"We've out-gentrified ourselves" (Howe: transfer, theater, construction)

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by scm53

Ah, a follower of Procrustes.

So explain to all of us how UT's football stadium promotes "services and education of the citizens"?

It's not a perfect argument, but sports programs are typically used as a promotion for the school that lends itself to the academic mission. Personally, I believe that should be taxed also to a lesser extent. Otoh, churches serve and benefit ONLY those who attend there and not the broader society. In fact, they do considerable harm to some.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by wehotex

: Otoh, churches serve and benefit ONLY those who attend there and not the broader society. In fact, they do considerable harm to some.

It is obvious you have an ax to grind against organized religion, and will never be convinced they do anything good. You are entitled to that opinion, but not your own facts.

First, churches do not benefit only those that attend there. Churches deliver services every day to the least among us. Children attend school in tax exempt church buildings that never worship there. Churches provide meeting space to dependency groups that frequently include attendees that have zero religious inclinations. And on and on.

Second, Texas extends property tax exemption to almost every 501(c)3 that requests a determination letter, regardless of the breadth of their benefit to the broader society. You don't think that churches do. Others may have the same doubts about art galleries, but that doesn't mean they don't get property tax exemptions.

Third, the First Amendment clearly blocks Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taxation of church property would endanger that free exercise, because as Chief Justice John Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." In 1970, the Supreme Court upheld tax exemption for churches, ruling:

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Between taxing Texas college football stadiums and churches, I don't know which one you stand a lesser chance on. I don't think I'd try either without a good disguise.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

The other mistake California makes is in having an unrealistic reliance on income taxes on its highest earners - raised last year to 12.3%, the highest rate in the nation. While satisfying to some people, this places a reliance on notoriously volatile incomes - fueled by capital gains, stock options, etc. This results in wild, unpredictable swings in state revenues as the market rises and falls. It also increases the opportunity cost for many with movable jobs, to move.

That's _because_ of prop 13. Prop 13 basically removed the option of significant property taxes (which are relatively stable year to year), leaving income taxes as one of the few options.


Plus prop 13 adds the 2/3 rule for _any_ tax changes (state level or local level), leading to legislative gridlock most years.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Ah, a follower of Procrustes.

So explain to all of us how UT's football stadium promotes "services and education of the citizens"?

It turns a profit which is used for education.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's _because_ of prop 13. Prop 13 basically removed the option of significant property taxes (which are relatively stable year to year), leaving income taxes as one of the few options.


Plus prop 13 adds the 2/3 rule for _any_ tax changes (state level or local level), leading to legislative gridlock most years.

I'm well familiar with Prop 13, having lived in California when it passed. You have chosen to totally ignore the other side of the revenue equation - raising California's middle range income taxes to those of comparable states - as well as the expense side - reining in the blue state model of extensive services and high salaries and benefits. Prop 13 has been the law for over thirty years. There has been plenty of time to either get other revenues up, or get expenses down. It is an abdication of leadership to do neither.

[hillcountryheart]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It turns a profit which is used for education.

Football is a religion. It is an opiate for the masses. The distribution from athletic programs back into the school is minimal. It may pay for itself, but it doesn't fund education for non-athletes.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hillcountryheart

Football is a religion. It is an opiate for the masses. The distribution from athletic programs back into the school is minimal. It may pay for itself, but it doesn't fund education for non-athletes.

False. Millions of dollars _per year_ isn't "minimal".

Budget Facts: Budget 101 at The University of Texas at Austin

[Trainwreck20]

Football is a religion. It is an opiate for the masses. The distribution from athletic programs back into the school is minimal. It may pay for itself, but it doesn't fund education for non-athletes.

Football (or other sports) in a lot of ways is synonymous to art. Whereas some people have an urge and talent for creating art, other people have a drive to compete. Some people admire art w/o being able to create art (at least not on the level that the talented artist can), whereas other people vicariously compete via sports teams. Just because one person does not value art does not make it worthless, so does the fact that another that does not like sports does not render it pointless.

You can argue that the competitive (and sometimes violent) aspects of sports represent traits that are counter productive to society, but that does not mean they don't exist. You can't just say 'get rid of your instinct to compete, it serves no practical purpose' any more than you can say 'get rid of your desire to play music, it serves no purpose'.

False. Millions of dollars _per year_ isn't "minimal".

Budget Facts: Budget 101 at The University of Texas at Austin

That is an anomaly, even for UT. The overflow in to the academic side is a recent occurrence and will likely not last indefinitely in any case.

[hillcountryheart]

Originally Posted by Novacek

False. Millions of dollars _per year_ isn't "minimal".

Budget Facts: Budget 101 at The University of Texas at Austin

This is what you base this on?

"Like Housing and Food Service, Athletics is a self-supporting unit at the university. Intercollegiate Athletics pays all its expenses at UT, including $8.5 million in scholarships, $2.3 million in central administrative services, $16.5 million in debt service and an average of about $3 million each year in capital expenditures. Athletics contributes millions of dollars each year to academic programs and initiatives.
UT is one of only a handful of schools in the nation where Athletics is self-sufficient and not dependent on financial resources from the university. Not too many years ago UT was required to subsidize Athletics, and we need to strive to keep Athletics self-sustaining."


"millions of dollars to academic programs and initiatives?" where and what? and you will notice that we must continue to strive to keep it self-sustaining.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It turns a profit which is used for education.

So, your argument is that any college sports facility that "turns a profit which is used for education", shoud be entitled to property tax exemption? Right?

Then the corollary also applies - if it doesn't turn profits back into education, then it shouldn't be property tax exempt. Okeeeh. Get ready for the howling from A&M, Tech, UH, Texas State, UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Lamar, SFA, SHSU ...