(07-06-2023 12:32 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(07-06-2023 11:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-06-2023 07:59 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 05:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 05:37 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says it is impressive that memphis can use taxpayer dollars to improve a cfb stadium and still have lower taxes than nashville TN

You sound like a broken record.

The Liberty Bowl was built by the city to attract an NFL team. Had nothing to do with the University of Memphis. No structural changes until right now. And we have paid rent all these years. And given other revenue to the city.

Plus, the funding is coming from an unexpected state surplus from several variable revenue sources (from visitors, not from residents) that, if not spent here, would simply be spent elsewhere. Nobody to return surplus to. No taxes from Tennessee residents were collected to pay for this. Not a penny, afaik.

The $350,000,000 for "Memphis Tourism - Sports Facilities - Grant" was appropriated with state general fund dollars under PC 418, Section 1, Item 22(10.33) (also known as "Miscellaneous Appropriations"). General Fund revenue is sourced from a variety of funds (e.g., Sales and Use tax, F&E tax, etc). Therefore, Tennessee residents helped pay for the grant.

Also, it is inaccurate to state concerning the surplus "if not spent here, would simply be spent elsewhere". The Legislature and the Governor had options besides spending the money (e.g., greater tax reductions in addition to grocery sales tax holidays and building the Revenue Fluctuation Fund).

Finally, any money spent on the $350,000,000 grant represents an opportunity cost. In other words, the money could have been spent on something else, although IMO it is money well spent.

https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts...pc0418.pdf
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/financ...ntVol1.pdf
https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/sales-a...2C%202023.

The surplus that went into that general fund did not come from additional taxes on existing residents. So my bolded statement is correct.

I didn't say they HAD to spend it on something else. I said they WOULD spend it on something else. But my other point was, since it was generated by various visitor taxes, it wasn't going back to those people, for sure.

I agree, from an ROI standpoint, they likely made a relatively decent choice.

I disagree. "No taxes from Tennessee residents were collected to pay for this" means something different than "The surplus that went into that general fund did not come from additional taxes on existing residents."

The statement "if not spent here, would simply be spent elsewhere" is incorrect. Spend means "pay out (money) in buying or hiring goods or services." Reducing tax revenue is not paying out money. It is limiting the amount of revenue collected. The Revenue Fluctuation Fund (aka "Rainy Day Fund") is not paying out money in buying or hiring goods or services. It is a transfer of money from one fund to another. It is akin to a savings account to provide a cushion during bad times.

Finally, the surplus was derived from other sources and actions besides visitor taxes (e.g., sales tax). For example, F&E and Business taxes were $699.6 million and $73.9 million above estimates, respectively.

https://www.tn.gov/transparenttn/state-f...-fund.html
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/financ...ntVol1.pdf
https://www.tn.gov/finance/news/2023/6/2...enues.html

No additional taxes were collected from Tennessee taxpayers to pay for the projects where those surplus funds are directed. That's a true statement. You can parse it all you want.

And you know as well as I do that the surplus was going somewhere.