PDA

View Full Version : are sports teams worth the tax money?



stipo
12-14-2004, 11:00 AM
They just came out with a study that says the Colts are worth over 100 million (I don't know the exact numbers) a year to the city. I'm never really confident in these kinds of studies. Then again, maybe pro sports are more important to a city like Indy because we don't have natural geographical wonders like mountains, oceans, etc. On the other hand, I've always thought of Seattle as an attractive city,but the fact that they have the Seahawks doesn't add anythng extra in my mind.


Does anyone have any thoughts?

edit: and if the Colts and Pacers sucked, would they be worth as much to a city? I wouldn't think so.

stipo
12-14-2004, 11:22 AM
That study is just propaganda the city is pumping into the Star to prepare people for just how much money they're about to have to pay when they announce the stadium deal shortly. I don't give any credence to it.

That's my thinking also. It also contrasts the Pacers and the Colts as far as looking for handouts. Jim Irsay depends on the Colts for most of his income if I'm not mistaken, and this is the chief difference between the two franchises in my mind.

Old as Dirt
12-14-2004, 11:34 AM
If they are not worth the money, why is it every time a city has a team move within a year or less the are trying to get another team.

DisplacedKnick
12-14-2004, 11:41 AM
The biggest thing with Pro Sports teams has less to do with the actual $$$ in revenue and more of the perception of being a "major" city - whatever that is.

Pro teams generate a lot of headlines and gets the city's name in the news a lot. If Indy didn't have any major pro sports teams what would it be known for? The 500 and that's about it - the Black Expo, Heartland Film Festival, etc., don't matter to many people.

Here's an example. Norfolk Virginia has a larger metro pop than Indy. What does the average American know about it? Maybe that they build ships.

Columbus, OH is about the same size - what's distinctive about it?

I don't know how you quantofy what it's worth to be a "major" city.

stipo
12-14-2004, 11:48 AM
The biggest thing with Pro Sports teams has less to do with the actual $$$ in revenue and more of the perception of being a "major" city - whatever that is.

Pro teams generate a lot of headlines and gets the city's name in the news a lot. If Indy didn't have any major pro sports teams what would it be known for? The 500 and that's about it - the Black Expo, Heartland Film Festival, etc., don't matter to many people.

Here's an example. Norfolk Virginia has a larger metro pop than Indy. What does the average American know about it? Maybe that they build ships.

Columbus, OH is about the same size - what's distinctive about it?

I don't know how you quantofy what it's worth to be a "major" city.

I agree that that's probably what our taxes are going for-- to be a "major city". But is our quality of life better that the cities you mentioned? (besides having something to do on sundays) I wonder. Don't get me wrong, I love sports, but being raked over the coals for more taxes every few years makes me curious if it's worth it, that's all.

I also wonder if many people in other parts of the country think any more of us than say Columbus, Ohio, just because we have pro sports.

indygeezer
12-14-2004, 11:54 AM
I don't see the need to justify the new stadium. They are going to build it anyway. Besides, several months ago they announced a $1,000,000,000 (that's billion) deal with NCAA for X number of Final Four games to be held in Indy. It was felt by many at the time that was enough justification to pay for the new stadium. They don't play at COnseco ya know.

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 12:17 PM
Irsay is one reason I have become less and less of a Colts fan over the years. Threatening to relocate when that city supported such a bad team for so long is really wrong to me.

My father, who worked for the city, would have laughed at the notion of the Star doing anything for the city government--of couse at that time it was a Rep. mayor.

As to the question of the thread I do believe that a sports team adds prestige to a city making it easier to draw young professionals, gives the city a feeling of community and generally generates only good PR in the national media--unless there is a brawl.

beast23
12-14-2004, 01:23 PM
Building a new stadium is NOT like building a new school within your school district.

You build a new school, or do major improvements to existing ones, and locally you float bonds to pay for the project. And the money that pays for those bonds typically is passed directly to the local taxpayers.

