Comments

1
I think I could construct an argument for why this kind of subsidy is good, while the massive tax breaks the state gives to Boeing are bad. But I'd like to see it done by somebody who really has their heart in it.
2
I'd also be interested to see that multiplier effect compared to things like pre-k, transit, housing, and the cost-savings/humanity of adequate mental health services. I'm not saying culture always has to lose, but even if we increased taxes to justified levels I think there's room for discussion/sacrificing programs like this in favor of the basics (or even other cultural programs). I'll blame Olympia/east-siders for a lot, but not increasing a tax-break for movies doesn't sway me.
3
@2:

Washington FilmWorks, the non-profit agency that administers the State Film Incentive, keeps scrupulous records for not only how each penny of the incentive is spent, but also each penny spent by every production that receives funding, and how all that investment ripples through the larger economy. Based on six or seven years worth of data, they estimate the multiplier - the amount of revenue that starts with the production and spreads out into the state economy - to be roughly 10:1, that is, ten dollars in economic activity for each dollar spent.

And keep in mind this is all money that either flows into, or remains within the state. Productions don't get a single dime of their incentive until they show their books to WA FilmWorks, in order to verify they meet all the criteria: percentages of local-hires, percentage of production monies spent in-state, etc., etc. It's actually a much better "bang for the buck" investment than just about any other tax incentive program. Just as an example: The SyFy series "Z Nation" currently shooting over in Spokane has a $12mm production budget, of which about 90% is spent in-state. They receive something like $1mm of incentive funding, so that alone works out to a net of about $10mm that comes into the state economy that wouldn't otherwise. In addition, it puts hundreds of crew, production staff, creatives, and performers to work, while purchasing goods and services (lumber & building materials, catering, lodging, transportation, facilities rentals, et al) that help drive the local economy. And again, this with none of the money flowing out-of-state, because they have to spend the money HERE first, before they get reimbursed through the program.
4
"We live in the real world".....on a screen.
5
preach it Charles. fucking bumpkins!
6
Sorry but a government agency should not fund a for-profit business period. That includes film making just as much as oil corporations. There isn't enough money for this (and having audited state and local agencies for over 6 years I have seen the financials of state/local governments and understand how they operate).
7
@6 - That's the spirit! We should adopt that mentality throughout this great country, let those evil for profit businesses find the cheapest place to make their product elsewhere! Third world countries can take their dirty, dirty dollars, we will figure out how to fund all of our social services with spare change and solar panels. Get those nasty for profit companies out of my backyard.
8
@6:

Just like the argument with Shell and the arctic drilling rig, the money is going to go somewhere, and if you take the moral high-road and refuse the filthy lucre, someone else will be right there with their hand out to take it instead, so in the end, what have you actually accomplished? At least with the film incentives program, there's little ecological downside, lots of economic upside, and it actually injects more money into fueling the local economic engine, along with the resultant increase in tax revenue going back to the State, than would be the case without it.

As the saying goes, you have to spend money to make money - but this at least makes good on the making money part of the equation.
9
The state cannot pick and choose who it supports, if you support one profit driven business it should not be refusing others. Besides the whole idea of capitalism is let for profit businesses sink or swim on their own.

What it accomplishes is an honest government. Glad to see people here don't have a lot of moral fortitude. That isn't the role of the government.

Oh, and the whole idea that corporations will leave has no clue about corporate tax history, do a little research back to the 40s, 50s, etc and the tax rates then. The problem is we aren't taxing corporations, it results in underfunded educational and infrastructure system which actually makes our workforce less worthwhile.

If we have a highly educated workforce and an excellent infrastructure corporations would come here, but we keep in that stupid mindset of a race to the bottom.
10
@9:

But, this is the age of Post-Industrial Globalization; corporations are leaving one location and relocating all over the map, perhaps not in their entirety - although there is plenty of evidence of that too - but whatever parts of their operations they can, for the very simple reason that capital is highly mobile and labor is fungible. Don't like the deal you're getting in Location A? Move all or part of your operation to Location B, and take the jobs with you when you do.

