You Can’t Spell “Wealth” Without “O”

Every personal finance blogger's favorite baseball team

Every personal finance blogger’s favorite baseball team

 

Sports analogy time!

Adopting the logic of most people who dispense personal finance advice, the Kansas City Royals are the standard to which all other American League baseball teams should aspire. They’ve set an example that the rest of the league, indeed the rest of the world, can only look at with awe.

Why?

The standings don’t bear that out. The Royals have the 9th-best record in a 15-team league. They’re in 3rd place in the Central Division, 7 games back of Detroit. The Royals are also 4 1/2 games behind Texas in the wildcard race, with 4 other teams between them. They’re about as average and nondescript as a baseball team can be, all the way down to those godawful homosexual blue road uniforms that most major league teams had the good sense to get rid of in the ’80s.

Here’s what makes the Royals special: they’ve allowed only 555 runs, fewest in the league. In personal finance terms, they’ve incurred as few expenses as possible. The Royals are the baseball equivalent of the blogger who makes his own laundry detergent from leftover dish detergent and hand soap, leaves used wet paper towels in the sun to dry for reuse, drives across town because GasBuddy told him that a station 10 miles away is selling 87 octane for 4¢ a gallon cheaper than the station across the street, and makes his own dish detergent from leftover hand soap and laundry detergent.

What the overbearing voices of groupthink will tell you is that frugality – keeping the other team off the basepaths – is the only metric that matters. The fewer pennies you surrender, the happier and more fulfilling your life will be. Assuming, of course, that you enjoy denying yourself the pleasures that only spending money can bring. Yes, sunsets and the smiles on your kids’ faces are free and priceless. Great. If that’s all you need out of life, why are you looking at a computer screen right now?

There are two components to building wealth, and their relationship is every bit as symbiotic as that of the rhino and the tickbird. Your money can’t grow unless it exists in the first place (which is the lament of the frugality zealots.) Equally important is that you can’t just spend all your time amassing a modest pile of post-expenses cash and then trying your best to keep that pile from decomposing. Being adept at scoring runs gives you far more margin for both error and creativity on the other side of the ledger. The Boston Red Sox have a sense of proportion. They’ve allowed 8% more runs than the Royals have, putting Boston in the middle of the pack as far as defense goes. The Red Sox have also scored the most runs in the league, and not coincidentally have its best record. (The Royals are 11th in the league in scoring.) Offense without defense is useless, and vice versa.

You gotta make money, and holding yard sales isn’t going to cut it. So what’s the quickest and most efficient way around that conundrum? You could make yourself more valuable at your place of employment, but a) we can’t help you with that and 2) your employer will still be profiting off your hide. Instead, you have to learn how to leverage: how to defer current rewards for larger rewards down the road, ones that are positively disproportionate to the time elapsed. You need to know the difference between an IRA and a 401(k). And between a Roth and a traditional version of each. What a mutual fund is, and why it’s not a choice between investing in a mutual fund or a 401(k), etc. Learning about investment vehicles might not sound all that gripping to you. It might not be, and almost certainly isn’t, what your formal education focused on. Consider basic financial knowledge to be part of the price of being a functioning and productive member of society.

You know the rudiments of physical health, right? Smoking bad, grilled salmon good, sitting on the couch bad, riding a bike good etc. You didn’t need a degree in dietetics to comprehend that. Similarly, you don’t need a CPA designation to understand how tax brackets work and what the difference between credits and deductions is. We’re leading to yet another plug to buy our book here, but that’s not the primary purpose of this. Rather, we’re beseeching you to stop being fanatical about saving as much money as possible. Per hour committed to the task, it’s far more efficient and beneficial to look for ways to increase your existing stock of wealth than to look for ways to cut spending a little more. No worse advice has ever made it into axiomatic form than “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Nonsense. Once you start building a positive net worth, earning pennies becomes far easier than saving them. Also, the opportunities to earn greatly outpace the opportunities to save. You can only save so much. Your powers of accumulation are greater than that, and probably greater than you can imagine.

Or as we say over and over again, buy assets and sell liabilities. $7 spent on our book beats $7 saved by making your own toothpaste and placing the proceeds in a jar. Even if you’re saving orders of magnitude more than that, you can still do even more by buying assets. $2000 in an index fund beats $2000 negotiated off the price of a car. The former is dynamic, the latter static.

Now excuse as we hit you with the hard truth. The post up to this point was written for the benefit of those who aren’t carrying consumer debt. If you have a credit card balance or outstanding student loans, forget everything we said. Different, more spartan rules apply to those with a negative net worth. If you’re below zero, that’s where (and only where) the frugality kooks have a point. Do everything in your power to pay off those debts. Wear cheap clothes. Amuse yourself. Don’t be an idiot and plan a $20,000 wedding. You can’t build anything until your net worth starts with a +, however unassuming that number might be. Having a little bit of money puts you on a different and better continuum than the one the indebted are on. A failure to grasp that is why almost all poor people stay poor.

