Comments on: Advocacy Group Targets Film Tax Credits

By: sono resident

sono resident — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:35:18 +0000

I really can’t say much about Ct. Voices for Children, my only info is from your posting and their website. I gather that you (Turfgirl) do not hold a high opinion of them, other than the criticism of the movie industry subsidies, I don’t know why and would be interested to find out. I should note that Quebec is a government with enormous resources and power, while Ct Voices is an advocacy group. I would hope that Ct. Voices reads the article about Quebec and lobbies for programs like it. I am impressed with your french;), however, I am reluctant to support simply gaining business by offering tax subsidies for businesses to relocate to this State, that’s simply a way for corporate giveaways. Investing in the State through infrastructure improvements tends to be the means to long term economic success.

By: Secondhand Rose

Secondhand Rose — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:28:28 +0000

Before one can get a job, one needs to have an education. So maybe the focus should be not on giving handouts to these poverty-stricken adults, but give them education so they can upgrade their job skills and move into higher pay brackets.

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:55:01 +0000

sono resident: In the same time period CT Voices for Children has not reduced child poverty while Quebec has. All CT Voices for Children has managed to do is lobby for more state money for “advocacy” instead of actually doing something to reduce Adult poverty. The argument they make about the film tax credits, proves that they are incapable of understanding let alone analyzing the economics. There are benefits in government investing in industry. When you have a state that operates on personal property and income taxes, a declining population, an aging population, a declining business population all indicate that future tax revenues will also decline, as they already have. Young people are leaving the state, not staying or even relocating here. Without an increasing workforce, generating tax revenue, Connecticut will end up with larger populations of poor people and no way to address budget shortfalls.

By: sono resident

sono resident — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:59:20 +0000

We seem like we’re on the same page, except I don’t see how CT Voices for Children, which I know little about, other than the article you have here should be denigrated. I suspect they would like to see the Canadian program you cite here implemented in Ct.. My problem is w/subsidizing some industries simply to bring jobs here, it often leads to lowest common denominator thinking. People need jobs but that shouldn’t be simply at the cost of NY, since we’ll end up competing w/one another and just bringing both economies down.

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:07:48 +0000

sono resident: It's not that I think anyone is getting rich as an advocacy group. It's that that advocacy groups tend to self perpetuate their existence, and there's a cost to that. It's the classic "let's keep throwing money at a problem" instead of addressing the causation and measuring the success of programs designed to solve the problem. I'm all for reducing and eliminating child poverty. But creating more child poverty advocates isn't going to do it. A real accountable solution would be addressing chid care reform, subsidizing child day care, for working families who meet a variety of criteria, not just income levels. An example, the province of Quebec instituted subsidized universal day care. All kids, all income levels. A study, 11 years after the fact has concluded that the adult poverty rate has been reduced by 50%, there's been a 30% increase of women entering the workforce, and 40% of the money spent on this program come from taxes generated by the increased workforce. Not bad, eh? The link here is to the French coverage. The program was put in place because 60% of single women with children were in poor. After 7 years of the program that number fell to 30%. The program is so successful it started with 220,000 children under 4 at a cost of 290 million, to now covering all children at a cost of 1.7 billion. Instead we get advocates pimp early learning programs, after school learning programs, legislative lobbying, instead of focusing on easing the cost of child care. I'd rather socialize costs of daycare instead of throwing money away in educational programs that haven't worked in 20 years or advocacy groups that churn out lame economic arguments because they fail to address workforce infrastructure.

By: sono resident

sono resident — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:10:08 +0000

I understand what you’re saying turfgirl, but I do not like State’s competing for business by giving tax breaks for a few. Economically it leads to all kinds of externalities, especially favoring some industries over others. UBS in Stamford received tax breaks of over $60k a job, and while it did bring jobs to Ct, more than one NY firm used it to simply leverage tax breaks for them, and in some cases Ct. actually lost jobs. Firms should come to Ct. because we offer a well-educated workforce with strong infrastructure and a stable environment, not because we pay them to move their jobs here, that’s the equivalent of the dreaded word “socialism”. As for lobby groups helping poor children, I doubt anyone’s getting rich. And it was just a few years ago that data showed that for every $8.00 of tax money going to a Sr. Citizen, $1.00 goes to benefit a child. Most of our government debt is due to Social Security and Medicare for the aged. The most powerful lobby group in D.C. is AARP.

By: Retired Yes

Retired Yes — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:50:49 +0000

they look for a magic wand for the children.
families need to work and jobs is key.

expanding innovative markets for jobs is the big deal.

wow- are we about to shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting out these made to order, and just how long has this petri dish been growing? who evaluated the growth?

By: meridenite

meridenite — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:53:09 +0000

This is just one of hundreds of orgs that lobby for money and why we are billions in debt.