Jump to content

Brian Dzyak

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    1507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Brian Dzyak

  1. So, what's the answer? Just have EVERYBODY slash their rates to be "competitive"? THAT is a race to the bottom. If Australian Actors slash their rates by, say, 10% so that they "Cost Less!" than Actors in New Zealand...then NZ Actors slash their rates by 15%... the Aus goes to 20%...then NZ to 35%... then.... You see where this is going. Where does it stop? Plutocrats won't be happy until humanity is reduced back to the Serf/Slave-Lord of the Manor arrangement. The first step is to destroy Labor Unions and use propaganda to diminish its importance to human rights. (see Richard's posts above for example). Then Plutocrats who are saving money on labor costs are able to purchase government policies to undermine labor rights legislation that Unions had fought for. Plutocrats also use imbalanced transnational trade policies to blackmail governments against each other in the "Tax Incentive/Bribe" scam. ("Give us X in tax breaks and Y in subsidies or we'll take our ball and play someplace else!") This further undermines civilized society and gives more wealth and power to Plutocrats. Bottom line is that giving away fought-for wages/benefits for short-term jobs is playing the game that Plutocrats desire. And it's a zero-sum game for labor. You can never win that rate game because somebody else will always be hungrier and more willing to give away everything. I've said it to Los Angeles based crew who complain about California not handing out enough in tax bribes to be "competitive".... if you truly want all the work back in LA, simply agree to work for a buck an hour, give up lunches, give up overtime, give up fringes, and give up box rentals. Just give it all away and I PROMISE that every TV show and every movie project WILL be shot in Southern California again. That's the game that's being played. Who gives up the most wins. That's why the Boddington's of the world hate Unions...not because they don't work, but because they DO. If the Plutocrats want us to live within a Global Economy and make us all compete against one another, then we should have zero restrictions on the movement of labor across international borders and we should all operate with the same currency. At the very least, we should all work as ONE STRONG UNION to keep wages at the exact same rates across the board no matter where a movie is produced in the world. Then, even if government's caved into blackmail demands for bribe payments (tax incentives/subsidies), then at least the crew wouldn't be getting screwed over too.
  2. Business owners are not "job creators." CONSUMERS are job creators by creating DEMAND for a product. If you were a true "job creator," you'd whip up a few thousand jobs all willy nilly for no reason at all. And with a straight face, you truly think that unions aren't necessary but you support labour laws? Who do you think made those labour laws happen in the first place? I promise they didn't come from Aristocrats like you. The second that Labor loses the ability to have political power by creating a combined force (a "union") is the second that Plutocrats buy off government officials to dissolve "labor protection laws" so that so-called "job creators" can run rampant over their hungry serf class. To assume that "job creators" will behave and treat their employees right is naive at best. To assume that "job creators" won't use their growing wealth to influence government in their favor is nothing short of ludicrous. https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/581833_542941809059330_1040554538_n.jpg
  3. But here ya go, since you asked: Just an excerpt: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/when-hollywood-comes-to-town.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
  4. I would have no time for anything else if all I did was share information about every Tax Bribe debacle occurring around the world. I'd need a full time staff to keep up!
  5. That's precisely what would happen. The SECOND that regulations are lifted, profit-seekers take every opportunity, no matter how despicable, to increase their share. Just look at a company like Walmart for example. To avoid being responsible for health benefits that full-time employees in the front office enjoy, they purposefully keep hours just below full-time while also keeping wages low. The result is that too many fall into the category of the "working poor" who must utilize our "social safety net" (foodstamps) to supplement their meager wages. You could respond like any "free marketer" and say, "Well, they can just quit!" But in your universe of non-regulated markets, where would that person go to work that is any better? And the company doesn't care because there is an ample supply of desperate unemployed people who will agree to be exploited for a few ducats thrown down from on high. And you want to drop Labor unionization altogether because of so-called "corruption"?! It's only corruption to an Aristocrat because you don't like their goals which cut into your profits. The very notion that business owners would "behave" and continue to treat their employees fairly without threat of legal action (or worse) is what is laughable. You are very naive, Mr. Boddington.
