- 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
Revenue Estimating Conf. prohibited from estimating state tax incentive costs
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:25 am
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:25 am
The protection of corporate welfare under Jindal's watch is beyond belief.
Jack Donahue, R introduced a bill to require the Revenue Estimating Conference to estimate and approve the annual expenditures of tax incentives. Because these incentives, like the film industry subsidies, come off the top line of the state budget they are not enumerated in the budget as an expense. The legislature never votes on the dollar amount the state should spend every year as they do the other expenses of the state.
Donahue's bill passed the House 96-0 and even passed the Alario Senate 26-13.
It looked like a well received, common sense bill.
Jindal vetoed it.
It seems in Jindal's twisted mind any reversal of taxpayer-funded subsidies is a tax increase. One has to assume he fears the legislature knowing what the state might spend on these incentives before hand.
How incredibly bad is this logic??
Jack Donahue, R introduced a bill to require the Revenue Estimating Conference to estimate and approve the annual expenditures of tax incentives. Because these incentives, like the film industry subsidies, come off the top line of the state budget they are not enumerated in the budget as an expense. The legislature never votes on the dollar amount the state should spend every year as they do the other expenses of the state.
Donahue's bill passed the House 96-0 and even passed the Alario Senate 26-13.
It looked like a well received, common sense bill.
Jindal vetoed it.
It seems in Jindal's twisted mind any reversal of taxpayer-funded subsidies is a tax increase. One has to assume he fears the legislature knowing what the state might spend on these incentives before hand.
How incredibly bad is this logic??
quote:
Sen. Jack Donahue, R-Mandeville and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, saw one of his bills bite the dust. It called for the Revenue Estimating Conference to estimate and approve the annual expenditure of tax incentives. Donahue’s bill got a two-thirds vote (26-13) in the Senate and passed the House 96-0.
The veto came after a request from Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. The organization seeks commitments from public officials that say they will oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes. Jindal has always insisted reducing tax exemptions and incentives equates to raising taxes, even though the effectiveness of a number of tax breaks is questionable.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 9:29 am
5
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:32 am to I B Freeman
Can't they overturn his veto with that many votes? I'm not sure how the La legislature rules work though
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:33 am to deltaland
quote:
Can't they overturn his veto with that many votes? I'm not sure how the La legislature rules work though
They would have to call a special session.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:01 am to I B Freeman
Is the reduction of revenue from these incentives missed when they forecast revenue?
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:03 am to 90proofprofessional
Also, link pls
I'm now curious about this Rev Estimating Conf
I'm now curious about this Rev Estimating Conf
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:05 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Is the reduction of revenue from these incentives missed when they forecast revenue?
I don't know, but it certainly is not segregated for legislative consideration.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:08 am to 90proofprofessional
You can see typical conference reports here
I suppose Donahue was asking that a line be added to these reports to reflect the impact of incentives on the revenue reported.
Here is the article I read that prompted the thread
LINK
I suppose Donahue was asking that a line be added to these reports to reflect the impact of incentives on the revenue reported.
Here is the article I read that prompted the thread
LINK
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 10:09 am
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:23 am to I B Freeman
Looking at the NO votes in the Senate tells me everything I need to know about this bill.
It was probably aa good bill.
It was probably aa good bill.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 11:37 am to ragincajun03
Not a single member of the House voted against it.
I am not sure you could get a resolution through the House commending Louisiana crawfish without one vote of opposition.
I am not sure you could get a resolution through the House commending Louisiana crawfish without one vote of opposition.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 12:14 pm to I B Freeman
So a few things:
1. It's bad form not to mention a bill number when discussing a bill. Makes it harder on others to look it up.
FYI: SB 543 Donahue
Here is what the bill basically does:
2. Just because it gets unanimous support (in either chamber) does NOT mean it is a good bill. In fact I would often argue the opposite.
3. That said, this was a good bill.
Gov Jindal's veto message is bunk. This (once it was amended) bill did not in any way CHANGE tax incentives, but rather just required reporting at the REC (and in the Executive budget).
4. Veto overide session: actually there is an automatic overide session unless one of the two bodies vote not to show up. At that point it's sort of useless since the votes won't be there to overide any of the vetoes. I don't remember the last time a veto session happened.
1. It's bad form not to mention a bill number when discussing a bill. Makes it harder on others to look it up.
FYI: SB 543 Donahue
Here is what the bill basically does:
quote:
Proposed law would require the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) to establish a
forecast of incentive expenditures for each fiscal year, beginning for fiscal year 2015-2016,
which shall include a forecast of the amount of payments from and reductions of current tax
collections to be granted by each of the incentive benefit statutes listed in the definition of
incentive benefit for the forecasted year. Would provide that the forecast shall be an amount
that is no less than the estimated amount of payments from and reductions of current tax
collections which will be made by each of the incentive benefit statutes. Such forecast shall
be used to provide for the statement of incentive expenditures in the proposed executive
budget.
2. Just because it gets unanimous support (in either chamber) does NOT mean it is a good bill. In fact I would often argue the opposite.
3. That said, this was a good bill.
quote:
Senate Bill No. 543 requires the Revenue Estimating Conference to estimate, and approve such estimate by unanimous vote, the annual expenditure of certain tax incentives. Not only could this have the unintended consequence of an aggregate tax increase on businesses and/or individuals, but it could create uncertainty about the state’s commitment to job creation and economic development.
Gov Jindal's veto message is bunk. This (once it was amended) bill did not in any way CHANGE tax incentives, but rather just required reporting at the REC (and in the Executive budget).
4. Veto overide session: actually there is an automatic overide session unless one of the two bodies vote not to show up. At that point it's sort of useless since the votes won't be there to overide any of the vetoes. I don't remember the last time a veto session happened.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:26 pm to I B Freeman
quote:IBF, I know this is one of your pet peeves.
like the film industry subsidies
However, I had some first hand experience with the other side of the equation over the past week. A company used our home for several commercial shoots. Involved 60-70 studio personnel along with the actors. Nearly all were freelance -- i.e., no work, no pay.
They are working because of film production incentives. Without those incentivized studios, the shoot would have been conducted elsewhere. Knowing the budget and guesstimating state tax from worker income alone, the state made about $20K it would have never otherwise seen. There are additional corporate fees it will collect.
Aside from being an interesting process, I got to talk with several folks about their jobs and industry. They lamented losing Pinewood Studios to Atlanta because Georgia far outdid NC in terms of credits. Pinewood originally planned to locate in Charlotte.
Nearly every one of them mentioned Louisiana as the state that "has its act together" in the film industry. None of them had any idea I had Louisiana connections or any knowledge of its "corporate welfare" setup.
Anecdotal, I know. But it gave me a hands-on perspective.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
BF, I know this is one of your pet peeves.
However, I had some first hand experience with the other side of the equation over the past week. A company used our home for several commercial shoots. Involved 60-70 studio personnel along with the actors. Nearly all were freelance -- i.e., no work, no pay.
They are working because of film production incentives. Without those incentivized studios, the shoot would have been conducted elsewhere. Knowing the budget and guesstimating state tax from worker income alone, the state made about $20K it would have never otherwise seen. There are additional corporate fees it will collect.
Aside from being an interesting process, I got to talk with several folks about their jobs and industry. They lamented losing Pinewood Studios to Atlanta because Georgia far outdid NC in terms of credits. Pinewood originally planned to locate in Charlotte.
Nearly every one of them mentioned Louisiana as the state that "has its act together" in the film industry. None of them had any idea I had Louisiana connections or any knowledge of its "corporate welfare" setup.
Anecdotal, I know. But it gave me a hands-on perspective.
This is the kind of simpleton crap that keeps these things going.
I tell you what, instead of using your house for commercials if you can get North Carolina to pay 35% of my expenses I will tear your house down and build you another and sell it to you for 20% below cost. I will build you a $10 million dollar one and sell it to you for $8 million and you can sell it for $9 million.
Everyone will be "freelance" no work no pay. Everyone will be so happy North Carolina is doing it and none will be complaining because Louisiana is giving more.
The state will have just as much as they got from the film which is a negative number.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:36 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Nearly every one of them mentioned Louisiana as the state that "has its act together" in the film industry. None of them had any idea I had Louisiana connections or any knowledge of its "corporate welfare" setup.
You said it yourself, they wouldn't be working in La. without the set up so the worker surely would be FOR the incentives. The state is paying 30% of their wages, right?
Now for the state to realize 20,000 dollars in income taxes the wage earners would have to make $400,000.00 to realize that figure.
Do the math, 60-70 workers plus actors all would have to make at least $5,000.00 for that week. I doubt that they do. It's a commercial right?
But let's say they did all make 400K total then the state would give the film company 120 thousand dollars in tax credit.
So tell me about this good deal again???
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:47 pm to BigJim
Folks when the resident Jindal apologist, BigJim, says Bobby Jindal has written "bunk" it needs to be on display in the most convenient, public manner.
Kudos to BigJim and he is exactly right.
