|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Pro Sports Tax Free Bonds (3/18/2015 3:15:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
It's also not "costing" taxpayers anything. The reduction in taxes paid by the owners of the stadium, isn't a subsidy. It's a reduction in taxes.
A reduction in taxes is also a reduction in revenue. That leaves the municipality with two options:
(a) offset the revenue loss by raising taxes/fees elsewhere, or
(b) cut services/benefits (and thus at least some folks' livelihoods).
Whatever the semantic ballet, either option strikes me as imposing a cost on taxpayers (or a subset of them)
That assumes that the current level of spending is "proper." But, what of all the tertiary revenues brought in because the team is located there?
Are there no taxes paid on the incomes of the athletes? The City of Toledo taxes income at 2.45%, making a salary of $770K (the Median NFL Salary from this January 2011 article) worth $18.8K+ worth of tax revenues. 52 starters makes it almost $981K in revenues (and that's if the team is only paying the median, while the average salary was $1.9M (or $2.4M+ in revenues).
What about the tertiary businesses because of the sports team?
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000229570/article/dallas-cowboys-to-move-headquarters-from-irving-to-friscoquote:
The Dallas Cowboys formally announced Tuesday they are moving their headquarters from suburban Irving to suburban Frisco after winning overwhelming approval for a $115 million development that includes an indoor stadium for practice and use by area prep teams.
...
The stadium will be paid for mostly through a city sales tax, with the school district funding part of the construction. The deal, which was approved late Monday, calls for the Cowboys to manage the facilities and pay operating costs.
School district officials said they already were planning on building a football stadium before singing [sic] onto this private-public deal.
"We could in no way duplicate a stadium of this caliber on our own, spending the same amount for construction," said Jeremy Lyon, Frisco ISD's superintendent.
Lyon said the partnership will save taxpayers money in the long run by splitting costs after the stadium is open.
...
The 91-acre development includes 25 acres for the Cowboys' facilities, while the remaining 66 acres will be used for stores, restaurants and a luxury hotel. According to city officials, the development will generate $1.26 billion in tax revenue with an estimated economic impact of $23.4 billion over the next 30 years.
Let's see... $115M complex (not totally paid for through taxes, nor just by public entities) to generate $1.26B over 30 years? That's not all that bad, is it?
Except that the marketplace should be the basis for that decision...not a taxpayer subsidy. All of those things happen anyway. To justify govt./tax contribution is still a give-away to the investors. Plus there are communities/states that have no income tax so that contribution is out.
The marketplace is the basis. A team can choose to be here or there. Which place wants it more?
A tax abatement isn't a subsidy. A tax credit isn't a subsidy (unless the credit is greater than the tax liability). A tax reduction isn't a subsidy.
I wonder how many communities and states don't know if they do or don't have an income tax in their local jurisdiction. They could be screwing themselves without even knowing it!!! [8|]
|
|
|
|
