OT: Terry Pegula wants new Bills stadium 100% public financed
Hopefully residents tell him to pound sand. Not really sure why Buffalo suddenly needs a new stadium when the state of New York and Erie County just spent 130 million ten years ago to renovate the current stadium. Especially a sport that sees attendance fall every year with more and more people watching on tv.
Someone should ask Pegula if it would be so profitable why doesnt he just build it himself?
August 1st, 2021 at 10:02 PM ^
Well, we will always be having a discussion about inequality, I'll concede that much.
But reasonable wealth transfer tax policies will pull the rug out from underneath the problem. It is simply the most reasonable and effective solution to maximize welfare without unduly infringing on the principles of liberty and justice.
Plutocrats in America currently have the ability to generate the average person's lifetime earnings a thousand times over every year completely tax-free. With proper planning they have the ability to pass an infinite amount of wealth on to their heirs completely tax-free.
With their resources the ultra-wealthy are capable of directing public policy for their own benefit to the detriment of everyone else. Their dominion over contract law, property law, antitrust law, bankruptcy law, election law, and the enforcement of law causes extreme, outrageous economic distortions and inefficiencies, and totally subverts democracy.
Nip the problem in the bud and implement reasonable wealth transfer tax policies.
August 1st, 2021 at 10:17 PM ^
It's like you only have one point for every single argument. "We'll never have wealth equality, so why improve things." "We'll never reach zero covid cases, so why try." etc. etc. etc.
And then you complain that people aren't engaging in discussion in a thread with 75+ comments so far. The upvotes and downvotes are there for exactly this reason, we don't need a dozen replies to every post no matter how much you think you deserve the attention.
August 1st, 2021 at 10:33 PM ^
But those uncomfortable truths ---- (1) zero COVID is impossible, which is proving out true, and (2) we'll never have wealth equality ---- deserve to be voiced over.
Yes, we should try to "improve things." But some folk set the goal so ridiculously ("no billionaires ever!!!" and "no COVID ever!!!") that they should be called out.
And --- yes --- both those things (no billionaires and no COVID allowed) are opinions held by a significant segment of this board's population.
August 1st, 2021 at 10:39 PM ^
We're not talking about achieving equality through the tax code, we're talking about requiring the wealthy to actually pay taxes. We're almost to the point where we literally can't cut taxes any further.
I would bet that Pegula already pays little in taxes. And now he's coming hat-in-hand to a largely blue-collar small city for an expensive taxpayer-funded project that would primarily benefit him.
It's simple: we have a huge country and powerful military to run, we can't afford to have the insanely wealthy, the people who extract the most out of the economy, pay next to nothing in taxes. From a practical, good governance standpoint, it's stupid and unsustainable. But, when these people dodge taxes (legally or illegally), especially over the course of decades, it actually does further inequality.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:27 AM ^
No one wants to engage in discussion with you because you're a sea lion.
You've gone to the Ben Shapiro school of debate. You just ask questions and then claim you've won.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:41 AM ^
No one wants to engage in discussion with you because you call someone a name.
You’ve gone to the AOC school of debate. You just assume that you are correct and everyone else’s questions are invalid and then claim you’ve won.
(1) Yes, millionaires should exist.
(2) Because while somewhat arbitrary, it's a reasonable threshold to both encourage entrepreneurship and hard work while not allowing people to accumulate so much wealth that it negatively impacts our system of government and exacerbates income inequality.
(3) One billion dollars. The legislators elected to pass laws in addition to the judicial branch when inevitable constitutional challenges are made.
I realize you ask these questions in an attempt to expose an incoherent moral philosophy, but they really aren't that difficult.
August 1st, 2021 at 10:06 PM ^
I didn't ask those questions to "expose an incoherent moral philosophy", I asked those questions because I thought they were reasonable questions to ask. Thanks for answering.
As regards number 3, let's say we set the threshold at $1,000,000,000. But here's the thing: very rare is the person with a combined $1B in their combined bank accounts, where the government can simply subtract $500K once their combined balance gets to $1,000,500,000. Most of their wealth is in assets with a soft and ever-changing price: stocks, homes, businesses, art, airplanes, et cetera.
