Expiring death tax should stay dead.

[Godozo]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Chances are we'll see a revival of the estate tax...but in a revised way:

• Taxes start at $0 instead of higher up
• Rates will go down as the amount to be inherited goes higher. As an example: The first thirty thousand will be taxed at 50%. the next twenty thousand will be taxed at 30%, from there up to $100,000 will be taxed at 10%, and the remaining will be tax-free. (note that this is probably low...as they'll want to soak the middle class as well).
• Don't be surprised if they institute a system where anyone with over a million (or something suitably high enough to insure that only the truly rich will benefit from this) will be able to claw back what they paid in taxes on that part below $100,000. Gotta insure that estates can be passed down, after all.

[GRG55]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Well, I'd just point out a couple of what I feel are a few incongruent aspects of your examples.

First, high earners are the ones paying for the so called "public education system" as wells as the "roads and other infrastructure", not "the gov't" or "the public"...

Wrong.

It's the highly taxed that pay the freight for public services. And in the bastardized and distorted system that is the USA today, high earners and the highly taxed are increasingly not necessarily the same thing. Second, regardless of "who pays" it IS the PUBLIC education system. And the ownership of the roads and infrastructure also belongs to the PUBLIC...at least until the FIRE interests get around to buying all of it up on the cheap under the guise of PPPs, which will be anything but real partnerships [my bet is they will become the next variation of private profit and socialized risk].

As for all the responses so far, I was merely looking at this issue from an economics standpoint...imo the debate will be better served if we can leave ideology out of it. Accusations of being "communist" are particularly amusing...there's little difference in the ultimate economic consequences between the Soviet policy of sending "ideological deviants" & intellectuals to the gulag and the current U.S. policy of banishing some of the brightest graduates of its top ranked universities because they are...horrors...foreigners. But I digress...;)

[Jay]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

In the U.S., I don't think we'll see a return to a focus on the "common good" and more equitable income/wealth distribution (a la 1930's, 1940's, 1950's), for at least a generation.

Why? Do you think that the gains by the oligarchy will be taken away? I don't, we are too far down the path this time. America is spent and there is no new bubble. The aristocracy is now entrenched and revolution isn't an option. The second amendment was made in times before advanced weaponry, and the rest of the Constitution has been trashed. There is no reset in a globalized world of dwindling oil and resource, and most importantly dwindling real capital. It was going to play out this way eventually. The "common good" of Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill could only exist in an expanding US Empire.

Edit; look at the eight factors that marked a young America and set it apart from Europe:

1) Belief in the innate goodness of man.
2) Secularism.
3) Belief in progress.
4) Capitalism.
5) Faith in science.
6) Democracy.
8) Nationalism.

Ask yourself, where are we today?

[tsetsefly]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Comparisons like this, on a discrete tax element, are disingenuous. Look at the entire Swedish tax structure and government funded services policy framework, and compare that with the USA - that kind of analysis may lead to some useful insights. Comparing a single element of the tax system between here and there doesn't tell us much of anything.

One can always find an individual element of a tax policy somewhere in the world to support whatever argument one wants to make. But it's completely meaningless.

"Progressive" countries are used as an example of why "we should do x policy", i was simply pointing out that even some progressive countries have abandoned the estate tax. I was referring to more mentality than total tax rates. What one would have to see is if other taxes were raised in these countries to suplement the loss of revenue of the estate tax.
Oh if im not mistaken some states in the US (New York is among them, i think) already have a higher tax burden then Sweden when you add in state taxes.

Fundamentally opposition to an estate tax is premised on the theory of a "perfectly meritocratic" society...that individual financial results are solely due to individual intelligence and effort, and therefore that person should have sole and final say over the disposition of the lifetime fruits of their superior intellect and hard work. And for a very long time the USA has been viewed by the world as the epitome of this type of society - everyone has an "equal chance to achieve the American Dream", and presumably enjoy the results of that success.

I dont think anyone who opposes the estate tax, believes that there ever has been a perfect meritocratic society or that we are closer to it than we were before.

