Why would you transfer a refundable credit?
Film tax credits can be transferred (sold) to other taxpayers for more than the 85% state buy back. Why would you sell it to the state for 85% when you can get 95% from other taxpayers?
But back to your original point about Cato. They are not mistaken at all. The credits are very costly as they said. Making them rebates instead of only tax credits is very costly to the state. It is one thing to say here is a tax credit you can use to offset taxes you owe that you generated by having your business in Louisiana. It is an entirely different thing to say here is redeemable tax credit (rebate) that the state is giving you whether or not you owe income taxes or generated any tax obligations in Louisiana. Rebates are basically subsidies--welfare.
Cato is right too when the say " to favored digital media businesses." The digital media businesses are favored over other businesses.
I will agree that having business here that do not cost us any state revenue result in a multiplier effect. To give a car plant tax deductions or even credits against taxes that they generate cost us nothing. We are basically giving them their own money.
Film and DM credits are not like that. We take money from the state treasury either directly or indirectly and give it to them. It is money the state has taken from other state residents THUS I say we cannot apply a multiplier to those subsidies because the subsidies came out of the investments and activity of other citizens.
Now if you still say these things are good and multiply explain why 100% redeemable credits instead of 35% are not a better thing.
This post was edited on 10/9 at 8:47 pm