Brian Dzyak

http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/film-industry-community-contributors-or-corporate-welfare-bums/ Film Industry: Community Contributors or Corporate Welfare Bums? July 29th, 2013 · 7 Comments It’s probably the best line that I have ever heard from an NDP Leader: David Lewis introduced his ”corporate welfare bums” characterization of Canadian big business during the 1972 election campaign, referring to the widespread corporate federal take through tax breaks, grants etc. That phrase is now an oft-repeated denunciation of corporate greed, not only in Canada, but throughout the world … so much so it has its own listing in Wikipedia: ”The term is often used to describe a government’s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporationsor selected corporations, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor.” There is something ugly about corporate greed … companies that measure their PROFITS in BILLIONS demanding, taking, being awarded MILLIONS in tax breaks and publicly subsidized free services … especially at a time when the public purse is so depleted that seniors who can’t afford fancier private care homes and live in fairly basic public facilities are being billed $25 a month for their wheelchairs!!! These are indeed tough times for public programs and should be for those corporate welfare bums pushing for publicly-paid privileges. But there in the Legislature late last week was NDP MLA George Heyman portraying the BC government as the villain for failing to cough up enough of a public bribe to prevent the Fantastic For movie production from moving to Louisiana. “This government has succeeded in doing what no other super villain has, and that’s to scare away the Fantastic Four,” Heyman complained. “Will the government’s message continue to be it’s clobbering time for the BC film industry?” Awwwww! Poor BC film industry … those corporate welfare bums that will ALREADY receive an estimated THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS this year alone in public subsidies. The BC film industry …that fought tooth and nail against removal of the HST … because it poured millions more each year into its HUGE publicly-stuffed pockets. The film industry … those corporate blackmailers who play one community against the other, one province against the other, one country against the other … contributing as little as possible to those places where they operate, soaking up as much as they bleed from those same communities … while measuring their own profits in the BILLIONS . And even that’s after hiding as much of their income as they can behind all those tax breaks, write-offs, free services and expense accounts that would make any NORMAL person or business (not just those billed for their wheelchairs) blind with rage. How much of a public giveaway to those corporate welfare bums would be enough for Heyman and today’s NDP? David Lewis would not be amused … and neither should we! I know there are the arguments that the giveaways to the film industry are offset by the wages, personal income taxes, local spending and other benefits due to the industry’s presence in our midst. Well, why not cancel taxes, fees and provide freebies for a whole slew of companies that can prove they could operate somewhere else? And nowhere in Heyman’s NDP plea on behalf of this production did I see any figures showing the net benefit we’d all enjoy by PAYING them to stay here. Just pretty shallow grandstanding on behalf of another corporate welfare bum. Or maybe the NDP wants BC to be transformed into the type of non-union, heavily armed, socially backward society they have in Louisiana? Just to keep The Fantastic Four happy … while the rest of us pay to support them in the luxury to which they feel entitled. Harv Oberfeld

B.C. wants truce with Ontario, Quebec on film tax credits http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-wants-truce-with-ontario-quebec-on-film-tax-credits/article12626487/

Film tax credit is a raw deal for taxpayers http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/4176211-74/tax-film-credit#axzz2W6VKtQxD By Antony Davies & James R. Harrigan Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi has announced that he will introduce legislation to uncap Pennsylvania's Film Production Tax Credit (FPTC) in an effort to entice production companies to film in the commonwealth. To justify this sweetheart tax break for the film industry, Sen. Pileggi cites a “detailed report from the Independent Fiscal Office” that “concludes that ‘uncapping' the film tax credit would have a significant positive impact on Pennsylvania's economy with a minimal cost in the coming fiscal year.” This is partially true. The Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) did release a report. The rest of the senator's statement, like most of what the film industry produces, is pure fantasy. On page 2, the IFO clearly states that “(the report) does not address the fiscal or economic impact of the FPTC in general, nor does it evaluate the overall effectiveness of the credit.” In fact, the report can be summarized in two points: The tax credit will cost us money and the tax credit will be good for the film industry. The report goes on to say that “for every one dollar in tax credit awarded, the Commonwealth recoups $0.14 in tax revenue from the associated economic activity.” Put another way, the tax credit sells our tax dollars to the film industry for 14 cents each. Pileggi's bill would uncap this giveaway, allowing the film industry to buy as many of our tax dollars as it likes at this bargain price. Granted, these are tax credits — meaning that we aren't exactly giving away our tax dollars so much as failing to collect them. But the IFO admits in its report that it doesn't know how many films would have been made in Pennsylvania if the tax credit didn't exist. If the answer is “all of them,” we really are giving away our tax dollars. Even if the answer is “only half of them,” we're selling our tax dollars for 28 cents each, not 14 cents each. That's still a raw deal for taxpayers. Don't get us wrong — cutting taxes spurs economic growth. But to avoid favoritism, tax cuts need to be across the board. When government picks winners, as Pileggi is doing, it invariably fails because politicians don't put their own money on the line. They put our money on the line. If the bet pays off, they win. It it doesn't, we lose. If Pennsylvania has $130 million to throw around, then let's cut taxes across the board. Then taxpayers could decide for themselves which industries deserve their hard-earned money. The job creation would be the same; the economic growth would be the same. What would be different is that the new jobs would be producing things that the people want, not things that the politicians think we should have. The film tax credit is a slap in the face to the hardworking people of Pennsylvania, delivered by Pileggi as he woos one industry at the expense of the others. If lower taxes mean economic growth, then let's lower taxes for everyone. And if Sen. Pileggi wants to invest in the film industry, let him do it with his own money. Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James R. Harrigan is a fellow of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.

So, you're in favor of mandating that "Joe Six Pack" be solely responsible for the tax burden which pays for schools, roads, bridges, national defense, etc, while Corporations and their CEOs walk away scot-free? Because that's precisely what the Tax Bribe system is doing. And the reason why the wealth gap has grown exponentially in the last thirty years since "Reaganomics" has taken hold over most of the world. What you're saying, Richard Boddington, is that Corporations or their Management, should not be responsible in any financial respect for the nations that care and feed them to allow them to operate and succeed. You just want Corporations to operate with impunity, no financial or other responsibility to the PEOPLE who cough up the financial sacrifice that makes their "for profit" enterprise possible. In other words, what you're saying is "I owe them NOTHING!"

Because this site is called "cinematography.com" not farming.com. The entire idea of Corporate Welfare is basically wrong and anti-thetical to the so-called "Free Market" advocates who whine like babies about any other government intervention into the markets. Typical hypocrites, those sort, though, so nothing new there. The purpose of "government" is to establish and maintain a stable society/civilization and a stable viable economy. It accomplishes that goal by regulating basic human behaviors too ensure that the most selfish and greedy and reckless are not permitted to misbehave in ways that threaten that stability. (Traffic laws are one of the most basic and relatively uncontested examples of this. Economic regulations on banking and trade are necessary but very contested examples of this.) Part of that mandate includes taking appropriate steps toward the long-term progress and security of civilization and the environment. To THAT end, government SHOULD be investing in new technologies, such as alternative non-fossil fuel energy production and distribution, because we know that human activity in terms of carbon emissions is threatening the ability of life itself to survive on this planet. So subsidies and other financial "incentives" are more than appropriate in these cases, just as government should be financing basic rights like education and healthcare. The film industry doesn't fall into the category of "necessary to human survival" so should be exempt from receiving tax-payer funded welfare from people who see zero direct financial benefit from such welfare...and more to the point, these tax payers are typically LOSING out on much needed tax revenue which is necessary for the things that society does require, such as infrastructure and education funding which can only be paid for with taxes from business and labor. ALL reputable studies/audits on film tax "incentive" programs show a direct LOSS as governments hand out more money than the locality takes in with wages to workers. Their fallback excuse is "well, we generate lots of ancillary economic activity which makes up for it," but as of yet, again, no reputable studies have proven this at all. So the Corporation taking the tax breaks and/or subsidies walks away with cheaper manufacturing costs while sticking their employees with the tax bill and the locality that handed out those tax breaks and subsidies are left with a net loss on their tax revenue vs what they handed out. This has a ripple effect on economies as workers are the major drivers in consumer good consumption (buying things) while Corporations and their CEOs consumer far far less. And less consumer spending means less demand which means less employment across the board which only adds to the loss of tax revenue necessary for government to fulfill its mandates.