However, you build a new stadium, the process, at least historically, has been different. Some is paid for by local contributions. For example, naming rights to the stadium. Also, the Lilly Endowment. You still float bonds to cover the cost of the project. But some of the bonds are paid through tax revenues by the local government.

But, again at least historically, the majority of funds covering the bonds comes from a surcharge on dining and entertainment establishments. The surcharge ranges from 1 - 2%. That's $2 per every $100 that you spend on eating out to cover the biggest portion of building a new stadium.

To me, that's not much to pay. And, if you still don't like it, then reduce your average tip by 2% and you will come out even.

The only thing that would change this scenario would be if the new stadium is financed much differently than MSA, Conseco and the Dome.

But the idea behind behind a majority of the cost being paid for by the surcharge is that even visitors to the city would then help finance the project. Also, the surcharge is on dining out, hotels and entertainment... each viewed as a luxury item and not a necessity. Therefore, those indulging in these pursuits are likely to be the ones that can better afford their expense.

3Ball
12-14-2004, 01:37 PM
It's more like trying to keep a really terrific symphony in your city. If you're a city worth your salt, you have a symphony orchestra. Neither a pro sports team or a symphony is ever going to make money for the city, but it does help provide a place where people really want to live. More like building a park than a school.

What I find really offensive about most sports franchises (as opposed to symphonies or parks) is that in order to get one, cities have to give hundreds of millions of dollars, for free, to a billionaire. That really chaps me. If I remember correctly, the city of Green Bay is the only municipality to own its team. And that is one damn fine franchise. The owners outlawed it, because they didn't want other cities to get in on the act. They wanted their free millions, and for some reason, no city has ever taken them to court to try to break the trust.

PS It was one of those $100 million city giveaways that earned GW his millions. Boo.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 01:59 PM
Why do people have to be forced into paying for a stadium?

ChicagoJ
12-14-2004, 02:11 PM
Well, the theory is that it benefits the entire population - even the ones that don't use it.

Now as for "forced", well its a free country, if you aren't interested in reaping the benefits of living in a major city and refuse to contribute to the infrastructure necessary to make a major city, then don't live in a major city.

I couldn't stand the idea of living someplace that doesn't have a professsional basketball team. Yes, I realize I've been living in Chicago for the past five NBA seasons. That's not the point.

DisplacedKnick
12-14-2004, 02:13 PM
Why do people have to be forced into paying for a stadium?

Why do you have to be forced into paying for a Police Force? Or a Street Department? Or a park?

Fool
12-14-2004, 02:27 PM
Why do you have to be forced into paying for a Police Force? Or a Street Department? Or a park?


Not the same thing at all. Safety, public service, and free access to green space are nothing like a sports stadium.

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 02:31 PM
Cities give tax breaks, build roads and other benefits to other buisness so that they will move to or stay in a city.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 03:28 PM
Well, the theory is that it benefits the entire population - even the ones that don't use it.

Now as for "forced", well its a free country, if you aren't interested in reaping the benefits of living in a major city and refuse to contribute to the infrastructure necessary to make a major city, then don't live in a major city.

I couldn't stand the idea of living someplace that doesn't have a professsional basketball team. Yes, I realize I've been living in Chicago for the past five NBA seasons. That's not the point.How exactly does it benefit the entire population?

I will gladly contribute freely, by working and producing products and services that people want to buy, not by being taxed so that someone else can benefit at my expense. This sounds nothing like you Jay, the people are being taxed and others(probably people that already rich) are unfairly benefitting from it.

Could the funds necessary to build a stadium not be raised privately?

Manuel
12-14-2004, 03:30 PM
Why do you have to be forced into paying for a Police Force? Or a Street Department? Or a park?
Because a police force is necessary to enforce laws. Police is a proper function of government, building stadiums is not.

What is a Street Department?

Manuel
12-14-2004, 03:32 PM
Cities give tax breaks, build roads and other benefits to other buisness so that they will move to or stay in a city.
Who ever said that it was right? Why not cut taxes for everyone, evenly and fairly?

