in 1960. That translates to roughly $4.6M in 2012 dollars. http://thesportseconomist.com/2010/07/11/cowboys-stadium-financing/ $1.2B AT&T Stadium (formerly Cowboys Stadium; aka Jerry's World) $325M funding from City of Arlington increases in sales tax (½%), hotel-motel tax (2%) and car rental taxes (5%) were added to pay for this funding. In 2010 (date of the article), the City of Arlington was on the hook for $20.7M, but tax revenues from those tax increases were close to $27M, a net increase in tax revenues of $6.3M. Where would that $6.3M have come from if not for the tax increases to pay for the stadium? Likely, those tax increases wouldn't have been put in place because there would have been no reason to put them in place. Further... quote: A second group of bonds – nearly $147 million – issued to help finance a portion of the Cowboys’ debt is also faring well, maybe even better than the city’s share. Those bonds would be paid by the Cowboys if the ticket and parking taxes, which the city has referred to as user taxes, were inadequate to make debt payments. But for the stadium’s first year open, those taxes raised about $15.2 million compared with the $9.3 million originally projected. 80k seating means a whole bunch of people coming into Arlington from places other than Arlington. Ya think any of those people spend money in Arlington that wouldn't be spending it in Arlington without the Stadium being there? Granted the revenues generated from Bristol are "pure profit" for the city since it didn't finance the Speedway, but, you're not talking about a front end cost anywhere near that of a stadium.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 9:07:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux We have to hold tight to the principle of limited government not only when it are things and causes we don't like - but especially when its things we do like. Not only do I agree with this but I think you're (conciously or unconciously) paraphrasing one of my heroes: quote: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” I concur.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/23/2013 9:16:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Desi, We have to hold tight to the principle of limited government not only when it are things and causes we don't like - but especially when its things we do like. I see no compelling tax payer interest in preferntial tax treatment for sports franchises. And personally, if it was me, if a town is going to build the stadium, they damn well better own the team. You don't have to see any compelling tax payer interest, unless you're talking about your local government. You elect the government officials to represent you. Does your local/state constitution have wording preventing them from funding sports franchises? If you have a problem with the funding of sports franchises, you need to get hold of your representative(s). That's how it works.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875