Let's look at the idea of Government reducing the tax burden for targeted industries.
I'm a conservative, and even a bit libertarian, although I don't go full-Wookie with their grand plan to hide the nation internationally and zone everyone out on dope. I generally support most libertarian ideas on economics, though, so I look favorably on reducing the tax burden wherever it may be reduced.
The key here is "wherever it may be reduced". Government, in recent decades, "Big Government", has made a habit of never seeing money that didn't need spending, so the expenses of Government are many and growing, and in fact, Federal Government is guaranteed by law to grow at 7% per year (built-in budget increases for all Federal Departments, there's no such thing as Zero-based Budgeting at the Federal level).
So, if the Government has income that can be reduced, we would generally say "reduce it", because we believe, against all reality, that this results in less Government.
When Big Government reduces it's tax demands, there is always a reason. Recently, the State of WA re-instituted some tax breaks for the film industry. Movie producers and their investor-financiers are always looking for ways to cut the cost of producing their films, so, other things being equal, the least-cost location for out-of-studio work always gets their attention. Since film-making is a high-dollar enterprise, big money gets spent "on location". Makes sense that States would want to attract this business, doesn't it?
Nazzofast. It is NOT so simple as just relieving the film-makers of paying most or all of their business income tax in return for them doing their expensive work in the State. Key personnel are sometimes given tax breaks on income taxes (WA doesn't have those), and other incentives that cut into State revenue are generated. In Oregon, a largish office working directly under the Governor, at last report with 30 State-paid staff and/or consultants, exists just for the purpose of attracting film-makers to work in Oregon (where there is a HUGE State income tax).
OK, now armed with how it's done, and the supposed why it's done, we nod our heads and say, "do it".
I don't agree, for two reasons. The first reason is the effect the final product, likely a fiction-based film, has on the society: this type of entertainment dumbs us all down, for the most part. We tend to better accept fiction as life when we get our heads into film. Accepting fiction is the stuff of politician's dreams, because, as you well know if you've read the 3,500 or so posts on these pages, Government and it's leaders operate by baffling us with bullshit, mainly because they couldn't sell us the reality of what they do on their very best day.
The second reason is that these tax-break perks are a form of political corruption. There is almost a market for them, with brokers, and all. A big producer with a $200 million movie to make might well send an emmisary to several states and dicker over the size of the tax breaks to be issued to his firm. The government weenies he dickers with now all get various bennies, better known as corruption. The sleazy relationship thus produced reinforces the film industry's political influence and the politicians' influence over the film industry, neither of which is helpful for the society.
So, all these arrangements need to be conducted out in the open, subject to public scrutiny, but they never are. Instead, we cheer whenever we hear that another film will be created in our State.
If we knew the half of it, we wouldn't be cheering, we'd be crying.