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 03:44 PM
I don't know about "right" but it happens because other cities are willing to do that. There are some things a community has to buy collectively--getting buisness to come and stay is one of those things.

stipo
12-14-2004, 03:57 PM
The Pacers have been proven time and again that they are committed to Indianapolis. I think we have seen the opposite with our NFL team. Therefore, the giving of tax monies, credits, what have you, is a little bit of a problem to me.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 03:59 PM
I don't know about "right" but it happens because other cities are willing to do that. There are some things a community has to buy collectively getting buisness to come and stay is one of those things.
I agree. But I believe in the collective will of the free market atracting people and businesses that will potentially profit by bringing products and services that people want. Not in having government forcing anyone into any particular business venture.

ChicagoJ
12-14-2004, 04:00 PM
Who ever said that it was right? Why not cut taxes for everyone, evenly and fairly?
First of all, my MBA class got a chance to interview Evan Byah on this very subject shortly after his term as governor ended. I specifically asked him about the funding of the Indiana Fieldhouse, as it was then known, since that was a hot topic at the time.

His answer was so succinct, so perfect:

Because there's always Kentucky, and they will always throw tax breaks at Toyota, or the Vancouver Grizzlies, or whomever. As long as they are your neighbor, and you want to compete for high-paying jobs with great companies, you've got to do it. Sounds great in theory, but as long as one state thinks they are behind and they can use this approach to catch up, you've got to do it.

Now if you are fine with losing all those jobs, businesses, etc., then go right ahead... But politicians are mostly concerned with getting re-elected, and that's a sure-fire way to lose the next election.

As for whether a stadium benefits everybody - there are plenty of people that go to the circus, or a concert, or a Billy Graham crusade, or the monster trucks or rasslin' but would never attend a professional sporting event. I suppose if you want to sit in your house and be a hermit, and force everyone else to do the same, that you could argue that the stadium doesn't benefit you. But, for example, how many Pacers fans are there in Indianapolis that listen to/ watch the games reguarly even though they believe they cannot afford to or do not wish to pay to attend a game in person. They also benefit from the stadium because it does give them something to do and it only requires a radio or television with an antannae or at its most expensive required level, basic cable.

A convention center, a stadium, a park - in my mind these all operate the same way. They are infrastructure. Now a sports team, or a concert promoter, that's not the same.

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 04:10 PM
I don't think in this age, where a company can go anywhere in the world and still sell in all markets, that a community can trust the collective will of a free market. A politician certianly can't get elected taking that approach.

I believe just as "God helps those who help themselves" that a free market works in a like fashion. I just don't have enough faith in the free market model that you propose to allow a government sit by and do nothing to attract buisness.

Maybe, you are right that it is more idealogically fair, but I just don't see it as a viable option.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 05:16 PM
First of all, my MBA class got a chance to interview Evan Byah on this very subject shortly after his term as governor ended. I specifically asked him about the funding of the Indiana Fieldhouse, as it was then known, since that was a hot topic at the time.

His answer was so succinct, so perfect:

Because there's always Kentucky, and they will always throw tax breaks at Toyota, or the Vancouver Grizzlies, or whomever. As long as they are your neighbor, and you want to compete for high-paying jobs with great companies, you've got to do it. Sounds great in theory, but as long as one state thinks they are behind and they can use this approach to catch up, you've got to do it.

Now if you are fine with losing all those jobs, businesses, etc., then go right ahead... But politicians are mostly concerned with getting re-elected, and that's a sure-fire way to lose the next election.

As for whether a stadium benefits everybody - there are plenty of people that go to the circus, or a concert, or a Billy Graham crusade, or the monster trucks or rasslin' but would never attend a professional sporting event. I suppose if you want to sit in your house and be a hermit, and force everyone else to do the same, that you could argue that the stadium doesn't benefit you. But, for example, how many Pacers fans are there in Indianapolis that listen to/ watch the games reguarly even though they believe they cannot afford to or do not wish to pay to attend a game in person. They also benefit from the stadium because it does give them something to do and it only requires a radio or television with an antannae or at its most expensive required level, basic cable.

