The end is nigh

[Guest]

Ah, but profits are NOT shared. Even though taxpayers are partially footing the bill for a for-profit product, they get none of the benefits back as other investors do.

 

But that is not entirely true. The tax payers are also workers on the film sets, very often receiving a very nice union pay cheque that includes lots of overtime. Having a job as a result of a state or provincial incentive is a benefit.

 

Also, if the movie is a financial success the producers need to pay tax on that revenue. In this way the government is an equity partner and does share in the profits. In Canada they will take up to 50% in tax!!! I would call that a damn good revenue share, any producer would take that deal, as they say in Hollywood.

 

Then there are all the vendors that benefit from these deals, rental companies, labs, etc. And all of their employees as well, who also pay......taxes.

 

Then there are the less calculable costs. I shot The Dogfather in Parry Sound Ontario, a small town three hours North of Toronto. They had never had a feature film shot there before. It's a very pretty town and a tourist destination for fishing and camping in the Summer. Now Parry Sound has a movie out there that will serve as a running advertisement for their town. The end credits clearly state, "Filmed On Location In Parry Sound Ontario."

 

Every time an American watches the movie on NetFlix they are now exposed to this town. Perhaps they'll want to take their family on a vacation there? If so they'll inject the local economy with money. The advertisement for the town will be around for a very long time and at zero cost to the tax payers of Parry Sound.

 

Feature films have a way of generating spin off benefits that few other products can.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

But that is not entirely true. The tax payers are also workers on the film sets, very often receiving a very nice union pay cheque that includes lots of overtime. Having a job as a result of a state or provincial incentive is a benefit.

 

Also, if the movie is a financial success the producers need to pay tax on that revenue. In this way the government is an equity partner and does share in the profits. In Canada they will take up to 50% in tax!!! I would call that a damn good revenue share, any producer would take that deal, as they say in Hollywood.

 

 

Right there is the problem. The government should take taxes anyway regardless of incentives. The incentives should ADD ADDITIONAL revenue to the government that paid the bribe as they are now an additional investor. Writing off that RIGHT that investors have just because there MIGHT be additional benefits is ridiculous. Yes, the crew pay taxes on their paychecks but as many audits are revealing, the circumstantial benefits are being outweighed by the sheer dollars that are being given in Corporate Welfare. Essentially, governments are giving away more than they're getting. In what universe does that make sense?

[Guest]

Essentially, governments are giving away more than they're getting. In what universe does that make sense?

 

It works quite well in Canada because Canadian tax rates are much higher than in the USA. At the very least tax credit programs in Canada are revenue neutral.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

It works quite well in Canada because Canadian tax rates are much higher than in the USA. At the very least tax credit programs in Canada are revenue neutral.

 

R,

 

In the USA, it's all about Corporate Welfare disguised as "Capitalism." Essentially, Reagan began the anti-worker/labor effort which was amplified by Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Obama isn't doing much to help either. NAFTA and GATT put that ideology on steroids which has driven some 41,000 factories out of the USA since 2001. Those industries that say demand incentives/bribes from anyone who will give them, playing cities and states against each other seeing who wants the jobs the most. The film industry has jumped on that wagon with gusto even though it doesn't build expensive long-term factories that any municipality can count on for long-term jobs and tax revenue.

 

Like I've said, it's all a scam foisted upon the public as a good thing when it is anything but that.

[Brian Dzyak]

It works quite well in Canada because Canadian tax rates are much higher than in the USA. At the very least tax credit programs in Canada are revenue neutral.

 

R,

 

We had that situation prior to Reagan who lowered taxes on the wealthy and Corporation but RAISED taxes on everyone else. The lore of Reagan always manages to ignore that fact.

 

I apologize that I can't remember nor find the specifics at the moment (I'll keep looking), but in one state right now, incentives were given to the tune of something like $3 million per employee for a company to move their operations there, only the employees will only be paid about $50,000 a year. The math just does not add up in any conceivable way.

 

The situation that has been CREATED over the past thirty years is that the top 1/10 of 1% is making more than the bottom 90%. While Middle Class incomes have remained relatively flat since 1980, the top 1% have seen their incomes rise some 281% in that same amount of time. The result is that wealth is being accumulated at the top at an unprecedented rate. Some of that has to do with the incentive scheme in tandem with international trade policies.

[Guest]

I agree with all of your comments regarding the poor wealth distribution in the USA.

 

This is partly why you should support things like film tax credits, they assist in wealth redistribution, they don't hinder it. Middle class workers benefit from the work created by the incentives.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

I agree with all of your comments regarding the poor wealth distribution in the USA.

 

This is partly why you should support things like film tax credits, they assist in wealth redistribution, they don't hinder it. Middle class workers benefit from the work created by the incentives.

 

R,

 

 

Wealth redistribution? When MORE of the money goes to Corporations than goes to the Middle/working Class, that's hardly wealth distribution.

 

Somebody had a great analogy for this yesterday. It goes something like this:

 

A CEO, a Tea Partier, and a Union worker are at a table with ten dollar bills on it. The CEO takes nine of them, then looks at the Tea Partier are says, "Hey, that Union guy wants to take yours!"

 

That's pretty much what's going on with the big picture. The Corporate class is taking MORE than their fair share, then suggesting to everyone else that they should A) fight over what's left and B) be happy with it because, well, at least they have something.

 

Tax credits/subsidies/incentives take more OUT of the system than they put in. Sure, working people have temporary income for a couple months which makes them feel better for a little bit, but the community at large is having MORE money siphoned out that goes directly into the wallets of the wealthy elite. It's unsustainable economic model that says "Hey townspeople! We're going to give Corporation A $10 million dollars and in return, they're going to give us back $500,000 in jobs and extraneous revenue! Let's rejoice because at least we have SOME jobs for a short period of time."

 

The math doesn't add up in any way shape or form.

[Guest]

Well as I said before you are welcome to not work on any films that use tax credits.

 

However, as they say, good luck with that. :)

 

R,