You are viewing [info]thumpaflash's journal

 
 
01 March 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Do Tax Incentives to the Film Industry Rob the Schools for the Deaf?  
Folks, I gotta give credit to those fine writers over at the Bluegrass Policy Blog for calling my attention to this article below that shows what a bad idea it is to offer film studios tax incentives.  At least now I don't feel like a lonely voice railing against the darkness.  Plain and simple, until the film industry can caption more of it's offerings, the deaf and hard of hearing community should be screaming loud and clear to their lawmakers 'NO!".  From their attempts to get $240 million plus inserted into the recent federal economic stimulus bill, to this recent steamroll through the Kentucky legislature, the Motion Picture Association of Americas' lobbyists have been doing their level best to earn those big lobbying fees they bill out.  Pay attention to the portion that I have highlighted in red in the article.

February 27, 2009

Pennsylvania Considers Dropping Film Tax Credit; Nebraska Considers Adopting One

by Joseph Henchman

We applauded Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) a few days ago for proposing elimination of the state's film tax credit. We noted:

Bribing companies to bring economic activity to your state means one of two things. Either they were going to come anyway and you're just wasting tax dollars for no benefit, or they weren't because something about your state isn't attractive to business. Picking a handful of industries to shower benefits on undermines the creation of a broad-based welcome mat for all types of business.

The Commonwealth Foundation reports that similar proposal from state Sen. Pat Vance is now under consideration. Pennsylvania spends $75 million per year on the program, which provides a 25% tax credit for films that spend at least 60% of their budget in the state. Vance cites a new state study showing that the program generated just $18 million in new tax revenue. (Emphasis added by me).

Aside from film tax credits providing no net benefits and diverting attention from true tax reform, states should be aware that as each state tries to outbid each other for these productions, the costs have risen to the point that a new entrant stands no chance. Michigan is basically paying out cash to films, and many other states have very generous credits. California recently upped the ante on their film credit program, so now you have to contend with the credit and their nice weather.

So for a state like Nebraska, which has no film tax credits but still manages to attract productions, one option is to break the bank trying to wrest a few productions out of states determined to subsidize this industry. Another option is continuing attracting the productions it does, avoid picking winners and losers and complicating the tax code, and otherwise sit back and enjoy movies subsidized by other states' taxpayers. Alas:

“By shooting in Nebraska you’ll get everything else, the great people and all of that, but you will spend more than shooting in Iowa," said Robinson.[...]

As for tax incentives, the state is aware of the disparity. "We're working toward creating a really effective film incentive package to place before the Unicam in 2010," said Omaha Film Commissioner Kathy Rocco.

Unbelieveable that ANY state would consider keeping or proposing a tax incentive that is shown to be such a hit or miss proposition.  Isn't Pennsylvania right now considering closing their school for the deaf?  I wonder how much of that net loss of $57 million dollars incurred by the state for trying to lure filmmakers there would have benefitted the school for the deaf in Pennsylvania?  I'm pretty sure they could keep the school open and there wouldn't even be a debate about whether or not to close it if it were not for tax boondoggles such as this.  And the scary thing is, is that incentive is almost word for word the same as the proposed one in Kentucky.  Kentucky has proposed now, a 20% refund on the income tax.  As evidence by the above and related articles, the problem with this, is that most of the money spent goes toward out of state workers who fly in, film, and fly out.  It amounts to little more than a perk for the fim director, really.
 
 
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
(Anonymous) on March 2nd, 2009 02:45 pm (UTC)
Most of the time films in California are shot indoors, making the point of 'good' weather moot.
If a film is shot outdoors, it is usually in another state.
They have enjoyed coming here, not only for our own good weather in summer ('good' is relative...I've heard all kinds of comments abt winter, fall or spring weather...being...an ATTRACTANT to films being shot here depending on the story) but for the experience and professionalism of the people they enjoy here. We already had an infrastucture because we are the third largest advertising media city in America already and have many great film programs at various colleges.
We didn't just up and decide 'Welp, Micky, let's our gonna start a film incentive programmy...hyuck hyuck!'
The base was already here.
And as for California's good weather...the traffic and crowding alone delete that as an attractant to any business!


Thumpaflash[info]thumpaflash on March 2nd, 2009 06:26 pm (UTC)
WEll, Michigan (where your IP indicates you posted from) DOES already have a good infrastructure for advertising and the like, and is a lot like Kentucky in the variety of outdoor scenes it can offer, from the city (which admittingly you have more variety of) to the rural.

Understand I'm not mocking states that offer this incentive, I am noting that many states (not all) are spending more money than they are taking in. And with the competition between states trying to "one-up" each other, it will only get worse and the return on the investment will only decline further to the point where, even if it had been profitable at one time, it will begin to become a negative investment. While I love Kentucky, and think some of it's vistas are among the prettiest in the country, I truly believe that we are chasing a fairy tale if we believe we can get film companies to come here and establish a PERMANENT base that will allow us to benefit on a year over year basis. This fly in and fly out stuff does not benefit us, nor make it feasible for us to offer the incentives. We have a built in base in regards to the horse industry, the mining industry, etc., and I believe our film office should be focusing their energies on selling those as points in movies for filming. Each state has it's own strengths it should play up.

Thanks for commenting
(Anonymous) on March 2nd, 2009 08:49 pm (UTC)
Film tax credits
I support tax incentitives to attract the film industries to film in our state. In Major League film that was done here in Milwaukee, in place of the Cleveland settings, I appear as an extra on the set, anyway, Rob Harris, the film publicist allows my Deaf crew to do a behind the scene shooting, having access to the production crew, the same night Entertainment Tonight was there. I was given the 3rd base area to do my videography, still photography, and interviewing with them using an interpreter. We intend to do the same requesting an interview with Johnny Depp, meeting him and his publict on the closed set in Columbus, Wisconsin, been promised a electronic press kit for my Vlog on Deaf Anthology before its release later this year. It does have an economy impact, so I support the film industries, and I am not voting for the Wisconsin governor if he runs for re-election. There is a master plan for the new Wisconsin School for the Deaf, so funds are allotted for both the Deaf schools and the film industries.
Gary Fitts "Smokey"
Thumpaflash[info]thumpaflash on March 2nd, 2009 09:19 pm (UTC)
Re: Film tax credits
Smokey:

Although it may not sound like it, I DO support the film industry, and want it to succeed, especially in situations where more deaf people get opportunities like you mentioned. However, they have gotten the states trying to outbid each other for approximately 400 films a year that are released, and MANY of those are smaller independents that film on location in their own home states to begin with, and therefore would not most likely be traveling out of state to different locales. Additionally, as I have pointed out, the money spent out very often is not recouped from revenue coming in. Kentucky currently offers a full refund of the 6% sales and use tax that is spent on everything from hotel rooms, to merchandise bought locally, etc. Offering an additional 20% income tax refund on top of this without stipulations such as the qualified person be a resident of Kentucky, or paying Kentucky income tax to begin with, etc. is playing fast and loose with the taxpayer's money. In a state with only 4 million people and facing an alleged $456 million budget shortfall, it is not the smartest thing to do.

But I wish you well in your endeavors, and thanks for commenting.

Eddie