Daniel Weintraub: Why Dave Jones opposes the Kings' arena deal

[1kingzfan]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14299348p-15161123c.html


Daniel Weintraub: Why Dave Jones opposes the Kings' arena deal

By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist

Published 12:01 am PDT Thursday, August 17, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B7

Dave Jones seems an unlikely choice to lead the opposition to a sales tax measure on the November ballot that would underwrite a new downtown arena for the NBA's Sacramento Kings.

A former Sacramento city councilman now serving in the state Assembly, Jones represents the downtown area and has been a big supporter of its recent resurgence. A Democrat, he has never shied away from raising taxes.

So why not raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent on the dollar to give downtown a shot in the arm, with enough money left over to pay for $600 million in programs and improvements throughout the county over the next 15 years?
Jones is glad you asked. He has at least eight reasons to explain his position -- and his decision to lead the fight against the new arena.

"I think the game is rigged," Jones told me the other day. "The NBA is a monopoly. They purposefully limit the number of franchises. By reducing supply, they drive up their profits. And they pit local governments against each other to fund sports arenas.

"When the market is rigged like that, there is no point in playing. Sports is supposed to be fair, it's supposed to be about letting the best person or the best team win based on a fair competition. This isn't fair. It's a rigged game. And I think you walk off the court when the game is rigged like that."

Some of his other reasons:

• The Maloof family, owners of the Kings, are wealthy businessmen who can afford to pay for a new arena without reaching into taxpayers' pockets.

• It's a bad deal. Although promoters have said the Maloofs would be paying as much as 30 percent of the cost of the arena, their contribution, coming through rent paid over 30 years, is really closer to 10 percent or 12 percent.

• Cost overruns. The arena is supposed to cost no more than $540 million, but if it does cost more, the public will be on the hook for the extra money. That's not supposed to come out of the portion of the sales tax that would be distributed back to the county and cities to spend as they please. But someone is going to have to pay it. If it doesn't come out of the sales tax, it would come out of other local government revenues that are now being spent providing essential services.

• There's very little economic value from the project. Modern arenas are built to "suck in" as many entertainment dollars as possible, with shops, restaurants and other amenities built into the structure. Even the parking garage would be designed to funnel customers straight into the arena without going outside.

• The sales tax is regressive, hitting the poor and near-poor the hardest, as a percentage of their income.

"There are a lot of seniors and ordinary Sacramentans who are going to be hit by this who are struggling to make ends meet now and are going to be asked to pay for something that they will never be able to afford to go to," Jones says.

• Other needs will go unmet, beginning with flood control, a top priority for Jones. Although the state is poised to pour billions of tax dollars into shoring up Central Valley levees, Jones says the region will have to raise taxes within the next few years to pay its share.

"How in the world are we going to go back to the voters and convince them to assess themselves for flood control if they've just been told that this sales tax increase is going to solve all their problems and provide money to address all these public needs?" he asks.

• A top-down deal. Jones says local leaders should have gone to the community and started a conversation about all the needs of the region and the best way to pay for them. Instead, they went to a Las Vegas casino and cut a deal in private with the Maloofs, and then presented it as an all-or-nothing proposition.

All of these are solid arguments. But the one topic the outspoken Jones does not want to address directly is what will happen with the team if the voters defeat the tax. Would the community be better off without the Kings than with an arena built through a bad deal negotiated with a gun to our heads?

"The Kings are going to make their own decision," he says. "It's their decision. So far they have said, 'We love this community, we want to stay in this community, we have an economic interest in this community.' They have never threatened to leave."

That's disingenuous. Despite this deal's many flaws, it's the only deal now on the table. Either accept it or be prepared for life without the NBA.

As Jones says, the game is rigged. He is taking a political risk in leading the opposition. But he shouldn't be coy about the consequences of his campaign.

A Yes vote on Measures Q and R keeps the team in town with a huge public subsidy. A No vote tells them to start looking elsewhere.

 

[JB_kings]

I think Dave Jones is being disingenous about more than the Kings moving.

