Same crap, different year.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/88262.html

 

FLORIDA MARLINS

New ballpark bill likely to strike out

State senators predicted a quick death for the Florida Marlins baseball stadium bill just moments after it passed out of the House.

BY YUDY PINEIRO

ypineiro@MiamiHerald.com

Related Content

Special section | Legislature 2007

Blog | Naked Politics

 

TALLAHASSEE -- Will the Senate take up the measure passed Thursday in the House that would help build a stadium for the Marlins?

 

Probably not, senators say.

 

''It won't be heard,'' said Sen. Dan Webster, the Winter Garden Republican who controls whether the bill comes up for a vote in his chamber.

 

The bill, which would give the team a $60 million tax subsidy at the rate of $2 million a year for 30 years, passed the House on an 86-24 vote.

 

The Senate is considering a different bill that would give the Marlins and two other professional sports teams a one-time payment of $32.6 million. That bill appears dead, having failed to make it out of committee.

 

Neither side is budging as the session nears its May 4 end.

 

Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami want the $60 million tax subsidy to build the team a $490 million, publicly owned stadium.

 

Critics in the House called the plan a slipshod investment.

 

''We have so many unmet needs in our state,'' said Mary Brandenburg, a West Palm Beach Democrat.

 

''This is a luxury we can't afford,'' she said.

 

Proponents argue that a new stadium would add $7 million a year to state coffers, fuel nearby development and keep the Marlins in Florida.

 

''Confusing this issue is a sin,'' said state Rep. Luis Garcia, a Miami Beach Democrat. ``Sometimes it takes money to make money.''

 

Miami-Dade representatives say the burden is now on senators to bring home the ballpark money.

 

Two key Dade senators have flip-flopped on the issue.

 

Rudy Garcia of Hialeah and Alex Diaz de la Portilla of Miami started off with almost identical bills that applied the $60 million tax subsidy and since have swapped positions.

 

Garcia, a Hialeah Republican, has sided with the dying proposition to divide $100 million among the Marlins, Orlando Magic and Tampa Bay Lightning.

 

Diaz de la Portilla said that in a year the state is struggling to find money for its most vulnerable citizens, such as the disabled, the feud over the Marlins bill is ``not important.''

 

Like Webster, Diaz de la Portilla predicted the Marlins bill is ``dead.''

 

The South Florida delagation, specifically Diaz de la Portilla and Garcia, should be ashamed of themselves. How can they not even fight for this to be heard when it has the support of the city of Miami and Miami-Dade County?

 

That said, there is still a week to go and I doubt we've heard the last of this. I believe that last year at this time, or even later in the session, Tom Lee was pronouncing the Marlins bill dead in the Senate and it ended up passing there. It's the same rhetoric every year and i'm tired of it.

I still count the votes being there. Hopefully some strings can be pulled and we see a vote on the floor.

 

I'm tired of this "half the chamber" is against crap. You f***ers voted it in last year at the last minute. Put it on the floor and vote.

 

Let us, the Florida electorate, get your names and positions.

 

BTW, this Herald article is not very good. Bradenburg is in the House, not the Senate.

 

The Sun-Sentinel also reports:

"There still is about half the chamber against this issue," Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said. "It's an uphill battle, no matter what."

 

Sun-Sentinel has no mention of it being "dead"

Wasn't there an article saying it was dead in the house, too?

Fat chance for Marlins, Geller says

Just as a bill to help finance a stadium for the Florida Marlins made it out of the House on an 86-24 vote on Thursday, senators just down the hall predicted it's death.

 

Those who control whether or not the Marlins bill gets heard on the Senate floor - Steve Geller, the Democratic Leader from Hallandale Beach, and Dan Webster, a Winter Garden Republican - said they don't plan to agenda the bill once it gets to them.

 

Of course, that can change. In the end, the cards lie with House Speaker Marco Rubio and Senate President Ken Pruitt. How bad does Rubio want it? What does Pruitt want in exchange?

 

State Rep. Carlos Lopez Cantera, the Miami Republican who sponsored the House bill, said it's clear what Rubio wants because the bill is on its way to the Senate. "The Senate has to do the job."

