This weekend, DreamWorks Animation's Puss in Boots clawed to the top spot in the theatres, selling $34 million in tickets. The story follows Antonio Banderas's animated gato as he and his friends hunt for magic beans, grow a beanstalk to the sky, and make off with the goose that lays the golden eggs. (It's OK, your kids will follow it just fine.)
Meanwhile, here in the real world, the 2012 election is picking up steam. Federal spending has reached $3.7 trillion. But the politicians in charge of spending all that money are having no luck finding magic beans, let alone golden eggs. It looks like we're going to have to stick with plain old taxes. And of course the candidates have dramatically different visions of how to raise those taxes.
President Obama remains committed to our progressive tax system, where taxpayers with more beans pay a higher percentage of their income. Obama has proposed a new surtax for those earning over a million beans a year. And he's endorsed all sorts of targeted tax breaks for specific purposes, such as higher education, new homes, and even new cars.
Obama's Republican opponents, in contrast, lean towards broader, flatter taxes, with fewer deductions or credits and lower rates:
•Former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain has vaulted to the top of the polls with his catchy "9-9-9" plan, which would scrap the current 3-million word Tax Code for a 9% tax on personal income (minus charitable contributions), a 9% tax on business income, and a 9% national sales tax.
•Texas Governor Rick Perry would let taxpayers choose an optional 20% flat tax on earned income. Perry's plan also raises the personal exemption to $12,500 and preserves deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable gifts for families earning up to $500,000.
•Libertarian Ron Paul would repeal the income tax entirely. (It doesn't get much flatter than that!)
•Even "establishment" candidate Mitt Romney has said "I love a flat tax" and proposed to eliminate tax on capital gains, interest, and dividends for those earning less than $200,000.
Realistically, even if Republicans retake the White House, we're not likely to see a true flat tax. Remember, it's Congress that actually makes the laws. And right now, the Democrats and Republicans who run things on Capitol Hill can't seem to agree on naming a post office — let alone remaking the Tax Code that powers government spending.
As for us, our job is to help you pay the legal minimum regardless of how the Tax Code works. We've told you before that planning is the key to keeping your magic beans — and that's still true even under the Republican flat-tax proposals. So why wait for the election when you can start cutting your tax now? Call us — before December 31 — to discover what we can do now!
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
What Do Accountants Think?
Americans love quizzes, surveys and polls. We love taking them, and we love seeing the results. Where would Nielsen be without his ratings? Who would Gallup be without his poll? Who would read Cosmo without their quizzes? So in the midst of all this polling, we felt sure you'd want to know what a bunch of accountants think of various tax topics. Every few weeks, Accounting Today magazine polls visitors to their web site — and the results just might surprise you!
•Does the Tax Code need to be simplified? Tax pros make their living managing complexity for clients. If taxes were easy, who would need us to prepare them? So you might expect us to want to keep the current system. But fully 72% disagreed, saying the Code should be simplified. Just 19% voted to keep the system that former President Jimmy Carter described as "a disgrace to the human race," and 9% said "not sure."
•Should Congress raise taxes to help close the budget deficit? If taxes go up, more clients come looking for ways to keep them down. So you might think accountants want taxes going up. But once again, you might be surprised. Just 40% said Congress should raise taxes, 59% said no, and 1% weren't sure. (Maybe we don't want to see our own taxes go up any more than we want to see yours?)
•Should Congress approve legislation to require online retailers to collect sales taxes? Web retailers like Amazon.com save billions by avoiding most state and local sales taxes, and this lets them undercut local brick 'n' mortar retailers. Requiring "e-tailers" to collect sales taxes would level the playing field. But it would also create mountains of new paperwork, and thousands of new jobs. Surprisingly, site visitors are evenly split on this question, with 50% voting "yes" and 50% voting "no."
•Do you think Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan for a 9% individual, business, and sales tax would be viable? Former Godfather's Pizza CEO and presidential hopeful Herman Cain has taken a surprising lead atop Republican polls with his radical "9-9-9" plan. But just 17% of Accounting Today's visitors think "the Hermanator's" plan might actually work. 75% think not, and 8% aren't sure.
•Were your clients' finances generally in better shape this tax season compared to last tax season? You can't turn on the news without hearing about the stalling economy. But maybe things are starting to turn around — 55% said their clients were in better shape this season, while 45% disagreed.
Pretty exciting stuff, right? Seriously, who cares what People magazine readers think about Lindsay Lohan's latest arrest when you can see who accountants voted their favorite movie CPA! (For the record, 25% picked Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern in Schindler's List, followed by 18% for Rick Moranis as Louis Tully in Ghostbusters.)
We'll let you guess how you think we would have answered those questions. But there's one area where we're in a distinct minority — and we put it to your advantage. Most accountants do a fine job putting the right numbers in the right boxes on the right forms, and get them filed by the right deadlines. But then they call it a day. At our firm, we don't just record history. We help you write it, with a proactive attitude that takes advantage of every legal deduction, credit, strategy, and concept. We know that planning is the key to minimizing your taxes. So call us when you're ready for your plan!
•Does the Tax Code need to be simplified? Tax pros make their living managing complexity for clients. If taxes were easy, who would need us to prepare them? So you might expect us to want to keep the current system. But fully 72% disagreed, saying the Code should be simplified. Just 19% voted to keep the system that former President Jimmy Carter described as "a disgrace to the human race," and 9% said "not sure."
•Should Congress raise taxes to help close the budget deficit? If taxes go up, more clients come looking for ways to keep them down. So you might think accountants want taxes going up. But once again, you might be surprised. Just 40% said Congress should raise taxes, 59% said no, and 1% weren't sure. (Maybe we don't want to see our own taxes go up any more than we want to see yours?)
•Should Congress approve legislation to require online retailers to collect sales taxes? Web retailers like Amazon.com save billions by avoiding most state and local sales taxes, and this lets them undercut local brick 'n' mortar retailers. Requiring "e-tailers" to collect sales taxes would level the playing field. But it would also create mountains of new paperwork, and thousands of new jobs. Surprisingly, site visitors are evenly split on this question, with 50% voting "yes" and 50% voting "no."
•Do you think Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan for a 9% individual, business, and sales tax would be viable? Former Godfather's Pizza CEO and presidential hopeful Herman Cain has taken a surprising lead atop Republican polls with his radical "9-9-9" plan. But just 17% of Accounting Today's visitors think "the Hermanator's" plan might actually work. 75% think not, and 8% aren't sure.
•Were your clients' finances generally in better shape this tax season compared to last tax season? You can't turn on the news without hearing about the stalling economy. But maybe things are starting to turn around — 55% said their clients were in better shape this season, while 45% disagreed.
Pretty exciting stuff, right? Seriously, who cares what People magazine readers think about Lindsay Lohan's latest arrest when you can see who accountants voted their favorite movie CPA! (For the record, 25% picked Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern in Schindler's List, followed by 18% for Rick Moranis as Louis Tully in Ghostbusters.)
We'll let you guess how you think we would have answered those questions. But there's one area where we're in a distinct minority — and we put it to your advantage. Most accountants do a fine job putting the right numbers in the right boxes on the right forms, and get them filed by the right deadlines. But then they call it a day. At our firm, we don't just record history. We help you write it, with a proactive attitude that takes advantage of every legal deduction, credit, strategy, and concept. We know that planning is the key to minimizing your taxes. So call us when you're ready for your plan!
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Steve Jobs Legacies
Pancreatic cancer robbed the world of a true genius on October 5, taking Apple founder Steve Jobs at the age of 56. Today's corporate CEOs are rarely shy about promoting themselves, but Jobs has been legitimately compared to Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. His Apple Corporation changed our relationship with technology. Apple's original Macintosh popularized the PC mouse and changed the way we interact with computers. Pixar Studios set a new standard in film animation. Apple's iPod changed the way we listen to music. And Apple's iPhone, love it or hate it, has changed how millions of us communicate with family, friends, and colleagues.
Here are two more tangible measures of Jobs's success:
1.On July 28, Apple Corporation had more cash on hand ($76.2 billion) than the United States government ($73.8 billion).
2.Just two weeks later, on August 8, Apple briefly surpassed ExxonMobil as the most valuable corporation in the world.
What's next — more money than God?
