Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
- 265
- Banned
- #121
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transfered up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transerrfed either laterally or down the food chain.
I got all that pard. They subsidize these cathedrals off of taking money from taxpayers, it's still forced wealth redistribution. I don't really care how they push it around on the books. And I'm not as sure as you are that all cities do it in exactly the same way. Are you? You still have the substantial people on the top taking money from the masses and then using that wealth to further enrich the substantial people.
Yes, I'm sure ALL government owned stadiums are done this way. It would be illegal to build a $400M stadi with tax payer money and then give it to a private company.
I'm sure you get how it works, I'm not sure you understand why cities risk it. And I KNOW you don't understand that it isn't socialism.
The theory is that a $400M stadi will generate $1B in revenue in the form of rent and taxes over it's lifetime.
Or more.
It's really no different than a city investing money in the stock market or any other investment. Now most research actually shows that at best it is a break even scenario for cities, BUT that doesn't make it socialism, which is really the only point I was making.
When they tax other folk's money to do something else with, it's wealth redistribution. Like I say, we've been indoctrinated in this society to see wealth transferred up the food chain into the hands of the more affluent as being different than wealth transferred either laterally or down the food chain. If it moves toward the commons or for things like food assistance, housing, healthcare, education, it’s “socialism” and welfare. If on the other hand the funding moves toward stadiums, Wall Street, subsidizing big pharma, big oil, agribusiness et.al., it’s called “an investment”.
The only difference is who is seen as getting the funding.
Spending tax money is not wealth redistribution. It's tax distribution. That's what taxes are for, to pay for things that benefit society.
That you don't agree with what that ta money is spent on doesn't make it wealth redistribution, which is a made up term that doesn't mean jack shit anyway.
Odd, that's what those who soil themselves over welfare, socialized healthcare and education have been wailing foe decades.
I can't help what others think.
There is no such thing as wealth redistribution PERIOD.
Oh, there are stupid uses of tax money, but that isn't wealth redistribution, or socialism.
Sure, take care.