OT: Bears & NFL Talk 94

[MarotteMarauder]

Flat tax never works and is just a means to stick it to the poor.

Sticking what to the poor? The cost of the goods and services that they use?

 

[Sarava]

Your tax knowledge is impressive, Idionym.

I guess in the end, my position is sort of like this. I think a dome stadium is an asset to the entire Chicagoland area. I think many major markets have such stadiums, but for whatever reasons, Chicago never has had one. The reality is, you're probably not going to have one built with zero help from the governement and a complete lack of tax discounts or certainty given to the owner. I doubt there's any case like this in the country. Even Sofi stadium, which cost 5 bil and was entirely self funded, has an estimated 180 mil in tax rebates coming.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

Your tax knowledge is impressive, Idionym.

I guess in the end, my position is sort of like this. I think a dome stadium is an asset to the entire Chicagoland area. I think many major markets have such stadiums, but for whatever reasons, Chicago never has had one. The reality is, you're probably not going to have one built with zero help from the governement and a complete lack of tax discounts or certainty given to the owner. I doubt there's any case like this in the country. Even Sofi stadium, which cost 5 bil and was entirely self funded, has an estimated 180 mil in tax rebates coming.

There's no doubt that it could be considered an "asset" but so could many other things, and if we're giving 9 figure tax breaks to create, or help create, an asset, then maybe we should pick the asset that does the most for the community.

What is the use-case for a massive indoor stadium that isn't currently being satisfied by existing structures? Maybe I lack creativity but it seems like it would mostly be used for things like massive concerts (ones in the winter that would need a larger capacity than the United Center or Rosemont or ones in the summer that for whatever reason couldn't take place at Soldier Field) and one off sport events like the Superbowl or other random sporting events.

I just looked at US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis and they have two big concerts this summer, one more in the fall, and then one sporting event in the fall.

Sure, you could argue those events will bring in additional tax revenue, and maybe there will be more in future years, and attracting those events does make the stadium an "asset."

But is it a priority decision that should be made? These types of decisions are about tradeoffs, and as @Idionym has stated many times, the revenues need to come from somewhere (i.e. any tax break we give to the Bears would need to accounted for somewhere else), so decisions like these are actually important.

 

[hawksrule]

Sticking what to the poor? The cost of the goods and services that they use?

What you’re proposing is effectively a regressive tax increase on the working poor, who would end up paying a much higher percentage of their much smaller incomes than millionaires do towards roads, schools, garbage pickup, fire department, and everything else that makes a municipality tick. Should a family making five figures pay the same dollar amount in taxes as a family making seven figures? Putting aside that it’s not feasible, bad economics, and that no municipal budget could survive it, it once again comes down to the type of society you want to live in. Open your eyes and enter the world with other people in it. It’s not too late.

 

[Idionym]

Your tax knowledge is impressive, Idionym.

I guess in the end, my position is sort of like this. I think a dome stadium is an asset to the entire Chicagoland area. I think many major markets have such stadiums, but for whatever reasons, Chicago never has had one. The reality is, you're probably not going to have one built with zero help from the governement and a complete lack of tax discounts or certainty given to the owner. I doubt there's any case like this in the country. Even Sofi stadium, which cost 5 bil and was entirely self funded, has an estimated 180 mil in tax rebates coming.

Thanks, I work in state/local politics so it's damn near required knowledge for my job.

I don't disagree with you. I don't think the Bears will need to go at it alone (even though I think it should be on the table in principle, but in reality it's not). I think the most likely thing that will happen is that they'll appeal the assessment and argue they overpaid for the land (which I think is probably true!), and negotiate with the taxing bodies (mainly the 3 local school boards). I'm sure they'll strike a deal and get some tax relief. I don't really gamble, but I'd bet $1,000 on it easy.

What I've taken issue with is that the Bears have gone about it by trying to preempt local governments by going directly to the state legislature to get them property tax relief (letting them not negotiate with the school boards who are by far and away the largest recipient of property taxes). It's something that they'd obviously do but it's definitely scummy that you're asking politicians from the Quad Cities to Cairo to take away massive amounts of money from Arlington Heights schools with very little local input.

Luckily that didn't work, but then they go and cry about it to the media and act like they're being treated so unfairly! Before even going through the negotiating process! That's where I got annoyed, that they felt so entitled to MASSIVE tax cuts without even going through the normal process and then had the gall to act like they're the victim.

All that I want is for our government bodies to fight as hard for taxpayer money just as the Bears are going to fight hard for their bottom line. What happens too often around the country is that sports teams bully their way into getting these insane deals directly at the expense of local taxpayers. The Bears are a draw to Cook County, and will be a draw to Arlington Heights, and I think there's a non-economic factor with sports team that they provide to communities (local pride, for example) that is important. That being said, the McCaskey's are billionaires, the Bears are worth billions, and the NFL is a money-printing machine. The question during these negotiations will be a question of if the Bears are gonna be super rich or just slightly less super rich but with more tax relief for locals. Of course I want the local to get the best deal possible, and of course I want local governments, who are elected to get them the best deal possible, to try and get them the best deal possible. I want my government to fight hard for me and my interests, and it's sad that many around the country don't get that. I feel lucky we live in a state where they sometimes do.

Sorry for all the walls of text, I'm just obviously passionate about this issue lol.

 

[Idionym]

The entire ad valorem system of property taxation should be scrapped.
Their is no direct connection between valuations and the taxing entity budget needs.
Should be a tax per head for the basic requirements of a community. We can argue what those requirements would be.
Beyond that, things should be paid for via user fees.

An argument can actually be made that people with high $$ properties and high $$ taxes use less public services not more.

Sticking what to the poor? The cost of the goods and services that they use?

Come on man lol. We might as well bring the tithe and monarchs back at that point. Actually, sorry to monarchs, because most medieval kingdoms didn't even have a tax system this regressive. You're proposing something even the Kings knew would be so deeply unpopular they stayed away from it!

If you honestly think a single mother of 2 who works two jobs to barely scrape by should pay the exact same tax as JB Pritzker, then I honestly think you have very little care or empathy for your fellow humans and don't mind seeing suffering in this world.

That, or you just have no idea the destruction and misery that your tax system proposal would cause.

Which one is it?

 

[Sarava]

Thanks, I work in state/local politics so it's damn near required knowledge for my job.

I don't disagree with you. I don't think the Bears will need to go at it alone (even though I think it should be on the table in principle, but in reality it's not). I think the most likely thing that will happen is that they'll appeal the assessment and argue they overpaid for the land (which I think is probably true!), and negotiate with the taxing bodies (mainly the 3 local school boards). I'm sure they'll strike a deal and get some tax relief. I don't really gamble, but I'd bet $1,000 on it easy.

What I've taken issue with is that the Bears have gone about it by trying to preempt local governments by going directly to the state legislature to get them property tax relief (letting them not negotiate with the school boards who are by far and away the largest recipient of property taxes). It's something that they'd obviously do but it's definitely scummy that you're asking politicians from the Quad Cities to Cairo to take away massive amounts of money from Arlington Heights schools with very little local input.

Luckily that didn't work, but then they go and cry about it to the media and act like they're being treated so unfairly! Before even going through the negotiating process! That's where I got annoyed, that they felt so entitled to MASSIVE tax cuts without even going through the normal process and then had the gall to act like they're the victim.

All that I want is for our government bodies to fight as hard for taxpayer money just as the Bears are going to fight hard for their bottom line. What happens too often around the country is that sports teams bully their way into getting these insane deals directly at the expense of local taxpayers. The Bears are a draw to Cook County, and will be a draw to Arlington Heights, and I think there's a non-economic factor with sports team that they provide to communities (local pride, for example) that is important. That being said, the McCaskey's are billionaires, the Bears are worth billions, and the NFL is a money-printing machine. The question during these negotiations will be a question of if the Bears are gonna be super rich or just slightly less super rich but with more tax relief for locals. Of course I want the local to get the best deal possible, and of course I want local governments, who are elected to get them the best deal possible, to try and get them the best deal possible. I want my government to fight hard for me and my interests, and it's sad that many around the country don't get that. I feel lucky we live in a state where they sometimes do.

Sorry for all the walls of text, I'm just obviously passionate about this issue lol.

All good man. It’s funny you say you work in politics. At one point, I thought to myself that it feels like I’m debating Bernie Sanders here. Hehe.

