Awesome news !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 14, 2009
13
0
0
Just got the word. Tour Of Missouri's funding just got released! The Tour of Missouri will go on!!!!!! To those of you who e-mailed Governor Nixon : Thanks sooooo much. Please come check this event out. Missouri has something for everyone- a little KC BBQ and some Herman wines and MO hospitality. Maybe even a visit with a cycling icon, the Great Chiweenie. Who wouldn't have a great time? Thanks Gail
PS-visit tourofmissouri.com
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
0
0
rapistwit said:
Why should taxes be used for a bike race?
That's a grotesque use of public funds.
I agree.... taxes should only be used for subsidizing the pay of Wall Street execs.... :rolleyes:
 
Jul 3, 2009
62
0
0
rapistwit said:
Why should taxes be used for a bike race?
That's a grotesque use of public funds.
Um, it's called an investment. In this particular case it's a $1.5 million investment that returns $600 million economic impact. As a taxpayer, I'd say that's a pretty good use of money.
 
May 21, 2009
189
2
8,835
Not only is it advertising for the state, which has direct pay-back, but it's also the promotion of a public event like parades and state fairs and firework celebrations. It's part of the diversity of public events which makes a particular region or city a rewarding place to live.

I once knew an economics policy guy at Stanford who argued we should auction off the national parks and if it was economically efficient to continue to preserve them, then a coalition of those championing that cause would be the highest bidders. If not, then they should be destroyed for economic use. Scary. Free market and property rights fanatics constitute as extreme a religion as any. In some ways they make the guys strapping bombs onto their backs seem relatively harmless.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Coach Hawk said:
Um, it's called an investment. In this particular case it's a $1.5 million investment that returns $600 million economic impact. As a taxpayer, I'd say that's a pretty good use of money.
And not spending $1.5 million reduces the public tax burden by $1.5 million.
That's $1.5 million in economic impact. And if it's deficit spending it's more.
Keynes was wrong.
 
Jul 3, 2009
62
0
0
rapistwit said:
And not spending $1.5 million reduces the public tax burden by $1.5 million.
That's $1.5 million in economic impact. And if it's deficit spending it's more.
Keynes was wrong.
I guess if you think $1.5 million impact is better than $600 million impact, there's not a lot more I can say.
 
May 14, 2009
13
0
0
MO Race & Tax ??????

Interesting how quickly a topic can evolve from one thing to another. The deal is that the Tour of MO race cost approx $3.1 mil to put on. The Dept. of Tourism (which a lot of states have) invest $1.5 mil. The rest is paid for in sponsership. The revenue generated from that averages out to close to $30 mil a year. (some ones post got an extra 0 and lumped the last two years together). This money was already bugeted & approved several months back. The great thing is revenue goes to a lot of Missouri business. If you don't spend money you can't make money. Yes our state as well as any state could use better roads and schools & health care. At least the revenue made is helping all business owners from the gas stations to the antiques stores. No state wants all thier business to fail. Where would they get their tax revenue from that currently goes to existing schools or any state aid for that matter. If everything fails the state would become overburdened. Also one needs to keep in mind that our Tour is only in its third year. If it grows as hoped then the Dept. Of Tourism can spend less money and get more sponsership to take over the responsibilities.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Coach Hawk said:
I guess if you think $1.5 million impact is better than $600 million impact, there's not a lot more I can say.
Please show the math that came up with a $600 million dollar imapct.
And if you can I fail to see why it would need government handout outs.
If the private sector saw that benefit they wouldn't have hestitated financing it.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
ilillillli said:
yeah libertarianism! what a well-thought-out system of beliefs!*

*nope
I love your counter argument. It's almost as well thought out as what you're critical of.
 
Jul 3, 2009
62
0
0
rapistwit said:
Please show the math that came up with a $600 million dollar imapct.
And if you can I fail to see why it would need government handout outs.
If the private sector saw that benefit they wouldn't have hestitated financing it.
http://www.tourofmissouri.com/save-the-tour-of-missouri.html

It has been edited to $60 million (dang those extra '0's!) and I missed the "over 2 years" part, but I'd still take a $30M return on a $1.5M investment every day of the week. You'll have to ask them for the math.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Coach Hawk said:
http://www.tourofmissouri.com/save-the-tour-of-missouri.html

It has been edited to $60 million (dang those extra '0's!) and I missed the "over 2 years" part, but I'd still take a $30M return on a $1.5M investment every day of the week. You'll have to ask them for the math.