Having a highly educated workforce and excellent infrastructure isn't as much of an incentive, because there are highly educated workforces and excellent infrastructure world-wide. So, yes, you need those to compete - in those industries where such things are of value - but we're no longer competing against Portland, or San Francisco, or Detroit, or Pittsburgh - we're competing against Bangalore and Shenzhen and Jakarta and Bucharest and Sao Paulo - and a whole bunch of other places, and you can bet your bottom-line, they'll offer whatever it takes to get your business. So, we can either compete on the playing field that's given, or we can sit on the bench and watch the work go elsewhere to those places willing to play the game by the rules that exist.

It's not ideal, it's not fair, but it IS Capitalism.
11
@10 amen! We can sit and whine, or put govt incentives to help our local industries (and we can whine with the best of them!)
12
Fuck this handing public money to private businesses. For once the Olympia people did the right thing.
13
I thought we wanted to close tax loopholes and end subsidies to corporations?
14
It can be a benefit and still be a bad idea. The state has a limited amount of money to apportion and the way the state gets that money is incredibly regressive. There are other ways to spend that money that may bring more benefit. Is giving this money to the film industry better than lighting 10 million dollars on fire? obviously. Is it better than schools? show me the data.

Washington state gets this money from property tax, B&O tax, and sales tax. At least with regard to property and sales tax, any money not collected as tax will nearly certainly be spent in Washington state. If instead of gifting that money to film-makers we lowered sales tax accordingly, that money would be available for Washingtonians to spend. Given that sales tax is payed disproportionally by the poor, it's likely that money would be spent on local goods like food and housing (which also have well documented local multiply effects). I think taxes are a good thing, but we need to recognize this isn't free money--it was collected from our residents. There's public benefit in the ways our residents spend their money.

I'm all for government investing in the success of Washington, but this feels more like a naked give-away to a group with a strong P-R/lobbying effort, than an investment in making Washington a better place for its residents.

As for the other states who are investing this money; let em'. Washington state will continue to prosper without a film industry; it won't if every corporate intrust gets a spot in line ahead of schools, transit, and our most needy residents. If other states want to race to that bottom it's to their peril not their benefit.
15
I would be very circumspect about that 10 yo 1 ratio; remember it comes from an organization that has a vested interest in film making. Film is fine as an art form but I fail to see why it is so important that it is made in Seattle or the rest of Washington for that matter. Let the film makers pay for it themselves.
16
oh FFS, having films made here is FUN. how much do we ransom to Boeing every year? let's have some FUN with our tax dollars instead.
17
The biggest production going on right now is "Z Nation" which is shot in Spokane and environs. There is quite a bit of bipartisan support for film production, both sides of the aisle. The state only has limited resources in order to force Governor Inslee to do what it wants. It's all make believe; theater even, that's why there is so much support. However, most of this production is just searching for a tax loophole and if we want to provide it, there will be production here. If not, production will go somewhere else. I work in the industry and even I am ambivalent about the social costs.
18
If Washington is truly concerned about this issue, here's a place to start looking: Georgia

http://www.georgia.org/competitive-advan…

In 2013, the film and television industries generated over $4 billion, with economic impacts rippling outward creating jobs for electricians, lighting experts, stage construction workers, and real estate and land management. To name a few.

Washington, again if they're serious, could do a little self-promoting like this:

http://www.cometourgeorgia.com/

It's a simple question of will, not ways.
Mr. Comte's several points are quite apt; there are scores of companies registered in Olympia 'pandered to' by tax credits and subsidies.

A visit to your own Washington State Public Disclosure Commission website reveals a list of lobbyist employers in 2014 with over 30 categories--issued in a 37-page document. Each and every company and group shown seeking advantage over others with respect to the taxing of gross business receipts by the state, or how those receipts should be allocated. This occurs in every state capital.

