Back To Listings RSS Print

Film Tax Credits:  Worth The Money?

Massachusetts Says No

By Bruce A Johnson | July 08, 2009

As a state employee (my day job is with Wisconsin Public Television) I pay fairly close attention to the biennial Wisconsin state budget. Aside from the parts that directly affect me (I'm getting 16 unpaid furlough days in the next 2 years, as are all state employees), there are usually other items of interest. Two years ago Wisconsin installed, with great fanfare, a fairly generous tax rebate as an incentive to lure filmmakers to the Badger State. The program had one large taker, the Johnny Depp film "Public Enemies," directed by UW-Madison grad Michael Mann. There is a great synopsis of the debate in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but basically it seems that NBC Universal ("Public Enemies" production company) got back pretty close to every buck they spent in Wisconsin (depending on who you ask.) In the new state budget, Governor Jim Doyle scaled the program back to a maximum expenditure of $500,000 per year. Of course, he was facing a $6 billion budget deficit, so just about everything was fair game (see "furlough days" above.)

Now we find news of yet another state that has found the benefits of a film tax credit to be illusory at best. This article from Deadline Daily spells out the Bay State's situation pretty clearly. FTA:

Massachusetts lost $95.5 million last year, and is on the hook for another $250 million over the next two years, because of film tax breaks. The Bay State also has to make good on up to $130 million in tax credits in the coming fiscal year, and $117 million in the next, at a time when the state is facing a revenue free fall.

Wow. Makes the Wisconsin situation look tame by comparison.

So what do you think? Should states be in the business of bribing production companies to come to town for jobs that, if not imported from California, tend to be short-term?

Share This

Back To Listings RSS Print

Get articles like this in your inbox: Sign Up

Comments

marc_grubb: | July, 08, 2009

Bruce, you will find it worthwhile to go back and read the comments on Deadline Daily. The Boston Herald article cited, as well as Deadline’s reasoning are both flawed. Money is not being lost here in Massachusetts. Production companies must first spend money here, then they receive a credit. For each 16 cents of *credit* a dollar is being generated. That’s a pretty amazing return on investment. We’ve had a huge increase in production over the past three years. See this for more perspective: http://www.mafilm.org/2009/07/06/dor-movie-spending-in-ma-is-676-million/

Chris Meyer: | July, 08, 2009

New Mexico funded an in-depth study, and found a very healthy return on investment. You can download a copy of the study here:

http://www.nmfilm.com/locals/downloads/nmfilmCreditImpactAnalysis.pdf

That said, in economic hard times, even seed money or subsidies that create jobs and income for your citizens can be a hard political sell when you’re running in the red.

- Chris

Brett802: | July, 08, 2009

I’m sure the big Hollywood production and distribution powers love the idea of getting tax credits to move out of Hollywood into the hinterlands. After all they’ve been producing films and TV shows in Canada, Spain and other countries where they don’t have to deal with the higher costs associated with working with union actors and crew. Why don’t we reserve the tax credits for the independents who really need them? They shot a major film in Newfane, VT and ruined all the trees on the common when they sprayed them to make it look like winter. It took years to get the producers to poney up the cash to replace the trees, and it will take years for the young trees to be anywhere near as beautiful as those that were lost. Thank God they came here and spent there money to destroy a beautiful park!

Bruce A Johnson: | July, 08, 2009

Actually, Marc, I *did* read the comments before p[osting the article, adn what I saw down there seems to mirror both the Deadline Daily and Journal-Sentinel article - that what is lost (or gained) depends entirely on the eye of the beholder.  FT postings:

>Massachusetts didn’t LOSE $95.5 million last year…it simply DIDN’T COLLECT this amount of money in taxes…<

Sounds like a loss to me.  Also:

>Movie producers simply go where the tax incentive is currently the strongest in their favor. It has been a constant race to the bottom sold to local politicians under the guise that the incentive is “temporary” and that eventually it will be phased out leaving behind a vibrant industry and infrastructure that will then serve as the lure for movies.<

That’s the exact same way I feel about the Wisconsin incentive program.  If anyone seriously believes that these tax incentives will be the “seed money” to create an ongoing, thriving film industry in *any* state, they have got to be nuts.  Film production is, and always will be by it’s very nature, a small, insular business.  To believe that the USA can have, oh, I don’t know, pick a number….10 thriving Hollywoods in it is ridiculous.  And to balance that kind of wishful thinking on the backs of taxpayers - especially in a down economy - is just unfair.  Invest in long-term industries, like renewable energy.  But in a film biz, where even the most successful film lasts 8 weeks in a theater, and after production delivers not one penny back to the state?  No way.  If “Public Enemies” makes a billion dollars (it won’t), does Wisconsin share in that?  Nope.

Chris Meyer: | July, 08, 2009

“Why don’t we reserve the tax credits for the independents who really need them?”

I would note that New Mexico has strong support for independent/small films, including potential financing. Plus training perks for below the line talent.

http://www.nmfilm.com/filming/incentives/

I’m obviously biased, but I think New Mexico has been going about it right - they’re not just interested in siphoning off some money from Hollywood (and merely throwing money at them to do it); they realize they have a state of storytellers as well as dramatic scenery, and they’re actually trying to make it a cultural industry that benefits their citizens.

(Although I think they’re losing the plot with their new pursuit of the gaming industry. Many have chased the supposed $$ there, only to lose a lot of $$ themselves - including San Francisco, PROMAX/BDA, etc.)

Matt Larson: | July, 09, 2009

Bruce, from what I’ve heard, “Public Enemy” brought most of their own production crew and equipment from LA with them, and then hired the rest from Chicago (which I’m sure you’ve noticed, is not Wisconsin!)

Lots of idle grip trucks in Milwaukee and Madison this past winter for a major film to be shooting an hour away…

Chris Meyer: | July, 10, 2009

The idea of a local talent pool is essential for the idea to work - both for the production companies, and for the state’s people to benefit. New Mexico has a pretty good production crew base now; we hear stories of Michigan evening having to fly in production assistants. However, we also hear about New Mexico having to fly in FCP editors - the post side of the industry is certainly lagging here (some of it for political reasons - poor wording in the incentives causes some FUD around what qualifies).

John Waterman: | July, 13, 2009

“Movie producers simply go where the tax incentive is currently the strongest in their favor.”

This has certainly become the case in the mid-west.  I’m a union camera assistant in Chicago, and we’ve been seeing a huge decline in production over the last two years as Michigan and now Iowa are taking the jobs away with the new tax incentives.  the film office lists 43 projects in 2006,  46 projects in 2007, but only 13 projects in 2008, and this year is shaping up to be even worse.  Chicago has a large talent pool, crew base, studios, and rental houses, but the tax incentives seem to be worth a lot more than those things to producers.

Illinois has tried to compete by increasing our incentives to 30%, but it doesn’t seem to be helping, when NYC is now 35%, Michigan is 42%, Iowa is 50%!

Producers seem to be shuffling around from state to state, forcing crew to travel from state to state after the jobs.

rameesk: | August, 24, 2010

I really salute you webmaster for having this wonderful theme and for sharing your ideas. Hop that you will continue writing more articles than this. Have a great day.


power window motor

raffiesk: | October, 03, 2010

I am very enjoyed for this side. Its a nice topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks.

cummins turbocharger

Please login or register to comment