Except the state isnt giving the Marlins $60 million. The state is letting the Marlins keep $2 million in taxes every year for 30 years while the Marlins give them $7 million.

This issue has been exhaustively debated on this board, so there is no need to further flesh out everyone's understanding of basic economics. However, with all do respect, if you honestly believe it isn't a "giveaway," what possible reasons would these politicians have to vote the proposal down?? If you believe it is because they're evil people who don't like baseball, I think you're misguided. It is a giveaway plain and simple (allbeit over 30 years). It is unfortunate that people on this board like to think otherwise, but a "tax rebate" is money that would otherwise go to the state regardless whether the Marlins exist or not. Trust me, if the Marlins stadium were to generate 7 million of new sales tax a year that would not otherwise exist, the proposal would pass unanimously. It simply doesn't work the way you think it does. And, the state of Florida lost a billion dollars last year in projected revenue. State attorneys have been declined pay increases. Schools have been denied funding. Florida does not have a state sales tax, and pretty much relies solely on sales tax to fund its operations.

I think most of us, except you, would agree that if the rebate was approved or not, you would not see a single extra book in the schools. I also doubt, with all my heart, that there will be a salary increase to any single State Attorney because of the Marlins rebate being denied. I completely disagree with you, but I have told you I respect your point of view on this-but please, do not tell people who disagree with you that they are misguided and unfortunate. You might as well just poison any debate by simply starting out with the following "my view is.... and anyone disagreeing with me is just stupid and wrong, so don't try to disagree with me-I know better than you". Oh, what possible reason would a politician have for disagreeing with the rebate if it was positive-do you really need to ask? Perception to their voters for one. It is easier to sell your voters that you are watching out for their dollars by telling them you are not giving millions for a S. Florida baseball team than it is to convince them that it makes sense. Seems the Governor disagrees with you also, but he must be unfortunately misguided-to use your words.

First, Crist does not disagree with me. He believes it is a giveaway as well. However, I agree with Crist that the giveaway is justified and that it is necessary to keep baseball in South Florida. In fact, Crist and I are EXACTLY on the same page. And, we both support the bill.

 

Second, I didn't say you (or people who disagree with me) are misguided. Please re-read my post. My point was that, "if it is not a giveaway" (YOUR opinion, not mine), why would the politicians decide not to do it? What reason would they have to vote it down? Even in your hypothetical, you characterize the rebate (or at least the politician's describing it to their voters) as a "giveaway." Is it your opinion that the politicians are simply lying to score points with anti-baseball voters?? I'm serious here, I truly want to understand your position. My entire thread was about my discussion with Rep. Kiar. It is nonsensical to think that a broward democrat would vote against the rebate (assuming it isn't a giveaway) because he wants to appease his voters. Broward comprises a large chunk of the Marlins' fanbase. He isn't some republican representative from Ocala playing to his conservative voters about the liberal, moneyspending heathens of South FL who want to take money out of their pockets to give to some new york millionaire. I'm simply trying to understand your rationale here, so I can better get into a dialogue with you. I can see that tactic working in Ocala, not Broward. The only reason I can see a Broward democrat voting against the proposal (under your belief that it is not a giveaway), is because it isn't be built in Broward. That could be the reason he voted against it, but nobody actually knows. And, seeing as there doesn't appear any Broward solution towards the stadium issue, I think Kiar actually voted against it because he believes it is a giveaway that cannot be afforded at this time.

Except the state isnt giving the Marlins $60 million. The state is letting the Marlins keep $2 million in taxes every year for 30 years while the Marlins give them $7 million.

This issue has been exhaustively debated on this board, so there is no need to further flesh out everyone's understanding of basic economics. However, with all do respect, if you honestly believe it isn't a "giveaway," what possible reasons would these politicians have to vote the proposal down?? If you believe it is because they're evil people who don't like baseball, I think you're misguided. It is a giveaway plain and simple (allbeit over 30 years). It is unfortunate that people on this board like to think otherwise, but a "tax rebate" is money that would otherwise go to the state regardless whether the Marlins exist or not. Trust me, if the Marlins stadium were to generate 7 million of new sales tax a year that would not otherwise exist, the proposal would pass unanimously. It simply doesn't work the way you think it does. And, the state of Florida lost a billion dollars last year in projected revenue. State attorneys have been declined pay increases. Schools have been denied funding. Florida does not have a state sales tax, and pretty much relies solely on sales tax to fund its operations.

I think most of us, except you, would agree that if the rebate was approved or not, you would not see a single extra book in the schools. I also doubt, with all my heart, that there will be a salary increase to any single State Attorney because of the Marlins rebate being denied. I completely disagree with you, but I have told you I respect your point of view on this-but please, do not tell people who disagree with you that they are misguided and unfortunate. You might as well just poison any debate by simply starting out with the following "my view is.... and anyone disagreeing with me is just stupid and wrong, so don't try to disagree with me-I know better than you". Oh, what possible reason would a politician have for disagreeing with the rebate if it was positive-do you really need to ask? Perception to their voters for one. It is easier to sell your voters that you are watching out for their dollars by telling them you are not giving millions for a S. Florida baseball team than it is to convince them that it makes sense. Seems the Governor disagrees with you also, but he must be unfortunately misguided-to use your words.

First, Crist does not disagree with me. He believes it is a giveaway as well. However, I agree with Crist that the giveaway is justified and that it is necessary to keep baseball in South Florida. In fact, Crist and I are EXACTLY on the same page. And, we both support the bill.