Well, at least some smart tax planning. Jobs was obviously as shrewd about business as he was smart about technology. His net worth, which reached as high as $8.3 billion ranked him #39 on the 2010 Forbes 400 list of the country's richest people and #110 on their list of the world's billionaires. Not bad for a college dropout! Ironically, the bulk of his fortune came from Disney stock he received for selling Pixar in 2006 — Jobs was Disney's largest shareholder and owned 7.4% of the company, with a stake worth more than $4.4 billion. (Does it surprise you to hear that a stock-for-stock deal let him defer tax on the gain until selling the Disney shares?)
Jobs acquired most of his Apple stock in 2006 as well, when it was trading at $64.66/share and was worth $325 million. Since then it has grown six-fold, to $2 billion. If Jobs had sold it before his death, he would have owed tax of 15% on the capital gain. But by holding it until his death, he lets his heirs inherit it with a "stepped-up basis." That means they could sell it immediately and pay no capital gain on the growth during his lifetime. If they sell down the road, they'll owe tax only on the growth from the date of his death.
Of course, his estate may also be subject to estate tax. Congress dropped the ball and let that tax expire entirely in 2010 before bringing it back, for this year and next, at a flat 35% on estates over $5 million. However, just as Jobs deferred income tax on the sale of his Pixar stock, his estate can defer estate tax on any amounts left to his wife.
Jobs's estate can also avoid tax on any amounts left to charity. High-profile billionaires like Jobs typically take up philanthropy after they make their pile. Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Berkshire Hathaway founder Warren Buffett, for example, have led the way in pledging to give away the bulk of their fortunes and even established the "Giving Pledge" to persuade their fellow wealthy elites to give away at least half of their fortunes. Jobs left little hint of any charitable intentions, and in fact, Apple Corporation doesn't even match employees' gifts! But Jobs is rumored to be the source of an anonymous $150 million donation to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco. And his wife Laurene sits on several prominent boards, including Teach for America.
We realize that you don't enjoy quite the same fortune that Steve Jobs did! But the same strategies that let Jobs maximize his wealth and legacy can help you maximize your wealth and legacy too. The key, as always, is planning. So call us when you're ready for a plan!
Here are two more tangible measures of Jobs's success:
1.On July 28, Apple Corporation had more cash on hand ($76.2 billion) than the United States government ($73.8 billion).
2.Just two weeks later, on August 8, Apple briefly surpassed ExxonMobil as the most valuable corporation in the world.
What's next — more money than God?
Well, at least some smart tax planning. Jobs was obviously as shrewd about business as he was smart about technology. His net worth, which reached as high as $8.3 billion ranked him #39 on the 2010 Forbes 400 list of the country's richest people and #110 on their list of the world's billionaires. Not bad for a college dropout! Ironically, the bulk of his fortune came from Disney stock he received for selling Pixar in 2006 — Jobs was Disney's largest shareholder and owned 7.4% of the company, with a stake worth more than $4.4 billion. (Does it surprise you to hear that a stock-for-stock deal let him defer tax on the gain until selling the Disney shares?)
Jobs acquired most of his Apple stock in 2006 as well, when it was trading at $64.66/share and was worth $325 million. Since then it has grown six-fold, to $2 billion. If Jobs had sold it before his death, he would have owed tax of 15% on the capital gain. But by holding it until his death, he lets his heirs inherit it with a "stepped-up basis." That means they could sell it immediately and pay no capital gain on the growth during his lifetime. If they sell down the road, they'll owe tax only on the growth from the date of his death.
Of course, his estate may also be subject to estate tax. Congress dropped the ball and let that tax expire entirely in 2010 before bringing it back, for this year and next, at a flat 35% on estates over $5 million. However, just as Jobs deferred income tax on the sale of his Pixar stock, his estate can defer estate tax on any amounts left to his wife.
Jobs's estate can also avoid tax on any amounts left to charity. High-profile billionaires like Jobs typically take up philanthropy after they make their pile. Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Berkshire Hathaway founder Warren Buffett, for example, have led the way in pledging to give away the bulk of their fortunes and even established the "Giving Pledge" to persuade their fellow wealthy elites to give away at least half of their fortunes. Jobs left little hint of any charitable intentions, and in fact, Apple Corporation doesn't even match employees' gifts! But Jobs is rumored to be the source of an anonymous $150 million donation to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco. And his wife Laurene sits on several prominent boards, including Teach for America.
