Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-27-2013, 07:43 AM
 
3,862 posts, read 4,254,217 times
Reputation: 4517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
What does "plenty" mean? Is "plenty" worth $189M in money from the taxpayers? The $189M is easy to quantify. Unless some real quantification can be made of the impact that you speak of, then such statements to me are FUD at best and "doom & gloom" by intent.

And while we are at it, what is the impact of hitting the population with $189M in extra taxes. How many jobs and businesses will be impacted by this? The restaurant association has already come out against it. Why is government putting one private business, the one owned by Jerry Richardson, above 1000s of other private businesses, restaurants owners.

If people want to make a value judgement then this is the type of due diligence that should be performed. The fact that the city, which often spends huge sums on studies, hasn't produced one iota of data, speaks volumes about the fact they don't want any of this to come out. If this were a private business, where money has to be accounted for because it has to be earned, they would all be fired for such incompetance.
Please refer back to this statement I used from a previous post " It's easy to oppose something based on opinion versus sitting through tons of meetings and reviewing mounds of data/information (facts)". Unless you can provide details or study statistics that corroborate any of your points about economic impact, your argument is baseless, opinionated and useless...and fundamentally incompetent.

If you are inferring that the government picks winners and losers, then you are correct, it always has and will side with the most influental players (or lobbyist). This isn't rocket science, the government is not a private institution and expecting it to function like a business is quite comical. I think people with such disdain for government should become government officials - use that so-called brilliance to "fix" the government.

 
Old 02-27-2013, 07:44 AM
 
15,355 posts, read 12,598,675 times
Reputation: 7571
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
What does "plenty" mean? Is "plenty" worth $189M in money from the taxpayers? The $189M is easy to quantify. Unless some real quantification can be made of the impact that you speak of, then such statements to me are FUD at best and "doom & gloom" by intent.

And while we are at it, what is the impact of hitting the population with $189M in extra taxes. How many jobs and businesses will be impacted by this? The restaurant association has already come out against it. Why is government putting one private business, the one owned by Jerry Richardson, above 1000s of other private businesses, restaurants owners.

If people want to make a value judgement then this is the type of due diligence that should be performed. The fact that the city, which often spends huge sums on studies, hasn't produced one iota of data, speaks volumes about the fact they don't want any of this to come out. If this were a private business, where money has to be accounted for because it has to be earned, they would all be fired for such incompetance.
This is the only business in Charlotte getting taxpayer money?

I wonder what the tax revenue is from the players and NFL in general in the area.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 08:07 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 4,951,662 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner View Post
This is the only business in Charlotte getting taxpayer money?

I wonder what the tax revenue is from the players and NFL in general in the area.
The first question is fallacious as well as irrelevant due to the fact they are creating a specific tax to support Jerry Richardson.

Second question is part of the due diligence that I mentioned above. People should not be left to "wonder" concerning these facts and figures. They are after all, going to have their food taxed for it.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 08:13 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 4,951,662 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Aristotle View Post
Please refer back to this statement I used from a previous post " It's easy to oppose something based on opinion versus sitting through tons of meetings and reviewing mounds of data/information (facts)". Unless you can provide details or study statistics that corroborate any of your points about economic impact, your argument is baseless, opinionated and useless...and fundamentally incompetent.

If you are inferring that the government picks winners and losers, then you are correct, it always has and will side with the most influental players (or lobbyist). This isn't rocket science, the government is not a private institution and expecting it to function like a business is quite comical. I think people with such disdain for government should become government officials - use that so-called brilliance to "fix" the government.
Item 1 makes no sense. Normally the one being asked to pay the bill and support its codification, in this case the taxpayer, do not bear the responsibility for the due diligence. That is up to the ones requesting the money. My point is that it has not happened. You claim an impact, I've asked you to define impact. It's your claim, not mine.
"it (government) always has and will side with the most influental players (or lobbyist)"
Easy enough to disprove. If what you have said is correct, the government would have never broken up AT&T (MaBell). I do admit however that such a thing seems unimaginable now. It doesn't mean however that taxpayers can't demand they do something different.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 08:59 AM
 
3,862 posts, read 4,254,217 times
Reputation: 4517
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Item 1 makes no sense. Normally the one being asked to pay the bill and support its codification, in this case the taxpayer, do not bear the responsibility for the due diligence. That is up to the ones requesting the money. My point is that it has not happened. You claim an impact, I've asked you to define impact. It's your claim, not mine.
"it (government) always has and will side with the most influental players (or lobbyist)"
Easy enough to disprove. If what you have said is correct, the government would have never broken up AT&T (MaBell). I do admit however that such a thing seems unimaginable now. It doesn't mean however that taxpayers can't demand they do something different.
I do agree in full transparency but you're claiming "facts" about opinions with nothing to substantiate the overall economical impact of losing the team..other than losing the team does not personally affect you. That's not gonna fly during the boardroom presentation...gonna need a few more bullet points from some credible sources.

Funny thing is I worked in the telecom business for 7+ years and Ma Bell is almost back together again:
Sunday Buzz: Ma Bell Finally Got the Band Back Together (by Denny K Miu)

All those CLECs got gobbled up by traditional ILECs.

The government did the same thing to Rockefeller with Standard Oil, he ended making more money...all in all, the power brokers will find a way to manipulate the system...they are the government, the folks making the laws, i.e., very wealthy people.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 10:03 AM
 
15,355 posts, read 12,598,675 times
Reputation: 7571
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
The first question is fallacious as well as irrelevant due to the fact they are creating a specific tax to support Jerry Richardson.

Second question is part of the due diligence that I mentioned above. People should not be left to "wonder" concerning these facts and figures. They are after all, going to have their food taxed for it.
The figures are out there but I'm not pressed to find them because I'm a fan of the NFL.

You may stay home due to this but 99% of Charlotte will not. I've never walked into a restaurant or visited a city and asked what the tax rate is before sitting down for a meal.

One could simply move to a city without sports franchises if it's that serious. The biggest event in Charlotte is happening this weekend (CIAA) and it's taking place in an NBA coliseum in Uptown that people like you didn't want in the first place.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,713 posts, read 9,676,732 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Aristotle View Post
Note the key word "I" didn't see any changes...the world doesn't rotate around you....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner View Post
Very good point.
Yes it is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner View Post
I don't mind at all... I enjoy having an NFL team in Charlotte.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 11:48 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 4,951,662 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner View Post
... I've never walked into a restaurant or visited a city and asked what the tax rate is before sitting down for a meal.
Nor have I and this is a false argument. I have however looked at the final bill and decided the total expense wasn't worth it. Taxes that increase this tally isn't good for the restaurant which won't gain any benefit from this.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 12:14 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 24,163,387 times
Reputation: 6822
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Nor have I and this is a false argument. I have however looked at the final bill and decided the total expense wasn't worth it. Taxes that increase this tally isn't good for the restaurant which won't gain any benefit from this.
Are you saying that an additional percentage point or two would cause you to not eat at a particular restaurant again?
 
Old 02-27-2013, 01:15 PM
 
15,355 posts, read 12,598,675 times
Reputation: 7571
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Nor have I and this is a false argument. I have however looked at the final bill and decided the total expense wasn't worth it. Taxes that increase this tally isn't good for the restaurant which won't gain any benefit from this.
If the total expense wasn't worth it then you are to blame for making a bad decision on where to eat.

You said you wouldn't spend another dime in city limits due to this tax.

Anyone who goes out to eat has already made a decision they are willing to overpay for food/service.... I don't think the 2% increase is going to stop people from dining out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top