Post by bswiv on Apr 7, 2024 6:56:26 GMT -5
From the New York Times morning blast today. Does the principle sound familiar? And do Team D states do different from Team R states?
State governments use our tax dollars to build roads, fund schools and provide health care. In 38 states, they also ship money off to a high-gloss private industry: Hollywood.
And it’s a lot of money. My colleague Christopher Kuo and I found that those states had given out more than $25 billion over the past two decades to subsidize the making of movies and television. The idea is to lure businesses to spend money, employ locals and stimulate the economy.
The problem is, the programs are actually huge money losers for states. Studies show that these efforts typically return a quarter or even a dime on every dollar given to studios.
Yet lawmakers are not slowing their spending. Quite the opposite. Hollywood is playing states off one another, and the competition has them sweetening their deals to lure productions, economists say. Under mounting pressure from New Jersey, New York recently expanded its film incentive program by 67 percent, to $700 million. Oklahoma went from $4 million to $30 million in just three years, in part to stay competitive with Texas. Then, Texas decided to spend nearly seven times that amount.
“You could find almost an unlimited number of better uses for the same dollars,” said Michael Thom, a tax expert at the University of Southern California. “Who on earth would say, ‘Keep giving the money to Hollywood; my kid’s school doesn’t need new books’?”
My colleagues and I wanted to understand why these programs persist. This morning, we published the third article in our series about the topic. Here’s a quick look at what we found.
Parties and cameos
States started supercharging their film incentive programs around the turn of the century. The idea is that when producers come to film in a state and spend money there, the government gives them back 20 to 30 percent of their costs as a thank-you for choosing that state.
Lawmakers say the film and TV shoots employ electricians, hair stylists and many other crew members. That means jobs. Money trickles through local economies to hotels, diners and dry cleaners. In Georgia, for example, the film industry says the state gets $6 or $7 in economic value for every dollar invested
Dennis Quaid in bluejeans, with a gun on his hip, stands next to two children beneath a tree.
Dennis Quaid in “The Tiger Rising.” The Avenue
My colleague Jonathan Abrams went to a small town in Georgia and saw some of the effects there firsthand. A restaurant owner said that sales spiked every time a production came to town. A woman who owns a jewelry and leather goods store once sold the actress Anne Heche a $300 purse. But even when a community enjoys visits from famous people and an infusion of cash, the state is paying to subsidize those benefits.
Of course, skeptical economic white papers can be no match for the allure of exclusive parties and the promise of a cameo in a blockbuster movie. Hollywood insiders lobby politicians with campaign donations and perks, which is another reason states keep expanding these programs. In Michigan, a big-name producer wined and dined lawmakers just as the state’s film incentives were set to expire. If you squint at the right scene from “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” you’ll spot a former Senate majority leader.
And states need to offer a good deal, or else productions will simply film elsewhere. Experts say this arms race helps explain why more and more public funds flow to these programs.
Remember the battle between Texas and Oklahoma? We document that in our latest piece. After Texas committed $200 million, Oklahoma began pushing to add many more millions to its own program. Dennis Quaid, a native Texan, has already plotted his home state’s next move: He wants it to approve $1 billion in the next budget.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
State governments use our tax dollars to build roads, fund schools and provide health care. In 38 states, they also ship money off to a high-gloss private industry: Hollywood.
And it’s a lot of money. My colleague Christopher Kuo and I found that those states had given out more than $25 billion over the past two decades to subsidize the making of movies and television. The idea is to lure businesses to spend money, employ locals and stimulate the economy.
The problem is, the programs are actually huge money losers for states. Studies show that these efforts typically return a quarter or even a dime on every dollar given to studios.
Yet lawmakers are not slowing their spending. Quite the opposite. Hollywood is playing states off one another, and the competition has them sweetening their deals to lure productions, economists say. Under mounting pressure from New Jersey, New York recently expanded its film incentive program by 67 percent, to $700 million. Oklahoma went from $4 million to $30 million in just three years, in part to stay competitive with Texas. Then, Texas decided to spend nearly seven times that amount.
“You could find almost an unlimited number of better uses for the same dollars,” said Michael Thom, a tax expert at the University of Southern California. “Who on earth would say, ‘Keep giving the money to Hollywood; my kid’s school doesn’t need new books’?”
My colleagues and I wanted to understand why these programs persist. This morning, we published the third article in our series about the topic. Here’s a quick look at what we found.
Parties and cameos
States started supercharging their film incentive programs around the turn of the century. The idea is that when producers come to film in a state and spend money there, the government gives them back 20 to 30 percent of their costs as a thank-you for choosing that state.
Lawmakers say the film and TV shoots employ electricians, hair stylists and many other crew members. That means jobs. Money trickles through local economies to hotels, diners and dry cleaners. In Georgia, for example, the film industry says the state gets $6 or $7 in economic value for every dollar invested
Dennis Quaid in bluejeans, with a gun on his hip, stands next to two children beneath a tree.
Dennis Quaid in “The Tiger Rising.” The Avenue
My colleague Jonathan Abrams went to a small town in Georgia and saw some of the effects there firsthand. A restaurant owner said that sales spiked every time a production came to town. A woman who owns a jewelry and leather goods store once sold the actress Anne Heche a $300 purse. But even when a community enjoys visits from famous people and an infusion of cash, the state is paying to subsidize those benefits.
Of course, skeptical economic white papers can be no match for the allure of exclusive parties and the promise of a cameo in a blockbuster movie. Hollywood insiders lobby politicians with campaign donations and perks, which is another reason states keep expanding these programs. In Michigan, a big-name producer wined and dined lawmakers just as the state’s film incentives were set to expire. If you squint at the right scene from “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” you’ll spot a former Senate majority leader.
And states need to offer a good deal, or else productions will simply film elsewhere. Experts say this arms race helps explain why more and more public funds flow to these programs.
Remember the battle between Texas and Oklahoma? We document that in our latest piece. After Texas committed $200 million, Oklahoma began pushing to add many more millions to its own program. Dennis Quaid, a native Texan, has already plotted his home state’s next move: He wants it to approve $1 billion in the next budget.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
