• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This article is awful for 3 reasons. Unfortunately each reason is one of the main hot takes the article tries and there is nothing redeeming otherwise - so maybe four reasons if you wanna get meta

    1: Tyler Perry being decently-successful in media does not mean he owes people anything. More to the point, it is impossible to quantify what one person’s success means to another. Even if they announce it at a speech, you’ve got no way to show a casual pattern.

    2: It lumps in every tax break but completely ignores the localized benefits of those tax breaks. Georgia offers tax breaks to films because it makes them money.

    The industry in Georgia was boosted substantially by tax incentives introduced in 2002 and strengthened in 2008. Just in the fiscal year 2017 film and TV production had an economic impact in Georgia of $9.5 billion, while industry sources claim that the tax subsidy costs the state $141 million (2010). (Wikipedia)

    3: Perry, per the article’s own admission, is giving substantially to the community in terms of pure charity

    Perry earned plenty of glowing national headlines earlier this year for his philanthropy in donating $750,000 to help low-income seniors in Atlanta as property taxes increased.

    Doesn’t really make sense to paint him as the bad guy here by any of the angles the article tries to take.

    I don’t even care for Perry much, but this article is just misleading crap.