So, how often do all those assets get priced? To get their wealth down, does the government now force those people to sell their assets? Does the government seize those assets. E.g., could the government wind up owning 32 NFL teams, since they're nearly all valued at $1B+?
How does this proposal all work, in practical terms?
Very true. Most assets are illiquid. That’s why the concept of taxing unrealized gains floated by the Sanders/Warren/AOC left-wing of the Democratic Party is so stupid.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:52 AM ^
No fucking politics. Plus, shouldn’t you stick to your bread and butter: bitching about hockey and other things you have absolutely no understanding of?
Again, these questions aren't that difficult.
Let people run up their wealth as high as they can. A hundred million dollars, a billion dollars, whatever. Decrease the unified credit against estate and gift tax to something reasonable--IMO, set it equal to the median American's lifetime earnings, or even some multiple of that, indexed to inflation. (Surely you can't complain if you inherit an entire lifetime's worth of earnings.) Reduce or eliminate wealth transfer tax techniques that presently allow the ultra-wealthy to pass a potentially infinite amount of money down to their heirs tax-free.
Assets in the decedent's gross estate are valuated at their fair market value at the date of death unless some special valuation rule applies. If you have to liquidate assets in order to pay the tax, so be it. That's the funny thing about acquiring assets: If you can't afford the incident expenses, you can't afford the asset. If someone earns $4,000 per month, that doesn't mean they can afford a luxury vehicle that costs $4,000 per month. There are taxes, insurance, gas, maintenance, and other expenses. If you can't afford to pay your estate tax liability without liquidating assets, you should've thought about that before acquiring the assets.
In practical terms, the way this works is that people who won the birth lottery and were raised in an ultra-wealthy family will have to do the bare minimum--obtain education, training, and/or experience, and then create value for society--in order to achieve a life of luxury, instead of just existing and relying on handouts from their ancestors.
Really??? Such a juvenile take. Surely, somewhere within you, you actually know better.
Our household meets the millionaire definition but come spend a week with us and you might develop some reasoned understanding in this regard. Our household's joint gross income has never been greater than $200K/year. We are frugal, we made our money by contributing to the well-being and benefit of the larger society directly through our work and social activities, we pay taxes at the intended legislated rates...and on and on.
I grew up in a family manufacturing business that my father started when I was 15 years old. An expressed and followed goal of this business was to pay our employees a wage that allowed for their well-being. My father's salary was never more than twice that of the average worker on the production lines. This business benefitted everyone. This is what "success" means...everyone benefits in meaningful ways. Employers should be required to compensate their employees at levels that do not require governmental subsidies to maintain their well-being.
Billionaires shouldn't exist.
this comment reeks of pure jealousy / envy
I disagree. I didn't get a sense of envy at all. What I took from the post was a simple moral recognition that it's wrong to hoard more wealth than you could ever spend when 700 million people are living below the international poverty line.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:27 AM ^
It may be wrong, but who are you to decide? It’s no different than many other socially-divisive issues. Plus, many of the positive things generated by society were borne out of an entrepreneur’s incentive to take a risk. If we don’t have those incentives maybe there are no iPhones or college football blogs. That doesn’t mean the public should subsidize billionaires with free stadiums or encourage rent-seeking activities. But we should want to incentivize innovation and productivity growth.
Seems like becoming a multi-millionaire is enough motivation for someone, that they need to have the carrot of billions in their sights to innovate seems odd.
August 3rd, 2021 at 10:06 AM ^
Plutocracy is 100 percent counterproductive if your goal is to incentivize innovation and productivity growth. Huge corporations don't take huge risks. Neither do people who are ultra-wealthy. Neither huge corporations nor the ultra-wealthy encourage entrepreneurship--creative disruption is terrible for established interests.
Here's an idea. Implement reasonable wealth transfer tax policies and then earmark the tax revenue for innovation and entrepreneurship. Feed small business, capitalism, and democracy instead of monopolization and plutocracy.
