An Aug. 23 op-ed from the Carolina Film Alliance regarding film incentives cited two outdated, noncomparable studies and muddled some very important facts that require explanation.
My study used tax revenues to measure the impact of the cash subsidies to the film industry. I calculated that for every $1 of subsidy, the state government would receive 19 cents in tax revenue.
The op-ed writer also cited a USC study that measured economic impacts in a very broad sense and did not consider fiscal impacts to the state budget. That study reasonably concluded that $1 transferred from the general revenue fund generated a $1.30 impact for wage rebates and a $3.68 impact for supplier rebates. The return, however, is not to the general revenue fund.
Using those results and assuming the entire amount is taxable, you also would conclude that cash subsidies to the film industry is a losing proposition for the general fund.
In 2011, the S.C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism commissioned a study that found the following fiscal impact: For every $100 spent on rebates, $31 came back in the form of taxes, a net loss as is the case with many other state film incentive programs.
The study also found that every $100 in total rebates generated $410 in total economic output (i.e., sales at state businesses) and $230 in wages to South Carolina residents.
NRA and stolen guns
The Aug. 20 Post and Courier article on guns stolen from unlocked vehicles presents an opportunity for the NRA to garner public support through a letter acknowledging the irresponsibility and poor judgment of gun owners whose weapons were stolen.
It’s an opportunity to shine a positive light on the NRA while holding steadfast to Second Amendment rights. Leaders merely need to say the NRA has historically taught and supported gun safety, and that gun owners are responsible for the safe handling and security of their firearms.
Of course, they also could propose some consequences for negligent gun owners. Here are a few suggestions:
Negligent gun owners could be fined and, if licensed to hunt, could have their license suspended briefly. Neither penalty would be severe but bothersome enough to make offenders think twice about leaving guns in unlocked vehicles.
If not, impose a stiffer penalty such as one that would affect the renewal of a driver’s license or the cost of car insurance. These penalties do not infringe on the Second Amendment.
No responsible gun owner should attempt to defend individuals whose recklessness and disregard have put the public in danger by enabling criminals to steal guns.
I support the right to bear arms and also support common sense. If the NRA’s leadership has any, they will send that letter.
Marsh Harbor Drive
Challenges for progeny
If urban sprawl or the fires in Brazil do not concern you, think about the challenges our children and grandchildren will face:
I make these suggestions for people to support and act upon:
1. Plant trees.
2. Build cities and towns up, not out.
3. Create easements.
4. Be aware of the horrors of global warming and flooding.
North Adgers Wharf
Economics and tariffs
President Donald Trump continues to illustrate his ignorance about basic economics.
The president may be savvy when it comes to real estate, but his understanding of economics is rather mind-numbing.
He continues to impose tariffs on our trading partners. This is an act that virtually all economists know is a self-inflicted wound.
Please, Mr. President, listen to your advisers. The country is depending on you.
Palmetto Walk Drive
It is high time to sue Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter and any other corporation that is obviously breaking laws against operating a monopoly.
Whenever a company controls the vast majority of an industry, it is a monopoly. In 1984, the federal government broke up AT&T because it had a monopoly on the telephone industry.
What is stopping the government from going after Big Tech on our behalf?
In the interest of fairness and to further the cause of reparations, I suggest turning half of all those companies over to thousands of minority families, chosen by a bi-partisan committee of legislators.
Cooper River Drive