If giving a film maker 30% of their expenses like salaries, food, electricity ect. is so good then why not give you 30% of your expenses?
The difference is that the citizen is already there; so, there is no return on investment. The citizen is not bringing anything new to the table. Whereas, the filmmaker would not be in the state without the discount.
You want an industry that requires 25%
Maybe the discount is too big. That is probably a better question than why give an incentive. Maybe, they would do it for 10%. Maybe, 5%. If it was 3.7%, would you be ok with it?
Economic activity is not profit or even income.
Why does it matter if it is profit? It is more business. Yes, the business owner is spending more on expenses, but he is doing more business. What are the EXTRA expenses? More Labor? = good for the economy. More Inventory? = good for the economy. Overhead? I doubt it. Rent is not changing. Maybe, more energy (electricity, fuel, etc). As a business owner, I think I would want the increased demand. If I am not happy with my profit margin, that is a me problem; more demand shouldn't be an issue.
Now, it has been mentioned in this thread, that A] the industry is bringing in less than the 1B, B] the investment is not going to create a continuing presence/ industry in the state, and C] the govt might be overpaying. While legitimate gripes about the execution in this case, these don't address whether investing in building a new industry in your state is an inherently bad thing. I guess I just don't have as a big a problem with government investing in industry to try to bring a new revenue stream into the state.
What is the multiplier impact of 71469 college educated citizens??
How many are going to leave the state after graduation?
This post was edited on 4/27 at 7:25 pm