- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has the film industry completely left Louisiana since the cap?
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:03 pm to PygmalionEffect
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:03 pm to PygmalionEffect
quote:
But, but only spending $180 million in tax dollars on the industry in order to generate $2 billion in revenues.
It is this idiotic logic that confuses the less intelligent among us.
A typical Wal Mart Super Store generates $80 million in REVENUE. There are around 100 of those in the state I suspect.
If you do not understand the difference between this revenue number and income dollars and tax dollars then just do not post. I assure you anyone with any business sense has little respect for anything you care to say on the subject.
This post was edited on 2/13/16 at 3:18 pm
1
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:09 pm to I B Freeman
You say it has cost LA $1.2 b. Is it a net loss to the state because the tax credits are transferable to people/entities who would otherwise be paying taxes?
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:14 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
You say it has cost LA $1.2 b. Is it a net loss to the state because the tax credits are transferable to people/entities who would otherwise be paying taxes?
Yes and if they are not transferred the film company can actually present them to the state and get 85 cents on the dollar in cash from the state.
There are still over $500 million in credits that have not been redeemed.
The legislature did limit redemption this year to $180 million and as of 12/31 had only redeemed $120 million.
If JBE cared about you as a taxpayer he would ask the legislature to immediately postpone any redemption of the remaining $60 million and use it to help with the shortfall.
I am told Jay Dardenne has family that is somehow in the film business.
This post was edited on 2/13/16 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:17 pm to 504ByrdGang
Almost all of my entertainment law related work now comes from Georgia. In Northwest Louisiana, there are still a few productions around (Salem being the most noteworthy at this time).
Georgia is kicking butt.
Georgia is kicking butt.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:19 pm to chinhoyang
quote:
Almost all of my entertainment law related work now comes from Georgia. In Northwest Louisiana, there are still a few productions around (Salem being the most noteworthy at this time).
Georgia is kicking butt.
Good.
We would be better off as a state, as an economy, if we moved every person full time employed in the film business to Georgia if that is what it takes to stop paying 30% of the expenses of this special interest industry.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:20 pm to tigerpimpbot
I'm curious by a show of hands:
Whom here is for giving a Pro-Football team owner $400,000,000, yeah that's 400 million, to stay in Louisiana?
If we talk about a fickle industry with ability to move then you have to include an NFL/NBA Team into your thought process.
Why pick on the Film Industry at $180 million and forget the crazy bastard Tom Benson at $382 million that's putting out a piss poor product?
If one is 'holding the state hostage' why isn't the other? The film industry employees thousands more citizens than NFL football.
Whom here is for giving a Pro-Football team owner $400,000,000, yeah that's 400 million, to stay in Louisiana?
If we talk about a fickle industry with ability to move then you have to include an NFL/NBA Team into your thought process.
quote:
New Orleans Saints and Pelicans owner Tom Benson became known as the billionaire betting on a struggling state. Now the richest man in Louisiana — worth $1.2 billion — Benson is set to rake in an estimated $392 million from state subsidies.....
Why pick on the Film Industry at $180 million and forget the crazy bastard Tom Benson at $382 million that's putting out a piss poor product?
If one is 'holding the state hostage' why isn't the other? The film industry employees thousands more citizens than NFL football.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:23 pm to ELLSSUU
I do not favor the money to Benson either but you are wrong about his subsidies compared to film.
We do not pay 30% of his expenses.
We do not pay 30% of his expenses.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:28 pm to I B Freeman
I'm no math whiz.... but $382,000,000 > than $160,00,000. Call it subsidies. Call it Tax credits. Call it what ever you like.
This post was edited on 2/13/16 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:40 pm to ELLSSUU
Link please.
Nevertheless we do not give Benson that much per year and we do not pay 30% of his salaries and day to day expenses like we do film makers.
Nevertheless we do not give Benson that much per year and we do not pay 30% of his salaries and day to day expenses like we do film makers.
This post was edited on 2/13/16 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:43 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
Why pick on the Film Industry at $180 million and forget the crazy bastard Tom Benson at $382 million that's putting out a piss poor product?
This kind of backwoods thought process is exactly why LA is in the shitter.
"Hey, don't mess with my inefficient industry unless you're going to mess with all of the industries" - and people wonder why nothing gets done.
TOPS is a great example - many people can agree it is a bloated system and needs to be reigned in, but they don't want it on the chopping block unless the state cuts in other areas too.
Newsflash: Something has to be the first thing to go, and just because the state has plenty of bad ideas, it doesn't insulate the film credits from being a bad idea.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:47 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I B Freeman
My opinion on the film credits has always been this-
If the state "spends" $180M on credits and brings in $180M and $1 in new state revenue as a result, I'm all for it. People can harp on the $2bln industry, but unless that trickles down to more revenue for the state, the money should be spent elsewhere or sent back to the taxpayers directly.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:48 pm to ELLSSUU
No you are not a math whiz nor do you excel in reading comprehension:
The number you cite is the combined income Benson is slated to receive over the period 2014-2025.
I do not like at all but it pales in comparison to the film welfare in total dollars involved and more importantly in net dollars involved.
It does not, for example, net out the cost of the space rented to the state nor does it include the revenue from the sale of tickets and the hotel/motel tax the state and city receive.
It is not even close to being as costly as the annual cost of the film welfare when the income is factored in.
You are correct we should not subsidize Benson but his subsidies are minor league compared to the giveaway to film makers.
quote:
After investing a fortune in the Big Easy, New Orleans Saints and Pelicans owner Tom Benson became known as the billionaire betting on a struggling state. Now the richest man in Louisiana — worth $1.2 billion — Benson is set to rake in an estimated $392 million from state subsidies through 2025.
Four years ago, he negotiated one of the most complex — and lucrative — stadium lease agreements in the NFL, adding to his fortune as his team was bringing in estimated yearly profits of $31 million. Over 15 years, the term of the lease, the state will pay Benson at least $198 million in increased revenue from the Superdome, $142 million in rental payments on property Benson owns, $10 million in bonuses for bringing the Super Bowl to New Orleans and $2.6 million in tax breaks. Benson will get another $40 million from private rent payments to a tower he bought as part of the deal.
The agreement was fully implemented for the first time last season. Because of the complexity of the deal, it has only recently become apparent how much Benson will make from it.
The state directly paid the Saints $5 million in cash last season. An unusual clause in the lease says the state must pay the team $5 million every time the Super Bowl comes to New Orleans, even after the agreement expires. The city is launching a bid to host another Super Bowl in 2018.
The number you cite is the combined income Benson is slated to receive over the period 2014-2025.
I do not like at all but it pales in comparison to the film welfare in total dollars involved and more importantly in net dollars involved.
It does not, for example, net out the cost of the space rented to the state nor does it include the revenue from the sale of tickets and the hotel/motel tax the state and city receive.
It is not even close to being as costly as the annual cost of the film welfare when the income is factored in.
You are correct we should not subsidize Benson but his subsidies are minor league compared to the giveaway to film makers.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:49 pm to slackster
quote:
My opinion on the film credits has always been this-
If the state "spends" $180M on credits and brings in $180M and $1 in new state revenue as a result, I'm all for it. People can harp on the $2bln industry, but unless that trickles down to more revenue for the state, the money should be spent elsewhere or sent back to the taxpayers directly.
and the program is so far that it is laughable for anyone to think it possible.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 3:57 pm to slackster
bullshite!
bullshite!
and bullshite again, lol.
Saying that something has to be the first has a connotation only being able to have singular focus. bullshite! Dump the film industry subsidies, dump Tom Benson, dump the plant outside of Lake Charles that's getting $200,000,000 plus in subsidies, dump oil industry subsidies all within a year if that's the route the State wants to go.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If your against subsidies then at least have the balls like IB Freeman and call for all of them to be gone. If not then your being disingenuous.
