[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[stamps]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Winnipeg's arena only cost the taxpayers 40 million, which I think was 1/3rd. I think the robber barons at Flames ownership want 50/50

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ntre-1.1026604

[stamps]

Winnipeg's arena was 93 million ... province is kicking in 100 million over 20 years using VLT revenue ... I wonder if there was more money Manitoba kicked in prior.

[terryclancy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Not at all. Low tax rates encourage economic development and allow a better return on capital.

Oh, sweet summer child!

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by stamps

Winnipeg's arena was 93 million ... province is kicking in 100 million over 20 years using VLT revenue ... I wonder if there was more money Manitoba kicked in prior.

VLT revenue itself seems like a questionable way for gov't to raise money, but i get it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by terryclancy

Oh, sweet summer child!

I usually try to resist stating the obvious on these matters, but CP is highly populated by people with adorably Millenial and/or NDP-ish views on economics.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I usually try to resist stating the obvious on these matters, but CP is highly populated by people with adorably Millenial and/or NDP-ish views on economics.

Yet here you are advocating against public funds towards a private arena.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Not at all comparable with the Calgary situation. To begin with, there was already infrastructure in place that formed the basis for the renovation. The group, which was largely driven by Amazon, applied for $70M in tax credits for preserving the historic roof of the structure. More importantly, with a metro population of nearly four times the metro population of Calgary, an arena/entertainment venue in Seattle will likely actually be profitable for the owners, as it has the potential to be used to capacity most nights.

Calgary doesn't have Amazon backing the development of an event centre, and it doesn't have the population to fill it every night. So the city has to decide whether it would rather save the tax dollars or go without an event centre, because it can't realistically do both. This isn't to say that either choice is right or wrong, only that playing hardball with the Flames will not get the same result as Seattle got.

Nobody has really claimed that Seattle was comparable...we were actually pointing out that it is not comparable - and certainly not a good argument that not ponying up is a guaranteed failure.

The case of them leaving was very messy beyond the city's apparent refusal to play ball. It's unclear if the city was ever willing to offer any degree of support, but it's now clear that final negotiations were in bad faith from the team's new owners.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I usually try to resist stating the obvious on these matters, but CP is highly populated by people with adorably Millenial and/or NDP-ish views on economics.

Oh I don’t agree with this.

Let’s back up to where I understand this started.

Someone argued it’s a prisoner dilemma to lower corporate tax rates. This isn’t an NDP view at all - even by Alberta standards. NDP would say F the impact to business we are not doing the race to the bottom.

But I don’t know why you chose to argue this point. It is a prisoner dilemma- it’s not just about reinvestment but it’s an actual fight for the investment for each jurisdiction - I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that.


It’s factually correct to say what you first said- lower tax means higher return on investment. It doesn’t however mean that companies invest enough to offset the tax loss by the government. I would concede from basic economics that lower taxes means more investment- but studies have shown that this increase in investment can be pretty minimal, supporting the argument for a higher then minimal corporate tax.

This isn’t Millennial or NDP corporate theory - unless you’re arguing that an educated view fits those buckets.

And as for what studies? I am going to respond with “do your own research “ -if people don’t believe me without citations all well.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

I would concede from basic economics that lower taxes means more investment- but studies have shown that this increase in investment can be pretty minimal, supporting the argument for a higher then minimal corporate tax.

And yet, if you move the tax rate to 100%, you would see basically no investment. We all understand elasticity here, I'm sure.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And yet, if you move the tax rate to 100%, you would see basically no investment. We all understand elasticity here, I'm sure.

So you concede that corporate tax rates are low enough that they have provided diminishing returns to society and should be raised?

Or not and if so I don’t understand your point to counter my comment to you

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

So you concede that corporate tax rates are low enough that they have provided diminishing returns to society and should be raised?

Or not and if so I don’t understand your point to counter my comment to you

The public sector is far too large. Vastly too large.

ninja edit: I see you didn't see my point. You are suggesting that lowering tax rates would not increase investment. However, if you were to start with 100% tax rate, for each percentage that you lowered it, you would see a dramatic increase in investment. A dollar not collected by the goverment is a dollar that is circulated in the economy in a more efficient way than the gov't dollar would have been.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The public sector is far too large. Vastly too large.

Ok awesome?

Back to my comment.

You argued the prison dilemma comment on corporate tax rates proving a view that lowering them increases investment

I stated we have lowered the rates beyond a point that gives society a proper return and the prisoner dilemma argument is legit as we are now lowering rates for an additional reason- competition between jurisdictions

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

competition between jurisdictions

What are the jurisdictions competing for through lower tax rates?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

ninja edit: I see you didn't see my point. You are suggesting that lowering tax rates would not increase investment. However, if you were to start with 100% tax rate, for each percentage that you lowered it, you would see a dramatic increase in investment. A dollar not collected by the goverment is a dollar that is circulated in the economy in a more efficient way than the gov't dollar would have been.

Again false because

A) When you first posted you were not referring to a 100% tax rate given the poster you responded to didn’t mean that

B) a lowering from 100% to 90% would see exponential increase in investment in the economy. But false for the context of our discussion given that…our tax rate in Alberta is 8% and you do not see a “dramatic increase in investment “ at this range.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What are the jurisdictions competing for through lower tax rates?

Not sure if you’re trolling me now given the sassy response you gave me earlier about elasticity or honestly don’t understand.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

Not sure if you’re trolling me now given the sassy response you gave me earlier about elasticity or honestly don’t understand.

No, I'm genuinely curious, it's not a troll.

You said jurisdictions are competing. What are they competing for, and how are they competing for it? I'm asking for you to clarify what you meant.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

No, I'm genuinely curious, it's not a troll.

You said jurisdictions are competing. What are they competing for, and how are they competing for it? I'm asking for you to clarify what you meant.

Competing for investment against all jurisdictions -hence the prisoner dilemma.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

Competing for investment against all jurisdictions -hence the prisoner dilemma.

And they are competing for this investment by lowering taxes?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And they are competing for this investment by lowering taxes?

Yes- partly

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

Yes- partly

If lowering tax rates has a minimal impact on attracting investment -as you claim- then there is no conundrum at all as your tax strategy would have "minimal" impact.