(07-06-2023 10:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-06-2023 10:30 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(07-06-2023 09:09 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

(07-06-2023 11:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  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.

Actually, additional tax revenue was collected from Tennessee taxpayers compared to estimate and compared to the previous year. It is how a budget surplus occurs (along with expense control).

I agree the surplus has to go somewhere, but it does not have to be spent like you wrote (see above explanation).

The recognition that Tennessee taxpayers in a red state footed the bill for a project in a blue town underscores its legitimacy for promoting economic growth for the city and the state.

Collected vs. estimate is irrelevant. That can be any number.

Nobody taxed a resident any more than they would have been anyway, to pay for this.

Don't really understand how that is the case. Taxes were collected (how they make it to where only out of state guests pay these taxes in and not in-state seems like an arduous exercise).

The surplus part implies an amount over some estimate, regardless of the amount of that estimate.

At that point, there is a decision that can either be made before or after taxes are collected, to spend money on a stadium.

Saying that no additional taxes were collected to pay for the stadium would imply that the surplus was refunded. It wasn't. Sounds like it will be spent on a stadium. The timing of the decision point is irrelevant.

Full circle, it sounds like tax revenues are being used, and I find it hard to believe that Tenn residents were completely sheltered from paying those dollars.