STATE FILM SUBSIDIES: NOT MUCH BANG FOR TOO MANY BUCKS

[Brian Dzyak]

Well Brian, point 1, the US is a major exporting country. Millions of jobs in the USA are tied to exports. If the USA wants to go back to a protectionist economy, fine. Then watch as the rest of the world blocks US exports from entering their country. Trade policy is always quid pro quo I'm afraid.

I have no problem with that.

 

Point 2, the FTA gave the USA unprecedented first position access to Canada's resources. Since the US is a long long way from energy self sufficiency your country needs access to Canadian energy, oil, gas, electricity, lumber, iron ore, uranium, etc.

I have no problem with that either. We've all spent too long relying on fossil fuels and not investing enough into renewable energy. Perhaps SUPER high costs would be enough to spur humanity into investing in the R&D that is long overdue.

 

Point 3, with or without FTA/NAFTA/GATT factory jobs are doomed to disappear in Canada and the USA regardless. The reason is that we can't compete with the low wages in China, India, or Indonesia, etc. So those jobs where heading that direction no matter what we did. Fact is Americans will not pay $75.00 for a shirt at Walmart made by a unionized American worker, when they can buy the same shirt for $12.00 if it's made in India.

 

R,

This is a lie. Sort of. Your statement is the standard CONservative argument that this situation was "inevitable." It wasn't. It was intentionally manufactured without any real cause and nobody was asking for it. NONE of us "had to" compete with China, India, or Indonesia until tariff restrictions were lifted. That was a manufactured situation designed by "free marketers" who desired cheap slave labor in locations bereft of environmental and labor/safety regulations.

 

So yes, we are "competing" with people who can survive on a dime a day, but we shouldn't have to and we DON'T have to. It's easy. Just slam Corporations with the tariffs we used to have and those 41,000+ factories that have left since 2001 will come back almost overnight.

 

Your last statement about what people will pay is a bit humorous in that you're comparing what someone will do in the current situation with what they would do if they had their well-paying job back. People HAVE TO look for a Walmart deal (shirts for $10 bucks) because their jobs were shipped overseas so they are subsisting on less than minimum wage and paying through the nose for health insurance and other "benefits." BUT, give them that great paying job back and not only will they be able to pay more for clothes, they'll have income to buy lots more stuff too, which as we all know, stimulates the overall economy because jobs are created by demand by those at the bottom, not by rich people at the top. It's just common sense, which evidently, is a misnomer since most people don't seem to have any.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Brian Dzyak

[Guest]

You should educate yourself on economics Brian, you can start here:

 

http://trade.gov/publications/ita-newsletter/0510/exports-play-vital-role-in-supporting-us-employment-0510.asp

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

You should educate yourself on economics Brian, you can start here:

 

http://trade.gov/publications/ita-newsletter/0510/exports-play-vital-role-in-supporting-us-employment-0510.asp

 

R,

 

 

I know plenty about it which is why I've come to my conclusions, but thanks for the concern. :)

[Guest]

I know plenty about it

 

Hardly.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Hardly.

 

R,

 

:) Just because I don't subscribe to the brainwashing of "how things should be" doesn't mean I don't know how it all works. Economic ideologies are political choices, not absolutes. Our economy does not HAVE TO rely on exports. Milton Friedmanists WANT the world to work that way, but it doesn't have to. That's what (I presume), people like you can't comprehend. Life is what we make it and it doesn't have to be this way.

[Brian Dzyak]

I understand that some people who are getting rich off the current situation have a vested interested in convincing others that the current situation is "the way it works" and anyone (like me) who doesn't agree with it must not know what they are talking about, but that doesn't make people like Richard correct. His "hardly" comment was quite rude and unsubstantiated as he has no idea what I know or what I don't. He is clearly enjoying the current situation as he and his country is able to take advantage of the economic paradigm that has been manufactured so he has a clear incentive to keep the status quo so it doing what he can to discredit anyone who argues against it. I get it, I do. But that doesn't make him or anyone like him inherently correct.

[Guest]

You didn't read the link I provided Brian, info from your own gov't BTW.