I know football stadiums are tough to make work. So few events for so much land and high building costs. The key here may be what else is out on the property and if they can keep it hopping even in non event days. Maybe something like St. Louis has with the ballpark village- but bigger and better?

I read that allegiant stadium in Las Vegas is booked out for 3 years. But I don’t know how many events that is. Also Las Vegas is its own beast. Entertainment acts probably sell better there than normal non tourist dependent cities.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

If you honestly think a single mother of 2 who works two jobs to barely scrape by should pay the exact same tax as JB Pritzker,

We are talking about property taxes not income taxes. If JB Pritzker didn't have property to tax, then what?

You do realize that the ad valorem is a wealth tax in disguise. This is one of the reasons for the the Senior Citizen exemption and the Senior freeze. They likely have amassed a ton of equity in a house over 40 years but do not have the income to pay the taxes, which in Cook County are near confiscatory levels.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

Should a family making five figures pay the same dollar amount in taxes as a family making seven figures? Putting aside that it’s not feasible, bad economics, and that no municipal budget could survive it

Income is irrelevant when taxes are based on property values. Should a family that uses $1,000 in services pay the same as a family that uses $5,000 in services.

That is the fundamental question, not relating to ability to pay.

 

[Idionym]

All good man. It’s funny you say you work in politics. At one point, I thought to myself that it feels like I’m debating Bernie Sanders here. Hehe.

I know football stadiums are tough to make work. So few events for so much land and high building costs. The key here may be what else is out on the property and if they can keep it hopping even in non event days. Maybe something like St. Louis has with the ballpark village- but bigger and better?

I read that allegiant stadium in Las Vegas is booked out for 3 years. But I don’t know how many events that is. Also Las Vegas is its own beast. Entertainment acts probably sell better there than normal non tourist dependent cities.

Haha thanks, I'll take that as a compliment!

From my understanding, the Bears have been asking for property tax relief on the entertainment part of the land and not the stadium part of the land. Ignoring that I have no idea how that would work given it's all on one parcel, I think that makes sense. Having movie theatres, restaurants, malls etc on the land get some tax relief makes more sense to me than the stadium, as they're open significantly more, they're more accessible to the public, and create jobs. There's existing tax stuff for that (TIF districts), so I assume the Bears would go after that. That being said, it's not like it's a particularly prime area for an entertainment district (it's not bad but it's not downtown Chicago of course), so we'll see how it works for them.

We are talking about property taxes not income taxes. If JB Pritzker didn't have property to tax, then what?

You do realize that the ad valorem is a wealth tax in disguise. This is one of the reasons for the the Senior Citizen exemption and the Senior freeze. They likely have amassed a ton of equity in a house over 40 years but do not have the income to pay the taxes, which in Cook County are near confiscatory levels.

So are you saying that each property pays the same amount of tax (regardless of square foot) or that all land is taxed at the same rate (x/sq ft for each property)? If it's the former, that's obviously absurd that a parcel 800mil sq ft would be taxed the same as a 1000 sq ft parcel. If it's the latter, you're saying that a single family home uses the same "amenities" (in this case, schools, roads, police/fire, literally everything local governments provide) as a 1,000 person apartment building?

 

[hawksrule]

Income is irrelevant when taxes are based on property values. Should a family that uses $1,000 in services pay the same as a family that uses $5,000 in services.

That is the fundamental question, not relating to ability to pay.

A) higher property values are correlated with higher incomes
B) what you are suggesting raises taxes on the working poor - those who live in modest homes, and those who don’t even own homes by replacing property taxes with a per head tax. Yes, those with higher incomes should pay more in taxes than those with lower incomes. When you were younger and not making as much money and you had children in school, you probably weren’t white knighting for your neighbor who had no kids yet paid the same property taxes as you did. So no, I couldn’t care less about usage. You should’ve been over this Ayn Rand nonsense by the time you were 16.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

So are you saying that each property pays the same amount of tax (regardless of square foot) or that all land is taxed at the same rate (x/sq ft for each property)? If it's the former, that's obviously absurd that a parcel 800mil sq ft would be taxed the same as a 1000 sq ft parcel. If it's the latter, you're saying that a single family home uses the same "amenities" (in this case, schools, roads, police/fire, literally everything local governments provide) as a 1,000 person apartment building?