 

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpoliti...hance_for_.html

 

Why is it only Piniero from the Herald that has such somber news? No other writer has heard these comments and reported them to us.

This is so pathetic.

 

THEY ARENT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM ANYWHERE! Crap, its not like Loria is standing outside of a retirement home with a big bag with a $ on it.

 

The fact that they wont even let it be heard, as of right now, is something I like to a stubborn 4 year old who doesnt want to share his toy.

 

You have to spend $ to make $, thats great, but when you are spending nothing and making a ton, with just a share of your profits kept by the business, then you come out ahead.

 

Why cant these imbeciles realize that?

The Senate wants something from House Speaker Rubio. Good thing is the session ends one week from today. They can at least try to negotiate.

I hate this. Just give us a stadium and we will shut up.

THEY ARENT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM ANYWHERE! Crap, its not like Loria is standing outside of a retirement home with a big bag with a $ on it.

 

I can't be the only one that can easily picture this.

This is so pathetic.

 

THEY ARENT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM ANYWHERE! Crap, its not like Loria is standing outside of a retirement home with a big bag with a $ on it.

 

The fact that they wont even let it be heard, as of right now, is something I like to a stubborn 4 year old who doesnt want to share his toy.

 

You have to spend $ to make $, thats great, but when you are spending nothing and making a ton, with just a share of your profits kept by the business, then you come out ahead.

 

Why cant these imbeciles realize that?

 

The argument is not that simple. Look, I want this rebate to pass, but I also see merit in the other side's argument. Here's the rational argument against the rebate:

 

While proponents argue that the stadium may generate $9M in sales tax revenue, of which $7M would remain with the state, that would be beneficial if seen in a vacuum. However, the projected $9M in sales tax revenue would be produced whether a stadium is built or not because the argument is that those $9M in sales tax revenue would be raised anyway either at the mall, in movie theatres, at restaurants, etc. That's where the "discretionary income" argument comes in.

 

To personalize this, it's now May 23, 2015 and I decided to take my son (who'll be 12 by then) to a Marlins-Cubs game at Bacardi Field. We pay $16.00 for two hot dogs (let's assume that's "cheap" for 2015), $12.00 for two sodas, and $10.00 for two pretzels. Our seats were $20.00 each, so that's $40.00. We don't drive to the park, so we don't pay for parking. We also don't buy any souveniers. Therefore, on May 23, 2015, I spent $78.00 at the park, with $5.46 going towards sales tax. The proponent would say, "Look the stadium generated $5.46 from those two customers!" However, we can fast forward to May 23, 2015 and there is no "Bacardi Park." The Marlins are now known as the San Antonio Missions and on that night I take my son to the movies to see "Tomorrow Is A Diamond Forever" (the latest James Bond movie). Well, I spend the same amount for food and drinks at the movie theatre (geez, maybe even more!), and my movie tickets will probably cost about $12.00 each, so the amount of tax money generated is roughly equal. My money went to Muvico instead of the Marlins, but the state gets the same tax revenue, except there is no rebate to Muvico.

 

Now you see what the opponents mean. It's not as if people have set aside a "budget line item" for Marlins tickets and Marlins spending. If I don't use my money at a Marlins game, I'll use it somewhere else. Meaning, there is no new income stream. That's all.

 

The best argument to make is that the rebate is actually being paid by the folks that are using the facility, therefore, the tax burden is on those using it and not those that are not using it. That's all.

What about events like the all-star game, the post-season, and the World Baseball Classic? Wouldn't those generate income that wouldn't exist if the Marlins were in San Antonio?

 

Plus, I think you're dead wrong about spending the money elsewhere. Many of the people that go to a baseball game during the week don't go out to the movies during the week. Your argument makes sense for the weekend crowd, but not the weekday crowd.

 

And even in your own example you spent more at the baseball game.

 

I know about myself: I spend a lot more money on weekends the Marlins are in town than when they're not. I just don't spend that kind of money on other things. And I know a lot of people like that.

And even in your own example you spent more at the baseball game.

 

But the net impact to the state would be the same, because if I don't go to the game, they get 100% of my sales tax, whereas if I go to the game, they get a pro rated percentage.

 

As far as the weekday crowd, I go out to eat on a weekday as often as I could go out to eat on a weekend. My point is, if you don't spend your money at the ballpark, you'll probably spend it elsewhere because very few, if any, people have "dedicated Marlins funds" that would go unspent if the Marlins leave town.

 

As for having an All-Star Game or World Baseball Classic, the frequency of such an event is so minimal as to be negligible. It's not as if other conventions or events won't come to South Florida without a new ballpark.

 

Look, my point is that saying that all this money won't be generated without a new park is not the best argument because it is easily countered with the fact that the money will be generated somewhere else (and by that "somewhere else" won't have to be refunded back).

 

As I said, I want this thing to pass, but making the "money generated" argument the top one isn't such a good strategy. I think the best one is that those that spend there are paying for it is the best way to diffuse the ignorant masses that cry about using tax dollars.

What about events like the all-star game, the post-season, and the World Baseball Classic? Wouldn't those generate income that wouldn't exist if the Marlins were in San Antonio?

 

Plus, I think you're dead wrong about spending the money elsewhere. Many of the people that go to a baseball game during the week don't go out to the movies during the week. Your argument makes sense for the weekend crowd, but not the weekday crowd.

 

And even in your own example you spent more at the baseball game.

 

I know about myself: I spend a lot more money on weekends the Marlins are in town than when they're not. I just don't spend that kind of money on other things. And I know a lot of people like that.

 

Sure, that's an argument to make. It's not easy to prove though. Maybe they go out to dinner. Maybe they get season tickets for minor league hockey.

 

Plus we're not talking about a single night when the Marlins might or might not be playing, we're saying if the Marlins weren't here at all anymore, would there be other things that got your dollars for entertainment instead? I know it would for me because I budget a certain % of my money to go for entertainment, dining out, whatever. If I spent $1000 on season tickets and the team moved, that's money I'd spend somewhere else.

 

Your point about the All-Star Game/World Classic is true though.

 

Watching these bills flounder in the State the past few years is like a broken record and it gets really depressing.

But the net impact to the state would be the same, because if I don't go to the game, they get 100% of my sales tax, whereas if I go to the game, they get a pro rated percentage.

 

 

That wouldn't be true in my case. There aren't anywhere enough good movies or other readily accessible events down here to replace the $3,000 - $4,000 we spend a year at the stadium. That would all be applied to vacation, and not one dime will help the FL economy or its sales taxes.

What about events like the all-star game, the post-season, and the World Baseball Classic? Wouldn't those generate income that wouldn't exist if the Marlins were in San Antonio?

 

Plus, I think you're dead wrong about spending the money elsewhere. Many of the people that go to a baseball game during the week don't go out to the movies during the week. Your argument makes sense for the weekend crowd, but not the weekday crowd.

 

And even in your own example you spent more at the baseball game.

 

I know about myself: I spend a lot more money on weekends the Marlins are in town than when they're not. I just don't spend that kind of money on other things. And I know a lot of people like that.

Most economists say you're the one that's dead wrong but we've been through this before. You don't understand the concepts of substitution and leakage.

 

There are many reasons to approve the $30 milllion rebate and I want the stadium as much as anyone but to make the case based on economics is ridiculous.

I agree with prinmeto and MarlinAddict. These arguments are the same ones used in DC to try to kill that stadium and they're bogus in my opinion. The fact is, most people see every movie they want to see ALREADY. The Marlins is an ADDITIONAL night out, not a replacement for a movie. Additionally, the argument for restaurants being a replacement for the Marlins is completely bogus because so many people will do dinner AND a Marlins game if the stadium is downtown. You're getting 2 nights out worth of sales taxes in one night.

 

Most economists say you're the one that's dead wrong but we've been through this before. You don't understand the concepts of substitution and leakage.

There are many reasons to approve the $30 milllion rebate and I want the stadium as much as anyone but to make the case based on economics is ridiculous.

Most economists are also right-wingers who oppose government subsidies of ANYTHING. They are so biased politically it's a joke and can't be seen as independent observers.

 

If these economists would simply get out of their shell and enter the real world, they'd know the average American does not go out every night. Baseball gives people something additional to do. It's not complicated, it just doesn't fit their political leanings.

SoFlaFish, I have to make this quick this morning but there two, maybe three parts of the argument left out (knowing of course you are just playing devil's advocate).

 

One is the argument the Marlins are still here. Two, it ignores that by spending the money at the ballpark it puts it insomeone else's pocket who then starts their own chain of spending. Simply, you spend it the ballpark. They pay their vendors and employees etc., and THEY spend it at the movies, so there's another level of tax collection added. What entities like this do is add to the compounding of money and the more times each dollar changes hands it creates a potentially taxable event. You to the stadium to their employees, to the movies is two taxable events, you to the movies is one taxable event. And lastly, even though you want to minimize it the effect of a world series or ASG is huge, not to mention the $$$ created by all the PR for a tourist market.

 

And I haven't even gotten to the flat line payment schedule vs the revenue collected exploding because of inflation.

 

There's lots to this and in the end the only way to make an argument against is to close a blind eye to all the factors going into it, and cherry-pick the ones you think will touch the hot buttons of your constituents.

But the net impact to the state would be the same, because if I don't go to the game, they get 100% of my sales tax, whereas if I go to the game, they get a pro rated percentage.

 

 

That wouldn't be true in my case. There aren't anywhere enough good movies or other readily accessible events down here to replace the $3,000 - $4,000 we spend a year at the stadium. That would all be applied to vacation, and not one dime will help the FL economy or its sales taxes.

 

That is EXACTLY how I am. If I don't spend the money on the Marlins I spend the money on vacations to the Caribbean, South America, or New York.

I agree with prinmeto and MarlinAddict. These arguments are the same ones used in DC to try to kill that stadium and they're bogus in my opinion. The fact is, most people see every movie they want to see ALREADY. The Marlins is an ADDITIONAL night out, not a replacement for a movie. Additionally, the argument for restaurants being a replacement for the Marlins is completely bogus because so many people will do dinner AND a Marlins game if the stadium is downtown. You're getting 2 nights out worth of sales taxes in one night.

 

forget movies. forget restaurants. that's not the point. Most families don't have an unlimited amount of disposable income to throw around, they try to stick to some kind of budget. If all Marlins fans are upper-class and don't have any financial worries, then maybe it's not an issue.

 

But if I'm spending $2000 on Marlins season tickets, that's money we've set aside for entertainment. If the Marlins were gone we'd spend it elsewhere.

 

MarlinAddict's point about using it for vacations instead is fair I guess though, but I think that's a minority.

As I said, I'm not against the rebate, I'm just providing that the arguments made by proponents of the rebate on the basis of economics have validity.

 

For starters, yes, if someone were to get a meal downtown and then go the stadium, there is new money generated. However, first, the money spent at the restaurant doesn't go to the stadium funding, second, the restaurant may have had that same patron there had there been a stadium or not, and third, I'm comparing the same night with the Marlins in town and without the Marlins in town. I can, in theory, spend the same amount of my discretionary income on that given day fifteen years from now whether the Marlins are here or are the San Antonio Missions. My point is that the pool of discretionary income for most folks is the same, and that the creation of a stadium does not create a new "funding source" for the patrons that would be "new" or "additional" to what would have been spent had the team been there or not.

 

For most of you that are "picking" on my "movie theatre" argument, you've missed the point. I was "personalizing" the example to make it simple. Whether it be a movie, or a comedy show, or just simply going to "The Gap" on a saturday night and buying clothes instead of going to a Marlins game, the pool of discretionary income remains the same, what changes is where I spend it. If the Marlins are in town on May 24, 2025, then my discretionary income goes to them, however if on May 24, 2025 the San Antonio Missions are having a home stand against the Milwaukee Brewers, the money I would have spent at the Marlins game will instead be spent at Brooks Brothers, City Cellar, Muvico, etc. It's not as if the money I would have spent at a Marlins game will stay in my wallet unused forever because they left.

