Joe Ricketts is Worried about Government Spending

[Hawker]

Joe Ricketts is very worried about the deficit and government spending and has a plan how to stop it.  He will spend $10 million on political ads.  What a big hearted generous man!

The New York Times takes him at his word as to his motivation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/us/politics/magnate-steps-into-2012-fray-on-wild-pitch.html?ref=us

Joe Ricketts "has seemed motivated primarily by his belief that government spending is out of control and that Mr. Obama cannot be trusted to rein in the deficit and reduce the national debt."

Seems fair enough until we come to this story about where he will get the $10 million:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rahm-emanuel-not-returning-calls-from-ricketts-family/2012/05/17/gIQAb8WcWU_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

We find that "The Ricketts family is seeking taxpayer funding for the renovations. Emanuel has reportedly sought to put $100 million in tax incentives into the deal. "

So Joe Ricketts is asking for $100 million in government spending on his family business and will spend $10 million on ads complaining about government spending.  That leaves him $90 million ahead and allows him to pose as a small government conservative.

Nice.  What a big hearted generous man!

[1715070138]

1715070138

[1715070138]

1715070138

[1715070138]

1715070138

[ribuck]

As I understand it, a "tax incentive" means you pay less tax. It isn't a government handout.

It's surely consistent for someone to want to reduce government spending and to want to reduce taxation.

[Hawker]

As I understand it, a "tax incentive" means you pay less tax. It isn't a government handout.

It's surely consistent for someone to want to reduce government spending and to want to reduce taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_expenditure

If every business in a city pays taxes and you get a special deal that mean you don't pay taxes, that gives you a unique advantage.  That is a handout.  

In this case, he gets $100 million handout and spends $10 million of that opposing handouts.  Who wouldn't take that deal?

[FredericBastiat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_expenditure

If every business in a city pays taxes and you get a special deal that mean you don't pay taxes, that gives you a unique advantage.  That is a handout.  

In this case, he gets $100 million handout and spends $10 million of that opposing handouts.  Who wouldn't take that deal?

It isn't a handout if it was your money to begin with. It just means he found a way to reduce the extent of the plunder his local/state/federal government was imposing upon him. We should follow his lead until there is no more theft and all voluntary and consensual contribution.

More power to him. It's a laudable goal. Where do I "contribute"?

[MoneyIsDebt]

It isn't a handout if it was your money to begin with.

This.

[LoupGaroux]

In the interest of transparency... Joe is not the one looking for the hand-out. It's his children, Tom and the Gang who want the massive public subsidy, the abuse of eminent domain to steal other people's property, and for the city to abandon public streets so they can create a privately owned, pay-to-enter alternative to all the existing neighborhood businesses, that they and they alone will profit from.

Papa Joe is an outspoken Conservative with the cash to back up his calling out the Administration, the Children are Liberal sycophants who keep kissing the city leadership's ass to try and get a place at the public pork-barrel feeding trough to benefit themselves. Out of the $100 million they are asking for (and most sources consider that just the first step, look for the final number to be much close to a half billion) none of it will be spent by Papa Joe for his agenda, it will all go to the kids and buying favor with the Obama Slumdogs who took over power in this corrupt cesspool known as Chicago. Typical back-rape way of doing business in Chicago- make sure you curry favor with the politicos, and screw the taxpayers to pay for it all.

[bb113]

I don't understand the opposing point of view. Rich people can use their money to make money off the government, therefore we should give the government more resources and power?

[Hawker]

I don't understand the opposing point of view. Rich people can use their money to make money off the government, therefore we should give the government more resources and power?

The opposing point of view is that if you are 100% convinced that government spending is a problem, stop asking it for $100 million and then spending $10 million opposing government spending.  Spend your own $10 million and enter some business that is not subsidised by the government.

Alternatively, allow decent folk like myself and Fred to do the same.  Give us millions of goverenment money and we will spend 10% complaining about the government.  Why should schemes like this be for rich small government types only ?

[bb113]

I don't understand the opposing point of view. Rich people can use their money to make money off the government, therefore we should give the government more resources and power?

The opposing point of view is that if you are 100% convinced that government spending is a problem, stop asking it for $100 million and then spending $10 million opposing government spending.  Spend your own $10 million and enter some business that is not subsidised by the government.

Alternatively, allow decent folk like myself and Fred to do the same.  Give us millions of goverenment money and we will spend 10% complaining about the government.  Why should schemes like this be for rich small government types only ?

I agree that such schemes shouldn't be limited to those already with money/power. The reality is that they are. What solution are you suggesting? One option is limiting the activities of the government so there is less to manipulate.

[Hawker]

I don't understand the opposing point of view. Rich people can use their money to make money off the government, therefore we should give the government more resources and power?

The opposing point of view is that if you are 100% convinced that government spending is a problem, stop asking it for $100 million and then spending $10 million opposing government spending.  Spend your own $10 million and enter some business that is not subsidised by the government.

Alternatively, allow decent folk like myself and Fred to do the same.  Give us millions of goverenment money and we will spend 10% complaining about the government.  Why should schemes like this be for rich small government types only ?

I agree that such schemes shouldn't be limited to those already with money/power. The reality is that they are. What solution are you suggesting? One option is limiting the activities of the government so there is less to manipulate.

That's the best one.  Flat tax rate for people who earn more than twice the minimum wage and no subsidies for houses, playing fields (ffs $100 million for a playing field!), insurance and the like.

I suspect that Joe Ricketts would call you a madman if he heard you suggest such a scheme.  He is clearly in the "socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor" camp.

[LoupGaroux]

How about a flat tax rate for ALL residents of the country? And limit the power of the government to those activities that are expressed stated in the articles of foundation.

City government have exactly zero business being involved in this kind of scheme, and the taxpayers of the city, and soon the entire state have exactly no responsibility for give-away funding for a massive private profit enterprise like this. All of the second generation Ricketts should be lined up against a wall and shot for even asking for this hand-out, the father, Joe, is the only one worth keeping alive.

[Hawker]

How about a flat tax rate for ALL residents of the country? And limit the power of the government to those activities that are expressed stated in the articles of foundation.

City government have exactly zero business being involved in this kind of scheme, and the taxpayers of the city, and soon the entire state have exactly no responsibility for give-away funding for a massive private profit enterprise like this. All of the second generation Ricketts should be lined up against a wall and shot for even asking for this hand-out, the father, Joe, is the only one worth keeping alive.

To be fair, I think its a big ask to expect him to raise a PAC of $10 million to have his sons shot.  Fair perhaps but can you imagine the atmosphere at their Christmas dinners?

Flat taxes work when there is money to tax.  Chasing after people on very low incomes costs more than the money raised so there must be a point at which tax starts to make sense.  I agree my "Minimum Wage x 2" was pulled right out of thin air - lets agree that tax should be paid at the point where the cost of collection is less than the amount raised.

The same logic applies at the other end of the income scale.  If a tax has the effect that you actually get less income from high earners, that tax is stupid.  The UK government is retreating from its 50% tax for just that reason.

Ricketts is a special case though.  He got rich in a tightly regulated market and he has not disavowed the way his family are trying for special tax favours.  If he wants to spend $10 million of his own money that's fine.  But there is no way that any firm he has any interest in should get $100 million.  If you want to feed at the public trough, at least be grateful.