Billionaires shouldn’t exist but millionaires who play a child’s game should exist. Wrong website to be on
My cousin "renounced" his lifelong Lions fandom in 2019 to conveniently convert to a bills fan just as they were getting good. I'm not afraid to say that it's an ultimate bitch move. Therefore I can't help but have somewhat of a perception that a bunch of the "#billsmafia" are bandwagoners. I always did appreciate the aesthetic of Buffalo and Ralph Wilson Stadium along with their tailgate culture, complete with Tom Brady's dildo and buttchugging. Any actual bills fans feel free to set me straight.
There is absolutely a hardcore and sizable Bills fan base kinda like the Loins, but with a little less sadness because instead of straight up not making the playoffs, they make them and then lose Super Bowls.
Then there is the Barstool sports table slamming fans and brandwagoners that have joined in the past few years that make up a bizarre percentage of their current fans.
I know some of them! I have a couple of friends in Madison of all places who are huge Bills fans.
However, keep in mind that the roughly ten year period under Marv Levy where they lost four consecutive Super Bowls was really the only consistent success they've had since the AFL merger. Outside of the Levy years, they had a couple championships in the AFL just before the first Super Bowl and an occasional playoff appearance. They didn't make the playoffs this century until 2017 and didn't win a playoff game until 2020.
So that run in the 90s definitely makes them better than the Lions, but not a lot since then.
I honestly don't even know why I like the Lions still.
Businessman Pegula: "Free market!"
Football owner Pegula: "Build me a stadium, citizens!"
Fuck. Off.
Oh apparently I missed it, he also wants $400,000 for renovations to the Sabres's arena.
August 1st, 2021 at 11:12 PM ^
That should help build one new concession stand and a bathroom with urinals opposed to the current trough
Been proven many times by economists that 8 NFL home games has very little economic benefit to the local community and does not justify public funding of stadiums. This is one instance where I'd welcome federal legislation to ban public funding of stadiums for private entities. This isn't like IBM threatening to build its new plant in China if it doesn't get tax breaks. These pro teams all have to play in the US so make them pay for it out of their own pockets. They aren't sharing the profits.
The economic impact, per a very good piece from St. Louis Fed, suggests the economics of publicly financed stadiums just don't work.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-…
Why in heaven's name would anyone want the federal government to control what is within the jurisdiction of state and local government?
As for teams sharing profits, I do believe those profits are taxed to say nothing of the jobs that a team provides and the economic benefit that 8 or more homes games provides to the local economy.
Here's a six year old piece detailing the economic benefits to the local community from U of M football and it is not trivial as many people found out last fall due to Covid.
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/the-economic-impact-of-university…
August 1st, 2021 at 10:04 PM ^
I'm just going off economist Andrew Zimbalist's book I read in the late 90's on this topic. I flavor federal legislation because the state and local politicians often push these through as vanity projects to the detriment of locals. Look at Mike Brown's sweetheart deal in Cincy for his stadium as an example. They are all billionaires and can pay for their stadiums out of their own pockets.
August 1st, 2021 at 10:58 PM ^
Agree, this is a local and state issue. It's not a power of the federal government.
As above, I was very concerned about the 2 Denver sports franchises getting publicly financed stadiums and researched the economics. There were those who felt that we HAD to have the Rockies and Broncos, both for the perceived economic impact and the prestige of having made it as a 'Big City'.
It has been so long ago that I don't have the reference, but what made the most sense to me was the contention that having the teams and building the stadiums does not add a major financial impact to a city. The rationale was that the general population has a certain amount of discretionary income. With a team, some will use this money to go to games, buy memorabilia, etc. However, if there is no team, people will still spend those $$$ on other things, such as movies, restaurants, cars, boats, etc., so there would be no net change in the economy. In Denver's case, because fans are willing to travel longer distances in the rocky mountain area due to the lack of major college and pro sports teams, the city may see a slight uptick in revenues from the people from NE, WY, and the western slope, etc, who would otherwise spend their money at there home area.
Regarding Ann Arbor and the past 18 months, the economy was hurt because of no sports and with the gathering restrictions due to COVID and loss of personal income, this money was not spent on other discretionary items that would make up for football losses. The loss of out-of-town fans for games added to A2s economic losses
In the late '90s I was working at the SE Michigan office of a consultancy. A guy from DFW temporarily joined a local project of ours right around the time Comerica Park was being thrown up.
