Our City Online

Messageboard - Sports

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

The Sale of Nationwide Arena - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Sports The Sale of Nationwide Arena – News & Updates

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 231 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1061950

    jackoh
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div>
    I’m not sure you know what a false equivalency is. You’re stating that people shouldn’t be able to vote on spending for money they don’t contribute…so renters should no longer be able to vote on school levies.<br>
    There’s nothing false about that equivalency, that’s exactly what you’re saying.

    Assuming property taxes are rolled into rental rates, your analogy doesn’t work.

    It is not the renters who write the checks cashed by the county treasurer.

    #1061954
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    I know the source is a bit different, but we’re still talking about a tax on a private company’s revenues, not a direct citizen tax.

    So you think that the tax that private companies pay doesn’t go into the cities general fund?

    Is an odd idea: monies collected by the government as taxes are public funds only sometimes?

    Que?

    #1061955
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>kit444 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div><br>
    I’m not sure you know what a false equivalency is. You’re stating that people shouldn’t be able to vote on spending for money they don’t contribute…so renters should no longer be able to vote on school levies.<br><br>
    There’s nothing false about that equivalency, that’s exactly what you’re saying.

    Assuming property taxes are rolled into rental rates, your analogy doesn’t work.

    It is not the renters who write the checks cashed by the county treasurer.

    True. Renters will be paying for it, but indirectly.

    #1061973

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br><br>
    In addition to my concerns about the threat to the arena district, I’m not sure why it automatically makes sense that the people get to vote on how to spend money they don’t contribute to the city in the first place.

    In other news, renters will no longer be allowed to vote on public school funding.

    Another false equivalency from you. This is getting to be a habit.

    Also, terrible reading comprehension.

    I’m not sure you know what a false equivalency is. You’re stating that people shouldn’t be able to vote on spending for money they don’t contribute…so renters should no longer be able to vote on school levies.

    There’s nothing false about that equivalency, that’s exactly what you’re saying.

    No, sorry but I didn’t. I said I don’t think that a vote should be automatic when it’s not a contribution from their own pockets. I never said there could never be any exceptions, only that I don’t see why it would be a requirement, especially when we elect leadership to make these kinds of decisions. If we’re just going to do a majority vote on everything, why elect them?

    Don’t rents at least partially end up as property tax payments by their landlords? They’re going through a sort of middle man, but it’s still going to the same place. Property taxes help directly fund public schools. So I don’t see why they wouldn’t have a say in a vote on school funding. They’re paying for them in the end just like any homeowner. I really don’t see the casino tax as the same thing. Citizens have no obligation to pay anything, the tax is on revenues of a private company and there was no earmarked use for it.

    #1061974

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    I know the source is a bit different, but we’re still talking about a tax on a private company’s revenues, not a direct citizen tax.

    So you think that the tax that private companies pay doesn’t go into the cities general fund?

    It can, but where was it required to go there? Was it in the amendment the state voted on?

    #1061978
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br><br><br>
    In addition to my concerns about the threat to the arena district, I’m not sure why it automatically makes sense that the people get to vote on how to spend money they don’t contribute to the city in the first place.

    In other news, renters will no longer be allowed to vote on public school funding.

    Another false equivalency from you. This is getting to be a habit.

    Also, terrible reading comprehension.

    I’m not sure you know what a false equivalency is. You’re stating that people shouldn’t be able to vote on spending for money they don’t contribute…so renters should no longer be able to vote on school levies.

    There’s nothing false about that equivalency, that’s exactly what you’re saying.

    No, sorry but I didn’t. I said I don’t think that a vote should be automatic when it’s not a contribution from their own pockets. I never said there could never be any exceptions, only that I don’t see why it would be a requirement, especially when we elect leadership to make these kinds of decisions. If we’re just going to do a majority vote on everything, why elect them?

    Don’t rents at least partially end up as property tax payments by their landlords? They’re going through a sort of middle man, but it’s still going to the same place. Property taxes help directly fund public schools. So I don’t see why they wouldn’t have a say in a vote on school funding. They’re paying for them in the end just like any homeowner. I really don’t see the casino tax as the same thing. Citizens have no obligation to pay anything, the tax is on revenues of a private company and there was no earmarked use for it.

    First of all…that’s not what you said. Your original quote is directly above your attempt to paraphrase yourself.

    This is the most nonsensical argument I’ve ever seen on C/U. Not everyone smokes, so cigarette tax is no longer public money. Not everyone drinks, so alcohol tax is no longer public money. Corporate tax is no longer public money, and people who don’t pay that specific tax don’t get a say in how the revenue is spent.

    That’s your position, right?

    As far as this, “it wasn’t earmarked for anything specific” point…so what politicians decide to use tax revenue for is none of our business if it wasn’t specifically designated for some expenditure??? This isn’t a public work, this is a private business that was failing and the government decided to bail out with public money (yes…public money). If the government decides that the casino is important to the development on the West Side, should they go into the casino business with “free money” to keep it afloat?

    #1061980
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Assuming property taxes are rolled into rental rates, your analogy doesn’t work.

    The casino isn’t making the money they’re paying taxes on in a vacuum, so if we want to look at indirect relationships the casino tax is coming directly out of the pockets of the citizens of Columbus.

    #1062003

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    l

    #1062004

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coremodels wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br><br><br><br>
    In addition to my concerns about the threat to the arena district, I’m not sure why it automatically makes sense that the people get to vote on how to spend money they don’t contribute to the city in the first place.

    In other news, renters will no longer be allowed to vote on public school funding.

    Another false equivalency from you. This is getting to be a habit.

    Also, terrible reading comprehension.

    I’m not sure you know what a false equivalency is. You’re stating that people shouldn’t be able to vote on spending for money they don’t contribute…so renters should no longer be able to vote on school levies.

    There’s nothing false about that equivalency, that’s exactly what you’re saying.

    No, sorry but I didn’t. I said I don’t think that a vote should be automatic when it’s not a contribution from their own pockets. I never said there could never be any exceptions, only that I don’t see why it would be a requirement, especially when we elect leadership to make these kinds of decisions. If we’re just going to do a majority vote on everything, why elect them?

    Don’t rents at least partially end up as property tax payments by their landlords? They’re going through a sort of middle man, but it’s still going to the same place. Property taxes help directly fund public schools. So I don’t see why they wouldn’t have a say in a vote on school funding. They’re paying for them in the end just like any homeowner. I really don’t see the casino tax as the same thing. Citizens have no obligation to pay anything, the tax is on revenues of a private company and there was no earmarked use for it.

    First of all…that’s not what you said. Your original quote is directly above your attempt to paraphrase yourself.

    This is the most nonsensical argument I’ve ever seen on C/U. Not everyone smokes, so cigarette tax is no longer public money. Not everyone drinks, so alcohol tax is no longer public money. Corporate tax is no longer public money, and people who don’t pay that specific tax don’t get a say in how the revenue is spent.

    That’s your position, right?

    As far as this, “it wasn’t earmarked for anything specific” point…so what politicians decide to use tax revenue for is none of our business if it wasn’t specifically designated for some expenditure??? This isn’t a public work, this is a private business that was failing and the government decided to bail out with public money (yes…public money). If the government decides that the casino is important to the development on the West Side, should they go into the casino business with “free money” to keep it afloat?

    That is what I said, but you decided to read what you wanted.

    When’s the last time there was a vote on how to use cigarette or alcohol sales tax money? Are you outraged about it? I don’t see you championing a vote for any of those things. I thought you believed that the public should get a vote on what to do with all public dollars? So you’re just selective?

    My position is I don’t get what you’re complaining about. This is not a tax on the citizens of Columbus. This is a tax on Hollywood Casino. I know you won’t get the difference no matter how many times we’ve gone over it, but there *IS* a difference. Further, you’re upset that the money didn’t go into the general fund. Get over it. The city was not legally bound by the amendment to put it there, and there was no earmarked purpose for that money before the arena deal. Circumstances change, financial positions change. The city saw a struggling asset and decided to use a new revenue source to ensure its long-term survival. The citizens of Columbus elected leaders to make decisions, and they did. In the long run, even if the arena cost a billion dollars in the next 50 years to keep around (it won’t), it will almost certainly have an even greater economic return by the events its able to hold. All with perhaps not a single cent from taxpayers. OMG, how fucking terrible.

    You don’t vote for every expenditure, and as far as I can tell, you’re not even advocating for it. Why this particular one is so important to you, I’m not sure. The arena functions like a public work in that it absolutely contributed to the quality of life of the neighborhood and indeed, the city as well. The slippery slope stuff about how the city is going to save everything that could potentially fail is just silly.

    #1062010
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    1. You’re conflating multiple points, the largest of which is that you seem to be going back on claiming this tax isn’t public money.

    2. If the city decided to skirt a vote to buy up failing private companies using any source of revenue I would be upset. Spending on traditional public works (parks, schools, safety, etc.) are the things we elect politicians to do. Spending money on bailouts of failing private enterprises isn’t.

    3. “get over it”? No, I have no intention of getting over it. I consider it a shady deal and I consider it a terrible deal. The money didn’t have an earmarked purpose…it had several. None of which were purchasing an arena.

    4. Not a single cent from taxpayers…again, false. By that logic, all corporate tax is “not from taxpayers” and and can be used for whatever the city wants without question. Nonsense.

    5. If the arena costs a billion dollars over 50 years and you see that as a win, you’re bad at math.

    #1062032

    kit444
    Participant

    The casino isn’t making the money they’re paying taxes on in a vacuum, so if we want to look at indirect relationships the casino tax is coming directly out of the pockets of the citizens of Columbus.

    It’s coming out of the pockets of consumers of the casino, which are not necessarily the same thing as the citizens of Columbus. I’m a citizen of Columbus and I’ve never stepped foot in the casino. Many people who aren’t citizens of Columbus have been to the casino. The Venn diagram doesn’t overlap as well as it does to renters to property taxes.

    #1062035
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    It’s coming out of the pockets of consumers of the casino, which are not necessarily the same thing as the citizens of Columbus. I’m a citizen of Columbus and I’ve never stepped foot in the casino. Many people who aren’t citizens of Columbus have been to the casino. The Venn diagram doesn’t overlap as well as it does to renters to property taxes.

    Considering many landlords don’t make tax based adjustments in rent, I think it probably does.

    #1062052

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    1. You’re conflating multiple points, the largest of which is that you seem to be going back on claiming this tax isn’t public money.

    2. If the city decided to skirt a vote to buy up failing private companies using <em class=”d4pbbc-italic”>any source of revenue I would be upset. Spending on traditional public works (parks, schools, safety, etc.) are the things we elect politicians to do. Spending money on bailouts of failing private enterprises isn’t.

    3. “get over it”? No, I have no intention of getting over it. I consider it a shady deal and I consider it a terrible deal. The money didn’t have an earmarked purpose…it had several. None of which were purchasing an arena.

    4. Not a single cent from taxpayers…again, false. By that logic, all corporate tax is “not from taxpayers” and and can be used for whatever the city wants without question. Nonsense.

    5. If the arena costs a billion dollars over 50 years and you see that as a win, you’re bad at math.

    This is going to be my last post about this as we’ve beaten to death an entire team of Budweiser horses on this issue and are clearly not going to agree on a single point.

    It’s not public money. You can tell me it is all you want. It’s not coming out of your pocket, or the pockets of the general public. And really, you don’t seem to believe it is, either, because you don’t demand a vote on what to do with other examples, like yours about cigarettes and alcohol. Where is your crusade about how the city/state is denying your ability to decide where that money goes? This is simply a classic case where a few people are selectively up in arms, not necessarily because they didn’t get a say, but because of the specific expense in question. This is about the view that an arena and hockey team aren’t worth investing in, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, and you have decided to raise hell about it while ignoring other expenses you never vote on. The fact that you don’t demand a vote on every expenditure is the real story here. If public input on this is so important, you would be making this a far larger point of contention than just about the arena. Even if you believe that this is public money, you undermine your position by exclusively focusing on one deal when there are so many things you don’t have a vote on and yet say nothing about.

    Parks, schools, etc. are quality of life amenities. Why can’t entertainment venues be part of that picture? You agreed that the arena played a role in the development of the neighborhood it’s named after, just that it’s worthless now. Would you say that the quality of life in that area was not improved? Would you say the city did not gain any significant entertainment options since it came into existence? If you can honestly say that it did not, then there are larger issues with your view than just public dollars.

    No, it did not. Going into the general fund is not being specifically earmarked, and there was no clause in the amendment that required that it go there.

    But again, though, if you believed that, you wouldn’t just be crusading against this one deal. But you are.

    Yet you support spending public dollars on parks and schools. What direct monetary return do they provide? So your view is that it’s totally fine to waste public dollars and not get anything back financially, but you’re unable to stomach using casino tax revenue (not a tax on citizens) to support something which actually has the potential to provide a huge net financial gain in the long run, both directly and indirectly, through the multitude of events that go well beyond a hockey team.

    Anyway, it’s all be said before. I would say good luck, but I wish no such thing. I would rather have the arena.

    #1062058

    Graybeak
    Participant

    Any money that enters the bank accounts of a government, be it at the state, county or municipal level is public money.

    #1062074
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Any money that enters the bank accounts of a government, be it at the state, county or municipal level is public money.

    Yep.

    No real question there.

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 231 total)

The forum ‘Sports’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: