The Hollywood tax story they won’t tell at the Oscars
Of the nine “Best Picture” nominees in 2012, for example, five were filmed on location in states where the production company received financial incentives, including “The Help” (in Mississippi) and “Moneyball” (in California). Virginia gave $3.5 million to this year’s Oscar-nominated “Lincoln.”
Such state incentives are widespread, and often substantial, but they don’t do much to attract jobs. About $1.5 billion in tax credits and exemptions, grants, waived fees and other financial inducements went to the film industry in 2010, according to data analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Politicians like to offer this largess because they get photo-ops with celebrities, but the economic payoff is minuscule. …
In its 2012 study “State Film Studies: Not Much Bang For Too Many Bucks,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that film-related jobs tend to go to out-of-staters who jet in, then leave. “The revenue generated by economic activity induced by film subsidies,” the study notes, “falls far short of the subsidies’ direct costs to the state. To balance its budget, the state must therefore cut spending or raise revenues elsewhere, dampening the subsidies’ positive economic impact.” …
The $1.5 billion in subsidies that states provide, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “would have paid for the salaries of 23,500 middle school teachers, 26,600 firefighters, and 22,800 police patrol officers.” Or it could have gone to cut taxes on small businesses, which, as Ms. Longoria noted in her DNC speech, produce two out of three jobs in the economy.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This is what Conservatives should be rubbing into Hollywood’s collective left-wing face every chance we get:
We should then remind everyone else that Hollywood gets the same favourable tax treatment on the Federal level as well as the State level. Over and over, remind them again and again, ad nauseum.
Rub their pretty little sanctimonious faces in it until State legislatures and Congress are forced to act.
END THE HOLLYWOOD TAX CUTS NOW!!!
Wanderlust on February 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM
Hollywood would never admit that Unions cause insane price inflation in the USA for labor, and that was/is a primary reason movies are made outside of the USA or in right-to-work states. Wonder why.
Neo on February 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Ahhh, yes, the plight of union workers in the making of Capitalism: A Love Story…or, 1% rich wh*re gets away with sh*tting on unions because he supports unions, or something.
Wanderlust on February 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM
This is disgusting to me.
These states did not provide subsidies nor did they give anyone anything.
They simply had lower tax rates & such that made it attraction to do business.
I’m sick of these words being bandied about so carelessly as if their meaning can just suddenly change with a whim.
Unless I have missed something & the state of Virginia actually cut a check for the movie?
Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 9:14 AM
I don’t think this is what Reynolds is talking about; he’s a bit more honest than that. He’s talking about the same kind of tax breaks liberals have been complaining about in, say, Texas; a company/movie tells the state they’re thinking of relocating, and they get a tax holiday for doing so because the state figures it’ll still be a net economic benefit (or at least something for the governor to rub California’s face in). See, e.g., this article. Note the reference to Michael Moore’s incentive/subsidy.
The tricky thing is that, because it’s technically a tax break, a lot of conservatives — who might otherwise be agog over special Solyndra-type incentives — are rather blasé over this practice of subsidy and special treatment. But if a small business decides to relocate in this way, they’ll get somewhere between jack and squat.
calbear on February 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM