Rams get told NO

[Orton's Arm]

Government subsidy of business is more pervasive than you realize. Luxury boxes? 100% tax deductible so you and I subsidize them. It's the one big knock on Toronto being in the NFL. Customers can't write that crap off.

 

How about the minimum wage? When you work 40 hours and still are below the poverty line you have no choice but to go on public assistance. Again taxpayers covering for businesses.

 

Lower tax rates on investment income. Subsides for oil exploration as if oil companies would stop looking for oil if the govt. didn't pay them. Write offs for corporate jets, the list is endless. So why wouldn't NFL owners expect tax money to fund their operations? We hand money out like halloween candy to the wealthy.

 

PTR

 

I agree with your point about minimum wage being too low for people to make a living. However, consider things from the perspective of a business owner. If minimum wage is $7, it might make sense for a particular business owner to have four employees. If it's $14, maybe it only makes financial sense for him to have two employees. So he lets the other two people go. The higher you make minimum wage, the more you'll increase unemployment among unskilled labor.

 

There is another way. The government could provide a minimal baseline subsidy to all poor people. Then, for every $1.00 of wages you earn, you lose $0.35 of your subsidy. The amount of your subsidy would vary week to week, based on however much you'd earned. This way you'd always have a financial incentive to work more hours rather than less. The minimum wage could be very low, because lower wage workers would be living off of their wages + subsidies. With a low minimum wage rate, the unemployment rate among unskilled laborers would be low. This system would also help welfare recipients into the workforce; thereby resulting in the creation of more wealth.

 

As for corporate jets: corporate officers will often do quite a bit of business travel. They tend to work very long hours each week; which is part of the reason why they were made corporate executives in the first place. For business travel, there are basically two options: purchasing airline tickets/spending a lot of time in airports; and using a corporate jet. From a time efficiency standpoint, the corporate jet is better: you can leave whenever you want, and you don't have to deal with airport security, long lines, layovers, or the other punishments inflicted on air travelers since September 11th. Some corporate executives tend to take a *lot* of business trips; so those punishments weigh more heavily on them than on the average American. If a corporate jet can save each executive 100 hours a year; then those 100 hours per person can be dedicated to making the business run better. If an executive makes a wrong decision--or fails to take advantage of an opportunity--it could cost the company tens of millions. A corporate jet used for business travel is a legitimate business expense; for the same reason that plane tickets used for business trips are a legitimate business expense.

 

> Subsides for oil exploration as if oil companies would stop looking for oil if the govt. didn't pay them.

 

Unless the government is physically purchasing oil or some other tangible good from oil companies, there is never a good reason for it to cut them a check. I agree that the idea of subsidizing oil companies is completely unacceptable.

[You herd it hear last]

The NFL owners decide who joins the club.

 

It's not strictly a matter of how much money one has.

 

true, you have to have an extraordinary ability to fleece the public of money that is much needed elsewhere

[T master]

Good luck getting public funding for new stadiums in the future. This was the right decision and I hope taxpayers continue to hold up the middle finger to these billionaires.

 

So then whats your take on a new stadium for the Bills ??? Just asking don't get all pissy ..

 

Yup. Fully agree. 700 million? Thats insane

 

Ditto to you sir ...

[first_and_ten]

I agree with your point about minimum wage being too low for people to make a living. However, consider things from the perspective of a business owner. If minimum wage is $7, it might make sense for a particular business owner to have four employees. If it's $14, maybe it only makes financial sense for him to have two employees. So he lets the other two people go. The higher you make minimum wage, the more you'll increase unemployment among unskilled labor.

 

 

 

And what if that business owner cannot run the business with 2 employees? Do you really think a business owner is running the business with more people than he or she needs because the minimum wage is low? It's a smoke sceen throw out there by rich business people to keep the minimum wage down. "I'll have to lay these poor people off" if minimum wage increases. No one should be working full time in a job and still be under the poverty level in a country as rich as this one. Maybe the business man or woman will have to raise his or her prices but then the consumer can decide whether to buy it or not. It's an embarrassment to have a minimum wage this low in a country like this.

