PDA

View Full Version : Got another question


Lono
05-11-2006, 08:22 AM
Ok this is the question and following it my answer so far. Am I on the right track? Thanks for any help you can give. Sorry I think this has to be my worst subject.

Who is helped and who is hurt when local and regional governments raise taxes in order to finance stadiums for major league sports teams? How do these subsidies influence the income of team owners and professional athletes? What impact do they have on income inequality? Indicate why you either support or oppose the subsidies?

The local government is helped and the local tax payers are hurt when these local and regional governments raise taxes in order to finance stadiums for major league sports teams. The subsidies influence the income of team owners and professional athletes by a in-direct manner. Depending on the area they move from, some team owners and professional athletes may take a cut in pay and some may have an increase in pay. Should there be an influence on local apthlets to desire to be professional, than they may move elsewhere. "There is no evidence that sports teams and facilities generate any additional economic growth." The impact on income inequality is that local communities pay more than they gain from visitors in the area. Even local fans may follow the players and pay more elsewhere. I oppose the subsidies, as it only leads to "rent seeking" when people are lead to believe that it generates "growth development".

jAZ
05-11-2006, 08:30 AM
Ok, this one is definately fishing for someone to do their homework for them. Whatever you learn in the course of this discussion... make certain it's completely rewritten in your own words. Otherwise it's cheating and it's just as easy for a teacher to catch you cheating using the internet as it is for you to actually cheat. So don't do it.
(/end rant)

Carry on.

mlyonsd
05-11-2006, 08:32 AM
Ok, this one is definately fishing for someone to do their homework for them. Whatever you learn in the course of this discussion... make certain it's completely rewritten in your own words. Otherwise it's cheating and it's just as easy for a teacher to catch you cheating using the internet as it is for you to actually cheat. So don't do it.
(/end rant)

Carry on.

Hard azz. :)

Lono
05-11-2006, 08:33 AM
Yeah im wanting you to do my homework. Thats why i gave my answer I already wrote? I need an A on this so before i send it in I want to make sure im right. Im sure you've never asked for help on something you didnt know a lot about.

jAZ
05-11-2006, 08:40 AM
Yeah im wanting you to do my homework. Thats why i gave my answer I already wrote? I need an A on this so before i send it in I want to make sure im right. Im sure you've never asked for help on something you didnt know a lot about.
Like I said... consider my advice and then carry on.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 10:10 AM
Lono,
jaz just likes to be "Big Daddy" here. So he lectures people on their posts.
Just spank him back.

I actually have researched this in the past but don't remember all the specifics. If I have time later I'll see if I can find some links.

Off the top of my head and in general though, is that these stadiums do not always generate the revenue they claim. I read a case by case of stadiums with numbers once.

Owners are capable of paying the costs as they make millions and millions. And if owners couldn't meet those costs, then the industry that builds them would not see the demand for a new stadium. To secure more work they'd have to be more competitive. Or player salaries, along with other costs would have to be adjusted. The whole thing works itself out when people have to pay out of their own pockets. Even if it means staying in a crappy stadium.

I,however, do not see why you bring up "income inequality." That shouldn't be an issue here. It also is not a govt role to be concerned with it. I think the bigger issue is that gov't should not fund private industry through forcible extraction of money of it's local citizens particularly when some of those citizens may not be a fan of a sport.

Iowanian
05-11-2006, 11:17 AM
Lono...I don't believe its fair to say that local taxpayers are always "hurt" in a situation like this.

While taxes are collected for the funding of stadiums, those stadiums/complexes also bring in thousands/millions of people into thier communities with money to spend. Money spent to purchase fuel in their county-city also pay a gas tax, which helps fund road construction/maintenence and snow removal. Many times, there is also an additional Sales tax, in which taxes are collected and used to fund schools, libraries, swimming pools et al that the local person's children utilize. This is in addition to the economic impact those facilities have on the area, the oportunity for additional income(parking on your property, food stand, increased traffic for your business).

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 11:18 AM
I would like to see some numbers on those economical gains....I read that they are exaggerated.

Iowanian
05-11-2006, 11:23 AM
Gas taxes, sales taxes.....taxes on tickets to events in addition to sporting events.

having a stadium with a professional team, is hardly a burden on the local economy.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 11:41 AM
It's public welfare for billionaires who CAN afford pay to build a stadium on their own without the taxapayer. It also politicizes sports and encourages teams to relocate when they get a sweetheart deal from a politician.

Don't know if its a burden but the revenues claimed to be a gain are not what they have been promoted to be.

There is also the fallout on where this type of thinking can lead. If govt is to intervene for corporate welfare because it stimulates the local ecnomy aka a collectivist or public welfare mentality....then where does it lead? I can think of one: SC justices deciding eminent domain can be abused as govts have shown a precedent to be involved in improving local economies. That's where this type of thinking leads. Wait til someone's property get seized for a stadium.

I'll get back to this one later. I gotta go....

Dave Lane
05-11-2006, 01:00 PM
It's public welfare for billionaires who CAN afford pay to build a stadium on their own without the taxapayer. It also politicizes sports and encourages teams to relocate when they get a sweetheart deal from a politician.