A convention center, a stadium, a park - in my mind these all operate the same way. They are infrastructure. Now a sports team, or a concert promoter, that's not the same.
One government intervention leads to another. Yeah, what a savior. The politician raises taxes(for whatever reason, probably mismanagment, waste, and using tax collections to fund things the free market can do), businesses leave, then he tells the businesses that he'll exempt them from taxes and the company either stays or comes back. What a superhero! Coming to the rescue of all of us.

Alright lets try a different way. Imagine my daughter likes to go to Disney World, and I have a budget for it. Then along comes a politician and tells me that he wants to build a stadium so I need to give up more tax dollars, there goes my Disney budget. He builds the stadium and when the time comes my daughter and family are asking to go to Disney. How do I explain to them that a politician(that took the Disney money) and Jay wanted to build a stadium for the benefit of all us?

What if my family and I don't like the particular sport? Now, we are forced to pay for it whether we like it or not. That is why forcing everyone(with government force) to do what you think is right, is wrong. Because not everyone necessarily agrees with you. People should be FREE to spend their entertainment dollars where they see fit.

Lets allow the market to decide. If someone thinks it is profitable to build a stadium they should do it with private funds, not by forcing everyone to pay for it.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 05:18 PM
I don't think in this age, where a company can go anywhere in the world and still sell in all markets, that a community can trust the collective will of a free market. A politician certianly can't get elected taking that approach.

I believe just as "God helps those who help themselves" that a free market works in a like fashion. I just don't have enough faith in the free market model that you propose to allow a government sit by and do nothing to attract buisness.

Maybe, you are right that it is more idealogically fair, but I just don't see it as a viable option..

Maybe we should socialize everything, so we don't leave it to the will of the free market.:rolleyes:

ChicagoJ
12-14-2004, 05:27 PM
One government intervention leads to another. Yeah, what a savior. The politician raises taxes(for whatever reason, probably mismanagment, waste, and using tax collections to fund things the free market can do), businesses leave, then he tells the businesses that he'll exempt them from taxes and the company either stays or comes back. What a superhero! Coming to the rescue of all of us.

Alright lets try a different way. Imagine my daughter likes to go to Disney World, and I have a budget for it. Then along comes a politician and tells me that he wants to build a stadium so I need to give up more tax dollars, there goes my Disney budget. He builds the stadium and when the time comes my daughter and family are asking to go to Disney. How do I explain to them that a politician(that took the Disney money) and Jay wanted to build a stadium for the benefit of all us?

What if my family and I don't like the particular sport? Now, we are forced to pay for it whether we like it or not. That is why forcing everyone(with government force) to do what you think is right, is wrong. Because not everyone necessarily agrees with you. People should be FREE to spend their entertainment dollars where they see fit.

Lets allow the market to decide. If someone thinks it is profitable to build a stadium they should do it with private funds, not by forcing everyone to pay for it.
Well, if you like the sport, then I think you've got to blame it on the United hub that, to my knowledge, is no longer even in use. Or the Toyota plant. Or whatever. I agree with you in theory, but I don't value the theory over the practical application here. Governments have to compete to win/ keep businesses, and this is no different.

Besides, this is still a democracy, it takes some type of majority for the government to force you to do this. So if enough people agreed with you, you *could* turn this place into Los Angeles, with lots of smog and no football. Have smog or 'no football' hurt LA's reputation?

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 05:29 PM
Where did I say that? Does believing that not everything should left up to a free market without any governmental interference mean that I think everything should be socialized?

I am not even sure if this is a free market/socialist issue. It is a question of whether or not a community should act as a whole to make itself attractive to buisness-an independent party. That is not socialism.

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 05:34 PM
Besides, this is still a democracy, it takes some type of majority for the government to force you to do this. So if enough people agreed with you, you *could* turn this place into Los Angeles, with lots of smog and no football. Have smog or 'no football' hurt LA's reputation?

Two quick points in defence of LA:

1)Don't knock smog until you have tried it. Also Indy doesn't have the population or geographic features to compete with us in the smog department.

2)If Indy doesn't build a stadium LA will have both football and smog.

ChicagoJ
12-14-2004, 05:41 PM
Hey, its going to get up to 26 degrees here today. So I've started the annual running discussion with Jay's_Wife@Section204. When we were leaving Indiana, I wanted to move to southern California, she wanted to stay closer to family. I can live with smog as long as its warm. ;)

Manuel
12-14-2004, 05:42 PM
Well, if you like the sport, then I think you've got to blame it on the United hub that, to my knowledge, is no longer even in use. Or the Toyota plant. Or whatever. I agree with you in theory, but I don't value the theory over the practical application here. Governments have to compete to win/ keep businesses, and this is no different.

Besides, this is still a democracy, it takes some type of majority for the government to force you to do this. So if enough people agreed with you, you *could* turn this place into Los Angeles, with lots of smog and no football. Have smog or 'no football' hurt LA's reputation?
Should the majority have the right to force me to do things?

I understand that you may think this discussion does not center on the "practical", but I believe it does.

The government does and should have limits. The majority has no overiding right over my individual rights.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 05:49 PM
Where did I say that? Does believing that not everything should left up to a free market without any governmental interference mean that I think everything should be socialized?No, but that is the conclusion. If somethings should be socialized because the free market is not apt to do it, then souldn't everything? You can't trust the free market, right?

If not, then tell me why exactly can't private money be raised to pay for a stadium?


I am not even sure if this is a free market/socialist issue. It is a question of whether or not a community should act as a whole to make itself attractive to buisness-an independent party. That is not socialism.Yes it is. It is socializing sport stadiums.

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 06:02 PM
Believing that a community can decide to spend pooled money anyway it wants to is not the same as saying everything should be socialized.

Are you suggesting that government owned property is socialism (and morally bankrupt)?

How does building a stadium differ from building roads?

ChicagoJ
12-14-2004, 06:05 PM
Should the majority have the right to force me to do things?

I understand that you may think this discussion does not center on the "practical", but I believe it does.

The government does and should have limits. The majority has no overiding right over my individual rights.
Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic here, but democracy means that the majority does have the right to force us to do things. I don't want to spend the next thirty or forty years paying for a ballooning federal deficit that consists of a variety of subsidies that are for far less unifying purposes than a stadium. But we're going to do it anyway, because the majorit of people voted for politicians in the executive and legislative branches that support this approach.

How does this in any way override your individual rights? This isn't denying you life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I don't understand your theory here.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 09:52 PM
Believing that a community can decide to spend pooled money anyway it wants to is not the same as saying everything should be socialized.

Are you suggesting that government owned property is socialism (and morally bankrupt)?

Yes government owned means it is nationalized/socialized.


How does building a stadium differ from building roads?

It doesn't. Could we not fund most roads with user fees, like tolls. It is still a weak example because for the most part we all drive on the roads and use them, and I believe roads are funded with gas taxes(not as good as tolls, but as close as you can get to user fees). Even then, I still feel that direct user fees are the best solution. Allowing private ownership of roads is a great way to improve the quality of the roads and the heavy traffic.

Manuel
12-14-2004, 10:15 PM
Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic here, but democracy means that the majority does have the right to force us to do things. I don't want to spend the next thirty or forty years paying for a ballooning federal deficit that consists of a variety of subsidies that are for far less unifying purposes than a stadium. But we're going to do it anyway, because the majorit of people voted for politicians in the executive and legislative branches that support this approach.

So, because the majority voted for them, does it make it right?

I don't believe in mob rule.


How does this in any way override your individual rights? This isn't denying you life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I don't understand your theory here.

Well lets analyze it. I spend time and effort to aquire property. I use my liberty and life to obtain and produce the things that I want. In other words, to pursue my happiness. So the property that I worked for is basically my life, it is a product of my liberty and life. If my property is taken away from me isn't that taking a part of my life? It is in essence denying my right to my life, liberty, and the pursuit of my happiness.

