Hollywood wants "$400m a year" from the California taxpayer

Here’s the thing. I live in NY, where we offer a very attractive tax package. I also work in production. I DETEST that we are so beholden to corporate warfare programs like this. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are. As long as someone is offering a tax break, the productions will flee there. We are Slammed with work in NY right now (this is not to brag), largely because production has left California. Sure, we always had our healthy share, but nothing like this. I have plenty of colleagues and friends in LA who are really hurting for the work right now (and this may well attract some of it back).
The issue that now arises, is that if NO states offer tax incentives, productions will take their $ to other con tries in order to enjoy the same (or greater) profit margins. It all comes down to greed, really. I honestly don’t know how this can feasibly be reversed. As with many things, once you give it up, its next to impossible to get it back. Much of the visual effects work that you see in all of the big hollywood blockbusters is now outsourced to india and china, where the wages are frighteningly low, and employee protection next to nil.
I agree with the poster’s above who cite that, in the grand scheme of things, $400 mil is next to nothing, and it could very well attract some productions back to LA, employing thousands.
To make the argument that the studios would be unwilling to invest in the infrastructure required to film outside of Hollywood, shows a massive misunderstanding of how things are. PLENTY of states have the infrastructure in place to attract productions. It really is as simple for them as shopping for the best tax deal.

If it’s next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, what makes you think it will make a crucial difference in the financial decisions of an industry that brings in hundreds of billions of dollars a year?

It’s not like California can cut taxes enough to be price-competitive with India. If people are going to make TV and movies in the state, it’s never going to be because it’s the cheapest place to do so.

First of all, California’s state government budget surplus isn’t because the state is being more fiscally responsible or even (primarily) because the economy’s improving, it’s because the legislature now has a supermajority of Democrats so they raise taxes; the Republicans used to dogmatically block tax increases even though they liked to keep building bigger prisons to put more people in, while the Democrats locked in pension spending to use all the new revenue from the dotcom boom even after it had crashed. Taxes really are high here, and it’s tough on everybody, especially in a no-longer-booming economy.

So if they’re talking about giving the Movie Industry actual cash, that really hurts the rest of us. If they’re proposing to give them tax reductions in return for sticking around and creating jobs, it’s not as bad, but $400m is about $10/taxpayer, so they really owe all of us a free movie ticket. (And at least it’s cheaper than the amount the tax-free NFL scammed out of Santa Clara for building a new football stadium.)

1 Like

It’s next to nothing in perspective to the state budget, and could very well attract productions back. At this point, competing with a place like india is more a factor for post-production than production. The actors and producers of these films don’t want to be uprooted to the lowest bidding country for 3-4 months… but New Orleans, Vancouver?.. Sure!
A number of years back, we lost a lot of film and television production to Vancouver. Then, they reduced their tax incentive plan… Guess what happened.
I’m not defending this. I thick it’s a tragedy, really. Unfortunately, it’s the reality that capitalism and GOP fueled corporate warfare has built.
The film industry is one example, but far from the most egregious offender (look at the oil industry, the GE conglomerate, and others).
Yet, as a nation, we can’t afford to retain arts and phys-ed programs in schools!? Yeah, it’s fucked.

1 Like

I find it rather telling that you don’t think “making sure tax revenues are high enough to cover expenditures” has anything to do with “fiscal responsibility.”

2 Likes

Technology. In an age when everybody can make their own movies with the new iphone 5s, who needs panavision?

Or based on a book, comic or play.

1 Like

That low? It’s 19% over here and yet police can’t afford to fire more that 100
bullets aimed at people a year.

1 Like

Or, should they spend up to $400 million a year of the new resources on more taxpayer handouts to the film industry? Yesterday, 59 California state legislators called for the latter,

California state legislators are in favor of giving hundreds of millions of dollars on taxpayer money to very generous donors? Hold on here, lemme sit down, my heart just stopped from the shock. This is so unlike them.

4 Likes

“The difference in tax rates is not drastic enough for MGM or Paramount or Universal or any of the big players to close up shop and invest billions of dollars building new sound stages, recruiting new talent, etc”

sorry but no, that’s exactly what is happening. it’s not a tax break. They are offering to subsidize the films. In many cases they are offering to cover half the production costs per film. 400Mil is nothing compared to what you can get outside of California.

Job blackmail, a time-honored American tradition! “Give us your money or we’ll lay off thousands of your constituents!”

3 Likes

I don’t get it. I thought movies were meant to make their money from the box office and merchandising?

Now, hey. Sounds like you’re blaming our Jobs and Wealth Creators there, Citizen. Steady, now.

1 Like

They do. But you have to make the film before you can sell tickets. That cost money. Just like you have to make the car before you can sell the car. If it is cheaper to make the car somewhere else then they will do that.

Again, in that case why bother? If $400 million isn’t enough to make a difference, there’s no point in giving it to them. California will never be the cheapest place in the country to shoot T.V. or movies, let alone the cheapest place in the world. If the industry chooses to stay in the state it will be for other reasons.

1 Like

Indeed. F’rinstance, London’s a massively expensive place to live if you’re a currency-trader or banker. Surely, by the same token, it would be cheaper to put in fast data-links somewhere where lunch costs less than a normal person makes in wages by the time they get to their lunch-break? It’s still full of merchant bankers though…

1 Like

Not to mention the outrageous real estate prices around Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. Following this kind of logic, local governments should be giving boatloads of cash to the tech industry to make sure they don’t leave… except that the tech industry is one of the main reasons property values are so high in the first place.

Heck, New York should be giving even more money to the financial industry to make sure they don’t leave Wall Street. Have you seen how expensive it is to buy property in Manhattan?

2 Likes

Sounds more like a kickstarter than a business.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.