Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112
  1. #11
    NordicNed is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    9,513

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    We should send him a link to this thread.........

    I've never said this before here but, I really hate that paper, I read it now and then and it seems to me, the sports writers there don't even like their own States Team.........Just isn't right...


    I LOVE THE SMELL OF VICTORY IN THE MORNING AIR.

  2. #12
    coreyd is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    924

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    225 dollars? Thats it? 225 dollars is not that much money. Heck, thats only 3 full tanks nowadays.

  3. #13
    Wiggles67's Avatar
    Wiggles67 is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    756

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "VikingNed" wrote:
    We should send him a link to this thread.........

    I've never said this before here but, I really hate that paper, I read it now and then and it seems to me, the sports writers there don't even like their own States Team.........Just isn't right...
    I would have to agree with you there Ned. I cant wait to move back to the Twin Cities but I am going to have a very hard time reading the daily paper because of all the negativity surrounding most of our sports

    "I choose my company by the beating of their hearts, not the swelling of their heads"

  4. #14
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "VikingNed" wrote:
    Ask my Wallet if the State gains by having a Pro Football team within the State...

    My 3 day visit helped support alot of different people and buisnesses of MN....

    From the big guys, like owners of the Mall of America and even Ziggy, to the small guy like the Pizza Delivery Guy.....

    Even non-football fans make out.....The girl at the Motel front desk noticed my vikings gear and asked, are you here for the game, and I said yes...I asked, why you like the Vikings?....She replied, no I don't really like football....That was okay with me, but even she is collecting by the team being in the State......I stayed there and many others, who do you think is supporting her job at times?...Thats correct, football fans like me....
    You made out with the Motel Front Desk girl??? Ned...you sly dog!
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  5. #15
    NordicNed is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    9,513

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "VikingNed" wrote:
    Ask my Wallet if the State gains by having a Pro Football team within the State...

    My 3 day visit helped support alot of different people and buisnesses of MN....

    From the big guys, like owners of the Mall of America and even Ziggy, to the small guy like the Pizza Delivery Guy.....

    Even non-football fans make out.....The girl at the Motel front desk noticed my vikings gear and asked, are you here for the game, and I said yes...I asked, why you like the Vikings?....She replied, no I don't really like football....That was okay with me, but even she is collecting by the team being in the State......I stayed there and many others, who do you think is supporting her job at times?...Thats correct, football fans like me....
    You made out with the Motel Front Desk girl??? Ned...you sly dog!
    If only that was true Cajun... :wink: She was a very nice looking Blondeeeeee........


    I LOVE THE SMELL OF VICTORY IN THE MORNING AIR.

  6. #16
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "happy camper" wrote:
    "ltrey33" wrote:
    What a bunch of BS. All of the people that are against the stadium are incredibly short-sighted. That extra 225 bucks in taxes would come back 10x over in revenue for businesses in the area meaning more jobs, more money and more opportunity which eventually means LOWER taxes. Have some vision people!
    you're right. some people are short sighted. maybe its you.

    not everyone can afford to fork out the 225 bucks in one year. alot of people live paycheck to paycheck and cannot simply just give away 225 bucks and hope to get it back later.

    plus, what if someone gives the 225 bucks and then moves away the next year? they never get the money back.

    yes, more jobs and more opportunity sounds amazing, but not everyone can afford to pay the taxes this year.
    The $225 hike is a sales tax, not a property or income tax. And it is an estimate of the [b]average[b] amount a family fo five would spend. For the people who live paycheck to paycheck, this increase will be minimal because they are not spending as much money. However, everyone would benefit from the economic gains that a stadium would bring to Anoka County, even those who did not contribute very much in the form of a tax.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  7. #17
    whackthepack is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,535

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    Especially in the Blaine area where this new development (is not just a football stadium) would increase the property values far beyond the $225 a year they would pay in the sales tax increase.
    What we've got here is failure to communicate.

  8. #18
    happy camper's Avatar
    happy camper is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,445

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    The $225 hike is a sales tax, not a property or income tax. And it is an estimate of the [b]average[b] amount a family fo five would spend. For the people who live paycheck to paycheck, this increase will be minimal because they are not spending as much money. However, everyone would benefit from the economic gains that a stadium would bring to Anoka County, even those who did not contribute very much in the form of a tax.
    ask a family of 5 if they spend alot of money.

    a family of 5 living paycheck to paycheck and spends more money than a family of 2 that lives comfortably.

    it takes more money for a family of 5 to live. to say, it wont impact them because they spend less is ludacris. they spend more than a family of two.

    lets say a family of 2 makes 800 bucks a week. and lives comfortably.

    now lets say a family of 5 makes 800 bucks a week. and lives paycheck to paycheck.

    the paycheck to paycheck is spending MORE, because the cost of living is more.

    your assumption paycheck to paycheck people just spend less money, is flat out wrong.

    (note in the original article it said 225 was the average for a family of 5)
    "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise."