 

How anyone can make statements like:

 

"Our economy does not HAVE TO rely on exports" is beyond me?

 

If you would read how the Great Depression took hold you would see a lesson from history. As the crisis got worse the US gov't pursued a protectionist stance with regard to trade and this made the entire situation far worse.

 

The US should be expanding trade to help lift the US economy out of the recession, not throwing up trade barriers which will only make things worse.

 

As the information from the US gov't web site stated, 10 million American jobs are tied to exports. Didn't you read that bit?

 

Anyway believe whatever you want to believe. Even Obama has come to some harsh realizations recently. He campaigned on a promise to close Guantanamo, but he's now thrown that promise under the bus. He said he'd re-negotiate NAFTA to win votes in hard hit recession areas like Ohio, that went under the bus as well. Next?

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

You didn't read the link I provided Brian, info from your own gov't BTW.

 

How anyone can make statements like:

 

"Our economy does not HAVE TO rely on exports" is beyond me?

 

If you would read how the Great Depression took hold you would see a lesson from history. As the crisis got worse the US gov't pursued a protectionist stance with regard to trade and this made the entire situation far worse.

 

The US should be expanding trade to help lift the US economy out of the recession, not throwing up trade barriers which will only make things worse.

 

As the information from the US gov't web site stated, 10 million American jobs are tied to exports. Didn't you read that bit?

 

Anyway believe whatever you want to believe. Even Obama has come to some harsh realizations recently. He campaigned on a promise to close Guantanamo, but he's now thrown that promise under the bus. He said he'd re-negotiate NAFTA to win votes in hard hit recession areas like Ohio, that went under the bus as well. Next?

 

R,

 

Yes, I read it all. Thank you again for your concern. And AGAIN, at what point has anyone here been defending "Obama"? I'm confused by the distraction techniques.

 

The bottom line (with this topic) is that too many people are now relying on bribes by their own governments to for-profit Corporations to enable their careers. That has not always been the reality nor does it HAVE TO continue to be the reality. I appreciate that Canadian "filmmakers" now have a way to earn a living because their governments are willing to heavily bribe US Corporations, but the fact remains that A) tax incentives/bribes are not inevitable nor should anyone rely on them to support their own career indefinitely (particularly in such a volatile industry) and B ) tax bribes are a NEGATIVE for the tax-payers who are footing the bill to provide a scant-few people careers. In other words, why should a city/state/nation have to subsidize a for-profit Corporation (like a movie production company) just so that someone like Richard (and the Corporations) can become rich? What's in it for the taxpayers who are subsidizing those bribes? The answer, of course, is Nada. It's a scam, one that just a few people are profiting from. And when those bribes/incentives dry up, we see rallies and "letters to the Editor" from lazy "filmmakers" whining that their government won't continue to bribe those Corporations anymore.

[Guest]

just so that someone like Richard (and the Corporations) can become rich?

 

Funniest thing you've said all year. I only have two ferraris, one yacht, and a house in the Hamptons.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Funniest thing you've said all year. I only have two ferraris, one yacht, and a house in the Hamptons.

 

R,

 

Perhaps. :) But the serious question for anyone like you whose local, state, and/or national government hands over tax "incentives" or subsidies to motion-picture production companies is, would your career exist without those bribes to for-profit Corporations on behalf of taxpayers, most of whom DO NOT see any tangible benefit from their money being used that way? For all of the CONservatives (in the USA, anyway) who are so adamantly opposed to "Welfare" for the poor, I wonder why the double-standard of hypocrisy is allowed to exist that essentially gives welfare to Corporations and workers who RELY on "incentives" and subsidies that are provided by taxpayers?

 

The "Canadian problem" as I understand it is that "Hollywood" has effectively shut out most Canadian content and to people like Richard, this situation justifies the incentive situation to take work away from US workers because otherwise, aspiring Canadian workers wouldn't have the opportunity to have a career. Have I boiled that down to the core correctly? Because Canadian content is shut out by a bad "trade" deal with "Hollywood," Canadians should be allowed to poach work from US workers as a sort of "payback." And that happens ONLY because Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing this industry even though A) the profits return to the USA and B ) these incentives only benefit a scant percentage of the population at great expense to everyone else.

 

And this is a good situation, how exactly?

[Guest]

The "Canadian problem" as I understand it is that "Hollywood" has effectively shut out most Canadian content and to people like Richard, this situation justifies the incentive situation to take work away from US workers because otherwise, aspiring Canadian workers wouldn't have the opportunity to have a career. Have I boiled that down to the core correctly? Because Canadian content is shut out by a bad "trade" deal with "Hollywood," Canadians should be allowed to poach work from US workers as a sort of "payback."

 

Sure that's fine. US movies get 98% of Canadian screens, in exchange for that Canadians get to work on a few Hollywood features. That's a fair deal, yes.

 

For the record, I am not part of the group that benefits when US movies come to Toronto to shoot. I am not a "film worker" or an "end credit" person. If 500 US movies shot in Toronto a year it would not help me one bit. I create my own work opportunities, always have, always will. No one hires me, I create an opportunity and then hire myself onto the project.

 

In the process of creating my own opportunities I also hire Americans, and create wealth for US companies. I should be given a medal. I'm not waiting around for the phone to ring, I'm the guy that makes other people's phones ring. Including ones for your IATSE brothers.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Sure that's fine. US movies get 98% of Canadian screens, in exchange for that Canadians get to work on a few Hollywood features. That's a fair deal, yes.

 

For the record, I am not part of the group that benefits when US movies come to Toronto to shoot. I am not a "film worker" or an "end credit" person. If 500 US movies shot in Toronto a year it would not help me one bit. I create my own work opportunities, always have, always will. No one hires me, I create an opportunity and then hire myself onto the project.

 

In the process of creating my own opportunities I also hire Americans, and create wealth for US companies. I should be given a medal. I'm not waiting around for the phone to ring, I'm the guy that makes other people's phones ring. Including ones for your IATSE brothers.

 

R,

 

 

I don't intend to make this about individual careers or lives, but in this case I do wish to ask Richard if any of his projects benefit from the tax incentive programs offered by a Canadian local or nation government?

 

Additionally, I would like to know what the rate card for my "IATSE brothers" says as of March 2011? Are Canadian IATSE members undercutting the current US IATSE rates in addition to taking advantage of government bribes to Corporations (paid for by Canadian taxpayers)?

 

In other words (currency rates excluded from this conversation although they are relevant), is this a level-playing field for ALL workers everywhere or are Corporations taking advantage of "desperation" on the part of labor (film crews) and, of course, currency valuation differences on top of the incentives/bribes/subsidies they get from taxpayers?

 

THAT is the question here.

 

 

 

In regard to this:

Sure that's fine. US movies get 98% of Canadian screens, in exchange for that Canadians get to work on a few Hollywood features. That's a fair deal, yes.

I would like to ask how good you feel about your own ethics knowing that you're taking income away from otherwise hardworking people in the USA who built lives around an industry just so that YOU (your countrymen) can have a job. Why not fight to change the trade/screening regulations/laws/restrictions in order to build up your OWN industry (that would give your citizens work) instead of relying on your taxpayers to bribe US Corporations for temporary jobs? It's a bit like fixing a bleeding arm by taking a skin graft from your leg. Yes, the arm may stop bleeding, but you'll have trouble walking from now on. Why not fix the arm independently of destroying something else? Is that such a crazy idea?

[Guest]

I don't intend to make this about individual careers or lives, but in this case I do wish to ask Richard if any of his projects benefit from the tax incentive programs offered by a Canadian local or nation government?

 

Yes. In a modest way and I have no problem with that. Hundreds of other Canadian and US productions have also benefited as well. I'm surprised by your question, you already admitted that you would happily work on a film in the USA that was using a state tax credit as part of the financing. Ok for you, it's ok for me.

 

Are Canadian IATSE members undercutting the current US IATSE rates in addition to taking advantage of government bribes to Corporations (paid for by Canadian taxpayers)?

