Panthers Get Big Tax Break

[Nobody in Particular]

The government has a long history of not using tax dollars the way it was intended. I speak for myself, I don't trust them to use my taxes to accomplish good for the community, because they seem to be unaccountable. It's better for the individual to decide instead of using compulsory methods. Giving them a "blank check" , IMO, seems irresponsible.

[1of10Charnatives]

1 hour ago, Nobody in Particular said:

The government has a long history of not using tax dollars the way it was intended. I speak for myself, I don't trust them to use my taxes to accomplish good for the community, because they seem to be unaccountable. It's better for the individual to decide instead of using compulsory methods. Giving them a "blank check" , IMO, seems irresponsible.

Here's the thing:

Anyone who thinks the government is universally effective and efficient with their tax dollars is clearly divorced from reality and I agree that giving them a blank check is irresponsible. One of my favorite quotes is PJ Orourke's "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." But there is a flip side to that coin. Not everything the government does is bad, wasteful and inefficient, and for some things, even if they do it poorly, they are no realistic better alternatives, because those are the things government exists to do precisely because they need to be done but no one else will do them. Many regulatory functions fit into this category.  We all like to rail about government overregulation and it's absurdity, and it's a real thing, but if you think no one should regulate the quality of your air or water or food, talk to folks in China right now, especially those inside a quarantine or wearing masks on certain days because air pollution near industrial centers is so bad. Would you, as an individual, ever take it upon yourself to "do something" about pollution? If you did, what would you be able to accomplish on your own that would be preferable to laws and oversight limiting pollution of the environment?

I highly recommend reading Michael Lewis's The Fifth Risk. It shows how not everyone in government is doing things that are wasteful and inefficient, it's just that the people doing things that greatly benefit us don't self promote what they're doing and aren't there to self promote.

You are right that one of the core problems with government is very often a lack of accountability, that's a very real thing. But that largely traces back to a voting age public in a republic that abdicates their responsibility to be involved and informed. Almost anyone left unsupervised long enough winds up being less than diligent and efficient, it's just human nature. When was the last time we had an election that was decided in this country on real substantial meaningful debate of issues rather than on fluff, mudslinging and name calling, or other meaningless factors like whether you'd want to get a beer with the candidate? Our elected officials are supposed to be the people we choose to supervise government and government employees for us, but the way in which we choose them has grown to have little bearing or emphasis on these things.

[4Corners]

8 hours ago, Snake said:

Cry me a river libtard. Just because a company gets a tax break doesn't mean people starve. 

Wow. Really towing the company line here aren’t you? I bet you want Jeff Bezos to be taxed like crazy!

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

3 hours ago, Nobody in Particular said:

Properly cropping images is wrong

[Snake]

3 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

No, but it definitely means that one of three things happen:

Either you and I pay more taxes to cover the difference, the government cuts services elsewhere to make up the difference, or short term the government borrows money, most likely through municipal bonds to cover the difference and the shortfall can gets kicked down the road with interest.

Calling someone a libtard also doesn’t mean the thing they pointed out goes away. Also Snake, before you call someone else a libtard, you should consider this: supporting tax breaks for some businesses but not others, which is what you’re doing when you support a sports team’s property being taxed differently than everyone else’s, that is the government favoring one private business over another.

There’s a term for that practice, it’s called socialism. The socialist in this case is not the person against the tax break, it’s the person for it.

It doesn't mean any of those things. Just because a team gets a tax break doesn't mean the children starve. Yes the city Council will lose some of their private jet flights and 1k work luches but that's about it. You actually act as if these people are spending money responsibly. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, Snake said:

It doesn't mean any of those things. Just because a team gets a tax break doesn't mean the children starve. Yes the city Council will lose some of their private jet flights and 1k work luches but that's about it. You actually act as if these people are spending money responsibly. 

...

Nowhere did I assert that children will starve but you responded as if I did, that’s unfair and disingenuous. You didn’t respond to things I actually said but just repeated stuff you said earlier as if it addresses the points I made. It does not.

See my post in response to Nobody in Particular about government spending. Or just continue to rehash your own statements in ways that give little evidence you’ve actually considered what I wrote.

[Snake]

4 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

...

Nowhere did I assert that children will starve but you responded as if I did, that’s unfair and disingenuous. You didn’t respond to things I actually said but just repeated stuff you said earlier as if it addresses the points I made. It does not.

