Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:32 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 6:16 am Then every super rich person should donate 66 percent of their property/possessions/holdings, right now, to good causes.

It isn’t going to happen.
You can blame the owners all day and night—but as you can see, it’s not changing.

A good start would be for taxpayers to quit subsidizing billionaire owners (by way of everything from stadium handouts to tax breaks to the antitrust exemption baseball enjoys).

Owning a baseball team should cost what it costs.

I agree with this.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:28 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:32 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 6:16 am Then every super rich person should donate 66 percent of their property/possessions/holdings, right now, to good causes.

It isn’t going to happen.
You can blame the owners all day and night—but as you can see, it’s not changing.

A good start would be for taxpayers to quit subsidizing billionaire owners (by way of everything from stadium handouts to tax breaks to the antitrust exemption baseball enjoys).

Owning a baseball team should cost what it costs.

I agree with this.

And of course, who knows what would flow from that.

My hope would be that if a baseball team (for example) cost what it costs, then it would be a less attractive investment for people/groups who do not really care about baseball (or its role in their community).

In other words, if a baseball team (for example) was not both (1) a baseball team AND (2) a one-of-thirty license to unaccountably print money off taxpayer generosity, then the baseball team part would be what draws super-wealthy people to want to buy, own and operate one.

You would think that would result, collectively, in ownership that is interested in the long term health of the sport itself. Rising tide, etc.

But I could also see this going haywire in any number of ways. Lord knows I’ve been overly optimistic before.