STATE FILM SUBSIDIES: NOT MUCH BANG FOR TOO MANY BUCKS

[Guest]

I'm sure that Producers feel really good that they get off scot-free from contributing to the tax base that finances silly things like public infrastructure and education, making workers foot the entire bill.

 

Once again, I seriously don't know where you come up with this stuff????????

 

There's no point in even discussing this with you as your knowledge of basic economics and producing in general are so poor, that there is not even the basis for a discussion here.

 

What part of me PAYING crew and the crew PAYING taxes don't you understand? BTW, I'm a member of the crew as well.

 

Stick to camera work.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Once again, I seriously don't know where you come up with this stuff????????

 

There's no point in even discussing this with you as your knowledge of basic economics and producing in general are so poor, that there is not even the basis for a discussion here.

 

What part of me PAYING crew and the crew PAYING taxes don't you understand? BTW, I'm a member of the crew as well.

 

Stick to camera work.

 

R,

 

 

I know a scam when I see one. Stick to ripping off your government for your own profit.

 

The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan study group that focuses on tax burdens and tax policy, opposes movie incentives offered by states, saying they rarely provide the benefits they promise.

 

“MPIs are popular with state officials and many of their constituents but often escape routine oversight about benefits, costs and activities,” says a page on the Tax Foundation’s website. “Based on fanciful estimates of economic activity and tax revenue, states invest in movie production projects with small returns and take unnecessary risks with taxpayer dollars.

 

My link

[Guest]

I know a scam when I see one. Stick to ripping off your government for your own profit.

 

You really do write ridiculous stuff!!

 

Look buddy, as far as I'm concerned producers (and producers like me) should be given freaking medals!

 

We create work from scratch for people that if left to their own devices have no idea how to pull financing together and get a movie off the ground. Have you ever raised a million dollars for a film? Go out and try it sometime.

 

I have spent the last two years of my life pulling together the budget for my current project. Throughout the process my pay cheque has been zero. That's right Brian I have worked for two years solid for zero pay. Could you or any of your crew buddies do that? How many would be willing to even try?

 

That is what a producer does, we take an enormous risk based on the hope that things will work out. You show up on set, collect your pay cheque, and go home.

 

Once my show is up and running a lot of people will have jobs because I stuck it out and pulled a good sized budget together. Problem is that many crew people like you think film budgets descend from heaven and land in the producers lap, not so.

 

So yeah, I will use the tax credit system to get a partial refund on the labour of the crew. All of this money goes to pay the crew, it is advanced in the form of a bank loan, and then the bank collects the tax credits when they are finally paid out. After the producer has waited 18 months and filed stacks of paper work and been audited.

 

I have no idea where you got the impression producers themselves don't pay taxes? I have to pay tax on every penny I earn, and it's a hell of a lot higher rate than you pay as an American I can assure you of that!!!!!!!!

 

You really need to educate yourself and learn how the film business works.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

If a project/product is good enough, it shouldn't have to rely on ripping off tax-payers to get financed.

 

Here's the Tax "Incentive"/Bribe scam in a nutshell:

 

PRODUCER

(crying like a baby)

Wahhh!!! I need $1 million to make my for-profit product. Will tax-payers help me?

 

 

GOVERNMENT

Sure!

 

 

Two years later....

 

PRODUCER

(smiling)

Yeah! I just made $10 million dollars!

 

GOVERNMENT

(confused and stupid)

Great! But, shouldn't we be Co-Producers sharing in the profits since we helped finance your for-profit product, making it possible for you to even have the chance to do this?

 

PRODUCER

(aghast!)

What?! I'm a "Job Creator!" You should be WORSHIPING me instead of trying to steal my hard-earned profits. Why do you hate success?

[Guest]

All total BS Brian.

 

1) The tax credit is not a 100% finance, so the producer would never get the full 1 million from any government source. The tax credit is only a partial refund on the labour component in places like Ontario. Or a partial refund on the in-state spend in places like Louisiana. So your first example is incorrect.