  9. #19
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "happy camper" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    The $225 hike is a sales tax, not a property or income tax. And it is an estimate of the [b]average[b] amount a family fo five would spend. For the people who live paycheck to paycheck, this increase will be minimal because they are not spending as much money. However, everyone would benefit from the economic gains that a stadium would bring to Anoka County, even those who did not contribute very much in the form of a tax.
    ask a family of 5 if they spend alot of money.

    a family of 5 living paycheck to paycheck and spends more money than a family of 2 that lives comfortably.

    it takes more money for a family of 5 to live. to say, it wont impact them because they spend less is ludacris. they spend more than a family of two.

    lets say a family of 2 makes 800 bucks a week. and lives comfortably.

    now lets say a family of 5 makes 800 bucks a week. and lives paycheck to paycheck.

    the paycheck to paycheck is spending MORE, because the cost of living is more.

    your assumption paycheck to paycheck people just spend less money, is flat out wrong.

    (note in the original article it said 225 was the average for a family of 5)
    Do the math, then complain.

    $225 per year for a family of 5.

    That works out to $45 per year per person.

    So, the sales tax increase would amount to about 12 cents per day.

    TWELVE FRIGGIN CENTS!!!! I lose more than that between the couch cushions every day.

    You can't even get a gum ball with 12 cents. It would take two days...plus a penny...to get one.

    It would take you 9 days to afford a 99 cent double cheeseburger from McDonalds from 12 cents per day (Gotta add in tax - 8 1/4 days w/o tax).

    A family of 5, on average, would spend a whopping 60 cents per day more, or an impressive 4 dollars and 20 cents per week...less than a pack of cigarettes.

    And, in RETURN, they get lower taxes (due to increased local revenues) and more job opportunities.

    All in all, the MINOR cost outlay requested gets returned to the residents...big time. If that wasn't true, why would so many cities JUMP at the chance to lure in a major sports franchise?

    The biggest flaw with your arguement is that you are basing your assumption by looking at the whole figure. That's a trick that opponents of these types of deals use. They give you the grand total, knowing that MOST people won't bother to do the math and see the real day-to-day impact. The $225 sticks in your mind, and you subconciously start deucting that from your weekly paycheck.

    The company I work for (jerks) recently decided to redefine how they calculate our wages. They removed our COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) and Shift Premium from all overtime calculations. That means that for every hour of overtime I work, I get paid 50 cents LESS than I used to.

    This week alone, I have already worked 9.7 hours of overtime, and have "lost" $4.85 (And it's only Wednesday)... In ONE day, I lost the equivelant of over 40 days of the increased tax. And I am by no means rich.

    But, how does that loss affect my overall quality of life (I have a family of 6)? It doesn't. Will I see an increased payout at the end, or derive any form of benefit from the loss? No.

    The people in the affected area would do well to vote FOR the tax increase. Put in perspective, there is an enormous upside to it...for ALL of them.

    Caine

  10. #20
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Star/Tribune again tries to kill stadium deal!

    "happy camper" wrote:
    ask a family of 5 if they spend alot of money.
    Ok. Self, do you and your family spend a lot of money? Why yes, more than I would like to. I am not sure what that was supposed to prove...

    "happy camper" wrote:
    a family of 5 living paycheck to paycheck and spends more money than a family of 2 that lives comfortably.

    it takes more money for a family of 5 to live. to say, it wont impact them because they spend less is ludacris. they spend more than a family of two.

    lets say a family of 2 makes 800 bucks a week. and lives comfortably.

    now lets say a family of 5 makes 800 bucks a week. and lives paycheck to paycheck.
    Where do you keep getting this family of two from? The article said used a family of five when presenting its estimate. To put it correctly, a family of five that lives comfortably spends more money than a family of five that lives paycheck to paycheck. Still confused? Let me break it down.

    Both families have their basic bills: food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc. Statistically, the more comfortable family will pay more for these basic necessities because they can (why live in a small apartment when you can afford a house?) But for the sake of your argument, let's assume that they live in similar conditions, and have similar necessary expenses. If both families pay the same for the basic bills, then the more comfortable family has more money left over to spend on other things that the first family cannot afford. Spending more means you pay more in sales tax.

    Let's look more closely at the $225 figure. the proposed sales tax increase is 3/4 of one percent. In order to spend an $225 due to this increase, you need to spend $30,000 per year on materials that are subject to sales tax. You used the example of a family of five bringing home $800 per week, or $41,600 per year. In order to hit that $225 that family would have to spend 72% of their annual income on items subject to sales tax. Things like rent, telephone service, electricity, daycare, etc are not subject to the sales tax, and therefore would not generate any money toward the development effort.

    "happy camper" wrote:
    the paycheck to paycheck is spending MORE, because the cost of living is more.

    your assumption paycheck to paycheck people just spend less money, is flat out wrong.

    (note in the original article it said 225 was the average for a family of 5)
    Sorry, but you are not correct. The paycheck to paycheck family is spending a higher percentage of their paycheck, but in terms of actual dollar amounts spent, the comfortable family simply spends more. Sales tax, unlike income tax, is not calculated based on the amount of money you make, but on the amount of money you spend. A family of five that only brings home $800 per week does not have the money to spend $30000 per year on sales taxable item. Therefore, the sales tax increase will not be as high for them as it is for the average family.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-29-2007, 11:42 AM
  2. Gophers Get new stadium, Star Tribune Sunday May 21, 2006
    By nephilimstorm in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-21-2006, 06:02 PM
  3. Senators might kill stadium deal
    By Muggsy in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-06-2006, 11:07 PM
  4. Star Tribune
    By PurplePeopleEaters89 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-23-2006, 12:19 AM
  5. star tribune pictures
    By Vikingsteve in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-19-2004, 12:26 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •