Saturday, June 07, 2008

Wisconsin Looking To Improve Tax Incentives for Movie Industry

Don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing.

The state film’s incentives have been successful by anyone’s measure: They’ve attracted a big-budget Johnny Depp movie, independent films and TV shows. Businesses supporting the industry also are popping up.

But the architects of the 25 percent tax break for filmmakers want to rejigger the law to attract even more productions.

Other states such as Michigan also are making their incentives more competitive. This spring Michigan upped its tax break to up to 42 percent - the most generous in the nation.

But couldn’t Wisconsin try to be so aggressive attracting all industries?  I mean, I know that the politicians want to have swanky dinners and get their pictures taken with movie moguls and stars, but Wisconsin would be better served with a more robust overall economy.

(9) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2021 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Obviously, you are right, Owen, but the Senate Democrats weren’t keen on giving the film industry a tax credit and kind of got painted into a corner to go along with it.  They are dead-set against more “corporate welfare”.  As long as they control the Senate, your idea is DOA, regardless of how much sense it makes.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2008 at 2239 hrs


  2. Its really a amazing news that this spring Michigan upped its tax break to up to 42 percent - the most generous in the nation.

    Posted by festplatten datenrettung on June 07, 2008 at 2350 hrs


  3. Well, Michigan’s economy was pretty stagnant, too.

    Apparently the WI Democrats think profits are bad only if you’re a regular company.  Movies, on the other hand, can make all the profit they want.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2008 at 0816 hrs


  4. Why give tax breaks to real industry?  Stuff that employs real people long-term.  It’s not sexy.  In fact, it’s dirty and probably evil, so let’s not bother.  The state can continue to tax the life out of the few contributors remaining.

    Posted by Steve on June 08, 2008 at 0828 hrs


  5. Well, to be fair to Wisconsin, they were seeing no revenue from tax receipts from the film industry previously, so what is the difference? They are not losing any tax revenue that would lead to shortcomings in the budget, plus they are jumpstarting interest in cinematic investment in Wisconsin. It is a net gain. If you would like to argue that tax breaks should be extended throughout various other industries, I would not argue with that. Of course, with those industries that are already paying into the tax coffers, you then have to offset that loss of tax revenue. And as we saw in the last budget cycle, cutting spending is hard to do, whether you have an R or a D after your name.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2008 at 1116 hrs


  6. And the winner is… number four.  You want the logic behind this, there it is.  When you’re collecting zero before, anything is better than zero.  Cutting taxes for existing businesses makes sense only if you can generate more tax revenue at a lower rate - especially true when you can’t pay for the programs you’re already running.  An honestly balanced budget is better (and more fiscally conservative) than the constant shuffling of money between funds and the ever-growing levels of bonding to backfill those raids because politicians are not brave enough to just a) cut spending or b) raise taxes.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 08, 2008 at 1148 hrs


  7. And the winner is… number four.  You want the logic behind this, there it is.  When you’re collecting zero before, anything is better than zero.

    This is entirely short-sighted, and its the same mentality that has led to the proliferation of the enrichment of already wealthy industry and individuals at the expense of the taxpayer.

    What this policy DOES demonstrate is that HOLY COW, business is attracted to lower taxes.  ARE YOU LISTENING GOVERNMENT????

    The second thing this policy demonstrates is that we are pitting states against states giving away the farm to wealthy industries while the taxpayer gets shafted again.

    So while you are correct RC that wisconsin got nothing before, these film companies coming in with what results in an effective tax-free situation and in FACT they can profit by selling the unused tax credits when their tax credits exceed their tax liability, somewhere taxpayers lost.  Wether it be California or New York, or Chicago.

    So when you take a step back and look at the aggregate effect of these preferential tax credits, its just more of the same.  Lucrative industries with executives, actors and actresses with multi muli multi million dollar paychecks are benefiting while joe-taxpayer somewhere is getting screwed.

    Gee, kinda reminds me of paying for miller park so that millionaire baseball players and millionare executives can be even richer!

    SO WOO HOO today wisconsin taxpayers ‘think’ they are on the winning end, because we scored Johnny Depp and his movie, and michigan or california or new york, or illinois taxpayers were on the losing end.

    But aggregately, looking at the country as a whole, this policy is a zero-sum-game for tax revenue and the taxpayers foot the bill.

    Why not let supply and demand and market forces dictate where movies get shot?  Why not we stop pitting state against state using taxpayers as pawns and recognize that the only REAL way to change this from a zero-sum game for taxpayers into real economic growth is an OVERALL lower tax policy for everyone.  ESPECIALLY those that ‘earn’, not those with so much capital at their disposal that they need only invest.

    Right now, if filmmakers’ tax credits exceed their tax liability they can only use the leftover credits if and when they return to Wisconsin. Lawton and others want to make those credits transferable, possibly to other film companies for a small fee.

    The state’s film office, Film Wisconsin, has heard feedback from the industry that it is less competitive without the ability to transfer credits, Lawton’s spokesman Robert Chappell said.

    And as I’ve said many many times on here.  People with capital have the ability to move it around wherever they need to to avoid tax liability.  Start-up small businesses that don’t have that luxury… Where is their tax break?  How about the oridinary W-2 employee’s who start to make ‘good’ money.  they have the highest tax liability as a percentage of their income as ANYONE.  Where is there tax break? Why is it in this f’ing country that those who are TRYING to make a better life for themselves ALWAYS take a back seat to those who are so rich that they are not affected by tax policy or those who live off entitlements and don’t have tax liability?

    This country punishes those who earn and begin to suceed and panders to those who chose not to, or who already made a fortune and can allocate their assets to avoid taxes.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2008 at 1225 hrs


  8. Check out this video about Michigan film incentives…. pretty funny.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9lGzEKeaoo

    I don’t understand why we are trying to bring in these temporary projects when we shold be working on helping out businesses already here, which continue to exit the state by any means possible.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 0713 hrs


  9. First off, remember that a REPULICAN (Kanavas) supported this tax break.

    RS has it right:  since the nimrods in Madison (ALL of them) cannot cut spending, they will not cut taxes.

    And yah, it’s cooler to have a campaign pic with Johnny Depp than with Darwin Smith (former Chair, Kimberly-Clark, former State corporation….)

    Posted by dad29 on June 09, 2008 at 0818 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.