I saw a tv news article that some subway stations in UK are being named by corporations.

[RandomThoughts]

Corporations have been paying money to get stations named after their company, same thing that has been done with many sporting arenas for awhile.

This is my question. If a company has billions of dollars it can use to give to a city in exchange for branding public gathering centers of that city, why can't that money be taxed for the same funds for the city?

If a corporation has enough money to spare for putting its logo up, then they can afford to be taxed more. And that same money would then be used for the good of people in a city without people having to see corporate logos on places that are suppose to be for community entertainment or community services.

Why not just tax the corporation instead of selling away a cities identity to make it a corporate identity?

[imdjh]

1. Terrific idea- except they should make the corp sponsor keep it clean, especially the bathrooms. nt

[notesdev]

2. try New York

word has it that the Atlantic-Pacific station complex in Brooklyn is to be named after Barclay's Bank.

[RandomThoughts]

3. I think I saw it on BBC, or I was thinking England at the time.

Might have been a New York story.

Either way the comment is the same.

[Javaman]

4. Welcome to the Depends station, when your train fails you, we won't! nt

[ourbluenation]

5. "Mind the Gap" sponsored by The Gap. n/t