re: Question Regarding ITEP and ExxonMobil

quote:

---

I don’t have a strong opinion on the homestead exemption, but a $15 minimum wage is a stupid idea. If you want me to defend that, I’ll let you do it instead. Just argue against a $150 minimum wage and apply the same arguments.

---

The minimum wage should be $0. It's a voluntary transaction.

quote:

---

That $15 minimum wage will result in more unemployment and more of the machine checkouts like taco bell, Walmart, McDonald's, etc.

---

Agreed. Most people don't realize that retail and fast food are actually industries that intentionally operate lower than max efficiency. We could have automatic food checkouts already. They just don't want to invest the initial capital BECAUSE it's cheaper to pay 7 to 9 an hour.

quote:

---

And let’s be real here: ExxonMobil investing in the area affects the state and BR. It’s not outrageous for some to want the state to step in. Especially when the local governments are mired in petty politics and the NBR reps are looking for ways to “rejuvenate Plank road”

---

If "the state" benefits then "the state" should kick in some of the incentives. It's asinine to expect the locals to pay 100 percent of the incentives, if you are saying that the state as a whole benefits.

Whenever someone mentions getting rid of a tax break, so many people respond, "why should the government get more money, they blow what they already have?"

But no one is suggesting they get more money, in the aggregate. It's simply, who contributes to the pot?

If you aren't paying anything, you probably should be paying something. And if you are paying a lot, you probably should be paying less.

As far a ITEP, I don't like the program because I support a simpler tax system with a larger base and lower rates.

But if we are going to have it, because let's be honest, our idiot state politicans aren't fixing our tax structure anytime soon, then I think you have to view each ITEP application on its' own merits.

Simply saying "ITEP is good" or "ITEP is bad" is idiotic.

There was just one in St. Bernard that was for about 2.5 million a year in forgone taxes, with new payroll of $280K a year. I think this is terrible and I'm glad it was voted down.

On the other hand, St. Tammany had one recently for $112K a year in forgone taxes, with new payroll of 250K a year. To me, this is a good one, and I'm glad it was approved.

quote:

---

There was just one in St. Bernard that was for about 2.5 million a year in forgone taxes, with new payroll of $280K a year. I think this is terrible and I'm glad it was voted down.

---

Wasn't even a new project. The jobs were lost 15 years ago and were just being brought back.

quote:

---

Wasn't even a new project. The jobs were lost 15 years ago and were just being brought back.

---

Correct, it was a modernization of a mothballed unit.

And... the damn project was pretty much complete when they made the application, so... you have to wonder if they really "needed" the exemption.

ITEP is a tax break that makes sense to me provided we’re talking about long term projects. These are the types of projects where an idea comes up in 2020, the land gets bought in 2021.....first piece of $200,000,000 worth of equipment is put in the ground in 2024, finally making its first dollar 4-5 years after that.

If a company is deciding up front where to put a project, having to pay taxes on land and equipment that is earning no money for nearly a decade changes the math severely as companies try to be conservative when they’re talking about future income that is 10 years away.

Deferring that tax until the investment can pull in some money seems like a sensible tax break for incentivizing investment. Not to mention, those years prior to the unit startup involve hundreds of contractors and construction workers temporarily flooding the market. So, the break ends up partially offset by the overgrowth of construction labor and their contribution to the local economy/tax base.

quote:

---

It's asinine to expect the locals to pay 100 percent of the incentives, if you are saying that the state as a whole benefits.

---

Nobody is paying anyone anything. They are simply not charging property tax on a unit for a while.

quote:

---

Why does the school board get to decide and not make it a total EBR vote?

---

The school board is the taxing authority for that particular portion of the tax that an abatement was being requested for. "Taxes" are not this monolithic thing. There are something like 10 or 15 taxing authorities in EBR, as approved by the voters.

The collection of the taxes may be done as a single transaction from the tax payer's perspective, but the AMOUNT of the bill is figured out by the sheriff by adding up all the different millages that each taxing authority has levied on the people using the power given to them by the people (or, in EBR, all the people who don't own property but are bussed to the polls to vote for more property taxes).

The sheriff collects the tax (or the cashier in the case of a sales tax) and then checks are cut to each taxing authority based on their portion of the total draw.

In your particular example, the company was seeking the school board's approval to forego just their slice of the pie.