Movie subsidies lure Hollywood stars, but is it worth it?

http://globalnews.ca/news/562658/ndps-corporate-welfare-for-film-industry-wont-save-jobs-economist/

Merely saying they are "flawed" does not mean they are flawed.

Lights, camera … and a $69 million N.C. rebate to movie industry http://www.journalnow.com/news/state_region/article_a4060fce-b321-11e2-bf30-0019bb30f31a.html

You meant to write, "All state tax bribes are shut down..." instead?

New audit says Louisiana spent $800 million on film production tax credits over last 5 years http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/09f3740a75ea4ea0b93590bb5647b370/LA–Movie-Tax-Credit THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BATON ROUGE, Louisiana — Louisiana shelled out $800 million over the last five years in tax breaks for the movie industry, according to an audit released Monday that suggests the state gets back little in direct revenue for the expense. For example, the review by Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera’s office said, the state spent $197 million tax credits for production projects in 2010 and received $27 million in tax revenue in return. “The overall fiscal impact to state government is negative,” the audit says. State law provides two kinds of tax breaks: an income tax credit for 30 percent of production expenses and an income tax credit for 5 percent of payroll costs related to Louisiana workers employed on the movie or TV production. Supporters of the program say the industry has created thousands of new jobs and economic activity across the state. Critics question if Louisiana gets enough return for its investment. The Department of Economic Development says a recent analysis estimated that every $1 issued in film tax breaks generates $5.71 in economic output. But the state also loses at least 85 cents in tax revenue for every $1 it spends. The program “was designed to cultivate and sustain a thriving film production industry in Louisiana — and it’s been very successful. Louisiana is now one of the top states in the country in film production activity, and the industry supports thousands of jobs in Louisiana that previously did not exist,” DED Secretary Stephen Moret wrote in response to the audit. The price tag of the tax break has been growing, costing $115 million in 2008 and $223 million by last year, according to the audit. Gov. Bobby Jindal proposed changes to lessen the generosity of the tax break when he was pushing a full package of adjustments to Louisiana’s tax structure. He’s since dropped the effort, and it’s unclear if any lawmakers will pursue proposals to shrink the tax breaks.

Cut through the film tax credit fiction http://triblive.com/opinion/colinmcnickle/3843912-74/tax-credit-film#axzz2R4Pt0K4Z By Colin McNickle Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages

Milke: Lights! Camera! Massive film subsidies!

Yep. No large Corporation needs a "tax incentive" to operate. It is just a give-away, Corporate Welfare, and a vehicle being used to blackmail cities/States/nations against each other to see who is willing to hand over the biggest bribe.

http://realfilmcareer.com/film-industry-doesnt-need-more-tax-dollars/

Memo claims NC film incentives brought in less jobs than expected http://realfilmcareer.com/memo-claims-nc-film-incentives-brought-in-less-jobs-than-expected/

Audit: Film tax credits cost state millions

http://realfilmcareer.com/b-c-urges-ontario-to-harmonize-film-tax-credits/ B.C. urges Ontario to harmonize film tax credits http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/03/27/bc_urges_ontario_to_harmonize_film_tax_credits.html Meeting of finance ministers from both provinces to discuss re-examining the system. By: Robert Benzie Provincial Hoping to end The Hunger Games-like competition among provinces seeking movie productions, British Columbia is pleading with Ontario to harmonize its film tax credits to save both provinces a bundle. “Calling these things ‘tax credits’ is a bit misleading … they are subsidized incentives,” B.C. Finance Minister Mike de Jong told the Star on Tuesday. “They’re playing the taxpayers off one against the other,” de Jong said after a meeting with Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa in Toronto. “The first step is to stop being whipsawed for one another because that’s just crazy.” It’s expected to cost B.C. around $330 million this year to help bankroll film production in the province; the tab for Ontario’s industry could ultimately be three times that when all factors are considered. While Sousa said he had “a great session” with de Jong and confirmed the government would likely re-examine the system, nothing radical is imminent. “I am not at this point looking at changing our investment tax credits for the film industry,” the treasurer said at Queen’s Park. “Ontario has become very attractive for the film industry because of the investment tax credits we’ve provided.” Sousa is tabling his first budget as finance minister next month. But with roughly a third of the minority Liberal government’s seats in Toronto, home to the lion’s share of Ontario film production, it would be politically imprudent to reduce tax credits. Since being elected in 2003, the Liberals have continually enriched tax credits to match or undercut other jurisdictions, such as Quebec and numerous American states.

