[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena! - Page 30 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

getbak · 07-23-2019, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

there is a 2% ticket tax, thats a tax increase since i am not paying it now for an event at the arena.

That is a user tax. You don't pay it if you don't buy tickets for events in the building.

If the building was completely privately funded, do you not think you'd be paying even more for your tickets than you will under this funding model even with the 2% ticket tax?

Personally, I have no problem with a user fee being added to every ticket. Of all the ways that money can be recouped to pay for the building, that's the best one, in my opinion.

Wormius · 07-23-2019, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGG

No the 2% is not a tax.

It comes out of the maximum price people pay for a ticket. It is absolutely a flames payment to the city. Whether you pay that 2% to the flames or the city does not matter.

How is that calculated though? Does it also take into account the ticket revenue from the secondary sites that goes to the CSEC?

Poster · 07-23-2019, 07:46 PM

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

GGG · 07-23-2019, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

If I have to do the math, they are hiding it. Spell it out for us.

I agree it would be nice for the real NPVs to be spelled out.

It might be even more misleading though if they came out and said this project has a 0$ NPV so the Arena is free for the City of Calgary as that is what the most favourable interpretation of the numbers show. I prefer what they released over trying to tell us the arena is free. At least this way it’s easu to exclude cash flows that you don’t believe are new money.

GGG · 07-23-2019, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

Call it whatever you want.

The money for the 2% of ticket prices going to the city comes from the flames potential profits therefore it is a flames contribution.

Poster · 07-23-2019, 07:51 PM

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

GreenLantern2814 · 07-23-2019, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

Sit down, Grover Norquist. You don't want to pay anything to help with the construction of the facility, don't attend an event there for the next 35 years.

GGG · 07-23-2019, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

Are you interested in discussing this rationally?

Here is a good example.

We are in Lloydminister and gas stations are on either side of the boarder. Saskatchewan has PST and the federal Carbon tax. Alberta doesnt.

Gas on each side of the street is $1 per litre because the station on the Sask side has to price match or no one will go there. If I fill up on the Saskatchewan side who is paying the Carbon tax and pst. Me or the gas station?

bettercallbettman · 07-23-2019, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

Matt Reeeeead · 07-23-2019, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGG

Call it whatever you want.

The money for the 2% of ticket prices going to the city comes from the flames potential profits therefore it is a flames contribution.

I call it a user fee because I believe the public is more willing to pay the amount when advertised as such, and can be allocated away from the face value price. I do think if it was not implemented, the Flames would not choose to utilize it as an extra up charge.

To me, it’s basically a means to tax the direct consumer, rather than a city wide property tax increase... which seems reasonable to me. Only a certain amount of Calgarians are going to be able to afford new ticket prices, and as such, should be taxed heavier to get what the product they want.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IamNotKenKing · 07-23-2019, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

So it’s called a tax but it’s not a tax? User fees are taxes no matter.

If the Flames simply increased prices by this 2%, and did not call it a user fee or facility fee, then it becomes part of Hockey Related Revenue and is shared with the players. By denoting it as a ticket surcharge or tax, it avoids being HRR and avoids being shared.

Poster · 07-23-2019, 08:12 PM

Doesn’t matter who pays the tax, it’s still a tax.

Anyhow, yes I am not in support of tax money to build a facility for a private enterprise, especially one that has its own means of financing.

topfiverecords · 07-23-2019, 08:16 PM

User tax is the best kind of tax. It's like a tax on cigarettes, gasoline, or lottery tickets. Don't like it, don't buy it.

If only the whole centre could be paid for by a user tax. Unfortunately there's a line in the sand CSEC has to hit before users just won't go, or the other way, CSEC can't make a profit.

IamNotKenKing · 07-23-2019, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

Doesn’t matter who pays the tax, it’s still a tax.

Anyhow, yes I am not in support of tax money to build a facility for a private enterprise, especially one that has its own means of financing.

topfiverecords · 07-23-2019, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

The stadium will have reclining chaise loungers? Sold. I'll pay a 2% tax on that.

Poster · 07-23-2019, 08:18 PM

I 100% agree with a 100% user tax. Murray Edwards could have done that anytime he wanted, but he knew the long game would put a few hundred million if not billion over 35 years in his pocket.

Poster · 07-23-2019, 08:19 PM

Perhaps he will do like Katz and buy a 120 million mansion over there in UK where he pays his taxes now.

GGG · 07-23-2019, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

I 100% agree with a 100% user tax. Murray Edwards could have done that anytime he wanted, but he knew the long game would put a few hundred million if not billion over 35 years in his pocket.

In the absence of the flames what sort of arena type facility do you believe the city of Calgary should have?

getbak · 07-23-2019, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

The stadium will have reclining chaise loungers? Sold. I'll pay a 2% tax on that.

Oh man, could you imagine a whole arena with those recliners that they have in the movie theatres?

Beatle17 · 07-23-2019, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poster

Perhaps he will do like Katz and buy a 120 million mansion over there in UK where he pays his taxes now.

I am pretty sure Murray Edwards has paid a little more taxes to Calgary, Alberta and Canada than you will ever be able to see. Have a real argument and leave the personal attacks out, that is where you lose any credibility.