If the movers and shakers in the NM film community are right and the state - and not just the unions - is in fact benefiting financially from the so-called tax incentive program, it will be a time for rejoicing. Personally I think the "loan" program should be scrapped. All the ()&$*# money is going to LA, anyway. And to folks who don't even need it! The tax incentive rebate plan, I would hope, would survive scrutiny.
Perhaps dropping the loans and upping the rebate % to remain competitive with Michigan would be best for all. Anyway, that's my thinking.
I'm certain we all are anxiously awaiting our new Governor's consideration.
Thanks again, Karen.
- Larry -
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Karen Koch wrote:
***This is a MISP Listserv message. Responses are sent to the list by default.*** ***For more info about MISP and the listserv, scroll to the bottom of the page*** *LEAVING THE LIST /LIST INFO: To leave the list, please email us at: firstname.lastname@example.org For other list info, please visit: http://groups.google.com/group/nm-media-industries/web/media-industries-list-info Available in RSS: http://groups.google.com/group/nm-media-industries/feed/rss_v2_0_msgs.xml <Film Subsidies.pdf>Check out this Center on Budget & Policy Priorities report on Film Business Subsidies. You can be sure the new administration has.The 17 page report is attached as a pdf but below is the opening premise ...Like a Hollywood fantasy, claims that tax subsidies for film and TV productions — which nearlyevery state has adopted in recent years — are cost-effective tools of job and income creation aremore fiction than fact. In the harsh light of reality, film subsidies offer little bang for the buck. State film subsidies are costly to states and generous to movie producers. Today, 43states offer them, compared to only a handful in 2002. Over the course of state fiscal year 2010(FY2010), states committed about $1.5 billion to subsidizing film and TV production (seeAppendix Table 1) — money that they otherwise could have spent on public services likeeducation, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.The median state gives producers a subsidy worth 25 cents for every dollar of subsidizedproduction expense. The most lucrative tax subsidies are Alaska's and Michigan's, 44 cents and42 cents on the dollar, respectively. Moreover, special rules allow film companies to claim avery large credit even if they lose money— as many do. Subsidies reward companies for production that they might have done anyway. Somemakers of movie and TV shows have close, long-standing relationships with particular states.Had those states not introduced or expanded film subsidies, most such producers would havecontinued to work in the state anyway. But there is no practical way for a state to limitsubsidies only to productions that otherwise would not have happened. The best jobs go to non-residents. The work force at most sites outside of Los Angeles andNew York City lacks the specialized skills producers need to shoot a film. Consequently,producers import scarce, highly paid talent from other states. Jobs for in-state residents tend tobe spotty, part-time, and relatively low-paying work — hair dressing, security, carpentry,sanitation, moving, storage, and catering — that is unlikely to build the foundations of strongeconomic development in the long term. Subsidies don't pay for themselves. The revenue generated by economic activity induced byfilm subsidies falls far short of the subsidies' direct costs to the state. To balance its budget, thestate must therefore cut spending or raise revenues elsewhere, dampening the subsidies' positiveeconomic impact.820 First Street NE, Suite 510Washington, DC 20002Tel: 202-408-1080Fax: 202-408-10562 No state can "win" the film subsidy war. Film subsidies are sometimes described as an"investment" that will pay off by creating a long-lasting industry. This strategy is dubious atbest. Even Louisiana and New Mexico — the two states most often cited as exemplars ofsuccessful industry-building strategies — are finding it hard to hold on to the production thatthey have lured. The film industry is inherently risky and therefore dependent on subsidies.Consequently, the competition from other states is fierce, which suggests that states mightbetter spend their money in other ways. Supporters of subsidies rely on flawed studies. The film industry and some state filmoffices have undertaken or commissioned biased studies concluding that film subsidies arehighly cost-effective drivers of economic activity. The most careful, objective studies find justthe opposite.Given these problems, states would be better served by eliminating, or at least shrinking, filmsubsidies and using the freed-up revenue to maintain vital public services and pursue more costeffectivedevelopment strategies, such as investment in education, job training, and infrastructure.Effective public support of economic development may not be glamorous. However, at its best, itcreates lasting benefits for residents from all walks of life.State governments cannot afford to fritter away scarce public funds on film subsidies, or, for thatmatter, any other wasteful tax break. On the contrary, policymakers should broaden the base oftheir taxes to create a fairer and more neutral tax system.Film