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

[Scottathew]

I agree with Snyder. I don't want swiss-cheese tax regulations that are utterly confusing and complex. Taxes should be fair and simple.

[Novine]

A fair tax would be a graduated income tax. Instead, Synder's making our flat income tax even flatter, where the burden falls hardest on those at the bottom of the income ladder.

[bartock]

I'm amazed or maybe stupid. A $100+ million dollar subsidity for a niche and transient industry supported by a governor was just as bad as the one before her and more concerned about her popularity and image than anything as apposed to a $1.8 BILLION dollar tax benefit on a marginally smaller scale for EVERY SMALL BUSINESS of ANY NICHE in this state. I'll take the latter as a better chance at a long term solution. On a basic level, Granholm's "model" of tax incentives is being expanded to include so many other potential businesses, yet that is being ridiculed in certain corners. Yes, not as sexy, but I'd be willing to bet, more wide-ranging and effective. Perhaps I'm missing something, and I'm guessing it is rooted in not being partisan.

[Fnemecek]

I agree with Snyder. I don't want swiss-cheese tax regulations that are utterly confusing and complex. Taxes should be fair and simple.

You think keeping the film incentive makes your taxes "confusing and complex"?

Okay - I can respect that. I just have one question: are you willing to pay higher taxes, or accept even lower services, to live in a state that doesn't have such an incentive?

I ask because, as has been pointed out earlier, the film incentive is a net gain in tax revenue if one includes the secondary spending and gains in tourism. Some folks in Lansing don't want to include that revenue in their projections. However, in the real world, it has to come out somewhere.

So, are you willing to pay higher taxes, or accept even lower services, to live in a state that doesn't have such an incentive?

[Fnemecek]

I'm amazed or maybe stupid. A $100+ million dollar subsidity for a niche and transient industry supported by a governor was just as bad as the one before her and more concerned about her popularity and image than anything as apposed to a $1.8 BILLION dollar tax benefit on a marginally smaller scale for EVERY SMALL BUSINESS of ANY NICHE in this state.

First, I don't think one can properly link the film incentive to Jennifer Granholm. Yes, she signed it into law. However, it was pushed by Republicans from West Michigan at first and received only tepid support from Granholm until it actually passed - at which point she quickly jumped in front of it.

Second, since the film incentive is something that generates a net gain in tax revenue for the State of Michigan over the long-haul, your choice of film incentive vs. lower taxes for other businesses is a false choice. There's simply no reason why we can't have both. If anything, keeping the film incentive ultimately makes it easier for Michigan to offer lower taxes to all businesses and taxpayers.

[jerrytimes]

Funny, because talks of dropping the tax credit was talked about before Snyder was governor. The majority of work brought to the state from this incentive isn't being given to Michiganders. The majority of work is being done by people from the studios, which are in California. It's been shown and discussed numerous times that which attention has been brought to Michigan with this, it hasn't brought money or jobs.

Why is it that Liberals want to tax the hell out of rich people and corporations, but then when a Republican decides to drop a tax credit that the previous Democratic governor also talked about dropping, he's wrong? Liberals always want to tax the rich, which is what this technically is, so they should be happy about this.

[gdogslim]

What I don't undrstand is that if this is so great for Michigan why hasn't some other state gone above Michigan's 42% production-cost tax kickback?

Excellent question. Answer: Because other states know it is a financially losing proposition.
Another question to ask is, Why did the tax subsidized cash for clunkers end if it was so successful, and it was run so well and was so smooth wasn't it?? Answer: It wasn't, transfer of wealth.

My question is, Why are all the people who complain about the rich and their taxes are not complaining about Michigan taxpayers giving an actor who may make say $1,000,000 $420,000 in tax money. Or the rich studios or the rich producers all of this tax money who go back to LA or NY with it. Where are all the left howling about corporate subsidies now ??
Obviously there is some money going to be spread around and help a lot of people out but studies show that there is a return of only .15 cents for every dollar spent.
http://sdamico.com/subsidizing-holly...ging-taxpayers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...sidizing-movie

Mitch Albom is bellowing about this because he is part of this game and stands to benefit.
We are cannibalizing each other with tax money, like trying to impress the woman with the best boob job that we have the most money and will blow it all on her like a drunken sailor.
With 43 states competing for subsidies it is a no win situation trying to out bribe the hollywood fat cats.

Now Jenny is out in California with her pension money. Isn't that special.

[Richard]

So instead of completely axing the incentives how about tweaking them by lowering the currant rate instead of being the highest in the country if that is the case to make it consistent with the rest.But to sweeten the pie make it geared more aggressively towards the hiring of local support.

So what happens then ? In the meantime locals are starving in-between big productions,from my little crash course it seems to be a common cocenses that there is more of a consistent future in non big production films such as commercials,sit coms,dramas,cable television,the video production involved in the gaming aspect etc. as these are or seem to me to be of a more revenue consistent nature.

When I look at other states big production growth charts it does look like an industry that needs to be fed but showed steady growth during the process as in it was not a losing proposal overall.

At this point personally I think that the politics side is irrelevant as no matter what "side" anybody is on everybody is going to be affected so the common goal would be to find out how to make it work for everybody's benefit .

It is a draft he is saying this is what I propose and now it is up to the taxpayers to show me an alternative proposal ,of the people by the people.

But that is just me and my opinion so now how can it be tweaked ?

[Fnemecek]

Funny, because talks of dropping the tax credit was talked about before Snyder was governor.

Yes, former State Sen. Nancy Cassis and some of her counterparts talked about dropping the tax credit before Rick Syder became governor. It was a bad idea for Michigan then, too.

The majority of work brought to the state from this incentive isn't being given to Michiganders.

That simply isn't true.

It's been shown and discussed numerous times that which attention has been brought to Michigan with this, it hasn't brought money or jobs.

Again, this simply isn't true.

Why is it that Liberals want to tax the hell out of rich people and corporations, but then when a Republican decides to drop a tax credit that the previous Democratic governor also talked about dropping, he's wrong?

#1. Governor Granholm did not talk about dropping the tax credit. There were people who talked about doing it during her tenure, but she did not propose ending it.

#2. Both Democrats and Republicans have supported this program. In fact, it was conceived introduced into the Legislature by a Republican from West Michigan.

#3. Regardless of party affiliation, anyone who thinks that Michigan will be better served by ending this credit is simply wrong.

[Fnemecek]

Excellent question. Answer: Because other states know it is a financially losing proposition.

No, the tax credits represent a net gain in tax revenue; not a net loss. As I mentioned above, the other states have been reluctant to leap ahead with a larger incentive simply because of the persistent talks about about repealing the credit out of Michigan.

Instead, they've altered their credits to get their [[smaller) incentive to filmmakers faster than Michigan does. This way, they're in a stronger position regardless of whether or not Michigan keeps its incentive in place.

Mitch Albom is bellowing about this because he is part of this game and stands to benefit.

#1. Mitch Albom is a writer. His salary doesn't qualify for the incentive in Michigan or any other state. He will continue to make the same amount of money, regardless of whether or not the film credit stays in place.

#2. Writers can set up shop any place there's an internet connection. It doesn't matter if the local economy sucks or is doing great. Again, Mitch Albom will continue to make the same amount of money, regardless of whether or not the film credit stays in place.

We are cannibalizing each other with tax money, like trying to impress the woman with the best boob job that we have the most money and will blow it all on her like a drunken sailor.
With 43 states competing for subsidies it is a no win situation trying to out bribe the hollywood fat cats.

If it's a net gain in tax revenue, and generates a few thousand local jobs, then it's not a "no win situation". Unless, of course, you don't think jobs and tax revenue are a win for Michigan.

[Fnemecek]

So instead of completely axing the incentives how about tweaking them by lowering the currant rate instead of being the highest in the country if that is the case to make it consistent with the rest. But to sweeten the pie make it geared more aggressively towards the hiring of local support.

Tweaking it, rather than ending it, is definitely the better option, in my opinion.

The current credit is designed to give a partial credit for non-residents who come it to work on a film. When the credit was passed 3 years ago, Michigan didn't have enough residents who were qualified to staff a complete film production. Today, however, it's a different story.

Michigan could eliminate that partial for non-residents and we'd still have the best overall package in the nation.

[jerrytimes]

Yes, former State Sen. Nancy Cassis and some of her counterparts talked about dropping the tax credit before Rick Syder became governor. It was a bad idea for Michigan then, too.



That simply isn't true.



Again, this simply isn't true.



#1. Governor Granholm did not talk about dropping the tax credit. There were people who talked about doing it during her tenure, but she did not propose ending it.

#2. Both Democrats and Republicans have supported this program. In fact, it was conceived introduced into the Legislature by a Republican from West Michigan.

#3. Regardless of party affiliation, anyone who thinks that Michigan will be better served by ending this credit is simply wrong.

