Sounds like a great deal if you can get it. Pit one state v the other. Profit.

Eh. If you want nice things you have to pay nice money. If one city won't help fund a stadium another one will. Cities do get a venue benefit out of it.

The key is this:

Quote:

---

The bonds, which are estimated to be around $2.4 billion, will be paid off with state sales and liquor tax revenues generated in a defined area around it.

---

And this:

Quote:

---

It will give Kansas City the opportunity to bid on events that we can't host right now, like the Super Bowl, the College Football Playoff and the NCAA Final Fours."

---

These things have a pretty well established ROI for the relevant businesses. I worked on North Gate back in the day, and it was pretty well acknowledged that a significant portion of bars in College Station would not operate in the black without game days.

You can ***** about it all you want, but you are being naive. These are investments, not handouts.

ETA: That being said, I think the fact that the McNairs are already trying to weasel their way into a new stadium is ridiculous. NRG is still a perfectly fine modern stadium.

Who is "we" white man? Both scenarios suck donkey nuts. If I had to pick one with a gun to my head, I'd choose the low income person if they are actually holding down a job and pass drug and alcohol testing. At least there is a true need being served. Sports teams and stadiums, at any level, are luxuries that should never be footed by tax payers. Who even gets to invest in those bonds anyway? Hint, it ain't you and I. We aren't part of that club.

"Nevermind if they would use the handout to invest in themselves."

They won't.

BTW, I completely oppose government funds being used for pro sports venues. The two scenarios are unrelated.

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

I've never understood public funding of stadiums that reverts to private ownership without a direct payback to the very people who funded it.

---

If you are an elected official of a city that "runs off" or "misses out on getting" a major sports team you have a high chance of losing your job next election.

I don't want government involved in either.

This is public funding, it's debt in the form of bonds. Who buys the bonds? Boomers 401k accounts.

The NEW tax revenue pays the debt back to the boomers who front the money.

Don't want projects like this? Quit buying the bonds

Public funding of stadiums for pro sports teams has always been a huge scam.

But when the owners threaten to move to another city to get public funding, it is a mob style tactic that should be crushed and the owners publicly humuliated.

Dan Scott said:

---

If government gives a handout to somebody low income, it's socialism. If they need money, they should cutback on expenses like Starbucks. Nevermind if they would use the handout to invest in themselves.


But if sibling owners who inherited their wealth and are worth $25B need 70% public support for their $3.3B project, it's approved unanimously. New stadium will seat fewer people but will increase the amount of luxury suites and overall franchise revenues said the owner. Paid for by sales taxes paid by the people being priced out of the stadium. They still intend it to be the loudest stadium in the league.

And of course government officials are touting the economic benefits that will come. All this tells me is that the government officials of the people, by the people, for the people, think the people are too stupid. And the people let them get away with it.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47391840/kansas-lawmakers-approve-proposal-help-chiefs-build-new-stadium

https://sports.yahoo.com/meet-25-billion-hunt-family-202410403.html

---

I agree with a lot of this except the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Stadiums and gymnasiums : At the expense of many, and entertainment of the few.
Lol, trickling down to High schools now.
I admire Green Bay and their fans who don't have to have heat and air to watch a game.
Just wondering now that college kids are paid to pay, if they should be taxed for their use of facilities. Universities are no longer exploiting them, they enter into contracts an need to lay their fair share of upkeep.

fixer said:

---

Public funding of stadiums for pro sports teams has always been a huge scam.

But when the owners threaten to move to another city to get public funding, it is a mob style tactic that should be crushed and the owners publicly humuliated.

---

Maybe that's when the "private" part should be annulled -- pay back the investment, THEN you can leave. In fact, reading above that the investment is not expected to slowly be paid back was a mild surprise, and certainly strengthens the case of those oppose to using municpal money that way.

Limit welfare corporate or other

Make government small enough, and none of this will be an issue.

The tax funded stadium is another scam by the rich, they get it funded do not have to maintain it and come back 20 years later saying they need a new one since local government didn't maintain it.

For those saying these are investments that are great for the community and a high ROI, do you also think the government is a great allocator of capital and spender of tax dollars?

This is corporate welfare no different than personal welfare and virtually all of it should be eliminated.

ETA. For this particular project, they are saying the taxes generated in a predefined area will be used to pay off the bonds. While true, that area already has a lot of retail and other development generating those sales taxes for the general coffers. These will now be essentially used to subsidize the Chiefs ownership, players and staff salaries.

The bonds are sold in public markets

Dan Scott said:

---

If government gives a handout to somebody low income, it's socialism. If they need money, they should cutback on expenses like Starbucks. Nevermind if they would use the handout to invest in themselves.


But if sibling owners who inherited their wealth and are worth $25B need 70% public support for their $3.3B project, it's approved unanimously. New stadium will seat fewer people but will increase the amount of luxury suites and overall franchise revenues said the owner. Paid for by sales taxes paid by the people being priced out of the stadium. They still intend it to be the loudest stadium in the league.

And of course government officials are touting the economic benefits that will come. All this tells me is that the government officials of the people, by the people, for the people, think the people are too stupid. And the people let them get away with it.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47391840/kansas-lawmakers-approve-proposal-help-chiefs-build-new-stadium

https://sports.yahoo.com/meet-25-billion-hunt-family-202410403.html

---

Yep, its socialism for Billionaires while the rest of us pick up the tab.

We have fake capitalism in the US. For Billionaires it is socialism. And we have brainwashed cultists justifying it with contorted arguments that they learned from the paid off radio show hosts.

If I cannot get a tax break, why should Kansas City Chiefs or Chicago Bears? The Bears are threatening to leave Chicago and the people are saying GTFO. Good for them.

Try this experiment.

1. Post: "I want to the Government to give me 100% tax break". You will find a lot of people telling you to GTFO from the US, or ask you who will pay for street lights and roads and some will call you a socialist.

2. Post: "I want the Government to give billionaire-owned sports teams tax breaks" and you will see the pseudo-capitalists finding reasons why this is a good idea like "it generates small business revenue" or "good for the image of the city" and "tax break given is a drop in the bucket" or a plain and simple "why the hell do you care what others do?".

Very educative.

infinity ag said:

---

We have fake capitalism in the US. For Billionaires it is socialism. And we have brainwashed cultists justifying it with contorted arguments that they learned from the paid off radio show hosts.

If I cannot get a tax break, why should Kansas City Chiefs or Chicago Bears? The Bears are threatening to leave Chicago and the people are saying GTFO. Good for them.

That is why I say tax the rich harder.

---

I explained to you in the other thread why raising income taxes does not work. But ending handout absolutely works.

See below from the last thread:

If we are talking about raising federal income taxes. Raising those does nothing to the UHNW people because they largely do not make their money that way. It decimates small business owners though. It also ossifies the class structure making it harder for HENRYs (high earner not rich yet) to make it to the UHNW category. My current struggle.

Then to compound the problem, the bottom half of taxpayers essentially pay zero net fed income taxes with the top 20% paying 87% of net income taxes. So those largely receiving entitlements, which is the bulk of federal spending, have zero incentive to fix this. In fact, they are incentivized to do the opposite.

So any plan to hit UHNW individuals would have to target carried interest, capital gains, and/or tax wealth.

I would not be in favor of taxing capital gains more and not wealth at all because then we are essentially full bore socialist at that point. So that leaves us is a tough spot.

The obvious solution is to gut entitlement spending. It is the one that makes the most sense, but because of the aforementioned proletariat problem is not politically viable.

The other plans that might work would be to limit politicians to a single term or limit suffrage to those that are net fed tax payers. Again, I don't see that as politically viable.

Which of the bolded above would you propose to target the ultra wealthy?

I'm pretty sure almost everybody on here got their higher education largely paid for by the government.

buda91 said:

---

I'm pretty sure almost everybody on here got their higher education largely paid for by the government.

---

When do I get my refund from the government for the $250K I paid Georgetown Law?

Quote:

---

ETA. For this particular project, they are saying the taxes generated in a predefined area will be used to pay off the bonds. While true, that area already has a lot of retail and other development generating those sales taxes for the general coffers. These will now be essentially used to subsidize the Chiefs ownership, players and staff salaries.

---

Well said. And most of the people shopping at The Legends, or Bucees (when it's finished) or staying at Great Wolf lodge will never set foot in that new stadium but still have to pay for it.

Your two examples have NOTHING to do with each other.

Re: public funding of stadiums, I'm OK with tax breaks, though not a fan of the actual public funding of stadiums. HOWEVER, in every instance it is the people, the others, who actually vote for it and the funding mechanisms for the repayment of the financing. It is not a government handout.

This is no different than large corporates getting tax breaks to build new campus / distribution center, etc. and issuing bonds purchased by the public to fun the construction.