First off that's a huge difference.
Secondly, I'd still like to see the math.
Finally, let the private sector pay for it if it's profitable.

Look, I may be coming up off as a big wet blanket but it's just a matter of priorities. These arguments are the same lame ones that baseball/football extortionists use over new stadiums. If it's that beneficial let the people reaping the reward pay.
One could use this line of reasoning for every minor league sports team. Oh wait they do.
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
rapistwit said:
I love your counter argument. It's almost as well thought out as what you're critical of.
i thought the counterargument was being made by everyone else that explained the clear principles of investing a relatively small amount of public money for a much higher yield in terms of tax revenue than can, in turn, be spent on a wide array of public projects like roads, schools, and hospitals...but it's whatever...
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
ilillillli said:
i thought the counterargument was being made by everyone else that explained the clear principles of investing a relatively small amount of public money for a much higher yield in terms of tax revenue than can, in turn, be spent on a wide array of public projects like roads, schools, and hospitals...but it's whatever...
Was that the argument? So $1.5million of taxpayers money will yield more than $1.5 million in new taxes? Really?
It went from a $600 million in impact to $60 million.
I find all of these arguments dubious. Show me the math. And as I have pointed out, if it's that profitable then the people reaping the reward should be footing the bill (they probably would if that were actually the case).
And if a counterargument was being made by others why do you need to chime in with snide comments?
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
rapistwit said:
And as I have pointed out, if it's that profitable then the people reaping the reward should be footing the bill
that's the idea, alright:

public money... public projects

see: America 1776-present
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
ilillillli said:
that's the idea, alright:

public money... public projects

see: America 1776-present
Since when was a bike race a public project?
Again, if the thing is a profitable venture the private sector will fund it. And you still get your tax receipts without big brother spending taxpayers money trying to pick market winners (which they're notoriously bad at).
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
rapistwit said:
Since when was a bike race a public project?
ok, first, you're reading it wrong... the public money is the tax revenue generated by the bike race, the public projects are the roads, schools, and hospitals that can be built with that money.

second, since when was a bike race a public project? since... i don't know... a state fair was. look that up.

the ron paul forum is thataway--->

i'm done with this. eesh.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
ilillillli said:
ok, first, you're reading it wrong... the public money is the tax revenue generated by the bike race, the public projects are the roads, schools, and hospitals that can be built with that money.

second, since when was a bike race a public project? since... i don't know... a state fair was. look that up.

the ron paul forum is thataway--->

i'm done with this. eesh.

Really? Bike racing has been on the public dole that long? Wow. I learn something every day.
Again, if its profitable let the private sector deal with it (same with your state fair).
And BTW, the new keynesian club is to your left.

Au Revoir
 
May 14, 2009
13
0
0
Tax Qs & politics Tour of MO

RAPISTWIT-

I am wondering if you saw my last relply concerning the some finanical details or if you even read it. I am also wondering why you are on a cycling forum of any kind because I don't feel you support cycling with some of your comments. If you did not read my last message once again the State of Mo gets its money back + some! The business owners both small & large get a lot of revenue then pays their taxes back to MO + Feds. I am uncertain why you are a wet blanket and what part of this math you don't get. You can see the financials. I am not for sure if they are on the Tours' website but if you search something like Tour of Missouri or Save Tour of Missouri there were several articles written discussing the financials. You know as I type this I think I do recall there was an economic impact place on the Tours Website. As far as your comments about the numbers changing did you never play the game telephone as a kid. Thats the game where one person whispers a message then they tell the next person until it get way off from the original. This kind of thing happens on a forum sometimes. But the sentiments are still correct. If you had $1.5 mil to invest and you knew you could buy a sure thing stock with a $28.5 mil return you would do it. In any event if you had read my last post you would also have read that the goal once this is up and running is for more private investors to take over. What part of this info is not clear?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY