Are film tax credits cost-effective?

The LA Times has an article which questions the effectiveness of tax credits for film. While it is needed to stem runaway production, such credits may not be cost-effective. And that's why I've been ambivalent about this. I know, for example, states also use credits for companies to set up major factories, particularly in the auto industry, and, again, the question is whether it's money well spent.

I don't approve of subsidies, because I'm a free-market kinda guy, so I would rather have lower taxes across the board.
 
"The net cost to the state was $128,575 for every film job created for a Massachusetts resident."

That's the kind of thing that makes me wary of tax credits - over and over they've proven to be less effective in economic terms than if they'd literally just paid a bunch of people to sit around. It's not like there's many states currently running significant budget surpluses, either - which means the money which is subsidizing production has to come from somewhere, either through a reduction of other services or higher income/property/sales taxes and other fees. I think film production is also less effective from a long-term economic standpoint than other types of industries; due to it's project-based and generally mobile nature it's in continuous competition with other regions and rarely adds significant infrastructure which would incentivize companies to remain local.
 
Where I live, a local TV station, which had some shows shot locally, went out of business because the tax credit was cut. Some movies, which were planned on being shot in my city, where also moved to a different area, with different tax credits, once ours was cut. So it seems some credits, have a deep impact on business.
 
Where I live, a local TV station, which had some shows shot locally, went out of business because the tax credit was cut. Some movies, which were planned on being shot in my city, where also moved to a different area, with different tax credits, once ours was cut. So it seems some credits, have a deep impact on business.

Similarly, the New Zealand feature film industry, which in my point of view didn't really start until 1977 when Sleeping Dogs was made (it was the first NZ feature since the 50s, with the only other features being made my ex-brits and ex-australians in the 20s). The industry was kickstarted by the introduction of a national film commission, due to Sleeping Dogs' success. Then to support this boom, accountants discovered a tax loop hole, and suddenly there was a huge influx in feature filmmaking in New Zealand. The loop hole was shut in the early 80s, and films already in production were given 18 months (until 1984) to complete under the old tax laws. After it was shut there was a huge tailing off in the number of films being made, and there are far more "classic" NZ films in the early 80s than there are late 80s. During the loop hold, NZ film was starting to gain a small international reputation, but progress was slowed and set back severely when the loop hole was shut.

The New Zealand feature film industry, still a struggling, barely surviving with little financial resources, and even small financial return, would probably be in an even worse position if it had not been for the jumpstart the tax loop hole provided. And it was severely damaged when that loophole was closed.

Presently, the government does offer tax breaks to runaway productions, and for a while this was pretty effective (especially shortly after Lord of the Rings), but recently other countries have provided more competitive tax breaks, and we're seeing less international filmmaking here (though James Cameron has relocated here).

It's been the cause of some controversy, particularly when Peter Jackson threatened to move The Hobbit away from New Zealand. Actors had incredibly unfair contracts (e.g. they could be fired without notice - it's pretty hard to pay the bills as a local actor) and were being paid minimum wage, and so they striked. So the government gave them a $20m tax credit and made suppressed the actors rights to protest. And they call Peter Jackson a patriot, and paint New Zealand as a democratic paradise :rolleyes: First thing PJ did was give him and his wife a 7 figure producer fee pay increase. Actors didn't get better conditions. The tax credit just went to the producers and studios (and probably back into the film).
 
It's not like there's many states currently running significant budget surpluses, either - which means the money which is subsidizing production has to come from somewhere, either through a reduction of other services or higher income/property/sales taxes and other fees.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head, IDOM.


ItDonnedOnMe;378143 I think film production is also less effective from a long-term economic standpoint than other types of industries; due to it's project-based and generally mobile nature it's in continuous competition with other regions and rarely adds significant infrastructure which would incentivize companies to remain local.[/QUOTE said:
That I'm not so sure of, but, overall, a state would have to lower taxes to attract other industries. This is, in every sense of the word, a race to the bottom.
 
That I'm not so sure of, but, overall, a state would have to lower taxes to attract other industries. This is, in every sense of the word, a race to the bottom.

And that's why it's not a viable business proposition, not even for government, because in the end you'll have all the industries in your borders paying no tax, while infrastructures and education collapse due to a lack of funds. And when downsides of that enviroment weigh heavier than the tax benefits, companies will move to the next green meadows like locusts.
Such a system would be 'craponomics' because it's based on 'abuse'.

There should be a proper balance between tax, business and infrastructure/education to build a sustainable economy.
 
That I'm not so sure of, but, overall, a state would have to lower taxes to attract other industries. This is, in every sense of the word, a race to the bottom.

What I'm talking about is when tax credits are given to companies who build manufacturing or similar facilities in a given locale. The cost and complexity of doing that means that it's more difficult for the company to simply pick up and relocate in a year or two - once they're in place it raises the bar significantly for what it would take for another state to steal them away.

I see that as very different than film production, where no matter how much of a subsidy you give a production, they can just as easily move their next production to a different state when the incentives are better. This creates a situation of never-ending competition which is, as you put it, a race to the bottom with increasingly small returns (or more likely, greater losses) to the states competing.
 
A lot of VFX people are against tax credits/subsidies and there is an ongoing effort to try stop them through legal action.

https://vimeo.com/87721625

To me its all a bit BS and makes polititions look good because they can say they are getting jobs but realy they are paying for it with tax payers money.
 
It true, Whilst these tax credits have been extremely powerful at luring production out of California, their long-term financial advantages have been questioned by many independent research.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some regions can benefit from displaying their beautful cities/nature on the big screen.
LOTR is said to increase tourism to New Zealand.
But how does one measure this?

BTW, this is said to be Woody Allen's businessmodel: shooting in the city that offers the most. It was Barcelona, then Paris. Which city is next?
 
Back
Top