Yeah Economics!

Control Your Cash has long been an advocate of celebrating methamphetamine culture in all its forms

Control Your Cash has long been an advocate of celebrating meth culture in all its forms

 

The California TV industry has decided that it would rather do business anywhere but at home.

At one time, just about every show on the 4 major networks was filmed in California. Today just 40% of production takes place in California, down from 47% in 1997, and that percentage continues to drop as more states offer tax breaks to production companies.

45 states (and several countries) have some kind of film or TV production tax credit. Often this takes the form of a tax rebate, and sometimes the rebate is even transferable. Say a production company faces a $10,000 state tax bill and receives a production credit of $15,000. The production company can sell the remaining $5000 tax credit to a resident of that state. Of course, the buyer isn’t going to pay full price. The more tax credits on the market, the cheaper they’ll be. If the production company can get 80¢ on the dollar, it’ll receive $4000 and the buyer will save $1000 in taxes.

Is this corporate welfare or just good business? New Mexico state senator John Arthur Smith (D-Deming) thinks it’s the former:

I watched the Oscars and I have a difficult time with this, watching actresses wearing $35,000, $40,000 dresses and then we ask the taxpayers to help pay for it.

(People of Deming, your male state senator watches the Oscars and knows how to price women’s clothing.) In 2010-11, 39 movies and 3 TV series were filmed in New Mexico, including AMC’s Breaking Bad. Albuquerqueans, especially the business owners, might disagree with Senator Smith.

  • Over 7 years and 62 episodes, the production of Breaking Bad has contributed $70 million in economic activity exclusive of actor, writer and director salaries
  • The production has employed 120 people, all but 12 of them New Mexicans
  • 2 of the show’s stars (Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul) have bought homes and lived at least part-time in area.
  • The city will use its newfound notoriety to lure tourists long after the show has gone off the air.

Massachusetts hosted 25 movies and 9 TV shows in 2010-2011. The state Department of Revenue studied the economic impact of its own production credits for 2006-08 and concluded:

  • Most tax credits went to non-residents
  • Most of the jobs created were part-time, lasting a few days to a few months
  • It cost about $88,000 in tax credits for every full-time equivalent job

Massachusetts’s tax incentives mostly take the form of straight cash payments, no or few strings attached. New Mexico tied its incentives to local investment. If you’re a production company, you can’t take full advantage of New Mexico’s incentives unless you build facilities in the state and/or hire New Mexicans.

This company that brokers tax credits for the film industry confirms that Massachusetts’s credits are more generous than New Mexico’s. That’s great news for production companies, not so much for taxpayers (nor for state residents who want to work in the film industry.)

New Mexico’s incentives include:

  • 25% rebates for any TV production company that shoots at least 6 episodes in the state and has a budget of at least $50,000 per episode. This percentage increases to 30 next year.
  • 30% rebates for feature films that use resident labor in a qualified production facility.
  • 25% rebates on all other direct production and post-production expenditures subject to New Mexico taxes. Movies must shoot at least 10 days in the state for budgets under $30 million, 15 days otherwise.

The state makes $50 million of taxpayer money available every year. Unused money remains in the fund for subsequent years.

Here are Massachusetts’s incentives:

  • 25% payroll tax credit (and sales tax exemption) on any project that spends more than $50,000 in state.
  • 25% tax credit on any project that spends most of its budget (or films most of its principal photography) in the state. This includes out-of-state purchases and equipment rentals.
  • No residency requirement.
  • The credits are transferable. If you can’t sell them, the state will buy them for 90¢ on the dollar.
  • Credits can be used for up to 5 tax years.

Did you catch that penultimate one? Why is the state in the business of buying back tax credits (at a premium to what the market would bear, no less?) Massachusetts wants to get companies to film in the state, without giving a thought to long-term goals like supporting ongoing production. The aforementioned study argued that the program was a failure, and cited incentive money being paid to non-residents as proof. Hard to imagine why, seeing as the program has no residency requirement. Two other things Massachusetts doesn’t have? Production studios and local talent.

If a state doesn’t use its tax incentives to create an environment that will bring production companies back, that state will just compete with every other state for a smaller piece. What would happen to the money if every state eliminated its production incentive program? Would taxes decrease, or would the money just be spent elsewhere?

Offering incentives without a plan is stupid. Throwing cash (other people’s, no less) around indiscriminately is no way to achieve results, largely because it makes no mention of results. Think about that the next time you give money to your kid. Or a charity. Or a street urchin.