What caused the income inequality gap that started in the 70's?

Thank you. Only the film report was an independent assessment, the other two are annual or final reports done by the projects themselves. Even the independent report was funded by the program in question. Such reports are notorious for spinning a rosy picture. And the independent Loren Scott report has this vital disclaimer on page ii . . .

An important caveat to inform the reader is that this report attempts to describe the impacts as resulting from the certified Louisiana spending. In reality, when measuring the economic impact of an activity on the state one should only include money actually spent within the state. Measuring the impacts using certified spending means including under the film production section, payments made to talent, directors, producers, and writers---who in most cases do not live in Louisiana and are therefore, unlikely to spend all that money in the state. Thus the state’s return on investment is typically worse for those projects (primarily films) that involve a large proportion of multi-million dollar payments made to non-residents.

To more accurately measure the impact on the state's economy the payments made to these individuals should include only the portion of their salaries spent directly in the state and injected into the I/O table. The data indicate that about 27% of the certified film production spending goes to these individuals, which turns out to be 25.2% of the total certified entertainment spend across all programs. ​

The Baton Rouge paper made a series of articles entitled "Giving away Louisiana" that takes an independent look at tax incentive and refund programs and reaches quite different conclusions.

http://blogs.theadvocate.com/specialreports/2014/12/02/giving-away-louisiana-film-tax-incentives/

http://blogs.theadvocate.com/specia...iving-away-louisiana-fracking-tax-incentives/

http://blogs.theadvocate.com/specia...ing-away-louisiana-industrial-tax-incentives/

http://blogs.theadvocate.com/specialreports/2014/12/05/giving-away-louisiana-inventory-tax-refund/

http://blogs.theadvocate.com/specia...iving-away-louisiana-solar-energy-tax-credit/

 

I have not made your case and you haven't made it either. I still don't think that the accounting of the tax incentives in this state are fair and honest and those advocate articles corroborate it. What constitutes a "catastrophic error" to you?

 

I contend that I don't trust the numbers offered by the programs that run them. You have offered nothing to make me change that opinion.

It does nothing of the kind. It's an expose of waste in tax incentives and credits. First you say that all the Russell newspaper articles have "catastrophic errors", which you still haven't pointed out. And now you say that they support your claims that tax incentives are effective, which they most certainly do not.

Which is exactly my point! I never said that they do not support any economic activity, I say that they bring in less than what was promised and they cost us more than they benefit us.

The Louisiana Office of Economic Development said film incentives ended up costing taxpayers nearly $170 million in 2012 — even after the economic benefits were counted. Why are you defending this?

 

I need not offer evidence to have a suspicion, fool. Your attempt to convince me to believe the reports put out by the programs themselves is failing badly. I can't believe you believe this self-serving annual reports that the scoundrels write, patting themselves on the back. Still waiting for you to point out those "catastrophic errors" in the newspaper reports on the incentive programs that paint a very poor picture of their success.

Mostly part-time jobs with no benefits. When there are no films here, there is no work. One of these guys lives on my block. Good money as a union grip three times a year when there is a film job hiring, and no work at all for the other 6 months. So every time a film hires him, they proudly report it as a new Louisiana job. So the annual report totals it up as three new Louisiana jobs, but it is the same guy getting three short contracts a year and making ends meet only because his girlfriend has a good, permanent job. I do not believe these new movie jobs they report are honest.

And that is not the whole argument against the film incentives. There are tons of jobs that go to Hollywood instead--most of the stars, the executives, most of the technical and CGI work. We get a lot of catering and laborer jobs and a scattering of technical and acting jobs. The biggest problem is that we pay 30% of films total costs nd some of these films are expensive. They are bringing the most expensive films to Louisiana to get the handout. Much of that money is spent on special effects farmed out all over the place via internet.

They were designed to cut existing revenue streams, that is the friggin' problem!

I have a very different idea of what "wild success" is since they cost us a fortune loss of the tax income threaten to bankrupt state government. This is why the legislature is now pulling the plug on subsidizing industry development when there is plenty of private capital out there to do that. The job of the state is to make an attractive environment for industry to bring their people and factories but making effective highways, universities, hospitals and government services. Simply bribing industry to relocate here is corporate welfare, pure and simple.

Then what exactly are you trying to argue? I give up.