It's possible any embarrassment is not that 'other states and cities do [it]', but rather a failure by some to fully grasp how the relationship between companies and legislatures actual function at the state level and the reasons behind why any company elects to do business in state A over state B, in the first place.

And in the specific case of the Film and Television industries in Washington, such consideration of tax credits by Olympia would amount to a partial restoration of something lost.

NAFTA's effect, the hands-on response by the B.C. government, and a 20+% exchange rate in Canada's favor sucked most of the film and television work north of the Peace Arch in 1994.

The indifference of the Clinton Administration, the incompetence of the Washington Congressional Delegation, and fecklessness in Olympia allowed this all to happen.

All in stark contrast to the concrete steps taken by the Canadian government to protect Canadian jobs and talent.

Twenty-years later, the seeds sown (or not) stand in testament: British Columbia has a vibrant film and television industry, retaining an infrastructural advantage over Washington, despite near-parity on the dollars. And those stories set in Seattle still needing an obligatory Space Needle shot, can be handled by a second unit sent down from Vancouver on a day-trip.
19
I'm a Seattle transplant in Savannah. Been here for eight years now. Georgia isn't bedazzled or bamboozled by anything corporate when it comes to state finances. The GOP controlled government expects results where any tax credits are concerned. (The latest failure to secure a Volvo plant, notwithstanding. S.C. is all but building the autos for them. But that's another story in a far away corner of the country.

By making such an investment in the film and television industries the growth in the state over the past six years has been exponential. This is real employment, with real numbers, not CC chatter or golf course gossip. Tens of thousands of jobs--and growing.

The economic impact of the more than 330 feature films, TV movies and shows, commercials, and music videos filmed from Hiawassee to Savannah in 2012 totaled more than $3.1 billion, according to the Georgia Film, Music and Digital Entertainment Office — up almost 30 percent from 2011.

Neither are tax credits a one-size-fits-all arrangement. The Film and Television (and Gaming and Music) industries' tax credit is ingenious: they can be brokered if not fully used. From clatl.com:

People often think the credit helps Hollywood moguls — some of whom never set foot in the state — cut the tax bill they accrue on their production. Or that crew supervisors get rebates on goods, such as lumber, dry cleaning, or bottled water for crews and extras. But things are a bit more nuanced than that.

Say you spend $1 million shooting a movie in Georgia and you include the state's logo at the end. Your production company qualifies for a $300,000 tax credit. You, typically through a broker, can sell the credit for about 80 cents on the dollar to the well-to-do and corporations of Georgia, which use it to offset their state tax liabilities.

That's cash in hand that can be used to pay off film investors or cover some of your marketing costs. The Arthur Blanks and Coca-Colas of the world get a break on their state tax bills. Lighting technicians, caterers, and carpenters get steady work. The broker usually takes a cut of 3 to 5 percent, depending on the film's budget.

The Mercatus Center (GMU free-market think tank) has asked of tax incentives: Why not just create a neutral environment that doesn't try to pick winners?

Why not, indeed. Maybe it's the difference between theory and practicum. Every industry who can foot a lobbyist in Olympia has engineered a sweetheart deal with legislators to receive a break at tax-time. It is the world in which we live.

The GOP encourages a degree of means testing when it comes to individuals receiving government tax credits or subsidies. They should be encouraged to do the same with each and every tax break/credit/subsidy afforded to each and every business. Which is what they're doing in Atlanta.
20
with the falling Canadian Dollar, it's not like Seattle can offer much compared to Vancouver, which has a very developed film sector.
21
This is primarily about putting local residents to work. Yes, we need great schools and infrastructure, but we also need local creatives to have money for food and rent. Entertainment is one of America's fastest growing and most profitable businesses. Let's keep bugging the state for incentives so all of us in the filmmaking community will be able to live and work in our state.

Thomas Murphy
22
Anything Seattle wants, it can fund with Property Taxes.