The opposite argument is that society confers on its citizens the opportunity to earn that lifetime surplus...everything from a publicly funded education system [which educated not only the successful entrepreneur, but also the workforce from which he/she draws to build their business] to the roads and other infrastructure, the legal system within which one can create reliable contracts [this is one of the things that seriously holds back so many third world countries, where official corruption trumps everything else], and so much more.

confers?, that is almost the same as saying , society confers its citizens to be free, to live etc. Society doesn't confer anything, it meddles in many things it shouldn't. It also uses majority to rule to disregard the rights of others, i would say this is a very negative aspect of our democratic society. Second, society does not build anything, it "uses" government as a very inefficient (at the very least inefficient) intermediary to use the money taken from society and allocate them according to where they see fit.

So here's an example...a talented professional athlete is able to earn a much higher salary than they would normally command because the taxpayers, not the owners of the business, fund the cost of all the stadiums and sports venues which the athlete needs to ply his/her trade over a career. Do said athlete's talentless adult children deserve the surplus accumulated over his/her lifetime? Or should some [or all?] of it be returned to the society that provided the opportunity for such high earning power in the first place? Not an easy question to answer, is it

Not the best example, because their are quite a few completely privately funded stadium, Dolphins stadium being one of them. From wikipedia:
"Land Shark Stadium was the first of its kind in the NFL to be constructed entirely with private funds. Joe Robbie led the financing campaign to build Joe Robbie Stadium (JRS) for the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. JRS revolutionized the economics of professional sports when it opened in 1987. Inclusion of a Club Level, along with Executive Suites, helped to finance the construction of the stadium. Season ticket holders committed to long term agreements and in return received first-class amenities in a state-of-the-art facility."

I think to make this argument that athletes make considerably more money because of the size of the stadium is quite a stretch. Second if we use your premise that society "confers" some people the opportunity to make more money, than any estate tax should be geared specifically to profession were society "made it possibly" to make more money. Also when you use the term society, do you mean 51% ???

If the past few years has taught us anything it's that the USA is now anything but a meritocracy...that the ability to accumulate extraordinary financial gain often has little or nothing to do with merit, talent, skill or hard work. Hell, too often it's not even related to taking any personal risk any more [Americans have become so risk adverse that the majority actually support the idea that their government can keep them safe from explosives hidden in underwear by limiting and searching hand luggage - does that make any sense?]. In a political economy funded by government, where the outcomes are so severely distorted by government policies and actions, I expect an estate tax will be difficult to argue against. That situation is only compounded by the severe fiscal circumstances of so many governments all around the world.

The USA compared to most countries one of the most meritocratic, however for many years now (50+) as government has intervened more in economic matters, more and more use government favors to gain wealth. However, even with this most of those considered "rich" are first generation millionaires I would say this is less of an occurrence where government intervention in the economy is greater. Meaning, you are more likely to find generation rich wealthy families in countries with more government intervention in the economy.

Starting with that premise doesn't allow thoughtful discussion. You must certainly gain some benefit from participating in a modern cooperative society. Don't you occasionally travel on a road, or use a water system, or prefer to live where police and fire departments operate?

What is your definition of a modern cooperative society? and the role government plays in it?
If the road was privately build or the water system or the railway, what then? must i still pay into the modern cooperative society?

[Ghent12]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

The aristocracy is now entrenched and revolution isn't an option. The second amendment was made in times before advanced weaponry, and the rest of the Constitution has been trashed.

You don't need to fire a shot to have a revolution.

[GRG55]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

...Not the best example, because their are quite a few completely privately funded stadium, Dolphins stadium being one of them. From wikipedia:
"Land Shark Stadium was the first of its kind in the NFL to be constructed entirely with private funds. Joe Robbie led the financing campaign to build Joe Robbie Stadium (JRS) for the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. JRS revolutionized the economics of professional sports when it opened in 1987. Inclusion of a Club Level, along with Executive Suites, helped to finance the construction of the stadium. Season ticket holders committed to long term agreements and in return received first-class amenities in a state-of-the-art facility."

A perfectly good example actually...

If your point is that the Miami Dolphins and the National Football League [like so many other professional sports "businesses"] can exist in their present form and with their existing cost structure without the heavy taxpayer funded subsidies for the venues in which they play, you are wrong [although Dolphin Stadium may be private, the team can't exist without the NFL, and the NFL can't exist as it is today without the subsidies it enjoys across the nation].

If your point is that businesses like the NFL should emulate what Miami has done and fund the infrastructure for their businesses themselves, then we are in complete agreement [and I am assuming that the Dolphin Stadium owners got no special tax or other incentives, such as a public "co-signer" for a bond issue, for its construction, and paid for all the external support facilities like the road system upgrades needed to get everyone to and from that palace - but I suspect that's not the case ;)].

But what should be, isn't. And just like the bankers on Wall Street, professional league team owners discovered long ago that they could boost the returns of their business significantly by sucking on the public teat. As more than a few iTulipers from around your magnificent country have previously attested [we've had this discussion here before], they've become quite good at it...to the point where it's now quite common for them to throw child-like temper tantrums and threaten to pick up their marbles [teams] and go home [move to another city] if their demands for public funding for a new stadium aren't met.

...I think to make this argument that athletes make considerably more money because of the size of the stadium is quite a stretch. Second if we use your premise that society "confers" some people the opportunity to make more money, than any estate tax should be geared specifically to profession were society "made it possibly" to make more money. Also when you use the term society, do you mean 51% ???

First, it's not the size of the stadium...it's who pays for it. And it's not much of a stretch to recognize that the increased returns to the business from the public subsidies don't all accrue to the shareholders [the team owners]...at the very least the best of the athletes have sufficient bargaining leverage to secure part of the windfall for themselves. Ask any Econ 101 student how it works...;)

Second, you can be damn sure it is "society" as a whole [and that includes you] that most definitely is conferring that benefit...involuntarily perhaps.

In closing, set your ideology aside for a moment, and you'll see that the economic arguments for and against "death" taxes are not nearly as black and white as you're trying to make out.

[Rajiv]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Talking of the NFL, there is a good article at New Geography - The Football Franchise Hustle: Financing the NFL

The economics of professional football bring more than a few words to mind: scam, hoax, boondoggle, rip-off, racket, con, scheme, fix, subsidy, loophole, ruse, handout, set up, monopoly, and — well, why not — Jimmy Hoffa who, according to urban legend, was interred in the end zone in Giants Stadium.

An insider trading scheme dressed up as a professional sport, pro football finance incorporates everything fishy in the worlds of municipal finance, urban planning, government subsidies, cable television, and, even sometimes, sports.

Let’s move past the idea that professional football is a game played between rival clubs, to test which team is the best over the course of a season. Football may have been that in the 1930s when the Decatur Staleys (later known as the Chicago Bears) were playing the Dayton Triangles. But more recently it has become a hostage to the fortunes of the advertising and investment banking industries, a spectacle put together to sell beer on television or to justify bogus adventures in the bond business.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[GRG55]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

...Not the best example, because their are quite a few completely privately funded stadium, Dolphins stadium being one of them. From wikipedia:
"Land Shark Stadium was the first of its kind in the NFL to be constructed entirely with private funds. Joe Robbie led the financing campaign to build Joe Robbie Stadium (JRS) for the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. JRS revolutionized the economics of professional sports when it opened in 1987. Inclusion of a Club Level, along with Executive Suites, helped to finance the construction of the stadium. Season ticket holders committed to long term agreements and in return received first-class amenities in a state-of-the-art facility."

I think to make this argument that athletes make considerably more money because of the size of the stadium is quite a stretch...

A perfectly good example actually...

Just as a follow-up, you should have pursued your Wikipedia reference through the chain a bit further. Here's a few choice excerpts:

...Partly as a result of the sight-line problems at Land Shark Stadium [the temporarily renamed Dolphins Stadium], the [Florida] Marlins [major league baseball team] are booked for a new stadium at the site of the Miami Orange Bowl in 2012...

When I followed the "new stadium" link it took me here and revealed the following:

...One of the biggest steps in the Marlins getting a new ballpark came in February 2005 when Miami-Dade County officials unveiled a financial plan for a $420-$435 million ballpark and parking garage for the Florida Marlins east of the Miami Orange Bowl. However, in May 2005, the Marlins' struggles with the Florida House Legislation continued, as their funding requests of $45 million for a new ballpark were rejected.

