- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are you happy your tax dollar subsidize the Saints and the NFL??
Posted on 9/12/17 at 5:33 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 9/12/17 at 5:33 pm to ShortyRob
I'd like to point out that there's a reason I've asked REPEATEDLY for evidence that the state is a net loser in the deal.
If it were, I would oppose the deal. But, if the numbers provided in this thread regarding what Benson gets out of it are true, there's almost no fricking way that's not a net winner for Louisiana tax payers........probably by a fricking lot.
If it were, I would oppose the deal. But, if the numbers provided in this thread regarding what Benson gets out of it are true, there's almost no fricking way that's not a net winner for Louisiana tax payers........probably by a fricking lot.
1
Posted on 9/12/17 at 5:37 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The state never has to take the $1000.
They don't have too but they do. They spend it.
I would rather they simply let me keep the $1000 and never have the $1100 from the Saints either.
(I know you are not saying yes or no on whether the Saints are a net positive but if the Saints are indeed a net positive for the state then why do they need our money? Why can't we just say you nor your employees don't have to pay taxes Saints instead of giving them money?)
You assume the state government doesn't waste the extra revenue. They are in fact redistributing income. Have they ever, EVER, said we are going to take profits from the hotel tax, for example, they put into place to help finance the Saints and give a tax rebate to the hotel guest that paid it?
How much should your Saints tax be? and what should the state do with the return they get on you Saints tax?
How many more businesses should the state invest in?
Posted on 9/12/17 at 5:42 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Dear fricking God. Dude. Obviously, you don't realize it. But this thread is really bad for you.
They don't have too but they do. They spend it.
Come on.
quote:I assume no such thing. It's just entirely irrelevant to the point.
You assume the state government doesn't waste the extra revenue. They are in fact redistributing income. Have they ever, EVER, said we are going to take profits from the hotel tax, for example, they put into place to help finance the Saints and give a tax rebate to the hotel guest that paid it?
You're making it harder than it is.
The state in any given year will spend X.
If the state does anything with that X that results in X+Y, then the amount required of the state from its citizens is X-Y.
All the time. 100% of the time. No exceptions.
quote:Generally speaking, I think government choosing winners and losers is a bad proposition. In fact, I think that like 99.9% of the time. So more than generally speaking.
How many more businesses should the state invest in?
But, you can't be pathological about it. If losing a business would cost X dollars for the state and keeping it would cost LESS than X, you fricking keep it.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 6:08 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Are you happy your tax dollar subsidize the Saints and the NFL??
Not when they're losing.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 6:09 pm to I B Freeman
No.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 6:16 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
But, if the numbers provided in this thread regarding what Benson gets out of it are true, there's almost no fricking way that's not a net winner for Louisiana tax payers........probably by a fricking l
If. almost. Probably
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 9/12/17 at 6:29 pm to doubleb
quote:
If. almost. Probably
5 pages in. Not a soul has provided data that would support the OP assertion that the deal is a net loss
I didn't steady the thread.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 6:33 pm to I B Freeman
Honestly I'd rather the money go to the saints than something useless like public education
At least some of the saints players will leave the saints system and go on to do great things. When was the last time a product of the Nola public education system did great things? Little wayne?
At least some of the saints players will leave the saints system and go on to do great things. When was the last time a product of the Nola public education system did great things? Little wayne?
Posted on 9/12/17 at 7:23 pm to ShortyRob
Well Shorty using your logic why do we continue to write Benson checks if not because it is clear this is a drain on the taxpayers?
If the Saints are revenue positive for the state wouldn't we be better just to excuse them of taxes and quit writing them checks?? That would be easy wouldn't it?
You will NEVER ever hear Benson say quit the subsidies and just excuse of income taxes and sales taxes.
If the Saints are revenue positive for the state wouldn't we be better just to excuse them of taxes and quit writing them checks?? That would be easy wouldn't it?
You will NEVER ever hear Benson say quit the subsidies and just excuse of income taxes and sales taxes.
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 9/12/17 at 7:29 pm to doubleb
quote:
And you have provided no evidence to prove it is a revenue plus for the state much less breaks even.
I don't have to. I didn't start the thread.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 7:34 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Huh?
Well Shorty using your logic why do we continue to write Benson checks if not because it is clear this is not a drain on the taxpayers?
quote:
If the Saints are revenue positive for the state wouldn't we be better just to excuse them of taxes and quit writing them checks?? That would be easy wouldn't it?
Perhaps. I really don't know. I would have to see the calculations to see which one generates the better ROI.
quote:Has this even been discussed?
You will NEVER ever hear Benson say quit the subsidies and just excuse of income taxes and sales taxes.
By the way. Just a knee jerk reaction but I suspect total amount that would be "excused' if they did that would be FAR more than the total subsidy you've listed. If so, why would you want the govt to even consider such a silly thing?
Posted on 9/12/17 at 7:36 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
But, you can't be pathological about it. If losing a business would cost X dollars for the state and keeping it would cost LESS than X, you fricking keep it.
You have yet to present one piece of evidence this is the case.
BUT you still miss the point that return to the government should not be a criteria for taxes!!!!
Let's take an extreme example of what you advocate. There is no question that we could tax everybody in Louisiana to start an oil production company. The state could take a billion dollars a year from taxpayers and generate $5 billion for itself. Would you favor that?? Isn't that what they have in Venezuela? Isn't that what PetroMex is?? Taking money from the citizens simply because it is a good return for the state is a very bad criteria for taxing.
They could take ALL your money and give to Benson and get back all your money plus something and in your eyes that is a good thing. That is "keeping a business that cost less than X" and you want to "frickin keep it".
When does deciding what is good for the state supersede what is good for the individual???
Why elevate the state to something more than a servant of the citizens?
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 9/12/17 at 7:43 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
reaction but I suspect total amount that would be "excused' if they did that would be FAR more than the total subsidy you've listed
How naive are you?
Let's go back to the old deal where he got $23.5 million cash money.
The corporate tax rate is 8%. He would have to generate net, taxable profits of $293.75 million annually. Forbes estimated the Saints had profits of only $77 million in 2016. (that makes the subsidy about 1 third of their profits--more proof they do not need the subsidy to operate) LINK
Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:19 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Dude. You fricking started the thread and haven't presented any evidence supporting the idea that it isn't a net gain.
You have yet to present one piece of evidence this is the case.
Good fricking lord.
quote:I'm not even entirely sure what you mean with this sentence. Criteria how?
BUT you still miss the point that return to the government should not be a criteria for taxes!!!!
quote:Oh. Now I see. You still haven't the slightest idea how this thing happens.
They could take ALL your money and give to Benson and get back all your money plus something and in your eyes that is a good thing. That is "keeping a business that cost less than X" and you want to "frickin keep it".
You don't even understand the mechanism.
But, that's beside the point. My ENTIRE response was simply based on two simple points.
1)I asked. "Is there evidence this is a net loser"? - I've received no answer
and
2)I've pointed out that if it is NOT a net loser, then that means that no taxpayer dollars are "taken". To this, you don't even seem to understand the math.
But hell. Can we at least get #1 out of the way? How on Earth can you be bent out of shape about something you don't even KNOW to be true and take zero effort to actually check to see if it is?
That's just fricking weird.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:26 pm to I B Freeman
quote:When you said "Excuse them of taxes, I assumed you meant ALL of their income taxes.
How naive are you?
Let's go back to the old deal where he got $23.5 million cash money.
The corporate tax rate is 8%. He would have to generate net, taxable profits of $293.75 million annually. Forbes estimated the Saints had profits of only $77 million in 2016. (that makes the subsidy about 1 third of their profits--more proof they do not need the subsidy to operate) LINK
But, OK. The answer is really the same answer. Would that have kept the team from leaving?
The only thing that REALLY matters in this whole equation is simple. The following has to be answered to evaluate it on something based on facts rather than emotion.
1)Would the team leave absent any consideration?
2)If yes, how much consideration does it take to keep them?
3)Is the monetary loss in losing them greater than the amount it would take to keep them?
I've zero interest in evaluating your overwrought emotional responses if you can't answer 1-3.
But, like I said. I didn't start the thread. That YOU don't seem to think knowing the answers to 1-3 is important is the real absurdity in this thread.
Regardless of what I think, you really ought to want to know those answers if you're going to make a big hairy deal about it.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:35 pm to I B Freeman
I'm not an expert on this shite, but I look at it like an investment. Successful professional teams bring in a ton of money to the city.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:36 pm to ShortyRob
You didn't start the thread, but you said that thought the state came out ahead in the deal, and you have not proved that.
i linked an article stating how bad a deal it was for La. You ignore that.
Prove its a winner for the state or shut up.
i linked an article stating how bad a deal it was for La. You ignore that.
Prove its a winner for the state or shut up.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:49 pm to doubleb
nola.com article
Found this article during a quick google search. I'm not sure if this was the article posted before. From the looks of this article, it appears that Benson rakes in a fortune while the state gives all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies. It looks like the deal between Benson and LA is pretty lop-sided in Benson's favor.
Found this article during a quick google search. I'm not sure if this was the article posted before. From the looks of this article, it appears that Benson rakes in a fortune while the state gives all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies. It looks like the deal between Benson and LA is pretty lop-sided in Benson's favor.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:54 pm to ShortyRob
I believe Benson would leave if the state quit subsidizing his operation. That means we'd charge him rent got the Dome, take back concession rights, parking rights, etc. and if we quit leading class A office space from him and all the over reimbursements he gets.
2 To calculate what it has cost to keep the Saints you would have to calculate the dollars spent on the Dome, practice facilities, payments to Benson and all the other subsidies given to Benson over the last half century or so. How much is that?
3 How much would we lose? 10, 15 million???? 20?
I d say we collect 50 cents on the dollar or less.
2 To calculate what it has cost to keep the Saints you would have to calculate the dollars spent on the Dome, practice facilities, payments to Benson and all the other subsidies given to Benson over the last half century or so. How much is that?
3 How much would we lose? 10, 15 million???? 20?
I d say we collect 50 cents on the dollar or less.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News