- 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

LED overstated the impact of the Motion Picture Tax Credit
Posted on 12/3/18 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 12/3/18 at 4:04 pm
per the latest report from the state auditor.
Does anyone care anymore?
They obviously cooked the books to make themselves look good. I wonder if JBE cares either?
Isn't LED in the administration?
Where is IB?
Does anyone care anymore?
They obviously cooked the books to make themselves look good. I wonder if JBE cares either?
Isn't LED in the administration?
Where is IB?
Posted on 12/3/18 at 4:22 pm to doubleb
The entire thing has always been an indefensible giveaway.
Posted on 12/3/18 at 5:15 pm to doubleb
Does IB hang out on the O-T? Or just poli board?
Side note... I saw something over the weekend that was being promoted.
Basically, $1 of film credit generates $4.35 in economic impact. Of course, this was being promoted as "great" for the state.
And maybe it is "great" for providing jobs, etc.
But even if that full amount of economic impact is taxed in LA, you are looking at 27 cents. So, it's costing the state treasury 73 cents.
This is the problem. People will look at this program and say "it's working" and others will say "it's a giveaway" and both are right.
Side note... I saw something over the weekend that was being promoted.
Basically, $1 of film credit generates $4.35 in economic impact. Of course, this was being promoted as "great" for the state.
And maybe it is "great" for providing jobs, etc.
But even if that full amount of economic impact is taxed in LA, you are looking at 27 cents. So, it's costing the state treasury 73 cents.
This is the problem. People will look at this program and say "it's working" and others will say "it's a giveaway" and both are right.
Posted on 12/3/18 at 5:30 pm to doubleb
Only a matter of time before Susie Labry and her group of whiny film subsidy lovers start complaining about this article being “unfair”.
Posted on 12/3/18 at 6:23 pm to ragincajun03
You may want to read the report and LEDs response to the two findings.....
LINK
And there’s a reason it was ‘overstated’:
LINK
quote:
All three of these programs now have statutorily mandated issuance caps that LED cannot exceed and the estimates of project expenditures in process for which tax credits are issued indicated that the caps would be reached. Consequently, the major forecasting factors are known and there is no finding by your office of inaccuracy in the projections that were provided. These known factors are avoided in the report, which over emphasizes “documentation” in lieu of common sense without ever identifying the “documentation” that should have been used or should be used when confronted with similar circumstances in the future. As a result, this recommendation is neither well-founded in fact nor utility.
And there’s a reason it was ‘overstated’:
quote:
While there is a low and high range of estimates presented in the independent study commissioned every two years to review the entertainment programs, LED feels the best data to present demonstrates the highest economic impact, and conversely the highest (worst) negative impact to the state’s fiscal standing. LED feels strongly that the state fiscal impact should not be reported without reporting the state economic impact. LED believes that this is sound and prudent fiscal management for the program and finds nothing in the report that would contradict this fact.
This post was edited on 12/3/18 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 12/3/18 at 6:52 pm to Snipe
quote:IB is in timeout.
IN b4 IBs rant
Popular
Back to top
4