We realize that you don't enjoy quite the same fortune that Steve Jobs did! But the same strategies that let Jobs maximize his wealth and legacy can help you maximize your wealth and legacy too. The key, as always, is planning. So call us when you're ready for a plan!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The More Things Change . . .
This summer's debt-ceiling debate led to creation of a 12-member "Supercommittee," charged with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade. And wouldn't you know, the committee's progress seems to be sticking over taxes instead of spending. Both sides have said they're willing to close loopholes that benefit particular groups of taxpayers. But Democrats generally want to use new revenue to close the deficit, while Republicans generally want to use it to lower overall rates.
This debate over tax loopholes is hardly new. Way back in 1937, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau drafted an 11-page memo for President Franklin Roosevelt revealing some of the perfectly legal "devices which have caused our revenues to be less than they should have been, and some of the taxpayers employing them." And Morgenthau didn't just reveal how his era's bold-face names used proactive planning to avoid taxes. He revealed who, naming names in a way that would delight today's Wikileaks fans! Here are a few cases Morgenthau thought had been taken to an inappropriate extreme:
•Creation of multiple trusts. Mr. Louis Blaustein of Baltimore established 64 different trusts for his wife and three children, saving them $485,257. Merrill Lynch founders Charles Merrill and Edwin Lynch had 40 trust funds and 23 personal holding companies. "They operate a great many numbered brokerage accounts and only at the end of the year identify for whose benefit the account has been operated. In this way innumerable transactions are carried on between the different corporations and trusts which have no effect upon the beneficial interests of Merrill and Lynch, but which are designed to reduce their tax liability very greatly."
•Foreign personal holding corporations. George Westinghouse, Jr. "has a $3 million Bahamas corporation and in an attempt to prevent the Bureau of Internal Revenue from catching up with him, moves his home address from one small hamlet to another each year." Razor king Jacob Schick renounced his citizenship (renouncing his U.S. Army pension in the process), formed Schick Industries in the Bahamas, and transferred to it his stock in his Connecticut company, thereby evading U.S. law imposing a 25% tax on transfers of securities to foreign corporations.
•Incorporated yachts and country places. "Mr. Alfred P. Sloan's yacht is owned by Rene Corporation, one of his personal holding companies, along with $3 million in securities. He rents the yacht from his company and the company uses its income from securities to pay depreciation on the yacht, the wages of the captain and crew, and the expenses of operating the yacht." Wilhelmina Du Pont Ross used a corporation to own her $421,000 country place, saving $20,000 in tax, and even paid her husband a salary for managing it — "she thereby supplies him with pocket money, and in effect secures a deduction for the expense of maintaining him."
•Percentage depletion. Morgenthau attacked the percentage depletion allowance, which lets oil and gas producers deduct part of their income as an allowance that the well will someday run dry. He reports that he had recommended eliminating this break back in 1934, "but nothing was done, presumably because of the heavy pressure from the large oil and mining companies which are profiting immensely" from them. (Sound familiar?)
•Municipal bonds. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. owned over $32 million worth of municipal bonds, while Frederick W. Vanderbilt owned $28.7 million. Morgenthau found wealthy taxpayers gradually increasing their purchases of these tax-free bonds.
Morgenthau's report reveals that legal tax avoidance is nothing new, and sophisticated planners have always worked the Tax Code to their clients' best advantage. All of the strategies he describes were legal back then, and many of them — such as percentage depletion and tax-free municipal bond income — remain legal today. (Is there anyone who seriously proposes eliminating the tax exclusion for municipal bond income?) You may not have the income or assets that Charles Merrill or Frederick Vanderbilt enjoyed. But you have the same right to arrange your affairs so that your taxes are as low as possible. Our job is to help you do just that. And make sure your family, friends, and colleagues know we're here for them, too!
