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: ztect who wrote (388)	8/17/2000 11:28:01 AM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

z If your previous posts are accurate, the taxpayers shouldn't care since they are being helped out so much by their tax "investment". Those folks are overtaxed, but most of them don't have the means to move somewhere else where they would be treated more fairly. They are trying to get public funding for a new arena in Orlando too. The public is practically revolting. Private investments should pay for this, and if they are successful, they should reap the benefits as they are well deserved. knc

To: ztect who wrote (388)	8/17/2000 2:04:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 666

I'm refering to corporate welfare, and a specific example pertaining to sports stadiums. I think we agree on this particular issue. I am against both corperate welfarte in general (on principle, and because of economic inefficiencies it creates, and also because the existance of corporate welfare makes it harder politically for conservatives to reign in non-corporate welfare or other liberal spending ideas) and state funding of stadiums to benefit private individuals in particular. I worked briefly for as a consultant who helped to finance stadiums in Baltimore, Cleveland, Miami, and Denver... The stadium in Miami as well as the new stadium for the Redskins were privately funded. This seems to be the exception in recent years. Tim

To: ztect who wrote (388)	8/17/2000 9:53:49 PM
From: briskit	Respond to of 666

The amazing thing to me is that people want those new stadiums, for a variety of reasons, and want to pay for them. (I played sports at small time college, but would not lose any sleep without pro sports). They continue to use them, or at least have them available, for many years. It's not totally unlike a public park which they do not own but paid for. Some other rich slob then pays the increased purchase price for the improved venue. Taxpayers (fans) keep using the nicer stadium. They would be wiser to insist on a percent of those gains.