- 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: California to quadruple movie tax credits to $400 million/year
Posted on 8/16/14 at 3:36 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 8/16/14 at 3:36 pm to LSURussian
They are hurting since they lost the porn industry.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 3:53 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
If the subsidy is smart for Louisiana, then logic dictates that it would be smart for California, too.
Uh....nope. The film industry that distributes the films is different from the industry of production companies.
I have no facts, but I am assuming the distribution ends up being where all the millions are made. Example, if Gladiator was filmed in Rome, the proceeds form the film's box office gross don't go to Rome, right.
My point is simple and yes, goes both ways....dumb people who argue it has no value to Louisiana are simply that, DUMB. Why else would CA counter with even larger breaks/incentives if there weren't a ton of value in bringing the parts of the industry we took back to CA? I was more alarmed when CA wasn't freaking out! Any time a competitor is fine with you taking a segment of their portfolio, that tells me that segment wasn't that important to start with. Apparently, the segment Louisiana stole was very important and has a strong economic boost to the area.
I've seen arguments and #'s that show the subsidies cost the state $$, but those arguing that didn't take the totality of positive economic impact in all areas, including jobs created and taxes from those employees and other businesses whose profits rose from the industry being located here.
quote:
If the subsidy is smart for Louisiana, then logic dictates that it would be smart for California, too.
Yes, if it were identical, but when it's even larger, that same logic dictates it has been tremendous for the state and NOT a money loser like many morons thought!
Posted on 8/16/14 at 4:04 pm to GeeOH
quote:
I have no facts
Understatement.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 4:13 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
California is not "bankrupt".
32 States Now Officially Bankrupt: $37.8 Billion Borrowed From Treasury To Fund Unemployment; CA, MI, NY Worst
quote:
The full list of America's 32 insolvent states is below, sorted in order of bankruptedness. California $6,900 Michigan 3,900 New York 3,200 Penn. 3,000
That means $6.9 billion borrowed
I know they aren't closing shop or anything, but states take money from the feds to keep afloat. In this example, 2010, Cali was the worst.
So yes, I was talking in generality.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 4:21 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Understatement.
Monetary facts on film distribution and where it originates, nothing to do what the subsidy is given for by states.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 5:13 pm to GeeOH
quote:
Monetary facts on film distribution and where it originates, nothing to do what the subsidy is given for by states.
You're grasping at straws. If anything Louisiana should be LESS motivated to subsidize the industry, for the reason you gave. These companies get subsidies and the parent companies and stars in CA and NY are the ones realizing a lot of the profit.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 7:58 pm to LSURussian
There is still some doubt as to whether Governor Brown will sign the bill.
Isn't interesting one of the most liberal Governors in the country is more concerned about taxpayer dollars than Jindal?
Also it is not clear as to if the credits are redeemable for cash or transferrable.
Notice too that at least California has a cap on the credits. Louisiana's credits are unlimited.
The $400 million represents 1/2 of one percent of the personal and corporate income taxes in California. The $300 million Louisiana will likely spend this year is 10.6% of all our income and corporate taxes in 2013.
It is so stupid for Louisiana to be doing this that any legislator that supports it should be impeached for failing to honor his oath.
Isn't interesting one of the most liberal Governors in the country is more concerned about taxpayer dollars than Jindal?
Also it is not clear as to if the credits are redeemable for cash or transferrable.
Notice too that at least California has a cap on the credits. Louisiana's credits are unlimited.
The $400 million represents 1/2 of one percent of the personal and corporate income taxes in California. The $300 million Louisiana will likely spend this year is 10.6% of all our income and corporate taxes in 2013.
It is so stupid for Louisiana to be doing this that any legislator that supports it should be impeached for failing to honor his oath.
This post was edited on 8/16/14 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 8/16/14 at 8:38 pm to I B Freeman
Yet not one check was cut by Louisiana
Posted on 8/16/14 at 9:08 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Posted by BBONDS25 Yet not one check was cut by Louisiana
Good God. That's not true but even if it were - What difference would it make?
Give me $10B worth of transferable tax credits. The state wouldn't pay a dime but see how that works out.
This post was edited on 8/16/14 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 8/16/14 at 9:20 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yet not one check was cut by Louisiana
Then what kind of transaction are they making when "buying back" film credits?
Posted on 8/16/14 at 9:27 pm to flyby
I have asked ib time and time again for the actual amount of checks written by the department of revenue. There doesn't seem to be a link. You have one? That is the only relevant number in my mind.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 9:29 pm to Asgard Device
I understand you think of all money as the states first. I don't.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 10:26 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I understand you think of all money as the states first. I don't.
That talking point does not apply to the transferable tax credit program.
I've tried to get you to run through this exercise to apply your failed logic to but you disappear every time. What happens if the state gives me $10B in transferable tax credits?
It won't cost the tax payers anything, right? RIGHT?
This post was edited on 8/16/14 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 8/16/14 at 10:32 pm to BBONDS25
By having the option of the state buying them they are setting the minimum value.
Since there is an industry in itself of brokering these credits, then clearly they are being redeemed for something more than the state set minimum.
The best deal for the state would be if they were redeemed at the minimum value and the state were in fact cutting checks.
No checks = worse deal
Since there is an industry in itself of brokering these credits, then clearly they are being redeemed for something more than the state set minimum.
The best deal for the state would be if they were redeemed at the minimum value and the state were in fact cutting checks.
No checks = worse deal
Posted on 8/16/14 at 10:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I understand you think of all money as the states first. I don't.
You evidently have no understanding at all of the subsidy. The state GUARANTEES to pay 85 cents on the dollar no matter what. That is not a tax credit. That is a subsidy.
Posted on 8/16/14 at 10:47 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I have asked ib time and time again for the actual amount of checks written by the department of revenue.
I don't know if I pity your ignorance or hate your stupidity more.
This post was edited on 8/16/14 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 8/17/14 at 3:07 am to LSURussian
Cali just needs to double down on the porn.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News