[Orton's Arm]

And what if that business owner cannot run the business with 2 employees? Do you really think a business owner is running the business with more people than he or she needs because the minimum wage is low? It's a smoke sceen throw out there by rich business people to keep the minimum wage down. "I'll have to lay these poor people off" if minimum wage increases. No one should be working full time in a job and still be under the poverty level in a country as rich as this one. Maybe the business man or woman will have to raise his or her prices but then the consumer can decide whether to buy it or not. It's an embarrassment to have a minimum wage this low in a country like this.

 

> And what if that business owner cannot run the business with 2 employees?

 

In that case, the business owner would have several choices:

1) Shrink the size of the business, while focusing on the most profitable customers.

2) Keep the business the same size, and hire four people at $14 an hour minimum wage

3) Close the business

 

The business owner will presumably choose whichever of the above options is the most profitable. The most profitable option for one business may not be the best for another.

 

> Do you really think a business owner is running the business with more people than he or she needs because the minimum wage is low?

 

Let's say it's a lawn mowing business; and you're charging people $15 per lawn mowed. With the increase in minimum wage, you need to raise your price to $25 per mowing. A lot of people and businesses will respond to that price increase by getting their lawns mowed less often. With fewer lawn mowings per week, you as the business owner will need fewer employees. So you lay someone off.

 

That's just one example. I'm sure the people reading this could come up with plenty more examples in which lower wages-->lower prices for customers-->more sales-->more employees needed.

 

> It's a smoke sceen throw out there by rich business people to keep the minimum wage down.

 

The problem is not that the minimum wage is low. The problem is that the natural market equilibrium for unskilled labor is a low wage rate. If an unregulated free market "wants" to pay workers low wages, then the only way you can increase wages is via price controls (such as a high minimum wage). The problem with such price controls is that they create unemployment.

 

So what do you need to do to make the market "want" to pay unskilled workers decent-to-good wages? Basically, you have to reduce the supply of unskilled labor (immigration reform), and increase demand (reducing paperwork burdens to make businesses more productive).

 

> No one should be working full time in a job and still be under the poverty level in a country as rich as this one.

 

Agreed. But the way to achieve that is by intelligently using free market mechanisms. Not by increasing government involvement with/tampering of the free market. The latter generally has unintended, very negative side-effects.

 

> Maybe the business man or woman will have to raise his or her prices but then the consumer can decide whether to buy it or not.

 

Or they can buy from China instead.

[Alaska Darin]

So then whats your take on a new stadium for the Bills ??? Just asking don't get all pissy ...

My take isn't any different. WNY, nor downstate, can afford to fund a new stadium for an NFL team. The region is a fiscal mess and will be broke for generations as it is. Adding another "x" number of millions of dollars plus interest is absolutely senseless, especially considering how little actual use the stadium really gets.

 

Lower tax rates on investment income.

Which is a problem, why? Be specific.

 

The problem with all levels of government isn't the amount of money taken in, it's the amount of money spent and the priorities. If the Federal Government stuck to their Constitutionally granted powers, there would be much more money at the state level to handle things and stupidity wouldn't be so pervasive.

[PromoTheRobot]

Which is a problem, why? Be specific.

Because it's a break for the people who least need it...the wealthy. Why should income earned through investment be taxed less than income earned through labor? Why does investment need the inducement of a lower tax bracket?

 

Now I understand that this includes people retirement savings, which are often invested. But those are usually within IRAs and a tax deferred. There can certainly be lower brackets for, say, the first couple of million earned. But once you are beyond that you should be paying a bigger share.

 

For the mega-wealthy it's just a tax shelter.

 

 

PTR

Edited July 8, 2013 by PromoTheRobot

[first_and_ten]

> And what if that business owner cannot run the business with 2 employees?

 

In that case, the business owner would have several choices:

1) Shrink the size of the business, while focusing on the most profitable customers.

2) Keep the business the same size, and hire four people at $14 an hour minimum wage

3) Close the business

 

The business owner will presumably choose whichever of the above options is the most profitable. The most profitable option for one business may not be the best for another.

 

> Do you really think a business owner is running the business with more people than he or she needs because the minimum wage is low?

 

Let's say it's a lawn mowing business; and you're charging people $15 per lawn mowed. With the increase in minimum wage, you need to raise your price to $25 per mowing. A lot of people and businesses will respond to that price increase by getting their lawns mowed less often. With fewer lawn mowings per week, you as the business owner will need fewer employees. So you lay someone off.

 

That's just one example. I'm sure the people reading this could come up with plenty more examples in which lower wages-->lower prices for customers-->more sales-->more employees needed.

 

> It's a smoke sceen throw out there by rich business people to keep the minimum wage down.

 

The problem is not that the minimum wage is low. The problem is that the natural market equilibrium for unskilled labor is a low wage rate. If an unregulated free market "wants" to pay workers low wages, then the only way you can increase wages is via price controls (such as a high minimum wage). The problem with such price controls is that they create unemployment.

 

So what do you need to do to make the market "want" to pay unskilled workers decent-to-good wages? Basically, you have to reduce the supply of unskilled labor (immigration reform), and increase demand (reducing paperwork burdens to make businesses more productive).

 

> No one should be working full time in a job and still be under the poverty level in a country as rich as this one.

 

Agreed. But the way to achieve that is by intelligently using free market mechanisms. Not by increasing government involvement with/tampering of the free market. The latter generally has unintended, very negative side-effects.

 

> Maybe the business man or woman will have to raise his or her prices but then the consumer can decide whether to buy it or not.

 

Or they can buy from China instead.

If the busuness cannot survive with only two employess and it's a necessity to have four, then, yes the owner has decisions to make. That's what free enterprise is all about. That's still better than paying 4 workers poverty level wages. You're lawn mowing business is an interesting scenerio but ,again , like the previous statement, the owner and the consumer have decisions to make as being part of the free enterprise system. Does having to raise prices make paying a worker poverty level wages ok? If the minimum wage is raised, then all lawn mowing companies will be at the same level playing field and the market will re-adjust from there. It's not like your lawn mowing company is the only one affected. They will all have to pay a better wage. So it will even out. The better companies will do well. And grass grows and needs to be cut. I don't cut my lawn any less because the price of gas has tripled over the years. I adjust , but I still cut my lawn.

The problem is not a low minimum wage? Tell that to the millions working for poverty wages. Talking about the marginal revenue product is for people who aren't marred in the cycle of poverty created by this minimum wage. Yes, companies have formulas that decide how much work units are required to prduce their product but like you said that is affected by the minimum wage. So of course they want to keep the wage low. They want to maximize profites. Is this good for the country or just good for the people maximizing profits on the backs of people in poverty?

You say we don't need to increase government involvement? That's funny. Have you seen how much the government has helped big business in this country? From tax breaks to less regulation? Have you ever considered that raising the minimum wage might actually help the economy? Do you think the workers who make more with an increased minimum wage will be saving that newfound fortune? No, they will spend it, The economy might very well benefit from an increased minimum wage.

Edited July 8, 2013 by first_and_ten

[8-8 Forever?]

The problem is that if the Rams move to LA, then St. Louis is at the top of the list of cities to get a team. Bottom line, yes I would be happy if the Jaguars, Raiders, Chargers or Rams move to LA but all that really does is buy us a little bit extra time. It would not change the fact that they need a new stadium at some point.

 

And also you meant "prospective." But that's OK.

Agreed. When Ralph passes (could be anytime), highest bidder gets the team. I still cannot imagine someone paying $800M for a franchise and trying to make it work financially in a place like WNY, when L.A., London, Toronto, all places where Goodell wants a team, are out there. Cannot imagine the numbers working at all in WNY, even at higher ticket prices. Hope I am wrong, because new ownership will bring more confidence from prospective players and coaches.

[bigK14094]

If the busuness cannot survive with only two employess and it's a necessity to have four, then, yes the owner has decisions to make. That's what free enterprise is all about. That's still better than paying 4 workers poverty level wages. You're lawn mowing business is an interesting scenerio but ,again , like the previous statement, the owner and the consumer have decisions to make as being part of the free enterprise system. Does having to raise prices make paying a worker poverty level wages ok? If the minimum wage is raised, then all lawn mowing companies will be at the same level playing field and the market will re-adjust from there. It's not like your lawn mowing company is the only one affected. They will all have to pay a better wage. So it will even out. The better companies will do well. And grass grows and needs to be cut. I don't cut my lawn any less because the price of gas has tripled over the years. I adjust , but I still cut my lawn.

The problem is not a low minimum wage? Tell that to the millions working for poverty wages. Talking about the marginal revenue product is for people who aren't marred in the cycle of poverty created by this minimum wage. Yes, companies have formulas that decide how much work units are required to prduce their product but like you said that is affected by the minimum wage. So of course they want to keep the wage low. They want to maximize profites. Is this good for the country or just good for the people maximizing profits on the backs of people in poverty?

You say we don't need to increase government involvement? That's funny. Have you seen how much the government has helped big business in this country? From tax breaks to less regulation? Have you ever considered that raising the minimum wage might actually help the economy? Do you think the workers who make more with an increased minimum wage will be saving that newfound fortune? No, they will spend it, The economy might very well benefit from an increased minimum wage.

Your lawn mowing business scenrio is missing the real world element of "off the books" workers. Guys and gals paid in cash everyday without any record of employment. LOTS of that going on, especially in the illegal immigrant community, but really in the whole economy, not that segment of employees alone. Especially the small business for short terms/seasonal businesses, like lawn mowing. For the little business owner, he is already stretched so far he is close to going under...have one of my wife's relatives in that situation. That guy is also buried under other regulations that most of his competitors ignore....he knows the law, but can't afford to follow it....he would be out of business in two months...with no business.

[Turbosrrgood]

Kind of interesting to watch people rail against "public money" for stadiums. Especially considering the fact that if there is any chance that Buffalo can keep the Bills, it will likely require large amounts of public money to do so. If you say "no to public money", you might as well say "no" to an NFL franchise in Buffalo.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Turbosrrgood

[simpleman]

I agree with your point about minimum wage being too low for people to make a living. However, consider things from the perspective of a business owner. If minimum wage is $7, it might make sense for a particular business owner to have four employees. If it's $14, maybe it only makes financial sense for him to have two employees. So he lets the other two people go. The higher you make minimum wage, the more you'll increase unemployment among unskilled labor.

 

There is another way. The government could provide a minimal baseline subsidy to all poor people. Then, for every $1.00 of wages you earn, you lose $0.35 of your subsidy. The amount of your subsidy would vary week to week, based on however much you'd earned. This way you'd always have a financial incentive to work more hours rather than less. The minimum wage could be very low, because lower wage workers would be living off of their wages + subsidies. With a low minimum wage rate, the unemployment rate among unskilled laborers would be low. This system would also help welfare recipients into the workforce; thereby resulting in the creation of more wealth.

 

As for corporate jets: corporate officers will often do quite a bit of business travel. They tend to work very long hours each week; which is part of the reason why they were made corporate executives in the first place. For business travel, there are basically two options: purchasing airline tickets/spending a lot of time in airports; and using a corporate jet. From a time efficiency standpoint, the corporate jet is better: you can leave whenever you want, and you don't have to deal with airport security, long lines, layovers, or the other punishments inflicted on air travelers since September 11th. Some corporate executives tend to take a *lot* of business trips; so those punishments weigh more heavily on them than on the average American. If a corporate jet can save each executive 100 hours a year; then those 100 hours per person can be dedicated to making the business run better. If an executive makes a wrong decision--or fails to take advantage of an opportunity--it could cost the company tens of millions. A corporate jet used for business travel is a legitimate business expense; for the same reason that plane tickets used for business trips are a legitimate business expense.