http://realfilmcareer.com/five-reasons-government-subsidies-for-films-are-a-bad-idea/ Five Reasons Government Subsidies For Films Are A Bad Idea http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/18456 Politicians help Big Hollywood soak taxpayers for few benefits, much harm By JARRETT SKORUP Michigan subsidizes up to 32 percent of expenditures for film, television, music video, video game and other media projects done in the state. Essentially, this means that select qualified ventures receive a check from the state treasury for production. I recently debated Michigan’s film subsidy program on Fox 2 in Detroit. I gave several reasons why the state should not be spending taxpayer money on this private enterprise. Here they are: The Michigan film subsidy program does not create jobs. As James Hohman, a fiscal policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy reported in 2010, the initial program was signed into law on April 7, 2008. That month, there were about 5,867 jobs in Michigan’s motion picture and sound recording industries. One year before the subsidy went into effect, there were about 6,750 jobs in that area. Two years after the bill-signing, there were about 5,300 jobs in the industry (see chart nearby). It’s true that film production companies tend to use employee-leasing agencies, meaning that the jobs reported by the companies and the film office might show up in another industrial category, but the reality is that despite immense subsidies, Michigan is nowhere close to an independent or sustainable film industry. Of course, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a select sector of the economy may very well mean more jobs for that industry, as is claimed by film subsidy supporters, but analyses that find job creation through subsidizing movies almost always ignore the cost of the program. That is, where that money may have been spent otherwise, whether in the private-sector or on other more worthy government projects like roads. Virtually no one who has analyzed film subsidy programs across the nation finds them to be worth the cost. The best source for measuring what the program actually brought back to the state in terms of tax dollars is a Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency report from 2010-11. It found an 11 percent return on investment: State spending of $125 million for $13.5 million back. The study also found that nearly half of the film credits left Michigan and had no effect on state economic activity. Film subsidies are an area where scholars are almost united across the political and economic spectrum — these programs are not worth the cost. The conservative Tax Foundation has found that movie production incentives “are costly and fail to live up to their promises.” The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found film subsidies to be ”a classic race to the bottom” and the economic benefits “more fiction than fact.” The subsidy has led to massive investments in film studios leading to disastrous results. Allen Park paid $40 million for property and improvements of Unity Studios — a movie studio that came to be because of the Michigan Economic Development Corp., the film program and a partner who promised the project would create “at least 3,000 jobs.” Fast forward a few years. The studio never happened, taxpayers are on the hook for what may end up being over $100 million, public employees are being asked to take cuts or lose their jobs, the council and the mayor who approved the deal were replaced, and Allen Park now has an emergency manager to try and deal with it all. Michigan Motion Pictures Studios, formerly Raleigh Studios, in Pontiac was the site of the recently-released, “Oz: The Great and Powerful.” It needs a continuing bailout from the pension funds of Michigan public employees to meet its bond payments. Under a deal reached between former Gov. Jennifer Granholm and wealthy investors, the state pension funds back the studio, and when those payments weren’t made, the state raided the pensions of teachers, police officers and other state workers to cover the difference. The state has paid $1.68 million so far. Film subsidy programs are being shut down in other states because of a multitude of problems. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, states have given $3.5 billion in production incentives since 2005. But because of cost concerns, a lack of job creation and other issues, they are starting to cut back. The article reports: “Kansas and New Jersey have suspended their tax credits. Rhode Island has capped subsidies at $15 million annually, and Wisconsin’s are set at a measly $500,000 a year. Arizona’s program is set to expire … Larry Brownell, head of the Association of Film Commissioners International, which represents 41 of the 42 states offering credits, predicts half the states will shelve their programs within a decade.” The subsidies have ended in Iowa and a state commission in Missouri recommended repealing its program. Even in Louisiana, which spends the most on films and where support is particularly strong and bipartisan, film office bureaucrats are more and more about . Regardless of political beliefs, Big Hollywood teaming up with government should violate the conscience.The majority of film subsidies go to big companies, mostly based in California. In fact, the Michigan Film Office says on its website that large productions are more likely to be chosen. So the Michigan film subsidy program is effectively a direct subsidy from the middle class to the rich; and few outside of a free market think tank are taking the side of regular taxpayers against millionaire actors and actresses and billion-dollar studios. Michael Moore could take up the cause, except he benefited from the program. Moore made a film called, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which, in his words, seeks to expose “the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans.” Moore has stated repeatedly that he fights for the little guy against special favors for groups from government. In a prominent scene in the film, he stands with a bag on Wall Street and shouts, “We want our money back!” But Moore requested and was approved for $1 million from Michigan’s film subsidy program. In the end, according to The New York Times, he received over $840,000 from Michigan taxpayers to film some of the movie in his home state. By nature, politicians love spending other people’s money, especially on programs with easily seen benefits and lesser seen costs. This explains why it is perhaps unsurprising that the original incentive passed 108-0 in the state House and 37-1 in the state Senate (former Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, was the only politician to stand against the program). And many news organizations report almost exclusively on the positive parts of the subsidy while rarely covering the costs. That’s why spending taxpayer money on movie making is ideal for the major players who influence public opinion. It has the benefit of looking like government is “doing something” to create jobs while at the same time bringing recognizable stars to the state. But political decisions have real world consequences and the results of the Michigan film subsidy program are almost uniformly bad.

So, you and the other productions have promised to employ locals consistently with weekly paychecks for the next 50 years? Or did you just move in, take what you needed from their local economy, then bolt, taking your profits with you even though BECAUSE of their bribes, you were able to make your product? Shouldn't Parry Sound be a co-producer in that they essentially co-financed your movie? What is the town's cut?

Obviously, cities/States/Nations have economic difficulties that are multifaceted. "Arts" spending is but a small part of the puzzle. It's hardly a "canard" to point out that it is ridiculous for "governments" to try to play in the movie-making sandbox by bribing movie studios with money they don't really have. There has yet to be ANY government to prove that it's "incentives" actually create a profit as a result of those "incentives." So far EVERY State in the USA which has had an honest audit has shown that their specific "incentives" for film production prove to be at a loss, not a net gain, for their local economies. Naturally, Fascists here and elsewhere will laud "incentives" as "necessary" and proclaim that "They work!" because those at the top profit by squeezing governments and crew in the race to the bottom while profits on the end-product have consistently risen thus increasing payouts for everyone except crew and the governments that were so generous. Someone might have a case to justify an "incentive" for a factory which will employ hundreds of locals for years on end. But the film industry specifically is like a swarm of locusts, moving in to rape a location for whatever it needs it for, then it leaves days or weeks later, never to return. There is promise of long term local employment for things like computers or manufacturing in large factories, but the film industry isn't like that on any level. The comparison is nonsense.

Oh look, ANOTHER State running the numbers to discover that they are being robbed: So let's see.... taxpayers doles out 44.1 million and "sparked" $38.7 million back. That would be a deficit of $5.4 million. Toss that into the pile with the recent Louisiana audit that found a loss as well. Please, anyone, tell the class again why tax "incentives" are beneficial to the industry and crew who actually make the movies? http://realfilmcareer.com/report-details-costs-benefits-of-states-bid-to-lure-film-industry/

Louisiana Lawmakers Stunned About Cost of Film Subsidy Program and Admits LOSS Published on Mar 11, 2013 For every $1 in tax revenue generated by the direct and indirect economic impact from film spending in Louisiana, the cost to the state was $7.29 paid OUT from state coffers. In this video, Stephen Moret, Secretary of LED, is awkwardly forced to admit massive loss on investment. !

‘Oz’ film costs Michigan taxpayers $40 million http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/13/oz-film-costs-michigan-taxpayers-40-million/

If giving millions to the film and TV industry is so great, why all the secrecy? http://realfilmcareer.com/if-giving-millions-to-the-film-and-tv-industry-is-so-great-why-all-the-secrecy/