 

Second, I didn't say you (or people who disagree with me) are misguided. Please re-read my post. My point was that, "if it is not a giveaway" (YOUR opinion, not mine), why would the politicians decide not to do it? What reason would they have to vote it down? Even in your hypothetical, you characterize the rebate (or at least the politician's describing it to their voters) as a "giveaway." Is it your opinion that the politicians are simply lying to score points with anti-baseball voters?? I'm serious here, I truly want to understand your position. My entire thread was about my discussion with Rep. Kiar. It is nonsensical to think that a broward democrat would vote against the rebate (assuming it isn't a giveaway) because he wants to appease his voters. Broward comprises a large chunk of the Marlins' fanbase. He isn't some republican representative from Ocala playing to his conservative voters about the liberal, moneyspending heathens of South FL who want to take money out of their pockets to give to some new york millionaire. I'm simply trying to understand your rationale here, so I can better get into a dialogue with you. I can see that tactic working in Ocala, not Broward. The only reason I can see a Broward democrat voting against the proposal (under your belief that it is not a giveaway), is because it isn't be built in Broward. That could be the reason he voted against it, but nobody actually knows. And, seeing as there doesn't appear any Broward solution towards the stadium issue, I think Kiar actually voted against it because he believes it is a giveaway that cannot be afforded at this time.

 

If it was so plain and simple, it would have first failed the House instead it was passed. It was also passed by the Senate last year but died, so there are apparently many who see the virtue. I agree, debated enough. I wanted to acknowledge your reply, it is a fair response. We just do not agree on the basic aspect.

I guess I dont understand how:

 

your not actually receiving state funs...the $2 million is kept from your taxable income, and you give the rest to the state.

 

I dont see that as a "giveaway". A "giveaway" would be the state writing a check out of Florida's budget for $2 million once a year for 30 years.

 

Giving up 4/5ths of your taxable income(I know I am not using the right wording, but you know what I mean) and keeping 1/5th to cover cost overruns on a new ballpark that will generate alot of revenue, that is not a giveaway. Its not a handout. Its a rebate.

 

And since the $2 million is coming from $$ that wouldnt be there if the stadium wasnt there, then it CAN STILL NOT BE CALLED a handout.

 

No $$ is being taken away from schools, no $$ from the elderly, none of that. The Marlins are just keeping 1/5th of the $$ they are taxed and the rest actually goes to the state.

 

So by the state not giving the team a "handout", even though thats impossible because this is phantom $$ that wont be there unless there is a stadium, they are keeping themselves from the true handout, the ones the Marlins would be giving the state with this rebate.

 

So, if they do get a stadium, without this rebate, that means the state actually loses out because that $7-8 million they would of had to help schools the elderly, etc is no longer there.

 

So the state hurts themselves. Way to go Florida!

I guess I dont understand how:

 

your not actually receiving state funs...the $2 million is kept from your taxable income, and you give the rest to the state.

 

I dont see that as a "giveaway". A "giveaway" would be the state writing a check out of Florida's budget for $2 million once a year for 30 years.

 

Giving up 4/5ths of your taxable income(I know I am not using the right wording, but you know what I mean) and keeping 1/5th to cover cost overruns on a new ballpark that will generate alot of revenue, that is not a giveaway. Its not a handout. Its a rebate.

 

And since the $2 million is coming from $$ that wouldnt be there if the stadium wasnt there, then it CAN STILL NOT BE CALLED a handout.

 

No $$ is being taken away from schools, no $$ from the elderly, none of that. The Marlins are just keeping 1/5th of the $$ they are taxed and the rest actually goes to the state.

 

So by the state not giving the team a "handout", even though thats impossible because this is phantom $$ that wont be there unless there is a stadium, they are keeping themselves from the true handout, the ones the Marlins would be giving the state with this rebate.

 

So, if they do get a stadium, without this rebate, that means the state actually loses out because that $7-8 million they would of had to help schools the elderly, etc is no longer there.

 

So the state hurts themselves. Way to go Florida!

The bolded part is the reason it is a giveaway. Although the money to the state wouldn't come from the Marlins if there was no stadium (since the Marlins wouldn't be in Florida), every economic study that is worth the paper it is written on has concluded that, since people spend discretionary money (not just for entertainment purposes but actual disposable income) on the Marlins that would be spent anyway (money that is earmarked to be spent in some capacity and not invested), and the majority of money spent on the Marlins comes from Florida residents or Florida-based entities, the state of Florida would receive the same total amount of sales tax revenue whether the Marlins were here or not. So, from the view of Tallahassee beaurocrats, the amount of money in their state piggybank would be $2 Million less a year than it would be otherwise if they gave the Marlins a tax rebate.

 

I do not want to seem like I am belittling anyone, because this concept is obviously open to debate, but your view of the situation (I make 9 - you get 7 and without me you'd get nothing) does not take into account a macro-view of the spending habits of people. In this situation, a tax rebate is a 100% giveaway from the state, only it is a bit delayed since it is spread out over 30 years. Now, there are some who argue that a stadium does a whole lot more (in terms of generating revenues) than just the money the Marlins generate in ticket sales. For example, some argue that - if you build a stadium - it will create new jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist (thus creating more people with money to burn on state sales tax), or that it would spur development that wouldn't otherwise exist (how about a few t-shirt stands or bars across the street that generate sales tax). While these arguments seem valid, there is simply no evidence that this is really true. The jobs are very low paying and out-of-state workers don't flock here to work at concession stands. Also, the money people spend at the bars, etc. would be taken away from other similar establishments. In general, there is no evidence that stadiums spur true economic redevelopment, but rather - at best - they displace it for awhile from one area to another within the state. Anyway, a tax rebate is better than a true giveaway, in that its impact is delayed, but it is a giveaway nonetheless.

They should put the juvenile court/family court at the OB site. I believe that would make the politicians happy who were against the downtown ballpark site.

Perfect place for it, most of the dwellers are from walking distance anyway :thumbup