@artrogue - I agree. I hate crony capitalism nearly as much as communism & socialism. There should be NO gubment bailouts or "too big to fail". I'm against ALL subsidies of ANY kind. Farm, corporate, or social. I'm in favor of term limits and a low flat tax with zero deductions or a small national sales tax. Both can easily be created in ways to not hurt people in the lowest 1/3 or 1/4 but EVERYONE needs to have a bit of skin in the game.
This is one time i have to agree with Mat. sort of..in a round about way..
ON a Federal level..: Crony capitalists, among whom are Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, General Motors and Chrysler. These and many other companies, through the thousands of Washington lobbyists they hire, are able to get Congress to shortcut market forces.
Free market capitalism is unforgiving. In order to earn a profit and stay in business, producers must please customers and wisely use resources to do so. If they fail to do this, they face losses or go bankrupt.
It’s this market discipline of profits and losses that many businesses seek to avoid. That’s why they descend upon Washington calling for government bailouts, subsidies and special privileges. Many businessmen wish not to be held strictly accountable to consumers and stockholders, who hold little sympathy for economic blunders and will give them the ax on a moment’s notice.
With a campaign contribution here and a gift there, they get Congress and the White House to act against the best interests of consumers and investors.
On the state level...when it comes to the film industry, i just don't see the numbers being worth the investment of our tax dollars or tax breaks.
At least since 1981, I've seen people push for film industries to come to South Carolina. The starting of the film program at Trident Tech to fill the many openings that were supposedly coming here and yet ...very few jobs.
Its just a pipe dream.
I hope i'm wrong, but for whatever reason the film industry just doesn't see us the way we see ourselves and there are just so many options for locations.
For the $8-$10 million the subsidy for a network drama like Reckless will run, SC could spend that same amount (if not less) for much more effective and targeted marketing. A show about a sultry law firm in Charleston on CBS isn't going to get anywhere close to 10 million viewers each week. Getting even half of that will be a challenge.
Army Wives collected $13.7 million for its final three seasons and its most viewed episode had less than 4.5 million viewers (many in SC, I suspect).
Further, Reckless happens to take place in SC, but it's not a requirement. Most projects filmed in the incentive states are not set in them. (Dear Jon shot in SC but is set in NC; Nailed takes place in DC etc). Moreover, neither Hawaii or Miami saw the boosts you mention because of those shows. That said, some shows and films have caused film tourism. Cheers for Boston and The Office for Scranton are notable examples.....and both filmed in Hollywood, not those locations. Hence, film tourism does not require the project to shoot in the location, but more that it's set there.
The big picture is more complicated that your "it's great PR" reaction.
@IPY - You know mat and the other libtards are always in favor of any and all subsidies that redistribute wealth by taking it from the haves who through hard work earned it, then giving it to the lazy folks they want to enslave and whose votes they wish to buy. All in the name of pandering and labeling them "victims".
Yet god forbid some greedy corporation or family business get a subsidy that is repaid to the community several times over as an economic stimulus.
They fail to recognize that the subsidies given to Boeing & BMW are repaid many fold via income, property, and sales taxes. Not to mention creating jobs and boosting the image of state & community. Additionally, those subsidies get repaid by all the ancillary and support jobs created by all the contract workers and supply companies moving to be near BMW & Boeing and the jobs they create, which are not based on subsidies and often out number the jobs created by Boeing or BMW.
Adrian H. McDonald,
I have a "big picture" question for you:
How much would it cost the state of South Carolina to film (in HD) some of Charleston's most picturesque locations and then have those "video postcards" aired during prime time viewing hours on network television? How much would it cost the state to show a nationwide television audience of potentially ten million viewers 8 to 10 minutes worth of Charleston scenery on a weekly basis?
I'm guessing more than whatever the state will pay out in subsidies.
Yes, the state is paying taxpayers money (via subsidy) directly to the production, but we taxpayers are getting something very valuable in return - the sort of long term exposure that we could never achieve via traditional tourism marketing strategies.
Location themed television shows generally have a positive impact with regard to tourism revenues for the locations depicted. Hawaii and Miami both saw significant boosts in tourism revenues due to the increased exposure provided by the episodic television shows Hawaii Five-O and Miami Vice.
Reckless has the potential to provide a big boost to tourism in Charleston, if you look at the big picture. I'm glad someone in Columbia figured that out.
I'm confused, Ned Hill. Could you please elucidate your positions for me?
@mat-asswhipe - How much do illegal Messicans, 75% black illegitimacy, Muslims coming here as "refugees", and the 10s of millions that suck off the gubment teat thanks to institutional slavery via 50 years of painfully flawed social welfare programs cost the 50% of hard working tax paying Americans???
