[The Athletic] 随着马刺将版图扩张至圣安东尼奥之外，新球馆协议意外受阻考验其留守承诺 ▶️

TheAthletic · 2026 年8 月 15 日 11:00

By Jared Weiss | The Athletic, 2026-08-15 18:00:30

圣安东尼奥马刺队新赛季的赛程包括在法国和英格兰的比赛，并以34场全美直播高居联盟榜首。此外，赛程中还包括在奥斯汀举办的三场“主场”比赛。

在马刺继续沿着I-35号高速公路沿线扩大球迷群体的同时，他们也在努力为圣安东尼奥日渐老旧的市中心的一座大型综合球馆筹集资金。这是一场微妙的博弈：马刺既要重申对圣安东尼奥的承诺，又要将影响力拓展到整个德克萨斯州乃至海外。

马刺首席执行官RC·布福德 (RC Buford) 在赛程公布后发表了一份措辞谨慎的声明。

“圣安东尼奥是我们的家，我们期待着凝聚我们的社区，同时触达奥斯汀、巴黎和曼彻斯特的观众，”声明中写道。“我们对这个赛季将给球迷带来的体验感到兴奋，并为能够代表圣安东尼奥而自豪。无论马刺在何处踏上赛场，我们都会传播让这座城市独一无二的精神、文化和社区氛围。”

自1973年以来，圣安东尼奥一直是马刺的主场。但由于与国际巨星维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 一同参加海外常规赛，他们本赛季在圣安东尼奥市仅进行36场常规赛。他们还在赛季初期增加了一场在奥斯汀的第三主场比赛，这恰逢德州首府的一个重大体育周末。

早在去年11月，圣安东尼奥所在的贝克萨尔县选民批准了一项法案，将提供3.11亿美元的纳税人资金用于建设该综合球馆，该球馆将成为更宏大的市中心开发计划“奇迹项目”（Project Marvel）中皇冠上的明珠。马刺承诺为这座预计耗资13亿美元的新球馆建设贡献至少5亿美元，而圣安东尼奥市议会则批准了4.89亿美元的市政债券资金。马刺还同意承担球馆建设过程中的任何超支费用。

然而，该市未来两年面临着预期的财政赤字，这影响了“奇迹项目”中基础设施建设的部分。圣安东尼奥市长吉娜·奥尔蒂斯·琼斯 (Gina Ortiz Jones) 希望市民在今年秋天重新授权该市承担的球馆资金份额，而将该议案加入11月选票的截止日期是周一。圣安东尼奥市议会将在当天上午举行会议，投票决定是将该资金方案付诸选民公投，还是沿用市议会此前批准的市政债券资金方案。

尽管多家当地媒体报道称，预计市议会会投票反对将该议案加入选票，但该项目的条款说明书规定，圣安东尼奥市民必须再次投票决定是否为第一阶段的建设发行城市债券。市政发言人布赖恩·查斯诺夫 (Brian Chasnoff) 告诉《圣安东尼奥时事报》，债券计划的投票结构尚未确定，市议会将在9月份听取有关此事的简报。

针对奥尔蒂斯·琼斯要求重新投票的呼吁，布福德上周发表了一份声明，其中写道：“投票已经完成。承诺已经做出。工作正在进行中。”

去年秋天，圣安东尼奥曾普遍担忧，如果新球馆方案未能通过，可能会为马刺搬迁至奥斯汀敞开大门。随着各支球队不断扩大企业合作伙伴关系，并开发拥有更多豪华包厢的球馆，奥斯汀对马刺来说是一个极具吸引力的市场。

但球队始终坚守对圣安东尼奥的承诺，并将向奥斯汀的扩张描绘为将这两座城市打造为一个超级大市场的计划。

10月23日在奥斯汀增加第三场“主场”比赛，是马刺努力在全美新兴经济和文化中心之一站稳脚跟的一部分。这也是马刺吸引那个周末前来奥斯汀观看2026年F1美国大奖赛的庞大全球观众关注的绝佳机会。

鉴于球队在未来几个赛季将是久违地接近奢侈税线，从圣安东尼奥以外地区获取收入的需求正变得更加迫切。在马刺建队历史上，他们仅在六个赛季中缴纳了总计1750万美元的奢侈税，但除非采取重大的紧缩措施，否则这套阵容已经具备了长期缴纳奢侈税的条件。马刺希望借助文班亚马这一崛起中的全球超级巨星，赢下奥斯汀地区并提升他们在欧洲的人气。而留住这支阵容深度雄厚且天赋满满的球队，正是实现这一目标的重要一环。

过去一年里，马刺一直在提升他们在巴黎的存在感。本月早些时候，球队前往法国与文班亚马汇合，参加了一系列公开亮相和团队凝聚力建设活动。他们在奥斯汀的布局同样持久且深思熟虑。在NBA，球迷群体的地域界限正在逐渐淡化，而文班亚马为他们提供了一个将立足点延伸到圣安东尼奥之外的绝佳契机。

由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。

查看原文：As Spurs expand reach outside San Antonio, surprise arena deal hurdle tests commitment to city

As Spurs expand reach outside San Antonio, surprise arena deal hurdle tests commitment to city

The San Antonio Spurs’ schedule for the upcoming season includes games in France and England, with a league-high 34 appearances on national TV. It also includes three “home” games in Austin.

While the Spurs continue to grow their fanbase along the I-35 corridor, they’re also trying to fund a massive arena complex set in San Antonio’s aging downtown. It’s been a delicate dance as the Spurs reaffirm their commitment to San Antonio while also growing their reach throughout Texas and abroad.

Spurs CEO RC Buford issued a carefully worded statement after the schedule release.

“San Antonio is home, and we’re looking forward to bringing our community together while reaching audiences in Austin, Paris and Manchester,” the statement read. “We’re excited for what this season will bring to our fans and proud to represent San Antonio and share the spirit, culture and community that make our city special everywhere the Spurs take the court.”

San Antonio has been the Spurs’ home since 1973, but they are only playing 36 regular-season games in the city this season due to their participation in the Global Games with international superstar Victor Wembanyama. They also added a third game in Austin early in the season, which coincides with a massive sports weekend in the Texas capital.

Back in November, Bexar County voters, where San Antonio is located, approved a measure to provide $311 million in taxpayer funding for the arena complex, which will be the crown jewel of the larger Project Marvel downtown development plan. The Spurs committed to contribute at least $500 million to construction of the new arena, which is estimated to cost $1.3 billion, while San Antonio’s city council approved $489 million in municipal bond funding. The Spurs also agreed to cover any cost overruns for the arena development.

However, the city is facing a projected budget deficit over the next two years, which affects the infrastructure development components of Project Marvel. San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones wants residents to reauthorize the city’s portion of arena funding this fall, and the deadline to add the issue to November’s ballot is Monday. The San Antonio City Council will hold a meeting that morning to vote on whether to place the funding on the ballot, or fall back on the council’s previous approval of municipal bond funding.

Even if the council votes against adding the issue to the ballot, which various local reports say is expected, the project’s term sheet stipulates that San Antonio residents must vote again on whether or not to issue city bonds for the first phase of construction. City spokesperson Brian Chasnoff told the San Antonio Current that the ballot structure for the bond program has not been determined and the city council will be briefed on the matter in September.

In response to Ortiz Jones’ call for a new vote, Buford issued a statement last week that read in part, “The vote has taken place. The commitments have been made. The work is underway.”

There was widespread concern in San Antonio last fall that a failure to approve a new arena could open the door for the Spurs to relocate to Austin. As teams expand corporate partnerships and develop arenas with more luxury seating, Austin is an attractive market for the Spurs.

But the team has maintained its commitment to San Antonio and framed its expansion into Austin as a plan to make the two cities one massive market.

Adding a third “home” game in Austin on Oct. 23 is part of the Spurs’ efforts to establish a foothold in one of the country’s emerging economic and cultural hubs. It’s also a chance for the Spurs to capture attention from the massive global audience attending the 2026 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix in Austin that weekend.

Now that the team is approaching the luxury tax in future seasons for the first time in a while, the need to pull revenue from outside of San Antonio is becoming a bigger priority. The franchise has paid just $17.5 million in luxury tax over six seasons in its history, but this roster is ripe for a long foray into the tax, barring significant austerity measures. The Spurs want to win over the Austin region and boost their popularity in Europe with Wembanyama as an emerging global superstar. Maintaining this deep and talented team is a big part of that.

