Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Tax Breaks Spur Business Activity - Who Knew?

This is great.

With the tax credits taking effect today, producers are already looking at Wisconsin and planning to bring productions here. Producers of “Public Enemies,” a major motion picture from NBC Universal about noted 1930s gangster John Dillinger, have scouted 20 locations in Wisconsin and are expected to make a decision soon about whether to film here.

A smaller film, “Blue World,” will begin shooting in Milwaukee soon, according to Film Wisconsin. And other films such as “Feed the Fish,” starring Green Bay native Tony Shalhoub, and “The Violinist” are starting preproduction. The state is also attracting other television and advertising projects.

[...]

The tax credits for film, television, video game and other entertainment productions were created in 2006 to build an industry of high-tech, skilled jobs. Film productions can also pump money into local economies where they shoot, as crews pay for everything from lights to catering; half the production costs are estimated to stay in the region where the production occurs.

The tax credits of up to 25% will apply to production costs incurred while shooting in Wisconsin. They also include credits for wages paid to people working on a film; production expenses such as lighting and makeup; and a film company’s expenditures in the first three years of doing business in Wisconsin.

Those backing the credits said the state would benefit because films would bring in new business and revenue that wouldn’t otherwise come to Wisconsin.

Perhaps if this is successful, the Doyle administration will see the value in lower taxes to spur other business activity too.

(10) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1108 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Do I have to be everybody’s on-line editor?  You might want to send that headline back to the keyboard.

    Posted by steveegg on January 01, 2008 at 1145 hrs


  2. Yes… yes you do.

    Posted by Owen on January 01, 2008 at 1150 hrs


  3. How much does it pay? grin

    Posted by steveegg on January 01, 2008 at 1213 hrs


  4. Why pay when you do it for free? wink

    Posted by Owen on January 01, 2008 at 1215 hrs


  5. The fact that something at least somewhat-acceptable is always free on the ‘Net is the entire problem with the business model of ‘Net businesses.

    Posted by steveegg on January 01, 2008 at 1729 hrs


  6. It is interesting that Doyle supports his buddy Johnny Depp getting the tax break but would not feel the same way about say a John Torinus, Miller Brewing or other private manufacturers located here.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 01, 2008 at 2028 hrs


  7. You know, if more than just 1/3 of Wisconsin business paid taxes in the first place, you might be on to something.

    Posted by folkbum on January 02, 2008 at 1250 hrs


  8. You know, if more than just 1/3 of Wisconsin business paid taxes in the first place, you might be on to something.

    Proving some people can miss the point of the article completely.  2/3 of the businesses in WI are mom/pops or startups or are sole proprietorships and dont show a profit therefore are not required to pay tax.  Even so your characterization is misleading.  Wages paid even in a unprofitable business still is subject to payroll taxes.  Supplies and services bought and used by these companies still are taxed. Unprofitable businesses still pay property taxes.

    You need to avoid making inaccurate and blanket statements.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2008 at 1916 hrs


  9. I’m not making stuff up, Dans.  Two-thirds of Wisconsin’s business pay no income tax.  The list of property-tax breaks businesses claim would make you cry.  The TIFs that everyone everywhere is anxious to throw to anyone who asks not only eliminate tax burdens but hurt schools and municipalities, too, for pie-in-the-sky returns that may never materialize.  Payroll taxes?  Believe me, if your boss didn’t have to pay them, they would certainly go somewhere, but not your pocket—not to mention everything that those taxes fund at the federal level, like, you know, the war.  (And the state doesn’t even collect payroll taxes.)

    Look, I think that reasonable tax incentives deployed carefully can actually spur positive growth and development.  I don’t believe in taxing for the sake of taxing.  But what more, exactly, should we hand over to businesses that, in many cases, are shifting their responsibilities onto our backs as homeowners and wage-earners?

    Posted by folkbum on January 02, 2008 at 2249 hrs


  10. Why don’t we just make them zero?

    Posted by scott on January 03, 2008 at 1209 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.