Brutus_buckeye

^ yes, but as mentioned, it is the state capital coupled with a major research university combination. Austin - UT Columbus - OSU Raleigh Durham - UNC, Duke, NC State, etc. Nashville - Vandy Minneapolis - Minnesota etc. Frankfort, Pierre, Boise, Montgomery, Jackson, Harrisburg may all be nice cities and all, but they don't have the R1 Carnegie level research university in town too. I think there is a correlation between the two.

I also contend a capital city has benefits to growth. Look at the growth of state and federal governments over the last 30 years and you will see the exponential growth in capital cities. They often have a research university in the area as a talent generator, and stable jobs for graduates which helps aide growth. Look at Indy, Columbus, Nashville, Austin, Atlanta, Raleigh Durham and Minneapolis/St. Paul. They are all state capitals and therefore the hub of their region. Memphis, Cleveland, Cincy, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, St. Louis do not have this built in system. They don't have the proliferation of state jobs in these cities. No longer is a major waterway the key to growth in cities, it is now about being close to the center of power, which is where you get the capital effect. About the only major new city that appears to defy these odds would be Charlotte, NC and I would argue that Raleigh Durham will overtake Charlotte in the next 20 years.

^ Jake - the 10k counts the plant workers in the area. Dallas Toyota HQ operations is just HQ and operations workers. ^^ Sorry, I just noticed you clarified that in your post

Nashville is a unique hub. All the for profit systems outside of Tenet and UHS are headquartered there.

Jake - What about HCA, Lifepoint, CHS, Quorum, etc. What is their employment impact. Plus you also have Nissan

^ Meds and Eds are right. That is leading to the boom, coupled with the state capital effect, plus the wealth from the music industry is serving as anincuabtor for capital.

^ The one thing Nashville has going for it is the entertainment industry and also being a state capital. Giving the wealth that Country music throws off and the stability of state government jobs, it gives Nashville some strategic advantages that other peers cities do not have.

Did Cummins move their HQ from Coumbus?

The NCAA schedules the Final Four in indoor football stadiums... but that is the only time that basketball "works" in the football/soccer sized facility. No NBA (or college basketball) team would ever want to play a full season in football sized stadium. The seats end up being too far away from the court, and you'd barely fill 1/4 of the seats for a typical game. Don't tell that to Syracuse. I think they like their dome.

^ if you move it away from the river, I personally prefer over by the Convention Center somehow. This way it can be incorporated in to the convention center and used for larger trade shows.

The biggest issue you have is your landlord lives in Arizona and owns a single family or duplex rental in Cleveland. Out of town owners are never able to properly or timely take care of their tenants.

I thought I saw Cincinnati and Columbus just missed the cut at 11 & 12 :)

^its funny how these rumors keep persisting. Whenever there is a troubled operator, it is assumed Kroger will save the day. Personally, this deal makes no sense for Kroger, unless it is fire sale prices. Whole Foods offers them nothing they don't have already, and they are a company that does not like to buy turnaround companies, which Whole Foods is. Honestly, the company I see buying whole foods is Amazon as there can be more strategic fits that present themselves.

The <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/07/28/u-s-bank-arena-plans-huge-renovation.html">2015 renovation proposal</a> struck me as over-the-top (literally since they wanted to bust off the roof and expand upwards), so it doesn't surprise me that it would have cost as much as a complete re-build. I understand why they started with a big, sexy plan (might get somebody excited about throwing money at it)... but they could do always pursue a cheaper renovation/update that wouldn't cost $200-$350 million. UC is doing a massive renovation of Fifth Third that is dramatically changing the layout for "only" $87 million. From an ROI perspective, it'd be much easier to justify a $75 million renovation as opposed to a $200 million re-build. Would the more expensive option bring in more than twice as much future revenue? I doubt it. the big difference is a college level arena in 5/3 and what needs to be a professional showpiece in US Bank arena, even if you don't have a professional tenant. US Bank arena was renovated very nicely in 1997 but even after the renovation, it was still outdated. The improvements did a lot to help modernize it, but like the old Riverfront Stadium, there were too many structural things for the modern fan that could not be accommodated. The biggest were the lack of luxury boxes in the arena. That has changed the dynamics of arena financing now and is a must. Also, the concourses are much too narrow. Go to YUM, Quicken, Bankers Life or Nationwide, the concourses are very large and wide. There is plenty of room to get around people who are waiting in line for concessions in those arenas. Heck, go to Cintas Center and you can notice a big difference. There are not enough bathrooms, locker rooms, storage, etc. The fact that it seats 18000 in that footprint is amazing. This is why renovation on the existing footprint wont work.

At least many of the ones near the highway did. Ultimately, the point was that even though they are not necessarily linked together, they have become so intertwined that it would be next to impossible to get rid of the step up basis without getting rid of the estate tax and vice versa. What most people do not understand about the estate tax is that while the tax is steep, the step up basis can be more lucrative. Back in 2010 when Steinbrenner died and there was no estate tax, the family would have been better off if there were because they did not get the step up in basis on their long term assets (Yankees) and their basis is pretty much valued at an early 70s value of like 10 million. Whenever they are sold, the government is going to get a huge windfall, or when the current heirs die and are subject to estate tax at the lower basis.

^lets cross that bridge when they renovate it first. I somehow am skeptical they can get it done.

It is the asset value not the revenue generated that is causing the tax hit. This is often the case with real estate. So yes, that is common with fixed assets like real estate. The $20 million asset will generate $2 million a year in revenue. That $2 million a year generates the $500k cash flow for a 25% annual return not 2.5%. The value of the fixed asset is a 10 factor on the $2 million in revenue generated.

^ stocks are not the best because at the end of the day they can be liquidated and yes, people still get 15 million. The only question is whether it is fair that all things being equal one person pays a 50% tax rate and the other pays 70% for the same amount of money at stake. I don't think that is all that inherently fair personally, but at the same time, when you are talking about that amount of money it is hard to be too sympathetic to multimillionaires in this boat. Again, the bigger concern is the devaluing of a fixed asset and how it will lead to a concentration of wealth within a fewer wealthy individuals. If you own a family farm valued at say $20 million and that farm generates say $500k a year in profits to its owners (not too bad but split it 5 ways and it becomes much less) Now you need to pay the tax bill on $10 million of it which is about 5 million. To do this, you must sell the asset to another buyer. In the open market it would sell for say $20 million or maybe more. However, given that there is a big tax bill with a due date coming up, the owners may have to offer the asset at a fire sale price. Now the asset sells for $12 million to someone who is financially strong enough to make the deal happen. They get a big windfall and an undervalued asset. The sellers pay their tax, but effectively receive very little to show for it.

Yes and no. Put it this way, you will never get rid of the step up without getting rid of the estate tax. If you get rid of the step up, what it will do is prevent small businesses from ever being sold because of the tax hit people would face. Also, some people would be hurt extremely hard while others not as much. If you own a stock of say GM for 50 years and the stock is worth say 50 million. Using reasonable tax planning, estate tax would be subject to $40 million of that value. If the estate tax is 50% to use round numbers you pay $20 million in estate tax. Now to pay the tax, the people who inherit must liquidate the stock. Because the stock is so old, the basis in the stock in only 500k. If 20 million is sold to pay the tax, it will generate another 5 million tax that needs to be covered so you essentially have to sell about $25 million to cover your tax without the step up in basis which makes the tax rate 60%. Other people who are fortunately enough to inherit a higher basis will only be taxed on $20 million and pay a lower tax rate because of this. It would really hit those small family businesses who have a small plant or farm in the family for 50-60 years and put them out of business or make them unable to sell in these scenarios. It would also dilute the value of their asset because it would force them to sell under duress to pay the tax bill. This is why there is the step up in basis and why it will be difficult to untangle from the estate tax. By getting rid of the estate tax, you will see revenues go up when they eventually sell these businesses because of the lack of a step up at that time. It is the difference between the short term v long term. Do you give the government the short term gain or wait longer for a bigger payout, or allow the inerhitors the short term gain (no estate tax) or give them the long term gain of step up in basis

^ It used to be $1million threshold until 2001, but was never pegged to adjust to inflation until 2013 when OBama signed the bill into law with the new estate and gift thresholds. It desparately needed to be raised because the problem was that it would have killed many small family businesses who would have been subject to a large tax on the death of the founder and would often have to liquidate after that. This was especially evident in farming and other asset intensive family businesses. $5.5 million is not that much when you consider the value of these assets. Yes, people use sophisticated planning and trusts and gifting mechanisms to minimize this as much as possible but the goal of the law is not necessarily to hit the estates in the $6 million range or even $10 million range, the law is to hit the estates in the 30-50 million range where there is real money worth taxing. With those estates, there is really no amount of planning you can do to completely eliminate estate tax. Also, there have been studies done that an outright repeal of the estate tax will actually generate more tax revenue over time than keeping it because the step up in basis that people who inherit receive will go away thus increasing the taxable value of the asset when it is eventually sold. So repealing the estate tax may actually generate more revenue and taxes then keeping it.

That 90% of millionaires in this country are self made? No it doesn't. Your data only deals with inherited money and is made up of mostly small inheritances that comprise the bulk of this

Most of those inheritances are small not multi-millon dollar inheritances. These are little nest eggs people inherit to help them retire (possibly) or buy a small house on their own, or go to school. These are not enough to give up a day job and live like a rock star. If you look at any stat around wealth, and you are welcome to google it, they pretty much all say that inherited wealth is gone by the third generation. There are many reasons for this but typically the vast majority of millionaires in this country earn their wealth and it is not created through inheritance. So no, this is not pulled from my buttocks. It also accounts for wealth from the millionaire class not everyone who inherits, because, yes, there are a number of people who will inherit 250k or less from a family member (typically in the form of a house) who passes away.

^because the vast majority of wealth is earned not inherited

^it is because over 90% of wealth in this country is earned and not passed down generation to generation.

^ Cincinnati Islanders has a nice ring to it.