re: Are all these tax giveaways hurting Louisiana?

quote:

---

The article also mentioned Blanco's tenure. Some of you on here on complete hyper-sensitive when it comes to any kind of criticism of Jindal.

---

They are far from perfect especially on these issues, but IMO if we had people like Foster, Blanco, and Jindal in office 30 years ago instead of Edwards...I think the state would be much better off today. Don't take the following criticism as an indictment on what they have accomplished for the state economy.

My biggest problem with the film tax credits (other than being opposed to the principle of their existence) is that the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees refuse to setup a local in Baton Rouge or Lafayette.

This basically puts those cities at a disadvantage to New Orleans so the union there can charge for "remote work" in Baton Rouge, Alexandria, or Lafayette. It's turning into a statewide subsidy for a New Orleans-centric business. The entire state is footing the bill, but not everyone is seeing the benefits.

quote:

---

I think I'd be okay with the transferable tax credit system if the state wasn't obligated to buy them

---

same difference--just a taxpayer sends a check to film companies instead of sending it to the state. They need to be non transferable and non cash redeemable if they are to exist. At least expect them to recognize enough profit here to use them.

Nevertheless they are only one credit featured in the article--those and solar are by far the most costly that I see. Even the fracking credits pay for themselves eventually as they give us new oil to tax. Film, digital media, solar are out and out cash subsidies and leave nothing to tax to recoup the investment. EZ credits can only be used against tax obligations so they are self financing.

All of them should be eliminated and the tax structure changed.

quote:

---

same difference--just a taxpayer sends a check to film companies instead of sending it to the state

---

I understand, but I suppose that would be easier to budget for politically. It's one thing to say we have to cut a check, but its another to say we never saw the money in the first place. Not saying I agree with the methods, just thinking out loud.

quote:

---

They need to be non transferable and non cash redeemable if they are to exist. At least expect them to recognize enough profit here to use them.

---

I wonder if the infrastructure and production industry will ever be big enough for this to happen here? I know a bunch has been spent on post-production facilities, but I wonder what the ROI would be if every movie filmed in LA was also produced/assembled in LA.

quote:

---

All of them should be eliminated and the tax structure changed.

---

Preach on. You're a little Magoo in your delivery, but the message is one that should be heard. People should really take time to research how bad this deal is for LA before dismissing you.

I'm guilty of this, but in my quest to prove IB an idiot, I uncovered a lot of information that really paints how bad a deal this is for the state and taxpayers. Aren't they estimating over $300 million this year? So the state of LA will send $300 million dollars to Hollywood this year. $300 million.

quote:

---

The subsidies are intended to grow Louisiana's economy, and they do

---

I am not sure of that. Those that use the taxes of tax payers to fund are a drain on the other tax payers and may in fact reduce the overall investment in the state. Those that are self funding probably do grow Louisiana's economy.

I have never seen anyone try to quantify the negative impact of taking $300 million from the taxpayers and giving it to the very few film makers but there is negative impact. Particularly since a lot of the $300 million ends up funding out of state salaries. Who is to say the extra $25 or $50 or $150 burden per person it cost to give those subsidies multiplies any less than the money the film makers spend.