More welfare for billionaires

[BigBoxaJunk]

First I didn't say I wanted socialism.

The biggest problem with socialism in practice that most don't see when they talk about it in theory is that no matter how rich you are, it's just not as much fun if there aren't any poor people.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This subject is so pregnant with material to work with...

1. Redistribution of wealth, whether it is confiscated to give to deadbeats or billionaires, is still theft, and therefore wrong as a matter of principle.

2. It can be made to sound good on the surface (The Pacers and the Dolts bring in so much money into the local economy, translated that the bars within walking distance of the venue make an obscene profit on our dime) while in reality, not only are we paying for something from which we probably will never personally benefit in the obvious ways, but also, as previously mentioned (tip of the hat to Dusty88), we also pay for the very expensive upgrades to infrastructure to support a couple of billionaires getting richer yet.

3. There are a number of businesses in which I could be fantastically successful if I could find a way to force the taxpayer to buy me the means of production to carry them out. It isn't like if we don't give money to a small handful of extremely rich individuals, they are going to take their bat and ball, leave the state, and leave all of us destitute. It just means that more local entrepreneurs will be employing a smaller number of people each with probably larger and healthier overall employment numbers. Further, this will help the local economy more since it will take far longer for diminishing returns to set into the spending of a larger number of prosperous individuals. I will take the low-hanging fruit here. You can manage to use only so many homes and automobiles. You can eat only so many meals a day. I am not advocating an Obama-style 'spreading the wealth', but sure as hell don't support using the force of government to artificially consolidate wealth in a very few hands.

4. If athletic teams are really that important, perhaps Green Bay has the right idea. They generally don't have winning teams, but it sure as hell meets there economic goals in a cost-effective manner for what it is.

In the end, I do not have a problem with rich people being rich as long as they are earning their money and not using government as a tool to steal it from me and you, and you, and you. It is fashionable to complain about welfare and handing out money to people who refuse to work, but how is that any different? At the end of the day, redistribution is redistribution, and it is theft regardless of who the beneficiary may be.

 

[CampingJosh]

The Dodgers don't play in Chavez Ravine? News to me.

The Dodgers do. It's the L.A. Angels that play in Anaheim.

The point is still valid.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, unless you think the Angels stink and have followed the Dodgers since Brooklyn.

Facts matter.

 

[CampingJosh]

This subject is so pregnant with material to work with...

1. Redistribution of wealth, whether it is confiscated to give to deadbeats or billionaires, is still theft, and therefore wrong as a matter of principle.

Glad to hear that you decline the Earned Income Tax Credit every year.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

2. It can be made to sound good on the surface (The Pacers and the Dolts bring in so much money into the local economy, translated that the bars within walking distance of the venue make an obscene profit on our dime) while in reality, not only are we paying for something from which we probably will never personally benefit in the obvious ways, but also, as previously mentioned (tip of the hat to Dusty88), we also pay for the very expensive upgrades to infrastructure to support a couple of billionaires getting richer yet.

Seems like if that's the case, then those business owners should be footing the bill. Maybe they can get together and pay fair market value leases for the property the Pacers will use. Isn't that what a Chamber of Commerce is for? For businesses to join together and do things that are good for the business community as a whole, funded through the membership?

But hey, gosh, if we don't give the billionaires our money, someone else will, and then tax dollars will go down. I wonder how cities without a professional sports team ever manage. Or how places like Detroit failed. Maybe if they'd gotten another sports team, right? Soccer probably would have put them over the top.

Apparently "fair" is a ridiculous concept, but once there is a tipping point where you've accumulated enough wealth and the influence that goes along with it you can buy advantages that smaller competitors don't at the expense of the public, that's unfair. It's unfair to those who foot the bill (us) and it's unfair to smaller businesses that are trying to compete without those handouts, thus at a gov't funded disadvantage.

Oh, and for hough, I said "rich people suck".

 

[MisterChester]

This subject is so pregnant with material to work with...

1. Redistribution of wealth, whether it is confiscated to give to deadbeats or billionaires, is still theft, and therefore wrong as a matter of principle.

2. It can be made to sound good on the surface (The Pacers and the Dolts bring in so much money into the local economy, translated that the bars within walking distance of the venue make an obscene profit on our dime) while in reality, not only are we paying for something from which we probably will never personally benefit in the obvious ways, but also, as previously mentioned (tip of the hat to Dusty88), we also pay for the very expensive upgrades to infrastructure to support a couple of billionaires getting richer yet.

3. There are a number of businesses in which I could be fantastically successful if I could find a way to force the taxpayer to buy me the means of production to carry them out. It isn't like if we don't give money to a small handful of extremely rich individuals, they are going to take their bat and ball, leave the state, and leave all of us destitute. It just means that more local entrepreneurs will be employing a smaller number of people each with probably larger and healthier overall employment numbers. Further, this will help the local economy more since it will take far longer for diminishing returns to set into the spending of a larger number of prosperous individuals. I will take the low-hanging fruit here. You can manage to use only so many homes and automobiles. You can eat only so many meals a day. I am not advocating an Obama-style 'spreading the wealth', but sure as hell don't support using the force of government to artificially consolidate wealth in a very few hands.

4. If athletic teams are really that important, perhaps Green Bay has the right idea. They generally don't have winning teams, but it sure as hell meets there economic goals in a cost-effective manner for what it is.

In the end, I do not have a problem with rich people being rich as long as they are earning their money and not using government as a tool to steal it from me and you, and you, and you. It is fashionable to complain about welfare and handing out money to people who refuse to work, but how is that any different? At the end of the day, redistribution is redistribution, and it is theft regardless of who the beneficiary may be.

Well put, Dave. I think a number of them are indirectly cheating the government, so they are cheating its citizens in a way too. They do it by getting cozy with politicians who will rewrite tax code to ensure their effective tax rate is so tiny that it's inexcusable. Companies like Exxon Mobil have a lower rate than small businesses, when at the very least they should be the same. Not to mention all the money they hide in shadow accounts in Carribean banks. It's insane how the people who don't need the help are the first ones to get it.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Good, because under Socialism you'll never have to worry about your business growing or being ever being a millionaire. Unless you are party of the government and corrupt. The government regulations will keep you limited. Your employee's will be just as successful as you are! How awesome is that! BTW, didn't socialism fail in USSR? Isn't it not working out so well in China? Hence the changes they have made in the last 30 years towards capitalism? Aren't the capitalist country's some of the wealthiest countries? Oh, wait, wealth is evil. We don't want to be evil millionaires, my bad... carry on....

But then why would we want to try something that failed in less then 90 years in the USSR. When we have survived for 240 years with capitalism?

Socialist scare the sh"t out on me, and will do this country no good. JMHO though.

They are/were communist. Big difference between communism and socialism.

 

[Arthur Dent]

The Pistons play in Auburn Hills, not Detroit. The loser? Detroit.

Both "New York" football teams play in New Jersey. The "Dallas" Cowboys play in Arlington. The "L.A." Dodgers play in Anaheim. The Utah Jazz used to be in New Orleans. The Oklahoma City Thunder used to be the Seattle Supersonics.

Think it can't happen in Indy?

Maybe you don't care. However the businesses in and around the venue do. They pay taxes as do their employees.

You seem to be assuming that there is no circumstance where the team will move. Plenty of history says that's not true....including a midnight move by another franchise in 1984.

I don't know where the balancing point is. Maybe its not worth it, but maybe it is worth it, dollars and cents, to do this to keep the team in Indy.

But oh yeah....I forgot the basic tenet- rich people suck. They also pay an overwhelming amount of the taxes in any analysis.

The owner of the Pistons bought the land in Auburn Hills privately, not through a land gift from the local government. That was after they had been playing in Pontiac for ten years.

 

[Alpo]

After the 2009-2010 season where the Colts sandbagged the last 2 games and robbed the ticketholders, I could care less about the Colts. I didn't like em when they were in Baltimore with Unitas...but then I lived outside of Detroit and the Lions didn't like anyone that beat them...which was just about everybody.

And Hough? Drop the Dodgers. There is a Washington team that plays in Andover Md that you could substitute.

Maybe it's too late. The testimony has been impeached twice.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well put, Dave. I think a number of them are indirectly cheating the government, so they are cheating its citizens in a way too. They do it by getting cozy with politicians who will rewrite tax code to ensure their effective tax rate is so tiny that it's inexcusable. Companies like Exxon Mobil have a lower rate than small businesses, when at the very least they should be the same. Not to mention all the money they hide in shadow accounts in Carribean banks. It's insane how the people who don't need the help are the first ones to get it.

If you ever want to get steamed, take a look at the fines GE has paid in terms of defense contracting fraud alone. You'd get the exact same treatment, though, I'm sure, if you stole government funds.

Defense Contracting FraudOn July 23, 1992, GE pled guilty in federal court to civil and criminal charges of defrauding the Pentagon and agreed to pay $69 million to the U.S. government in fines — one of the largest defense contracting fines ever. The company said in a statement that it took responsibility for the actions of a former marketing employee who, along with an Israeli Air Force General, diverted Pentagon funds to their own bank accounts and to fund Israeli military programs not authorized by the United States. Under the settlement with the Justice Department over violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, GE paid $59.5 million in civil fraud claims and $9.5 million in criminal fines.
GE’s civil and criminal transgressions stemming from the Israeli military program are by no means isolated. GE is a repeat offender when it comes to Defense Department fraud. The company has repeatedly violated the False Claims Act — a measure originally proposed by Lincoln to protect federal coffers. When the Project on Government Oversight surveyed defense contractors, it found that General Electric was responsible for 15 instances of fraudulent activity in just a four year period (1990-1994) — more than any other defense contractor.
On August 10, 1995 the U.S. Department of Justice announced (# 95-438) that GE would pay $7.1 million to settle a contract fraud suit initiated by Ian Johnson, an engineer at GE's Aircraft Engines plant in Evendale, Ohio in 1993. Johnson had alleged that GE "sold several thousand jet engines to the military that did not comply with military electrical bonding and electromagnetic interference testing requirements," according to DoJ. (Subsequently, the Air Force tested the engines and found them to be safe.) Johnson filed the suit on behalf of the United States under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act.
On January 10, 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice announced (# 97-012) that GE would pay $950,000 to settle allegations that it fraudulently misrepresented that it had conducted certain test procedures on circuit boards for hundreds of aircraft engine controls when in fact the tests were not conducted.GE paid $5.87 million (along with Martin Marietta) to settle a qui tam suit associated with improper sales of radar systems to Egypt.
GE paid fines between 1990 and 1994 ranging from a $20,000 criminal fine to a $24.6 million civil fine for a variety of defense contracting frauds, including: misrepresentation, money laundering, defective pricing (2 incidents), cost mischarging (3 incidents), false claims, product substitution, conspiracy/conversion of classified documents, procurement fraud and mail fraud.
On July 22, 1992, GE "... [pled] guilty to diverting some $26.5 million from the U.S. foreign military aid program used to finance General Electric's sale of F-16 jet engines and support equipment to Israel ." (United States v General Electric, Docket #90-CV-792, US DC SD OH, Cincinnati) (See: Defense Contracting: Contractor Claims for Legal Costs Associated with Stockholder Lawsuits, GAO/NSIAD-95-66 (July 1995) GE was convicted on February 3, 1990 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia of defrauding the government out of $10 million for a battlefield computer system. GE pled guilty on May 19, 1985 to charges of fraud and falsifying 108 claims on a missile contract. GE was convicted of defrauding the Air Force out of $800,000 on the Minuteman Missile Project.
GE was convicted of bribing the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority.

CorpWatch : General Electric

Hey, but who's to say what "fair" is, right?

 

[Arthur Dent]

If you ever want to get steamed, take a look at the fines GE has paid in terms of defense contracting fraud alone. You'd get the exact same treatment, though, I'm sure, if you stole government funds.

CorpWatch*:*General Electric

Hey, but who's to say what "fair" is, right?

Money moving to those who don't have it is socialism. Money moving to those who already have most of it is capitalism.

 

[Leadeye]

Fines, schmines, it's all a public/private game that all of us pay for. Want the fraud to stop, prosecute the executives who made the decisions and sentence them to 20 years picking up cans along the highway.

 

[poptab]

Glad to hear that you decline the Earned Income Tax Credit every year.

By taking the earned income tax credit you opt in to the redistribution scheme?

I don't get it?

I've always paid more taxes than I have gotten back. Please do tell how I can make money on taxes?!!!

 

[poptab]

Money moving to those who don't have it is socialism. Money moving to those who already have most of it is capitalism.

And communism = utopia

Amiright ??

Comrade

 

[CampingJosh]

By taking the earned income tax credit you opt in to the redistribution scheme?

EITC is intentionally an "anti-poverty" tax credit; it's because the earned income wasn't enough.

All else equal, I pay more in taxes than people with more children. In effect, each of us is paying others to have children that they "can't afford" (because the credit would be unnecessary if they could afford to properly raise the kiddos).

 

[Alpo]

What's a "schmine"?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Glad to hear that you decline the Earned Income Tax Credit every year.

Go to Hell. I haven't taken an EIC one single time in my life.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Money moving to those who don't have it is socialism. Money moving to those who already have most of it is capitalism.

I would have to disagree. Capitalism is money moving to those who earn it. Money moving to anyone by force of government, directly or indirectly applied, is redistribution, and by extension, theft.

 

[CampingJosh]

I haven't taken an EIC one single time in my life.

Then thank you for your walking the talk on that one.

It doesn't change the fact, though, that most taxation in the US is redistribution. Almost everyone with an annual income under $100k (and a lot of people earning a lot more) is getting more than they are paying for. Roads, schools, police, military, etc. That's about 4 out of 5 households.
And basically everyone has been on the receiving side at least part of their lives.