The Spurs have been growing their presence in Paris over the past year, with the team joining Wembanyama in France earlier this month for a series of public appearances and team-bonding events. Their presence in Austin has been persistent and deliberate. Geographic boundaries to fandom have been fading in the NBA, and Wembanyama presents a chance for them to grab a true foothold well beyond San Antonio.

By Jared Weiss, via The Athletic

界灵fsa · 2026 年8 月 15 日 15:51

奥斯汀人口比圣安东尼奥少，但人均收入更高，消费能力更强。如果马刺能争取多些奥斯汀球迷，增大球迷基数对球队收入增长会有帮助。但奥斯汀离圣安东尼奥有一个半到两个小时车程，奥斯汀球迷来回三四个小时来圣安东尼奥专门看一场球比较奔波。如果新的综合性球馆建好，球迷看球之外还有其他娱乐，就更能吸引距离较远的球迷了。

TheAthletic · 2026 年8 月 16 日 03:01

热评

Ryan A.:

搬到奥斯汀的威胁既真实又令人悲哀。我热爱小市场球队，而科技新贵（tech bros）涌入奥斯汀已经让这座城市失去了它的魅力和独特性。像往常一样，球队扩建高端座席的需求是以牺牲普通球迷的利益为代价的。过度商业化是现代体育最糟糕的方面之一。随着呐喊助威的球迷流失，现场氛围逐渐消散，取而代之的是更有钱的人，进而营造出一种无聊、枯燥的环境。

Ben S.:

@Ryan A. 你说得没错，但客观来看，如果NBA现在一切从头开始，圣安东尼奥根本不可能拥有一支球队，那支球队也绝不可能得到像文班（Wemby）这样的球员。所以必须面对现实。如果圣安东尼奥想在球馆融资问题上态度强硬，这完全是他们的特权，但他们也将面临失去球队的风险。

Mark P.:

@Ryan A. 我住在奥斯汀……球队搬到奥斯汀的威胁根本不存在。
你说的商业化没错，但说这完全是牺牲普通球迷的利益就错了。依我的经验，每年在奥斯汀举办的两场比赛——尽管票价贵到大多数奥斯汀人都去不起（球馆太小）——却吸引了更多附近地区的“普通球迷”，同时并没有夺走圣安东尼奥球迷的任何实质利益。
在我看来，这是双赢。我们为每年能在这支球队中占有一席之地（在牛仔竞技节期间承办比赛）而感到自豪，但这里没有人期望或希望马刺队全职搬到这里。无论有没有这些比赛，搬迁到奥斯汀的“威胁”都会存在，但我在这里还没遇到过任何一个不坚定希望马刺永远属于圣安东尼奥的人。

William T.:

我是在1974年来到圣安东尼奥读法学院的。当时马刺队还算是一支新球队，前身是达拉斯矮树丛队（Dallas Chaparrals），当时还在旧的ABA联盟。我去了所有的比赛，见证了效力于网队时期的“J博士”朱利叶斯·欧文 (Julius Erving)，以及效力于圣路易斯精神队时期年轻消瘦的摩西·马龙 (Moses Malone)。马刺是并入NBA的四支ABA球队之一。他们过去和现在都拥有忠实的拥趸。至于所在地，球员们喜欢在那里打球。当你年薪3500万美元时，谁能拒绝免征州个人所得税的诱惑呢？圣安东尼奥种族多元、友好，且对他们唯一的一支大联盟职业球队忠心耿耿。他们一直都会在奥斯汀打几场比赛。这没什么新鲜的。凭借文班（Wemby）成为世界级球队的战略在圣安东尼奥运作得很好。我不认为他们会在短期内搬到拉斯维加斯。

Jeffrey O.:

@William T. 我就住在圣安东尼奥。是的，球迷们非常忠诚，甚至到了有些荒谬的地步。在某种程度上可以理解，尽管大多数居民支持其他球队或者根本不在乎。全县近一半的居民投票反对这项税收决议，尽管这项税收主要由游客承担。如果没有马刺队以及它作为区域旅游中心的作用，这座城市基本上就是拉伯克（Lubbock）和拉雷多（Laredo）的放大结合体。这并不是贬低。抛开夏天的炎热不谈，这是一个被低估的宜居之地。但这也是为什么当地人不会让马刺离开，并且会满足他们的一切要求。为了展示在你在那里的早期岁月里他们对这座城市有多重要，圣安东尼奥市曾为员工设立了直接从工资中扣款购买马刺季票的项目。他们现在不这么做了，但基本上地方政客和居民对马刺体育娱乐公司（Spurs Sports and Entertainment）是言听计从。一旦马刺开始威胁要搬走，新球馆无论如何都会建起来，尽管他们也清楚自己在奥斯汀不会有这么大的话语权。

refugeefromtexas:

