Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
Aren't the roughriders a community owned team? It's not like profits generated will be going to some millionaire business person, if you have a problem with that.
|
I'm aware that the teamis publicly owned, but also that the league is all about profit. I have no problem with profit by the way (My username is intended to be humorous), but not with it being subsidized in the name of provincial pride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
The government is providing taxpayer funding to augment the opportunities for its citizens to view something which a large number of the public desires.
|
Perhaps, but I am stating that not all of the citizens (me for instance) wish to subsidize it. The exact proportion of those who do and those who don't could only be determined by a referrendum (yes, I know "expensive, inneficient etc.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
If you wanted equal access, then taxes could be raised and games could be free to view and tickets could be handed out at random to those who wish to attend. However there is no political will for this sort of thing, as we do not live in a communist country.
|
We don't live in a communist country. So why should government be involved in a bussiness venture? Would you suggest that the CFl or the roughriders are not a bussiness. It is not as cut and dried as "communist" or "capitalist". Those labels simply cloud the argument. My stand is neither communist nor capitalist. I am simply saying we need to consider what role government has in supporting various enterprises. I for one think the CFL has become too much of a bussiness, for government to be involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
Also because we do not have this type of system, those who do not enjoy that particular activity aren't forced to pay for 100% of something they will not use of enjoy. Instead they are only forced to pay for a small portion of that activity, just as I am forced to pay for a small portion of their activity that they may enjoy and that I may not.
|
And I would argue that you have every right to state your objections to funding any particular service if you have them and if the majority agree, that service should not be funded. I am not saying I will stage a tax revolt to avoid subsidizing the stadium, just that I do not feel it appropriate and if given a vote, would vote against it. Not because I dislike Regina (I like Regina), not because I dislike football (I like football) but because if football is a necessity (or even of high importance) to society in general, then is should be cheap enough that anyone can go. I think the current pricing is actually quite good in this regard ( I am not arguing it shoudl be free), but I, like all of you, know that the new stadium will increase seat prices dramatically. If it is not of high importance to society in general, then those who wish to go (I would be one of these) should pay the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
Lower income brackets do not pay enough to cover the services that they reap from the system, and I am fine with that. I am happy to have my tax dollars go towards helping others in society. However I also don't have a problem with those tax dollars going to support an event which I enjoy. (or other similar types of activities that I have the opportunity to enjoy eg. art)
There is equal opportunity and equal outcome. Most people in our society have had equal opportunity to succeed and thus have the ability to enjoy other aspects of life such as art and sports and their viewing. .
|
This is a complex political/economic issue, and I don't think there is space to debate it here, but I do not agree entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
Unless society decides that things such as attending sporting events or art museums are essential to life in our society then we will not have 100% funding, while at the same time until society decides that things such as art or sports are completely irrelevant and should play no role in our society then we will have some level of funding.
|
I have not argued that sports has no place in society, I am just uncomfortable with the degree to which it has become bussiness and continues to seek public funding. I will conced that the CFL and Roughriders have some cultural value, but the league seems more than happy to subsume cultural values for profit if need be. I don't see this as either/or, but as a continuum and to me, the CFL has gone far enough down the bussiness route that it no longer deserves public funding. I would make the same argument with arts organizations. For example, while I applaud the business accumen and artistic merit of Cirque de Soleil, they have gone far enough down the comercial path, that I would not support publicly funding them (maybe int he early years). In sports, I fully support government funding of amatur sport and perhaps early stage professional sports, but not established and blatantly comercial professsional sports, unless that subsidy makes it possible for everyone (of any income level) to reasonably afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreattait
Until either of those days comes I am happy having my tax dollars go towards support both the arts and the sports, and if I as a tax paying citizen feel that one activity needs more funding then it is my responsibility to do all that is possible through our democratically elected system to make that happen.
I.e. I feel some votes on the way for Fiacco and Wall if they can make this happen.
|
Excellent, you state your arguments well and I applaud your resolve, but I don't agree