 

> Subsides for oil exploration as if oil companies would stop looking for oil if the govt. didn't pay them.

 

Unless the government is physically purchasing oil or some other tangible good from oil companies, there is never a good reason for it to cut them a check. I agree that the idea of subsidizing oil companies is completely unacceptable.

 

Your grass cutting story is full of the scare tactics used by the rich to discourage the common taxpayers from changing the status quo that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. “Give us subsidies and tax breaks or you will lose your sports team.” “If YOU don’t provide incentives, we will go to a city that WILL.”

We need to eliminate the ability of the rich to play cities against cities and states against states. We don’t need to do that by limiting what a business can DEMAND, but by limiting what incentives the government agencies can OFFER. By eliminating the existing breaks and exemptions that the businesses currently have. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every break and exemption increases the burden on everyone else to make up for the break they just received.

The grass will always grow. Someone will always mow it. Any adjustment by the consumers (mow it less) due to the price increase will be short lived, just like when gas hit $2.00, then $3.00, and then $4.00. Yes, those businesses that have been exploiting workers and paying them less than their competitors as the key basis of their business plan will fail.

Their competitors that based their business plan on providing better, quicker, friendlier service (whatever their advantage might be) will survive and hire the failed businesses former employees at the higher wages to mow the yards that will still need mowing. Maybe some of the former employees will start working for themselves and mow some of the same yards, keeping all of the funds for themselves and making a better living for themselves.

The argument that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs in the long run has been disproven over and over again, every time the minimum wage has been raised in the past.

The rich use smoke screens and fairy tales like the failed theory of trickledown economics, the need for “guest workers”, that raising the minimum wage will cost people their livelihood, and that incentives are needed for cities to keep their sporting teams as scare tactics to keep the status quo. The only ones that actually benefit from these failed theories are the rich, at the expense of everyone else.

Simply, we don’t just need to end the tax breaks and incentives to sporting teams. We need to eliminate the existing structures and public policies that allow the teams the opportunity to exploit the taxpayers.

[Turbosrrgood]

Your grass cutting story is full of the scare tactics used by the rich to discourage the common taxpayers from changing the status quo that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. “Give us subsidies and tax breaks or you will lose your sports team.” “If YOU don’t provide incentives, we will go to a city that WILL.”

We need to eliminate the ability of the rich to play cities against cities and states against states. We don’t need to do that by limiting what a business can DEMAND, but by limiting what incentives the government agencies can OFFER. By eliminating the existing breaks and exemptions that the businesses currently have. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every break and exemption increases the burden on everyone else to make up for the break they just received.

The grass will always grow. Someone will always mow it. Any adjustment by the consumers (mow it less) due to the price increase will be short lived, just like when gas hit $2.00, then $3.00, and then $4.00. Yes, those businesses that have been exploiting workers and paying them less than their competitors as the key basis of their business plan will fail.

Their competitors that based their business plan on providing better, quicker, friendlier service (whatever their advantage might be) will survive and hire the failed businesses former employees at the higher wages to mow the yards that will still need mowing. Maybe some of the former employees will start working for themselves and mow some of the same yards, keeping all of the funds for themselves and making a better living for themselves.

The argument that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs in the long run has been disproven over and over again, every time the minimum wage has been raised in the past.

The rich use smoke screens and fairy tales like the failed theory of trickledown economics, the need for “guest workers”, that raising the minimum wage will cost people their livelihood, and that incentives are needed for cities to keep their sporting teams as scare tactics to keep the status quo. The only ones that actually benefit from these failed theories are the rich, at the expense of everyone else.

Simply, we don’t just need to end the tax breaks and incentives to sporting teams. We need to eliminate the existing structures and public policies that allow the teams the opportunity to exploit the taxpayers.

 

With out continuing the theme of overly long posts...Your utopian football economy is an idealistic but unrealistic thought, which digressed into a political rant. It's kind of like saying the world would be great without taxes, or war, but realistically it will never happen.