Lets think about this for a second. Also, I was very much in favor of Michigan giving filmakers incentives to come to our state. First, I have a question for you, do you really think that the governor and other politicians that have been wanting to remove the tax credits haven't figured out the math, and whether or not having the industry come to Michigan has actually helped our economy? Do you really think that they just said that they just don't like it and that's the end? Could it possibly by chance actually mean that they may have realized that as a whole, this isn't helping our state.

It's easy to criticize Snyder for this, because to us average Joes, it seems like bringing the industry here that it should help the state, but as I've heard, it hasn't.

Maybe the criticism should lie with Granholm for not actually doing anything last year but throw stimulus dollars at the budget to balance it, which solves nothing.

[Fnemecek]

First, I have a question for you, do you really think that the governor and other politicians that have been wanting to remove the tax credits haven't figured out the math, and whether or not having the industry come to Michigan has actually helped our economy?

I try not to think about what's going on inside of a politician's head.

The one thing that one cannot get around is that, if one includes secondary spending and the tourism dollars that follow, the film incentive represents a net gain in tax revenue for the State of Michigan. It also represents a few thousand jobs for Michigan residents.

Do you really think that they just said that they just don't like it and that's the end?

Actions speak louder than words.

Could it possibly by chance actually mean that they may have realized that as a whole, this isn't helping our state.

Well, that depends. Do you think that an increase in jobs and tax revenue helps Michigan?

If you don't like jobs and tax revenue, you probably don't like the film incentive.

It's easy to criticize Snyder for this, because to us average Joes, it seems like bringing the industry here that it should help the state, but as I've heard, it hasn't.

You heard wrong, I'm afraid.

Maybe the criticism should lie with Granholm for not actually doing anything last year but throw stimulus dollars at the budget to balance it, which solves nothing.

There is plenty to blame Granholm for. However, no amount of Granholm bashing changes the fact that the film incentives represent a net gain in tax revenue for the State of Michigan as well as several thousand jobs for Michigan residents.

You can hate her all you want. You can burn her effigy, if it makes you feel better. The facts, however, do not change. The film incentive is a net gain for the State of Michigan in terms of tax revenue; one that also creates several thousand jobs for Michigan residents.

Rick Snyder has made his position known. Now it's time for the State Legislature to weigh in. Are they willing to go along with his plan to destroy jobs in Michigan?

If so, what are they willing to do to make up for the lost tax revenue?

The Legislature, by the way, are the ones who really ought to be worried about this one. Syder doesn't have to face voters in a re-election bid for another 4 years. That's plenty of time for voters to forget about this.

The House of Representatives and a portion of the State Senate, however, are up for re-election in less than 20 months. If they go along with this nonsense, they'll have to face some very unhappy voters.

[Baselinepunk]

" First, I have a question for you, do you really think that the governor and other politicians that have been wanting to remove the tax credits haven't figured out the math, and whether or not having the industry come to Michigan has actually helped our economy?"


I have to butt in here, but I'll make it quick. Personally, yes I think think that Snyder either unintentionally, or intentionally, didn't do his homework. Example; the numbers he used to support his "argument" that public sector employees were better compensated than private sector folks.

Since that buffoonery, all of his statements [[by him or his Party) used to support any of positions are now suspect.

Up until this morning I was all in favor of getting rid of the film credits. Since I've viewed the data presented by both sides of this argument, I've change position and support the credits.

Filed under FWIW: My relative who lived in LA and now lives near the left coast cites that Hollywood is getting pummeled by our incentives and is one of the reasons Cali is in such trouble.

[rjk]

Filed under FWIW: My relative who lived in LA and now lives near the left coast cites that Hollywood is getting pummeled by our incentives and is one of the reasons Cali is in such trouble.

Have you seen the debt numbers concerning California?
To think that the movies we've picked up are pummeling California is foolish. California is in a world of hurt and it goes way beyond some movies.

Again, if they're getting pummeled by our incentives why don't they do something about and give out a 45% incentive? If it's good for Michigan it should be just as good for California.

[Fnemecek]

Again, if they're getting pummeled by our incentives why don't they do something about and give out a 45% incentive? If it's good for Michigan it should be just as good for California.

Again, just a guess, but I suspect the fact that one politician after another has talked about repealing Michigan's tax incentive has a lot to do with why they haven't tried to one up us.

[Baselinepunk]

"Again, if they're getting pummeled by our incentives why don't they do something about and give out a 45% incentive?"