If a libtard ever passed an economics class and actually understood the principles it would be a first!!
It's clear some of the people commenting above don't understand that this isn't about productions getting a tax break, it's about a direct cash subsidy. On wages to SC labor, it's 25% cash subsidy on each dollar paid. If Reckless pays $100,000 in wages, then SC cuts them a check for $25,000. If the set decorator spends $100,000 on furniture & props in SC, then the state cuts them a check for $30,000 (30% credit for vendors).
It won't matter if the program supports 6000 or more jobs/taxpayers, because the wages for those jobs will be getting the 25% subsidy. Unless the SC state income tax in 25%, there is NO way the state gets close to breaking even. Worse yet, the state will pay for 20-cents of each $1 paid to non-resident labor--people who don't even live or pay taxes in the state.
Reckless should be the name of the incentive, not the show.
The Grand Douche has spoken... Again. Keep up the good fight Matt... One day you'll be able to say you were whining before it was cool!
I don't think you know what you're talking about. First of all, most people do not know who that star is anyway so that was not very effective to name drop a name that doesn’t mean anything to anyone. Also, the tax incentives cannot be used for individual use. No cast or crew member can use it for their personal shopping. It is a corporate tax incentive that is used to make purchases for the production. So the set buyers, props buyers, costume buyers, production office, etc. can make large purchases to local retail and will have the incentive to continue shopping and thus supporting the local retail in a very large way (they just happen to not have to pay sales taxes). This would not have a negative effect at all to the local companies (that tax money would go to the government anyway). Instead, it is only helping those local retail companies by having increased sales, on a very large scale. And like the person who commented about how Boeing helps our local economy, there is a trickle-down effect and the film incentive bill will only help, not hurt, you and me.
I noticed you did not mention the offsetting fact (particularly in the case of Boeing) that the 6,000 people employed because of those business incentives are paying taxes to the state on their income, paying property taxes to counties when they purchase a home or automobile, and paying sales taxes to the state and municipalities when they purchase groceries and durable goods.
The 6,000 newly employed workers at Boeing are also creating jobs (and more taxpayers) in the other businesses they frequent. The 6,000 workers at Boeing need dry cleaners, house painters, landscapers, Chinese take out, pizza deliveries, furniture, school supplies, day care, insurance, oil changes, new clothes, haircuts, movie tickets, fresh produce, seafood, recreational vehicles, pest control, vodka, beer, and a thousand other things that increase the economic impact of their being here, and being gainfully employed. Adding new jobs and taxpayers ultimately has a snowball effect on the economy as a whole - just ask the people living in the oil patch of North Dakota.
You socialist types are typically economic myopes. You see only the "cost to the state" side of the equation while never perceiving the larger economic picture, wherein the state recovers those initial incentives many times over, and for decades to come. Perhaps you are unable to grasp the concept that "a rising tide lifts all boats".
What a strange dichotomy you progressives champion - on the one hand, you think government should be involved in almost every aspect of our lives, whether it be healthcare, the environment, our diet or our faith, the government has a central role, but when it comes to spurring private economic development, well, it's just an outrage that the government would use taxpayer money to do something which ultimately benefits all taxpayers.
I doesn't matter how many times the invisible hand smacks you upside the head - you simply will not ever understand basic economic principles.
X--tortion...it's everywhere. http://www.landofthisguy.com/?comic=projec…
M Catastrophe should just change the title of his column to "Trolling the Libertarians"
These companies you see advertising all sorts of medical products (catheters, diabetic supplies, ED products, scooters, etc.) on TV are making money hand over fist and every penny is coming from the 50% paying taxes!
Here's how it works ... They charge Medicare patients the $100 annual deductible, I think $0 for Medicaid, and say they require the client 20% co-pay, but most waive that under the guise of a "hardship" waiver. They then pocket the Medicare allowable. People paying the extra 20% are suckers and that's more profit to the supply company. If you call them and say you want to pay cash they refer you to another company. You call that company and get quoted a significantly lower cash price. This other company is owned by the same people, but they keep cash transactions separate from insurance so they don't get caught charging far less to the cash customers. The Medicare allowable is much more than the cash price, which also has a huge profit margin. There is no telling how much profit they are making on insurance based transactions. It's absolutely obscene I'm sure!!
The scooters you see on TV cost $40 to $60k each. A basic wheelchair can easily cost $2 to $5k. Yet you can but a luxury car for under $40k and a bicycle for $100.
Why are scooters & wheelchairs so expensive? Medicare, Medcaid, & other forms of insurance. Get the gubment out of medical & insurance transactions and the cost of these items would be pennies on the dollar compared to current costs.
Wanna know why the SEC never catches big Wall Street banks breaking the law? They don't want to. Go work for the SEC for 5 years then parlay that into a cushy high 6 figure salary at Goldman Sachs.
The bigger, more far reaching, and intrusive gubment is, the more opportunity there is for corruption and easier it is to get away with it.
When the banking crisis happened guess who was a high ranking executive at FannieMae? Barney Franks boyfriend!! And Frank was chairman of the powerful Banking Committee, which has oversight of the GSE's like Fannie & Freddie. And Frank constantly cried foul for years as the Bush administration warned of a coming banking & housing collapse. Then the Dems blamed Bush!!
Good points Ned. I think it is important to point out that the P&C article was specifically referencing what hospitals bill Medicare. No mention of it, but I assume it is the same for Medicaid, which is free medical care for the professional poor.
For reference regarding Trident Medical being crooks, let me share my experience. Last summer my collar bone was broken in an accident in Mt Pleasant. The emergency room visit ending up costing me $2,300, and here's the rub. It was a bad break which required surgery, so they did nothing. Understandable, but that kind of money seems like a lot for a doctor spending less than 10 minutes on me and providing a recommendation.
So my private practice ortho specialist normally preforms surgeries at the Trident East Cooper facility. His bill for the surgery was slightly under 2k, the anesthesiologist charged $750. Both reasonable prices.
The price Trident wished to charge me for JUST the room for a 2 hour outpatient surgery?...15,300$ !!! Is it just me or does that seem a bit extreme?
If I were on medicare or medicaid that ridiculous bill would have gone directly to the taxpayers.
Most rational people also consider a house, a car, food, clothes, and other items necessities that we need every day, unlike healthcare, which for most is rarely used at all. Yet no one is telling the providers of those other necessities what they can and can not charge.
Healthcare is expensive because the gubment has been screwing with insurance for decades. Same with college tuition. Anytime the gubment gets involved, prices skyrocket. Back in the day - pre-1990s - health insurance was largely used for hospital stays and major emergencies. Typical doctor visits were paid via cash out of pocket. Prices started skyrocketing when insurance started being used to cover everything, including preventative care. Same with dental care & eye glasses. They were much cheaper before insurance got involved.
Once someone else starts paying the bills customers stop caring how much it costs. There is no more market incentive to help hold prices down.
Same with college costs. As soon as loads of easily obtainable, low interest student loans from the gubment became available college tuition skyrocketed. My entire 4 years at Clemson (1984-1988) - tuition, room, board, books - EVERYTHING - cost around $20,000. Today one year at Clemson as an in-state student costs more than my 4 years!!! That's 400+% inflation in only 25 years! That's insane.
I had many friends work their way through school, but that's nearly impossible now! My 1st car was a (new) Nissan Stanza bought in 1983, one year before I went to college. It cost a little over $10,000. Today you can but many cars far nicer than my '83 Stanza for not much more than $10,000. Yet college tuition has gone up in less time over 400%. Again - INSANE!! Why? Because the gubment is subsidizing it. Same as medical insurance. Yet basic cars have gotten far better, far safer, much more technically advanced yet only moderately more expensive.
The surest way to create asinine inflation is with government subsidies. The gubment isn't helping anyone with subsidies of ANY kind!! Subsidies hurt infinitely more than they help and they come with higher taxes and huge gubment bureaucracies to manage them. And once start become almost impossible to end.
Once again, it's the gubment "saying" they want to "help" but all it does is expand the size, scope, cost, and influence of gubment while taking more money out the pockets of hard working folks. The ONLY winner is gubment and supporters of more & bigger gubment!!
Want healthcare costs to drop and service/quality to go up? Go back to cash for services rendered for MOST medical expenses and return insurance to its intended purpose - hospital, emergency, major medical, & catastrophic care!!
Yeah, Thomas, and the resultant end-quality would be proportionally the same as with home repairs - in many cases shoddy and unacceptable. The real problem with the CMS survey was the sample they used, Medicare patients, and comparing for-profits to non-profits that must also take all indigents. And to Mat- my hero, Sam Clemens said 3 kinds of liars: liars, damned liars and statisticians. Your statistic ($55 million profit) means absolutely nothing out of context of their total income. To be fair you would have set that as a percentage of income so one could make a decision as to whether or not they profited more than a fair return on receipts.
If only our health system was as for-profit, unregulated, and relatively free and unencumbered as the home repair industry, healthcare would be abundant and inexpensive, just like home repairs.
The profit motive also provides motivation for better quality in a competitive environment. Government subsidized Non-profit hospitals and government run hospitals sometimes function at a bare minimum level of quality because they can.
If hospitals and doctors who seek to make money by providing care bother you, make a mental note to avoid them in the future. If enough people did that they might lower their fees or just go out of business.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper