Sonics owners push tax rebates

[Kerry]

Nice try Andy157. Service establishments are already charged a tax to show sporting events. The are charged by the league, the cable/sat provider, the city, state, and federal government. Try this little expierment. Call DirectTV and see how much a residential plan is for NBA League Pass. Then call back and tell them you are a sports bar and see how much more it cost. Now if you and DG want to lead some kind of effort to get the fees diveted to the Sonics then be my guest.

[andy157]

Nice try Andy157. Service establishments are already charged a tax to show sporting events. The are charged by the league, the cable/sat provider, the city, state, and federal government. Try this little expierment. Call DirectTV and see how much a residential plan is for NBA League Pass. Then call back and tell them you are a sports bar and see how much more it cost. Now if you and DG want to lead some kind of effort to get the fees diveted to the Sonics then be my guest.

What do you mean "nice try"? Read my post again, I said "create", as in new. This would be charged in addition to all those things you mentioned, but charged only for Sonic games. Which is it Kerry, do you want to help the Sonics, or not? Here I am trying to find new ways in which to funnel more revenue into the owners pockets and your fighting me. So if you and Glover want to fight this, then fine. Be my guest.

[Kerry]

Sorry Andy, I though you were operating under the assumption that sports bars aren't currently paying to show the games.

[edcrunk]

Donuteyes, would you mind telling me just exactly how Clay Bennett is going to screw you and how he's screwing Seattle?

yeah, that's what i'm wondering. he's not assured of making money in the long run... okc is a largely unproven market.

can you believe this guy... bringing the NBA to town... why is he screwing us over like that!!
hah!

[betts]

Sounds like the NBA is increasing revenue sharing. If I heard correctly, the annual $30 million dispersal is being increased to $49 million. That will help, but small markets are definitely a risk.

[andy157]

Sounds like the NBA is increasing revenue sharing. If I heard correctly, the annual $30 million dispersal is being increased to $49 million. That will help, but small markets are definitely a risk.

Betts, those small markets would not be at such risk if they would implement my User Tax/ Broadcasting Fee plan. Would they?

[andy157]

Sorry Andy, I though you were operating under the assumption that sports bars aren't currently paying to show the games.

So you would support my plan as a way to increase revenue for the Sonics?

[Kerry]

I'm on-board with your plan Andy157. You draw up the petition and I will give you all of the on-line support I can.

[andy157]

I'm on-board with your plan Andy157. You draw up the petition and I will give you all of the on-line support I can.

Thanks Kerry, I knew I could count on you. I'm also working on a plan to address, and alleviate the problem in our school system that deals with vulgar/inappropriate gang attire. I'll get back to you when I iron out some of the finer details. But in general my plan says that all K-12 age school children would be forced to wear uniforms to school as a means to reduce violence, and increase Sonic revenues at the same time.

[HOT ROD]

ok people, this is making me upset.

why is it that people from outside of OKC primarily, are saying that THEY are subsidizing the NBA with regard to the $60M payroll tax exemption that will go to the Sonics owners????

GUYS IT IS A PAYROLL TAX EXEMPTION ON JOBS THAT CURRENTLY DONT EXIST IN OKC OR THE STATE.

GET IT"?"?????????

Nobody is subsidizing NOTHING. tulsa is doing NOTHING!!!

All this is going to do, is CAP the tax owed on the NEW JOBS the NBA will bring into Oklahoma City. There is no make-up for those dollars that otherwise would ahve been collected.

Its not like, ok, we take out $4M a year from say Tulsa and give it to the Sonics owners.

It IS like, we dont collect $4M a year from the Sonics owners that we OTHERWISE would have collected had the bill not been instated. It is NOT a loss to the state. And it is NOT a loss or subsidy from Tulsa or the State.

To have a subsidy, you have to take money from one place and put it somewhere else. in the case of the NBA, no money will go from somewhere into Clay's pocket. Instead, he just won't have to pay as MUCH, that's it. The state would SILL get revenue on the 5% rate on the new jobs, which is still marginal revenue and AGAIN, NOT A SUBSIDY - NO MONEY IS GOING FROM HERE OR THERE TO THE SONICS. .....................................

It is in much the same way, that the state extended a sales tax exemption to the city for the Hornets tickets. The state didn't subsidize anything.

Could someone who has an account on the tulsanow forum go there and post this fact? I refuse to open an account there but THEY need to realize they aint subsidizing anything and stop trying to leach off of THEIR MUCH HATED big city brother.

[HOT ROD]

here is the forum link, by the way.