LINK
The only way Donahue's bill would have reduce incentive if the information the committee came forward with the number that caused the legislature to act to reduce the incentives. It was just a reporting bill.
Kudos to BigJim and he is exactly right.
quote:
Governor Jindal's veto message is bunk.
LINK
quote:
Dear Mr. Koepp:
Senate Bill No. 543 requires the Revenue Estimating Conference to estimate, and approve such estimate by unanimous vote, the annual expenditure of certain tax incentives. Not only could this have the unintended consequence of an aggregate tax increase on businesses and/or individuals, but it could create uncertainty about the state’s commitment to job creation and economic development.
Further, the bill only applies to the five percent of tax incentives that have performance requirements, such as job creation and capital investment.
Since 2008, we have worked together to achieve economic growth that is 50 percent higher than the nation’s, and one of the best records of private-sector job growth in the country. Louisiana has the lowest unemployment rate in the South. We also have people moving here, coming to raise their families and build a better future, both for themselves and our state. After more than two decades of more people leaving Louisiana than moving into the state, Louisiana has experienced six years in a row of population in-migration. This bill could make Louisiana businesses and companies interested in moving to Louisiana doubt their decision to build, expand, and hire Louisiana citizens.
Furthermore, Louisiana is one of the best states in the country when it comes to the transparency of tax exemptions and economic-development incentives. Unlike other states, which don’t publish any information about their tax exemptions, the Louisiana Department of Revenue annually publishes a comprehensive, online report listing all tax exemptions, including both historical and projected utilization for each of them. Louisiana Economic Development, which oversees the five percent of incentives singled out by the bill, also publishes an annual, detailed report on its website specific to those programs.
We are committed to transparent and accountable tax incentive programs, but not to the point of discouraging businesses from coming to or expanding in Louisiana and potentially impacting the jobs of our hard working citizens. Americans for Tax Reform agrees and has asked for a veto. For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill No. 543 and hereby return it to the Senate.
Sincerely,
Bobby Jindal
Governor
____________
The only way Donahue's bill would have reduce incentive if the information the committee came forward with the number that caused the legislature to act to reduce the incentives. It was just a reporting bill.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:51 pm to doubleb
quote:No. I said nothing about them working in Louisiana. I said several cited Louisiana as the state that had its act together in the film industry.
You said it yourself, they wouldn't be working in La
quote:Not quite, but you're in the ballpark.
Now for the state to realize 20,000 dollars in income taxes the wage earners would have to make $400,000.00
quote:I'm pretty good at math, fyi. Not really free to discuss particulars, but your doubts don't pan out here.
Do the math, 60-70 workers plus actors all would have to make at least $5,000.00 for that week. I doubt that they do. It's a commercial right?
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:54 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You said it yourself, they wouldn't be working in La
No. I said nothing about them working in Louisiana. I said several cited Louisiana as the state that had its act together in the film industry.
So Tigah once again we would all like to see one of you guys explain why this should not be expanded to all industry.
Do you want North Carolina to pay 35% of my expenses to build you a house or not??
It is just a stupid program.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I'm pretty good at math, fyi. Not really free to discuss particulars, but your doubts don't pan out here.
I just roughed up some numbers, but if the state took in 5% of what the employers made and realized 20 thousand dollars then the employer would get back 30% of what their employees made totaling 120 thousand dollars.
Now tell me this is a good deal for La. because why?????????????????????????? It's a 6 to 1 ratio.
Now I realize the money will have a ripple effect, but wouldn't it have a ripple effect if the state spent it on necessary items or if the state gave a tax cut to its citizenry totaling that amount.
It's voodoo economics sir whether the shoot was in your house or mine.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:56 pm to I B Freeman
The biggest news on this thread is BigJim's criticism of Jindal.
Has the traffic in Baton Rouge recovered from the standstill this news had to have caused?
Next might be Zach.
Has the traffic in Baton Rouge recovered from the standstill this news had to have caused?
Next might be Zach.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:08 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Next might be Zach.
Jindal could make Edwin Edwards his new Chief of Staff, and Zach would accuse anyone who doesn't like it of preferring Walter Boasso.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:10 pm to I B Freeman
quote:I'm missing the extrapolation to housing. In the end the question remains, is Louisiana making more, or is it making less, off of its resident film industry and correlated state economy?
So Tigah once again we would all like to see one of you guys explain why this should not be expanded to all industry.
Do you want North Carolina to pay 35% of my expenses to build you a house or not??
You may have an answer for that relative to La. I don't really claim to. I will tell you, I was stunned at the amount of money generated off of this particular shoot though.
The program here seems to have been good for the region.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News