Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The NFL - Welfare Queens?


Delhommey

Recommended Posts

The state collects money based on the 8 game played here every year. Lets say each team paid out $125 million in salaries (the cap is different then actual salary but for poops and giggles lets run with it) with 2 teams yes you have to pay where you play that is $250M x 7,75% income tax rate is $19m per year...in 2012 total income tax in NC was $10B

 

They account for .02% of the yearly income tax in the state.

 

So if the city/state lend the team 100 mil over a 5 year period it basically pays for itself with the income tax the players pay alone, then you add in sales tax collected on food/beverages/merchandise etc... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about the players and coaches, it's about billionare owners who not only refuse to pay the appropriate taxes on their franchises but have the audacity to TAKE money from their respective cities and states.

 

Well, regardless of my own personal finances if I was responsible for 600 million every year in revenue to the city/state I wouldn't feel so bad about asking for 150 million of it back to enhance my stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the city/state lend the team 100 mil over a 5 year period it basically pays for itself with the income tax the players pay alone, then you add in sales tax collected on food/beverages/merchandise etc...

IMO That doen't excuse the fact that a multi billion dollar league refuses to pay taxes that would dramatically improve the city.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to have some civil discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic it seems that you're saying "the more money a business makes the less they should be taxed.

 

The revenue I'm talking about is the revenue received by the city/state as the result of my product on a yearly basis, so from the states perspective a 600 mil dollar yearly return on a one-time 150 mil dollar investment isn't a bad deal, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The revenue I'm talking about is the revenue received by the city/state as the result of my product on a yearly basis, so from the states perspective a 600 mil dollar yearly return on a one-time 150 mil dollar investment isn't a bad deal, right?

You're right, that's an insane return. But surely you can understand my frustration at the uber wealthy claiming nonprofit status in a business that is one of the most profitable in the country.

Outside of the banking industry of course.

Considering the needs we have in road maintenance, school supplies (including text books), police departments (most of which cannot afford cold case detectives anymore) and much needed tax relief on the middle and lower classes, I don't think it would hurt for the obscenely wealthy to pitch in a little more.

Kind of like after the New Deal when we had a large thriving middle class and low poverty rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/01/31/why-no-smart-city-would-want-the-nfl

 

With schools crumbling and roads and bridges falling apart, is this really what we want to shovel our tax dollars into? And why should we in the first place, when they're making record profits?

 

Umm, the Top 1% in America is a welfare queen. Ask the Walton family, richest family in the world, how much money food stamps and section 8 allow them to exploit from their employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's extremely well established Economics that sports teams and expensive stadiums are a sizable net loss for cities. You're basically spending a dollar to make 20 cents.

The Olympics are the worst, of course, but regular sports teams are bad too.

Link to study please.

Not about the Olympics. That I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's extremely well established Economics that sports teams and expensive stadiums are a sizable net loss for cities. You're basically spending a dollar to make 20 cents.

 

The Olympics are the worst, of course, but regular sports teams are bad too.

 

we don't see much eye to eye but i'm totally with you on this.

 

i have railed for years at this and posted i don't know how many white papers about the misnomer of the revenue pro sports teams brings.

 

i suggested many spend lots of time at this site.

 

http://thesportseconomist.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to study please.

Not about the Olympics. That I have seen.

 

Atlanta may be the rare exception of a boost from the Olympics but it's a Chamber of Commerce kind of thing. Window dressing to puff out your chest at the next National Mayor's convention.

 

check out the link i just posted. search olympic impact.

 

i have gone to this guys site for years and he is almost always an expert witness in anti trust issues or when a economic impact study is done and he is THAT guy to blow it all up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of my own personal finances if I was responsible for 600 million every year in revenue to the city/state I wouldn't feel so bad about asking for 150 million of it back to enhance my stadium. 

 

Unless i can read this study and actually look at the indirect revenue they are claiming I am not going to believe it. Sorry I build business cases everyday and use numbers to make it look like my poo pays for itself yesterday. It's like me funding a study to prove how awesome I am. Guess what...I am

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd guesstimate 6-7 million with the proposed stadium improvements.

Without those improvements? 6-7 million.

 

Now go include the other teams taxes as well. It makes it a no brainer....raise our taxes to give a billionaire money to renovate his business. Not bring a new one into town...but renovate. Mind you this business has increased in value from $206 million to 1.25 Billion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • i wouldn't say that yet. I also wouldn't say he's done anything that makes me think he's particularly good. i think that's about right for compensation both ways for thielen considering the state of the vikings and Panthers.  The weirdest thing is that technically the panthers should be adding veteran salary cap right now; they have a high cost first overall qb on a rookie contract; that's the best advantage in the NFL in this day and age. It hasn't worked out because, well, the qb they drafted isn't good and they've ignored other parts of the team to try to bolster him.  so what's morgan really supposed to do? Are they tanking with a rookie qb in year three that the owner probably personally wanted drafted? Are they actually trying to win games this year with 80 career catches between their top three receivers? The defense is probably going to be terrible. What kind of jump are people actually expecting from Coker, Bryce, XL, and performance from a rookie to overcome that? It's not realistic.  At the end of the day I don't think Thielen wanted to end his career here and I don't blame him. Minnesota is going to compete this year and Carolina isn't. I also think this is to toss Bryce to the wolves and be done with him one way or another. There's no way this works. This is not a move you make if you're trying to win football games. 
    • If he helps them win a super bowl the individual award is irrelevant.
    • Love the way Duke came out and dominated Elon in the second half. Did not love the way they played at all in the first half. Got a lot of missed tackles on film for this week and the next game's not gonna be easy at all.
×
×
  • Create New...