 |
Re: Virgin Trains' Vegas can't get these tax breaks granted to other public private benefit pronects why?
Author: BOB2
Date: 06-11-2019 - 14:41
Did any of you folks spouting your two cents worth bother to even read the story? Do any of you know what they are even talking about?
Or, is it just an excuse for some clever memes and utter BS?
By not reading this, did some of you manage to make fools of yourselves by thinking these maybe were the use of loan guarantees (taxpayer subsidies if the project bonds go belly up)?
These types of sales and property tax exemptions are supposedly there to entice folks to develop private sector investments that add public value. This was agreed to as part of the project in Florida, for the new segment now under contract to be built.
There's no subsidy that I can see, when they agree to let you keep more of your own money that you are investing, instead of paying property and sales taxes, to construct a public benefit project....
So why was this set of tax exemptions, allowed for such projects and granted for the Florida project, not granted here?
If it is allowed under the tax laws for investments in in the case of Florida , why not in the case of the same kind of investment in Vegas?
Are these exemptions "discretionary"? Who has been given that "discretion" under the law? What other issues, terms, and/or conditions might these tax exemptions involve? And, why would they not apply the applicable tax laws equally in the case of both similar types of privately financed public benefit choo-choo projects?
That is the real and far more interesting question I came away with from this very incomplete story...
Reading is fundamental.
Or, is it just an excuse for some clever memes and utter BS?
By not reading this, did some of you manage to make fools of yourselves by thinking these maybe were the use of loan guarantees (taxpayer subsidies if the project bonds go belly up)?
These types of sales and property tax exemptions are supposedly there to entice folks to develop private sector investments that add public value. This was agreed to as part of the project in Florida, for the new segment now under contract to be built.
There's no subsidy that I can see, when they agree to let you keep more of your own money that you are investing, instead of paying property and sales taxes, to construct a public benefit project....
So why was this set of tax exemptions, allowed for such projects and granted for the Florida project, not granted here?
If it is allowed under the tax laws for investments in in the case of Florida , why not in the case of the same kind of investment in Vegas?
Are these exemptions "discretionary"? Who has been given that "discretion" under the law? What other issues, terms, and/or conditions might these tax exemptions involve? And, why would they not apply the applicable tax laws equally in the case of both similar types of privately financed public benefit choo-choo projects?
That is the real and far more interesting question I came away with from this very incomplete story...
Reading is fundamental.
