Originally Posted by northeasterner
Should the state of FL should subsidize Disney World, Universal, Sea World, etc.? THey add a lot more jobs and much more money to the local economy and they do it 12 months/year. OF course there is oodles of money wasted on other things that benefit very few.
Absolutely. If SeaWorld and Disney cannot stay afloat and it is proven it would cause economic hardship to the economy if they closed then it is only logical to have a government subsidy to keep the economy afloat. It's called a Government bail-out. It happens all the time with airlines, banks, and other industries. The fact is, making sure the ski industry stays productive and in business is important to the local and state economy of many states. Without skiing, places like Vermont, Colorado, and Utah would be shanty towns in the winter. The economy would collapse locally as much of the revenue in these states comes from tourism and outdoor recreation. Just like sports stadiums, its not about the ticket prices, but the lodging, meals, and other ammenities that have money funeled into the local and state economy through the resulting taxes, jobs, and revenue streams hat accompany such an operation.
Sea World and Disneyland are no different - they are destination resorts that bring in top dollar to the local and state economy - year around. People go there to spend money not just on Disney but everything else surrounding the attraction. Southern Florida communities would feel a big hurt if Disneyland packed up and left.
You build it, they will come. Look at a town like Vail, CO that is basically a small pimple out in the the middle of nowhere in CO. Build a ski resort and it is suddenly somewhere. People will salivate to spend millions of dollars to buy a winter vacation home high up in the middle of nowhere. This adds mucho dollars to the local and state economy in taxes, property taxes, assesments, and other items.
I see nothing wrong with tax levies to boost an industry as long as it is shown that it is viable and is projtected tol bring in revenue and taxes at a level that exceeds the subsidy. It is common sense. The subsidy is simply taxpayer capital on an investment that is likely to bring in large returns. It's not really a handout, it's more like an investment. Sure taxpayers can turn down the proposal, but why would you if it is shown it would bring in more revenue than subsidy expenditure?