Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster
If the condition of the company taking the financial risk of bringing a team to Winnipeg and everything that goes with it, is $4 million a year which is far less than the direct/indirect economic return, then it's a no brainer.
If I give you $100 a year forever and you agree to spend $200 a year at my shop forever, I think I'm okay with that.
I know thats simple, but I just dont see the issue with it. Sure, we can say well, where is the risk when True North makes a ton of cash, they didnt need the subsidy. But who's to say 20 years from now, they wouldnt need it? The company spent a massive amount of money which indirectly invested in the community. If they wanted the government to put a little skin in the game, I have no issue with it. The $4 million gets returned several times over.
|
None of this is right. None of it. You're just making this up as you go along. Firstly, there already was a hockey team here, so the marginal benefit rolls up to the ownership. Secondly, that investment in the hockey team went directly into the NHL and was then spread throughout the ownership, none of whom make their homes here.
And if the team needs subsidy in twenty years, then it's a
drain on the economy, not the other way around. That means there's next to no benefit at all except for the (already existent) incomes from the staff who actually live here. And hey, there's some rationale. On your advice, we should be subsidizing businesses everywhere
in case they need it one day.
You have no no idea what you're talking about. Go read my post from earlier about the economic benefits of professional sports. There is almost none, proven over and over again by many economists much smarter than me, and a hell of a lot smarter than you. Money already exists in an economy. Diverting it into high margin goods like professional sports is detrimental to an economy because the exceptionally wealthy ownership those benefits roll up to - one of who doesn't even live here - don't spend their money like small and medium size businesses do. It generally goes into what are known as aggregate 'savings' because you can only spend so much money.
You analogy is completely wrong. What you meant to say was if the Manitoba tax payer gave you a $100 each year and you're a billionaire who lives in Toronto getting $200 every year, that's a net loss of $300 from the economy every year. That $4MM doesn't pay for itself at all. That's because it's the taxation that
should be going into the system from entertainment taxes, but instead it's rebated back out.
At this point I'm beginning to appreciate that your intentions are probably noble, you just have no idea how economies work...
Prev
Linear Mode