 

I am quite certain (without looking) that IATSE's Canadian rates are not at all undercutting the US rates. They publish the rates on their websites, have a look and compare. Good grief Brian this isn't *bleeping* Mexico up here! Do you think we all live in mud huts and make .12 a day sewing shirts for the American public?

 

currency valuation differences on top of the incentives/bribes/subsidies they get from taxpayers?

 

THAT is the question here.

 

Uh, the Canadian dollar is worth MORE than the USD so there is no currency valuation difference that benefits US producers.

 

 

In regard to this:

I would like to ask how good you feel about your own ethics knowing that you're taking income away from otherwise hardworking people in the USA who built lives around an industry just so that YOU (your countrymen) can have a job.

 

I just said....I AM NOT A FILM WORKER. I create opportunities, I don't take them. This includes opportunities for Americans to work as well.

 

Please spare me the working class hero speech and the BS that goes with it.

 

Lastly why do you care how Canadian tax money is spent? You don't pay taxes here. :huh:

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Yes. In a modest way and I have no problem with that. Hundreds of other Canadian and US productions have also benefited as well. I'm surprised by your question, you already admitted that you would happily work on a film in the USA that was using a state tax credit as part of the financing. Ok for you, it's ok for me.

WHOA.... I never ever "admitted" that I would "happily work on a film in the USA that was using a state tax credit as part of the financing." Typical CONservative to twist facts just enough to attempt to prove a point. What WAS said was this:

 

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=49710&view=findpost&p=346147

 

Richard Boddington, on 01 March 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

Also, would you accept work on a movie that is using tax credit money as part of its financing? If so you are a bit of a hypocrite, no?

 

R,

 

 

I don't have much of a choice, do I as EVERY movie made now is made with "incentive" money?

 

For that matter, MOST industries in the USA are now operating by virtue of "incentive" money that has been paid by some form of government to get that business to operate there. The CONservative economic system that has been established has given Corporations a kind of stranglehold over local and state governments as they play locations off one another to get the biggest bribe in exchange for the jobs. While one might be able to argue with some sense of validity a local government agreeing to an incentive for a permanent factory (that provides stable permanent jobs), that argument isn't as valid for something like movie-making where the "factory" is extremely temporary. It's not like a steel or automobile plant that will be there for years on end. A movie production is mobile and temporary, not a good investment/bet for any government that thinks they can hand out bribes for eternity.

 

It was YOU who "happily" agrees to bribe money paid for by taxpayers to American Corporations to enrich YOU:

 

Well Brian you've posted this type of stuff on numerous occasions, and I for one see many areas of flawed logic made by the author here.

 

If the US states want to get rid of all their film tax credits...fine with all of us here North of the border, it just means that a whole lot more work will come to Canada. Certainly no one here will complain. There's no indication at all that the film tax credit system is going any where in Canada. We still have a federal tax credit that is effective in all regions of Canada plus the provincial programs, the biggest being in Quebec, Ontario, and BC. None of those three provinces have given any indication they wish to cancel their tax credit systems.

 

It was clear to most of us in Canada that when US states decided to copy the Canadian program that it would never last. New York and Iowa already threw in the towel.

 

So I for one say to the USA, Cancel! Cancel! Cancel! Hell I'll come down there and help your campaign Brian, we all stand to benefit here in Canada so go right ahead.

 

And guess what....when the tax credit systems are finally all gone in the USA. You won't have any recourse of any kind to try and get them cancelled in Canada Brian. You are not a Canadian citizen so it will be tough for you or anyone from the US to influence policy on this side of the border.

 

So I support you Brian, get those state film tax credit programs cancelled as fast as you can!!!

 

R,

 

YOU are happy with the bribe situation so that you can profit from it while so many others here scrounge for work in an industry that they worked hard to become a part of. That, to me, is a sad commentary on the cold hearted attitude that so many take toward others. :( But, whatever. How long til Canadian taxpayers catch on to the scam? Some of our US States have. It's only a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

Please spare me the working class hero speech and the BS that goes with it.

