"Michigan Gov. to Film Business: 'Drop Dead.'

[Richard]

Good riddance! Unfortunately, most of the remainder of Snyder's proposals are bunk!

Jonhnnny5 Can you explain why you feel that it is a good riddance ?

I am not calling you out but none of this is cut in stone as of yet and discussions like this need to happen so the taxpayer who is going to be affected can get a clear picture on how this impacts them.

He [[Gov)has thrown out there for public view, the items that the public stands up for will or should stay,but if the public does not know what it all means, it is hardly in the publics best interest or helping them to make an informed decision.

[Johnnny5]

Jonhnnny5 Can you explain why you feel that it is a good riddance ?

I am not calling you out but none of this is cut in stone as of yet and discussions like this need to happen so the taxpayer who is going to be affected can get a clear picture on how this impacts them.

He [[Gov)has thrown out there for public view, the items that the public stands up for will or should stay,but if the public does not know what it all means, it is hardly in the publics best interest or helping them to make an informed decision.

In my opinion the film industry is just a fair weather friend [[Or is golddigger a better term?). The ONLY reason they are here is because the state is massively subsidizing their projects, and the fact that the ending of those subsidies means the loss of the industry is proof of that.
I'll temper my argument by saying that I'm not in favor of any tax credits or public funding for any for profit industries, but to subsidize an industry that is completely mobile is a complete waste of our tax dollars.

The climate in Michigan would mean that any jobs in the industry would be at best a seasonal activity with limited production during inclement weather [[There's a reason the industry thrives in sunny California). Also with most large tax subsidies/credits there's usually a long term agreement for instate jobs, or long term capital improvement. With these credits there is none! It's cash your check and take nearly half back to California, and that's exactly what has been happening.

I know someone is going to counter with the "Film studios, film schools" argument, but of all those proposed developments that were floating around I have yet to hear of any successes. The Allen Park school ended up being a near total failure [[If not fraudulent) and the rest are either stalled, cash grabs, imaginary or simply political hot air.

Of course none of this matters. Many people think the program is a complete success because they get to see George Clooney!

[lilpup]

The ONLY reason they are here is because the state is massively subsidizing their projects, and the fact that the ending of those subsidies means the loss of the industry is proof of that.
I'll temper my argument by saying that I'm not in favor of any tax credits or public funding for any for profit industries, but to subsidize an industry that is completely mobile is a complete waste of our tax dollars.

The climate in Michigan would mean that any jobs in the industry would be at best a seasonal activity with limited production during inclement weather [[There's a reason the industry thrives in sunny California). Also with most large tax subsidies/credits there's usually a long term agreement for instate jobs, or long term capitol improvement. With these credits there is none! It's cash your check and take nearly half back to California, and that's exactly what has been happening.

And what's wrong with that if it benefits both the film industry AND Michigan taxpayers? If you don't get people in jobs you're still going to be paying for them through state aid programs! At least the film industry is bringing private money to spend in the state.

[Johnnny5]

Because it does not benefit Michigan tax payers. It's costing Michigan more than it's bringing in, and the money could be be better spent on worthwhile programs [[Like the Pure Michigan Campaign). For the most part the benefits Michigan businesses receive from the film credits are limited to the production process. The actors, film crews and support staff leave and the benefits are gone! Programs such as Pure Michigan increase the visibility of our resources and support struggling businesses that we already have. With any luck the first trip to Michigan for a visiting tourist will not be his/her last. We'll reap the benefits of one tax dollar spent many times over for years to come, not get back 53 cents on the dollar.

[lilpup]

It's costing Michigan more than it's bringing in

uh, no, that's not even mathematically possible

the money could be be better spent on worthwhile programs

ah, there's the truth - OTHER interests want the $$

[Goose]

Of course none of this matters. Many people think the program is a complete success because they get to see George Clooney!

it's also a very "liberal" industry, thus the popularity here.......

[Pam]

it's also a very "liberal" industry, thus the popularity here.......

No. Read the thread again. It's popular because it's bringing jobs, money and positive publicity to our state. I don't care about seeing George Clooney either. I support it because one of my family members got a job on a movie.

[Fnemecek]

In my opinion the film industry is just a fair weather friend [[Or is golddigger a better term?). The ONLY reason they are here is because the state is massively subsidizing their projects, and the fact that the ending of those subsidies means the loss of the industry is proof of that.

You say "fair weather friend." I say it's just business. They came for the tax credits. They'll leave if they dry up. It's not personal, it's just business.

I'll temper my argument by saying that I'm not in favor of any tax credits or public funding for any for profit industries, but to subsidize an industry that is completely mobile is a complete waste of our tax dollars.

I'm more pragmatic than you. If it produces a net gain in tax revenue, I'm all in favor of it.

The film incentives do produce a net gain in tax revenue, if one includes the increased tourism spending and secondary spending as a result of it. Therefore, I support it.

MSU did a study on the economic impact of the film industry in Michigan. They concluded that every dollar spent on film production ultimately resulted in five dollars being spent, with each level of spending resulting both income and sales tax revenue for the State of Michigan.

http://media.igorfilms.com/msu.econo...pact.study.pdf

There's also the fact that movies have a proven impact of driving tourism. This is important in a state like Michigan where tourism is our third largest industry.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b&searchtype=a

The film incentive produces a net gain in tax revenue as well as a few thousand jobs. Quite frankly, Michigan needs more jobs and more tax revenue; not less. Therefore, philosophical arguments aside, ending the film incentive is simply a bad idea.

[Packman41]

The film incentive produces a net gain in tax revenue as well as a few thousand jobs. Quite frankly, Michigan needs more jobs and more tax revenue; not less.

Well the Michigan State Senate Fiscal Agency does not agree with you. Their report of September 201 can be read here: http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/Issues/FilmIncentives/FilmIncentives.pdf
The report says, "The nature of the credit and the resulting activity is such that under current [[and any realistic) tax rate the State will never be able to make the credit "pay for itself" from a State revenue standpoint, even when the credit generates additional private activity that would not have otherwise occurred.”
The report goes on to say that in 2008-09 the State paid out $37.5 million in subsidies to generate $21.1 million in private sector activity. In 2009-10 the State will pay out $100 million to generate $59.5 million in private sector activity.
In 2008-09 the Media subsidy created 216.0 direct FTE jobs at a cost of $186,519 per job. For 2009-10 the subsidy will create 355.5 direct FTE jobs at a cost of $193,333 per job.
Just click the link to read it for yourself.

[Fnemecek]

Well the Michigan State Senate Fiscal Agency does not agree with you.

I read that report when it first came out. The difference between the two is that MSU takes into account revenue from secondary spending whereas the SFA does not.

As for the cost per FTE job, the issue there is that they include tax credits spent with vendors [[caterers, hotels, car rental, etc.) but do not include the jobs associated with them.

If one includes all of the jobs, all of the benefits, and all of the costs then the tax credit is a good deal for Michigan taxpayers.