You've already answered that: Cali is in a world of hurt. I was very specific, I didn't say it was the primary or sole cause; rather, one cause -- one of many causes. Cali is in no position to offer up something like a 45% incentive.

[rjk]

Again, just a guess, but I suspect the fact that one politician after another has talked about repealing Michigan's tax incentive has a lot to do with why they haven't tried to one up us.

The tax incentive will be three years in April. When you're supposedly getting pummeled as was stated in a previous post how long can you wait?

California offers a 20% tax incentive capped at 100 Million. There are around twenty states that offer between 25% and Michigan's 42%. California has been losing production to other states and Canada for a long time. If Michgian gets rid of its tax incentive it's not a given that these movies will be going back to California.

[rjk]

Cali is in no position to offer up something like a 45% incentive.

And Michigan at 42% is?

[Baselinepunk]

Last time I checked, our 1.5-1.8B is not as much as Cali.

And, if I recall correctly, our deficit is around the amount of proposed new tax breaks for businesses.

Let's be fair here; jobs we used to have around here are gone pretty much forever; via unfair and crappy trade. NAFTA has really screwed us over the years and combined with China's WTO admittance [[and subsequent non-compliance/Human rights violations that should have made them ineligible for most favored Nation status) --- I'm pretty sure that those jobs are gone for good.

At least with film credits we get some national visibility by showcasing our State. I see the business breaks as bad news. How many hair salons, pizzerias, cell phone stores can a state survive on?

[rjk]

Last time I checked, our 1.5-1.8B is not as much as Cali.

Yeah, but were still in big trouble. How big would Michigans number have to be before it wouldn't be worth it to offer 42%?

[Baselinepunk]

Honestly, I don't think we're in as much trouble as what is being presented. How can Rick offer up 1.5B in tax cuts to businesses if we're in such trouble?

Also, one other thing that isn't being talked about; the public pensions are backed by the State Constitution. There's a lawsuit right at this moment regarding the new pension deal that was forced through last year; it's unconstitutional. What about the money being wasted on that lawsuit?

It's my understanding that any adjustment in public pensions requires a Constitutional amendment. Why hasn't this dawned on Gov. Snyder yet? Does he want more lawsuits?

Also, if Snyder wants to streamline government, why did he go and break up the DNRE back to its original two entities?


Sorry for the digression.

[stasu1213]

Who is Neda?

[mwilbert]

Lets think about this for a second. Also, I was very much in favor of Michigan giving filmakers incentives to come to our state. First, I have a question for you, do you really think that the governor and other politicians that have been wanting to remove the tax credits haven't figured out the math, and whether or not having the industry come to Michigan has actually helped our economy? Do you really think that they just said that they just don't like it and that's the end? Could it possibly by chance actually mean that they may have realized that as a whole, this isn't helping our state.

Yes, I think they haven't figured out the math, at least not accurately. Doing the math requires making all kinds of assumptions about how much revenue is generated by activities and then the secondary consequences of those activities. A lot of those assumptions are about things that will happen in the future--how many future tourist dollars can be attributed to the film credit, for instance. Depending upon your assumptions about how much of the spending stays in-state and what you want to count, you can make the numbers come out in ways that support whatever it is you want to do.

Once you get past the question of revenue to broader kinds of benefits, I doubt it is possible for anyone to determine whether a given tax credit is "helping our state."

My take is that the governor wants to clean up the whole system of tax credits, and make the costs more explicit, neither of which is strike me a bad idea. It is a lot simpler both to explain and to execute across-the-board cuts rather than nuanced ones. That approach is probably justifiable politically, but you can't assume that any individual aspect has been carefully calculated in cost-benefit terms.

[stasu1213]

The tax incentive will be three years in April. When you're supposedly getting pummeled as was stated in a previous post how long can you wait?

California offers a 20% tax incentive capped at 100 Million. There are around twenty states that offer between 25% and Michigan's 42%. California has been losing production to other states and Canada for a long time. If Michgian gets rid of its tax incentive it's not a given that these movies will be going back to California.

Michigan as well as Detroit need the national exposure especially exposing the areas of Detroit that outsiders don't know about. Detroit had this bad reputation but the movie industry as well as the actor/actresses weren't afraid to come here to do a series or a movie. Some of them probably would had purchased a secret getaway house in the Indian Village or Sherwood Forest area for a cheap price. That would be more reasons to develope self sufficient neighborhoods that Detroit once had years ago. I hate when people say "He's a business man" That doesn't mean anything for what type of business man was the person. Dave Bing was a business man but Bing Steel was in the whole when he was CEO of it.