Well, that statement alone pretty much clarifies how "management" feels about workers, doesn't it? BS? Really? I don't have the exact quote available at the moment, but it has something to do with a Screenwriter who was being fired (or ignored, or something like that) by a "famous" Director who decided that he didn't need the Writer. The Writer responds by throwing a blank sheet of paper at the Director while exclaiming, "DIRECT THIS!"

 

What is it about people "in charge" that makes them think that "labor" is inconsequential and expendable deserving of little respect and less money than they ask for? I'll never get the CONservative mindset, I guess.

 

 

Lastly why do you care how Canadian tax money is spent? You don't pay taxes here. :huh:

 

R,

 

Why do I care? Because foreign money is being spent to bribe US Corporations which directly affects the lives and careers of people who BUILT lives and careers in a specific industry. What a silly question. But beyond that, EVERYONE should care how taxes are spent. In the same way I don't want my tax dollars to be spent to finance a tyrannical dictator, I prefer that my tax dollars not be spent bribing for-profit Corporations particularly when I (and my city/state/nation) isn't a profit partner. Afterall, handing out "tax incentives" or outright subsidies should automatically make the government (therefore, the People/taxpayers) co-Producers thus guaranteeing them a share in the gross profits. But how often does that ever happen?

 

EVERYONE should care how their tax dollars are spent and the way it looks, non-film industry Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill to provide extra profit to US Corporations and to provide a scant few jobs to a few Canadian film crews. Like the original post of this thread suggests, that economic model is NOT beneficial to anyone in the long run except for the Corporations who are taking the bribes to enhance their own profit margins.

[Guest]

Why do I care? Because foreign money is being spent to bribe US Corporations which directly affects the lives and careers of people who BUILT lives and careers in a specific industry.

 

Well absolutely nothing you can do about it, and no one here cares. So I guess all I can say on behalf of Canadian film workers is....tough beans.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Well absolutely nothing you can do about it, and no one here cares. So I guess all I can say on behalf of Canadian film workers is....tough beans.

 

R,

 

 

:)

 

Just curious... you've mentioned that due to some kind of "deals," that US films dominate the Canadian screens ...and that is what you use to justify Canadians poaching work from US film crews with taxpayer supplied bribes to US Corporations.

 

I'm curious if you or anyone has attempted to alleviate THAT primary "problem." Have you or anyone else even attempted to restrict the number of US "Hollywood" movies that dominate your screens at all? Or do you just accept it as inevitable then turn to the Corporate Bribes as the only way to fight back?

[Guest]

:)

 

Just curious... you've mentioned that due to some kind of "deals," that US films dominate the Canadian screens ...and that is what you use to justify Canadians poaching work from US film crews with taxpayer supplied bribes to US Corporations.

 

I'm curious if you or anyone has attempted to alleviate THAT primary "problem." Have you or anyone else even attempted to restrict the number of US "Hollywood" movies that dominate your screens at all? Or do you just accept it as inevitable then turn to the Corporate Bribes as the only way to fight back?

 

We have waved the white flag and accepted the inevitable, there is no way to fight back against the 98% control that US films have of Canadian screens.

 

In the 1980s the gov't of Brian Mulroney did toy with the idea of screen quotas for Canadian films. Ronald Reagan (ex actor) and Jack Vallenti shot that plan down in two seconds. No Canadian gov't has even dared to raise the issue again.

 

Frankly, considering the incredible contributions Canadians have made to build up Hollywood....James Cameron, Norman Jewison, Mary Pickford, Jim Carrey, William Shatner, Michael J Fox, Ryan Reynolds, Kiefer Sutherland, Keanu Reeves, to name a very very few.

 

And....No foreign country on the planet has given more of its money to Hollywood than Canadians have. Billions and billions of dollars in ticket sales.

 

In light of the above two points, Canadians have just as much right to Hollywood jobs as Americans do.

 

R,

[robert duke]

Respectfully, Brian and Richard, you both need to get some work going. Too much jaw flapping and to little work happening. Seriously though. you are both right and wrong. it would take a month of line by line post response to untangle the full truth here.

 

Brian, its not just the tax incentives that movies run out of LA to shoot, Its a big one but not the only one. The rates can be half of LA rates in places like michigan and louisiana. location fees are so much less. and there are locations you just cant duplicate.

