In looking at the stadium deal for the Grays/Senators/whatevers...

[SackAttack]

...I'm noticing mention of several taxes involved. A gross receipts tax on businesses clearing more than $3 million annually (I can't imagine that would be good for keeping jobs in the area), and various taxes on tickets and parking sold at RFK and the new ballpark.

Where the article I read wasn't entirely clear is, is that the city taking a portion of regular ticket revenue in taxes? Say, if a ticket is $20, they're taking 12% of that, and if parking is $10, they're taking 10% of that? Or are they simply adding that 12%/10% on to whatever ticket prices the Washington franchise chooses to enact?

[Shkspr]

Given that the team will know how much markup will occur for the tax bite when they price the tickets, does it really matter? As for how it will work, I'd guess that the parking and concessions will be priced to include the tax in the stated cost, while the tickets will be advertised at the teams price with taxes added on. In other words, using your examples, $10 parking nets the team about $9.09, while a $20 ticket will cost the fan $22.50 or more.

[Samdari]

And yet, they are telling everyone that the stadium is being built "without a single dollar of DC tax money" and "no public financing"

How can you tell a politician is talking?

[SackAttack]

lying. How can you tell a politician is lying.

I wonder how many of D.C.'s citizens know about the ticket/parking taxes, and how many don't care because they're usage taxes (as opposed to taxing everybody).

[Subby]

Who cares?

WE HAVE BASEBALL!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOOOHOOOOO!

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

lying. How can you tell a politician is lying.

I wonder how many of D.C.'s citizens know about the ticket/parking taxes, and how many don't care because they're usage taxes (as opposed to taxing everybody).

D'OH, and I know that quote too.

The fact that they are use taxes is exactly what the liars are claiming makes this stadium not publicly financed. Those taxes could not be collected unless there was a ballpark.

The fact remains that the District is floating a bond - thus if they have less than full attendance in the first 30 years, those taxes will fall short of the bond payments, the District will need to make up the difference.

By the way, this announcement was way premature. The only thing that is certain at this point is that they Expos are playing in RFK next year. The deal with Angelos - the levels to which his income and franchise value are guaranteed are not finalized, there is no owner, and the District floating this bond for the stadium is not yet fully approved. If that vote is somehow delayed until after the election, it apparently has no chance to pass (based on who is favored to constitute the DC council at that point). They are announcing this like it is permanent, but to me that looks like a ploy to ensure attendance next year.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Where the article I read wasn't entirely clear is, is that the city taking a portion of regular ticket revenue in taxes? Say, if a ticket is $20, they're taking 12% of that, and if parking is $10, they're taking 10% of that? Or are they simply adding that 12%/10% on to whatever ticket prices the Washington franchise chooses to enact?

While I am not certain how this specific tax works in DC, most jurisdictions that have admission taxes or the like allow the tax to be imbedded into the stated ticket price for an event. If it's a 10% tax, then your $20 ticket is in actuality a $18.18 ticket with $1.82 in taxes included.

But in all practical effect - does this really matter? (I would argue not) It's still tax revenue (money that lands with the government, rather than with the seller) regardless of whether it's stated as such.