马刺队在53年里已经换了三个球馆。现在他们想让圣安东尼奥居民为第四个球馆掏钱。职业体育球队因其搬迁威胁正开始面临公众的抵制。人们开始意识到，奢华的球馆给社区带来的回报微乎其微。
球队这样欺负忠实球迷真是太可耻了。马刺拥有职业体育界最忠诚、最狂热的球迷群体之一。但对于球队老板来说，这种忠诚只是单向的。

Craig A.:

@Scott M. 到目前为止，马刺队在很大程度上一直都在使用为其他用途建造的球馆。

Matt S.:

@refugeefromtexas 我们越早意识到这些体育球队的老板根本不在乎球迷，除了他们买票看球、买周边或者看电视/流媒体直播的能力，就越好。这些老板根本不在乎看球的成本对很大一部分人群来说已经变得高不可攀。他们只想尽可能多地赚钱——我想这就是美国方式吧！

Daniel E.:

@Scott M. 1967年，我父亲带我们去牛宫球馆（Cow Palace）看了勇士和76人之间的NBA总决赛，当时非常令人兴奋，尽管那个地方已经像个垃圾场，而且因为举办牛仔竞技节，闻起来有一股马粪味。任何现代球队在那种场馆打球，或者认为那种场馆可以翻新的想法都是荒谬的。但认为现代球馆不能建得可以使用50年的想法同样是在坑钱。

Keith P.:

预算赤字。民主党执政的城市。为建体育馆的资金争吵不休。我们说的是芝加哥还是圣安东尼奥？

David M.:

@Keith P. 波特兰！

Luigi M.:

就像其他所有城市一样，圣安东尼奥的问题在于预算被警察绑架，以及富人拒绝缴纳他们应得的税款。

André B.:

@Ben S. 我希望你是认真的。如果你真的去做研究，你会发现基本上在美国和加拿大的每个城市，警察预算相对于其他所有服务来说是多么疯狂。令人恶心的是，他们年复一年地要求加薪，并花巨资购买不必要的重型军事装备来对付自己的公民，而那些真正能减少犯罪的服务——收容所、社会工作者、就业计划等，却严重资金不足。

Steve C.:

@André B. 闭嘴吧。你认识哪个警察是百万富翁吗？这是一份非常危险、吃力不讨好的工作。而像你这样的傻子让这份工作变得更加艰难。你可能不想承认，但每个人都需要警察——包括你。

André B.:

@Keith P. 和 @Steve C. 我不反对保留某种形式的警察，但我百分之百反对他们占用大部分市政预算，却几乎不干实事，除了恐吓自己的公民。对我来说，给社会工作者打电话可能比给警察打电话更有用！而且至少没有被枪击的危险。

Keith G.:

@Keith P. 所谓“民主党执政城市”的陈词滥调相当愚蠢——快速搜索一下就会发现，美国前50大城市中有41个是民主党市长，7个是共和党市长，3个是无党派人士。别再复述右翼垃圾新闻的论调了，动动脑筋独立思考吧！

Ahmedali T.:

@Keith P. 那我敢说警察能阻止抢劫发生？还是说哪里有神奇的警察能帮你找回失物？
我们需要警察来寻找和起诉那些犯罪分子。然而，对社会和青年关怀等犯罪预防项目的长期资金投入，从一开始就能阻止你被抢劫。

Keith G.:

@Steve C. 我们需要警察，但他们需要坦克和其他军事装备吗？我觉得不需要。警察预算已经失控了，但如果富人能缴纳他们应得的税款，我对此的接受度会高一些。

Keith G.:

@Steve C. 你的朋友是富人还是中产阶级偏上？中产阶级偏上确实交了很多税，但富人有太多的免税额度，虽然他们的边际税率很高，但他们的实际税率却相当低。例如，我敢打赌我的实际税率比埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk) 高得多。

Keith G.:

@Steve C. 刚刚搜索了一下“在美国什么样的收入水平算富人”，两个不同的来源都表明，年收入超过78万美元就会被认为是富人。根据他们的职业，他们可能可以也可能无法抵扣很多开销。如果是拿死工资的，就不行。如果是自雇人士，大概可以。
话虽如此，我的观点是人们往往只看边际税率（即赚到的最后一美元的税率），然后说富人交了很多税。但更好的衡量标准是实际税率，也就是你缴纳的税款除以总收入。我和我妻子通常要缴纳22%左右的实际税率。搜索一下“埃隆·马斯克在2025年缴纳了多少实际税率”，结果显示他的实际税率大约是3.3%。
所以我想我应该修正我的说法，如果那些极度富有的人能缴纳他们应得的税款……

André B.:

@Ben S. 这个帖子里有人说过你指责他们的那些话吗，Ben？我很想看看你所谓的社会福利项目是欺诈温床的“大量证据”——我敢打赌这完全是道听途说，因为事实是，社会福利项目的欺诈水平通常很低，尤其是与企业欺诈和（富人的）税务欺诈相比。但媒体会大肆宣扬其中一种欺诈，好让你去反对那些本可以让你受益的项目，而另一种欺诈要么不被起诉，要么不被执行，或者被悄无声息地处理，尽管它对预算的消耗要大得多。

由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。

查看原文：

Ryan A.:

The threat of moving to Austin is both legitimate and sad. I love small market teams and the influx of tech bros to Austin has made the city lose its charm and uniqueness. Per usual, the need for teams to expand their high-end seating comes at the expense of the normal fan. The need for commercialization is one of the worst aspects of modern sports. As the atmosphere dissipates with the loss of vocal fans and is replaced with wealthier people, in turn producing a boring, sterile environment.

Ben S.:

@Ryan A. You’re not wrong, but if we’re being objective, were the NBA starting from scratch San Antonio would never get a team, and that team would never get a player like Wemby. So gotta roll with the realities. If San Antonio wants to play hardball with the arena financing that’s fully their prerogative, but they’ll also risk losing the team.

Mark P.:

@Ryan A. I live in Austin … there is zero threat of the team moving to Austin.
You’re right that this is about commercialization but wrong that it is coming entirely at the expense of the normal fan. In my experience, the 2 Austin games every year – even though they are too expensive for most Austinites to attend (tiny arena) – are roping in even more “normal fans” from nearby without taking anything of significance from San Antonio fans.
IMO a win-win. We take pride in having a little stake in the team each year (hosting during the rodeo) but nobody here expects or wants the Spurs to move here full time. The “threat” of Austin relocation would be there with or without these games, but I haven’t encountered anyone here who doesn’t firmly want it to remain San Antonio’s team forever and always.

William T.:

I came to San Antonio to attend law school in ‘74. The Spurs were relatively new, formerly the Dallas Chaparrals, still in the old ABA. I went to all the games seeing Dr. J when he was Net and a young, thin, Moses Malone when he was a St. Louis Spirit. Spurs were one of 4 ABA teams drafted into NBA. They had and continue to have a loyal following. As for location, players like to play there. Who can beat no state income tax when you make $35M annually? San Antonio is racially diverse, friendly, and loyal to its one major league sports team. They’ve always played a few games in Austin. Nothing new here. The strategy to become the world’s team with Wemby works well out of SA. Don’t see them moving to Vegas anytime soon.

Jeffrey O.:

@William T. I live in San Antonio. Yes, the fans are loyal, almost to a state of absurdity. Understandable on some levels, even though a majority of the population supports other teams or couldn’t care less. Almost half of the county residents voted against the tax resolution, despite it being a tax paid mostly by tourists. Without the Spurs and its role as a regional tourism center, the city would basically be a grownup combination of Lubbock and Laredo. This isn’t a knock. Summer heat aside, it is an under appreciated place to live. But it is why the locals won’t let the Spurs leave and will give them whatever they want. To show how important they were to the city in the early years when you were here, the City of San Antonio established a direct payroll withdrawal program for employees to buy Spurs season tickets. They don’t do this anymore, but basically local politicians and residents do whatever Spurs Sports and Entertainment tells them to do. The Arena will get built one way or the other when the Spurs start threatening to move, even though they know they won’t have the same weight to throw around in Austin.

refugeefromtexas:

The Spurs are in their third arena in 53 years. Now they want San Antonio residents to pony up for a fourth one. Pro sports franchises are starting to see a backlash against the threats from franchises. People are beginning to recognize the lavish arenas return very little to the community.
It’s a shame that franchises bully their loyal fans like this. The Spurs have one of the most loyal, fervent fans in pro sports. For the owners of the team, that loyalty is a one way street.