In November 2005, the Marlins' negotiations with the City of Miami officially broke down. The failure to work out a stadium deal caused the Marlins to undergo their second fire sale in franchise history, or as the Marlins called it, Market Correction. They ended up trading away Carlos Delgado, Mike Lowell, Josh Beckett, Luis Castillo, and Juan Pierre following the 2005 season...

LOL...do you still think it's a stretch to believe there's a link between a team's ability to pay high salaries to star players and taxpayer funding of stadiums?

...In December 2007, the Miami-Dade County Commission voted in favor of two proposals that would assist in funding. City and County Commissioners voted on February 21, 2008 to approve funding for a new ballpark for the Marlins. The total cost is expected to be approximately $515 million. The proposal calls for the Marlins to contribute $155 million, Miami-Dade County to contribute $347 million (about $297 million of which would come from tourist tax dollars), and the City of Miami to contribute $13 million...

...On March 23, 2009, after more than nine hours of debate, Miami-Dade County commissioners answered the Florida Marlins' 15-year quest for a permanent home by agreeing to bankroll a big share of a $634 million stadium complex to rise on the grounds of the old Orange Bowl site. The vote was 9-4. Voting in favor of the stadium were Commissioners Dennis Moss, Bruno Barreiro, Audrey Edmonson, Natacha Seijas, Javier Souto, Barbara Jordan, Dorrin Rolle, Jose Pepe Diaz and Rebeca Sosa. Also, by a 10-3 vote, commissioners approved a bid waiver for the stadium's construction...

...In the early hours of July 1, 2009, Miami-Dade County commissioners cast the final vote on a set of last-minute changes that cleared the way for the sale of more than $300 million in bonds to pay for construction of a new baseball stadium...

So there we have all the ingredients, right in Miami, your example of a bastion of free enterprise pro-sports...a captive council, direct local taxpayer funding, cross-subsidization from businesses in another economic sector [tourism], an increase in the public debt, and finally, too funny for words , a suspension of the public works bidding rules for contractors on a project that was priced at $420 million in 2005 and steadily escalated to $634 million by the time the taxpayer's elected representatives finally caved in.

Jimmy Hoffa would have loved it...:rolleyes:

[Slimprofits]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

The U.S. didn't enter WWI until 1917 -- are you saying that Congress revived the estate tax in advance of the U.S.'s entry into the war?

No, I'm sorry that wasn't clear. The war seriously cut into international trade and revenue from tariffs was greatly reduced. The taxation laws were passed in 1916.

In 1917, the War Revenue Act was passed and both the income and corporate tax rates were raised.

In 1918, the rates were raised again.

In 1943, with the need of more revenue up front and more total taxpayers to pay for the war effort, the withholding tax was created.

Taxes were reduced after the war, only to go up again to pay for the Korean war.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

A perfectly good example actually...

If your point is that the Miami Dolphins and the National Football League [like so many other professional sports "businesses"] can exist in their present form and with their existing cost structure without the heavy taxpayer funded subsidies for the venues in which they play, you are wrong [although Dolphin Stadium may be private, the team can't exist without the NFL, and the NFL can't exist as it is today without the subsidies it enjoys across the nation].

If your point is that businesses like the NFL should emulate what Miami has done and fund the infrastructure for their businesses themselves, then we are in complete agreement [and I am assuming that the Dolphin Stadium owners got no special tax or other incentives, such as a public "co-signer" for a bond issue, for its construction, and paid for all the external support facilities like the road system upgrades needed to get everyone to and from that palace - but I suspect that's not the case ;)].

But what should be, isn't. And just like the bankers on Wall Street, professional league team owners discovered long ago that they could boost the returns of their business significantly by sucking on the public teat. As more than a few iTulipers from around your magnificent country have previously attested [we've had this discussion here before], they've become quite good at it...to the point where it's now quite common for them to throw child-like temper tantrums and threaten to pick up their marbles [teams] and go home [move to another city] if their demands for public funding for a new stadium aren't met.



First, it's not the size of the stadium...it's who pays for it. And it's not much of a stretch to recognize that the increased returns to the business from the public subsidies don't all accrue to the shareholders [the team owners]...at the very least the best of the athletes have sufficient bargaining leverage to secure part of the windfall for themselves. Ask any Econ 101 student how it works...;)

I made no arguments as to sport leagues teaming up with local governments, it happens as it does in virtually all industries nowadays, and off course it is bad. But government meddling in the economy has created this situation. Where you have border town fighting over a walmart, cities creating tax benefits for development, offering benefits base on race etc.

Second, you can be damn sure it is "society" as a whole [and that includes you] that most definitely is conferring that benefit...involuntarily perhaps.

In closing, set your ideology aside for a moment, and you'll see that the economic arguments for and against "death" taxes are not nearly as black and white as you're trying to make out.

By your argument, society should tax everyone and everything as its society that involuntarily confers the benefit to do anything.
Second, our subsidies that go to building stadiums must first go through government, where incredible waste and corruption take place, I would much rather see the wealthy sportsman heirs spend that money, invest it or just keep it in a bank then have the same process of going through the same inefficient and corrupt government and "maybe" back to something useful to me.


Its hard to put my ideology aside when my ideology was formed by my interest and subsequent education in economics which made me come to the conclusion that most taxes (to not say all) are bad for the economy.

But speaking specifically of the death tax, I can not see either the "fairness"(quite a subjective measure that is used to justify all sorts of taxes and regulations) or the economic sense for the estate tax.

Just as a follow-up, you should have pursued your Wikipedia reference through the chain a bit further. Here's a few choice excerpts:

...Partly as a result of the sight-line problems at Land Shark Stadium [the temporarily renamed Dolphins Stadium], the [Florida] Marlins [major league baseball team] are booked for a new stadium at the site of the Miami Orange Bowl in 2012...

When I followed the "new stadium" link it took me here and revealed the following:

...One of the biggest steps in the Marlins getting a new ballpark came in February 2005 when Miami-Dade County officials unveiled a financial plan for a $420-$435 million ballpark and parking garage for the Florida Marlins east of the Miami Orange Bowl. However, in May 2005, the Marlins' struggles with the Florida House Legislation continued, as their funding requests of $45 million for a new ballpark were rejected.

In November 2005, the Marlins' negotiations with the City of Miami officially broke down. The failure to work out a stadium deal caused the Marlins to undergo their second fire sale in franchise history, or as the Marlins called it, Market Correction. They ended up trading away Carlos Delgado, Mike Lowell, Josh Beckett, Luis Castillo, and Juan Pierre following the 2005 season...

LOL...do you still think it's a stretch to believe there's a link between a team's ability to pay high salaries to star players and taxpayer funding of stadiums?

...In December 2007, the Miami-Dade County Commission voted in favor of two proposals that would assist in funding. City and County Commissioners voted on February 21, 2008 to approve funding for a new ballpark for the Marlins. The total cost is expected to be approximately $515 million. The proposal calls for the Marlins to contribute $155 million, Miami-Dade County to contribute $347 million (about $297 million of which would come from tourist tax dollars), and the City of Miami to contribute $13 million...

...On March 23, 2009, after more than nine hours of debate, Miami-Dade County commissioners answered the Florida Marlins' 15-year quest for a permanent home by agreeing to bankroll a big share of a $634 million stadium complex to rise on the grounds of the old Orange Bowl site. The vote was 9-4. Voting in favor of the stadium were Commissioners Dennis Moss, Bruno Barreiro, Audrey Edmonson, Natacha Seijas, Javier Souto, Barbara Jordan, Dorrin Rolle, Jose Pepe Diaz and Rebeca Sosa. Also, by a 10-3 vote, commissioners approved a bid waiver for the stadium's construction...

...In the early hours of July 1, 2009, Miami-Dade County commissioners cast the final vote on a set of last-minute changes that cleared the way for the sale of more than $300 million in bonds to pay for construction of a new baseball stadium...

So there we have all the ingredients, right in Miami, your example of a bastion of free enterprise pro-sports...a captive council, direct local taxpayer funding, cross-subsidization from businesses in another economic sector [tourism], an increase in the public debt, and finally, too funny for words , a suspension of the public works bidding rules for contractors on a project that started out at $420 million and steadily escalated to $634 million by the time the taxpayer's elected representatives finally caved in.

