- 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
Apparently the movie boom isn't helping.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:45 pm
quote:
La. budget shortfall pegged at $1.2B for next year
Louisiana state lawmakers got their first glimpse today of next year's budget gap that they'll have to close, and The Associated Press reports it's another hefty shortfall: $1.2 billion. The grim news, delivered to the joint legislative budget committee, barely raised eyebrows at the committee hearing, after more than six years of such disappointing financial forecasts. The shortfall is projected for the 2015-16 fiscal year that begins on July 1 next year. Gov. Bobby Jindal and lawmakers will decide in next year's legislative session how to address the hole. Barry Dusse, director of the governor's Office of Planning and Budget, told the committee that the administration is devising ways to close the gap. "We already have started working on solutions for next year," he said. "We're well on our way to solving this shortfall." Dusse said the administration expects the state's revenue forecast to improve, providing millions of new dollars for spending. He also said state agencies will save more than $200 million next year from the recommendations of consultants with Alvarez & Marsal, a New York-based firm that was hired to find ways to cut state costs. Budget committee Chairman Jim Fannin, R-Jonesboro, was skeptical. "I don't see anything that gives us any indication that there's a tremendous amount of growth that we can expect over the next three years" in state finances, he told Dusse. Jindal and lawmakers used $991 million in patchwork financing to balance this year's $24.6 billion budget that won't be available the following year for spending, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Office.
6
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:01 pm to doubleb
quote:
La. budget shortfall
Is the purpose of the movie boom to help the state government or help the people of the state?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:03 pm to doubleb
The budget needs to be slashed further
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:36 pm to C
quote:The problem with your question is that the state government represents all of the people of Louisiana, and all of the people of Louisiana do not benefit from the film tax credits, just some of the people. Benefitting some of the people at the expense of others is not a good purpose.
Is the purpose of the movie boom to help the state government or help the people of the state?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:39 pm to C
quote:
Is the purpose of the movie boom to help the state government or help the people of the state?
If the state doesn't have enough revenues, and has to cut the budget; I have no problem with that at all.
And one of the things to cut out is the Film Tax Credit program and other superfluous programs.
It is better than raising taxes on the population as a whole, and it's better than cutting vital services.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:48 pm to doubleb
quote:I agree 100%. There is no question that taking away subsidies that distort the economics of an industry for the benefit of a few is the best place to begin balancing the budget. Let their industry sink or swim competing on the same playing field as other industries must.
It is better than raising taxes on the population as a whole, and it's better than cutting vital services.
Does Louisiana need to eliminate the Film Tax Credit program entirely? I think it should be given serious consideration. There may be a level at which the credits actually are a net positive to the state. But you would have to provide some solid numerical evidence to convince me where that level is. I don't think trying to find it by trail and error is a good idea.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:18 pm to Poodlebrain
There is no need to raise taxes. What we need is a government that has a clue about efficiency. I have yet to see one government agency that is efficiently run. Why give more money to an institution that refuse to adopt efficiency strategies?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:24 pm to Kino74
I thought tax cuts were supposed to lead to budget surpluses according to Reagan and Laffler. Isn't Piyush just doing what Reagan would have done?
So if tax cuts haven't lead to increased revenues what is the answer? The point of supply-side economics was that you weren't going to have to cut government services because revenues were supposed to increase since tax cuts were going to simulate the economy.
I thought you conservatives promised that.
So if tax cuts haven't lead to increased revenues what is the answer? The point of supply-side economics was that you weren't going to have to cut government services because revenues were supposed to increase since tax cuts were going to simulate the economy.
I thought you conservatives promised that.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:29 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Uh taxes have increased. Not at the state level but everywhere else.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:33 pm to doubleb
One would think with the influx of business and jobs that we would be seeing a dropping deficit. Is spending increasing faster than tax revenues or is something else happening?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:10 pm to doubleb
quote:
And one of the things to cut out is the Film Tax Credit program and other superfluous programs.
It is better than raising taxes on the population as a whole, and it's better than cutting vital services.
Careful saying that on this board.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:13 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
I thought tax cuts were supposed to lead to budget surpluses according to Reagan and Laffler. Isn't Piyush just doing what Reagan would have done?
Not really
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:16 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Isn't Piyush just doing what Reagan would have done?
Reagan was a real leader. Whether you agreed with him are not, you knew where he stood. Jindal...not so much. Not so much at all.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:25 pm to doubleb
quote:
Uh taxes have increased. Not at the state level but everywhere else.
Since Piyush is all about cutting state taxes shouldn't state tax revenue increased instead of showing a deficit?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:08 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
How much does the state of Louisiana collect in income taxes? How much does the state of Louisiana spend? Why must the deficit be attributed to income tax revenue and not to revenue from other taxes?
A deficit occurs because you spend beyond your means. If you know that your means are a certain amount, then spending in excess of that amount is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
A deficit occurs because you spend beyond your means. If you know that your means are a certain amount, then spending in excess of that amount is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:11 pm to doubleb
quote:
Apparently the movie boom isn't helping.
Apparently, IB is not around.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:32 pm to doubleb
I agree that the film subsidies are against free market principles and are generally bad (overall) for the state's finances.
I also agree that there's historically a problem with the budgets and I think to some extent it is done on purpose in order to circumvent the legislative budget process.
However, it should be noted that the current fiscal year just started and this shortfall is for the NEXT fiscal year which won't even start for another 10.5 months. Plenty of time to make adjustments during the 2015 legislative session. The real pain is when mid-year budget cuts occur.
Also, I can't stand it when people refer to Jindal as "Piyush." Jindal's name is irrelevant to me. Just makes people look like backwoods idiots when they bring up his Indian (dot) background.
I also agree that there's historically a problem with the budgets and I think to some extent it is done on purpose in order to circumvent the legislative budget process.
However, it should be noted that the current fiscal year just started and this shortfall is for the NEXT fiscal year which won't even start for another 10.5 months. Plenty of time to make adjustments during the 2015 legislative session. The real pain is when mid-year budget cuts occur.
Also, I can't stand it when people refer to Jindal as "Piyush." Jindal's name is irrelevant to me. Just makes people look like backwoods idiots when they bring up his Indian (dot) background.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:35 pm to doubleb
State should just eliminate all Medicaid.
That will take care of it.
That will take care of it.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:42 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Also, I can't stand it when people refer to Jindal as "Piyush." Jindal's name is irrelevant to me. Just makes people look like backwoods idiots when they bring up his Indian (dot) background.
Well that is legal name. He has no problem telling people he choose Bobby after Bobby Brady in an attempt to fit in.
I will stop calling him Piyush when Bill Cunningham and other conservatives stop saying Barrack Hussein Obama or BHO.
This post was edited on 8/14/14 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:47 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Also, I can't stand it when people refer to Jindal as "Piyush." Jindal's name is irrelevant to me. Just makes people look like backwoods idiots when they bring up his Indian (dot) background.
This. I've made it clear on here that I'm not a fan of Jindal. In fact, I flat out dislike the way his administration has behaved and how he has acted like a flat-out coward on several issues.
That said, when someone starts out their complaint about Jindal using Piyush, I immediately stop reading.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News