http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../24845355/

Quote:If President Obama has his way, the nation's taxpayers would not help finance a new arena proposed for the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.

Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area's professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.

An obscure item in the president's new budget would put an end to the long-standing practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.

The proposal comes as many team owners are pressing cities and states for new facilities, with some threatening to move elsewhere if they don't get them. State and local officials are wary of seeing pro teams depart, taking prestige and tax revenue with them. But they are also taxpayer-minded and budget-conscious.

(03-27-2015 12:37 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../24845355/

Quote:If President Obama has his way, the nation's taxpayers would not help finance a new arena proposed for the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.

Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area's professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.

An obscure item in the president's new budget would put an end to the long-standing practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.

The proposal comes as many team owners are pressing cities and states for new facilities, with some threatening to move elsewhere if they don't get them. State and local officials are wary of seeing pro teams depart, taking prestige and tax revenue with them. But they are also taxpayer-minded and budget-conscious.

Finally! Something he has suggested in his 2nd term I liked. Actually, its the first thing I haven't hated.

In Atlanta they are getting taxpayer support to replace a 20 year old baseball field and 25 year old football stadium. In LA and NY, the owners and leagues are having to pay for it themselves. They don't need any other cities and so the other cities are paying to keep their teams.

(03-27-2015 12:37 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../24845355/

Quote:If President Obama has his way, the nation's taxpayers would not help finance a new arena proposed for the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.

Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area's professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.

An obscure item in the president's new budget would put an end to the long-standing practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.

The proposal comes as many team owners are pressing cities and states for new facilities, with some threatening to move elsewhere if they don't get them. State and local officials are wary of seeing pro teams depart, taking prestige and tax revenue with them. But they are also taxpayer-minded and budget-conscious.

I thought his budget got voted down like by the widest margin in the history of margins?

All this means is that the bonds won't be tax-free. They'll still issue bonds, surely. And they're always a safe investment.

But investors who buy the bonds should absolutely have to pay taxes on their gains. I guess I didn't realize they were tax-free in the first place. Figures that rich guys would scam the tax payers. Nothing new there.

(03-27-2015 01:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All this means is that the bonds won't be tax-free. They'll still issue bonds, surely. And they're always a safe investment.

But investors who buy the bonds should absolutely have to pay taxes on their gains. I guess I didn't realize they were tax-free in the first place. Figures that rich guys would scam the tax payers. Nothing new there.

Any bond offer by a government (city, county, state, fed) has pretty much always been tax free. It is an incentive so that the government can get money from the private sector because otherwise the same investors will invest in bonds that pay out a higher rate.

(03-27-2015 02:05 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Any bond offer by a government (city, county, state, fed) has pretty much always been tax free. It is an incentive so that the government can get money from the private sector because otherwise the same investors will invest in bonds that pay out a higher rate.

But the government bond is much lower (maybe the lowest) risk. That's a universally understood principle in investing, you get back more on higher risk.

If you don't want risk, you get low reward.

Obama ought to spend more time on terrorism and leave sports alone IMO.

(03-27-2015 03:00 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Obama ought to spend more time on terrorism and leave sports alone IMO.

Well this is taxpayer $ we're talking about, not regulation of the NCAA.

(03-27-2015 03:00 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Obama ought to spend more time on terrorism and leave sports alone IMO.

Obama just needs to leave, period!

I'm good with this.

Obama wants that money to go toward income redistribution.

$146 million on a $3 trillion plus budget? The feds waste more than that on staples.

We have bigger fish to fry in the US, but even as someone who doesn't like Obama this is something good.

Why do this? California has successfully thwarted taxpayer funded facilities for over 20 years. Citizens should elect better representatives if they object to this or recall the ones in office if they subvert the will of the people.

Knowing the quality of legislation coming out of Washington, this could easily get out of hand and prevent cities and counties from building stadiums for local schools and youth leagues.

Cities also know that sports can benefit their own tax revenues - the cities of Tuscaloosa and Northport funded one of Alabama's expansions of Bryant-Denny because they knew the extra 2-3 home games moved from Legion Field would generate large amounts of additional lodging tax and sales tax.

(03-28-2015 03:45 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Why do this? California has successfully thwarted taxpayer funded facilities for over 20 years. Citizens should elect better representatives if they object to this or recall the ones in office if they subvert the will of the people.

no doubt like the federal government needs to be involved with this

other areas have had the advantage of being able to do this so why stop areas now from being able to

the city of dallas proper and several other large suburbs said no to Jerry World Stajium and Arlington had a VOTE and said yes

you hit the nail on the head if people do not like the tax payer funded stajiums then vote people into office that will say no to them

and this is not about doing a favor to any area or helping the "little guy with no voice paying for rich owners stajiums" this is simply a tax increase just like trying to tax college savings accounts and many other back door federal tax increases

I understand but they play on the emotions of the masses. People get emotionally bonded to their teams and will think with their heart and not with their wallets or future welfare of where they live.

These stadiums should last at least 50 years, built with renovation in mind but at the rate we're going, I'll go back to my old joke about Bender asking for his monument to be destroyed immediately after it was built on Futurama because that's essentially what owners are asking for. It used to be 30-35 years now it's 15-20 years that owners want something brand new.

They prey on people's loyalties and threaten to move as leverage. If they want these palaces built, they should build them pretty much by themselves.

(03-28-2015 07:58 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I understand but they play on the emotions of the masses. People get emotionally bonded to their teams and will think with their heart and not with their wallets or future welfare of where they live.

These stadiums should last at least 50 years, built with renovation in mind but at the rate we're going, I'll go back to my old joke about Bender asking for his monument to be destroyed immediately after it was built on Futurama because that's essentially what owners are asking for. It used to be 30-35 years now it's 15-20 years that owners want something brand new.

They prey on people's loyalties and threaten to move as leverage. If they want these palaces built, they should build them pretty much by themselves.

Mayor Reed, who is not running for reelection did it in Atlanta despite overwhelming opposition according to opinion polls.

IMO, if a sports team can't fund its own stadium then well... you don't get one. Holding local governments hostage for publicly funding a non-public facility is garbage.

But as long as there are cities willing to build them or cities out to be used as leverage, like LA in the NFL, it'll keep happening.