TulsaNow Forum - Tulsa tax payers to fund Hornets

Tulsa or the state isn't subsidizing or funding anything, its only an exemption the top portion of the payroll taxes on the NEW JOBS that will come in. .....

PLEASE, somebody go there and articulate that to your so called 'educated' brotheren to the NE. ...... so they can get off their high horse.

[Saberman]

As I've said earlier, I think this only applies to the employee tax that the owners pay on "their payroll", it does not apply to the payroll taxes employees pay or(office and players), or the state tax on their profits.

Most people don't understand that you pay $100 into payroll tax, the employer pays in approx. $150 as their share, for a total of $250. Everyone seems to think they pay all their payroll taxes. That also includes any benefits you receive such as your health insurance, etc.

All this does is reduce the amount the government keeps. So the State will increase the amount of taxes it collect, plus the sales taxes all of these new jobs provide.

[HOT ROD]

exactly Saberman.

I don't know why we have people thinking the state is "giving" anything to the NBA, they're NOT. There is NO SUBSIDY.

We're not taking money from A or B or Tulsa to give to the Sonics. .. The ONLY place that could be said to be subsidizing the Sonics is the City of Oklahoma City (and even that is incorrect since the city is not giving money directly to the team but instead is paying for the arena upgrades, much of which would have been done anyways!)

Nope, as to the State - It's only a REDUCTION in what the Sonics would have to pay.

So Tulsa (and the rest of the state who think OKC owes them) can drop the state team name kick. SOMEONE WITH A TULSANOW ACCOUNT, PLEASE!!!! GO INFORM OUR SUPPOSEDLY ARTICULATE NEIGHBOURS.

[Swake2]

exactly Saberman.

I don't know why we have people thinking the state is "giving" anything to the NBA, they're NOT. There is NO SUBSIDY.

We're not taking money from A or B or Tulsa to give to the Sonics. .. The ONLY place that could be said to be subsidizing the Sonics is the City of Oklahoma City (and even that is incorrect since the city is not giving money directly to the team but instead is paying for the arena upgrades, much of which would have been done anyways!)

Nope, as to the State - It's only a REDUCTION in what the Sonics would have to pay.

So Tulsa (and the rest of the state who think OKC owes them) can drop the state team name kick. SOMEONE WITH A TULSANOW ACCOUNT, PLEASE!!!! GO INFORM OUR SUPPOSEDLY ARTICULATE NEIGHBOURS.

No one in Tulsa has said a damn thing about what the name of your team should be. I, and I think this is very common, could care less. There has not been a word said on TulsaNow, or anywhere that I have seen or heard, about if the team should be called “Oklahoma City” or “Oklahoma. There is exactly zero debate about this in Tulsa, it’s all here, and here alone. There’s actually not even been a whole lot of press in Tulsa about the Sonics.

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.

I’m going to use very basic economics, and I will go slowing, and hopefully be “articulate” enough to get this point across to you.

There’s something called “discretionary” dollars that exist in an economy. These are dollars that used on, among other things, on entertainment spending. There is a finite amount of these dollars that exist in the Oklahoma economy. These dollars are taxed today in several ways. Most commonly in sales taxes (which are mostly local), income taxes paid by the people that employed in the service/entertainment industry and with corporate taxes.

The Sonics will bring almost zero new dollars into the Oklahoma economy and will not increase discretionary spending on entertainment to any large degree. Nearly all of money spent on tickets to the Sonics would have been spent somewhere else in the Oklahoma economy. But, with this tax kickback the taxes that would have been generated by these dollars now that they are generated by the Sonics will no longer generate the same tax revenue that they would have if the Sonics did not exist. This will erode EXISTING tax revenue going to the state and means very specifically that everyone in Oklahoma is now paying for YOUR team. Those tax dollars will have to either be replaced or spending on other services in the state will have to be reduced.

The rest of Oklahoma again is supporting Oklahoma City, to the tune of $160 million. Be at least a little thankful.

Was that articulate enough for you?

[okcpulse]

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.


Hold it right there, Swake, the tax dollars all of you are talking about don't even exit yet. The team isn't even here yet to begin generating revenue. And, yes, there is debaite on the Tulsa forum about the tax rebate issue. And the figure isn't even $160 million. The ESTIMATE (there is your first clue about the tax dollars produced that don't exist yet) is from $60-$100 million.

Was that articulate enough for you?

[Kerry]

So lets see, Johnson Federated Trucking just moved to Muskogee and they qualified for the Quality Jobs program. So now they have to change their name to Oklahoma Federated Trucking?

And where did the $160 million figure come from?

[solitude]

Actually, if you want to make the argument that the tax rebates are a giveaway, it would be like this....

You get a brand new Best Buy credit card in the mail. You've never had one before - brand spanking new. You quickly find you owe Best Buy $5,000.00 and your options are pretty limited. You owe $5,000.00. That's what it says on the bill. You pay it in full, just like everyone else who has a bill from Best Buy and wanted to pay it off to keep from paying the ungodly interest rates. But, if Best Buy had a meeting and the manager said, "Let's be nice, old Joe over there is a new customer and he paid us $5,000.00 which, yes, is what everybody else would owe if that's what it said on the bill.....But, I think Joe needs a little help - let's send a little of what he paid us back in the form of a check for $2,000.00." Everybody in the meeting looks at the manager and says - in unison - "Why should we give Joe anything? Everybody else would owe the full $5,000.00!" The ever helpful General Manager says, "Oh, we're not really giving anything to him - he paid his bill, we're just rebating $2,000 because, you know, we make 90% profit on that item so we're not out a dime, we've made money in fact! And, if he hadn't have spent that money with us - we would have never seen it anyway." The others look at each other and one says, "So we're going to GIVE Joe $2,000, that's the bottom line." The manager looks at all in the room shaking his head and says, "Well, not exactly, let me explain again....." All the others in the meeting are looking at each other with knowing smiles because they all know that any way Mr. Manager wants to spin it - Best Buy is giving Joe money, money that everybody else in the same situation would have to pay.

The moral of the story? If it looks like a handout, smells like a handout and walks like a handout - it's a handout.

[Swake2]

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.


Hold it right there, Swake, the tax dollars all of you are talking about don't even exit yet. The team isn't even here yet to begin generating revenue. And, yes, there is debaite on the Tulsa forum about the tax rebate issue. And the figure isn't even $160 million. The ESTIMATE (there is your first clue about the tax dollars produced that don't exist yet) is from $60-$100 million.

Was that articulate enough for you?

But that's where you are wrong, the tax dollars do exist today, this is my point. The tax dollars are not paid by the Sonics currently, but the spending that drives these tax dollars certainly DOES exist.

So lets see, Johnson Federated Trucking just moved to Muskogee and they qualified for the Quality Jobs program. So now they have to change their name to Oklahoma Federated Trucking?

And where did the $160 million figure come from?

I could care less what the team is called, I'm not saying anything about what the damn name will be.

[Swake2]

And lastly, why do the Sonics need this money? The Hornets didn't.

Is it because it's the Gaylords?

[Saberman]

Part of the problem is to many of you are listening to the malcontent Glover, anyone want to bet that he is going to run for some office.

Everyone seems to thing that economics is a zero some game. If money is spent here it is lost somewhere else. Granted some money spent would have been spent somewhere else, but to put a $60 -$160 million price tag on it is simple unprovable.

Granted the team is getting a good deal at the FC, but OKC and Oklahoma will gain from revenue from events held at the FC that would not have occurred unless upgrades were made.

By having the team in OKC, we hope to entice new, and existing out of state business to open or move to Oklahoma. Now there is no guarantee that that will happen either, but unless we have the for site to improve quality of life here we will have little or no chance of new growth.

[Swake2]

Part of the problem is to many of you are listening to the malcontent Glover, anyone want to bet that he is going to run for some office.

Everyone seems to thing that economics is a zero some game. If money is spent here it is lost somewhere else. Granted some money spent would have been spent somewhere else, but to put a $60 -$160 million price tag on it is simple unprovable.

Granted the team is getting a good deal at the FC, but OKC and Oklahoma will gain from revenue from events held at the FC that would not have occurred unless upgrades were made.

By having the team in OKC, we hope to entice new, and existing out of state business to open or move to Oklahoma. Now there is no guarantee that that will happen either, but unless we have the for site to improve quality of life here we will have little or no chance of new growth.

No, you hope to encourage new spending and new businesses and hope to improve the image not of Oklahoma, but of Oklahoma City. Look at all the furor over the name here. This NBA team is a local endeavor and it's impact will be felt locally, in Oklahoma City. If I lived in Oklahoma City I would have supported the tax to improve the Ford Center. Getting this team will be a great thing for your city and it should be funded locally.

Once you start dipping into state tax dollars my support goes away. Do you think that maybe you would want to go visit Austin because Dallas has a NBA team? The impact of the team outside of the OKC metro is non-existent. This is another example of the State of Oklahoma providing one level of services to Oklahoma City and a much lower set of services to the rest of the state.

