Friday, May 6, 2005

Florida Legislature Rejects Sales Tax Plan to Finance New Marlins Stadium

Citing lack of fairness in allocating sales tax subsidies to millionaires, Florida Senate President Tom Lee announced yesterday that his state's legislature has rejected the Florida Marlins' bid for a $60 million sales-tax subsidy for a new ballpark. This is the third recent failure by the Marlins to secure $60 million in sales tax subsidies. It is no doubt a major disappointment to the Marlins, and also to Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, who, upon learning of this news, complained, "If our state representatives can't see the big picture, then we'll have to do things on our own." (Clark & Caputo, "Strikeout for Marlins Stadium," Miami Herald, 5/6/05).

Given how sales taxes regressively re-distribute wealth, the decision of the Florida Legislature appears sensible. Indeed, with a sales tax, the rate remains the same for all persons, regardless of income or wealth. As a result, poorer and middle-class persons expend more of their available funds than do wealthier persons. In fact, according to a study conducted by the Citizens for Tax Justice in 1996, lower-income households pay over six times as great a share of their incomes in sales and excise taxes as do wealthier families, and middle-income households pay four times as great a share.

Moreover, even if a sales tax is to be implemented, wouldn't a better use of its revenue go to more pressing needs? I can't imagine that financing the Marlins' stadium strikes most Florida voters as more deserving of their tax dollars than curbing poverty, or expanding health care coverage, or some other certain need. It's nice to see that the Florida Legislature agreed, despite the overwhelming lobbying efforts of the pro-stadium faction.

All of that said, I am not philosophically opposed to the concept of publicly-funded stadiums. Rather, I am leery of using sales taxes to finance them. And even then I could (in theory) sign on to a sales tax plan, if--and only if--its proponents could prove that the stadium would generate more economic benefit to lower and middle income class persons than its financing would burden them. However, I'm skeptical that one could persuasively make such a counter-intuitive argument.

Related Posts:
Greg: New Turn in St. Louis Stadium Lawsuit
Greg: Eminent Domain and the Brooklyn Nets

0 comments:

Post a Comment