Started By
Message

re: Film Industry a Boon to La!

Posted on 8/12/14 at 11:54 pm to
Posted by pwejr88
Red Stick
Member since Apr 2007
36246 posts
Posted on 8/12/14 at 11:54 pm to
I love seeing LA on the map and all the films coming here. More people spending money here, more advertisement for our state, it's a boom and LA is the dynamite baby. Glad Jindal is a good governor.
Posted by Ole War Skule
North Shore
Member since Sep 2003
3409 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 5:45 am to
quote:

This argument reminds me of the state paying for Superdome improvements to keep the Saints in New Orleans. Looking back that was a good investment.



for Benson, definitely.
for me, definitely NOT.

again, it absolutely amazes me that otherwise conservative and intelligent people are pure communists when it comes to targeted subsides, somehow thinking that helping that individual business or industry will help them.

helping Spielberg or Benson does NOTHING for me.

I've owned a number of businesses over the years and always paid my own way. I can imagine coming to the rant and saying 'hey fellas, you all have to give me x dollars each year and I'll keep my business here, you won't get a share of the profits, but I think that somehow my employees or vendors will trickle some money back to you'.

please send you money by western union to me ASAP so I can make enough money for you to buy that new pickup truck

you're all a bunch of suckers who somehow feel better about yourselves if the Saints or Hollywood are in Louisiana.....

Posted by Ole War Skule
North Shore
Member since Sep 2003
3409 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 5:48 am to
quote:

And, a truly unbiased economic study (admittedly a difficult one to really be accurate) would demonstrate the benefit beyond the narrow focus on the tax credit marketing alone.



studies have been done...ALL show the state loses money..but that has NOTHING to do with the inherent unfairness of subsidizing one industry over others..if it's good enough for the film industry or pro football, it's good for all of them...how can you not see the absurdity of a bunch of rednecks in Baton Rouge doing economic planning? oh, the russians and chinese had the right idea, but weren't as smart about 5 year plans as the yokels at the capital...
Posted by Ole War Skule
North Shore
Member since Sep 2003
3409 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 5:51 am to
quote:

Not if you consider the ancillary benefits Which, you of course, do not. I understand it makes you angry I would like all of the facts.




you have ZERO facts about how it is positive, but are going to give the money until someone can prove it's not a good investment..

how about you send me a few dollars and I'll leave it to you to prove it's not a good investment instead of me proving it is..the burden is on those who are taking the money to prove it's a good investment and EVERY independant study has show it is not...

BUT THAT'S NOT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, the problem is that hillbillies are doing economic planning for Louisiana instead of letting the market choose which industries should prosper
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
49050 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 7:45 am to
How many checks did the state write last year and what did they total to cover this program?
Posted by OTIS2
NoLA
Member since Jul 2008
50290 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 7:49 am to
quote:

studies have been done...ALL show the state loses money..


I didn't see your links. But, if we assume you're statement is true, it completely overlooks the private revenue generated by this "new" industry in the state. Hell, I'll surrender tax revenue to generate private revenue every damn day, every damn time. You and I B sound like commies to me. You boys whores for government? You pin heads think tax revenue is more worthy than private revenue generation?
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27845 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 7:56 am to
quote:

Hell, I'll surrender tax revenue to generate private revenue every damn day, every damn time


Yep.
Posted by I B Freeman
Member since Oct 2009
27843 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:09 am to
quote:

Link and a reasonable explanation to you reasoning I am too tired to figure it out tonight.


Link??? Link to what? You can't do that math GEEZ. That is simply multiplication.

No wonder these people are so gullible.

At a 8% income tax rate, the highest in Louisiana, it will take $18.75 billion in taxable income--not economic activity--to produce $1.5 billion.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119613 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:09 am to
quote:

again, it absolutely amazes me that otherwise conservative and intelligent people are pure communists when it comes to targeted subsides, somehow thinking that helping that individual business or industry will help them.



Do you even federalism?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119613 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:10 am to
quote:

you have ZERO facts about how it is positive,


And you have presented ZERO facts about how it's negative.
Posted by I B Freeman
Member since Oct 2009
27843 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:12 am to
quote:

quote:
Hell, I'll surrender tax revenue to generate private revenue every damn day, every damn time


Yep.


How much will you surrender??

Who here can say giving this money to film makers produces more jobs or creates more private revenue than it cost us to take away from the taxpayer????

How many jobs does it cost us to take $300 million in too much tax to fund these subsidies for filmmakers?

Bunch of big government fascist can't answer such questions. They don't even think about such questions.
Posted by I B Freeman
Member since Oct 2009
27843 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:15 am to
quote:

How many checks did the state write last year and what did they total to cover this program?


Explain the relevance of this question

Are trying to make the cash that writing a check is different from a state revenue stand point that a taxpayer writing a smaller check because he uses a film tax credit he purchased from a film maker to pay his taxes?

While you are at it I am still waiting on your number of so called auxiliary benefits that would have to be produce to make this thing pay for itself.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36607 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:19 am to
quote:

Glad Jindal is a good governor


It isn't Jindal's program. It was started before Jindal was elected.

It has grown under Jindal and under Jindal the legislature voted to continue the program; but it was started in 2002 and was scheduled to expire before now.

Posted by OTIS2
NoLA
Member since Jul 2008
50290 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:21 am to
You have no concept of private revenue vs public revenue, do you? For you, the end goal of business is to generate tax dollars, correct? You are unAmerican. I bet you pulled the lever for BHO...twice.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
49050 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:26 am to
quote:

checks did the state write last year and what did they total to cover this program?


quote:

Explain the relevance of this question


You serious Clark? If the state didn't actually write any checks, then it didn't COST the state. Unless, of course, you assume all dollars are the state's to begin with and letting taxpayers keep more of their own money is a cost? I want to know exactly how much the state ACTUALLY SPENT. That requires knowing how many checks were written and what the amounts were.
quote:


Are trying to make the cash that writing a check is different from a state revenue stand point that a taxpayer writing a smaller check because he uses a film tax credit he purchased from a film maker to pay his taxes?


Ahhh...its all the governments money to begin with. Got it.

quote:

While you are at it I am still waiting on your number of so called auxiliary benefits that would have to be produce to make this thing pay for itself.

Hard to do this analysis without knowing the checks that were written.


Again...same dance. You don't care about the facts...you care about hating Jindal. We get it.

Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36607 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:32 am to
quote:

Sorry. I reserve judgment until I can see the number I have asked for for months


In all due respects, shouldn't the state have to prove the program's merits and not the taxpayer???

We hear all the time that Education is getting cut, that healthcare is getting cut, and that we can't improve our roads and bridges; yet I read that we gave out 300 million dollars to one private industry.

I have no doubt the Film Industry is booming, and I have no doubt it has helped La. somewhat, and it is good publicity; however, when you look at how precious tax revenues are being spent (on film credits) I wonder if we'll soon need a tax increase to pay for services the state is supposed to provide.

Would you vote for a tax increase of 300 million to offset the 300 million in tax credits we are giving to the film industry?

And now that the Film Industry people themselves tell us their doing great, should La. be ratcheting down on the amount tax credits????

Or are the tax credits we see now always to be in place?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119613 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:34 am to
Louisiana film industry film incentives:

quote:

30% tax credit on qualified direct production Louisiana expenditures


It's my understanding that this is not a subsidy. It is a credit on taxes that would have been paid if the tax credit did not exist.
For example this is the way I see it:

Example 1.

Movie Company incurs $100,000 in expenses.
30% of $100,000 is $30,000 tax credit.
Movie Company makes a profit of $1,000,000 on movie.
Total state taxes on Movie Company is 8% of $1,000,000 = $80,000
Taxes owed to the state = $80,000 - $30,000 = $50,000.


Example 2.

Movie Company incurs $100,000 in expenses.
30% of $100,000 is $30,000 tax credit.
Movie Company makes a profit of $50,000 on movie.
Total state taxes on Movie Company is 8% of $50,000 = $4,000
Taxes owed to the state = $4,000 - $30,000 = $0.

Right?

So if as you say the movie industry has enjoyed $1.5 billion in tax credits we can back calculate Louisiana movie company expenses "directed" in Louisiana:

Movie company expenses = $1.5 billion/30% = $5 billion

That's $5 billion in expenses spent in Louisiana. That has to have a multiplier effect and it doesn't take into account the profits made and taxed by the movie companies.

Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119613 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:38 am to
quote:

hen you look at how precious tax revenues are being spent


As was noted by BBONDS, where are the check receipts from the La Treasury for this?
Posted by I B Freeman
Member since Oct 2009
27843 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:38 am to
quote:

You have no concept of private revenue vs public revenue, do you? For you, the end goal of business is to generate tax dollars, correct? You are unAmerican. I bet you pulled the lever for BHO...twice.


What kind of simplistic moron are you??

We are giving this industry $300 million a year. How much should the state give me???

Should we give you 30% of your expenses???

You don't recognize welfare when it slaps you in the face.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119613 posts
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:41 am to
quote:

You don't recognize welfare when it slaps you in the face.


One man's welfare is another man's good business environment.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram