Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I AM FURIOUS
This is ridiculous. It is the biggest ripoff and the worst use of taxpayers money.
To learn more about the film credit program, visit Rep. Steve D'Amico's website.
http://www.sdamico.com/issues/tax_credit.htm
The film credit program is NOT a rebate of taxes paid by film companies, it is a program where film companies get money from the state - get revenue from the state - in return for producing films in Massachusetts.
You, as a taxpayer, are basically paying Tom Cruise's salary.
NO OTHER INDUSTRY GETS THESE KICK-BACKS.
What an f-ing ripoff.
couldn't have said it better
couldn't have said it better myself. Now look at the governor's veto list and tell us where you could have spent $20 million
OK, see...
When people come here and produce movies, they spend an assload of money here. Then people see the film and want to come see where it was filmed. And spend an assload of money here. Also the movie people hire locals to do things like be extras, be gofers who are familiar with the city, do stuff like catering, etc. This involves spending money. Assloads of it.
Also, I get paid with your tax dollars to do my job. YOU PAY MY SALARY! Feel free to post a UHub rant about how, uh, Tom Cruise should pay my salary instead. Or something.
(Note: I do not make assloads of money. More like noseloads. Earloads?)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Tourism no longer an issue
Back in the day, movies used to be here because this was Ye Olde Quainte Massachusettes (or gritty, hardscrabble, hard-luck Boston, for crime movies). The location was a key part of the movie and, yeah, hopefully people would come here because of how wonderfully pastel-colored (or gritty) we were.
Now most movies get made here because we're cheap like Toronto, only marginally warmer in the winter. Take "The Proposal" - please (sorry, can't put down my inner Henny). Unless you're either a serious fan of the genre or you're from around here, you wouldn't have a clue that the movie was filmed here. Part of the movie supposedly takes place in some Alaskan town; it would take a local (say, my wife) to go "What the hell is Motif No. 1 doing in Alaska?"
Well, you bought into this really easily
The differences between paying a movie star (who lives in Hollywood) and someone who lives, works, and pays taxes here are easy to see. I don't need to point those out to you or anyone else.
There has never been an analysis of how much money actually gets spent here, by whom, and with what effect. There was a study put together, but the Governor's office is sitting on it (see Commonwealth magazine and its website for more on this).
The "trickle-down" effect has never been proven. For one thing, it suggests that the people who are catering or being extras would have no other jobs. Far from it. These were jobs created due to the industry. If they weren't extras, they'd work at Dunkin' Donuts.
Tom Cruise should be paid by taxpayers?? Why are movies a special case? Financial services companies employ thousands more residents than the movies ever could, yet no one would suggest Ned Johnson at Fidelity get a 25% bonus courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. (sorry, Ms.) taxpayer.
It is precisely because Tom Cruise is getting his salary subsidized by MA taxpayers that the state is cutting services provided by mental health professionals.
I like paying taxes when it helps the "Commonwealth".
I don't like it when the money goes for something idiotic and stupid.
Another thing, there are plenty of other industries just itching to come to MA and they aren't asking for any kick-backs. Casinos, for one. (I hate casinos, btw, but that's off-topic.)
People say, "Oh, we can't stop the subsidies, they'll all leave the state!"
Better to do it now than in the future, then, before we get over-reliant.
There are 49 other states as well as Toronto and Vancouver, etc. The movie companies will go wherever they get the best deals. It's a lose-lose situation.
One of the companies who want to build production facilities in Massachusetts says it will be spending $500 million. The rumor is that they will be asking for a 20% credit, similar to what the film production companies are getting, now.
That's right, MA taxpayers will be asked to give them $100 million.
Oh, god, no, if we don't, they won't build it!
So f-ing what??
Sounds like a Wilkerson Deal
Is there a senator from Plymouth stuffing cash in her bra on this one?
John - does that mean if I have someone come film me while I'm working I can call it a documentary and get some of those IOU's?
I have a friend with a camera! But I do refuse to join any unions.
Close
If you spend as little as $50,000, the state will rebate you back $12,500.
Title of my first film, "Our state legislators are idiots."
Sequel: "So is our governor."
Dibs on the locals
I've got the city council and the mayor! :-)
The not one, but two
The not one, but two production studios they're hoping to built in the state would like a word with you. Whats a couple of thousand new jobs, mostly technical that don't require advanced degrees, anyways?
And, even working at a small time second run movie theater back in the day, you'd be surprised the amount of people that would stay to the end to see the filming locations and make comments they'd need to visit some day. Mostly middle age or older, that had disposable income and nothing tieing them down.
But
But, an investment on the part of the state of $100 million is not something to just do because it sounds as if it might work.
Again, there are plenty of other industries who would employ as many or more people who are not asking for kickbacks.
You have no data to back up your claims, so your argument holds little weight, but if you have data, send it our way.
True, but once the studios
True, but once the studios are built, the power differential will shift, no? So the state puts in $100 million, but private investors put in $400 million. That's $400 million spent on physical plant and equipment, and it can't exactly move to Alabama just because they outbid us on the production subsidy 5 years later.
[edit to add]
Once we have the studios, then we are a major center in the movie industry, with or without the tax credits.
[/edit]
Fine
Then I want equity! If they go belly up - then who pays all the social costs and we're still out $100 million! Personally I'd rather decide myself on where to invest my money rather than rely on the brain trust on Beacon Hill. I pay my taxes for basic services and a social safety net - if I want investment advice, well - as an investment advisor - I guess I'll just ask myself and the last person I'd be investing with (after Bernie Madoff) is anybody on Beacon Hill or at City Hall. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the private sector - there's enough of that in Washington already even before all the bailouts.
The thing is, every aspect
The thing is, every aspect of the tax code does this. Massachusetts favors using capital gains taxes at a higher rate than some states in order to have a lower income tax. Part of the idea behind that is to keep residents from fleeing to lower income tax states. Would you consider this policy a subsidy to wage earners? Maybe it is, but we still pay taxes. As does the film industry, just at a different rate. There really is no fair system other than voluntary taxation. But of course, that doesn't work, so we end up with a hodgepodge of a tax code designed with all manner of mechanisms to support or penalize various behaviors.
No
No, the film industry does not pay taxes.
Please read the legislation.
Yeah, I know that you keep
Yeah, I know that you keep saying that, and citing Steve D'Amico, but that doesn't make it so. A tax credit is a reduction of the tax. That is not the same as no taxes. No taxes would be a 100%tax credit, not a 25% tax credit. And it is not even close to the same thing as a direct subsidy.
Yea thats where I was confused...
I read it like the movie company has to pay taxes (except for sales taxes?) but then gets tax credits of 25% in forms of either cash or tax credits that could be given to others who owe taxes.
No
There are two parts to the program. The first is a rebate of taxes paid by a film production company.
The second is a subsidy.
For example, a film production company spends $10 million on production costs and salaries. It files paperwork with the state proving this, and is given a credit of $2.5 million.
If a film production company wishes to, it can sell its credits back to the state for 90 cents on the dollar.
In the above example, the company would get $2.15 million (90%) of its credits back, in cash.
More of this
From CommonWealth Unbound:
The state's film tax credit is one of the most generous in the nation. (See "Subsidizing the Stars") It offers producers a 25 percent tax credit on all payroll and production expenditures in Massachusetts and also exempts most of a film company's purchases from the state's sales tax, which was raised on Monday from 5 to 6.25 percent.
Most tax credits reduce the amount of tax the taxpayer owes, but the film tax credit is refundable, meaning it can be used even if the taxpayer doesn't owe the state any taxes. In essence, for every dollar a film company spends in Massachusetts, it receives a credit worth 25 cents that can be converted into cash, either through a direct payment from the state or by selling the credit to anyone who owes taxes in Massachusetts.
Under current law, a producer paying a star $10 million for appearing in a movie shot in Massachusetts could apply for film tax credits equal to 25 percent of that amount, or $2.5 million. Under the cap proposal that the governor and the Legislature signed into law and then quickly repealed, the producer could only seek tax credits equal to 25 percent of $2 million, or $500,000.
http://is.gd/1kZca
Two words about tourism
Fuck tourism.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that movies which are filmed here somehow drive up tourist numbers in some significant way. I think the connection is shaky, but I do buy the argument that some (small, but possibly significant) number of people will see movies like "The Departed" and want to see where Martin Sheen got tossed off a rooftop.
But is this a good thing? The tourist season here is very short, such that any jobs created by a bump in tourism are season at best. Plus, they tend towards the shitty end of the service-job scale. Yes, these jobs are needed and they have a place in the economy, but not if they're only around from mid-June to mid-September-- leaving people to scramble when the tourists leave.
Also, what about the impact it has on the town? Again, assuming that tax credits for movies does in fact drive tourism, do we _want_ it do so? Do we want this town to be geared towards tourists even more than it already is?
Vindication
The film credit program benefits Hollywood but does little for Massachusetts, says a report from the Governor's office.
http://is.gd/1nhxB