STATE FILM SUBSIDIES: NOT MUCH BANG FOR TOO MANY BUCKS

[Brian Dzyak]

It EXACTLY means there's a very good chance a movie won't get made, and more so for small indy films, These incentives, particularly in Mew Mexico, give investors the opportunity yo invest with very little risk which makes them able take a chance on unknown talent and less mainstream concepts. Hollywood is interested in tentpole films nowadays and can only finance a few smaller projects. In order to get in, one must get on-board their wagon train and go through that whole cooperate rigmarole, making the movies someone ELSE deems worthy of making. Well suppose I don't WANT some 28 year old junior development executive deciding the fate of my script and I don't WANT to shoot in SoCal? Does that mean because some guys back at the turn of the century got off a train in Arizona and when they found it was raining, decided to continue on to the end of the line and set up shop there, that IIII can only shoot in and around LA? NO SIR, I have enough equipment and friends with enough equipment to go and shoot where ever I damn well please. I don't particularly LIKE the way films are released now a days. Tiered releases allow smaller films to gather momentum and create buzz, so why can't 2 systems work sanctimoniously, nationwide releases for the mega films and tiered releases for smaller films. Why do I HAVE to beg and scrape to the established powers that be to have people see my film?

 

It's not that I dislike Hollywood but Hollywood is a flawed system run by multi-nationals that care more about the business of film making that the quality of the product they manufacture. Establishment of regional cottage film industries can help top provide healthy completion for the big boys and help employ film professional who want to get out of the rat race and live a more gentile life but still keep working. I personally love LA but I have never liked being told what I can and can not do. If I want to make a script into a film, I'm gonna turn that script into a film and I don't want or need some film executive's permission to do so. To paraphrase Easy Rider, It's really all about freedom, man

 

We lose so much when the only perspective available is our own and in the US, why must that perspective be a SoCal or New York perspective? Regional films made by film makers completely divorced from the influence of Eastcoast/Westcoast views explore the great diversity of a multi-ethnic country like ours. The PROBLEM is film making is a very expensive and highly technical endeavor therefore film incentives can help to change the balance of film to a more democratic representation of stories to be told.

 

SURE there are stubborn bastards like myself who will simply refuse to surrender and keep on plodding along until they get their film shot but it makes it some much easier to accomplish the goals of having a unique vision and voice and expressing that in a challenging artform when the government helps to support and encourage it's artists rather than supporting the richest people on earth who's only real accomplishment is lining their own pockets. B)

 

 

Okay, point taken. So how about tax incentives ONLY for indie NON-Corporate projects? Of course, that opens the door for established studios to run all of their big-tent movies through some "indie" arm that proclaims to be making "indie" films so there would have to be major regulations in place to keep the cheaters out. After all, the Republicans here are always using "small business" as their mantra (even though we all know that they are merely using that phrase to get tax cuts for the wealthy).

 

But, that said, if a potential movie appears to be a good bet, an investor is going to invest in it tax incentive or no. Obviously an investor is going to want to spend as little as possible, particularly on a riskier project that isn't a sequel or one that doesn't have movie stars in it. But if the project is worth investing in, then it will attract money, tax incentive or not. If the project doesn't attract investors, then it likely isn't worth the effort in the first place. Making art for art's sake is a nice idea, but aside from the National Endowment for the Arts, the USA doesn't have the history or mechanism in place to let "artists" spend taxpayer money on their own artistic vision. I believe that it's Italian filmmakers who are striking right now because their government funding is being cut.

 

The question of how much a government should hand out money to filmmakers is a complicated one, but what is clear is that the current tax-incentive scheme/scam is mostly only serving to put more money in the pockets of those at the top while undermining the livelihoods of career professionals who just want to have a comfortable life and not have to chase work around the globe.

[James Steven Beverly]

I think what you mean is "simultaneously". But the way you wrote it.....is actually pretty funny! :D

 

R,

Damn spell check. :D

[James Steven Beverly]

Okay, point taken. So how about tax incentives ONLY for indie NON-Corporate projects? Of course, that opens the door for established studios to run all of their big-tent movies through some "indie" arm that proclaims to be making "indie" films so there would have to be major regulations in place to keep the cheaters out. After all, the Republicans here are always using "small business" as their mantra (even though we all know that they are merely using that phrase to get tax cuts for the wealthy).

 

But, that said, if a potential movie appears to be a good bet, an investor is going to invest in it tax incentive or no. Obviously an investor is going to want to spend as little as possible, particularly on a riskier project that isn't a sequel or one that doesn't have movie stars in it. But if the project is worth investing in, then it will attract money, tax incentive or not. If the project doesn't attract investors, then it likely isn't worth the effort in the first place. Making art for art's sake is a nice idea, but aside from the National Endowment for the Arts, the USA doesn't have the history or mechanism in place to let "artists" spend taxpayer money on their own artistic vision. I believe that it's Italian filmmakers who are striking right now because their government funding is being cut.

 

The question of how much a government should hand out money to filmmakers is a complicated one, but what is clear is that the current tax-incentive scheme/scam is mostly only serving to put more money in the pockets of those at the top while undermining the livelihoods of career professionals who just want to have a comfortable life and not have to chase work around the globe.

 

Well the problem with that is you need the flash for the publicity. It's quite a feather in the cap to have a blockbuster like Transformers shot in your state. Warranted or not, having a high profile film shot in your state tells the powers that be, that it is a "professional" program that is worthy of the expense. THAT helps to justify funding smaller films without being called a liberal bleeding heart that wastes tax payer money on pie in the sky idealism. The right cuts any liberal art program it can because that ain't real work, that's fairy, fruity, artsy crap that no real man would be caught dead doin' . GOD, I am so sick of middle American and family values. But I digress, and honestly, it isn't fair to exclude big films because they do bring in a significant share of income and jobs to the film industry in the areas where the shoot.

 

I don't think it can be an either or situation, we need both and the fact that it ain't yet paid off is no reason to quit. THAT'S a MAJOR PROBLEM with American society today, everyone expects instant gratification. Don't give a program a chance to succeed. If it doesn't pay off in the first 6 months it must suck and needs to be cut. The Japanese are willing to work on a problem until they solve it which is why they blow us away in robotics which in my opinion is the next major technology that will transform the world. But again, I digress.

 

The sad truth is that what is valuable, is what people perceive to be valuable and big films with big stars make the general public believe the incentives are being spent on the "right" projects.

 

Texas was in the process of instituting film incentives similar to the New Mexico incentives. Texas is a much richer state than New Mexico and Dallas is already called the "third coast" so MAYBE for us, it's a moot point. Well just have to see what happens. Now matter what though, it will be a bad day for a lot of people once this new regime strangles off the New Mexico well spring and a very depressing day for me. What the Hell, maybe I'll move to Canada and make movies with Richie. He's doin' a lot better than most of us anyway!! :D

[Brian Dzyak]

Well the problem with that is you need the flash for the publicity. It's quite a feather in the cap to have a blockbuster like Transformers shot in your state. Warranted or not, having a high profile film shot in your state tells the powers that be, that it is a "professional" program that is worthy of the expense. THAT helps to justify funding smaller films without being called a liberal bleeding heart that wastes tax payer money on pie in the sky idealism. The right cuts any liberal art program it can because that ain't real work, that's fairy, fruity, artsy crap that no real man would be caught dead doin' . GOD, I am so sick of middle American and family values. But I digress, and honestly, it isn't fair to exclude big films because they do bring in a significant share of income and jobs to the film industry in the areas where the shoot.

 

I don't think it can be an either or situation, we need both and the fact that it ain't yet paid off is no reason to quit. THAT'S a MAJOR PROBLEM with American society today, everyone expects instant gratification. Don't give a program a chance to succeed. If it doesn't pay off in the first 6 months it must suck and needs to be cut. The Japanese are willing to work on a problem until they solve it which is why they blow us away in robotics which in my opinion is the next major technology that will transform the world. But again, I digress.

 

The sad truth is that what is valuable, is what people perceive to be valuable and big films with big stars make the general public believe the incentives are being spent on the "right" projects.

