This is part movies, part politics, so let's stick it into Water Cooler?

Michael Kinsley writes an excellent op-ed in LA Times about the stupidity of states offering tax credits and other subsidies for movie production. He makes excellent points throughout, but the main idea is that by pitting states against one another (currently 42 states offer movie production subsidies) the only winners are the producers, while the taxpayers lose out. It's ridiculous that even California now has a movie production credit!

I'll add another point: this sort of logic is prevalent in most other industries. States will bend over backwards to attract new investments through various subsidies and are left perplexed when companies leave the state when the subsidies inevitably run out (sports teams are the biggest abuser of this). What it does in the long run is not only rob the taxpayers, but also worsen overall employment conditions because now you have a workforce trained to do something that was not sustainable to begin with. So either you have to waste money retraining those people or they leave the state.

Read more here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 6680.story

Just to play devils advocate:

This is a hot topic for debate in PA currently as the we offer a tax credit for movies to shoot here. It's estimated to have cost the state $60-75 million but brings in about $200 million in economic impact via direct spending by the industry.

Assuming the figures are correct, I can see value in it.

The article directly addresses this shady math - you should read it. For instance, the industry values the average salary of a crew member at $82K while in reality it's more like $35K. They double count the food allowance (once when the employee receives and the second time when he or she spends it). The list can go on and on.

Finally what's never addressed in these debates is the opportunity cost. Let's assume the figures you stated are correct (and they're not) - does that mean it's the best place for the state to spend the money? If the state has $60M to spare, why won't it reduce taxes on ALL businesses to spur investment?

Well, I won't get into is it the best way to spend the money. Governments are so dumb, that I consider any use of money that generates a positive return to be a move in the right direction.

I skimmed through the article, it does make a lot of good points. That said, I know first hand there IS a benefit to offering this kind of credit. Two movies were recently shot in Pittsburgh, they rented a parking lot for two days right by where I live, used a local company to cater one day, rented out PNC Park to shoot in another day, and paid for lunches, security, extras, etc. Now does that cost add up to the price of the subsidy? I don't know. I would guess that the numbers given are false, and that we don't have an accurate metric of the impact. However, I'd also guess that you get more than $1 spent in state for each subsidized dollar. Again, maybe we could use the money elsewhere, maybe any money out of the governments hands is a good thing.

Pittsburgh rarely got movies to shoot here before PA offered the subsidy, and only recently have films begun coming here. Take the subsidy away, you'll take away that business, that much is sure. The argument that if all the states stopped offering the subsidy, the movies would go somewhere is fair, but not based in reality as it just won't happen. Do you want the business? Then pony up.

I heard that Magnus, and if I hear about any filming locations, I may try and snag some pics. I also agree with your post, and would add that this issue is made much worse due to lying and conniving politicians who distort numbers to make themselves look better.

you fucking better

I got my wife a Canon 50D for our wedding last year, has a zoom lens too ... just sayin!

I'll help you Paparazzi that photo shoot!

TMKJ

PA announced their budget to close the 4 Billion dollar gap, and the movie credit survived ... it was reduced, but it survived. I think they took it from a $75 million cap down to a $45 million cap, and it goes up to a $60 million cap next year.