This debate over tax loopholes is hardly new. Way back in 1937, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau drafted an 11-page memo for President Franklin Roosevelt revealing some of the perfectly legal "devices which have caused our revenues to be less than they should have been, and some of the taxpayers employing them." And Morgenthau didn't just reveal how his era's bold-face names used proactive planning to avoid taxes. He revealed who, naming names in a way that would delight today's Wikileaks fans! Here are a few cases Morgenthau thought had been taken to an inappropriate extreme:
•Creation of multiple trusts. Mr. Louis Blaustein of Baltimore established 64 different trusts for his wife and three children, saving them $485,257. Merrill Lynch founders Charles Merrill and Edwin Lynch had 40 trust funds and 23 personal holding companies. "They operate a great many numbered brokerage accounts and only at the end of the year identify for whose benefit the account has been operated. In this way innumerable transactions are carried on between the different corporations and trusts which have no effect upon the beneficial interests of Merrill and Lynch, but which are designed to reduce their tax liability very greatly."
•Foreign personal holding corporations. George Westinghouse, Jr. "has a $3 million Bahamas corporation and in an attempt to prevent the Bureau of Internal Revenue from catching up with him, moves his home address from one small hamlet to another each year." Razor king Jacob Schick renounced his citizenship (renouncing his U.S. Army pension in the process), formed Schick Industries in the Bahamas, and transferred to it his stock in his Connecticut company, thereby evading U.S. law imposing a 25% tax on transfers of securities to foreign corporations.
•Incorporated yachts and country places. "Mr. Alfred P. Sloan's yacht is owned by Rene Corporation, one of his personal holding companies, along with $3 million in securities. He rents the yacht from his company and the company uses its income from securities to pay depreciation on the yacht, the wages of the captain and crew, and the expenses of operating the yacht." Wilhelmina Du Pont Ross used a corporation to own her $421,000 country place, saving $20,000 in tax, and even paid her husband a salary for managing it — "she thereby supplies him with pocket money, and in effect secures a deduction for the expense of maintaining him."
•Percentage depletion. Morgenthau attacked the percentage depletion allowance, which lets oil and gas producers deduct part of their income as an allowance that the well will someday run dry. He reports that he had recommended eliminating this break back in 1934, "but nothing was done, presumably because of the heavy pressure from the large oil and mining companies which are profiting immensely" from them. (Sound familiar?)
•Municipal bonds. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. owned over $32 million worth of municipal bonds, while Frederick W. Vanderbilt owned $28.7 million. Morgenthau found wealthy taxpayers gradually increasing their purchases of these tax-free bonds.
Morgenthau's report reveals that legal tax avoidance is nothing new, and sophisticated planners have always worked the Tax Code to their clients' best advantage. All of the strategies he describes were legal back then, and many of them — such as percentage depletion and tax-free municipal bond income — remain legal today. (Is there anyone who seriously proposes eliminating the tax exclusion for municipal bond income?) You may not have the income or assets that Charles Merrill or Frederick Vanderbilt enjoyed. But you have the same right to arrange your affairs so that your taxes are as low as possible. Our job is to help you do just that. And make sure your family, friends, and colleagues know we're here for them, too!
Monday, October 3, 2011
Shooting Down the "Snooki Subsidy"
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie must feel like the Most Wanted Man in America as his fans clamor for him to join the 2012 presidential race. Some observers say it's too late to mount a credible run, while others worry about positions that might offend the Republican base. A year ago, he flatly ruled it out, declaring "Short of suicide, I don't really know what I'd have to do to convince you people that I'm not running." But since then, he appears to be warming to the idea, and he's expected to announce a final decision shortly.
Politicians usually work overtime to avoid offending anyone. And Republicans rarely meet a tax cut they don't like. So how serious can Christie be if he's willing to alienate the crucial "Guido" voting block — especially if it involves shooting down a tax break? That's right, last week Christie actually vetoed a $420,000 tax credit for producers of MTV's hit Jersey Shore reality show!
Film producers bring jobs, spending, and sometimes even a touch of glamour to the locations they choose. And who doesn't want to share a bit of that Hollywood spotlight? For those reasons, over half of all states now offer film tax credits to encourage in-state movie and television production. (Remember, a tax "credit" is a dollar-for-dollar cut in a taxpayer's actual tax bill, not just a deduction from that taxpayer's income.) New Jersey's program is typical, and gives production companies a credit equal to 20% of qualified expenses so long as they incur 60% of their costs in New Jersey. Fans of these programs argue that subsidized productions actually pay for themselves by creating jobs and increasing tourism. Skeptics respond that film credits just transfer existing jobs from one location to another and that they generate short-term, project-based jobs that leave specialized laborers out of work.