 

That's my point. I'm also playing the devil's advocate here and showing you that there is merit to the statement that there is no new revenue stream created by the stadium, it's just a shifting of the resources which the state would have collected anyway one way or another.

 

That wouldn't be true in my case. There aren't anywhere enough good movies or other readily accessible events down here to replace the $3,000 - $4,000 we spend a year at the stadium. That would all be applied to vacation, and not one dime will help the FL economy or its sales taxes.

 

That is EXACTLY how I am. If I don't spend the money on the Marlins I spend the money on vacations to the Caribbean, South America, or New York.

 

Au contrair, mon fraire. The $3,000 to $4,000 you spend on Marlins games will be shifted again and the State of Florida would have collected your sales tax for the airline tickets, the airport would have collected their fees, the county and state would have collected the taxes for your parking at the airport, or the taxes for your ride on a taxi to the airport, and if you take a cruise, the state would have collected the sales tax for the cruise tickets, and other fees, the only tax that would not have been collected is a potential rental car or hotel bed tax, but then again, most visitors to the state will be contributing those whether the Marlins are here or not. In order for your point to be valid, that $3,000 to $4,000 you spend at the stadium would need to remain unspent forever, and your discretionary spending would need to remain the same in order for there to be an impact on whether the stadium generates new sales tax (i.e., your $3,000 that were never taxed).

If I didn't go to Marlins games, I would probably put the money in either savings or debt repayment.

 

They both create FIT, the former by me (Schedule B interest) & the latter by the credit card company. They create no tax for the state of Florida (savings used to create intangible taxes, but I believe the Republicans repealed that, plus I'm not rich enough to be touched by intangibles anyway).

 

I am extremely wary about eating out, due to credit card theft by scanning my number, and few movies are first-run musts (S W Episode VII would be an exception but may never happen) and most can wait for DVD/Netflix/Library access.

I usually spend more money on hotels and actually being at the vacation destination than I spend on the flight, parking, etc. I don't know where you are going with this. MarlinsAddict is saying that his or her money will go elsewhere if the Marlins aren't around.

 

You are also completely neglecting the effect the stadium will have on tourism, national tv exposure, etc. And I also think you are greatly minimizing the impact of the ASG and WBC. Not only do those events bring out of state people to Miami for the events themselves, have you ever given a thought to the possiblity that they may just like it here and return on another vacation?

 

As I said, I'm not against the rebate, I'm just providing that the arguments made by proponents of the rebate on the basis of economics have validity.

 

For starters, yes, if someone were to get a meal downtown and then go the stadium, there is new money generated. However, first, the money spent at the restaurant doesn't go to the stadium funding, second, the restaurant may have had that same patron there had there been a stadium or not, and third, I'm comparing the same night with the Marlins in town and without the Marlins in town. I can, in theory, spend the same amount of my discretionary income on that given day fifteen years from now whether the Marlins are here or are the San Antonio Missions. My point is that the pool of discretionary income for most folks is the same, and that the creation of a stadium does not create a new "funding source" for the patrons that would be "new" or "additional" to what would have been spent had the team been there or not.

 

For most of you that are "picking" on my "movie theatre" argument, you've missed the point. I was "personalizing" the example to make it simple. Whether it be a movie, or a comedy show, or just simply going to "The Gap" on a saturday night and buying clothes instead of going to a Marlins game, the pool of discretionary income remains the same, what changes is where I spend it. If the Marlins are in town on May 24, 2025, then my discretionary income goes to them, however if on May 24, 2025 the San Antonio Missions are having a home stand against the Milwaukee Brewers, the money I would have spent at the Marlins game will instead be spent at Brooks Brothers, City Cellar, Muvico, etc. It's not as if the money I would have spent at a Marlins game will stay in my wallet unused forever because they left.

 

That's my point. I'm also playing the devil's advocate here and showing you that there is merit to the statement that there is no new revenue stream created by the stadium, it's just a shifting of the resources which the state would have collected anyway one way or another.

 

That wouldn't be true in my case. There aren't anywhere enough good movies or other readily accessible events down here to replace the $3,000 - $4,000 we spend a year at the stadium. That would all be applied to vacation, and not one dime will help the FL economy or its sales taxes.

