Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.....
Re: Film incentives...because the state will make a lower percentage of zero dollars? If nobody makes movies here, the state makes nothing at all. If people make movies here and we pay incentives, we make a smaller amount of money, but we do make money. It's not like anyone HAS to film here. They'll just film in states that offer incentives.
The issue I have with this logic is that it does not consider the opportunity cost of this money. Every tax $ handed out by the state came out of somebody's pocket. i.e. the opportunity cost.
If the objective is jobs due to tax incentives (a tax cut) given to one specific industry, then IMO, it's best to cut the tax rates so that all industries get a tax cut. Hence you will get a lot of other jobs. It's the same logic expanded to all business and it removes government from picking the winners and losers. This is exactly what the state government has been doing.
There's plenty of money for reserves. The problem is they're wasting it. Did the DOT trust fund ever get paid back? I remember when Easley (sleazly) raided it.
The issue I have with this logic is that it does not consider the opportunity cost of this money. Every tax $ handed out by the state came out of somebody's pocket. i.e. the opportunity cost.
If the objective is jobs due to tax incentives (a tax cut) given to one specific industry, then IMO, it's best to cut the tax rates so that all industries get a tax cut. Hence you will get a lot of other jobs. It's the same logic expanded to all business and it removes government from picking the winners and losers. This is exactly what the state government has been doing.
No. It's really not the same. Businesses that are settled here and already have real estate holdings and high numbers of regular, salaried employees are less likely to just up and bail.
Movies are one and done. Can't get incentives to shoot here? Go someplace else and shoot. Spend your money in that state, hire unfilled positions in that state, spend on food, lodging, and gas in that state.
This is like charging regular tourists who spend a fortune to visit a higher price for lodging than all the other states that are desirable destinations. Pretty soon? No tourists, no tourists' dollars.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
The issue I have with this logic is that it does not consider the opportunity cost of this money. Every tax $ handed out by the state came out of somebody's pocket. i.e. the opportunity cost.
If the objective is jobs due to tax incentives (a tax cut) given to one specific industry, then IMO, it's best to cut the tax rates so that all industries get a tax cut. Hence you will get a lot of other jobs. It's the same logic expanded to all business and it removes government from picking the winners and losers. This is exactly what the state government has been doing.
Here's the problem with that logic. The deals worked out with states vary. Sometimes they pay a lower rate after taking discounts depending on what they did in the state. In other states they pay the taxes then file forms & get a rebate. In either case the state makes money, jobs are provided, & no money comes out of the tax payers' pockets.
Eliminating this is costing jobs. Very good paying jobs. All this from the jobs, jobs, jobs people.
....
Eliminating this is costing jobs. Very good paying jobs. All this from the jobs, jobs, jobs people.
This has been stated, but not proven. In fact there have been no studies performed on the net effect of the state taking money out of the NC economy, and handing it to one specific industry.
No. It's really not the same. Businesses that are settled here and already have real estate holdings and high numbers of regular, salaried employees are less likely to just up and bail. .....
Then I would say that it's best for NC to focus on bringing this sort of industry to NC. A general tax cut does this.
No industry is entitled to permanent corporate welfare.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
This has been stated, but not proven. In fact there have been no studies performed on the net effect of the state taking money out of the NC economy, and handing it to one specific industry.
Is Homeland in Charlotte any more? The industry is withdrawing from NC just as it did in NJ when Christie killed the tax break there. Bye-bye jobs.
Is Homeland in Charlotte any more? The industry is withdrawing from NC just as it did in NJ when Christie killed the tax break there. Bye-bye jobs.
Well, to be fair, the fourth season of Homeland will be taking place in the Middle East, not the DC area. Production is moving to South Africa, not Georgia or Louisiana, as would probably be the case otherwise.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,718,665 times
Reputation: 41376
From my relatives who live there in NC, seems the answer is yes. A real shame too. I like NC but with that village idiot running things, I'd never move there. I've had two very pedestrian mediocre Democratic governors in Steve Beshear in KY and Terry McAulife in VA, I feel lucky for that and I wasn't stuck with McGrory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.