- Thread starter
- #41
You seem to be trolling me for some reason. Do you have an opinion on the special deals States and local governments give to wealthy interests?How do you suppose they do that? Invite them
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You seem to be trolling me for some reason. Do you have an opinion on the special deals States and local governments give to wealthy interests?How do you suppose they do that? Invite them
That's a somewhat different scenario, but I opposed that as well. Why do you ask?Does your beef date back to FDR and 1935 when he rolled out welfare as we know it and forced taxpayers to fund individuals?
I was referring to the fat envelopes discreetly passed to politicians.They want tax revenues
So you believe the team pays off the politicians to get their money back?I was referring to the fat envelopes discreetly passed to politicians.
Money back? No, they pay people off to get taxpayers to build a stadium for them!So you believe the team pays off the politicians to get their money back?
Duh, money backMoney back? No, they pay people off to get taxpayers to build a stadium for them!
Both require taxpayer investment. The two scenarios are a bit different…one offers a real ROi and one doesn’t.That's a somewhat different scenario, but I opposed that as well. Why do you ask?
So what? They're both abuse of government power.Both require taxpayer investment. The two scenarios are a bit different…one offers a real ROi and one doesn’t.
What do you think about the general practice of states offering special deals to get companies to move to there? Should government be in the business of offering some people special discounts that everyone doesn't get?I voted against a new arena for the San Antonio Spurs, just like I voted against the previous arena. The owners are multi billionaires and these arenas cost close to a billion now. If it's such a good deal, then why don't the owners fund the whole deal and keep the concessions. And, the taxpayers usually end up voting for it while a ticket price in the upper stands goes for 300 dollars and a beer runs you 20 bucks. Never makes sense to me.
Are states “promoting the general welfare” of the people by incentivizing business enterprises to move there? More jobs, more local revenues?What do you think about the general practice of states offering special deals to get companies to move to there? Should government be in the business of offering some people special discounts that everyone doesn't get?
Tax incentives or breaks. I'm mixed on that. I've built up and sold a couple of businesses and never got to enjoy the tax breaks that mega corps received however, if they're employing tens of thousands of people, I can see from that perspective why a state would want to lure them in. Pro sports don't have tens of thousands full time employees on the payrolls. They just fleece the taxpayers.What do you think about the general practice of states offering special deals to get companies to move to there? Should government be in the business of offering some people special discounts that everyone doesn't get?
So you don't see it as a violation of the equal protection?Tax incentives or breaks. I'm mixed on that. I've built up and sold a couple of businesses and never got to enjoy the tax breaks that mega corps received however, if they're employing tens of thousands of people, I can see from that perspective why a state would want to lure them in. Pro sports don't have tens of thousands full time employees on the payrolls. They just fleece the taxpayers.
So you don't see it as a violation of the equal protection?
The problem is the other cities. Do you really want your teams to go away? interesting.I voted against a new arena for the San Antonio Spurs, just like I voted against the previous arena. The owners are multi billionaires and these arenas cost close to a billion now. If it's such a good deal, then why don't the owners fund the whole deal and keep the concessions. And, the taxpayers usually end up voting for it while a ticket price in the upper stands goes for 300 dollars and a beer runs you 20 bucks. Never makes sense to me.
the issue is that the cities want the tax revenues from the events. Hotel, restaurants, transportation, airports, beverages in the building, with ticket revenues for the number of home games. It makes sense to me. Unless you just want sports to go away, and if you think that, that's never going to happen. Why shouldn't the people/ fans vote to keep their teams rather than them moving to some other location? Weird.Tax incentives or breaks. I'm mixed on that. I've built up and sold a couple of businesses and never got to enjoy the tax breaks that mega corps received however, if they're employing tens of thousands of people, I can see from that perspective why a state would want to lure them in. Pro sports don't have tens of thousands full time employees on the payrolls. They just fleece the taxpayers.
Well, they'll get the finger back. The Missouri/Kansas split isn't necessarily a friendly one. I know lots of people who aren't renewing season tickets, even though the actual move won't be for several years.
It seems that other businesses do ask for privileges to keep their factories in cities, to think otherwise is again weird. Amazon was the latest that I can remember. And New York turned them away. wow. All those jobs and revenues. Most likely saw an increase in property taxes to make up the difference. People really aren't very bright.
A box of rocks is smarterAOC isn’t very bright.