You took my comment completely out of context.
I'm refering to corporate welfare, and a specific
example pertaining to sports stadiums.
Maybe Dubya wasn''t the best example, so I'll
use the debate going on in Philly right now
as a circumstance with which I'm more familiar.
The original funding formula was that the team would pay
a third, the city would pay a third and the State would
pay a third.
In Philly and PA, wage and state taxes are flat
taxes without any gradation. 4.5% wage and 3.5% state
or something like that.
The deal was negotiated betw. the former Mayor
Rendell ( now head of the DNC) and the
lawyer for the Phillies- David Cohen- who
just happened to be Rendell's former finance
director largely credited for the turn around of
city.
With a new stadium the value of the Phillies
was estimated to increase significantly especially
due to added revenues from sky boxes and specificity.
The Phillies currently play in a 1970 combo
crap stadium, the antithesis of Wringley Field
or Camden yards.
Now per the Rendell/Cohen deal,
the team owners can sell at any time and
realise significant capital gains due to the
value added by the new ball parks
financed largley provided by
middle class tax payers
In addition, the tax payers locally will have to pay more
for tickets and renting cars per a proposed rental
car tax.
The original numbers proposed were 90 mil
from the state, 90 mil from the team
and 90 from the local taxpayers for total
cost of 270 mil which has escalated quite a bit
to its proposed location to $500 mil or something
like that.
The state amount stays fixed.
Based on the original model the team owners
would pay $90 of $270 mil and receive all the
capital gains from the sale of the team, though
local and state taxpayers bore the burden of the asset
that added the most value to the team.
For example say the team is worth currently $100 mil
and 5 yrs after the stadium is built the team is worth $377 mil.
The owner received $287 mil on their investment
for 5 years on their $90 mil investment.
This is what I mean by transfer of wealth to
the owners who are already millionaires, while
especially burdening the local tax payers and
allocating resources that could be used elsewhere.
Ironically though, I'm in favor of the new stadium
in its proposed location, because it will spur
development in a runned down section of the city,
if capital gains upon resale of the team are split
with the state and local municipalities based upon percent
by each invested. Per the original 3 way split and the
numbers I cited, if the taxpayers paid $90 mil
and the team sold in 5 yrs for a $287 mil profit, then local
taxpayers should get back 1/3 of that $287 mil.
These thoughts, in principle, aren't mine,
they are the borrowed and modified from a man
I worked briefly for as a consultant who helped
to finance stadiums in Baltimore, Cleveland, Miami,
and Denver...who was also another Republican I voted for.
z |
