TAX INCENTIVES: FILM AT 11
Contrary to the opinion that more money for education, not lower taxes, is what will make Nevada attractive to companies opening or moving their operations here, Gov. Brian Sandoval, unequivocally, declared this week that offering tax credits to Apple is what persuaded the technology giant to open a facility in Reno/Sparks.
“Nevada and local authorities had to agree to $89 million in county, city and state tax abatements to lure Apple,” reports the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “That would give the company an effective sales tax rate of less than 1 percent.”
“It’s very aggressive,” Gov. Sandoval explained to the paper in an interview. “That’s what we had to do to get them here.” Nevada was reportedly competing for the facility with Oregon and other states.
Well, if tax incentives are what will bring more business to Nevada…then why didn’t the Nevada Legislature last session extend film tax credits to the movie industry?
As it is, Nevada is one of only ten states not to offer any kind of tax incentive to movie and TV producers to get them to film here in Nevada instead of other states. Which seems kinda dumb since we like to think of ourselves as the entertainment capital of the world.
A proposal to establish such an incentive was introduced in the 2011 session, but withered and died on the vine as legislators instead devoted their time and energy to re-imposing some $620 million worth of business-retarding tax hikes.
Now, I’m not passing a value judgment on whether or not tax incentives are good or bad. What I’m saying is that if they’re good for the goose, they should be good for the gander. Meaning if tax incentives are good for Apple, they should be good for Hollywood. Right?
Wire report: “Lab tests detected only marijuana in the system of a Florida man shot while chewing on another man’s face…”
OK, I know smoking pot gives you the munchies, but this is ridiculous!
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“If we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we have to get rid of Obama.” – Mitt Romney
“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives." – Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in their dissent in the ObamaCare decision
“If Congress wants to mandate people to eat right, exercise, say their prayers at night, would it be constitutional if Congress taxes people for not complying?” – Stephen Moore, Political Diary, 6/28/12
“When considering a vote on tax increases, whether by the Legislature or by referendum, one must ask two questions: (1) Do public employee unions still exist in the community with bloated pay and benefits? (2) Does the community still pay ‘prevailing wages’ for all public works projects? If the answer is yes to these two questions, then a ‘no’ vote on tax increases is the logical response.” – Mike Mathews, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6/28/12