I'm saying it should be based on a unit/resident basis. Of course different property types pay a different rate, just like now.

It would be based more on anticipate use basis rather than just the value of one's property.

Yes, those with higher incomes should pay more in taxes than those with lower incomes

They typically do. More income taxes, more sales tax-property taxes are a wealth tax.

 

[Idionym]

I'm saying it should be based on a unit/resident basis. Of course different property types pay a different rate, just like now.

It would be based more on anticipate use basis rather than just the value of one's property.

Given the range of services that local governments provide, how could you possibly anticipate use, and also define use?

For example, I do not have kids nor do I plan to. I am therefore no longer directly involved in the usage of schools.

However, I indirectly benefit from those around me having an education. Whether it's the technology I use, the services I receive (like having an accountant file my taxes or something), or the medical care I get, I am indirectly benefitting from our education system. Should I also pay an education tax every time I use a service from someone who was educated (ie basically everything)? Or is it just easier for us to, as a society, understand that our lives are all better when we provide a free quality education to every kid, and so we might as well all help pay for schools?

And you may say "Oh, well schools obviously should be collectively funded!" but the argument is the same for every government service. I never have and probably never will receive welfare, but I do benefit that people aren't living in destitution and starving on the streets. You may think that you don't benefit from that, but I assure you that having a large underclass of starving, hopeless people is bad for literally everyone in society. Even something as benign as a park is still an important piece of a community that everyone benefits from even if they don't directly use it.

You're missing the point if you think collective goods should be paid for on a per-usage basis when we all clearly benefit from having a viable, functional society, regardless of how much you personally use these services.

 

[Pez68]

Come on man lol. We might as well bring the tithe and monarchs back at that point. Actually, sorry to monarchs, because most medieval kingdoms didn't even have a tax system this regressive. You're proposing something even the Kings knew would be so deeply unpopular they stayed away from it!

If you honestly think a single mother of 2 who works two jobs to barely scrape by should pay the exact same tax as JB Pritzker, then I honestly think you have very little care or empathy for your fellow humans and don't mind seeing suffering in this world.

That, or you just have no idea the destruction and misery that your tax system proposal would cause.

Which one is it?

Given his posting history on topics such as this....

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Former NFL QB Ryan Mallet has died

 

[Sarava]

So a few more cities have reached out to the Bears - Lake Forest and Aurora. Aurora is the 2nd most populated city in Illinois - after Chicago of course. So if my count is right, we're up 6 cities talking to the Bears - Waukegan, Lake Forest, Arlington Heights, Chicago, Naperville and Aurora. And those cities fall in to 4 different counties, Cook, Lake, Dupage and now Kane county.

It sounds like the Bears are absolutely willing to consider Chicago - but not Soldier Field, and it also appears they want ownership. And I dont blame them - because the Chicago Park District has been a terrible landlord over the past few decades.

The Bears did meet with a pro-stadium group of local business owners in Arlington Heights on Monday - and it sounds like there's been no progress there. I was reading that one of the districts they have to negotiate for taxes is District 211 - which Palatine High School is part of, and I graduated from there way back when.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

More NFL players caught gambling

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I wonder if the suspension announcements were sponsored by DraftKings.

 

[Ben Grimm]

Using SBs won as the only criteria as to why one player is better than another is lame. Not only is football a team sport, but some of the best ever such as Butkus and and Sayers never even played in a playoff game.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Using SBs won as the only criteria as to why one player is better than another is lame. Not only is football a team sport, but some of the best ever such as Butkus and and Sayers never even played in a playoff game.

Okay?

 

[ndgt10]

I wonder if the suspension announcements were sponsored by DraftKings.

They advertise this crap during every game, yet the players aren't supposed to partake. Stupid.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

These are atrocious

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I'm actually surprisingly okay with those helmets. Black and blue works for them.

That being said, the trend for shirts and pants being the same color in football needs to die in a fire already.

Also, them trying to make Indy look like a tough town is pretty unintentionally hilarious.

 

[HeisenBaez]

Why are Indy Colts trying to look like Duke University?

 

[Mrfenn92]