Don't know if its a burden but the revenues claimed to be a gain are not what they have been promoted to be.

There is also the fallout on where this type of thinking can lead. If govt is to intervene for corporate welfare because it stimulates the local ecnomy aka a collectivist or public welfare mentality....then where does it lead? I can think of one: SC justices deciding eminent domain can be abused as govts have shown a precedent to be involved in improving local economies. That's where this type of thinking leads. Wait til someone's property get seized for a stadium.

I'll get back to this one later. I gotta go....


The Republican apologist is ripping on billionaires? Basically its the costs we pay to live in a "big" city. Much like the opera or symphony its one of the cost of a "big" modern city. It attracts jobs and more population hence spreading the cost of the project even further. Considering that the national debt W has adding up in 5 years comes to almost $225,000 for every man woman and child in the US I'd say the $90 a year the average Jackson County voter will pay for 15 years is hardly a burden.

Dave

Iowanian
05-11-2006, 02:15 PM
buc...
Before you get too far ahead of yourself, are you familiar with a TIF(tax increment Financing) district is?

Public funds are used on projects all the time...Tax rebates given to developers for road nextworks, utilities and urban revitalization...with the idea that it will stimulate job growth(see ancillary businesses due to stadiums), increase tax base by having more value to buildings when TIF is over......

Dave Lane
05-11-2006, 02:49 PM
buc...
Before you get too far ahead of yourself, are you familiar with a TIF(tax increment Financing) district is?

Public funds are used on projects all the time...Tax rebates given to developers for road nextworks, utilities and urban revitalization...with the idea that it will stimulate job growth(see ancillary businesses due to stadiums), increase tax base by having more value to buildings when TIF is over......


I've used TIF before and historic tax credits to repair blighted buildings. It really a boon for the city in cleaning up old buildings that aren't producing any revenue and make the city look bad. And yes you are subsidising millionaires but both sides benefit and it is a win-win.

Dave

Iowanian
05-11-2006, 03:05 PM
correct.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 04:06 PM
Dave Lane,
I am NO Republican apologist. I didn't even vote Republican last election.
I don't vote for RHINO's. Fact is 80% of taxpayers are against subsidies for stadiums and are puttin' up a fight. It's sports fans and businessmen that are the cheerleaders for this stuff. Ya' know special interest groups. San Francisco was refused the funds to build one and was forced to go out and raise the money privately raising double what was needed. If it can be done this way, and it's been shown it can, you'd actually have a problem with that? Wouldn't you prefer these alleged benefits without the taxes?

Last century most stadiums were privately funded. Turning point was around 1953.

I am familiar with the need to fund infrastructure around private projects, even for private stadiums which is fine. You can tax their profits for this. Tax credits and rebates for fixing old buildings etc. aren't exactly the same as funding sports. But I won't hold my breath that it absolutely requires govt intervention to work.

Please use facts instead of opinion or cheerleading.


Here ya' go Lono:
These links will replace opinion and myths with the facts:

Corporate Welfare: Publically Funded Stadiums (http://www.akdart.com/sports.html)

Site is loaded with economic links on stadiums.

I. Try this link:

I. Home Run for Corporate Welfare
This is a .pdf but is excellent and easy to read. Is three economists that were paid by nobody to study issue and the effects on communities.

Does it help communities?
#1. Los Angeles lost two football teams in the same year...in fact hard to tell they had even been there.

#2. Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh was completed in 1970. By 2001 bills still weren’t paid off on it. It was blown up earlier in 2001.

Here what that Pittsburgh Mayor Lawrence 42 years ago promised:
“ The new stadium will be self-supporting and will play a vital role in Pittsburgh’s economic and social fabric. When it is finished Pittsburgh will reassert its position of leadership among the foremost urban centers of the nation.”

II. This link:
II. Sports Stadiums and the Effects on the Economy (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/12555/sports_stadiums_and_the_effects_on.html?page=2)
Has Other Economic Data on Pittsburgh
It’s a depressed area economically. Compares to what happened in Jacksonville area when they got a new stadium. No impact basically. Pittsburgh's was a loser.

III. This Link
III. Stadium Socialism: Research shows that taxpayer-financed sports facilities aren't economically justified, according to economists. A national poll conducted by Media Research and Communications found that 80 percent of Americans oppose using their tax dollars for sports stadiums and areas. But city and state politicians keep building them

As players' salaries and ticket prices spiral astronomically upward, it is the taxpaying public that is being stuck with the bill for new stadiums. If there has been one constant in professional sports over the past 20 to 25 years, it is that owners and players are becoming increasingly wealthy at the expense of fans, non-fans, and taxpayers. In 1976, the average salary of major league baseball players was $51,000. That jumped to $412,000 by 1987 and is well over $1,000,000 today.

Mohammed
05-11-2006, 10:00 PM
...



Go make me some pie.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 10:02 PM
Sure what kind?

Hope you don't mind spelt crust. :)


http://www.marthastewart.com/images/learn/recipe/pie.jpg