23
Cultural Access Washington passed through legislation and is headed to the Governor! woot!
24
It is not a matter of either "no tax breaks at all" or "if one tax break is OK, all tax breaks are OK."
Any tax break or other government subsidy to an industry or business should last a small, finite number of years; then the industry or business getting the break has to prove that the investment has paid off in order to renew the break. Sounds like the film industry tax break would pay off and continue. As for getting enough band for the Boeing bucks...
25
@24:

And that's precisely the case with the Film Incentive, which is scheduled to sunset in 2017 unless it's re-authorized. The bill being considered in the current session would have increased the program from the current $3.5mm per year to $10mm by 2019, putting it on-par with Oregon's Incentive - assuming they don't increase theirs to $20mm this year, which is a very real possibility.
26
Let's double it, triple it, then triple it again! We'll no doubt be the next Hollywood. Subsidies are subsidies, regardless of whether your friends happen to benefit from this one. Every dollar has a multiplier effect. I'd rather put our dollars into education and enjoy that multiplier effect than hire COMTE's friends and have more art school ass clowns in Seattle.
27
For these jackasses who don't see the economical benefit of a strong film industry will you just hurry up and die already? (From old age/natural causes) - your stupid comments about how filmmaking is fun & make the film makers pay for it. You're ignorant or completely insane. STFU, your opinion is actually wrong, you are hurting society by sharing your thoughts. You are leaving the world in a worse place.

A strong film industry means money from out of the state, that could've gone anywhere else, came here, spent X amount of dollars in the state, then got a tax rebate or refund on money spent in the state. The fucking money was STILL spent in the Goddamn state on local businesses and in local economies you fucktards. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in outside money coming into the state and being spent in the state in your fucking neighborhood, giving that boost of business to the mom and pop stores on the corner. Paying your neighbor an extra thousand to film on their property helping them supplement the rent that month. It's real money, actually being spent in the state, it's tracked to the FUCKING penny and Audited to the fucking penny.

This is hardly catering to a private business because the return is so much bigger to the local businesses, communities and economies.
If it wasn't why, the FUCK do you think Oregon and Vancouver put so much support behind the industry??? Because it actually makes a significant FUCKING difference. The film industry in WA could actually take the largest part of that MULTI-BILLION dollar piece of the pie if the state got behind it and Jackasses like the retards commenting on this thread, who don't understand the captain obvious fucking benefit of taking in FREE MONEY and giving a small portion of it back (AFTER it has ALREADY been spent) to the company that spent it here that otherwise would not have.

Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and wake the fuck up!
28
Read @19.

That was a great, enlightening, post.
29
Urban Washington, not rural Washington, killed this bill. People living in dense urban environments are sick and tired of the film industry blocking off public areas for private profit. I remember the howls of rage when Sleepless in Seattle had the audacity to borrow a ferry (supposedly part of our state's transportation infrastructure, one of the big Bainbridge ones, 2200 passengers and 200 cars) and cruise it around the Sound until they were satisfied. You just can't expect a living, vibrant city to put up with crap like that.
30
@29:

Granted that might have been excessive (not to mention well over 20 years ago - today they'd probably just greenscreen the scene and insert the ferry using CGI, which would be less of a hassle, and probably even cheaper than renting it out), but what really killed this bill - along with many, many others - was simply that the deadlocked state legislature needed to find a way to compromise on funding some serious big-ticket items, namely, K-12 education, reduced college tuition, and the transportation package, and basically stripped out just about everything else, in order to keep revenue increases to the absolute minimum.

It's not a great budget, but it'll get us through the next biennium - barely. In the meantime, we keep our $3.5mm Incentive, and continue to watch as more and more jobs head both north and south to states and provinces who recognize there's money to be made - real, serious money - from this industry.
31
@30, I am not sure I agree. If memory serves, this program faced stiff opposition the last time it was passed. The film subsidy program has been on thin ice in this state for some time. I know people in the local film industry, and they've been talking about this "fight" for close to a decade now.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.