 

Texas was in the process of instituting film incentives similar to the New Mexico incentives. Texas is a much richer state than New Mexico and Dallas is already called the "third coast" so MAYBE for us, it's a moot point. Well just have to see what happens. Now matter what though, it will be a bad day for a lot of people once this new regime strangles off the New Mexico well spring and a very depressing day for me. What the Hell, maybe I'll move to Canada and make movies with Richie. He's doin' a lot better than most of us anyway!! :D

 

 

Tax "incentive" programs haven't paid off because they never will. They're not designed to ever pay off. Waiting and "giving them time to work" is like waiting for a rock to grow legs and walk. It won't happen. Yes, there are short-term jobs created and thus some tax revenue from those employees, but the governments are handing out so much as subsidies and tax breaks that any revenue gained by a very few local crew who are hired is offset by the high amount of the bribe given away. The "feather in the cap" argument has been one offered by pro-incentive people, but the numbers don't back up the claims of long-term economic benefit. The problem is that current programs ARE ABOUT instant gratification. "Look, we got a big Hollywood movie shootin' in town, Pa!" It's cool for "middle America" to see the circus roll into a town where nothing usually happens. But if they were looking beyond the instant gratification, then they'd see the scam being foisted upon them. If they'd look past the shiny lights for a minute, they'd see that they're being robbed.

 

 

And again, having a government pay for an adult to make art for art's sake is a different discussion for our society which is primarily Capitalist in nature (even though we do have quite a bit of Socialism around us every day without any complaining about it). ;) It's one thing for a government to fund a public school program for youth to help foster/encourage their appreciation of art in case they want to enter adulthood to become an "artist" who can support him/herself with that skill/talent. But the question really goes to the heart of what "film" really is.... is it art or is it a product? The answer is, that it is primarily a product that has art within it. Much like an automobile which can be stylish (the art) but has a primary function to get you from A to B. If government begins financing filmmakers, then why shouldn't they also finance car makers or any other product that also has "artistic design" infused with it, like toasters or furniture?

[James Steven Beverly]

If film incentives don't work then how come Canada is taking our jobs? If the incentives as written don't pay off as quickly as one would like, then re-write the incentives, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. In addition, there are also other, less tangible benefits to having movies shot in your state. It's a great way to help promote tourism and civic pride. Tourism alone could help offset the cost of incentive programs. Also, from a practical standpoint, no one said the films shot in a states with incentives shouldn't make money, in fact they almost HAVE TO make money otherwise it will be harder to get investors to come on-board even if they got their initial investment back. I'm not even saying the state shouldn't retain some backend for their participation, in fact I personally would consider that only fair.

 

I simply find this study somewhat dubious and suspect it to be nothing more than a small part of the right wing agenda. I firmly believe that if soundstages and rental houses are in foreclosure or sitting idle, it is because of the horrendous financial meltdown that has affected every business enterprise in the nation. It's difficult enough to try and wrestle business from an entrenched, historically rooted mecca but that doesn't mean it can't be done given enough effort and commitment. California and New York suffer from outrageous pricing and cost factors that can be significantly reduced in more economically depressed states. I would much rather see our film jobs...or any other jobs for that matter...going to other states than to other countries which for the nation is again a less tangible benefit of film incentives.

 

The right would have us play a game of 3 Card Monty then call us communist when we complain it's not winnable and ask for decent wages and basic necessary needs like workman's comp, some form of health care and reasonable working conditions so they would rather let the richest among us send the work to other nations with no consequence than create incentives to keep our jobs at home. FILM incentives help to keep films produced in the USA instead of moving the company to Vancouver, Morocco or Prague. Like it or not, we are in a fight for the very sole of our nation and to determine whether of not we will end up a third world country once the casino gambling investment speculators and multi-national conglomerates have bleed the middle class dry. Film incentives to give film professionals a fighting chance to live and work where they choose may only be one small part of that fight but it is something and THAT ALONE is reason enough to keep them going!! B)

Edited November 22, 2010 by James Steven Beverly

[Guest]

What the Hell, maybe I'll move to Canada and make movies with Richie. He's doin' a lot better than most of us anyway!! :D

 

