What proponents of ending the sin tax call for is either a sale of the stadiums (not happening anytime soon), or a tax on ticket sales. The tax on tickets is a horrible idea because it discourages people to buy tickets. A jump in prices is going to crush marketing initiatives for teams to sell tickets. IF there is something like a flood (i.e. Oakland) or new handicap ramps/elevators are necessary, these folks want the City/County to just foot the bill. Without Sin Tax money, this would directly affect the general fund(s) and, ultimately, hurt other essential services. The City/County cannot dump the properties and I'm sure they don't intend to rifle them off to the highest bidder so smokers and drinkers don't need to chip in.
Oh. This is all not to mention that the opponents of the Sin Tax are connected to big alcohol and big tobacco business.
STOP SUBSIDIZING BILLIONAIRE OWNERS. VOTE NO!
The tax on tickets is a horrible idea because it discourages people to buy tickets. A jump in prices is going to crush marketing initiatives for teams to sell tickets.
IF there is something like a flood (i.e. Oakland) or new handicap ramps/elevators are necessary, these folks want the City/County to just foot the bill.
Without Sin Tax money, this would directly affect the general fund(s) and, ultimately, hurt other essential services.
The City/County cannot dump the properties
This is all not to mention that the opponents of the Sin Tax are connected to big alcohol and big tobacco business.
Nobody wants to listen when it's been made perfectly clear that regardless of the sin-tax, the City/County is responsible for maintaining their properties. The sin-tax helps them do this without hurting the rest of the City's services.
Deezus, your pal forgot to mention that Phillip Morris USA is funding their campaign. If your friend is going to plead ignorance about who Phillip Morris, perhaps the sin tax shouldn't be the first priority.
http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-c...o_on_same_side_in_sin_tax_debate_roundup.html
Since you "escaped" Cleveland (or however transplants put it), you obviously don't get the financial straits some fans are in. Your (preposterous, IMO) idea to tax fans $3.25 per ticket raises the cost of that ticket (in some cases) over 30%. Ya, it makes a difference. Taking a family to the game? Double the cost of parking. Not a viable alternative.
Your friend can also go to Geauga County for cigs and tobacco if he/she doesn't want to support the City/County supporting their properties.
Nobody wants to listen when it's been made perfectly clear that regardless of the sin-tax, the City/County is responsible for maintaining their properties. The sin-tax helps them do this without hurting the rest of the City's services.
Also, for the record, a levy for Cleveland schools passed LAST YEAR.
Are you employed by one of the teams?
No they are not. Did you even read the article you posted? It states that Phillip Morris funds a group called "Cuyahoga Citizens for Tobacco Rights". Its a common (and smart) business practice for big tobacco. Of course they don't want prices on their products to go up. They'll make less money... Just like our sports team owners don't want their ticket prices to go up (as has been proposed). They'll make less money. Its economics... ticket prices are still going to be mainly based on what consumers are willing to pay for them.
The person I referenced helped start the "Coalition Against the Sin Tax"... which, ironically, the same article you posted refers to as "grassroots". I can't speak to how much the Phillip Morris group's spending has been, but I can say that the Coalition Against the Sin Tax was extremely limited in its funding in comparison with the "Keep Cleveland Strong" bullshit that is funded by billionaires and airs a commercial during every break during every damn game.
Its especially funny to me that you want to essentially talk about the "morality" of the anti-sin tax funding, when the pro sin-tax movement is paid for by billionaires who have used the memories of Art Model moving the browns essentially as psychological leverage by alluding to the fact that our teams could leave if we don't pay up. Its even funnier when you consider that one of the billionaires in question can be classified as "big oil" and is currently under federal investigation for stealing from his customers.
$3.25 a ticket. For a family of 4, that is $13. I'd argue that if $13 is that taxing on your financial situation, you're irresponsible for taking your family to the game in the first place. It sucks that some people can't afford to take their families to the games, but it is what it is. In the big scheme of things, $260 million (not sure if thats the right number) taxpayer dollars are going to help those poor families much more by going into essential public services than they are by subsidizing billionaire sports team owners to keep ticket prices down.
Then make the charge on the tickets a city/county "tax". Same amount of revenue as the sin tax, same rules as far as appropriation of funds, just a different way of generating the money. ...And stop with the "without hurting the rest of the City's services" crap. The city would never prioritize stadium renovations over essential city services. In fact, if they used a sin tax to subsidize these services and added the tax to the ticket prices, we'd be helping even more.
Anger towards people who are rich is the ultimate motivation
.What happens without sin-tax money is (and this is absolutely, 100% how it is) the general fund for all services gets tapped into (because you don't hold a reserve for required stadium repairs) and, thus, people get laid off, services get cut back, safety patrol decreases... With the sin-tax money there, no such budgeting must be done and it is done without dipping into the general fund
It's like, people want nice things, but don't ask for them to pay a cent or two
I've tried to explain the truth of it on more than a few occasions and all I get back is "the teams suck!", "sell the stadiums", and "make these billionaires pay for it". None of those things are relevant here.
Or, you know, the city finds alternate ways to raise the money. Hopefully ways that better place the burden of maintaining the facilities on its primary users. No official who is dependent on winning a general election is going to throw up his hands and go "oh well, we don't have the money to provide services for the citizens whose votes I desperately need".
I haven't said any of those things. But I would say that if the city owns the stadium, the amount of profit the billionaires are able to pull out of using the stadium is absolutely relevant, and there's a reason they aren't sharing that info with anyone.
So I know it's been 4 pages of Joe writing dumb shit and me calling him a dildo, but this is essentially a RENEWAL of an existing tax? I don't see this being mentioned. In addition, even if this sin tax measure fails, are we that certain that prices on tobacco or alcohol would even fall? I'm betting not.
Most people are absolutely ok with paying an additional 3 cents on their alcohol and tobacco purchases. This way is perfect, IMO.
Reason being they're private entities. No need to open their books and you expecting them to would be fabricating a reason to be upset with them. Ask any private company to open their books so you can pick it apart and they'll tell you to piss off.
You may have an argument with the quality of the lease, but, again, this is not what is being voted on.
And to be clear, I think asking ticket purchasers to pay for this is clear free-loading.
They want nice shit, but want someone else (or magic) to keep the nice shit nice over time.