Posted on 03/30/2011 6:42:33 AM PDT by Anamnesis
Well done!
So, if the production company that filmed the reality show got a $1.2 million tax credit, then that means that it spent at least $4 million in production costs in the state of Alaska, which generated tax revenues and other income in the state. Sounds like the incentive program worked.
Thanks to you both for your kind words.
That's game, set, match for me right there.
I’m relaxed; I’m just pointing out the difference between a tax credit and a direct subsidy for people who don’t understand where tax revenues come from in the fist place and whose money it really is.
I fail to see the problem. A basic conservative prinicple is that tax cuts spur the economy increasing overal revenue. This is a tax cut that benefits Alaska’s economy increasing overall revenue. There must be an error in the title since no real conservative would fault Palin for signing the legislation or for a company to make use of the credit.
I fail to see the problem. A basic conservative prinicple is that tax cuts spur the economy increasing overal revenue. This is a tax cut that benefits Alaska’s economy increasing overall revenue. There must be an error in the title since no real conservative would fault Palin for signing the legislation or for a company to make use of the credit.
If the tax credit ends up bringing more money to the state than it cost then what’s the problem?
Try telling that to the APB “conservatives”. Their logic and reason flies out the window when they see any chance to score a hit against her.
It’s too bad for them that she fights back instead of rolling over.
A 30% tax credit is modest when it comes to these give-away programs, but if you don’t like it - tell it to the Alaska Legislature. They’re the ones that enacted the law.
It’s not like Sarah Palin was going to film her program about Alaska in North Dakota, after all. The subsidy was totally unnecessary, and similar programs have proven to be completely ineffective everywhere they’ve been tried.
But it’s the legislatures fault - not Palin’s.
Peter Suderman of the libertarian Reason Magazine cracked: “In 2008, Sarah Palin, then the Governor of Alaska, signed a special tax credit for filmmakers into law. … Who’s benefiting from that tax subsidy now? … none other than Sarah Palin.”
Probably a Paul supporter.
In 2010 Alaska took in more than $200 million in tax revenue from the tourist industry, plus another $1 billion in tourist-generated business. The tourist industry supports more than 30,000 jobs. So it’s quite possible - likely even - that the $1.2 million to Palin’s producers will generate much more revenue than it cost. That’s why the program exists.
This is proof that lowering taxes generates wealth.
And of course the left are complaining about it.
A lot of states issue tax credits to get business into their state. The film industry is no different. The states that have them, get films shot in their state.
This is just more of the same ol same ol from the ankle biters.
More incoming from FAUX Conservatives.
Someone's got to stir the pot. :)
If there is any doubt concerning her statement, please be advised that some of the Alaska scenes from “The Guardian” were filmed at the Coast Guard air station in Elizabeth City, NC. They actually shipped in snow for scenes.
Boy, the ‘good ol’ boys club’ really fear that woman.
Oh now, when it comes to stirring the pot, I'm cookin' with gas.
FWIW, I used to get under pissant's skin back in 2008 when he was stumping for Duncan "0.05%" Hunter, too,
Any filmmaker who DOESN’T take advantage of state tax credits is a fool, and a poor businessman. You don’t like ‘em? End ‘em. Just like the home mortgage deduction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.