 

That is EXACTLY how I am. If I don't spend the money on the Marlins I spend the money on vacations to the Caribbean, South America, or New York.

 

Au contrair, mon fraire. The $3,000 to $4,000 you spend on Marlins games will be shifted again and the State of Florida would have collected your sales tax for the airline tickets, the airport would have collected their fees, the county and state would have collected the taxes for your parking at the airport, or the taxes for your ride on a taxi to the airport, and if you take a cruise, the state would have collected the sales tax for the cruise tickets, and other fees, the only tax that would not have been collected is a potential rental car or hotel bed tax, but then again, most visitors to the state will be contributing those whether the Marlins are here or not. In order for your point to be valid, that $3,000 to $4,000 you spend at the stadium would need to remain unspent forever, and your discretionary spending would need to remain the same in order for there to be an impact on whether the stadium generates new sales tax (i.e., your $3,000 that were never taxed).

 

You make it sound like I spend most of my vacation money on parking the flight itself. Hilarious.

You make it sound like I spend most of my vacation money on parking the flight itself. Hilarious.

 

You're missing my point, but if you want to argue particulars, lets argue particulars. Let's say you're going on a week long trip to St. Maarten, and you're going to fly there. For starters, you're probably not going alone, so add in a companion. Let's estimate that the cost of the airfare is $233.00 per person (that's based on what American Airlines charges today on their website), with $95.60 in additional taxes, of which the state is going to collect. Did your season ticket package cost $233.00? If you decide to go on a cruise, there will still be a sales tax and other state taxes collected here in Florida, and that price tag will be higher than what you would have paid on season tickets and food at the stadium. Do you see my point? That's just the expenses you would have spent on a vacation. In order for your point to be valid, you need to stay home and not spend anything so that the money that would've gone to the Marlins to be taxed would never be able to be taxed.

 

You are over-valuing the affect of baseball on local tourism. Whether there is a baseball team here or not, there will tourism in South Florida. It's not as if tourism increased after 1993 and the birth of the Marlins. C'mon, use some logic. The average foreign visitor is not coming to South Florida because of baseball. I think South Beach is the better recruiting tool for tourism, and not the Marlins.

 

All of you are missing my point by focusing on the particulars and not the big picture! All of you are simply MAKING MY POINT that the money you would've spent on a Marlins game is instead being shifted to another source. And if that is a vacation (which again, you're going to get taxed in Florida for travel costs) or other entertainment. It doesn't matter whether it's a movie or anything else, stop focusing on my examples and look at the big picture.

 

Rarely anyone here has "dedicated Marlins money" that will NEVER be spent if the Marlins leave. If you do, then you probably constitute 0.00004% of the population of the State of Florida. My point is that the best argument for the tax rebate is NOT that the stadium will generate new sales tax revenue! The best argument to counter the naysayers is that the money that is being given back to the facility is the money that comes from those that use the facility, therefore, it is almost like a "use tax" by those that are benefiting from it. That's the point I'm trying to make!

Just in my case, went to two weekday games. If the marlins dont play, i stay late in the office and then get home and have dinner about 8 or 9 pm. There is no sales tax revenue being generated. Instead, I leave a little early, get home, change and go to the stadium. Now, I need to eat, so I buy 2soda's (no beers on weedays), a pulled pork sand for $7 frickin dollars, a turkey wrap for $8 for my daughter etc.

 

So, tell me again, where am I just trading my sales tax dollars. Oh, there is also someone working, making wages who is serving the food as well as other people working. For many of these people, some it is their main source of revenue, for others it is a part time job to supplement their income and provide additional disposable income that they will use to spend in other places.

 

There are exceptions to everything, you can always find those that it is a choice-but THE BIG PICTURE-what are the percentages. This is all just bulls..t politicians making points. I doubt any area that has made the committment to a new stadium regrets it-even if the economics don't warrant it, because there so many other variables than straight profits from the building.

And even in your own example you spent more at the baseball game.

 

But the net impact to the state would be the same, because if I don't go to the game, they get 100% of my sales tax, whereas if I go to the game, they get a pro rated percentage.

 

As far as the weekday crowd, I go out to eat on a weekday as often as I could go out to eat on a weekend. My point is, if you don't spend your money at the ballpark, you'll probably spend it elsewhere because very few, if any, people have "dedicated Marlins funds" that would go unspent if the Marlins leave town.

 

As for having an All-Star Game or World Baseball Classic, the frequency of such an event is so minimal as to be negligible. It's not as if other conventions or events won't come to South Florida without a new ballpark.

 

Look, my point is that saying that all this money won't be generated without a new park is not the best argument because it is easily countered with the fact that the money will be generated somewhere else (and by that "somewhere else" won't have to be refunded back).

 

As I said, I want this thing to pass, but making the "money generated" argument the top one isn't such a good strategy. I think the best one is that those that spend there are paying for it is the best way to diffuse the ignorant masses that cry about using tax dollars.

 

One rep from tampa said yesterday that the season the lightning were not playing (the strike), the area lost over 10 million in sale tax.

This is so pathetic.

 

THEY ARENT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM ANYWHERE! Crap, its not like Loria is standing outside of a retirement home with a big bag with a $ on it.

 

The fact that they wont even let it be heard, as of right now, is something I like to a stubborn 4 year old who doesnt want to share his toy.

 

You have to spend $ to make $, thats great, but when you are spending nothing and making a ton, with just a share of your profits kept by the business, then you come out ahead.

 

Why cant these imbeciles realize that?

 

The argument is not that simple. Look, I want this rebate to pass, but I also see merit in the other side's argument. Here's the rational argument against the rebate:

 

While proponents argue that the stadium may generate $9M in sales tax revenue, of which $7M would remain with the state, that would be beneficial if seen in a vacuum. However, the projected $9M in sales tax revenue would be produced whether a stadium is built or not because the argument is that those $9M in sales tax revenue would be raised anyway either at the mall, in movie theatres, at restaurants, etc. That's where the "discretionary income" argument comes in.

 

To personalize this, it's now May 23, 2015 and I decided to take my son (who'll be 12 by then) to a Marlins-Cubs game at Bacardi Field. We pay $16.00 for two hot dogs (let's assume that's "cheap" for 2015), $12.00 for two sodas, and $10.00 for two pretzels. Our seats were $20.00 each, so that's $40.00. We don't drive to the park, so we don't pay for parking. We also don't buy any souveniers. Therefore, on May 23, 2015, I spent $78.00 at the park, with $5.46 going towards sales tax. The proponent would say, "Look the stadium generated $5.46 from those two customers!" However, we can fast forward to May 23, 2015 and there is no "Bacardi Park." The Marlins are now known as the San Antonio Missions and on that night I take my son to the movies to see "Tomorrow Is A Diamond Forever" (the latest James Bond movie). Well, I spend the same amount for food and drinks at the movie theatre (geez, maybe even more!), and my movie tickets will probably cost about $12.00 each, so the amount of tax money generated is roughly equal. My money went to Muvico instead of the Marlins, but the state gets the same tax revenue, except there is no rebate to Muvico.

 

Now you see what the opponents mean. It's not as if people have set aside a "budget line item" for Marlins tickets and Marlins spending. If I don't use my money at a Marlins game, I'll use it somewhere else. Meaning, there is no new income stream. That's all.

 

The best argument to make is that the rebate is actually being paid by the folks that are using the facility, therefore, the tax burden is on those using it and not those that are not using it. That's all.

 

I disagree. Speaking from personal experience I have never had to choose between a baseball game, or a movie. I'm going to go see the movies that interest me regardless of the Marlins, Heat, or any other event. I don't have to sacrafice one for the other, and believe me I'm no where near wealthy. Those that have to end up choosing usually will do neither. They end up watching the game on TV for free, and renting the movies that interest them at Blockbuster. I think I remember reading (probably on this site) where the Tampa Bay area never made up the tax money lost during the hockey strike. I really don't buy this logic. Most people that attend games or sporting events do so because they are fans, even if they are the most casual of fans, and not because they are sitting home bored.

 

The problem in Tally is pure and simple politics, and nothing else........