I can try and put in a good word for you with the membership committee. But you're not arriving via boat from a third world country, so they most likely won't let you in, sorry.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

If film incentives don't work then how come Canada is taking our jobs? If the incentives as written don't pay off as quickly as one would like, then re-write the incentives, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. In addition, there are also other, less tangible benefits to having movies shot in your state. It's a great way to help promote tourism and civic pride. Tourism alone could help offset the cost of incentive programs. Also, from a practical standpoint, no one said the films shot in a states with incentives shouldn't make money, in fact they almost HAVE TO make money otherwise it will be harder to get investors to come on-board even if they got their initial investment back. I'm not even saying the state shouldn't retain some backend for their participation, in fact I personally would consider that only fair.

 

I simply find this study somewhat dubious and suspect it to be nothing more than a small part of the right wing agenda. I firmly believe that if soundstages and rental houses are in foreclosure or sitting idle, it is because of the horrendous financial meltdown that has affected every business enterprise in the nation. It's difficult enough to try and wrestle business from an entrenched, historically rooted mecca but that doesn't mean it can't be done given enough effort and commitment. California and New York suffer from outrageous pricing and cost factors that can be significantly reduced in more economically depressed states. I would much rather see our film jobs...or any other jobs for that matter...going to other states than to other countries which for the nation is again a less tangible benefit of film incentives.

 

The right would have us play a game of 3 Card Monty then call us communist when we complain it's not winnable and ask for decent wages and basic necessary needs like workman's comp, some form of health care and reasonable working conditions so they would rather let the richest among us send the work to other nations with no consequence than create incentives to keep our jobs at home. FILM incentives help to keep films produced in the USA instead of moving the company to Vancouver, Morocco or Prague. Like it or not, we are in a fight for the very sole of our nation and to determine whether of not we will end up a third world country once the casino gambling investment speculators and multi-national conglomerates have bleed the middle class dry. Film incentives to give film professionals a fighting chance to live and work where they choose may only be one small part of that fight but it is something and THAT ALONE is reason enough to keep them going!! B)

 

 

But it IS the Right WIng CONservatives who favor tax breaks and other incentives for Corporations. That's been their mantra since Reagan... hand over money to the wealthy and Corporations and watch it "trickle down" to the little people. They do that by enacting tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and by fostering the idea of tax incentives and subsidies for Corporations. This is a RIGHT WING scam/scheme, not a Left Wing one. The Right WANTS everyone fighting over the jobs in order to drive UP the amount of incentives offered to Corporations and drive DOWN wages for working people. Those who are against "incentive" programs aren't anti-job... they're anti-CONservative economic ideology which has proven to be an utter failure across the globe. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is anything but a Right Wing tool. It's not even "Liberal" or "Left Wing." It just reports numbers to the best of its abilities.

 

The game that is being played by the Reagan Revolution is meant to put more money in the hands of a very few and leave everyone else fighting over the scraps. That is why unfettered Free Market Capitalism cannot sustain itself forever. There was a major reset in our trade and economic policies following the Republican Great Depression in the 1920s. We're due for a similar reset after having our economy all but decimated AGAIN by CONservative policies. Unfortunately, our current Administration isn't living up to the legacy of FDR as it needs to.

 

Fascism is alive and well in the USA. Everybody cheer. :huh:

[John Sprung]

Tax "incentive" programs haven't paid off because they never will.

 

Back when I was looking to buy a truck, I went to an auction where they had one '97 Chevy 3500. By blue book, and checking out how beat it was, it was worth $6K max. A couple bozos got in a bidding war, and one of them paid $16K for it.

 

The same thing happened with incentives. In the very beginning, they were a net positive for the places that offered them. But as more and more governments got in the game, they had to offer ever sweeter deals. In that kind of situation, you're up against the folks who ignore the numbers, or who get the numbers wrong.

 

So, the early birds got the worms. From now on, you're right, there ain't no more worms.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[James Steven Beverly]

I can try and put in a good word for you with the membership committee. But you're not arriving via boat from a third world country, so they most likely won't let you in, sorry.