 

Back in reality, public money in large amounts would likely continue be required to keep the Bills in a small market like Buffalo...And as a fan and taxpayer I am all for that public expenditure.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Turbosrrgood

[TakeYouToTasker]

[/size]

Because it's a break for the people who least need it...the wealthy. Why should income earned through investment be taxed less than income earned through labor? Why does investment need the inducement of a lower tax bracket?

 

Now I understand that this includes people retirement savings, which are often invested. But those are usually within IRAs and a tax deferred. There can certainly be lower brackets for, say, the first couple of million earned. But once you are beyond that you should be paying a bigger share.

 

For the mega-wealthy it's just a tax shelter.

 

 

PTR

Money goes where it is best treated, and the favorable treatment of investment income is used to incentive domestic investment.

[aristocrat]

Investment moneys were already taxed when you earned the initial principle. Why should it continue to be taxed?

[Orton's Arm]

Your grass cutting story is full of the scare tactics used by the rich to discourage the common taxpayers from changing the status quo that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. “Give us subsidies and tax breaks or you will lose your sports team.” “If YOU don’t provide incentives, we will go to a city that WILL.”

We need to eliminate the ability of the rich to play cities against cities and states against states. We don’t need to do that by limiting what a business can DEMAND, but by limiting what incentives the government agencies can OFFER. By eliminating the existing breaks and exemptions that the businesses currently have. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every break and exemption increases the burden on everyone else to make up for the break they just received.

The grass will always grow. Someone will always mow it. Any adjustment by the consumers (mow it less) due to the price increase will be short lived, just like when gas hit $2.00, then $3.00, and then $4.00. Yes, those businesses that have been exploiting workers and paying them less than their competitors as the key basis of their business plan will fail.

Their competitors that based their business plan on providing better, quicker, friendlier service (whatever their advantage might be) will survive and hire the failed businesses former employees at the higher wages to mow the yards that will still need mowing. Maybe some of the former employees will start working for themselves and mow some of the same yards, keeping all of the funds for themselves and making a better living for themselves.

The argument that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs in the long run has been disproven over and over again, every time the minimum wage has been raised in the past.

The rich use smoke screens and fairy tales like the failed theory of trickledown economics, the need for “guest workers”, that raising the minimum wage will cost people their livelihood, and that incentives are needed for cities to keep their sporting teams as scare tactics to keep the status quo. The only ones that actually benefit from these failed theories are the rich, at the expense of everyone else.

Simply, we don’t just need to end the tax breaks and incentives to sporting teams. We need to eliminate the existing structures and public policies that allow the teams the opportunity to exploit the taxpayers.

 

> Your grass cutting story is full of the scare tactics used by the rich to discourage the common

> taxpayers from changing the status quo that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.

 

My intention is not to use scare tactics. Nor would I approve of a situation in which the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. On the contrary, the gap between rich and poor is too large already; and I would like to see it shrink.

 

One way the rich keep wages down is through immigration. If there are 100 Americans competing for 110 jobs, then that puts the middle class and the working class in a position of negotiating strength. But if you bring in 50 immigrants to join the competition, then suddenly it's the employers who are in the position of power. Employers can and will use that power to treat their workers less well, to drive down wages, and to generally make conditions better for themselves and worse for those working for them.

 

Obviously, things are much better when there are more jobs than there are workers to fill them. When it's like that, employers will raise wages, because they're bidding against each other to obtain part of the scarce labor supply. Reducing large corporations' control over immigration policy would be one way to make it so there were more jobs than workers. Another way would be to make life easier on entrepreneurs: the true job creators.

 

Big business does not always like things to be easy on entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs can destabilize large, established businesses. Big businesses do not necessarily want their existing, profitable business lines to be shaken up by entrepreneurs. Onerous paperwork requirements and complex regulations harm entrepreneurs much more than they harm big businesses. If you could make regulations simple, then big and small businesses could compete on a level playing field. Leveling the playing field would allow entrepreneurs to create more jobs.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Edwards' Arm