End state relationship with and tax breaks for ESPN NOW

[ruskin]

That's one way to look at it.

And then people wonder how messes like Steubenville happen. Sports über alles.

. I'm advocating a company getting state aid do what would be a relatively small favor and help the state university. Way to introduce Kavanaughed into it jackass. EDIT: a state company that does nothing except glorify sports heroes. By your acid-induced logic, that makes them most responsible for what happened in Steubenville & Torrington.

 

[businesslawyer]

Every subsidy that the state provides to one company is the same as a tax on all the others. Why is the State of Connecticut picking winners in the economy?

That is a perfectly good question to ask. But, as you know, it is just as fair to ask it of each of the other 49 states, and it has little to do with the argument.

 

[J187Money]

. I'm advocating a company getting state aid do what would be a relatively small favor and help the state university. Way to introduce Kavanaughed into it jackass. EDIT: a state company that does nothing except glorify sports heroes. By your acid-induced logic, that makes them most responsible for what happened in Steubenville & Torrington.

Actually that isn't what you are advocating. You are saying that ESPN has failed on some sort of quid pro quo and therefore the state should reneg on a deal that was cut for a lot of reasons, many of which don't have anything to do specifically with UCONN.

And what I was trying to point out (maybe not so cleverly) is that when someone ONLY looks at an issue as to how it affects someone's beloved sports teams and ignores all other facets you get really strange (and generally suboptimal) outcomes.

I'm not sure that the state needed to give ESPN the tax break. I'm not happy that ESPN isn't helping. I dislike much of what the government does with other people's money. Virtually everyone here is on the same side thematically - that it really sucks that a company that grew up in our state doesn't seem to give a *&^%& about its state university, and at times seems to be acting against us.

But you can't wholly blame ESPN for the current predicament. There was a pretty good deal on the table a couple of years ago. They didn't vote it down. We turned our noses up at it and ended up with a *^%& sandwich instead. That's real life.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

How about an attestation?

"Since its 2006 inception, the state's film program has issued $302 million in tax credits, which has leveraged about $1 billion in production expenditures and created 15,000 jobs, state records show.
"I absolutely believe the film tax credits are working," said George Norfleet, director of the state's Office of Film, Television & Digital Media. "The industry, as a whole, is expanding and creating jobs, and that is exactly what the tax credits are meant to do."

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130311/PRINTEDITION/303089975

If your business wants tax credits - get a lobbyist and go wander the LOB.

So the role of government is to take money from regular tax payers and give it to favored, connected, corporations?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

That is a perfectly good question to ask. But, as you know, it is just as fair to ask it of each of the other 49 states, and it has little to do with the argument.

Somebody is paying for those tax credits. Unlike most of the people on this board, you should realize that the money for ESPN does not come out of thin air.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

THE TAX BREAKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH UCONN!

Yes they do.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

And are you really so dense that you can't find an obvious no strings attached example? How about the first round of TARP from Bush to the banks? That had zero strings attached. It was a capital infusion. They still can't account for where all the money went.

In your mind, tax breaks/loans tied to adding jobs over a very specific time frame is no string attached. Maybe you should do some research before you make statements that are blatantly false. The deal requires a minimum of 200 new jobs. There are other strings too, but the details will just confuse you. And the maximum amount of the deal is $24.7 million. I know those decimal points confuse you and you like to move them to suit your rants. But much like your inflated views of the new TV contract in 2011 and 2012, you missed the mark with how much this is costing the state versus its benefit. Just to be factually clear on the amounts involved:
Cigna, Bloomfield: $71 million
ESPN, Bristol: $25 million
NBC Sports, Stamford: $20 million
Alexion, New Haven: $51 million
CareCentrix, Hartford: $24 million

The HBJ article said that ESPN got $33.5 million last year alone.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

So the role of government is to take money from regular tax payers and give it to favored, connected, corporations?

You asked specifically for some proof that they work and he gave you exactly what you asked for. If you don't like this post, don't ask him for it.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Yes they do.

By all means, provide me with evidence to support this.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You asked specifically for some proof that they work and he gave you exactly what you asked for. If you don't like this post, don't ask him for it.

There are so many holes in that link that is a waste of my and everyone else's time to have to respond to it. The "jobs" created are mostly temp jobs, and $300MM in state dollars for $1bn in total, one time expenditures is a terrible ROI for the state. In terms of tax dollars generated, it was probably about $100MM at most, maybe less. In other words, the state spent $3 for every $1 in tax dollars it generated from a bunch of temp jobs.

A total waste of money.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

There are so many holes in that link that is a waste of my and everyone else's time to have to respond to it. The "jobs" created are mostly temp jobs, and $300MM in state dollars for $1bn in total, one time expenditures is a terrible ROI for the state. In terms of tax dollars generated, it was probably about $100MM at most, maybe less. In other words, the state spent $3 for every $1 in tax dollars it generated from a bunch of temp jobs.