 

2) You are such a hypocrite, are you telling me that before you accept work on any project you ask the producer, "is this project being made with any tax incentives? If so, forget it, I don't want the job."

 

You don't ask that, nor would you walk away from a good job opportunity. You talk tough on here, fact is, you would take the "bribes" and "rip off the tax payer" yourself in two shakes of the monkey's tail.

 

3) You've got a long way to go in your battle against government subsidies, have you looked at the amount of money the US government gives farmers every year? Film subsidies are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

 

4) If government wants to be equity partners in film projects and share in the profits, ok fine with me. But this is a legislative decision, not a film industry decision.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Excerpt from the California Senate Governance and Finance Committee's evaluation of the February 2012 report, Economic and Production Impacts of the 2009 California Film and Television Tax Credit.

 

Complete report can be viewed here: Report

 

While the total effects of these issues are impossible to quantify, their combined effects are likely to be negative in any given fiscal year—that is, resulting in the net benefit of the credit program being less than shown in both the LAEDC and UCLA-IRLE studies.

 

Given the conclusion that the net benefit of the credit program is likely less than shown in the LAEDC study, the LAEDC’s finding that the output-to-credit ratio was about 20-to-1 is likely overstated, as is its estimate of job gains resulting from the credit program. Moreover, given that UCLA-IRLE adjusted downward to $1.04 the projected state and local tax revenue return from every credit dollar and given that we find that this also was overstated, we believe it is likely that the state and local tax revenue return would be under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar—perhaps well under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar in many years. In any event, even if the combined state and local tax revenue return is right around $1.00 for every tax credit dollar, the state government’s tax revenue return would by definition be less than $1.00 for every tax credit dollar. The credit program, therefore, appears to result in a net decline in state revenues.

[Guest]

Excerpt from the California Senate Governance and Finance Committee's evaluation of the February 2012 report, Economic and Production Impacts of the 2009 California Film and Television Tax Credit.

 

Complete report can be viewed here: Report

 

Let's say all of this is correct, I won't dispute any of it. California is not Ontario, we have a very different economy and tax structure here. So if it doesn't work for California, fine, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in Ontario.

 

Also, this report says what I have been saying all along, "While the total effects of these issues are impossible to quantify." Exactly right, how can the study take into effect how much extra business a hotel gets over the next 10 years because it was used as a film location and members of the public see it in the movie. That is just one example of thousands of how a movie can have on going financial benefits to local communities long after the movie is done.

 

R,

[Guest]

Wow! Just saw an interview with Kevin Costner about The Hatfields and McCoys mini series for History Channel.

 

Turns out it was shot in Romania!! Even though it takes place in Kentucky and Virginia.

 

Holy Cow, talk about runaway production. I guess the US unions are simply making it too expensive to shoot in the USA now.

 

I was looking over the crew list on IMDB, it's a pretty long list of Romanian names. That is quite a pile of US jobs that got shipped overseas there Brian.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Wow! Just saw an interview with Kevin Costner about The Hatfields and McCoys mini series for History Channel.

 

Turns out it was shot in Romania!! Even though it takes place in Kentucky and Virginia.

 

Holy Cow, talk about runaway production. I guess the US unions are simply making it too expensive to shoot in the USA now.

 

I was looking over the crew list on IMDB, it's a pretty long list of Romanian names. That is quite a pile of US jobs that got shipped overseas there Brian.

 

R,

 

It's not "too expensive" to shoot in Los Angeles or the USA. It's that other nations have offered larger bribes to Producers and Corporations.

 

It reminds me the bumper sticker, "Maybe it isn't union workers who are making too much money... maybe it's you earning too little." The end-game in the Incentive/Bribe wars will be when a government (local, state, or federal) offers to fully finance a private for-profit production just so that the workers there can get the temporary work. That is the Conservative dream...to publicize the costs as much as possible and to privatize all of the profits.

 

This isn't about me at all, but my personal opinion is that I wouldn't mind the Incentive/Bribe scam half as much if the Governments (the People in that area, really) became profit partners in that they are helping to finance the projects. Isn't that what Producers are suggesting, that they couldn't possibly afford to make their movies without the "incentives"? So they NEED public money to make their for-profit project which means that "The People" are de facto Producers who should benefit directly from the profits of that for-profit product.

 

When will that start happening?

[Guest]

When will that start happening?

 

Like I said, I'm fine with that.

 

I don't think Romania has anything to offer except dirt cheap crew and a complete lack of government regulation. I can't see a poor country like Romania having a tax credit program like Canada.

 

So what amazes me is that the cost savings to shoot this series in Romania must have been so huge that the producers could not say no. They still flew over a large contingent of American actors, and yet they still managed to save money.

 

What does a gaffer go for in Romania? $1.50 USD a day? Does he get overtime? Do I have to pay his Social Security and health insurance premiums?

 

R,

[Guest]

Quite fascinating, I think a trip to Romania is in order:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/02/entertainment/et-romania2

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Quite fascinating, I think a trip to Romania is in order:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/02/entertainment/et-romania2

 

R,

 

 

Dust off your flux-capacitor. That was from 2005.

 

I'm still not sure why ALL Corporations haven't just moved ALL manufacturing and production to the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia where there is no functional government to "steal" their money via taxes or to tell them what to do via regulations. What could possibly go wrong?

[Guest]

I'm still not sure why ALL Corporations haven't just moved ALL manufacturing and production to the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia where there is no functional government to "steal" their money via taxes or to tell them what to do via regulations. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Wow! I like how you think! The cost savings to shoot a movie there will be incredible. Thanks for the tip!!

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Wow! I like how you think! The cost savings to shoot a movie there will be incredible. Thanks for the tip!!

 

R,

 

You're welcome! NO labor costs. NO taxes. NO regulations. It's a Producer's dream!

[Guest]

It really truly is, I have my flight booked.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

It really truly is, I have my flight booked.

 

R,

 

Please send photos! And the balance sheet if you can. I'm sure everyone would appreciate knowing how successful a "job creator" can be in a lawless, governmentless, regulationless, taxless environment. :)

[Guest]

Line items for everything has gone way down, except for armed militants for protection, that has gone way way up.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Line items for everything has gone way down, except for armed militants for protection, that has gone way way up.

 

R,

 

 

Well, that's the breaks, ya know, for not paying enough taxes to support a functional government and choosing to privatize everything. You have to provide for your own protection, build your own roads, educate your future employees, launch your own weather satellites, ....

 

.... or I suppose you could just convince all your employees to pay for that stuff out of their own paychecks while your company isn't burdened by such "job killing" expenses. The only thing missing is the employees giving you back money in the form of a subsidy. I'm sure you can convince them to do that too, cuz after all, you're the benevolent Job Creator who deserves worship and none of the costs that are imposed by other people in other countries who clearly hate success.

[Guest]

I'm sure you can convince them to do that too, cuz after all, you're the benevolent Job Creator who deserves worship and none of the costs that are imposed by other people in other countries who clearly hate success.

 

Another brilliant idea, the people of Somalia will now refer to me as Emperor while they are on set. I will be carried around in one of those chairs that has poles through it and four guys to carry it. You are full of amazing ideas!

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

http://realfilmcareer.com/film-tax-credits-cost-state-too-much-report-says/

 

Film tax credits cost state too much, report says

 

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/film_tax_credits_cost_state_to.html

 

 

 

By Jeff Adelson, The Times-Picayune

 

Baton Rouge – The state’s film tax credits cost the state about $60,000 for each direct job they create, according to a report from a think tank that blasts the program as an increasingly expensive subsidy without long-term benefits. The report, from the liberal Louisiana Budget Project, draws on previous state and third-party studies of the program to conclude that the credits amount to a perpetual subsidy that, because of the way the program is designed, guarantees it will take more money out of state coffers than it brings in. State officials defended the program as helping nurture a thriving industry and affiliated jobs and cited other studies showing that it does provide economic benefits.

 

Tim Mathis, author of the Louisiana Budget Project report, said that money could be better used shoring up the funding for state priorities.

