California's Senator doesn't like tax credits.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
How's Cali's economy doing these days?
My casual recollection is that the state's barely able to fund itself, so expanding any program seems a little far fetched, and they're lucky the film credit program's not being actively considered to contract.
There are so many political angles to look at this, as any publicly funded program is, that it's not even really worth speculating over.
The most obvious knee-jerk response is that the senator stands to benefit from the suggested cost/benefit study. Probably is BS.
The next would be that the Film Commission is seeking to "split the difference" to hold ground by proposing an expansion while the state recommends contraction, splitting the difference means they hold ground.
Complaining that the proposal is premature is juvenile because this is just the Film Commission getting this notion into the public eye ASAP to allow fiscal supporters to mobilize before the clock does run out. That's just basic game strategy. And the Senator knows this, but is obligated to...
Whatever.
These things have so many behind-closed-door meetings and agendas it's not worth the casual bystander's effort to solve.
That said, someone somewhere with a lot more relevant education than me is going to look at what other cities/states have done to reverse the flow of money out of their communities.
What's worked.
What hasn't.
What are some anecdotal debacles.
What are some good press success stories.
Everyone else is the bad guy.
Antagonists everywhere!
My casual recollection is that the state's barely able to fund itself, so expanding any program seems a little far fetched, and they're lucky the film credit program's not being actively considered to contract.
There are so many political angles to look at this, as any publicly funded program is, that it's not even really worth speculating over.
The most obvious knee-jerk response is that the senator stands to benefit from the suggested cost/benefit study. Probably is BS.
The next would be that the Film Commission is seeking to "split the difference" to hold ground by proposing an expansion while the state recommends contraction, splitting the difference means they hold ground.
Complaining that the proposal is premature is juvenile because this is just the Film Commission getting this notion into the public eye ASAP to allow fiscal supporters to mobilize before the clock does run out. That's just basic game strategy. And the Senator knows this, but is obligated to...
Whatever.
These things have so many behind-closed-door meetings and agendas it's not worth the casual bystander's effort to solve.
That said, someone somewhere with a lot more relevant education than me is going to look at what other cities/states have done to reverse the flow of money out of their communities.
What's worked.
What hasn't.
What are some anecdotal debacles.
What are some good press success stories.
Everyone else is the bad guy.
Antagonists everywhere!
The film industry in California has always been a robust one. We
have seen productions leave the state because other states offer
incentives. When the government discourages local production
by high taxes and regulation people lose jobs. One of the reasons
California economy is doing so poorly is because the government
taxes and regulates businesses (not just filmmaking) to the point
where they leave the state. That means loss of tax revenue and
loss of jobs.
One possible way to keep more production in California and thus
more jobs - and I'm not talking about A-listers making millions,
I'm talking about below-the-line workers and all the ancillary
businesses - is to give tax breaks that reflect what other states
are doing and ease up on crippling regulation.
have seen productions leave the state because other states offer
incentives. When the government discourages local production
by high taxes and regulation people lose jobs. One of the reasons
California economy is doing so poorly is because the government
taxes and regulates businesses (not just filmmaking) to the point
where they leave the state. That means loss of tax revenue and
loss of jobs.
One possible way to keep more production in California and thus
more jobs - and I'm not talking about A-listers making millions,
I'm talking about below-the-line workers and all the ancillary
businesses - is to give tax breaks that reflect what other states
are doing and ease up on crippling regulation.
This sounds like a case of people being in a position that they shouldn't be in because they really have no idea what they're doing.
Kinda like when Simon Whipp nearly cost every Australian and New Zealand worker's job on The Hobbit when he tried to bully it into an illegal (by New Zealand law) union contract, and nearly forced the production out of the country, simply because he doesn't understand how things work, and entirely against what most members of the union he was the head of wanted.
Kinda like when Simon Whipp nearly cost every Australian and New Zealand worker's job on The Hobbit when he tried to bully it into an illegal (by New Zealand law) union contract, and nearly forced the production out of the country, simply because he doesn't understand how things work, and entirely against what most members of the union he was the head of wanted.
Hollywood is just one of many industries in CA, and the truth is that overall CA barely loses jobs to other states - despite what politicians like to claim about businesses 'fleeing' the state. So while Hollywood may be losing to other states specifically because it's more mobile than other industries, those losses may also be largely offset by job gains in other industries that are more stable long-term, and it may make more sense to incentivize those other industries rather than increase the film industry subsidies.
Yep, easy to say when your livelihood, the job you have held for
decades, the job you love, is no longer available because it has
left the state. I suppose we all could just change jobs to something
more stable in the long-term. We all know how easy it is to change
high wage jobs.
“barely loses jobs” is true. According to the Bureau of Labor
statistics 73,000 businesses left California in 2012. That's only 5.2%
so “barely” might be the accurate word. And many of those losses
could be businesses failing rather than leaving to another state. But
when the job you do is gone or very limited that “barely” becomes
less meaningful. The national unemployment rate is 8.2% - the
California unemployment rate is 11%. Helping the state to keep
movie and TV production and post production might be the right thing
to do.