 

[1kingzfan]

OK, I'd say that if solid arguments, based in fact, can be brought to bear on self-appointed opposition leader Jones' 8 sticking points, the battle is won.

All of Jones' sticking points are financial, except the first one and the last one.

Apparently, he is not questioning that the region needs a new arena, or that one is further down his list than these other sticking points.

Kudos to Weintraub (finally) for stating:

But the one topic the outspoken Jones does not want to address directly is what will happen with the team if the voters defeat the tax. Would the community be better off without the Kings than with an arena built through a bad deal negotiated with a gun to our heads?

"The Kings are going to make their own decision," he says. "It's their decision. So far they have said, 'We love this community, we want to stay in this community, we have an economic interest in this community.' They have never threatened to leave."

That's disingenuous. Despite this deal's many flaws, it's the only deal now on the table. Either accept it or be prepared for life without the NBA.

As Jones says, the game is rigged. He is taking a political risk in leading the opposition. But he shouldn't be coy about the consequences of his campaign.

 

[BMiller52]

Wow Dave Jones is wrong on almost all his points.

It's not going to hurt the poor too much because they're not going to spend much on luxuries and food isn't taxable so no they won't starve. I doubt spending 10 bucks more a year is going to kill these people, I don't even know how much they'd pay since they obviously have little to no disposable income.

The game isn't rigged, that's one loser's(Dave Jones) opinion but if you talk to vladetomiller he might back him up so I dunno. Sometimes it looks like it but if a team plays well enough they can win anyway.

The Maloofs might have a lot of money but they can't go spend half a million dollars either on a new arena. Doing Sacramento such a big favor for free or covering most of the cost never happens and it would just be stupid for them to do.

It's not a bad deal, in fact it's pretty good compared to the other arena deals made.

Yeah other needs will go unmet but it's not like people were doing anything about them anyway. With this deal other needs eventually WOULD be met but Dave Jones is being stupid here and not looking at the big picture.

He was wrong with some other points but I don't feel like talking about them right now.

 

[VF21]

• The Maloof family, owners of the Kings, are wealthy businessmen who can afford to pay for a new arena without reaching into taxpayers' pockets.

That's not the way of the world, and Jones knows it. The NBA business is NOT profitable in and of itself. The Maloofs have dug deeply into their own pockets to pay competitive salaries, to pay luxury tax, etc.

• It's a bad deal. Although promoters have said the Maloofs would be paying as much as 30 percent of the cost of the arena, their contribution, coming through rent paid over 30 years, is really closer to 10 percent or 12 percent.

Is it a bad deal? Pretty much depends on definition of "bad deal." Of course, it's a bad deal in Jones' opinion, since he wants the Maloofs to pay for everything. It isn't about the best deal for either the city, the county or the Maloofs. It's about the best compromise in today's economy and I think the three parties involved did an excellent job of finding a middle ground at the last hour.

• Cost overruns. The arena is supposed to cost no more than $540 million, but if it does cost more, the public will be on the hook for the extra money. That's not supposed to come out of the portion of the sales tax that would be distributed back to the county and cities to spend as they please. But someone is going to have to pay it. If it doesn't come out of the sales tax, it would come out of other local government revenues that are now being spent providing essential services.

The cost over-runs, IF they occur, might also be paid from the profits the city/county will make from the sales of the property near Arco.

• There's very little economic value from the project. Modern arenas are built to "suck in" as many entertainment dollars as possible, with shops, restaurants and other amenities built into the structure. Even the parking garage would be designed to funnel customers straight into the arena without going outside.

Shops, restaurants, etc. all pay business taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. And if Jones really thinks an arena downtown won't provide increased traffic to places like Old Sacramento, he's simply delusional or suffering from "tunnel vision."

• The sales tax is regressive, hitting the poor and near-poor the hardest, as a percentage of their income.

"There are a lot of seniors and ordinary Sacramentans who are going to be hit by this who are struggling to make ends meet now and are going to be asked to pay for something that they will never be able to afford to go to," Jones says.

Bull-crap, plain and simple. The needs of the poor and near-poor as regards to sales tax have been addressed. The basic necessities of life aren't subject to sales tax, and that's where the poor spend most of their money. If they have $1,000 extra to spend on a new high-def TV, they'll have to pay $4 more. I don't think they'd even notice. This whole argument is specious at best, and intentionally misleading. Jones is pandering and it's pathetic.

• Other needs will go unmet, beginning with flood control, a top priority for Jones. Although the state is poised to pour billions of tax dollars into shoring up Central Valley levees, Jones says the region will have to raise taxes within the next few years to pay its share.

"How in the world are we going to go back to the voters and convince them to assess themselves for flood control if they've just been told that this sales tax increase is going to solve all their problems and provide money to address all these public needs?" he asks.

Well, we could always talk about the OTHER half of the projected $1.2 billion that ISN"T going to go to the construction of the arena. But that wouldn't meet Jones' own agenda, so he won't mention that.

• A top-down deal. Jones says local leaders should have gone to the community and started a conversation about all the needs of the region and the best way to pay for them. Instead, they went to a Las Vegas casino and cut a deal in private with the Maloofs, and then presented it as an all-or-nothing proposition.

And I should have bought IBM back when it was $10/share. Local leaders pissed on all of us over this for several years, and those leaders INCLUDED Dave Jones. They didn't do a thing until it became pretty clear they might actually lose the Kings unless they didn't quit dorking around and get serious.

"The Kings are going to make their own decision," he says. "It's their decision. So far they have said, 'We love this community, we want to stay in this community, we have an economic interest in this community.' They have never threatened to leave."

No, they haven't threatened to leave, Mr. Jones. Because they're approaching this with a much more mature, respectful attitude than a lot of the officials they're dealing with. They have said, repeatedly, that they need a new arena. David Stern has said Sacramento needs a new arena. Why should it take what I'm sure you, Mr. Jones, would quickly point out as some kind of blackmail or extortion on their part to get people to think seriously about the need for a state-of-the-art sports and entertainment complex for our fair city?

--------------------------------------

I responded only to Dave Jones' points because I think Weintraub actually made a good point when he (Weintraub said):

That's disingenuous. Despite this deal's many flaws, it's the only deal now on the table. Either accept it or be prepared for life without the NBA.

Dave Jones isn't doing this because he wants to make Sacramento better. I'm really not sure why he's doing what he's doing. All I know is if his arguments are limited to points like those above, the "Yes on Q & R" folks are going to be able to rebut him without too much trouble.

Will everyone believe the rebuttals? Of course not, but I believe thinking voters will soon - if they haven't already - see through the smoke screen and realize some people will oppose anything if it means getting their face on the evening news.

 

[Warhawk]

The Maloofs might have a lot of money but they can't go spend half a million dollars either on a new arena. Doing Sacramento such a big favor for free or covering most of the cost never happens and it would just be stupid for them to do.

That should be billion, with a "b".

 

[Warhawk]

The cost over-runs, IF they occur, might also be paid from the profits the city/county will make from the sales of the property near Arco.

And a big concession by MSE to give up design control means that cost overruns should be borne by the county, since it is their design and oversight and the structure will be owned by them.

If a paint store wants to lease a building that is currently under construction, they don't pay for cost overruns after they agreed to a lease amount, do they? Why should this be any different?

 

[BMiller52]

That should be billion, with a "b".

Oops.

 

[1kingzfan]

And a big concession by MSE to give up design control means that cost overruns should be borne by the county, since it is their design and oversight and the structure will be owned by them.

If a paint store wants to lease a building that is currently under construction, they don't pay for cost overruns after they agreed to a lease amount, do they? Why should this be any different?

Excellent.

It's absolutely no different.

If you have no control over the costs or management of the activity, then you cannot be expected to bear responsibility for the costs of that activity.

 

[1kingzfan]

Good responses, VF21, to each sticking point for Jones.

A couple of additional tidbits to consider:

* On the issue of what the Maloofs should have paid...

They don't have that kinda cash lying around and would have had to get a loan, just like the City, to front the cost and paid interest on the loan. Since the building belongs to the public and the public stands to gain much more than the Maloofs in shear dollars (figures need to be released to demonstrate this), why would anyone expect the Maloofs to front the whole bill for something that is not even theirs (although they will use it and run 100% of the operations)?

Raising this issue places the focus on the Maloofs rather than the arena itself and will tend to cloud other issues for some voters.

* On the "bad deal"...

All this mumbo jumbo with numbers, percentages, and time value of money needs to be sorted out and summarized to eliminate this claim. Opponents NEVER factor in the early $70M loan repayment by the Maloofs in the "equation" of the deal.

* On the project's economic value...

The opponents will take the research reports from the supposed "learned scholars" and use that. The proponents will argue that these studies are myopic and limited in their evaluations, including insufficient valuing of intangibles, as well as give before and after examples of already-completed arenas and their bustling, energetic surrounding downtowns. Which will win out?

Parking garage "funneling" is hyperbole.

* On the notion of the "tax hitting the poor the hardest"...

We all have our own estimates of what folks at various income levels spend each year on taxable goods and services, but none of us KNOWS for sure. And it will vary based on how much income a family has and how big the family is and on and on and on. So we can't really say here that "poor people will only have about 50 cents a month extra to spend" because there is no way to boil it down that way, what IS a "poor person" anyway, and we just don't know. It's up to the arena support group to get real figures based on real citizen spending in relation to income.

The "pay for something you can't afford to go" argument also needs to be addressed to show the myriad of ancillary benefits of the new arena, aside from going in it to see an event. Or perhaps they need to find a way to set aside some amount of tickets for ALL events/NBA/WNBA etc for County residents that are less well off. Not sure how you'd pull that off, but it would go a long way toward knocking this issue off the board.

* On the "top down" deal...

This is what happens in government all the time, and Jones knows it. When time is of the essence, public comment is sought after some sort of project, plan, or deal is constructed behind closed doors. Public commentary was heard. If no points were brought up there that changed the voting supervisors' positions, then so be it.

I believe that Jones is a bit desparate in these 8 sticking points that he has raised. A few are good issues to air publically, but most are going to get shot to smithereens by the support PR campaign.

 

[BRad1055]

The Maloofs are millionaires not billionaires.

 

[kupman]

The Maloofs are millionaires not billionaires.

Either way, it is completely reasonable to expect them to bestow a $500 million gift upon the city for the privilege of doing business here . What world does this guy live-in anyway? Does he live next door to Santa Clause?

 

[1kingzfan]

I happened to come across this today and thought it was interesting, even though the New Orleans Arena was already built when the Hornets decided to make their move.

It's timely in light of today's Bee article with Dave Jones' comments on "bad deals" and who should pay what.

Gee, why didn't the Hornets have to pay for any of the arena upgrades when they get ALL the revenues?

We ALL know.

Do you think the Maloofs could pull off something LIKE this deal for the Kings in Anaheim or Kansas City, if the Quality of Life Measure fails?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Orleans Hornets----

The agreement calls for a 10-year lease, with the team paying $2 million annual rent and receiving all the revenue from premium seating, advertising, naming rights, concessions, novelty and parking.

The rent is subject to adjustment if attendance is under 11,000 a game -- but not less than $1 million.

The team gets $1.75 million in cash and in-kind services to cover the $250,000 NBA application fee, moving expenses, temporary offices, and other incidentals. It also gets up to $5 million for other contingencies and possible liabilities incurred as a result of the relocation.

The state will provide $8 million to $10 million in improvements to the arena by October, and an additional $5 million by October 2004. The first phase includes adding locker rooms, luxury suites, the team store, team offices, and upgrades to the club lounges and concession areas.

The city has agreed to advance the funds for a permanent practice facility, estimated to cost $6.5 million.

 

[SactoGreg]

Dave Jones is just another left-wing, blow hard trying to use the hottest debate in town as a spring board for his own personal agenda.

How better to gain a portion of public confidence than to drive a stake through the hearts of these measures? After all, just how much notoriety would he get if he AGREED with this deal? He wouldn't. He'd just get lost in the shuffle.

Be careful as to not become rats, Sactos. The Pied Piper is playing and is marching through the streets...