 

“We’re not trying to eliminate the industry here, but the industry needs to stand on its own without public support,” said Mathis, an analyst with LBP. “It’ll be a way for Louisiana to reinvest in education and health care and other areas that have really suffered over the past four years from consecutive budget cuts.”

 

The Motion Picture Industry Development tax credit has been around since 2002 but did not see widespread use until it was expanded a decade later. The program now offers films that spend more than $300,000 in Louisiana a tax credit equal to 30 percent of the money they spend in the state and an additional 5 percent credit on payrolls to Louisiana residents.

 

Since 2002, more than $1 billion in tax credits have been issued. The program reached its high-water mark this year, with the Department of Economic Development distributing $231 million in credits, a 29 percent increase over last year. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics included in the report, about 2,510 people in Louisiana worked in film production last year.

 

Secretary of Economic Development Stephen Moret touted the increase as a result of the credits attracting new productions to the state.

 

“The film production tax credit program was designed to cultivate and sustain a thriving film production industry in Louisiana — and it’s been very successful,” Moret said in a statement responding to the report. “Louisiana is now No. 3 in the country in film production activity, and the industry supports thousands of jobs in Louisiana that previously did not exist. In fact, third-party economists have estimated the economic impact of film tax credits in Louisiana to be nearly six times the fiscal cost of the tax credits.”

 

But the Louisiana Budget Project disputes that impact. The report, citing statistics from 2010, notes that the 118 productions that received the credit in 2010 cost the state about $7.30 for every $1 of new tax revenue it brought in. And while the Department of Economic Development’s statistics include other economic impacts, such as money spent on goods in the state, the report asserts that those impacts are exaggerated. For example, much of the money spent at businesses is for products produced outside of the state, which means the economic impact is not confined just to Louisiana, the report says.

 

Acknowledging the popularity of the tax credit among officials and the broader community, the report stops short of recommending the program be eliminated. Instead, it calls for gradually making the credits less generous and placing a cap on the amount of money that the state will provide in credits, potentially allowing companies to roll over earned credits into the next year. In addition, the report recommends eliminating the transferability of the credits to eliminate the inefficiencies inherent in the brokerage system.

 

“If subsidies do not lead to a self-sustaining industry, able to compete and provide permanent jobs without government help, then the state needs to invest elsewhere,” according to the report. “By this more appropriate standard, Louisiana’s film tax credit program has failed. Rather than creating permanent, good-paying jobs, Louisiana’s program simply ‘rents’ jobs, many of which would disappear without the subsidy.”

 

Moret said the program does not just promote transient film making but also creates permanent businesses.

 

“Additionally, the film industry has generated billions of dollars of new economic activity in Louisiana, and its presence here has helped us attract other permanent, entertainment-industry projects, such as Pixomondo, EA Sports, Pixel Magic and Gameloft,” Moret said.

[Guest]

And of course the counter viewpoint in the article:

 

Moret said the program does not just promote transient film making but also creates permanent businesses.

 

“Additionally, the film industry has generated billions of dollars of new economic activity in Louisiana, and its presence here has helped us attract other permanent, entertainment-industry projects, such as Pixomondo, EA Sports, Pixel Magic and Gameloft,” Moret said.

 

Which is 100% correct.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

And of course the counter viewpoint in the article:

 

Moret said the program does not just promote transient film making but also creates permanent businesses.

 

“Additionally, the film industry has generated billions of dollars of new economic activity in Louisiana, and its presence here has helped us attract other permanent, entertainment-industry projects, such as Pixomondo, EA Sports, Pixel Magic and Gameloft,” Moret said.

 

Which is 100% correct.

 

R,

 

 

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."

[Brian Dzyak]

Uncertain future for N.C. film incentives

 

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20120811/ARTICLES/120819934

 

By Patrick Gannon

 

Buoyed by recent enhancements to film tax incentives, movie-making in North Carolina is in the midst of an unprecedented surge, but lawmakers’ plans to overhaul the state tax structure in 2013 place a cloud of uncertainty over the industry’s long-term prognosis.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

How film incentives work

Production companies that spend at least $250,000 in the state are eligible for tax credits worth 25 percent of their “qualifying expenses” on films, TV series, commercials or other productions.

The per-project cap for credits is $20 million, but TV series aren’t subject to the cap.

Production companies also don’t have to pay the 6.9 percent corporate income tax on film tax credits they receive.

For “highly compensated individuals,” such as actors, the production can claim the tax credit only on the first $1 million of pay.

To claim a credit, production companies must notify the state in advance with information about the production.

After a production is complete and before the state issues credits, the state Department of Revenue conducts an audit of the production and the detailed paperwork it submits about its expenses.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Jason Rosin, a member of the N.C. Film Council and a business agent for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 491, a trade union, said any industry that relies on the state for some sort of tax incentive should be concerned about the tax-reform effort that Republican General Assembly leaders promise to undertake in the 2013-14 session, which begins in late January.

 

The state, Rosin said, has consistently “shown a level of responsibility in regards to shepherding industries and done it historically in a measured and intelligent manner.”

 

“To drastically change that direction, it is worrisome,” he said. “In the film industry, there are thousands of families that are counting on these jobs. We’d like to see these jobs continue, and continue to grow.”

 

But others want lawmakers to abandon film incentives and similar targeted tax breaks in favor of lower taxes and less regulation for all businesses.

 

“I would like to see the incentives program ended,” said Jon Sanders of the conservative John Locke Foundation, who recently published a report critical of film incentives.

 

Republicans have repeatedly mentioned their plans to take on tax reform but have given few details.

 

In a phone interview last week, Sen. Bob Rucho, a Mecklenburg County Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee spearheading the tax-modernization effort, didn’t hint as to how the film industry would fare.

 

“Who knows?” said Rucho when asked whether film industry advocates would be pleased when the process is complete.

 

All of the state’s tax programs will be looked at closely, he said. Those that create wealth, grow the state gross domestic product, or GDP, and create long-term jobs will survive the process, he said.

 

“I don’t believe anybody has really looked at the pros or cons or merits of any of the programs,” Rucho said. “That will take place in 2013 during committee meetings and the debate that comes from that.”

 

Preparing for a fight

 

But if lawmakers haven’t examined the issue, others have.

 

In his recent report – “N.C.’s Film Tax Incentives: Good Old-Fashioned Corporate Welfare” – Sanders of the John Locke Foundation wrote that the problem with film incentives is that the lower tax burden on productions results in higher taxes on “nonfavored businesses and industries.”

 

“Currying favor with the cool kids by paying for their low (tax) rates with high rates on others erases whatever economic gain would have accrued through more film production,” wrote Sanders, director of regulatory studies at the Raleigh-based foundation.

 

Among Sanders’ main arguments is that instead of trying to beat other states in the incentives game, the state should compete for all industries by cutting taxes and regulations across the board.

 

The report, which is available online at johnlocke.org, comes at a record-setting time for production spending in the state.

 

Luring a film boom

 

In the two years since enhanced film incentives were approved by the General Assembly, the amount of money spent on productions in the state jumped significantly, meaning the amount given back in tax credits is growing as well.

 

According to the N.C. Film Office, more than 35 productions plan to film in the state this year, projects expected to spend more than $300 million by year’s end and add 15,000 jobs, including more than 3,300 well-paying crew positions. In 2011, productions spent about $240 million in the state, said Aaron Syrett, director of the N.C. Film Office. In 2010, before the new incentive took effect, productions spent about $75 million.

 

“Two years ago North Carolina wasn’t even a top 10 filmmaking state,” Syrett said. “Right now we’re in the top three. People want to be here. They know they can get the talent here and the infrastructure, and they can make a good movie.”

 

Under the new incentive, among other perks, productions receive a 25 percent refundable tax credit based on their direct in-state spending on goods, services, labor and other costs, up from 15 percent before the change

 

The incentives legislation was expected to expire at the end of 2013, but an amendment added to a bill at the end of this year’s legislative session extended the program to the end of 2014, giving the film industry one more year under the existing package, unless tax reform alters it before then.

 

The General Assembly staff estimated the extra year could cost the state $60 million in tax credits.

 

Opponents argue that some states have recently cut back on their film incentives packages. Both sides point to conflicting studies about whether states with incentives programs return more money to state coffers than the amount spent on the tax credits.

 

Opponents also point to the fact that the film tax credits are “refundable.” That means if the amount of the credit that a film company receives exceeds the tax liability of the production in the state, then the state writes a check to the company for the difference.

 

“This is a classic example of corporate welfare,” Sanders wrote in his report. “It’s been described as choosing movie stars over teachers.”

 

But film industry proponents say it benefits far more than the companies that make the movies, pointing in part to jobs it creates for locals. Membership in the Local 491 – which has more than 1,000 members in North Carolina, South Carolina and the Savannah, Ga., area – has more than doubled from 425 in 2006, with most of the growth coming in the Wilmington and Charlotte areas, Rosin said. Members do work in construction, plaster, sound, wardrobe, special effects and other aspects of filmmaking.

 

“The state of the industry is exceptionally solid,” Rosin said. “There’s more jobs than people, so the industry’s growing.”

 

New faces in legislature

 

Those fighting on either side of the film incentives battle next year will have many newcomers in the General Assembly to woo. A recent report by the N.C. FreeEnterprise Foundation found that when the legislature convenes on Jan. 30, nearly 50 current members of the 170-member General Assembly won’t be returning to office. Others could lose election bids this fall, so the number of freshman lawmakers is likely to be higher still.

 

Among those not seeking re-election this year is state Rep. Danny McComas, R-New Hanover, a longtime ally of the film industry.

 

Rucho, the Senate Finance chairman, when asked about whether the film incentives program will be impacted next year, said he doesn’t see the need for any fuss about the issue now.

 

“Let’s not worry about something that doesn’t exist,” he said. “At this point, the film incentives are there. They’re scheduled to expire at the end of 2014. That’s where we are right now.”

[Brian Dzyak]

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).

 

Georgia film industry expands – with taxpayer help

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/georgia-film-industry-expands-with-taxpayer-help/nSMRP/

 

By Greg Bluestein

 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

 

Some may chuckle at the city officials who are eager to dub Atlanta “Hollywood South.” But the metro area has fast become a filmmaker’s haven thanks in large part to state and, increasingly, local government incentives showered on the film industry in Georgia.

 

And the decision Thursday by Atlanta’s economic development agency to pump up to $500,000 in local property taxes to help build new soundstages at Lakewood is another reflection of the film industry’s growing role in metro Atlanta’s economy.

 

Subscribers can read our full report on the impact of state tax breaks aimed at production companies – and the criticism of those who question the need for public incentives targeting an already thriving industry – in Monday’s AJC or on our subscription tablet app.

[George Ebersole]

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).

Why would any government pay for someone else's business venture?

 

In San Francisco back in 1992 the Giants were being ready to be sold to St. Petersburg Florida. Candlestick Park was cold, windy, damp, foggy, and next to one of the worst neighborhoods in the United States. San Francisco's a pretty progressive city, but there's a lot of wealth in SF and in the Bay Area in general, so why would the citizens/residents of SF flip the bill for a major league ballpark?

 

The solution was Peter McGowan, former CEO of Safeway grocery stores, lead up a team of investors with council woman Aliotto, and put together a financial package to buy the team from the former owners. Part of that package was to sign on Barry Bonds and build a new stadium, which was done. The result, the Giants are here to stay in SF.

 

Hollywood itself was built up because land was cheap back when the first film studios were building. Vast tracks of land in a sunny climate made a perfect ideal place for filming.

 

Okay, enough geek history here, why North Carolina would subsidize the film industry is beyond me. Or, for that matter, any state in the union. California's got an incentive because we're home to the majors, but, beyond that, I think the studios just ought to go where it's cheap to do business, and I think government ought to stay out of it other than giving some tax incentives.

 

Before the 80s (mid way through the 70s?) films used to be a great investment, because you could write off ten dollars for every dollar you put into a film. That's not really the case now, and the industry has suffered for it.