I might even be in favor of this tax plan if it was generally available throughout the state and was used on bricks and mortar infrastructure for the team. If it was funding the improvements to the Ford Center and a similar rebate could be used by Tulsa on a downtown baseball park I could possibly be in favor of it. But to have it just pad the bottom line of a single team owned in large part by a relative of the Gaylords? I know you are all excited about getting a team but how does this not stink?

[Kerry]

Solitude - what you described happens all of the time at Best Buy. They are called reward zone points.

Swake - The Hornets didn't need the money because the City and Bennett's group agreed to cover any losses the Hornets might incur.

[RabidRed]

No one in Tulsa has said a damn thing about what the name of your team should be. I, and I think this is very common, could care less. There has not been a word said on TulsaNow, or anywhere that I have seen or heard, about if the team should be called “Oklahoma City” or “Oklahoma. There is exactly zero debate about this in Tulsa, it’s all here, and here alone. There’s actually not even been a whole lot of press in Tulsa about the Sonics.

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.

I’m going to use very basic economics, and I will go slowing, and hopefully be “articulate” enough to get this point across to you.

There’s something called “discretionary” dollars that exist in an economy. These are dollars that used on, among other things, on entertainment spending. There is a finite amount of these dollars that exist in the Oklahoma economy. These dollars are taxed today in several ways. Most commonly in sales taxes (which are mostly local), income taxes paid by the people that employed in the service/entertainment industry and with corporate taxes.

The Sonics will bring almost zero new dollars into the Oklahoma economy and will not increase discretionary spending on entertainment to any large degree. Nearly all of money spent on tickets to the Sonics would have been spent somewhere else in the Oklahoma economy. But, with this tax kickback the taxes that would have been generated by these dollars now that they are generated by the Sonics will no longer generate the same tax revenue that they would have if the Sonics did not exist. This will erode EXISTING tax revenue going to the state and means very specifically that everyone in Oklahoma is now paying for YOUR team. Those tax dollars will have to either be replaced or spending on other services in the state will have to be reduced.

The rest of Oklahoma again is supporting Oklahoma City, to the tune of $160 million. Be at least a little thankful.

Was that articulate enough for you?

You are making an assumption that all discretionary money is spent in Oklahoma. That's just not true. I don't have figures but would bet there are millions spent outside of Oklahoma and thus not taxed in Oklahoma. Might be that having an NBA team here in Oklahoma will keep some of that money here and thus be taxes in some way or another such as hotel and food taxes.

[redland]

I could care less what the team is called, I'm not saying anything about what the damn name will be.

Well Swake, glad to know that you care about the team name. Clearly if you could care less, then you must care at least a little bit. If you didn't care at all, it wouldn't be possible to care less! (Or maybe you meant that you couldn't care less)

[Saberman]

No, you hope to encourage new spending and new businesses and hope to improve the image not of Oklahoma, but of Oklahoma City. Look at all the furor over the name here. This NBA team is a local endeavor and it's impact will be felt locally, in Oklahoma City. If I lived in Oklahoma City I would have supported the tax to improve the Ford Center. Getting this team will be a great thing for your city and it should be funded locally.

Once you start dipping into state tax dollars my support goes away. Do you think that maybe you would want to go visit Austin because Dallas has a NBA team? The impact of the team outside of the OKC metro is non-existent. This is another example of the State of Oklahoma providing one level of services to Oklahoma City and a much lower set of services to the rest of the state.

I might even be in favor of this tax plan if it was generally available throughout the state and was used on bricks and mortar infrastructure for the team. If it was funding the improvements to the Ford Center and a similar rebate could be used by Tulsa on a downtown baseball park I could possibly be in favor of it. But to have it just pad the bottom line of a single team owned in large part by a relative of the Gaylords? I know you are all excited about getting a team but how does this not stink?

You are assuming that all of this business is going to be in OKC, you need to check out the the Business & Transportation section of the Outlook 2008 in the Sunday paper. Since 1994, companies "across OK" have received more then $526 million dollars in rebates under this program. I'm not saying it's a perfect program, but other states are coping our model in order to bring new jobs to their states.

Once again this is not about taking away current tax dollars, but rebating 5% to 6% of payroll taxes on "NEW", high paying jobs.

The FC was not built with state tax dollar, but with tax dollar collected in OKC. Bought and paid for. Now the income derived from the FC go's to the city. The basketball team does not receive any income from other events held at the FC.

Now we can debate whether the team is getting a sweet deal on the whole package, and we are taking a lot on faith that this will improve OKC and the surrounding area, but wasn't what this whole MAPS thing was about in the first place. We took it on faith, that if we built all of these projects, that it would hopefully improve the quality of life for all. This was the vision that Ron Norick had for OKC.