- 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: Is the Film Industry in Louisiana actually good for Louisiana?
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:14 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:14 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
It's not "near free". It has cost probably over a billion dollars...from a treasury that is in deficit.
It's a disastrous handout.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have any facts to back up your claims?
1
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:14 pm to gorillacoco
quote:Baton Rouge is a terrible city for FAR more reasons than a sub-par movie industry.
yeah it's terrible a city of 275,000 doesn't have a world class film industry.
Wake up, boy
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:18 pm to GWfool
quote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have any facts to back up your claims?
Yes, all of them. The state has spent more than a billion dollars. And I've never seen a credible estimate that taxes have been paid in return in any size. It would have been better had they simply divided up a billion bucks equally and mailed it out to each taxpayer rather than literally giving it away to out-of-staters looking for handouts.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:19 pm to Nughuffer
If it's such a good thing to give a film company back 30% of their expenses why don't we do it for every industry 
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:22 pm to GWfool
Your link to the study opens as jibberish on my computer.
Maybe it's because my computer is crap, but it's still quite fitting since jibberish is mostly what we get from the pro-film subsidy crowd.
Maybe it's because my computer is crap, but it's still quite fitting since jibberish is mostly what we get from the pro-film subsidy crowd.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:24 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Yes, all of them. The state has spent more than a billion dollars. And I've never seen a credible estimate that taxes have been paid in return in any size. It would have been better had they simply divided up a billion bucks equally and mailed it out to each taxpayer rather than literally giving it away to out-of-staters looking for handouts.
I still see don't facts to back your claims. You can only state has issued credits over a billion dollars in 12 plus years as a fact, but you haven't given any facts but rather opinions regarding any economic impacts or indicators. Taxes directly paid by the productions is not the only economic indicator or impact.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:26 pm to BRIllini07
quote:
but from a Northerner's point of view Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and most of the South are all a redneck no-man's land that's borderline uninhabitable.
First off, that is remarkable how uneducated northerners still are in regards to this.
quote:
And while some films, especially the BR filmed ones where BR just stands in as "any city USA" don't help tourism, I think the NOLA themed and even swamp themed ones do
This is exactly what I said before. Any place that a movie is based (the story) helps tourism of the area. They are filming Captain America in downtown Atlanta right now. It will not be known by anyone that it is Atlanta (at least i don't think so). It will do absolutely nothing in terms of tourism.
Walking Dead actually does.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:27 pm to ragincajun03
It is a .pdf web address from the Motion Picture Association of America. I apologize if your computer can't open it. Perhaps it is capable of googling "mpaa louisiana tax credit study."
Just because you don't support it, doesn't mean it is gibberish.
Just because you don't support it, doesn't mean it is gibberish.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:31 pm to GWfool
quote:
Taxes directly paid by the productions is not the only economic indicator or impact.
Nope, but it's by far the most relevant one. If a billion has been paid out and it has yielded $50M -100M of taxes in return, was that "worth it"? Was that without cost? I struggle to see how the $950M could have been possibly made up in other areas....not to mention the opportunity cost on the $950M itself.
Tax credits aren't necessarily terrible (although I don't like them.) But we need to be very clear that these are not tax credits. They are rebate subsidies. As someone else asked: why not spend $30B on "tax credits" and just get Apple to move here?
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:36 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
But we need to be very clear that these are not tax credits. They are rebate subsidies.
This.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:39 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Nope, but it's by far the most relevant one. If a billion has been paid out and it has yielded $50M -100M of taxes in return, was that "worth it"? Was that without cost? I struggle to see how the $950M could have been possibly made up in other areas....not to mention the opportunity cost on the $950M itself.
Tax credits aren't necessarily terrible (although I don't like them.) But we need to be very clear that these are not tax credits. They are rebate subsidies. As someone else asked: why not spend $30B on "tax credits" and just get Apple to move here?
I do see your position more clearly now, but is the only reason for business incentives to generate tax revenue? Or, is it to create industry and other economic impacts? If an incentive is based on relief from tax liability how can tax revenue be the most relevant indicator?
Look, I get it, someone against the incentives are not going to change their mind no matter what study I show them. But, in my opinion, there is more to it than that and it has had the impact desired by the program when initiated. There is a reason other states have followed by adapting similar programs.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:43 pm to GWfool
quote:
but is the only reason for business incentives to generate tax revenue? Or, is it to create industry and other economic impacts? If an incentive is based on relief from tax liability how can tax revenue be the most relevant indicator?
In the most ideal world, tax incentives would be offered to attract businesses to move and establish permanent, long-term operations. The most relevant characteristic of this ideal would be: they would be actual tax credits. i.e. IF the business generated state-taxable income, that state-taxable income would be at a lower rate for some period of time. That's it. That implies that the credit would pay for itself.
quote:
Look, I get it, someone against the incentives are not going to change their mind no matter what study I show them. But, in my opinion, there is more to it than that and it has had the impact desired by the program when initiated.
What study are you trying to show me? The ludicrously trumped up "economic activity" studies which, even if true, STILL would not make it worth it?
quote:
There is a reason other states have followed by adapting similar programs.
Not really. Other states have more rational programs closer to what I've described above...and at least one state is getting out of the business because they learned the hard way that Louisiana's scheme is a travesty.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:44 pm to Jcorye1
Lots of posters making fun of IB Freeman, and yes, he is obsessive on this issue.
However, the big, fat BUTT...he's been right on this issue.
However, the big, fat BUTT...he's been right on this issue.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:51 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
In the most ideal world, tax incentives would be offered to attract businesses to move and establish permanent, long-term operations
On the flip side for Atlanta, they were able to lure Mercedes headquarters down from NJ. Only 40% are probably relocating which means there will be a lot of new jobs for the city. Much more tangible.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:52 pm to ragincajun03
Yes, he is. I found it appalling that the state spent more on Green Lantern than UNO. Our return on investment would be higher on health and education spending.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:53 pm to ragincajun03
Correct ... The tax payers spent more money subsidizing ONE movie last year tham we spent on education at UNO .. Let that sink in .. We should just split the 200 million evenly in each taxpayer. I bet you more economic activity takes place
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:53 pm to Big Scrub TX
Because you're not even willing to consider any information that doesn't further the point. Direct tax revenue is not the only indicator. It is clear we're not going to agree on that. And, I linked a study showing economic impact.
What is the state you are referring to? Meanwhile, Georgia is championing their tax credit program, Mississippi and Oklahoma have implemented pure rebate programs, Alabama has a program. California is expanding a tax credit program, so is New York. The only state I know of getting out of it is North Carolina, and their citizens sure seem lament the lose of film production.
What is the state you are referring to? Meanwhile, Georgia is championing their tax credit program, Mississippi and Oklahoma have implemented pure rebate programs, Alabama has a program. California is expanding a tax credit program, so is New York. The only state I know of getting out of it is North Carolina, and their citizens sure seem lament the lose of film production.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:54 pm to ragincajun03
I agree that he's not wrong.
He's annoying as shite sometimes about it though.
He's annoying as shite sometimes about it though.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News