Why the federal government should stop spending billions on private sports stadiums

Comment #9

konane — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:01:09 GMT

Thanks Mike. Were it just me internet is all I'd have. I'd cut cable & not have a second thought about doing it.

Comment #8

mikeintexas — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:48:45 GMT

I have always said they need a tamper proof box that allows the cable company to program only the channels you want, the "ala carte" option. Cable IS a public utility, after all, and there's precedent for setting a limit that they can charge for each channel just as electric and gas prices are regulated. For instance, if WGN charges the cable company.50 cents per subscriber, then the cable company can charge .75 cents, a 50% markup, seems plenty reasonable enough. (just an example, I us... [ More ]

Comment #7

konane — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:34:31 GMT

Thanks Eddessa. Excellent point!

Comment #6

eddessaknight — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:32:42 GMT

EXTRA - EXTRA: How bouts all free, overindulgent & fawning TV air & print coverage

Comment #5

konane — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:12:42 GMT

Yep notepad doesn't do grammar or spell checks but still very useful anyway.

Comment #4

mikeintexas — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:25:21 GMT

I should have used Notepad for my post, I seem to proofread it better.

Comment #3

mikeintexas — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:23:18 GMT

Of course, NFL owners are holding their cities hostage w/ threats to move and in at least one case in San Diego which called the Chargers' bluff, we'll see who stands to lose by not giving in. Cities are also falling over themselves to "bribe" teams to relocate, no different than economic development entities that many towns have created. (even my own small town, which has taken a bath on some of the deals they gave, some loans that were never paid back) I think this downtur... [ More ]

Comment #2

konane — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:23:07 GMT

I use notepad all the time to eliminate formatting prior to posting.

Comment #1

mikeintexas — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:43:52 GMT

Maybe if the stipulation were made that only bonds for sports venues were taxable, then I can understand that, but I doubt that would hold up in court and besides that, mun. bonds are also issued for "works for the public good", such as repairs to infrastructure, etc. A good case could be made that a sports stadium IS for the public good, in that it brings economic benefit to the local economy. I also object to a tax break being labeled as a "subsidy". A subsidy is "a sum of m... [ More ]

Original Blog Entry: Why the federal government should stop spending billions on private sports stadiums

konane — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:20:34 GMT

Why the federal government should stop spending billions on private sports stadiums

Source: Brookings

When the New York Yankees completed the new Yankee Stadium in 2009, the final construction bill was an estimated $2.5 billion. Of that, nearly $1.7 billion was financed by tax-exempt municipal bonds issued by the city of New York.

Because the interest earned on the municipal bonds is exempt from federal taxes, a large amount of tax revenue that would have been collected had the bonds been issued as taxable went toward the construction of the stadium. In other words, the Yankees received a federal subsidy to build their stadium. How much? About $431 million. That s a lot of money, but it gets worse.

The loss in federal tax revenues was even higher than the subsidy to the stadium. High-income taxpayers holding the bonds receive a windfall tax break, resulting in an even greater loss of revenue to the federal government. In the case of Yankee Stadium, the additional loss was $61 million. That is, the federal government subsidized the construction of Yankee Stadium to the tune of $431 million federal taxpayer dollars, and high-income bond holders received an additional $61 million.

The Yankees, of course, aren t the only team to finance their stadium using tax-exempt municipal bonds. Since 2000, 35 other professional sports stadiums have also been financed with tax-exempt bonds.

In Tax-exempt municipal bonds and the financing of professional sports stadiums, Brookings Senior Fellow Ted Gayer, Austin J. Drukker, and Alexander K. Gold quantify the federal subsidies given to finance professional sports stadiums built or majorly renovated since 2000, and the total loss in federal tax revenue.

All together, the federal government has subsidized newly constructed or majorly renovated professional sports stadiums to the tune of $3.2 billion federal taxpayer dollars since 2000. But because high-income bond holders receive a windfall gain for holding municipal bonds, the resulting loss in total revenue to the federal government is even larger at $3.7 billion. ....

https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-should-stop-spending-billions-on-private-sports-stadiums/

... [ More ]