Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Who Really Pays Taxes? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (370)	8/17/2000 11:14:55 AM
From: ztect	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 666

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

To: briskit who wrote (370)	8/17/2000 11:48:04 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 666

The bottom half of taxpayers pay 4% of income taxes I wonder if anyone else has the experience of the wealthier you become, the less taxes you pay. These statistics wrt taxpayers are usually based on income, which is a bogus representation of true net worth. I'd like to see a net worth vs. taxable income graph of all taxpayers, I'll bet its inversely proportional. I agree with your points, I'm just disputing these broad claims. Lizzie