He took cab to the client site the first day. The driver pointed at the CP construction and enthusiastically talked about the expected economic benefit. Consultant, in response (having just seen Detroit up close for the first time): "Looks like you need about a hundred of those things."
If anyone has heard the name India Walton, there is a zero percent chance the stadium will get a cent of public money.
Maybe India Walton is part of the reason he's asking for the moon. Not much of a chance he's going to get what he wants if you ask me. But asking for half when she's coming into the picture is a good way to get an autographed picture and a shovel for assistance.
One of the reasons I always given for my Detroit franchise fandom is stuff like this. None of them have ever held up the city or state for their facilities, and have always put some of their own money into the properties. Sweetheart deals, of course! But better than the Rams or Nordiques or SuperSonics outcome.
Thats a no-go pal
Especially a sport that sees attendance fall every year with more and more people watching on tv.
NFL TV ratings are down YoY. NFL ratings still beat anything else on TV head to head versus other programming but the NFL is overall losing viewers.
How many times are teams gonna try to pull this scam? Taxpayers shouldn't build stadiums, which virtually never make money for their cities. The ones who profit off stadiums are owners, who should finance their own damn stadiums.
Every time. That's how many times.
That's not true - there is a definite economic impact to the city. Is it enough that the city should fund the stadium entirely? Probably not. But to say the taxpayers don't benefit at all is very incorrect. Pro sports are a great way of wealth sharing of a city (the people buying tickets have many, many of whom are companies/corporate seats/sponsors and the people building and then working the stadium are working class). Overall - this is a good thing.
Again - is it good enough that the city should pay for it completely? That I doubt. But there is at least some interest for the city in having it there.
There's economic value in luring a new franchise.. I can't tell you how many times the report by Oliver? has been quoted saying that it's the worst idea in the world to build a new stadium for a pre-existing franchise. That is just a waste of taxpayer money. The wealthy should get one stadium partially subsidized and after that they're on their own.
The whole concept of publicly funded stadiums for private sports teams continues to be absurd. John Oliver's segment on it a few years back was great
Rich assholes. Everyone that's in the market lets run SPCE to a G tomorrow and cash out. Make some of our own money, wallstreetbets style. Tiring watching the rich have everything.
The rich aren’t assholes for asking. The voters are ass holes for allowing a wealth transfer to billionaires. We are culpable.
The rich *are* assholes for asking, and the voters are suckers for saying yes
Didn’t read it but have followed their situation for a few years - especially considering they are pretty much the last team playing in a stadium that isn’t <20 years old or totally rebuilt in renovations.
That being said, the city shouldn’t budge. New ownership is trying to say an indoor stadium will bring so many events year round, but it’s Buffalo - a smallish rust belt market in a fairly isolated area. I don’t think they get near the events they think they’ll get.
The threat of moving to Austin is a funny angle though. The region there could support a 3rd pro football team with SA/Austin being about 5 million people and growing (despite being 50+ miles apart, their metros will basically merge in the next decade or two), but it’s def a long shot. It seems teams use the area as a threat (Raiders) but won’t actually go all in on it.
This won’t be the last time either. If I recall, the Panthers are gearing up for a new stadium. I haven’t followed that one at all almost, however.
The Panthers have been in their stadium only 25 years and they already need a new one? Why? I guess the Lions are about due for a new one too then.
God, this shit is absurd.
Billionaires shouldn't exist
why not?
They contribute nothing positive to our society.
But keep working hard champ someday you too could be a billionaire
Bill gates contributed nothing positive to our society? Jeff Bezos? Elon Musk?
But many of us can be millionaires. I'd be shocked if there are no millionaires amongst MGoBlog posters.
Is the attainment of a degree of wealth --- a degree of wealth that provides a degree of freedom and opportunity (e.g., I could take a chance and change careers in middle age, or I could start a business, or I could fund my child taking a gap year and traveling to see the world, with a safety net below me if all of those things go off the rails) ---- a fundamentally bad thing?
August 1st, 2021 at 10:08 PM ^
If you're doing so off the exploitation of labor, absolutely there's something wrong with it. Share your profits equally with them? Go for it, brah.