If the majority votes to take all your property, just yours, and then gives it to someone else, does it make it OK because the majority agreed on it? No one person or group of people have a right to your property. To take it would be to take your life.

And in this case we are dicussing the taking of someone's property in order to build something for someone else, I believe that is wrong.

Arcadian
12-14-2004, 11:18 PM
Just curious but Manuel why do you think the Articles of Confederation were ineffective?

3Ball
12-14-2004, 11:22 PM
When did Ayn Rand become a Pacer's fan?

beast23
12-14-2004, 11:41 PM
Manuel -

You share liberterian views with what, about 2% of the population at large?

If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that your government does not have the right to collect a tax from you that they would use to finance something that you do not support. Is this correct?

So, you don't like it that you would be surcharged 1-2% restaurant, hotel and entertainment tax in Marion County, or even central Indiana to suppor the construction of a new stadium. Therefore, your government should not be able to levy that tax and force you to pay it, along with those that would support the project.

So, I gather that since I do not have children of school age, I should not have to pay that portion of my state and federal taxes that supports education.

Or, since my neighbor is a pacifist and does not support military pursuits in any fashion whatsoever, he should not have to pay that portion of his taxes that would be diverted to defense?

Where does it stop?

The way the system works is that it (supposedly) works toward the common good. There will always be things our government does that we, as INDIVIDUALS, might argue does not benefit us. But for the most part, the vast majority of projects that your government pursues will benefit you at some point in your life.

As citizens we place trust in those we elect to look out on our behalf. If we cannot accept that, then we need to elect candidates to office that share our viewpoints.

If that is not acceptable or is not possible, maybe it is time to move.

3Ball
12-14-2004, 11:54 PM
Well said. The real problem is when there is too little democracy and too little true competition. Not too much.

PacerMan
12-15-2004, 12:37 AM
One government intervention leads to another. Yeah, what a savior. The politician raises taxes(for whatever reason, probably mismanagment, waste, and using tax collections to fund things the free market can do), businesses leave, then he tells the businesses that he'll exempt them from taxes and the company either stays or comes back. What a superhero! Coming to the rescue of all of us.

Alright lets try a different way. Imagine my daughter likes to go to Disney World, and I have a budget for it. Then along comes a politician and tells me that he wants to build a stadium so I need to give up more tax dollars, there goes my Disney budget. He builds the stadium and when the time comes my daughter and family are asking to go to Disney. How do I explain to them that a politician(that took the Disney money) and Jay wanted to build a stadium for the benefit of all us?

What if my family and I don't like the particular sport? Now, we are forced to pay for it whether we like it or not. That is why forcing everyone(with government force) to do what you think is right, is wrong. Because not everyone necessarily agrees with you. People should be FREE to spend their entertainment dollars where they see fit.

Lets allow the market to decide. If someone thinks it is profitable to build a stadium they should do it with private funds, not by forcing everyone to pay for it.

Amen

Manuel
12-15-2004, 07:36 PM
Just curious but Manuel why do you think the Articles of Confederation were ineffective?

Alright I'm back. Sorry I got busy there for 24 hours.

OK we can go as deep into the discussion as you'd like, just let me know. But, I'll try to give a short explanation for why the Articles of Confederation where scraped for the Constitution as we know it today:

I think we can agree that we institute government to secure our rights. So in essence government does have legitimate functions, like courts, police, army, etc. These activities are the ones that are truly needed in order to maintain a secure and free nation, and these activities need to be funded. In short, I am not complaining about taxes going to fund what government is instituted to do, but I will complain when I believe that taxation has become unfair(like funding a new stadium for baseball).

Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government was unable to directly tax the people and its powers were seriously limited. Of course at the time we were at war, The most important! And funds were needed(again these are legitimate reasons to tax) to pay for certain things. See you have to remember that back then people understood that the fruits of their labor rightfully belonged to them. They understood that government did not have a higher claim to their property. They hated taxes so much, and they hated centralized government power so much, that they made it impossible for the federal government to tax and made it very difficult for the federal government to adopt changes. There was of course opposition to this, others wanted a strong federal government with the ability to tax and to aquire more power if it wanted it. The fight to restrain the power of government went on, as you know, for a while. We all know that many men opposed the constitution as it was written and didn't sign it. Others(thankfully) were able to get things in like The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to curtail the power of the government.

There are deeper underlying reasons, and if you want to get into it let me know. In my opinion it would have been possible to keep the Articles of Confederation, but under the articles the federal government was also unable to collect tariffs and tariffs are something that I believe the government could impose, instead of directly taxing the people, to fund its operations.

Manuel
12-15-2004, 08:00 PM
Manuel -

You share liberterian views with what, about 2% of the population at large?

I disagree. The percentage is much larger. I speak of freedom and you think people don't agree with me?

For example, Republicans(not all of course) and Libertarians agree on many economic policies. And remember the Republicans and the Democrats are two parties that go way back, so people that perhaps agree, to a certain extent, with libertarianism may keep voting with the party that they grew up with instead of changing.


If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that your government does not have the right to collect a tax from you that they would use to finance something that you do not support. Is this correct?

Not necessarily.


So, you don't like it that you would be surcharged 1-2% restaurant, hotel and entertainment tax in Marion County, or even central Indiana to suppor the construction of a new stadium. Therefore, your government should not be able to levy that tax and force you to pay it, along with those that would support the project.

Correct.


So, I gather that since I do not have children of school age, I should not have to pay that portion of my state and federal taxes that supports education.

Yes.

Is it not my resposibility to pay for the needs of my family?

You should be able to contribute freely, but you should not be forced.


Or, since my neighbor is a pacifist and does not support military pursuits in any fashion whatsoever, he should not have to pay that portion of his taxes that would be diverted to defense?

Good question. Ideally taxes would not be collected from the people, revenue could be had in other ways.

Your neighbor has every right to voice his concern or disagreement, he can do it by voting or by voicing it. That is why the founding fathers established a Congress so these issues could be discussed(how to pay for war of course).


Where does it stop?

Where the government is not needed to provide services.

Did you know that in past communist countries people would actually say, "if the government doesn't provide us with food and clothing, who will"?


The way the system works is that it (supposedly) works toward the common good.

What is that? What is the common good?


There will always be things our government does that we, as INDIVIDUALS, might argue does not benefit us. But for the most part, the vast majority of projects that your government pursues will benefit you at some point in your life.

Right, someone could actually say that they can provide for their own defense and protection! Seriously, government is needed to establish a Rule of Law.

Wait, goverment projects will benefit me?

Please explain how the public funding of the arts benefits me.


As citizens we place trust in those we elect to look out on our behalf. If we cannot accept that, then we need to elect candidates to office that share our viewpoints.

If that is not acceptable or is not possible, maybe it is time to move.

I'll leave you with on of my favorite quotes:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive."
-Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Arcadian
12-15-2004, 11:22 PM
Briefly I believe that the Articles failed because it gave local governments more power than the central government. Anytime that an umbrella bureaucracy has less power than the agencies underneath it; it will be ineffective. I guess the biggest area in which we disagree on the articles it that I believe they were a failed experiment in radically weak government. The constitution is still a weak government even without the bill of rights (which I am glad they were added) but it had enough power to continue.

I might add that I believe you are replacing the anti-federalist state rights stances with radical individualism. But just the same I believe that the same princible applies to the state and individual. A state must have power over the individual or else it will fail. What the state spends our money is decided by our government which we select.

On the subject of stadiums I find it hard to believe that any of our founding fathers would object to a gathering place built by a community's taxes if the local government chose to spend their money that way. There is a huge difference between the federal government owning the RCA dome, which would be the case in a true socialist setting, and the city of Indianapolis owning the RCA dome.

PacerMan
12-16-2004, 01:06 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=1947248

I think it says it very well.

Arcadian
12-16-2004, 03:01 AM
I am perfectly fine with DC's move. It was handled as the city chose to handle it. To build a stadium is a community's decision.