 

Richard, Its f%&^$#k cold in canada. It snows A LOT. LA is a bastion of filmmaking because the equipment is so plentiful and the city is almost engineered for it. The climate makes it so easy to shoot (90% of the time). People are readily accepting of filming in LA. you rarely run out of people with the ability and talent you need.

 

 

as to NAFTA and FTA. Stop shopping a Walmart, costco, and other big box stores. start reading the labels and shopping responsibly, Locally grown is so much better for the economy and the world. yes sometimes kumquats are out of season. it is especially easy in LA. Shop artisan for your clothes and other items, buy USA made. doing that is the only way to bring back jobs and factories and movies. If you boycott movies made outside your state and country they will take notice, eventually. But change starts with you.

 

I am not a hippy, I am not a socialist, I am not an Obama lover. Politics in the US is fu&* up. We stopped electing people who actually write the laws. Laws are written by lobbyists. Congressmen are just messengers for the lobbys they are convinced by. We need to change our lobbying laws. we need to change our campaign finance laws. the last 6 presidential races these were topics of debate and nothing has changed other than corporations can now spend unlimited funds to advertise for their chosen politician. Our system is flawed. but all systems are flawed. Including Canada.

 

you wanna stop production in canada start imposing a tariff on imported products, and include movies. BUT HERE IS WHAT WILL SHAKE CANADA AND THE US. Europe, Asia, Africa, and South america are also wanting in on the movie game. look at the young filmmakers that subscribe to THIS website. in the last 4 years the international members have increased. and they will continue to increase. All of these members want to tell stories, and they will. these will be the competitors in our industry. as the standard of living in each country increases and the expendable $ increases so will the number of films shot in those regions.

 

films are being shot in Mexico, a lot in fact. mexican filmmakers have crossed the border and have made major impacts on our Hollywood. South america is just a step behind them. and that is what NAFTA wanted. once you level the international playing field everyone becomes equal.

 

We all see only what we want to see and hear in this argument.

 

Richard makes Moderately low budget films and they fill a niche or he wouldnt continue. Brian you shoot BTS. Neither of your paths would cross with out this site or some intervention. you both have different and respectfully valid opinions. but really you both spend far too much time on here bickering.

 

Attack me all you want. I know who I am and what I am not. I am happy with that.

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian, its not just the tax incentives that movies run out of LA to shoot, Its a big one but not the only one. The rates can be half of LA rates in places like michigan and louisiana. location fees are so much less. and there are locations you just cant duplicate.

That's just not entirely true. In regard to rates, one of the points of a national union (IATSE, TEAMSTERS, DGA, WGA) is that everyone who is part of that union gets the same rates and benefits. A movie shooting under contract will pay the same rates and benefits no matter where it shoots in the USA. And that IS a big part of the issue when we talk about movies that shoot in places like Prague or Budapest or Australia where those workers CAN afford to work for less than US workers who have a higher cost of living. This problem extends into non-movie industry jobs where much of US manufacturing (some 41,000 factories since 2001) has moved over the borders and overseas specifically because those Corporations can get much cheaper labor elsewhere. Asking US workers, who have a higher cost of living to slash their own paychecks by half or more is unreasonable, particularly when those at the top are NOT taking the same cuts. In fact, since 1979, the bottom 90% of people in the US have seen their incomes remain relatively flat (a modest 14% rise, on average). But the top 1% have seen a whopping 281% INCREASE in that same amount of time. It's clear that this economic model is causing US workers to fall way behind but is enriching those at the top by a staggering differential.

