• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Question on Centurlink stadium and concert

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Then, I guess it changes the nature of the whole question.

How does the government have authority to hand over a tax built stadium to a private entity? Built on the tax payer dime profit for private gain.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

+2
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Then, I guess it changes the nature of the whole question.

How does the government have authority to hand over a tax built stadium to a private entity? Built on the tax payer dime profit for private gain.
Typically (and, mind you, I am not defending it), the argument is that the taxpayer benefits from the "rental" income paid by the private player arguably offsetting costs of operations, which savings are then "passed back" to the taxpayer in the form of lower taxes required to maintain the facility.

It's all elephant guano, of course, because taxes are not rolled back, and new places are found where the "saved" taxes get spent, all coupled with the fact that virtually all governments run in deficit-spending mode.
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Typically (and, mind you, I am not defending it), the argument is that the taxpayer benefits from the "rental" income paid by the private player arguably offsetting costs of operations, which savings are then "passed back" to the taxpayer in the form of lower taxes required to maintain the facility.

It's all elephant guano, of course, because taxes are not rolled back, and new places are found where the "saved" taxes get spent, all coupled with the fact that virtually all governments run in deficit-spending mode.
Yes. The argument of reducing taxes in this state is a laugh at best. They are proposing an income tax in this state. Then there is the fact that there was a much better location selected, through an expensive study, and then they picked a bad location and expected rejoicing.

Hell the King Dome, was never paid off before it was destroyed.

Is there a way to bring a case against the government over their misuse of tax money and the giving of public property to limited private gain?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Yes. The argument of reducing taxes in this state is a laugh at best. They are proposing an income tax in this state. Then there is the fact that there was a much better location selected, through an expensive study, and then they picked a bad location and expected rejoicing.

Hell the King Dome, was never paid off before it was destroyed.

Is there a way to bring a case against the government over their misuse of tax money and the giving of public property to limited private gain?
You may sue the government anytime you like... provided you get their permission, first (I sh*t you not)!
 
Last edited:
Top