Jump to content

Proposed Senate Tax plan may end publicly funded stadiums


Heavy Kevi

Recommended Posts

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taxes-nfl/nfl-opposes-u-s-republican-tax-plan-on-stadium-funding-idUSKBN1D72PP

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/nfl-kneelers-lose-big-tax-subsidy-in-gop-tax-plan

http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/19622965/senators-introduce-bill-prohibit-teams-using-municipal-bonds-fund-stadiums

 

I provided a few links to tell each side of the story. Link 1 from NFL's perspective, link 2 from conservative perspective, and link 3 from July where a Dem and a GOPer supported killing the subsidy.

 

Basically blocks teams from using municipal bonds amd could be a death knell to the public funding of new stadiums.

 

About freakin time from my perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agre, about damn time. however, you know they will get their pound of flesh in the end, one way or another. if it passes be prepared to pay more for seating, jerseys and whatever the hell else they can think up to pad their pockets at your expense.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i agre, about damn time. however, you know they will get their pound of flesh in the end, one way or another. if it passes be prepared to pay more for seating, jerseys and whatever the hell else they can think up to pad their pockets at your expense.

"At your expense"?  Really?

 

You could always, you know, stop purchasing their product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

"At your expense"?  Really?

 

You could always, you know, stop purchasing their product.

so, if they wanted to begin charging you say, $100 aseat for the nosebleeds, you'd be okay with that i suppose.

 

more directly, sure i could but at what point is it acceptable to swallow whatever is shoveled at you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Foxx said:

so, if they wanted to begin charging you say, $100 aseat for the nosebleeds, you'd be okay with that i suppose.

 

more directly, sure i could but at what point is it acceptable to swallow whatever is shoveled at you?

 

cheering for the Bills has expanded that limit 2,000 light years beyond what a fan should have to endure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Foxx said:

so, if they wanted to begin charging you say, $100 aseat for the nosebleeds, you'd be okay with that i suppose.

 

more directly, sure i could but at what point is it acceptable to swallow whatever is shoveled at you?

The market determines the value of the product, and the owner of the product can't charge more than people are willing to pay, or they won't make money.  If I determined that I wanted to go to the event more than I wanted my $100, I would spend the money; if I determined the money was worth more to me then I wouldn't.  It's exactly that simple.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The market determines the value of the product, and the owner of the product can't charge more than people are willing to pay, or they won't make money.  If I determined that I wanted to go to the event more than I wanted my $100, I would spend the money; if I determined the money was worth more to me then I wouldn't.  It's exactly that simple.

 

 

okay, so  your talking me in circles then?

again, more directly, you didn't answer my question. would you pay $100 to sit in the nosebleeds? 

 

I don't know about you, but i pay more in taxes than i should. not that the Senate pulling any state funding of NFL stadiums would lower my tax burden in anyway, the state will just co-opt that money to fund whatever their next pet project happens to be.  

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

okay, so  your talking me in circles then?

again, more directly, you didn't answer my question. would you pay $100 to sit in the nosebleeds? 

 

I don't know about you, but i pay more in taxes than i should. not that the Senate pulling any state funding of NFL stadiums would lower my tax burden in anyway, the state will just co-opt that money to fund whatever their next pet project happens to be.  

I did answer your question in an even more complete way than you asked it, though I suppose it's possible you didn't realize I was speaking to my personal experiences, so I'll answer again:

 

It depends on the event.  I've shelled out $2400 for two tickets to see Van Morrison in a small local theater.  I've shelled out $450 for nosebleeds at Gillette Stadium to watch the Bills play.  Similarly, I've declined to purchase much cheaper tickets to see other events because I valued my money more than watching live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I did answer your question in an even more complete way than you asked it, though I suppose it's possible you didn't realize I was speaking to my personal experiences, so I'll answer again:

 

It depends on the event.  I've shelled out $2400 for two tickets to see Van Morrison in a small local theater.  I've shelled out $450 for nosebleeds at Gillette Stadium to watch the Bills play.  Similarly, I've declined to purchase much cheaper tickets to see other events because I valued my money more than watching live.

i think you are not inclined to see the full picture here.

 

all things being equal, going by this reply, one would have to assume that your 'choice' parameters would move to a point where the price would weigh more heavily into the equation.

 

i rest my case.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i think you are not inclined to see the full picture here.

 

all things being equal, going by this reply, one would have to assume that your 'choice' parameters would move to a point where the price would weigh more heavily into the equation.

 

i rest my case.

Your case is that at some point, constantly approaching infinity, I would be priced out of attending a live event?

 

bra-!@#$ing-vo

 

My point is that prices only increase to the point that someone is willing to pay them, and as long as a venue/franchise can sell tickets in the nosebleeds for $100, then those tickets are worth $100.  Maybe not to you, but they aren't your tickets to sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

correct. they are not my seats to sell. and in a way i will reap some form of benefit by my tax dollars no longer going to support a billionaire.

 

you are also correct that the law of supply and demand will dictate the pricing structure to the point the market will bear. it's all about choices. one could always decide to put less money into their 401k next year to plunk down higher seating arrangements or pay more for a jersey because a new 'stadium' tax has been imposed by the team to pay for the cost of the stadium.

 

i still contend that you are going to pay for that new stadium one way or another and chances are that you will be paying more than you are now. of course there is the thought that you might be paying less because you would be removing the government from the equation. to that i say that you are still going to be paying the government the same as before. they are never going to give you that money back so yes, you will be paying more.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...