Little Boxes takes place in Washington but was shot in New York. A film credit could've changed that.

Comments

1
Our film incentive is under a special status: NTIB (Necessary to Implement the Budget), so it should be voted out of the House and Senate Committees and onto the floor where it will easily pass.
2
This is precisely the kind of economics (tax-breaks for industry) that conservatives have been squawking about for years. But when asked to support it, they instantly get the heebie-jeebies and throttle themselves explaining why it can't happen.
3
This is also the kind of economics that progressives hate (tax breaks for corporations; Twin Peaks - The Return has a Washington Filmworks logo on it), but liberals get behind it because it is a solid performer and it deals with the "arts."
4
@3/4:

It's also a proven economic driver because of its unique structure which, among other provisions, requires out-of-state productions to spend their money here first, then account for those expenditures before they receive anything from the fund. It also mandates minimum in-state hiring requirements, as well as requires that all employees hired in-state have health benefit contributions paid on their behalf by the employer.

With a 10:1 economic multiplier ($10 of economic benefit derived from every $1 contributed by the program) and an emphasis on accountability and geographic inclusion (literally every legislative district in the state has received economic benefit), it's a no-brainer, because it's a sterling example of how such a program should work.
5
@4 are you really objective on this? You're in the industry, so hard to give your opinion a lot of weight. The lack of income tax, relatively low-cost everything compared to NYC and CA, should offer enough advantage to WA to encourage filming here. We don't need another govt program when our state govt can't even get a budget passed and schools funded.

I don't know why we should cheer WA stealing jobs from NYC either.
6
@5, you're criticizing a plan that, as @4 reports is at worst, revenue-neutral. 10-to-1 might have methodology issues (?) no idea, so i understand your skepticism. firstly, it's not a blank check; criteria on allowable reimbursements are structured to insure the greatest effect on local crew and small businesses, like:

"Some non-resident labor may qualify for a return of up to 15% if the production meets all
eligibility criteria as detailed in the full Guidelines and Criteria, including but not limited to,
utilizing at least an 85% Washington resident labor force. "
7
Shorter @5: "I discount the opinions of people who know what they're talking about because -
meh, what do they know?"
8
We work in this industry and are definitely to be trusted on this. The state film incentive is a model program. It has been so for the last decade. It is also the 5th smallest in the country, and it is linked to our state film office, Washington Filmworks.
9
Lol. What's the difference between this and $200 million to finance an NBA Arena that gets paid back?

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.