Hey, there! Log in / Register
We do our part to help struggling actors like Tom Cruise
By adamg on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:56am
CommonWealth reports on an analysis of the impact of state tax credits for movie making:
Of the $195 million paid out in wages, 78 percent went to nonresidents, with $82 million going to a handful of actors like Tom Cruise who earned more than $1 million per production. ... The state collected 13 cents in new tax revenue for every dollar it spent on the film tax credit, the report says.
Via Hub Blog.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Earn?
No one "earns" more than $1m per job. :-(
So what if we lose 87% of our investment?
I'd rather lose 100% of our investment than live in a world where the spectacular, generation-defining film Knight and Day isn't set in Boston.
Cue the usual outrage..
I benefit from movies being shot here. They kept me and others employed during the worst of the recession. When the state apologizes for the millions it lost on Evergreen Solar, then I'll worry about the movie tax credits.
Okay......
"The tax credits are refundable and transferable, meaning they can easily be converted to cash by selling them back to the state or to another taxpayer."
Say WHAT?!?!! ...pathetic....
This is a ridiculous example of a tiny backwater thinking it can entice a rather large conglomeration of powerful businesses to play-ball with it as though it even mattered in the scheme of things.
This is like the colonists coming in, using up the resources and then giving the natives smallpox. 78 percent went to non-residents?!
How many actors signed on for SAG and now can't get any work because all the productions have run to other states offering bigger tax breaks? How many people now sit around and say "Yeah...I worked on that shitty movie...paid me well...I love the tax breaks..." even though the taxes they're paying on the breaks paid their own salary and then paid the salary of Tom Cruise and people who don't even live here?
Yeah, how's that Kool Aid taste, dvdoff?
You wanna work on movies...move to Toronto. Why pay companies making serious profit more money to make even more profit?
Makes no sense at all.
Shouldn't it be..
"how's that Zarex taste, dvdoff?"
economic stimulus
Pointing out that the state "only" gets 13 cents on the dollar on the tax credit is the wrong argument to make. The whole point of a tax *credit* is to spend money in return for economic stimulus. So when a big movie comes to town, they spend money on locations, sets (lumber, hardware), clothing and costumes, catering, shipping, personnel, etc etc. This is money that's pumped directly into the local economy.
Also, while critics like to focus on the big budget movies, the tax credit has also enabled independent filmmakers to afford more movie for their money by shooting in massachusetts. I know of at least two movies who put their tax credit money right back into their films.
Lastly, while a small number productions will run to the next state with the bigger tax break, that's not really a big problem. Massachusetts has advantages that Michigan or Louisiana don't have -- close proximity to new york, a deep and wide talent base, and existing production facilities.
Please read the UMass study if you want a better understanding of how the tax credit actually works: http://www.management.umb.edu/faculty/workingpaper...
But then...
...that's the thing:
"...to build a permanent and stable film and television industry requires that policy makers consider both annual returns on investment as well as aggregate industry trends..."
There will never be a stable film and television 'industry' in Mass. Sure, a few productions may come here from time-to-time and we may see some high-profile stars who swim in the tax break profits, wasting this money to build something that Boston has neither the strong base or want enough to really make happen?
Why do you think 78 percent of the money went to out-of-state workers?! One, because it's tougher to get into than Beacon Hill politics and two because there aren't enough people here who do that to make it viable.
It's like saying 'let's throw money at these wind farms' when we don't even have enough land to build one large farm (have you ever driven out west and seen the wind farms?) and so we pretend we'll be able to do all of this in the water and it's such a waste of time the argument for it makes less sense than the actual implementation of it.
It's throwing good money at a bad idea and now all of these actors who believed this state was the 'next big thing' have all gone SAG and they have no work opportunities because regional SAG vouchers don't let them work in LA and all these crew people sit around now waiting for Hollywood East...and it's never coming...
They sold a bad bill of good and people keep fighting for it.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but Hollywood doesn't care about Boston. At all.
I don't see what the outrage is
This money was always going to go to padding the salaries of the stars one way or another. I mean money spent on other elements of the production is just going to offset the stars salaries anyway
Without the tax benefits...
...they don't come here to make the movie.
No movie = no $ coming into state. Isn't half a loaf (or even 13% of a loaf) better than none?
That tends to be essentially the tax break argument
Whether it's for Evergreen Solar or Liberty Mutual or Tom Cruise, Inc. It's certainly news to nobody that big actors, like CEO's and pro athletes, make big money- did we think they'd take a pay cut to work in the Athens of America?