 

R,

 

Give this country a little more time, my friend and I may well be. I hear on the news today that our food prices are going up because rich (Eastern) Indians and Chinese are buying more and driving up demand making less product is available. They also mentioned that a third I think of corn was being used to make Ethanol which is driving up corn prices. The sad part is I sat there wondering if, because giant corporations own the news, if this was a lie concocted by them as a small part of a conspiracy to keep consumer goods high and oil selling until we run out or the Earth starts to resemble Venus and we all die. Now when III, a reasonable person, starts to think like that, we got trust issues with the powers that be. Keep the faith, Richie, Canada may yet become the major superpower in North America.

[James Steven Beverly]

But it IS the Right WIng CONservatives who favor tax breaks and other incentives for Corporations. That's been their mantra since Reagan... hand over money to the wealthy and Corporations and watch it "trickle down" to the little people. They do that by enacting tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and by fostering the idea of tax incentives and subsidies for Corporations. This is a RIGHT WING scam/scheme, not a Left Wing one. The Right WANTS everyone fighting over the jobs in order to drive UP the amount of incentives offered to Corporations and drive DOWN wages for working people. Those who are against "incentive" programs aren't anti-job... they're anti-CONservative economic ideology which has proven to be an utter failure across the globe. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is anything but a Right Wing tool. It's not even "Liberal" or "Left Wing." It just reports numbers to the best of its abilities.

 

The game that is being played by the Reagan Revolution is meant to put more money in the hands of a very few and leave everyone else fighting over the scraps. That is why unfettered Free Market Capitalism cannot sustain itself forever. There was a major reset in our trade and economic policies following the Republican Great Depression in the 1920s. We're due for a similar reset after having our economy all but decimated AGAIN by CONservative policies. Unfortunately, our current Administration isn't living up to the legacy of FDR as it needs to.

 

Fascism is alive and well in the USA. Everybody cheer. :huh:

 

Hard to argue with most of that. I was around when the "Great Communicator" <_< f@(ked everything up and even before that when Tricky Dick completely destroyed any trust the common man might have once had in elected officials. Yes, the Grand Old Party's integrity died with Eisenhower and the Dems seem to have a history of being as impotent as a harem eunuch. It will never end until politicians are no longer beholding or intimidated against voting the conscious by corporations who controls the money that is their career's lifeblood. If it was hazy before, it should be crystal clear now, we DESPERATELY NEED campaign finance reform. It's the ONLY way we will ever get back to intelligent political discourse and find a middle ground.

 

I do have to disagree with one of your statements, in the case of New Mexico's film incentives, this was a Democratic program, instituted and supported by a Democratic governor. The fact that it favored corporations is a given ALL film making ventures are corporations. It's a byproduct of the artform being so expensive. As a producer, your would be insane NOT to form an LLC especially when investors are involved so states with film incentives in place MUST be biased towards corporations, it's the nature of the business and something we have to live with. It's not Reaganism in this single case because even the smallest productions, if investors are involved, must form a corporation to protect it's self from unreasonable lawsuits, again, the nature of the business. B)

[Brian Dzyak]

Hard to argue with most of that. I was around when the "Great Communicator" <_< f@(ked everything up and even before that when Tricky Dick completely destroyed any trust the common man might have once had in elected officials. Yes, the Grand Old Party's integrity died with Eisenhower and the Dems seem to have a history of being as impotent as a harem eunuch. It will never end until politicians are no longer beholding or intimidated against voting the conscious by corporations who controls the money that is their career's lifeblood. If it was hazy before, it should be crystal clear now, we DESPERATELY NEED campaign finance reform. It's the ONLY way we will ever get back to intelligent political discourse and find a middle ground.

