quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Look at all of the studies over decades...there is no increase in economic impact. That means that other spending decreases, there are tax revenues to be compensated and because in almost all cases...there already is a stadium.
SO no, cities/states do not need to borrow for a new one.

Who the fuck are you to tell a city/state they can't do that? Isn't that up to the residents?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Look at all of the studies over decades...there is no increase in economic impact. That means that other spending decreases, there are tax revenues to be compensated and because in almost all cases...there already is a stadium.
SO no, cities/states do not need to borrow for a new one.

Who the fuck are you to tell a city/state they can't do that? Isn't that up to the residents?

As has been said and has been the American economic creed for centuries...these decisions are to be left to the marketplace, (private money) not to the politicians and backroom deals with their business sponsors. These things put to a vote...are most often turned down.

quote:

These things are the worst part of local socialism for the rich. Taxpayers pay for small limited govt. remember...never to be simply a source of cash flow to be exploited by billionaires. So it's fuck the schools, infrastructure and trans. etc.
Ask the people of Wash. DC, when it came time for a 2nd convention center, Verizon center and a new stadium for the Nationals where it was $120 EA. for a seat behind home plate when they were losers.
SO now they add yet another pitching ace for $210 MILLION !! [sic] and taxpayers still pay for management and upkeep at $3+ million/yr.
This shit is immoral prima facie. Taking from the poor and middle class and his employer and giving it to the rich.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Look at all of the studies over decades...there is no increase in economic impact. That means that other spending decreases, there are tax revenues to be compensated and because in almost all cases...there already is a stadium.
SO no, cities/states do not need to borrow for a new one.

Who the fuck are you to tell a city/state they can't do that? Isn't that up to the residents?

As has been said and has been the American economic creed for centuries...these decisions are to be left to the marketplace, (private money) not to the politicians and backroom deals with their business sponsors. These things put to a vote...are most often turned down.

So, good! If they are voted down, there you go! What happens, though, when they aren't voted down?

quote:

These things are the worst part of local socialism for the rich. Taxpayers pay for small limited govt. remember...never to be simply a source of cash flow to be exploited by billionaires. So it's fuck the schools, infrastructure and trans. etc.
Ask the people of Wash. DC, when it came time for a 2nd convention center, Verizon center and a new stadium for the Nationals where it was $120 EA. for a seat behind home plate when they were losers.
SO now they add yet another pitching ace for $210 MILLION !! [sic] and taxpayers still pay for management and upkeep at $3+ million/yr.
This shit is immoral prima facie. Taking from the poor and middle class and his employer and giving it to the rich.

Cite your taxpayer cost figures, please.

Source your claim that infrastructure, schools, etc. are losing out, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I am surprised they charge the players so much in taxes. I am friends with a baseball scout and he said towards the end of the year if a contract goes into the following year it means the player automatically owes Uncle Sam about 40% of his contract, just because it went into the next tax year. If it is signed within the year he gets to keep it all but the red herrings really are the baseball scouts. Apparently very shady characters who demand a cut from the contract.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

By 4/15, they file and pay like anybody else. I don't see how anybody can keep all of their salary baseball players included. When I make money each year, it is taxable for that year. Next year's income is taxable for next year and so on.

Also don't see how scouts get paid by players if that is what you are suggesting. Are you saying that players bribe scouts for their attention and good will on roster considerations ? If a player needs to do that, they aren't worth the risk for scout.

Yes, players have agents but they usually get 15% off the top and usually worth every penny. For example, the pitcher the Nationals just signed for $210 million (some deferred and 1/2 guaranteed) had an agent all teams knew was a tough negotiator.

He said he wanted something north of $200 million and some teams didn't even return his calls but still...he got it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

By 4/15, they file and pay like anybody else. I don't see how anybody can keep all of their salary baseball players included. When I make money each year, it is taxable for that year. Next year's income is taxable for next year and so on.

Also don't see how scouts get paid by players if that is what you are suggesting. Are you saying that players bribe scouts for their attention and good will on roster considerations ? If a player needs to do that, they aren't worth the risk for scout.

Yes, players have agents but they usually get 15% off the top and usually worth every penny. For example, the pitcher the Nationals just signed for $210 million (some deferred and 1/2 guaranteed) had an agent all teams knew was a tough negotiator.