 

As far as location shooting goes, I have mentioned that of course this issue doesn't necessarily apply when a movie is in need of a specific location. But cities/states/countries ARE being chosen NOT because of the location, but because it's just cheaper to shoot there BECAUSE OF these tax incentives/bribes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with location fees or rates and everything to do with the "incentives" offered by governments. Of course you'll go shoot in the desert or in NYC or the Badlands or anywhere else that cannot be duplicated on stage, but a vast amount of stage work IS being shot in places that A) are not really built with the infrastructure for movies and B ) places that don't have the depth of crew (numbers and experience) that Los Angeles has. Many government officials in "tax incentive states" are finally sitting up and taking notice of this as they realize that the jobs are NOT necessarily going to local residents because LA-based crew are flown in on a regular basis to fill those slots. This not only does NOT help those locations and their permanent residents, but it also puts an unnecessary strain on those LA-based crew who are leaving their family and lives at home just to make a living, one that they USED TO be able to do at home.

 

 

Richard, Its f%&^$#k cold in canada. It snows A LOT. LA is a bastion of filmmaking because the equipment is so plentiful and the city is almost engineered for it. The climate makes it so easy to shoot (90% of the time). People are readily accepting of filming in LA. you rarely run out of people with the ability and talent you need.

Yep. There's a reason the movie business took root in LA. And there's only one reason that it has been leaving: Tax Incentives.

 

 

as to NAFTA and FTA. Stop shopping a Walmart, costco, and other big box stores. start reading the labels and shopping responsibly, Locally grown is so much better for the economy and the world. yes sometimes kumquats are out of season. it is especially easy in LA. Shop artisan for your clothes and other items, buy USA made. doing that is the only way to bring back jobs and factories and movies. If you boycott movies made outside your state and country they will take notice, eventually. But change starts with you.

Well, yeah. But ads for movies don't include a "Made in the USA" label in the trailer or the newspaper. An audience as to wait until the very end of the credits to learn if they just consumed a product made somewhere else. Although, I do recall that about ten years ago, that idea was floated around. I think it was in response to the movie "RUDY!" which was shot in Canada and not NYC purely because of incentive money. http://actacting.com/acting-studio/rudy-to-be-filmed-in-canada-2188030.html

 

 

 

 

I am not a hippy, I am not a socialist, I am not an Obama lover. Politics in the US is fu&* up. We stopped electing people who actually write the laws. Laws are written by lobbyists. Congressmen are just messengers for the lobbys they are convinced by. We need to change our lobbying laws. we need to change our campaign finance laws. the last 6 presidential races these were topics of debate and nothing has changed other than corporations can now spend unlimited funds to advertise for their chosen politician. Our system is flawed. but all systems are flawed. Including Canada.

All true. But it's not just that Corporations can spend unlimited amounts anonymously on candidates or issues or policy... but ANYONE in the world can, thanks to the Citizen's United case coupled with "Corporate Personhood" mistakenly being applied in 1885 in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. What this means is that, say for example, if the government of Iran wanted a politician who was favorable to Iranian politics, Iran could conjure up a fake Corporation in the US, then funnel as much money as it wanted into that election campaign to both laud the achievements of the candidate Iran favors AND roll over the opposing candidates and issues it doesn't like. The problem is, that most people aren't aware of the complexities of what CONservative ideology is doing to undermine their own country and ostensibly, the world both in terms of the economy and politics.

 

 

you wanna stop production in canada start imposing a tariff on imported products, and include movies. BUT HERE IS WHAT WILL SHAKE CANADA AND THE US. Europe, Asia, Africa, and South america are also wanting in on the movie game. look at the young filmmakers that subscribe to THIS website. in the last 4 years the international members have increased. and they will continue to increase. All of these members want to tell stories, and they will. these will be the competitors in our industry. as the standard of living in each country increases and the expendable $ increases so will the number of films shot in those regions.

Tariff "penalties" used to be the law of the land as well, but those went away too with policies like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act being undone. States also have the ability to impose a "Corporate Death Penalty" for Corporations that are deemed to be acting AGAINST the public interest and/or in a dangerous manner. But of course, in our predominately "pro-business" environment, Attorney's General aren't likely to impose that penalty anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