 

I do have to disagree with one of your statements, in the case of New Mexico's film incentives, this was a Democratic program, instituted and supported by a Democratic governor. The fact that it favored corporations is a given ALL film making ventures are corporations. It's a byproduct of the artform being so expensive. As a producer, your would be insane NOT to form an LLC especially when investors are involved so states with film incentives in place MUST be biased towards corporations, it's the nature of the business and something we have to live with. It's not Reaganism in this single case because even the smallest productions, if investors are involved, must form a corporation to protect it's self from unreasonable lawsuits, again, the nature of the business. B)

 

 

Note that I try very hard to use the word "CONservative" when describing the ideologies and avoiding assigning ideology to one specific political Party. While the Republicans of today are in lock-step regarding just about everything that has to do with undermining and destroying the USA, the Democratic Party is quite possibly the polar opposite, unable to gather unanimous support for the most important Progressive issues. So, when a Democrat welcomes CONservative policies, the title of "Democrat" doesn't excuse that representative from his/her clear CONservative worldview.

 

And let me be clear about my personal opinion. I am NOT anti-Corporation at all. As you say, Corporations have their purpose and many (or most?) of them serve their purpose well (to make a profit). What I am AGAINST is A) our Government giving Corporations and other wealthy INDIVIDUALS an unfair economic advantage no matter the effect on other people, the environment, and our Constitution ... and B ) Corporations and other wealthy individuals having undo influence over our government, the representatives we have, and the policies they create. Just as we try very hard to keep religious beliefs out of the government sphere, so too is it IMPERATIVE to keep Corporations and wealthy individuals from influencing the government. When that happens, it is defined as Fascism and it would be hard to argue that this is not the situation we have in the USA today.... all built by the CONservative Right Wing elite over the past thirty years.

 

And you are 100% correct to suggest that the beginning of the solution is campaign finance reform. NOTHING positive and progressive can ever get done so long as our would-be representatives have to bow to the wealthy and Corporations in order to get elected. It's a sad state of affairs in US politics and the issue of tax incentives is just another symptom of the fundamental cancer that pervades our society.

[Brian Dzyak]

http://www.freep.com/article/20110310/OPINION05/103100421/0/search/Guest-commentary-Film-credits-not-worth-their-cost?odyssey=nav|head

 

Guest commentary: Film credits not worth their cost

 

Several states, including Michigan, are wisely reconsidering whether giving film and TV productions big tax breaks to try tolure them to the state is sensible policy. For too long, states hae bought the Hollywood hype that subsidizing film productions will generate thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity.

 

Unfortunately, like a Disney fantasy, these claims are more fiction than fact — and a fiction that states can ill afford in these difficult times. The $1.5 billion that states spent on film subsidies in 2010 could have paid the salaries of 23,500 middle-school teachers, or 26,600 firefighters, or 22,800 police officers.

 

Over 40 states offer some kind of film tax break, compared with only a handful a decade ago. But how many good, stable jobs do subsidies create for state residents — and at what cost per job to taxpayers? By this standard, film subsidies flunk.

 

First, they are extraordinarily generous. In Michigan, a production company can receive up to 42 cents in tax breaks for each dollar spent, an enormous financial cushion. And producers get their public payoff even if their project ends up losing money — which they often do.

 

Second, many jobs, especially the highest paying positions, are filled by out-of-state specialists, often recruited from Los Angeles or New York City. Since few states have an ample supply of workers with the skills needed to make a feature-length movie, producers import their own principal actors, directors, cinematographers, and screen writers. Most jobs filled by local workers are part-time and temporary; they disappear once the film shoot is over.

 

Third, film productions don’t generate nearly enough new economic activity to offset the amount of tax revenue that a state gives up through the tax break. (The only studies claiming otherwise were financed by those who want to prove that subsidies work: state and local film and tourist agencies, chambers of commerce, and the Motion Picture Association of America.) Film subsidies simply don’t pay for themselves. And, since states have to balance their budgets every year, the net loss can only be made up by some combination of cuts in public services and tax increases.

 

Some counsel patience: If a state is willing to stay the course, they say,film subsidies will pay off eventually, once the state develops its own film industry and no longer needs to offer big tax breaks. But the odds against this dream are very long.

 

Film production is risky, so Hollywood will always want subsidies. And, because producers are mobile, they will move to another locale if they get a better deal. So, states committed to “staying in the game” are condemned to infinite, wasteful subsidies at taxpayers’ expense.

 

Rather than shower the film industry with lavish subsidies, Michigan and other states should strengthen the traditional building blocks of prosperity, such as education, worker training, public safety and infrastructure.

 

It might not be a glamorous approach. There won’t be celebrity sightings on Main Street. But these public services create lasting benefits, widely shared by all.

 

 

Robert Tannenwald, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, is the author of the report “State Film Subsidies: Not Much Bang for Too Many Bucks.”

[Guest]

Great, cancel em' all, more work for Canada!!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

How do "tax incentives" actually work, anyway?

 

Say I'm a film company. I go to Michigan and spend $1,000,000 on producing part or all of a film there, because of its generous $0.42 incentive rate. What happens next?

 

P

[Guest]

How do "tax incentives" actually work, anyway?

 

Say I'm a film company. I go to Michigan and spend $1,000,000 on producing part or all of a film there, because of its generous $0.42 incentive rate. What happens next?

 

P

 

42% of your "in state spend" will be handed back to you in the form of a tax refund. The film company sets up a Michigan based corporation which then files a tax return claiming a refund in this scenario of $420, 000.00.

 

So you need to be able to cash flow this 420K while you are in production and claim it back at a later date. Many producers will calculate their tax credit and then have a bank lend them the amount of the refund so they can use the money during production.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Crikey. That seems almost absurdly generous. I presume there's some sort of minimum amounts involved, to keep this exclusive to the hollywood super-money clubs, so you can't take your indie to Michigan and get $4200 back on your $10k spend.

[Brian Dzyak]

Great, cancel em' all, more work for Canada!!

 

R,

 

 

Soooo, Canadian provinces LOSE tax revenue for the entire community so that a few random workers can profit (not to mention that the profits for the entire project are kept in the coffers of USA CEOs and Producers?)

 

Shouldn't any government (local, state, federal) that gives out incentives and subsidies be considered a profit partner to share in the Gross? Just like every state in the USA, Canada essentially is losing money by handing out these bribes. Why are you happy about that? :huh:

[Guest]

Crikey. That seems almost absurdly generous. I presume there's some sort of minimum amounts involved, to keep this exclusive to the hollywood super-money clubs, so you can't take your indie to Michigan and get $4200 back on your $10k spend.

 

Well it's not as generous as it sounds. Michigan has almost zero infrastructure for film so spending all of your 1 million in Michigan would be impossible. Your lead actors would be from out of state so they won't count. All of your key creatives would most likely be out of state so they won't count either. Michigan has no place to process 35mm and transfer to HD so none of that will count. The list goes on and on and on. The best you will be able to do is get some local hires in the various depts as PAs, grips, runners, carpenters, etc.

 

If you are making a 1 million dollar movie in Michigan and you actually spend 400K of that in Michigan your refund is now only $168, 000.00.

 

I suppose you could theoretically get back 4200 on a 10K spend, but, you are dealing with a corporation and a tax return, plus filing fees. All of this will quickly eat up your 4200 and make the whole idea of applying for such a small amount useless.

 

The process of actually getting your tax credits is a long and complicated process. There are hundreds of rules to follow, you need a tax specialist and the government will need to audit your receipts. It sounds really good on paper, but there is a lot of info the various state film offices will not tell you before you start shooting.

 

Plus there was a famous case in Iowa where they shut down their program after approving a number of projects and the producers had to sue the state to get their money.

 

If you are involving a bank for a bridge loan, then you are really making a complex job for yourself.

 

R,

[Guest]

Why are you happy about that? :huh:

 

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Roll em! :D

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Roll em! :D

 

R,

 

 

How so? You're suggesting the Canadian provinces share in the gross receipts of the movies they give bribes to? :unsure:

[Guest]

How so? You're suggesting the Canadian provinces share in the gross receipts of the movies they give bribes to? :unsure:

 

Brian...you're wasting your breath. No amount of objections on your part are going to end the Canadian tax credit system. No amount of objections from you will end the tax credit systems in the 40 US states that currently have them.

 

Look I am truly sorry you chose to live in S. California with its ridiculous housing prices. But it was your choice. You want work in film, move to Michigan or Louisiana.

 

Ask David Mullen when the last time was he shot a movie in LA.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian...you're wasting your breath. No amount of objections on your part are going to end the Canadian tax credit system. No amount of objections from you will end the tax credit systems in the 40 US states that currently have them.

 

Look I am truly sorry you chose to live in S. California with its ridiculous housing prices. But it was your choice. You want work in film, move to Michigan or Louisiana.

 

Ask David Mullen when the last time was he shot a movie in LA.

 

R,

 

 

I merely asked why I was wrong. Eagerly awaiting the reply! Thanks! :)

 

I did indeed move to So Cal BEFORE all of this nonsense began. Like so many before me and a few after. Incentives/bribes are wrong for everyone and nothing will ever change that. If I moved back to the Midwest, I'd put myself at the whims of the government in charge, begging them to continue to bribe Corporations so that I could perhaps continue to earn a living.

 

But for the record, I do okay here. :) Yes, some of the jobs do indeed take me out of town (and out of the country on occasion, usually because of the incentive/bribe situation), but I'm doing okay, thank you! :) My concern is for the general well-being of everyone and our nation that is being undermined by this ridiculousness. Ross Perot was 100% when he said that we'd hear a great sucking sound the minute NAFTA was enacted. It has done NOTHING positive for the US economy.

 

People "complaining" may not get change enacted, but saying nothing certainly won't achieve solutions either. CONservatives WANT people to sit back and say, "Oh well, there's nothing I can do about it." If everyone did that, then we'd ALL still be serfs of the British Crown, wouldn't we?

[Guest]

I merely asked why I was wrong. Eagerly awaiting the reply! Thanks! :)

 

But we've been over it a hundred times already.

 

Ross Perot was 100% when he said that we'd hear a great sucking sound the minute NAFTA was enacted. It has done NOTHING positive for the US economy.

 

How many shoots go to Mexico? Remember that NAFTA is an off shoot of the FTA (Free Trade Agreement) which was signed solely by Canada and the USA in the 80s and was totally IGNORED by the US public. It was only when Mexico was brought into the deal that the US public finally stood up and took notice.

 

The US has gained the most from NAFTA. Oh BTW, when Obama and Clinton where on the campaign trail they BOTH said they'd renegotiate NAFTA if they got elected. Now how's that going then?

 

If everyone did that, then we'd ALL still be serfs of the British Crown, wouldn't we?

 

I have no problem with that, we'd all be better off being run by the British crown. Do away with the idiot politicians and bring back the monarchy. I ask you, could Queen Elizabeth seriously do a worse job than congress or the Canadian Parliament? :blink:

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

But we've been over it a hundred times already.

 

 

 

How many shoots go to Mexico? Remember that NAFTA is an off shoot of the FTA (Free Trade Agreement) which was signed solely by Canada and the USA in the 80s and was totally IGNORED by the US public. It was only when Mexico was brought into the deal that the US public finally stood up and took notice.

 

The US has gained the most from NAFTA. Oh BTW, when Obama and Clinton where on the campaign trail they BOTH said they'd renegotiate NAFTA if they got elected. Now how's that going then?

 

 

 

I have no problem with that, we'd all be better off being run by the British crown. Do away with the idiot politicians and bring back the monarchy. I ask you, could Queen Elizabeth seriously do a worse job than congress or the Canadian Parliament? :blink:

 

R,

 

 

Well, it seems clear that our US CONservatives are determined to take us back to days of Aristocracy. :(

 

Was someone here defending Clinton or Obama? :unsure: They are just Republican-lite. The US hasn't had a real Liberal in office for decades.

 

Not sure how it can be rationalized that the US has gained the most from FTA/NAFTA/GATT. We've lost 41,000 FACTORIES since 2001 taking millions of jobs with them. While the CEOs are certainly profiting quite well by outsourcing for the cheap labor, no regulations, and lack of tariffs, the working class here definitely hasn't been benefiting.

[Guest]

Not sure how it can be rationalized that the US has gained the most from FTA/NAFTA/GATT. We've lost 41,000 FACTORIES since 2001 taking millions of jobs with them. While the CEOs are certainly profiting quite well by outsourcing for the cheap labor, no regulations, and lack of tariffs, the working class here definitely hasn't been benefiting.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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,