Okay, we could banter statistics, but for me, I want the 100 plus year
old production industry to stay here in California as much as possible.
Our politician do not. And may people in the state feel that it makes
more sense to incentivize other industries. Those who feel that way
vote in politicians like Ms. Wolk. And people like me lose work.
decades, the job you love, is no longer available because it has
left the state. I suppose we all could just change jobs to something
more stable in the long-term. We all know how easy it is to change
high wage jobs.
“barely loses jobs” is true. According to the Bureau of Labor
statistics 73,000 businesses left California in 2012. That's only 5.2%
so “barely” might be the accurate word. And many of those losses
could be businesses failing rather than leaving to another state. But
when the job you do is gone or very limited that “barely” becomes
less meaningful. The national unemployment rate is 8.2% - the
California unemployment rate is 11%. Helping the state to keep
movie and TV production and post production might be the right thing
to do.
Okay, we could banter statistics, but for me, I want the 100 plus year
old production industry to stay here in California as much as possible.
Our politician do not. And may people in the state feel that it makes
more sense to incentivize other industries. Those who feel that way
vote in politicians like Ms. Wolk. And people like me lose work.
Uh-oh, politics!
Tax credits are a tricky thing. How much does a particular credit go towards benefiting the overall economy? It's a complicated profit-loss scenario, and anyone who thinks they have the absolute authoritative answer is full of it.
I'm reminded of the nearly non-stop issue of large cities trying to decide if they should subsidize the construction of a new professional sports arena, in hopes of creating jobs and bringing in tourism revenue, etc.
Last year, Spielberg's Lincoln filmed in and around Richmond, largely due to tax credits. Hundreds of people got jobs. Temporary jobs. I'd be curious to know how much $ the state of Virginia gave away, vs. how much new in-state revenue was actually generated.
I dunno. And I don't think anybody here (even those working within the industry) can provide a definitive answer either. It's complicated. And highly political.
And every industry has gripes. I make $2.13/hr, with no sick leave.
Tax credits are a tricky thing. How much does a particular credit go towards benefiting the overall economy? It's a complicated profit-loss scenario, and anyone who thinks they have the absolute authoritative answer is full of it.
I'm reminded of the nearly non-stop issue of large cities trying to decide if they should subsidize the construction of a new professional sports arena, in hopes of creating jobs and bringing in tourism revenue, etc.
Last year, Spielberg's Lincoln filmed in and around Richmond, largely due to tax credits. Hundreds of people got jobs. Temporary jobs. I'd be curious to know how much $ the state of Virginia gave away, vs. how much new in-state revenue was actually generated.
I dunno. And I don't think anybody here (even those working within the industry) can provide a definitive answer either. It's complicated. And highly political.
And every industry has gripes. I make $2.13/hr, with no sick leave.
Last edited:
I have just returned on a conference involving films, and, while many experts feel that they can do film outside, they almost all agree that it's still critical to have a presence of some kind in LA. And, for the few that no presence is needed, they still concede that the big deals are made in the City of Angels.
So LA is still a critical place. Now, if only those liberals were to understand a little bit about being pro-business.
So LA is still a critical place. Now, if only those liberals were to understand a little bit about being pro-business.
Hehe. There it is. I knew this thread had a conservative bent, I was just trying not to take it there.
You've entered taboo territory, brah. No politics allowed on IT.
You've entered taboo territory, brah. No politics allowed on IT.
For those of us making a living in film and TV a temporary job is
the norm – most of us freelance. Moving from temporary job to
temporary job is expected. And a temporary job is better than
no job. And for many of us a temporary high paying job is better
than a determinant low paying one. Even in the overall local
economy. Less expensive to make a movie > more movies made
there > people get paid a very nice wage temporarily > people
use that money to buy locally.
In California I'd be happy if the government simply lifted many
of the crippling regulations rather than give tax breaks. However,
since many states are giving those breaks in order to stimulate
big spending in their area California should feel the need to
compete for those dollars being spent.
Yep, it's complicated. I'm not taking political sides. For me it's as
simple as wanting to continue making my living doing not only
what I love doing but what I've been doing for a long time. When
the government of any political side discourages businesses it
hurts the working people. In California the government is discouraging
many businesses. Of course we film/TV workers are not the only
people facing these issues – may industries have and are facing it.
But that doesn't make this, specific, exodus of work less important
to the workers being hurt.
the norm – most of us freelance. Moving from temporary job to
temporary job is expected. And a temporary job is better than
no job. And for many of us a temporary high paying job is better
than a determinant low paying one. Even in the overall local
economy. Less expensive to make a movie > more movies made
there > people get paid a very nice wage temporarily > people
use that money to buy locally.
In California I'd be happy if the government simply lifted many
of the crippling regulations rather than give tax breaks. However,
since many states are giving those breaks in order to stimulate
big spending in their area California should feel the need to
compete for those dollars being spent.
Yep, it's complicated. I'm not taking political sides. For me it's as
simple as wanting to continue making my living doing not only
what I love doing but what I've been doing for a long time. When
the government of any political side discourages businesses it
hurts the working people. In California the government is discouraging
many businesses. Of course we film/TV workers are not the only
people facing these issues – may industries have and are facing it.
But that doesn't make this, specific, exodus of work less important
to the workers being hurt.
Oops. Fact is, tax credits are critical, and, if California wants to keep business, it has to compete with other jurisdictions.
Exactly. It's not about politics. It's about business. States providing
tax incentives to any business are saying, "We want you to do
business in our state." That is neither a conservative or liberal bent.
CF, money isn't being given away. A tax break is not giving producers
money. A state lowers the rate of taxes a prodco pays - they do not
eliminate taxes. When taxes are 18% of a budget vs. 8% that is a
big savings to the production and 8% the state would not get. In
some cases it's better to get something rather than nothing. We freelancers
face that all the time; do I take $150/day when I usually get $500?
In some cases that $150 is better than not making anything that day.
Working for three weeks at $150 per day is better than working three
days at $500. In the case of states offering tax breaks they may get
10 productions,all paying local workers a nice wage rather than get
2 productions.
But many people, like Sen. Wolk here in CA., see a tax break as giving
money away. Sometimes that 8% seems like giving away 10%.
tax incentives to any business are saying, "We want you to do
business in our state." That is neither a conservative or liberal bent.
CF, money isn't being given away. A tax break is not giving producers
money. A state lowers the rate of taxes a prodco pays - they do not
eliminate taxes. When taxes are 18% of a budget vs. 8% that is a
big savings to the production and 8% the state would not get. In
some cases it's better to get something rather than nothing. We freelancers
face that all the time; do I take $150/day when I usually get $500?
In some cases that $150 is better than not making anything that day.
Working for three weeks at $150 per day is better than working three
days at $500. In the case of states offering tax breaks they may get
10 productions,all paying local workers a nice wage rather than get
2 productions.
But many people, like Sen. Wolk here in CA., see a tax break as giving
money away. Sometimes that 8% seems like giving away 10%.
For the record, directorik, if I were in your shoes, I'm absolutely certain that I would want the same from my congress as you do. A person's livelihood and expertise certainly should shape their perspective in a big way.
I get your point, in regards to the fact that a tax credit is not actually money being given away (I didn't intend it to be taken literally). Yeah, collecting 8% tax is better than collecting 0%. And that's not even to mention the income tax collected by locals who are hired by the production, in addition to money spent at local businesses, both by the film production and by the cast/crew who are spending time in the area, shopping at local businesses, eating at local restaurants, etc. There's absolutely no question that a film production financially benefits the region in which it is produced.
However, the flip side of the coin is the question of how many tax credits are given to productions that would've produced a film in that state, anyway. Both on the low-budget and high-budget level of filmmaking, there are TONS of films that are going to be shot where they're going to be shot, regardless of taxes.
So now you gotta ask -- how much money was gained by attracting productions that might've shot elsewhere, vs. how much money was lost by giving tax credits to productions that were going to shoot in your state anyway?
I'm good at making drinks. I'm working on getting good at making movies. I don't know the answers to these questions. I will say, though, that I have many friends who were hired to work on the Lincoln production, so I've seen the benefits first-hand and I like them.
I get your point, in regards to the fact that a tax credit is not actually money being given away (I didn't intend it to be taken literally). Yeah, collecting 8% tax is better than collecting 0%. And that's not even to mention the income tax collected by locals who are hired by the production, in addition to money spent at local businesses, both by the film production and by the cast/crew who are spending time in the area, shopping at local businesses, eating at local restaurants, etc. There's absolutely no question that a film production financially benefits the region in which it is produced.
However, the flip side of the coin is the question of how many tax credits are given to productions that would've produced a film in that state, anyway. Both on the low-budget and high-budget level of filmmaking, there are TONS of films that are going to be shot where they're going to be shot, regardless of taxes.
So now you gotta ask -- how much money was gained by attracting productions that might've shot elsewhere, vs. how much money was lost by giving tax credits to productions that were going to shoot in your state anyway?
I'm good at making drinks. I'm working on getting good at making movies. I don't know the answers to these questions. I will say, though, that I have many friends who were hired to work on the Lincoln production, so I've seen the benefits first-hand and I like them.
Somewhere there's a PhD math nerd being paid a few hundred-thousand dollars to do the stats on the optimal payoff between credits attracting dollars being dropped into the economy minus those being taken elsewhere due to tax ramifications.
Gain/Loss = Income - Outgo
There's no way for any of us here to have the statistical data to point to "where" the balance is.
He's a Democrat....he never met a tax he didn't like. Polticians are like everything else, you get what you pay for.