He said he wanted something north of $200 million and some teams didn't even return his calls but still...he got it.

Oops, not the scouts, the agents. I messed up there. The agents who represent the players take a huge slice from their salary, typically they get about 20-30% of whatever the player's contract is. And they're serious about getting paid is what I hear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
I am surprised they charge the players so much in taxes. I am friends with a baseball scout and he said towards the end of the year if a contract goes into the following year it means the player automatically owes Uncle Sam about 40% of his contract, just because it went into the next tax year. If it is signed within the year he gets to keep it all but the red herrings really are the baseball scouts. Apparently very shady characters who demand a cut from the contract.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As for when they are not voted down...it proves you can fool most of the people some (enough) of the time and you can fool some of the people most (enough) of the time.
I didn't include any taxpayer cost in any dollar amount. But since you asked I provide a pretty sad read
Here
In summation : So far, DC taxpayers have paid $140 million to build and maintain the stadium, $82.6 million for stadium-related transportation upgrades, and another $24-32 million a year to pay off the debt and maintain the stadium.
In the next segment, we'll look at the external benefits to see if DC is getting a return on such a large investment. No they aren't...go read it.
Suffice it to say that when business is asked to pay a tax to keep schools open and their repairs, books for all of the students, road repairs and Metro...the govt. is called liberal or leftist tax and spend.
When the same businesses are asked to pay a tax to cover the interest on a bond for a new baseball stadium...they say sign me up. Insane. Oh and DC residents were never given a vote up or down in this stadium.
In additon: Ted Lerner who owns the team and has a net worth of $4.6 Billion couldn't just put a roof on the stadium...oh no. Not when you can first try to get the taxpayers to do it. When will this stop ?
HERE

quote:

To pay the bonds it issued to cover the $535 million stadium debt, the city created four sources of revenue: A gross receipts tax on businesses that make more than $5 million a year, a share of the utility taxes paid by every non-residential taxpayer, a 4.25% special sales tax on stadium sales, and rent paid by the Nationals.

The first two are just untargeted taxes on DC businesses, and are thus related to baseball only in that the revenue is dedicated to paying for the stadium. But the sales tax is a user tax on baseball fans and the rent is obviously a direct payment by the Nationals, so those can reasonably be counted as annual baseball contributions.

Unfortunately, when DC reports sales taxes from Nationals Park, they combine the special sales tax with the regular sales tax, which is currently 6% on the same items, and the 10% tax on concessions. Is this fair? All taxpayers pay the regular sales tax and concessions tax, which pay for things like roads, schools, and other things the DC government does. This approach to calculation suggests that baseball doesn't contribute to schools or roads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
As to stadiums being good for business; there is also the factor that any business near the stadium will do little or no business when the stadium is in use. People don't go to a restaurant where the streets are gridlocked with people trying to get in and out of stadium parking. Might as well close on game day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As for when they are not voted down...it proves you can fool most of the people some (enough) of the time and you can fool some of the people most (enough) of the time.
I didn't include any taxpayer cost in any dollar amount. But since you asked I provide a pretty sad read
Here
In summation : So far, DC taxpayers have paid $140 million to build and maintain the stadium, $82.6 million for stadium-related transportation upgrades, and another $24-32 million a year to pay off the debt and maintain the stadium.
In the next segment, we'll look at the external benefits to see if DC is getting a return on such a large investment. No they aren't...go read it.
Suffice it to say that when business is asked to pay a tax to keep schools open and their repairs, books for all of the students, road repairs and Metro...the govt. is called liberal or leftist tax and spend.
When the same businesses are asked to pay a tax to cover the interest on a bond for a new baseball stadium...they say sign me up. Insane. Oh and DC residents were never given a vote up or down in this stadium.
In additon: Ted Lerner who owns the team and has a net worth of $4.6 Billion couldn't just put a roof on the stadium...oh no. Not when you can first try to get the taxpayers to do it. When will this stop ?
HERE

DC residents weren't given a vote? Who's fault is that?