 

[Prophetess]

* On the notion of the "tax hitting the poor the hardest"...

We all have our own estimates of what folks at various income levels spend each year on taxable goods and services, but none of us KNOWS for sure. And it will vary based on how much income a family has and how big the family is and on and on and on. So we can't really say here that "poor people will only have about 50 cents a month extra to spend" because there is no way to boil it down that way, what IS a "poor person" anyway, and we just don't know. It's up to the arena support group to get real figures based on real citizen spending in relation to income.

The "pay for something you can't afford to go" argument also needs to be addressed to show the myriad of ancillary benefits of the new arena, aside from going in it to see an event. Or perhaps they need to find a way to set aside some amount of tickets for ALL events/NBA/WNBA etc for County residents that are less well off. Not sure how you'd pull that off, but it would go a long way toward knocking this issue off the board.

ok, I will say I'm one of those that can't really afford to go to games except on rare occassions. And I'll give you an accurate figure for my family. I have to say I did some math...for ESSENTIALS for my 3 kids(clothing, school supplies, toiletries, etc) which I will have to be buying and this is a conservative estimateof $300.00.at 7.75% I'd have to pay $323.25 and at 8.00% I'd have to pay $324.00. now, let's say I have to buy that much for them every month(Highly unlikely) at the end of the year I'd have spent $9.00 more. I think I'll live, especially when I know that a good portion of that money will be going back to my community for better programs.

and if they gave away free tickets, I don't think it would help, because someone would be complaining that they had to pay for parking and food.

 

[Warhawk]

Dave Jones is just another right-wing, blow hard trying to use the hottest debate in town as a spring board for his own personal agenda.

Uh, he's a Democrat who isn't shy about supporting tax increases. Read the second paragraph again, please.

 

[kennadog]

Random tbought (really random):

A flat tax is always regressive and does impact poorer people more. We shouldn't totally ignore that. However, we are talking about a quarter of 1 cent per dollar. On top of that, it will generate a half billion dollars that can be spent on programs to help the poor, if citizens such as Dave Jones lobby local government for that purpose. It could also be used toward levee repair.

By the way MSE and Kings players give away an awful lot of game tickets to charities. Why doesn't anyone mention that?

What is wrong with tax money being spent on something that people with some discretionary income would like to have? Where is it written that tax money can only be used to help lower-income people?

I would argue that plenty of people who can't afford to go to a Kings' game, still derive a great deal of pleasure out of having a hometown, pro-sports team.

I'm also with you Prophetess. The "average" per month increase they are projecting factors in a lot of people with big incomes. I have a good income now, but I can't imagine this costing me more than a dollar or two extra per month. Of course, I'm a single person household now. I've started tracking my spending on sales taxes, just to see. I wish a lot of people would do that. It might inject some reality into this.

 

[VF21]

A flat tax is regressive.

BUT the sales tax isn't across the board on all goods and services. Food is exempt from sales tax, and that's a significent expenditure for most families. You don't pay sales tax on rent or your mortgage. And while you do pay sales tax on your vehicle at the time of purchase, that tax doesn't change for your monthly payments.

So, although the sales tax is a flat rate tax it is nowhere near as regressive as some people would like you to believe. The people with more disposal income are going to be the ones contributing a little more.

EDIT: And Jones was still full of it. He said the sales tax is regressive, hitting the income of the poor and near-poor more than anyone else. Well, Mr. Jones, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the sales tax doesn't tax income. It taxes SALES.

 

[1kingzfan]

Thanx, Prophetess, for sharing your potential cost of the tax increase.

Most of what we really NEED and spend on regularly is not subject to County sales tax:

Rent/Mortgage
Food (most food)

Electricity
Natural Gas
Water, Sewer, Garbage Collection
Phone Service
Cable TV
Internet

Gasoline (state sales tax)
Public Transportation (a service)
Auto, Health, Life Insurance
Postage

The 6 categories of routine expenses in the middle of the list are classed as "utilities" do indeed have state taxes (in some cases) or franchise fees which are controlled by State control boards. No local sales tax, though.

However, even though Prophetess covered clothing (presumably including shoes), school supplies, and toiletries (presumably including colognes and perfumes) in the County taxable categories, don't forget about things that are NEEDS (everyone has a different definition here) and taxable by the County that may or may not be purchased each month:

Clothing/Shoes
School Supplies
Toiletries

Automobile - new or used
Drugs (prescription, of course)
Alcohol
Tobacco
Kids' Stuff - Toys, Games, Bikes, Diapers
Pets/Pet Supplies/Pet Food
Kitchen Goods - Kitchen appliances, dinnerware, and utensils,
Electronic Goods - TV, washer/dryer, DVD/VCR, stereo, iPOD, Blackberry/Treo, computer
Lawn equipment/machinery
Furniture
Auto Maintenance/Repair - Tires, Parts
Computer Maintenance/Hardware/Software
Office Supplies - paper, pens, pencils, printer cartridges, etc
Fast Food/Restaurants
Music/Videos/CDs/DVDs
Theatre Tickets, Night Clubs, and most forms of entertainment
Books
Pictures/Paintings
Musical Instruments
On-Line Goods Purchased in-County
Any other goods (in case I missed any significant categories!)

Most services are not taxable.

In order to get the best idea of what YOUR tax burden might be from this massive 1/4% sales tax increase, take a look at the above list and think about what you might spend in a YEAR on each of these items. Add them up and multiply by 0.0025, and that's probably the best way to evaluate your household's anticipated annual share of the load to improve the County's quality of life.

Is it worth it to YOU?

 

[VF21]

It's a lot easier for many of us to take our monthly income, subtract what we pay in non-taxable items like food, rent and utilities and go from there.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Person A makes $2,000/month
Their rent is $900/month
Their food budget is $400/month
Their utilities are $200/month

That leaves $500/month.

ASSUME the whole $500 is spent on taxable purchases, which would be overstating the real situation most likely. The tax on $500 is currently $38.75, while the tax at the rate of 8% would be a staggering $40.00. That's a difference of $1.25/month or $15/year.

You can do all the rest of the stuff, but I think my way is a lot less time consuming.

 

[G_M]

I'm thinking if Dave Jones is leading the anti arena movement we are pretty good shape!

 

[1kingzfan]

It's a lot easier for many of us to take our monthly income, subtract what we pay in non-taxable items like food, rent and utilities and go from there.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Person A makes $2,000/month
Their rent is $900/month
Their food budget is $400/month
Their utilities are $200/month

That leaves $500/month.

ASSUME the whole $500 is spent on taxable purchases, which would be overstating the real situation most likely. The tax on $500 is currently $38.75, while the tax at the rate of 8% would be a staggering $40.00. That's a difference of $1.25/month or $15/year.

You can do all the rest of the stuff, but I think my way is a lot less time consuming.

That works just fine as an ultra-conservative estimate for folks who don't save anything or don't ever create any new credit card or other debt.

 

[Warhawk]

ASSUME the whole $500 is spent on taxable purchases, which would be overstating the real situation most likely. The tax on $500 is currently $38.75, while the tax at the rate of 8% would be a staggering $40.00. That's a difference of $1.25/month or $15/year.

And if you remember my letter from a while ago - my recent truck purchase would have resulted in an additional tax of $53.72. For one purchase. That's the same as 3.5 family's purchases for an entire year in VF's example. This isn't so regressive, folks....

 

[VF21]

That works just fine as an ultra-conservative estimate for folks who don't save anything or don't ever create any new credit card or other debt.

It's a valid estimate AND it's a lot easier to do than prepare extensive spread sheets, etc. over a 25 cents on every $100 issue.

You can really overwhelm people with too much detail, 1kf. Remember, K.I.S.S.

If that's "ultra-conservative," so be it.

 

[ITSCdanimal]

EDIT: And Jones was still full of it. He said the sales tax is regressive, hitting the income of the poor and near-poor more than anyone else. Well, Mr. Jones, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the sales tax doesn't tax income. It taxes SALES.

Sales tax is progressive, VF21. It is designed to effect low and high incomes proportionally. Sales tax is every bit as regressive as anyone would have you believe, so regardless of your opinions on this measure, Jones is not full of it. It appears as though the use of the word "income" in a sentence regarding sales tax has confused you.

 

[VF21]

Sales tax is progressive, VF21. It is designed to effect low and high incomes proportionally. Sales tax is every bit as regressive as anyone would have you believe, so regardless of your opinions on this measure, Jones is not full of it. It appears as though the use of the word "income" in a sentence regarding sales tax has confused you.

Sales tax, in concept, is a flat tax. Flat taxes are regressive, which Jones states. What he's not acknowledging is that the sales tax has exemptions designed specifically to assist low income taxpayers. They don't pay sales tax on food, they don't pay sales tax on rent, they don't pay sales tax on utilities. Since those items take up a large proportion of the income of poor or near-poor, they have much less remaining income that might be subject to a sales tax.

EDIT: And Jones was still full of it. He said the sales tax is regressive, hitting the income of the poor and near-poor more than anyone else. Well, Mr. Jones, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the sales tax doesn't tax income. It taxes SALES.

I'm not confused. I was saying that Jones made an ignorant statement, and made it sound as though the tax was applied on all income, when in actuality it's only applied on sales - and applicable sales at that.

 

[BigWaxer]

It's a lot easier for many of us to take our monthly income, subtract what we pay in non-taxable items like food, rent and utilities and go from there.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Person A makes $2,000/month
Their rent is $900/month
Their food budget is $400/month
Their utilities are $200/month

That leaves $500/month.

ASSUME the whole $500 is spent on taxable purchases, which would be overstating the real situation most likely. The tax on $500 is currently $38.75, while the tax at the rate of 8% would be a staggering $40.00. That's a difference of $1.25/month or $15/year.

You can do all the rest of the stuff, but I think my way is a lot less time consuming.

I think you are right on with this line of thinking. If someone is struggling with monthly expenses to just get by... I think your example shows its not a whole lot.

To be honest when I first heard about the tax and I am sure most of you remember... The republican in me was very upset.. After seeing the facts, putting things into perspective and calming down its not as big as when I over-reacted to it.

I don't even know if I spend $500 a month on taxable items. The fact it comes out to an entire 1.25 more....

 

[kupman]

I remember when I first realized the crazy arguments that would be made against the measure. The details here mat not be exact as I saw the story awhile ago.

The night the deal was first announced a news team went to an appliance store and they figured how much extra a person would pay on a new $7000 refrigerator. It figured to be an extra $17.50. The owner of the store said that it might affect business. Are you kidding me?! I highly doubt that the person who spends 7 grand (a very high end refrigerator) on a new refrigerator is going to be concerned with the extra $17.50.

 

[1kingzfan]

It's a valid estimate AND it's a lot easier to do than prepare extensive spread sheets, etc. over a 25 cents on every $100 issue.

You can really overwhelm people with too much detail, 1kf.

I just grabbed my last bank statement and two credit card statements. My taxable goods purchased in the County in the last month was approximately $650.

So, for me, that's $650 X 0.0025 = $1.62 extra per month.
Annual added tax to improve my quality of life = $1.62 X 12 = $19.44 (excluding periodic big ticket item purchases).

I will have to file for bankruptcy, for sure.

No spreadsheets needed. Just the PC calculator and my list of what was and was not taxable.

BTW, the whole exercise to come up with how much I really spent on monthly taxable goods took 2 minutes and 45 seconds.

 

[kupman]

I just grabbed my last bank statement and two credit card statements. My taxable goods purchased in the County in the last month was approximately $650.

So, for me, that's $650 X 0.0025 = $1.62 extra per month.
Annual added tax to improve my quality of life = $1.62 X 12 = $19.44 (excluding periodic big ticket item purchases).

I will have to file for bankruptcy, for sure.

No spreadsheets needed. Just the PC calculator and my list of what was and was not taxable.

BTW, the whole exercise to come up with how much I really spent on monthly taxable goods took 2 minutes and 45 seconds.

You can also consider than only about 42% of the measure is going to the arena. Therefore, it looks like the arena by itself will be costing you about $8.16/year.