See my post in response to Nobody in Particular about government spending. Or just continue to rehash your own statements in ways that give little evidence you’ve actually considered what I wrote.

We don't know what the money is spent on so it's moot. Still getting upset because Tepper is looking out for his business is ridiculous. Also thinking this doesn't help keep down ticket prices is also ridiculous. So long as the team is turning a profit Tepper could care less. He's the richest owner in the NFL. He's not being greedy. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, Snake said:

We don't know what the money is spent on so it's moot. Still getting upset because Tepper is looking out for his business is ridiculous. Also thinking this doesn't help keep down ticket prices is also ridiculous. So long as the team is turning a profit Tepper could care less. He's the richest owner in the NFL. He's not being greedy. 

We do know what the money is spent on because local government budgets by law are public record.  I personally am not upset because Tepper is looking out for his business, I would expect any business owner to do the same, but when the you use an exact opposite set of arguments about the state of your stadium when seeking public funds for renovation that you use when seeking to lower your tax obligation with an absurdly low estimate of its value, don’t expect me to smile nod and agree while you piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Also, why exactly does a man worth 11 billion dollars particularly need a giant tax break the rest of us would never get on our houses? If Tepper isn’t  being greedy and my impression is he seems better in some ways than most NFL owners, then he doesn’t need special treatment, but NFL teams routinely and repeatedly demand and get special treatment that amounts to socialism.

By the way, wasteful government spending is a separate issue from fair and equitable tax policy, so let’s not muddy the waters by conflating the two. I’m all for eliminating government waste. What I’m not in favor of is subsidies to already highly profitable private businesses that don’t need them but get away with it because they have perfected using the prisoners dilemma to put the screws to local government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[stirs]

What bothers me is the gap.

If mine comes in at 487k for instance, and I want it reviewed, they are not going to bring it down to 87k for sure.  I might get it down to 457 or something.

What does it day about the taxing authorities that they have swings that wide?

 

[45catfan]

Government at all levels is horrible properly using tax revenue as they should.  Heck, we just "celebrated" the centennial anniversary of the federal income tax.  For those thinking this has been around since the inception of the nation, nope, it's actually pretty new.  Think about it, only the government can say, "if you work...you owe a portion of that wage" and "if you own property, we are going to tax you" on that too.

Bottom line, if governments were like a successful business, they would be able to function on less instead of always needing more.  I think everyone understands that taxes are a necessary evil to help with certain services an infrastructures.  However, it would extremely helpful for governments to tighten their purse strings as much as possible, whenever possible.  Nah, it's one big, endless, gravy train that they just earmark to death.   Money gets tight one year?  Well, it's time to adjust those property values!

[stirs]

So, if there is a gap in revenue, do the normal Joe's all around Charlotte make up for the shortfall?  This instead of ticket prices going up?  Fair?

Seems like ticket prices should go up rather than everyones taxes. 

And I don't live anywhere close to Charlotte, just throwing gas on the fire

[TheMaulClaw]

5 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

No, but it definitely means that one of three things happen:

Either you and I pay more taxes to cover the difference, the government cuts services elsewhere to make up the difference, or short term the government borrows money, most likely through municipal bonds to cover the difference and the shortfall can gets kicked down the road with interest.

Calling someone a libtard also doesn’t mean the thing they pointed out goes away. Also Snake, before you call someone else a libtard, you should consider this: supporting tax breaks for some businesses but not others, which is what you’re doing when you support a sports team’s property being taxed differently than everyone else’s, that is the government favoring one private business over another.

There’s a term for that practice, it’s called socialism. The socialist in this case is not the person against the tax break, it’s the person for it.

You have to ask yourself if the city ultimately gains financially from having an NFL team. I think they definitely do. I think they see an increase in tax revenue by having the Panthers. More then what the tax break would quantify. If that's the case which it likely is...you cant get mad at a tax break.

[45catfan]

6 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

You have to ask yourself if the city ultimately gains financially from having an NFL team. I think they definitely do. I think they see an increase in tax revenue by having the Panthers. More then what the tax break would quantify. If that's the case which it likely is...you cant get mad at a tax break.

Does anyone think the city did this after blinking on the new facilities in Rock Hill and hoping Tepper will pump the breaks on this new stadium idea, at least for a while?

[joeyxfresco]

Don’t live in Charlotte or ever have but that’s rough for people in the city. The everyday guy is gonna have to pick up the slack for it