- 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 9:00 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:00 pm to ShortyRob
You think this is about business.
I say it is more important the state keeps their hands out or your pocket PARTICULARLY if it's intention in doing so is to subsidize another citizen's business.
You seem to think it is ok for the state to have taxes to subsidize Benson so long as the state gets back more than it gives them. Why do you think that?
If the Saints gave the state a 200% return on it's annual subsidies should they take all your income to fund the subsidies?
You say there are no subsidies if the return is positive yet the taxes persist. We pay them year after year. Why is that?? It is simple---whatever positive revenue for the state there may be is not going back to taxpayers.
I say it is more important the state keeps their hands out or your pocket PARTICULARLY if it's intention in doing so is to subsidize another citizen's business.
You seem to think it is ok for the state to have taxes to subsidize Benson so long as the state gets back more than it gives them. Why do you think that?
If the Saints gave the state a 200% return on it's annual subsidies should they take all your income to fund the subsidies?
You say there are no subsidies if the return is positive yet the taxes persist. We pay them year after year. Why is that?? It is simple---whatever positive revenue for the state there may be is not going back to taxpayers.
1
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:03 pm to doubleb
quote:I believe this is correct.
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.
quote:OK. Well, before one can hold an opinion on the subject like the OP has taken, that would be helpful to know. That's why I asked. Ya know. Because generally speaking, if you're going to say, "This really pisses me off"......you probably should actually know what "THIS" is.
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?
quote:Again, I didn't start the thread and assert it's an awful deal. I asked for numbers. The only number actually provided was pretty paltry. But regardless, before one should be running around posting how awful a deal it is, they should probably want to actually quantify it. Otherwise, it's emotional claptrap.
3 How much would we lose? 10, 15 million???? 20?
It's absurd to say, "I think it's a shitty deal and it really pisses me off" and then when someone asks you how it's shitty, your response is "prove it's not".
That's just dumb.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:10 pm to I B Freeman
quote:I'm merely trying to assess if the assertion that it's a bad deal is in fact a fact.
You think this is about business.
quote:Cool.
I say it is more important the state keeps their hands out or your pocket PARTICULARLY if it's intention in doing so is to subsidize another citizen's business.
quote:By definition, if a financial transaction leaves the state better off, then it isn't a "subsidy'. I mean, I really have no fricking idea how you can't understand that.
You seem to think it is ok for the state to have taxes to subsidize Benson so long as the state gets back more than it gives them. Why do you think that?
quote:One of your many utterances indicating you don't even understand the mechanism here. First off, "ROI" in this case is actually in the form of loss avoidance. Something tells me that given this thread, there's fricking no chance I'm going to be able to explain THAT to you. But hey, I'll give it a shot.
If the Saints gave the state a 200% return on it's annual subsidies should they take all your income to fund the subsidies?
If I told you that you were going to lose $1000 next week but, if you gave me $500 right now, you'd still get the $1000, would you do it? Forget your business discussion for a moment. As a matter of pure numbers, would you do it? Please fricking God don't annoy me with something ignorant.
quote:You write this as if the words after "yet" counteract those before. Again, I can't help you understand some things. You're gonna have to ramp up.
You say there are no subsidies if the return is positive yet the taxes persist
quote:At this point, I'm talking to a 10 year old. But hey. I'm bored.
We pay them year after year. Why is that?? It is simple---whatever positive revenue for the state there may be is not going back to taxpayers.
OK. If I told you that every week for the rest of your life you were going to lose $1000 but, you could NOT lose it if you just gave me $500 every week, what would you do? Again, just as a matter of numbers. Humor me.
I'm done trying to teach you concepts you are years behind learning though since you still can't even be bothered to go out and LEARN the real numbers and speak in something other than hypotheticals on an issue that YOU thought important enough to post on the board.
It's like posting about how awful tax rates are and then everyone figuring out you don't know what the current tax rates are. It's silly.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:15 pm to ShortyRob
But after reading numerous articles which state just how bad of a deal the various cities get from NFL teams, I formed my opinion. Read the various columns and it's obvious the NFL has leveraged their popularity to cut great deal after great deal for themselves.
And then there's imperial evidence. Since NO has cut deal after deal with Benson has the city become more or less prosperous? It has not.
Now I don't get that upset because I believe most in La. want the Saints do IMHO the state is doing the will of the people in this case.
And then there's imperial evidence. Since NO has cut deal after deal with Benson has the city become more or less prosperous? It has not.
Now I don't get that upset because I believe most in La. want the Saints do IMHO the state is doing the will of the people in this case.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
It's absurd to say, "I think it's a shitty deal and it really pisses me off" a
How about this---this is a really shitty deal whether or not it is profitable for the state.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is a statist.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:24 pm to ShortyRob
I think you are the simpleton here.
You are not teaching anyone anything.
You are advocating the government involve itself in private businesses for the profits of the state or even worse--the profits of the special interest and the politicians they own--damn the citizens that fund the involvement.
It is not complicated. It is not even mathematical.
The state has taxed us for the purpose of subsiding the Saints. They continue to tax us for that. If they have a positive return which I doubt it doesn't go to the citizens because the taxes continue--it goes to the expansion of the power of government.
That is what you favor..
You are not teaching anyone anything.
You are advocating the government involve itself in private businesses for the profits of the state or even worse--the profits of the special interest and the politicians they own--damn the citizens that fund the involvement.
It is not complicated. It is not even mathematical.
The state has taxed us for the purpose of subsiding the Saints. They continue to tax us for that. If they have a positive return which I doubt it doesn't go to the citizens because the taxes continue--it goes to the expansion of the power of government.
That is what you favor..
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:26 pm to doubleb
quote:I've no doubt some cities make bad deals.
But after reading numerous articles which state just how bad of a deal the various cities get from NFL teams,
quote:Do I even really have to post correlation vs causation?
And then there's imperial evidence. Since NO has cut deal after deal with Benson has the city become more or less prosperous? It has not.
quote:
Now I don't get that upset because I believe most in La. want the Saints do IMHO the state is doing the will of the people in this case.
The funny part of this whole thread is that if you guys actually provided evidence that the deal was a net loser, I would immediately side with you and agree. I mean, it's THAT simple.
You probably won't find an easier persuasion opportunity in your lifetime.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:28 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Well, that, by definition, is an absurdity.
How about this---this is a really shitty deal whether or not it is profitable for the state.
quote:Well, I mean, I'm not an anarchist so, I guess by that definition, I'm a statist. LOL.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is a statist.
And, by the way, I've already said I pretty much don't like these type deals but I'm not going to run around calling a deal a "cost" to people if it is NOT a "cost" to them.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:31 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Dude. I don't start threads asserting a fact and then spend 5 pages failing to even TRY and support the assertion while demanding everyone else prove my assertion wrong.
I think you are the simpleton here.
quote:No. Actually. I'm not. And, your "damn the citizens" line is STILL nonsense if the deal is a net positive.
You are advocating the government involve itself in private businesses for the profits of the state or even worse--the profits of the special interest and the politicians they own--damn the citizens that fund the involvement.
quote:4th grade math. Go back.
The state has taxed us for the purpose of subsiding the Saints
quote:You don't understand loss avoidance so you keep typing these nonsense sentences that demonstrate you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
They continue to tax us for that. If they have a positive return which I doubt it doesn't go to the citizens
And, you are literally reveling in your ignorance.
quote:Dude. You literally don't even understand the question, much less the answer.
That is what you favor..
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
And, by the way, I've already said I pretty much don't like these type deals but I'm not going to run around calling a deal a "cost" to people if it is NOT a "cost" to them.
the people and the state are not the same---there is the basic fact you cannot get through your head.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Dude. I don't start threads asserting a fact and then spend 5 pages failing to even TRY and support the assertion while demanding everyone else prove my assertion wrong.
I have not failed at all.
We take money from taxpayers and give it to the Saints.
You want to argue that if that is a positive return to the state that it is not subsidy. I am telling you that is BS.
If you are ok with state taking money from taxpayers and giving to other people for their business interest so long as the state gets a positive return then you are advocating for fascism. You are for taking money from taxpayers and laundering it through private businesses for some sort of return so the government decides how to spend it.
There is nothing morally, ethically or economically right about taking you and me for the benefit of Benson.
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:46 pm to ShortyRob
I can't help it if you are not well read on the subject. There are plenty of articles which spell out exactly what's going on.
But I think you actually know what's going on and you just like jerking Freeman around.
But I think you actually know what's going on and you just like jerking Freeman around.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:54 pm to doubleb
quote:LOL.