From your first link:

quote:

To pay the bonds it issued to cover the $535 million stadium debt, the city created four sources of revenue: A gross receipts tax on businesses that make more than $5 million a year, a share of the utility taxes paid by every non-residential taxpayer, a 4.25% special sales tax on stadium sales, and rent paid by the Nationals.

The first two are just untargeted taxes on DC businesses, and are thus related to baseball only in that the revenue is dedicated to paying for the stadium. But the sales tax is a user tax on baseball fans and the rent is obviously a direct payment by the Nationals, so those can reasonably be counted as annual baseball contributions.

Unfortunately, when DC reports sales taxes from Nationals Park, they combine the special sales tax with the regular sales tax, which is currently 6% on the same items, and the 10% tax on concessions. Is this fair? All taxpayers pay the regular sales tax and concessions tax, which pay for things like roads, schools, and other things the DC government does. This approach to calculation suggests that baseball doesn't contribute to schools or roads.

4 Sources of revenue. That is, 4 NEW sources of revenue. One is a tax on $5M+ businesses (up to the businesses to decide if that's okay or not). One is a share of utilities paid by non-residents (I'm not sure wtf that one is about). One is an extra sales tax on stadium sales (which wouldn't be there if the stadium and Nationals weren't there), and one is rent paid by the team.

So, of your "annual operating costs," they are being paid by new revenue, one being a sales tax on the sales generated by the team, and one being rent paid by the team.

Don't forget, though, that the City likely worked out a deal with Deutsche Bank for decent interest rates on it's loans.

Should the owner have paid for the stadium? It's obvious he certainly could have, based on your presentation of his net worth, but he's not the only one that's getting a benefit out of the team being there, is he?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't care how many new sources of revenue. Govt. seems to always be in need for 'new' sources of revenue when businesses oppose the taxes they are paying now and reject other 'new' sources of taxes for normal govt. operations.
But oh...it's ok to create these new sources and put the city not the investors on the hook financially...when it's for a baseball stadium. The too precious.
Heaven forbid we get such things done for the real role of govt. rather than some business giveaway or subsidy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't care how many new sources of revenue. Govt. seems to always be in need for 'new' sources of revenue when businesses oppose the taxes they are paying now and reject other 'new' sources of taxes for normal govt. operations.
But oh...it's ok to create these new sources and put the city not the investors on the hook financially...when it's for a baseball stadium. The too precious.
Heaven forbid we get such things done for the real role of govt. rather than some business giveaway or subsidy.

The City is "on the hook," but the sources of revenue are new and should not be detracting from the revenues that were already coming in for the services the City supplies.

Part of the City's responsibility is taken from lease payments from the team. So, it is still the team on the hook, too.

What is the "real role of government?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't care how many new sources of revenue. Govt. seems to always be in need for 'new' sources of revenue when businesses oppose the taxes they are paying now and reject other 'new' sources of taxes for normal govt. operations.
But oh...it's ok to create these new sources and put the city not the investors on the hook financially...when it's for a baseball stadium. The too precious.
Heaven forbid we get such things done for the real role of govt. rather than some business giveaway or subsidy.

The City is "on the hook," but the sources of revenue are new and should not be detracting from the revenues that were already coming in for the services the City supplies.
Part of the City's responsibility is taken from lease payments from the team. So, it is still the team on the hook, too.
What is the "real role of government?"

Every city is always scrambling for funding for schools that don't leak, building new ones, have a full compliment if text books, smaller classrooms etc. Then there is Metro, police and fire, the courts, the subway, not to mention libraries, parks, etc., etc., ya'know...those things that do make up what really is the normal function of the conservative ideal...small limited govt.
The idea that the business community is able to essentially approve new sources of revenue to buy a baseball play pen for a multibillionaire is ridiculous. Small limited govt. is not supposed to be able to tell the same people to find new sources of funding for the institutional aspect of local civil govt.
The lease for the stadium is only a small portion if the payments on it and should have been a 'freemarket' real estate deal to begin with which would mean much higher costs to the team. Can't have that and buy $200 million pitchers.
Plus, soon as the lease runs out, the team is free to move having no financial responsibility and is a factor in why now, cities (St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego) are scrambling to keep their football teams from moving to LA. It's a form of extortation...of the taxpayers in all of the cities involved.