Please link me to proof that the Saints are 'more efficient' than film.
Again, I'll add I'm for promoting economic diversity drivers for the state. I loathe the Saints but favor reasonable efforts to keep them within our borders. Similarly film industry, oil, banking, technology, alternative energy companies, automobile manufacturing etc. This state should have 'insulated' itself from single sourced industry drivers long long ago. It didn't compete with other states in the South East and look where we are today. I'd favor a flatter tax that would give no single industry a leg up but rather give all industries a competitive edge to move to Louisiana. Increasing employment availability along a diverse set of processes can only create steady economic condition that would stop this roller coaster state budget ride we always seem to get in.
bullshite!
and bullshite again, lol.
Saying that something has to be the first has a connotation only being able to have singular focus. bullshite! Dump the film industry subsidies, dump Tom Benson, dump the plant outside of Lake Charles that's getting $200,000,000 plus in subsidies, dump oil industry subsidies all within a year if that's the route the State wants to go.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If your against subsidies then at least have the balls like IB Freeman and call for all of them to be gone. If not then your being disingenuous.
quote:
"Hey, don't mess with my inefficient industry unless you're going to mess with all of the industries"
Please link me to proof that the Saints are 'more efficient' than film.
Again, I'll add I'm for promoting economic diversity drivers for the state. I loathe the Saints but favor reasonable efforts to keep them within our borders. Similarly film industry, oil, banking, technology, alternative energy companies, automobile manufacturing etc. This state should have 'insulated' itself from single sourced industry drivers long long ago. It didn't compete with other states in the South East and look where we are today. I'd favor a flatter tax that would give no single industry a leg up but rather give all industries a competitive edge to move to Louisiana. Increasing employment availability along a diverse set of processes can only create steady economic condition that would stop this roller coaster state budget ride we always seem to get in.
This post was edited on 2/13/16 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 2/13/16 at 4:05 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
Again, I'll add I'm for promoting economic diversity drivers for the state. I loathe the Saints but favor reasonable efforts to keep them within our borders.
Everyone agrees with that. All states do it.
quote:
Similarly film industry, oil, banking, technology, alternative energy companies, automobile manufacturing etc
The two bolded are all but worthless.
The film industry uses up an area, the area gets overexposed (filmed), the state figures out it is getting screwed and they move to the next patsy. Very easy to do as they have little or no infrastructure.
Alternative energy = solar panels. That's a 'hole 'nother crock of crap.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 4:10 pm to VetteGuy
Yeah I'll go with you on Alternative Energy industry as it sits today 
I was really thinking more of the Fracking possibility. It's the popular thing to hate the idea in our area.
More or less throwing out diff industrial possibilities that the state hasn't courted.
Some have done it much better than others!
More importantly VetteGuy; and OT but ever driven a 135i M Sport? Thinking of a 4th car for Causeway crossing and share with my son.
I was really thinking more of the Fracking possibility. It's the popular thing to hate the idea in our area. More or less throwing out diff industrial possibilities that the state hasn't courted.
quote:
Everyone agrees with that. All states do it.
Some have done it much better than others!
More importantly VetteGuy; and OT but ever driven a 135i M Sport? Thinking of a 4th car for Causeway crossing and share with my son.
This post was edited on 2/13/16 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 2/13/16 at 4:25 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
Please link me to proof that the Saints are 'more efficient' than film.
I'm not trying to argue for or against subsidies for the Saints. I'm arguing against the logic that says, "Don't mess with film unless you're going to mess with the Saints." If you can concede that the film credits need an overhaul, then that should be reason enough for them to be on the chopping block.
Unfortunately, move people will agree that their sacred cow needs to be trimmed, but they don't want to talk about it unless someone else gives in first. Alas, nothing gets done.
Posted on 2/13/16 at 4:31 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
135i M Sport
Have not driven one, but have heard nothing but good things about them.
quote:
share with my son.
So you know how that's gonna go, right?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News