Jimmy Hoffa would have loved it...:rolleyes:

You made your own conclusion out of my argument, I never said Miami was "a bastion of free enterprise" nor did I try to make it seem that way.

You did however say, "because the taxpayers, not the owners of the business, fund the cost of all the stadiums and sports venues". I merely pointed out that that is false. Btw, i already knew about the marlins' stadium, but that does not matter in this argument that "ALL" stadiums are finance by society.

[World Traveler]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

From Houston Chronicle, October 27, 2009

"Harris County taxpayers may have to inject up to $7 million a year into the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority for the next two years due to a financial crisis sparked by the souring of bonds used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center.

Facing balloon payments on $117 million in variable-rate bonds, the authority now is obliged to pay off the debt in five years instead of 23 years. That would require $24 million a year - a figure that, together with more than $30 million in additional obligations, would push the authority to the brink of insolvency...


The authority's debt ran into trouble about a year ago when MBIA, a firm that insured its bonds, was downgraded by analysts. Investors fled from $117 million in variable-rate bonds, forcing the bank JPMorgan Chase to buy them up, under its contractual obligation with the sports authority. JPMorgan then converted the debt into a loan and, per the contract, required payment in five years instead of 23. Those payments amount to about $24 million a year.

After expenses and debt service, the authority nets about $12 million annually.

In addition, the authority had entered into an interest rate swap on the $117 million with UBS, which allowed the agency to exchange its variable interest rates for fixed ones. When the bonds soured, the swap went awry, creating an obligation for the authority to post $30 million to $35 million in collateral.
Without a lifeline, the two payments, which could total nearly $60 million, would deplete most of the authority's reserve funds and push it toward default...

One possibility under consideration is to move stadium utility costs - usually around $11 million a year - from the HOT tax budget into the tax-supported general fund or a special revenue fund, Yuran said.


Former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, a longtime critic of the stadium deals who has called for the authority to be dissolved, said those claims are misleading.
"It's literally like watching a train go over a hill," he said. "The heavy engine goes over the hill first, and it pulls the whole train over, all the way to the caboose. Somebody's going to pay at the end of this train, and that's going to be the taxpayers."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...d=2009_4804844

[GRG55]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

From Houston Chronicle, October 27, 2009

"Harris County taxpayers may have to inject up to $7 million a year into the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority for the next two years due to a financial crisis sparked by the souring of bonds used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center.

Facing balloon payments on $117 million in variable-rate bonds, the authority now is obliged to pay off the debt in five years instead of 23 years. That would require $24 million a year - a figure that, together with more than $30 million in additional obligations, would push the authority to the brink of insolvency...


The authority's debt ran into trouble about a year ago when MBIA, a firm that insured its bonds, was downgraded by analysts. Investors fled from $117 million in variable-rate bonds, forcing the bank JPMorgan Chase to buy them up, under its contractual obligation with the sports authority. JPMorgan then converted the debt into a loan and, per the contract, required payment in five years instead of 23. Those payments amount to about $24 million a year.

After expenses and debt service, the authority nets about $12 million annually.

In addition, the authority had entered into an interest rate swap on the $117 million with UBS, which allowed the agency to exchange its variable interest rates for fixed ones. When the bonds soured, the swap went awry, creating an obligation for the authority to post $30 million to $35 million in collateral.
Without a lifeline, the two payments, which could total nearly $60 million, would deplete most of the authority's reserve funds and push it toward default...

One possibility under consideration is to move stadium utility costs - usually around $11 million a year - from the HOT tax budget into the tax-supported general fund or a special revenue fund, Yuran said.


Former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, a longtime critic of the stadium deals who has called for the authority to be dissolved, said those claims are misleading.
"It's literally like watching a train go over a hill," he said. "The heavy engine goes over the hill first, and it pulls the whole train over, all the way to the caboose. Somebody's going to pay at the end of this train, and that's going to be the taxpayers."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...d=2009_4804844

Well here we have a point of agreement between me and tsetsefly.

Your post supports my contention that the "business" of professional sports would be a whole lot less lucrative if the leagues had to fund their own infrastructure...and also supports tsetsefly's contention that government can't do anything right...

My condolances to Harris County ratepayers.