MTV's Jersey Shore premiered in late 2009 and quickly became the network's most-watched series ever. Cast members Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, Mike "The Situation" Sorrentini, Jennifer "JWoww" Farley, and their outrageous, hard-partying housemates have become New Jersey's most famous "family" since The Sopranos. Snooki makes $30,000 per episode now, commands $10,000 for personal appearances, and even rang the bell to open the New York Stock Exchange.
The show's producers reported spending $2.1 million in New Jersey to tape the first season. And officials in Seaside Heights, where the show was first set, agree that it's been a bonanza. That sounds like success, especially in today's tough economy. But not everyone is pleased with how Jersey Shore portrays its subjects. Critics object that it paints New Jerseyites and Italian-Americans as drunken, brawling louts, obsessed with their "GTL" (gym, tanning, and laundry, for those not in-the-know). Ironically, most of the cast isn't even from New Jersey — and not all are Italian, either.
Governor Christie himself has previously blasted the show as "negative for New Jersey" and charges that it "takes a bunch of New Yorkers and drops them at the Jersey Shore and tries to make America feel like this is the real New Jersey." So it came as little surprise when he shot down the tax break. "In this difficult fiscal climate, the taxpayers of New Jersey should not be forced to subsidize such projects as ‘Jersey Shore,’” he wrote in his press release vetoing the credit. “As Chief Executive, I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the State and its citizens.”
So, it looks like Garden State taxpayers won't be subsidizing Snooki's bail the next time she's arrested. What do you think? Is Governor Christie right to stand up for New Jersey pride? Or should he just lighten up, grab a "blast in a glass," and join the fun?
Politicians usually work overtime to avoid offending anyone. And Republicans rarely meet a tax cut they don't like. So how serious can Christie be if he's willing to alienate the crucial "Guido" voting block — especially if it involves shooting down a tax break? That's right, last week Christie actually vetoed a $420,000 tax credit for producers of MTV's hit Jersey Shore reality show!
Film producers bring jobs, spending, and sometimes even a touch of glamour to the locations they choose. And who doesn't want to share a bit of that Hollywood spotlight? For those reasons, over half of all states now offer film tax credits to encourage in-state movie and television production. (Remember, a tax "credit" is a dollar-for-dollar cut in a taxpayer's actual tax bill, not just a deduction from that taxpayer's income.) New Jersey's program is typical, and gives production companies a credit equal to 20% of qualified expenses so long as they incur 60% of their costs in New Jersey. Fans of these programs argue that subsidized productions actually pay for themselves by creating jobs and increasing tourism. Skeptics respond that film credits just transfer existing jobs from one location to another and that they generate short-term, project-based jobs that leave specialized laborers out of work.
MTV's Jersey Shore premiered in late 2009 and quickly became the network's most-watched series ever. Cast members Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, Mike "The Situation" Sorrentini, Jennifer "JWoww" Farley, and their outrageous, hard-partying housemates have become New Jersey's most famous "family" since The Sopranos. Snooki makes $30,000 per episode now, commands $10,000 for personal appearances, and even rang the bell to open the New York Stock Exchange.
The show's producers reported spending $2.1 million in New Jersey to tape the first season. And officials in Seaside Heights, where the show was first set, agree that it's been a bonanza. That sounds like success, especially in today's tough economy. But not everyone is pleased with how Jersey Shore portrays its subjects. Critics object that it paints New Jerseyites and Italian-Americans as drunken, brawling louts, obsessed with their "GTL" (gym, tanning, and laundry, for those not in-the-know). Ironically, most of the cast isn't even from New Jersey — and not all are Italian, either.
Governor Christie himself has previously blasted the show as "negative for New Jersey" and charges that it "takes a bunch of New Yorkers and drops them at the Jersey Shore and tries to make America feel like this is the real New Jersey." So it came as little surprise when he shot down the tax break. "In this difficult fiscal climate, the taxpayers of New Jersey should not be forced to subsidize such projects as ‘Jersey Shore,’” he wrote in his press release vetoing the credit. “As Chief Executive, I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the State and its citizens.”
So, it looks like Garden State taxpayers won't be subsidizing Snooki's bail the next time she's arrested. What do you think? Is Governor Christie right to stand up for New Jersey pride? Or should he just lighten up, grab a "blast in a glass," and join the fun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)