Craig A.:

@Scott M. So far, the Spurs have always kind of inhabited arenas built for other purposes for the most part.

Matt S.:

@refugeefromtexas The sooner we realize that the owners of any of these sports franchises don’t care on bit about the fan outside of their ability to attend games, buy merch, or watch on tv/streaming the better. These owners don’t care that the cost to attend games are becoming prohibitive for a large segment of the population. They just want to make as much money as possible- it’s the American way I guess!

Daniel E.:

@Scott M. My Dad took us to the NBA Finals at the Cow Palace in 1967, between the Warriors and the Sixers, and it was exciting, even if the place was already a dump and smelled like horse manure, due to the rodeo. The idea that any modern team would play in a venue like that, or that it could be renovated is nonsensical. But the idea that a modern Arena can’t be built to last 50 years is also a rip off.

Keith P.:

A budget deficit. A city run by democrats. Fighting over money to build a stadium. Are we talking about Chicago or San Antonio?

David M.:

@Keith P. Portland!

Luigi M.:

Like every other city, the problems in San Antonio are the budget being held hostage by the cops and rich people refusing to pay their fair share of taxes

André B.:

@Ben S. I hope you’re serious. If you actually do your research you’ll see just how insane police budgets are relative to every other service in basically every city in the United States and Canada. It’s disgusting how they ask for raises year after year and spend huge amounts of money on unnecessary heavy military equipment to deploy against their own citizens while the services that would actually reduce crime—shelters, social workers, job programs, etc, are severely underfunded

Steve C.:

@André B. Just shut up. You know any cops dash millionaires? It’s a very dangerous, thankless job. And it’s been made even more difficult by saps like you. You might not wanna admit it but everyone needs cops-including you.

André B.:

@Keith P. and @Steve C. I’m not against having some version of police, but yes I’m 100% against them taking up the majority of civic budgets and doing almost nothing for that except terrorizing their own citizens. Calling a social worker would probably do more than calling the cops has ever done for me! And at least there’s no chance of being shot

Keith G.:

@Keith P. The whole city run by Democrats trope is pretty silly - a quick search shows that 41 of the top 50 cities in the US have Democratic mayors, 7 have Republican and 3 have independents. Stop regurgitating right wing slop news talking points and do some critical thinking!

Ahmedali T.:

@Keith P. I’m sure the police will stop the robbery from occuring then? Or there magical police somewhere that will return your things?
The police are needed to find and prosecute those that commit crimes. However, long term funding for crime prevention programmes such as social and youth care would stop you from being robbed in the first place

Keith G.:

@Steve C. We need police, but do they need tanks and other military equipment? I’d say no. Police budgets are out of control, but I’d be more ok with that if the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes.

Keith G.:

@Steve C. Are your friends rich or upper middle class? The upper middle class do pay a lot in taxes, but the rich get so many write offs that while their marginal rates are high, their effective rates are quite low. For example, I bet my effective tax rate is much higher than Elon Musk’s.

Keith G.:

@Steve C. Just did a search asking “what income level is considered rich in the us” and two different sources suggested an income level over $780,000 per year would be considered rich. Depending on what they do for a living, they may or may not be able to write off a lot of expenses. If salaried, not. If self-employed, probably so.
That said, my point is people tend to look at the marginal tax rate, the rate on the last dollar made, and say the rich pay a lot in taxes. But a better measure is the effective tax rate, which is how much you paid in taxes divided by gross income. My wife and I typically pay 22% or so in effective tax rate. A search for “ what effective tax rate did elon musk pay in 2025” shows he pays about 3.3% in effective tax rate.
So I guess I should amend my statement to say if the very rich would pay their share of taxes…

André B.:

@Ben S. did anyone in this thread say what you’re accusing them of, Ben? And I’d love to see your “loads of evidence” that social programs are fodder for fraud—I bet it’s entirely anecdotal, because the truth is that social programs have generally low levels of fraud, especially when compared against corporate and tax fraud (by the rich). But one form of fraud is paraded out in the media to get you to argue against programs that would benefit you and the other is either not prosecuted or not enforced or prosecuted quietly despite it being a much larger drain on budgets.

via The Athletic