A total waste of money.

You're just a contrarian troll, aren't you?

 

[huskymedic]

There are so many holes in that link that is a waste of my and everyone else's time to have to respond to it. The "jobs" created are mostly temp jobs, and $300MM in state dollars for $1bn in total, one time expenditures is a terrible ROI for the state. In terms of tax dollars generated, it was probably about $100MM at most, maybe less. In other words, the state spent $3 for every $1 in tax dollars it generated from a bunch of temp jobs.

A total waste of money.

 

[Adios]

The only two reasons Louisville was taken ahead of us were Teddy Bridgewater and Charlie Strong. If Kragthorpe was their coach and Edsall was our coach when UMD decided to go to the Big 10, we'd be in the ACC instead. Hard to believe people are so down on our own school. If you don't like it, go cheer for someone else.

 

[J187Money]

Possibly. But that's irrelevant now.

 

[The Funster]

The words that will go on Flipper's headstone "ESPN told us what to do."

IIRC, ESPN was advising the ACC on which schools would be desirable for expansion. One of those schools was UConn. However, BC was able to spearhead the effort to keep UConn out and bring Pitt in.

 

[The Funster]

I was as pissed at ESPN as anyone when everything started to come to the surface. As I look back at it now Ifeel that while ESPN did not go out of their way to favor UConn there is no evidence that they went out of their way to down UConn. I find the former acceptable. Had the latter actually taken place, I'd have a serious beef with them.

 

[The Funster]

Part of the problem is that for the most part Connecticut such a horrendous place to do business (taxes, regulations, transportation bottlenecks etc) that folks have become deathly (and in ESPN's case, irrationally) afraid of the few big businesses who have remained pulling up and leaving. I think understand that.

I'm not opposed to tax credits, etc. But, like bizlaw, I think businesses who do accept them have as much a responsibility to the state they accept them from as much as they do their shareholders.

Big-time college sports add to the quality of life in the state for many of us. A descent to MAC-level (or worse) will make it less desirable. It's intellectually insulting to hear ESPN repeat "we don't have anything to do with realignment" when the opposite is true. Ethically (and in this era, something that doesn't count for much), it's poor form for the neighbor with the 20,000 square foot house to ask me to help pay his property taxes or else he'll move and let the property decay.

You do realize that most people don't understand or don't care about ESPN's role in CR don't you? To us, people who are passionate about following UConn athletics, it's an important debate. To most people, not really.

 

[Matt (Chicago)]

"Two reasons" why Ville was selected over us... do you have any proof of that? Like a link or document?

 

[HuskyHawk]

That is a perfectly good question to ask. But, as you know, it is just as fair to ask it of each of the other 49 states, and it has little to do with the argument.

And don't forget the federal government. Cash for clunkers, Solyndra...dozens more.

 

[businesslawyer]

And don't forget the federal government. Cash for clunkers, Solyndra...dozens more.

The federal government helping businesses is actually totally different than states helping businesses. Each state receives huge amounts of federal money. When they engage in this game, Americans are bidding against themselves to move businesses from one area to the other, with the unavoidable result that Americans are a net loser, if you exclude the businesses that take the money.

Wanted to strengthen the U.S.'s economy vis a vis China's, or Germany's, is a totally different issue.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I was as pissed at ESPN as anyone when everything started to come to the surface. As I look back at it now Ifeel that while ESPN did not go out of their way to favor UConn there is no evidence that they went out of their way to down UConn. I find the former acceptable. Had the latter actually taken place, I'd have a serious beef with them.

^^^ This is rational. At most, I can bring a little dissapointment, not anger, that ESPN didn't make a little bit more of an effort to proactively help UConn. Not because of the tax breaks or because they are in the state, but because we freaking made them in the early days. They came into existence as much because of UConn basketball as anything else. That deserved a little special attention. They still have time to correct it.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The federal government helping businesses is actually totally different than states helping businesses. Each state receives huge amounts of federal money. When they engage in this game, Americans are bidding against themselves to move businesses from one area to the other, with the unavoidable result that Americans are a net loser, if you exclude the businesses that take the money.

Wanted to strengthen the U.S.'s economy vis a vis China's, or Germany's, is a totally different issue.

Disagree completely. A business moving to a tax friendly location, or right to work state or state with lower energy costs can allow that business to survive and provide jobs for Americans, in competition with business overseas. Those same jobs may well be lost entirely and the ability to compete with international competitors hindered if the business stays in a high cost state. But when the feds dump money into Solyndra, they interfere in the market, and prop up a business that deserves to fail. State to state competition helps keep us cost competitive in the global economy.