More welfare for billionaires

[dusty88]

I would like to repeat this question because it truly is not irrelevant...

But a better question is if an honest, accurate study can be done, including taxpayer infrastructure expenses and losses to other businesses.

For example, who was billed for exit ramp changes on 465 that were supposedly put in place at least partially to make it easier to get to downtown sporting venues?

Edit: and I'll add, does anyone ever ask these questions for small business?

The city decided a few years ago that my sign no longer fit their zoning system. They "almost" said yes to a sign after I spent several thousand with an attorney but then changed their mind again. At that time, (2008 I think) I was adding an employee while most people were laying them off. They literally cost themselves tax revenue by hurting my business, but there is no study of such enforcement and its cost to residents and taxpayers.

The city also slipped in a lot of bizarre fees over the past few years, including a fee for self-inspection of the building for fire safety. (I guess I'm paying them to accept my paperwork, but they fine me if I do it wrong.)

I'm a big proponent of making decisions based on logic, mathematics, and scientific studies. But when it comes to political issues people typically only use numbers that support their prior position.

 

[HoughMade]

If they paid fair market value for use of the land, would tax revenues be different somehow?

Was a study done of tax revenue if it was used as an incubator for small businesses?

Billionaire wanted it, billionaire got it. You and I pay for it. Wealth redistribution, I think its called.

The Pistons play in Auburn Hills, not Detroit. The loser? Detroit.

Both "New York" football teams play in New Jersey. The "Dallas" Cowboys play in Arlington. The "L.A." Dodgers play in Anaheim. The Utah Jazz used to be in New Orleans. The Oklahoma City Thunder used to be the Seattle Supersonics.

Think it can't happen in Indy?

Maybe you don't care. However the businesses in and around the venue do. They pay taxes as do their employees.

You seem to be assuming that there is no circumstance where the team will move. Plenty of history says that's not true....including a midnight move by another franchise in 1984.

I don't know where the balancing point is. Maybe its not worth it, but maybe it is worth it, dollars and cents, to do this to keep the team in Indy.

But oh yeah....I forgot the basic tenet- rich people suck. They also pay an overwhelming amount of the taxes in any analysis.

 

[MisterChester]

Crap like this is why people want to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Ridiculous.

When the corruption and crony capitalism are so blatant, people get tired of it. They see him as a solution because he's the only person that criticizes crony capitalism in the whole candidacy, so naturally people who are tired of it will listen.

Reminds me of the republican debate. There were hardly any questions about the economy or crony capitalism. I think it's on purpose.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The Pistons play in Auburn Hills, not Detroit. The loser? Detroit.

Both "New York" football teams play in New Jersey. The "Dallas" Cowboys play in Arlington. The "L.A." Dodgers play in Anaheim. The Utah Jazz used to be in New Orleans. The Oklahoma City Thunder used to be the Seattle Supersonics.

Think it can't happen in Indy?

Maybe you don't care. However the businesses in and around the venue do. They pay taxes as do their employees.

You seem to be assuming that there is no circumstance where the team will move. Plenty of history says that's not true....including a midnight move by another franchise in 1984.

I don't know where the balancing point is. Maybe its not worth it, but maybe it is worth it, dollars and cents, to do this to keep the team in Indy.

But oh yeah....I forgot the basic tenet- rich people suck. They also pay an overwhelming amount of the taxes in any analysis.

Nope. The basic tenant is fairness. Not simply money clinging to money. When the money flows to the poor, its labeled theft and wealth redistribution. Nobody bothers to note they then spend the money and businesses profit. They should work harder or starve. If its a billionaire making money on millionaires tossing a ball around, though, then its benefits to surrounding businesses and the like. And then the gall of pretending the playing field is even and you can just WORK HARDER to get into the 1%...eye roll time.

 

[dusty88]

I don't know where the balancing point is. Maybe its not worth it, but maybe it is worth it, dollars and cents, to do this to keep the team in Indy.

That's the thing; the rest of us pay for a handful of businesses to get some increased revenue. I do have clients that are associated with sporting teams and/or are at least in a small way influenced to live in Indiana because of the sports. But I'm not sure that it's worth it, financially speaking.

How much tax revenue is lost because the burden is shifted on to those who, in total, employ more people?

But oh yeah....I forgot the basic tenet- rich people suck. They also pay an overwhelming amount of the taxes in any analysis.

I don't have anything against rich people. I think the Simons do a lot for our community. That isn't the same as giving someone special treatment under the LAW.

 

[HoughMade]

Nope. The basic tenant is fairness. Not simply money clinging to money. When the money flows to the poor, its labeled theft and wealth redistribution. Nobody bothers to note they then spend the money and businesses profit. They should work harder or starve. If its a billionaire making money on millionaires tossing a ball around, though, then its benefits to surrounding businesses and the like. And then the gall of pretending the playing field is even and you can just WORK HARDER to get into the 1%...eye roll time.

So we get back to it- rich people suck. Fairness? What is that? How is it defined? You have a problem with incentives even if they mean more revenue in taxes? Why? Because a rich guy may also benefit? Rich people suck.

If the incentives are revenue positive, I say do it. If not, then don't. But then again, I don't have a bias against people making money.

Studies should be done and take into account all effects and variables, so if the issue is with the accuracy of the predictions, that's valid, but shouldn't that be the issue? Shouldn't the decision be based upon what is, overall, best for the given municipality regardless of who makes money from the deal?

 

[Libertarian01]

...I am getting weary of recognizing that tax and regulatory laws are there to benefit large corporations.

I employ only 4 people. But small business owners in total employ more than large corporations do, yet we bear a relatively larger burden of regulatory law and don't get the tax favors...

You hit the nail right on the head!

There was an article about a year or so ago from the Wall Street Journal (IIRC) that said large corporations pay 36% LESS in taxes than smaller businesses. The reason is that they can exploit, and know, every single loophole that is out there. A small business owner in most instances cannot afford to have a legal and/or accounting department that can keep up with everything going on to exploit the loopholes so they lose out.

As an example my CPA friend was telling me he had a client come to him asking what he thought about her hiring a convicted felon who was trying to turn his life around. He asked her when she hired the guy and it was a few monthes over the time frame to qualify for several thousand dollars in tax breaks. The government is apparently trying to incentivize hiring former convicts so they don't go back to their olde job. However, there is a short window of opportunity to qualify. His client didn't make it. Not many small business owners would think to, nor should they, ask their accountant about every single decision that is made. So they lose out on benefits. Whereas a large corporation not only is aware of all the benefits it has the hubris to just ask for more.

As an example of this just last night on the news Parkview Health is asking the city of Fort Wayne for $1,000,000 from our legacy money to create new doctoral programs in occupational therapy. This is a joint venture with Trine University, Huntington University, and FWCS. This, from a company that in 2011 had $1.7 Billion in assets and $922 million in revenues. Link: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/2011_Parkview_Health_System_AFS.pdf

It is pathetic what we put up with regarding corporate welfare. Yet, everyone seems to think this is ONLY on the federal level. When done locally it's about bring in jobs and that somehow justifies everything. Or a sports team that costs the city money all the way around, but that's another story.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Alpo]

The Pistons play in Auburn Hills, not Detroit. The loser? Detroit.

Both "New York" football teams play in New Jersey. The "Dallas" Cowboys play in Arlington. The "L.A." Dodgers play in Anaheim. The Utah Jazz used to be in New Orleans. The Oklahoma City Thunder used to be the Seattle Supersonics.

Think it can't happen in Indy?

Maybe you don't care. However the businesses in and around the venue do. They pay taxes as do their employees.

You seem to be assuming that there is no circumstance where the team will move. Plenty of history says that's not true....including a midnight move by another franchise in 1984.

I don't know where the balancing point is. Maybe its not worth it, but maybe it is worth it, dollars and cents, to do this to keep the team in Indy.

But oh yeah....I forgot the basic tenet- rich people suck. They also pay an overwhelming amount of the taxes in any analysis.

The Dodgers don't play in Chavez Ravine? News to me.

 

[dusty88]

So we get back to it- rich people suck. Fairness? What is that? How is it defined?

Fairness is for babies and democrats.

However, equal treatment under the law is about justice and liberty. IOW, I don't want government to "level the playing field". Nor do I think they should pick and choose favorites.

I can prove my business makes tax revenue for the city and employs people. But as an individual, we don't have the power to buy politicians.

Large corporations can already benefit from the cost efficiencies of being large. I don't begrudge them that nor do I begrudge success. However, we should not support someone else's wealth with our tax dollars.

If you haven't noticed we have an increasing wealth and income gap in this country. Note I said "increasing". I don't mind that the wealth gap exists; I mind that such an INCREASE in the redistribution is the sign of a failing economy. Further screwing the city of Indianapolis in favor of 1 particular venue is not a just use of the tax system, nor is it economically efficient.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ah, Sports Socialism.

INGO, please stand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8EMx7Y16Vo

 

[RockofStrength]

.

 

[findingZzero]

Small business owners of America, UNIONIZE!! GET SOME CLOUT!!!!!

 

[Alpo]

Let's stop playing the wealth gap games with this stuff. Start pulling welfare for everyone.

No more tax gaps.
No more food stamps, SNAP, etc.
No more subsidies, max quotas, or other constraints on food crops (particularly corn)
No more unemployment benefits.
No more corporate pork tucked into the "Highway Spending and City Planning Bill That Isn't Important Except for All the Pork We Put in it"

You stand on your feet, rely on the charity and goodwill of others, or you don't make it. Period. Business, poor, rich, black, white, man, woman doesn't matter.

How about: No more long-term capital gains tax benefit. No property tax abatements. No private school vouchers. No PAC's.

I've got a much longer list, but let's start there.

 

[dusty88]

How about: No more long-term capital gains tax benefit. No property tax abatements. No private school vouchers. No PAC's.

I've got a much longer list, but let's start there.

Private school vouchers?

So the people who use private school should pay twice?

I'm with you in spirit by the way, just pointing out what I see as an inconsistency

Small business owners of America, UNIONIZE!! GET SOME CLOUT!!!!!

What? stop paying taxes and fees? Unfortunately most of the population would support the reality of us being hauled off to jail at the point of a gun, after we have our property confiscated.

What's happening instead is more people just throw in the towel and say it's not worth it.

 

[1911ly]

Sanders is appealing to people because he is, in my opinion, correct about the problems he identifies.

He is wrong about the solutions, as he pretends that legislation will fix them, rather than identifying that legislation has caused them.

I'm not really scared of a socialist anymore, though. We are spending and regulating ourselves into economic oblivion anyway. The sooner the government can't meet its obligations, the sooner we have to face reality. It doesn't matter much to me if it's next year or in 30 years. In fact, perhaps if it's sooner, we'll still have a few people left who know how to take care of themselves so "meh".

I am getting weary of recognizing that tax and regulatory laws are there to benefit large corporations.

I employ only 4 people. But small business owners in total employ more than large corporations do, yet we bear a relatively larger burden of regulatory law and don't get the tax favors. I just received a notice that because I am 8 years into sponsorship of a 401K plan, I must have a full legal review. This is in addition to the monthly deposits, the W2 reporting, and annual compliance testing. This legal review is expected to cost $800-$2K. A few hundred here, a few thousand there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money. I'm considering just ending the plan instead. It's unfortunate, because it's been a way to give tax-deferred profit sharing to the employees as well as matching.

In my 9 years in business, I have found regulations and fees increasing from every entity: city, state, and federal. Running my own business would be a pleasurable challenge without the government regulations.

Good, because under Socialism you'll never have to worry about your business growing or being ever being a millionaire. Unless you are party of the government and corrupt. The government regulations will keep you limited. Your employee's will be just as successful as you are! How awesome is that! BTW, didn't socialism fail in USSR? Isn't it not working out so well in China? Hence the changes they have made in the last 30 years towards capitalism? Aren't the capitalist country's some of the wealthiest countries? Oh, wait, wealth is evil. We don't want to be evil millionaires, my bad... carry on....

But then why would we want to try something that failed in less then 90 years in the USSR. When we have survived for 240 years with capitalism?

Socialist scare the sh"t out on me, and will do this country no good. JMHO though.

 

[dusty88]

Good, because under Socialism you'll never have to worry about your business growing or being ever being a millionaire. Unless you are party of the government and corrupt. The government regulations will keep you limited.

First I didn't say I wanted socialism. I said I'm not scared of a socialist president. I think our economy fits the fascist model, and that's just as bad.

Your employee's will be just as successful as you are! How awesome is that! BTW, didn't socialism fail in USSR?

that was communism. I'm not advocating socialism either but if we are going to point to specifics let's be somewhat accurate

Isn't it not working out so well in China? Hence the changes they have made in the last 30 years towards capitalism?

Hard to say how much they have changed.

I do know people with businesses in both the US and China that claim it's easier to start a business in China than it is in the US

Aren't the capitalist country's some of the wealthiest countries?

The US saw it's growth of wealth and growth of middle class when it was pretty much a capitalist, free-market country. I think now we are fascist, or more kindly the term "crony capitalism"

Are you suggesting that the original topic (a special benefit for the Pacers) fits within the model of capitalism?

But then why would we want to try something that failed in less then 90 years in the USSR. When we have survived for 240 years with capitalism?

Socialist scare the sh"t out on me, and will do this country no good. JMHO though.

As I said above, I don't advocate communism nor socialism. We however have long ago left the free market system. You can't do anything now that is not regulated. You can't start a business, put up a sign, sell your labor, flush your toilet, or buy a light bulb without regulation. You literally cannot even breathe without being regulated (thanks to ACA; by your very existence you are required to participate in health insurance).

And we are on a road to failure. By what economic name, by what political party, or by what president we get there matters little to me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So we get back to it- rich people suck. Fairness? What is that? How is it defined? You have a problem with incentives even if they mean more revenue in taxes? Why? Because a rich guy may also benefit? Rich people suck.

If the incentives are revenue positive, I say do it. If not, then don't. But then again, I don't have a bias against people making money.

Studies should be done and take into account all effects and variables, so if the issue is with the accuracy of the predictions, that's valid, but shouldn't that be the issue? Shouldn't the decision be based upon what is, overall, best for the given municipality regardless of who makes money from the deal?

Yeah. That's my argument. Rich people suck. You should be able to buy all the politicians you can afford and reap the benefits from that. If you can't afford a politician, work harder.

 

[Alpo]

Private school vouchers?

So the people who use private school should pay twice?

I'm with you in spirit by the way, just pointing out what I see as an inconsistency



What? stop paying taxes and fees? Unfortunately most of the population would support the reality of us being hauled off to jail at the point of a gun, after we have our property confiscated.

What's happening instead is more people just throw in the towel and say it's not worth it.

I sent my youngest boy through Regis high school and college. It was on my nickel. The idea of charter schools is fine. The actuality? A lot more mixed. I've got no kids in school these days. Granddaughter is about to start. I don't mind paying property taxes to finance the education of our youngsters. I wish we could do a better job though.

 

[findingZzero]

I sent my youngest boy through Regis high school and college. It was on my nickel. The idea of charter schools is fine. The actuality? A lot more mixed. I've got no kids in school these days. Granddaughter is about to start. I don't mind paying property taxes to finance the education of our youngsters. I wish we could do a better job though.

+3.

Best I can do...worth the same tho

 

[jbombelli]

First I didn't say I wanted socialism. I said I'm not scared of a socialist president. I think our economy fits the fascist model, and that's just as bad.


that was communism. I'm not advocating socialism either but if we are going to point to specifics let's be somewhat accurate


Hard to say how much they have changed.

I do know people with businesses in both the US and China that claim it's easier to start a business in China than it is in the US


The US saw it's growth of wealth and growth of middle class when it was pretty much a capitalist, free-market country. I think now we are fascist, or more kindly the term "crony capitalism"

Are you suggesting that the original topic (a special benefit for the Pacers) fits within the model of capitalism?



As I said above, I don't advocate communism nor socialism. We however have long ago left the free market system. You can't do anything now that is not regulated. You can't start a business, put up a sign, sell your labor, flush your toilet, or buy a light bulb without regulation. You literally cannot even breathe without being regulated (thanks to ACA; by your very existence you are required to participate in health insurance).

And we are on a road to failure. By what economic name, by what political party, or by what president we get there matters little to me.

What we have is not fascism. It's much more a classic European style mercantilism with a good dose of crony capitalism on top.