  6. You couldn't be more wrong. Unions haven't driven work out of the USA. The practice of Tax Bribes/Breaks and Subsidies have done that. If Unions were the problem, movies would have been made over the border decades ago at the rate they are now. And your statement that Unions have "no benefit to society" could only be uttered by a wanna-be Aristocrat. Labor Unions came into being BECAUSE workers were being abused with inadequate pay and unsafe working conditions. It's because of Labor Unions that EVERYONE, even non-union workers, enjoy the salaries and hourly wages that have been established as well as, arguably, having a weekend, overtime pay, and safety regulations. Labor Unions DON'T keep non-union people out of the workforce. I'm proof of that. I drove my little younger self to LA, went to work, and earned my way into union membership. Unions aren't the problem. They are and always have been the solution to protect, not only individuals, but the economy as a whole. As more people earn more money, they spend more in the economy which stimulates other businesses to hire because of the increased demand. Following your model of destroying unions and undermining wages, everyone works less, earns less, spends less and then fewer people have money to spend to watch your silly Canadian movies. They'll save their limited funds to go see the "sure thing" coming from Hollywood and ignore the little movies which maybe they'll think about seeing someday on cable at home. And finally, there is no true "Free Market" in the world beyond, perhaps, Somalia. What's more, there shouldn't be. The Austrian economic model is a proven failure. Milton Friedman even scoffed at the Reaganomic abomination that was crafted from the threads of Friedman's nonsense. Economies must be regulated, both from Government and from Labor. Without regulation and controls, wealth consolidates into the hands of just a few, the economy falters, and society degenerates away from democracy and into Corporate Fiefdoms where the serf-class scrambles for the scraps. Perhaps you should read this to gain some enlightenment: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/11/explaining-socialism-to-a-republican/
  7. http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/col-why-states-play-tax-incentive-game.html
  8. Thanks! Uh, yeah, I will actually try to use the sun as a backlight IF I'm shooting late enough in the day that the Sun isn't overhead and it isn't too low to flare the lens. Otherwise, I do just take all the sunlight off the subject, hit them with artificial light in the front, and let the ambient provide whatever backlight there might be.
  9. Tennessee Comptroller slams state incentives to film industry
  10. The difference between the film industry and almost every other industry (i.e., farming, any factory) is that while a tax break for a factory means that X industry will REMAIN in a specific location for years guaranteeing steady employment for the local population, the film industry is inherently temporary and nomadic. Film producers made lots and lots of movies prior to the "incentive" scam and they'd continue to make them without the bribes. The only thing that "incentives" accomplish is to allow producers to pocket more profits, not to make more movies and employ more people. Bribes also allow them to undermine Unions with the intent to depress wages and exploit labor.
  11. Where's my "Tax Incentive" to pack up all my worldly belongings and move to an entirely new city in hopes that the payola keeps the jobs in that town? The point is, IATSE is participating in undermining its own established membership by giving away qualifying hours to anybody off the street who shows up for a class. I got zero qualifying hours for the years of low-budget work I did to learn how to do the job, yet now getting into the Union is gift-wrapped to any newcomer just because the Louisiana State Government bribes Corporations more than anyone else does or can? Talk about total surrender to Fascism.
  12. http://novacvideo.org/readysetfilm/ Pathetic. It's not bad enough that State governments are handing over bribe money and giving into Corporate blackmail with "Tax incentives," now IATSE is cooperating in undermining the established IATSE membership by trying to giftwrap industry jobs to inexperienced locals from Bum**(obscenity removed)**, USA. There are plenty of experienced, skilled, and available IATSE members who already live in Southern California where all the film infrastructure already is. IATSE should be working hard to get the jobs BACK where they belong instead of undermining its own established experienced membership.
  13. Bailouts for BC Film Industry? Cut! http://realfilmcareer.com/bailouts-for-bc-film-industry-cut/ http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/01/22/BC-Film-Industry-Bailout/
  14. It's not about where this scam happens. That it happens anywhere on the planet is reason enough to draw attention to it in an effort to stop it from happening. A) You claimed that there are "parts" that are wrong, yet you named only one. Are there more or just that one? B ) The single part you claim to be wrong has zero references connected to it. How many people precisely? How much do they actually take home? How long have they and will they have these high paying jobs? Where are your sources to prove this assertion that counters the article's own assertion?
  15. http://realfilmcareer.com/hollywood-tax-incentives-come-under-fire/
  16. I'd be in favor of "tax incentives" if the national, state, and/or local governments handing them out became actual profit-partners in the productions. After all, those governments are essentially giving productions free cash, either as a tax savings or as an outright handout. And "government" is nothing more than the taxpayers who live there...the majority of whom will not have work on those productions. So those citizen tax payers are handing cash over to a for-profit Corporation and getting absolutely nothing out of it. Anyone who invests a dime into a production should be a profit-sharing producing partner so taxpayers who give out these "incentives" and subsidies should be reaping a share of any profits. That simple step would turn the tax BRIBE scam into a legitimate program that actually benefits society in a tangible quantifiable way.
  17. Audit finds gaps in Alaska’s film tax credit program http://realfilmcareer.com/audit-finds-gaps-in-alaskas-film-tax-credit-program/
  18. I've suggested before that if So Cal film professionals really want to give "the majors" an incentive, why not just slash wages by half and give up meals on set and give up box rentals. Sound silly? Let's say Western Region IA tells the industry that starting tomorrow, all rates would be slashed by 75% and they wouldn't have to provide catering or craftie anymore and crews would give the production their gear and not charge the box rental. How's that for an "incentive"? So, let's assume that the majors jump on that because suddenly, it's way less expensive to shoot in LA now than a state that offers a meager 42% tax "incentive." The crews in Atlanta and New Orleans start bitching up a storm, complaining that suddenly they can't make a living anymore. So the majors say, "hey, tell you what, drop YOUR rates by 80% to compete with the LA crews and we'll bring our movies back to you." So they do. Then LA crews drop theirs to 90% AND toss in some subsidy cash up front. Then Canada is getting hammered and they give all of that AND kick in some cash (provided by their taxpayers). So all the projects move back to Vancouver. Then NYC decides to offer 95% cut in crew rates, no box rentals, no meals, no OT, cash back, AND free locations. Then LA gives all of that AND offers up free off-duty police to provide security. You see where this is going? There's no such thing as a tax "incentive." They are bribes. Plain and simple. Bribes that "the majors" can wield as blackmail to extort more from some other state, city, or union. "Give us this or we'll take our ball and go play somewhere else." Official policy by governments is to not give in to ransom demands by terrorists. Corporations are economic terrorists, taking more and more and more from "labor," while taking more and more and more from nations, states, cities, and towns that need the tax revenue. All of those "give-aways" are tantamount to the tax-payers being Producers in the projects they are helping to finance. So where is the profit-sharing? Crews aren't getting it as wages are dropping or stagnant. Local governments aren't getting it as they give away more than they get back. Instead of giving in to this bribery scam, California should lead the way in ending it for everyone. Corporate tax-breaks haven't spurred the economy. The people at the top and stock-holders just pocket the money, send it offshore, and use it to get the newest Italian supercar or to attract another supermodel or finance their coke habit. They'll still make movies if there were no tax bribes. They did it before for a long long long time and they'll do it again, but only if We the People get involved to stop this insane zero-sum game race to the bottom.
  19. Taxpayers not just being robbed for sporting stadiums anymore. Now taxpayers get to pay for soundstages too! (I still wonder when taxpayers will get to share in the profits of the movies they've helped pay to produce).
  20. Look here for a comprehensive list of filmschools in Canada: http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com/Countries/Canada.htm
  21. Uncertain future for N.C. film incentives http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20120811/ARTICLES/120819934
  22. And, of course, the counter viewpoint is devoid of any numbers to support it. Even so, for all of the "government is bad and shouldn't pick winners & losers" crowd, it's funny how that ideology is conveniently ignored when it comes to handing out tax dollars to very big Corporations. The argument made by Mr. Counterpoint is, "Well, yeah, taxpayers are spending about $7.30 for every $1 of new tax revenue brought in, but we have a gut feelings that maybe all the ancillary business probably makes up the remaining $6 bucks, probably. We think so, anyway cuz that's what our ideology says should happen. At least that's what we'll tell anyone who has the audacity to question this program of bribery and blackmail that we whitewash as tax-incentives."
  23. http://realfilmcareer.com/film-tax-credits-cost-state-too-much-report-says/
  24. Right now (in my hotel room), I have the Sonnet Expresscard adapter plugged into the MacBook Pro via Thunderbolt (pricey cable!) then my G-Raid drives daisychained but all linked in through the Firewire port. I'm downloading SxS data and backing it up twice in a third of the time it used to take me without the Thunderbolt.
×
×
  • Create New...