I can't help it if you are not well read on the subject.
If you're so well read, then you should probably have found it easy to answer the numbers questions.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:55 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Dear Lord. Your lack of understanding is spectacular
the people and the state are not the same-
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:57 pm to doubleb
He can't see the problem in his logic.
He wants to talk about "loss avoidance" in terms of a private business but will not talk about just how much he should personally be taxed to avoid losing the Saints.
He not only thinks that so long as the subsidies are a positive return for the government they are ok---he thinks that so long as the subsidies keep the Saints in town they are ok whether they cost tax payers $1 or $100 million.
How far should we take his logic? Should we pay a truck driver's house note to keep him as a resident of Louisiana because he might generate more money for the state than the cost of his house note? Do we want to pay more taxes to avoid the lose of the truck driver's possible move out of state?
He wants to talk about "loss avoidance" in terms of a private business but will not talk about just how much he should personally be taxed to avoid losing the Saints.
He not only thinks that so long as the subsidies are a positive return for the government they are ok---he thinks that so long as the subsidies keep the Saints in town they are ok whether they cost tax payers $1 or $100 million.
How far should we take his logic? Should we pay a truck driver's house note to keep him as a resident of Louisiana because he might generate more money for the state than the cost of his house note? Do we want to pay more taxes to avoid the lose of the truck driver's possible move out of state?
Posted on 9/12/17 at 9:57 pm to I B Freeman
quote:You can "tell" me whatever you like. I can't solve your ignorance for you.
You want to argue that if that is a positive return to the state that it is not subsidy. I am telling you that is BS.
Hell. I've spelled out the actual math for you. The math that absolutely impacts the citizens too. And, you've completely failed to comprehend.
quote:
If you are ok with state taking money from taxpayers and giving to other people for their business interest so long as the state gets a positive return you are advocating for fascism.
6 pages, you still haven't provided the simple math supporting your assertion.
But, you have achieved use of Godwin's law in a discussion about NFL team subsidies.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 10:01 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
He can't see the problem in his logic.
Says the guy who doesn't get 4th grade math. quote:Um. Assuming for the sake of argument that losing the saints would be a net loser, that would mean the state would have to find other sources of revenue to fill the void. Hmm. Let me wonder where the state might look.
He wants to talk about "loss avoidance" in terms of a private business but will not talk about just how much he should personally be taxed to avoid losing the Saints.
Damn you're simple minded. quote:Meh. I don't like subsidies. But, subsidies that are net winners are at least no harm to anyone.
He not only thinks that so long as the subsidies are a positive return for the government they are ok
quote:It's just pathetic that you still use that term given the stellar stupidity it displays.
he thinks that so long as the subsidies keep the Saints in town they are ok whether they cost tax payers $1 or $100 million.
quote:
How far should we take his logic? Should we pay a truck driver's house note to keep him as a resident of Louisiana because he might generate more money for the state than the cost of his house note? Do we want to pay more taxes to avoid the lose of the truck driver's possible move out of state?
6 pages. Can't support his assertion yet. Hell, you haven't even TRIED to support it. :rotflmao:
Posted on 9/12/17 at 10:03 pm to ShortyRob
Get back to me when either of you fools has something vaguely resembling an education.
Posted on 9/12/17 at 10:07 pm to ShortyRob
Which assertion have I made that is incorrect?
We subsidize the Saints--even by your definition.
The state taxes people to do that and then decides what to do with whatever money it may make with it. The taxpaying PEOPLE lose the use of their money.
The other assertion I made you agreed with---you are a statist.
We subsidize the Saints--even by your definition.
The state taxes people to do that and then decides what to do with whatever money it may make with it. The taxpaying PEOPLE lose the use of their money.
The other assertion I made you agreed with---you are a statist.
This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 9/12/17 at 10:16 pm to I B Freeman
quote:That the deal is a net loser.
Which assertion have I made that is incorrect?
Yeah yeah. I know. You said it "costs taxpayers" and you don't comprehend that if it's not a net loser, it doesn't actually do that. I can't educate you in basic math.
quote:I get it. You don't comprehend. I can't help. I've tried.
The state taxes people to do that and then decides what to do with whatever money it may make with it. The taxpaying PEOPLE lose the use of their money.
quote:LOL. Well, if everyone who isn't an anarchist is a statist.
The other assertion I made you agreed with---you are a statist.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News