Panthers Get Big Tax Break

[Tbe]

19 minutes ago, joeyxfresco said:

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 

For context, a LOT of people in Charlotte have been fighting bad property valuations. I know several who have had their home values reduced significantly on appeal. 

[Happy Panther]

This is tax avoidance which is legal. I have a tax accountant and if she says I can legally reduce my taxes I do it. The notion that Tepper should just pay because he is rich is silly.

But we are talking about a couple million in tax revenue. Mecklenburg's budget is almost $2B. We aren't losing services. Your property tax rate would have to go up by 1/10th of a penny to make up for it.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

11 hours ago, Snake said:

Just because a company gets a tax break doesn't mean people starve. 

This is property tax which funds schools, which includes school lunch programs. So it's completely possible that this directly leads to children going hungry.

But hey, who cares about schools, right? Better that money goes into the pocket of a billionaire.

[R0CKnR0LLA]

5 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

This is tax avoidance which is legal. I have a tax accountant and if she says I can legally reduce my taxes I do it. The notion that Tepper should just pay because he is rich is silly.

But we are talking about a couple million in tax revenue. Mecklenburg's budget is almost $2B. We aren't losing services. Your property tax rate would have to go up by 1/10th of a penny to make up for it.

Nobody is saying it's illegal.

Right, only a couple million average people will have to pay so this billionaire gets more money, who cares lol

[Happy Panther]

11 minutes ago, R0CKnR0LLA said:

Nobody is saying it's illegal.

Right, only a couple million average people will have to pay so this billionaire gets more money, who cares lol

If you are middle class it probably adds $1 to your taxes. Any rage over this is faux rage.

[onmyown]

people clearly don’t understand the economics of infrastructure

tax breaks are an incentive for lucrative businesses and infrastructure cities who don’t offer them are in poor shape

 giving a tax break STILL results in tax income that wouldn’t otherwise be had. that is how it works.

whether they efficiently use these tax dollars and what for is a different topic 

 

[onmyown]

if a business wanted to come to your city and would pay 1m in taxes but want a tax break of 15% instead of what everyone else was paying say 25% you’re still getting 1m -15% vs. nothing. without incentive it’s unlikely the business would come to the city, it’s not a hard concept. look at states who can offer nothing vs. ones who do

if you have to argue tax breaks there are bigger things to look at. Religion for example...

[1of10Charnatives]

2 hours 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.

Nope. Sorry, do some research, economists are almost universally against public funds for private sports stadiums, especially football, because the ecomomic gains don’t come anywhere close to outweighing the tax breaks.

[4Corners]

7 hours ago, pantherj said:

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. It’s no different than republican politicians fighting to take away government funded health insurance From citizens, but making sure their asses are covered by tax supported health care. 

[UnluckyCharms]

Well this conversation is going about as well as I expected it to. Everyone here is a financial expert and their personal views on the subject are more valid than the people they're arguing with which is surely going to convince everyone else that they're right!

[45catfan]

12 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. It’s no different than republican politicians fighting to take away government funded health insurance From citizens, but making sure their asses are covered by tax supported health care. 

Or mandate health care for all (one size fits all) on people, then the politicians that did this opted out in favor of their existing heath plans.

[1of10Charnatives]

6 minutes ago, UnluckyCharms said:

Well this conversation is going about as well as I expected it to. Everyone here is a financial expert and their personal views on the subject are more valid than the people they're arguing with which is surely going to convince everyone else that they're right!

I am right about all things.

Arent you?

[1of10Charnatives]

52 minutes ago, onmyown said:

if a business wanted to come to your city and would pay 1m in taxes but want a tax break of 15% instead of what everyone else was paying say 25% you’re still getting 1m -15% vs. nothing. without incentive it’s unlikely the business would come to the city, it’s not a hard concept. look at states who can offer nothing vs. ones who do

if you have to argue tax breaks there are bigger things to look at. Religion for example...

If the city were still coming out ahead despite the tax breaks you wouldn’t hear anything from me but they’re not, and the experts pretty much all agree on that. Thus it isn’t the discount scenario you laid out, it’s more like for every 2 dollars you give them in tax breaks, you might get a dollar back in revenue that they are responsible for. Do some research into what economists say about public funding of private football stadiums.

Now if you wanna start talking about ending tax exemptions for religion I’m all ears. They always seem to want to tell their members how to vote but never wanna pay the admission price like the rest of us.

[pantherj]

11 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. It’s no different than republican politicians fighting to take away government funded health insurance From citizens, but making sure their asses are covered by tax supported health care. 

If you look at countries with a large white population, overwhelmingly white, like Sweden, or any such country, you will find they always have government funded health care. Always. Their politicians have no problem protecting their fellow citizens from the horrors of bankruptcy and financial ruin due to unplayable medical bills. Then you look at a country like America, which is a melting pot with extreme racial diversity, and you find white republican politicians who turn their nose up at the idea of government funded health care. It's painful and shameful to think about their motivations, but it removes the mystery of why people of color flock to the other party.