The word, “keep”, has a meaning here. “Keeping” is in the context of what is already yours.
You’re saying the “gift” is the government not taking as much from you as it did before. It’s like a bully telling you he’s only going to take half your lunch money instead of all. And that he’s giving you a gift by doing that.
They were raking in $$ hand over first under the uncertainty and strangling regulations under Obama…there was nothing stopping them then from raising wages except greed.
There’s nothing stopping them from increasing wages right now except for greed.
Most of that sports stadium will be funded by government money. (Mostly local government.) St. Louis is still paying for the stadium they built for the NFL Rams, but the Rams don’t play there any more. Locals are paying a terrible price for that stadium.
A conservative touting lots of jobs (that, yes, DO materialize from the building of a stadium, and from the peripheral construction and businesses that pop up around it) from a new stadium is also touting government money – lots of it – that should be coming from private enterprises instead.
If it was profitable, private enterprise would already be doing it. Choosing to have a pro sports team in your city/state is an ego decision, not a financial one.
Mine was a broad based example. Local governments float bond packages and offer tax incentives for new stadiums in the hope that the resultant economic impact would be positive for the community. Just like any new business startup, there will be some number of failures.
In any case, one only has to look at the successes as an example of trickle down economics.
Sports stadiums are rarely successes. The costs almost always outweigh the benefits as the “economic” booms are rarely as good as the proponents say.
However, it is an economic boon for the wealthy team owners and some other wealthy individuals, which really makes it more of a method of wealth redistribution.
Yes, yes, I’m familiar with all the right-wing nonsense rhetoric around taxes.
And to be fair, the word “gift” is also rhetoric. But the fact remains that if taxes are lowered, in exchange for nothing, it means the government is leaving in other accounts what would otherwise have been in its account. In that sense it’s a gift, but in this case given with the hope of getting something in return. You can agree I’m sure that a promise has been made to the public, to voters, that this gift will give back multiple times over, in even higher tax receipts in the future, in even more jobs, and even higher pay.
Well, given that those promises haven’t been and aren’t going to be met, that the Treasury is borrowing ever-increasing amounts SPECIFICALLY to pay for this gift, it is, in key tangible aspects, a gift from the other taxpayers.
You use the government every day. Pay for it. Welcome to the real world. We have governments so we dont have anarchy. Dont like it then buy your own island
Actually, that’s a good example, but only because it specifically points out the error in the trickle down theory, to wit:
A bond offered to finance a development project is an investment, that is, the debt is used for that purpose specifically. The project is undertaken with the expectation of generating revenues, revenues which will be used to service the bond debt, and (its hoped) pay a dividend in excess revenue. If the plan works, all is good, but it’s a plan regardless.
Trickle-down, on the other hand, is a prayer. It’s merely a hope, that increased profits of the taxee will lead to the formulations of plans for investment, which will lead to revenues, which will lead to at least enough money to pay for the shortfall now experienced by the taxer. Maybe. And historically - never.
