Categories
national politics & policies subsidy tax policy

The New Hollywood?

It may be the president’s goofiest idea yet.

His Monday brainstorm was for the federal government to get into the movie business. In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump floated the notion of creating a “Federal Production Incentive to create Entertainment Jobs in America.” So this isn’t exactly a socialist proposal — where the government would seize the means of production and go about making movies — it’s a subsidy proposal: tax breaks; to “benefit ALL of America.”

Trump posts as if he has worked the math out, where the booty the government loses in direct taxation “will be made up tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury’s coffers.”

A familiar rationale. But does it work? Do tax credits incentivize producers so much that taxes downstream of the productions make up for all the bother and paperwork?

Well, no need for theory. States already have such programs.

Tosin Akintola, in his Reason article — “State Film Subsidies Lose Money. Trump Wants To Try the Idea Nationally.” — found that “the film and TV industry in eight states returned between 3 cents and 31 cents for every dollar.” 

Entertainment projects do not create that many jobs.

We used to talk about the states as “laboratories of democracy,” by which we meant “laboratories for policy.”

The point isn’t to take the failed experiments and run them at the federal level, hoping for something different.

Sure, Hollywood is lame. But don’t make Washington the new entertainment capital of the world. It’s doing bad enough as the capital of more serious business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Hollywood, entertainment, Washington DC, democracy, subsidy, tax break

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets tax policy

What Pfizer Pfolks Got

Yesterday, a whole lot of people paid a whole lot of taxes. It was Tax Day — filing day — for most Americans.

Truth is, American workers pay income tax with every paycheck. And they pay other taxes too.

Somehow, though, Pfizer — one of the world’s most profitable companies — did much better than we did. “Drugmakers make big profits in the U.S.,” explains Sydney Lupkin at NPR. “But many pay taxes far below the 21% corporate tax rate. Pfizer’s effective tax rate is so low it’s getting a big refund despite booking $59 billion in revenue.”

Did you get a big refund on top of a huge wage hike? No?

Well, you should lobby Congress more.

Now, Pfizer’s long had a cushy/pushy relationship with the U.S. Government. The company’s had to pay loads of legal penalties for malfeasance, but it’s also received subsidies, immunities, and government-forced clientele — in the rollout of its most famous product. But through thick and thin it faces our byzantine tax code with ease, for it’s that tax complexity that really gives Big Pharma the advantage, compared to smaller companies.

I have never argued for more taxes. I wonder if corporations should even be taxed based on income, which gets complicated to figure since it’s based on profits and losses and investments etc., thus opening the door to corrupt insider politics. Plus, those taxes simply get passed on to us. 

But if corporations are taxed, how indecent that small companies tend not to get huge refunds on years in which they make stellar returns.

Though I suppose if Congress keeps on awarding more to the bigger, that’s a problem that sort of solves itself. 

With the smaller companies just dying out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Picfinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets local leaders porkbarrel politics tax policy too much government

Selling Us Out

Last week, Maryland’s Legislature enacted an $8.5 billion package of tax breaks and infrastructure improvements to lure Amazon into building its second corporate headquarters in Montgomery County, Maryland, bordering Washington, D.C.

State Senator Roger Manno, the only legislator from the county to vote against the subsidy, dubbed it “a $5 billion tax break for the richest man in the world. . . .”*

Today, the Montgomery County Council will consider a further proposal to streamline its zoning process, cutting in half the time the county takes to review a proposed development.

“We are trying to make sure our processes are consistent with everybody else,” County Executive Ike Leggett explained, adding that the county now “sometimes takes 100 to 120 days, while many other jurisdictions are much less than that.”

Did Leggett say “consistent with everybody else”? Well, the new zoning rules won’t apply to every business, just those planning to hire 25,000 workers. Or more.

“It’s neutral to the employer,” County Council President Hans Riemer slyly suggested. “It’s a proposal that would allow any really large employer to come in and build under certain terms.”

But only Amazon would be large enough.

“Really what it does is it creates predictability, reliability,” offered Riemer. But wouldn’t every other business also benefit from “predictability” and “reliability”?

“I think the Amazon proposal made the county realize . . . that it needed to look at some of its practices and where it has been criticized,” noted Bob Buchanan, chairman of the Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation. “We were more process versus results.”

And the county intends to remain that way . . . for “every” current business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* He was referring, of course, to Amazon founder and owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos.


PDF for printing