:) I work quite a lot, but it is worth the time to attempt to "educate" others as to the realities of what is really going on out in the world. I believe that for too long, this economic ideology has wormed it's way into the public consciousness to the point where people really aren't aware that it hasn't always been this way and it does not have to continue being this way. In the US, CONservative politics have undermined the economy since 1980 and only now, people are poking their heads out of the sand to ask why. These issues we are feeling in the movie industry aren't new to other industries, like textiles and automobiles which have experienced the same kind of outsourcing for decades now. What you label as "bickering" I appreciate as a necessary discussion. Richard B. has his valid POV coming from a nation that doesn't have it's own behemoth movie industry, therefore crews there rely on their government to bribe US Corporations in order to make a living. I get it. I do. But every movie or TV show made elsewhere solely because of the tax incentive scheme means that industry professionals in a place like Los Angeles DON'T have a job that they would have had otherwise. This scheme dilutes the workforce and undermines pay and the taxbase for the government. It's good for the Corporations that make more money by saving on taxes, but ultimately, the nation loses by losing work and/or needed tax revenue.

[Guest]

Well Brian good news for you, an election will be called today in Canada. Maybe you can make this an election issue and get the tax credit system voted down?

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Well Brian good news for you, an election will be called today in Canada. Maybe you can make this an election issue and get the tax credit system voted down?

 

R,

 

:) I don't have and don't "deserve" to have any say in Canadian politics, the way international interests are now allowed to have in the USA. I wouldn't presume to suggest that I should have a voice in what your government chooses to do.

 

What I think your nation and other nations should do is "protect" your own internal film industries and those who wish to work in those industries. Limit the number of "foreign" movies that are shown on your screens. If the government wants to hand out bribes, then only do it for Canadian films and not foreign projects. Develop your own internal industry instead of having "filmmakers" relying on the government to bribe foreign (US) Corporations to bring work to them.

 

Why is that such a difficult concept? Is it just that much easier to rely on government bribes? Maybe it is. But isn't that just laziness?

[robert duke]

That's just not entirely true. In regard to rates, one of the points of a national union (IATSE, TEAMSTERS, DGA, WGA) is that everyone who is part of that union gets the same rates and benefits. A movie shooting under contract will pay the same rates and benefits no matter where it shoots in the USA.

 

Read more: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=49085&st=60#ixzz1HogLSSd8

 

sorry brian you are wrong here. area stardards contracts have varied rates for most positions. that can be as low as half of what an LA based film can be. I work all over and my rates are Not consistent. you are more than welcome to look up the area standards agreement and see that a filmworker in atlanta is paid significantly less than LA.

 

Key Wardrobe/Lead Set

Wardrobe $34.20

Costumer/Buyer/ Stylist $29.05

Set Costumer $29.05

Key Tailor/Fitter $31.00

Seamstress/Tailor/Stitcher/Sewer $29.05

 

7/31/11

Grips

Key $34.20

Best Boy Grip $31.00

Dolly Grip $31.00

Crane Operators $29.05

Grips $29.05

Pre-Riggers $29.05

 

 

LA RATES

Key Grip Hourly 39.72

2nd Grip Hourly 36.05

Dolly Grip 37.29

Grip 34.51

 

these rate changes are based on a 10mil movie. you can see the difference. which even without incentives can be a reason to shift production, it has been and it will be again.

[Guest]

:) I don't have and don't "deserve" to have any say in Canadian politics, the way international interests are now allowed to have in the USA. I wouldn't presume to suggest that I should have a voice in what your government chooses to do.

 

What I think your nation and other nations should do is "protect" your own internal film industries and those who wish to work in those industries. Limit the number of "foreign" movies that are shown on your screens. If the government wants to hand out bribes, then only do it for Canadian films and not foreign projects. Develop your own internal industry instead of having "filmmakers" relying on the government to bribe foreign (US) Corporations to bring work to them.

 

Why is that such a difficult concept? Is it just that much easier to rely on government bribes? Maybe it is. But isn't that just laziness?

 

Yawn who cares? Now load up them trucks in LA and head for the Canadian border, yee haaw!!

 

R,

[Guest]

Brian,

 

Great news! One down, nine to go!

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/24/nb-film-tax-cuts-higgs-budget-614.html

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian,

 

Great news! One down, nine to go!

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/24/nb-film-tax-cuts-higgs-budget-614.html

 

R,

 

 

You beat me to it. ;)