Yesterday the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a study examining film and TV tax subsidies in the US. Titled "State Film Subsidies: Not Much Bang For Too Many Bucks" the report is very critical of subsides concluding "State film subsidies are a wasteful, ineffective, and unfair instrument of economic development." In an LA Times article the MPAA blasts the report as a "...politically motivated, slipshod report..."

Links to the study and the LA Times article follow...


Article Links:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: State Film Subsidies: Not Much Bang For Too Many Bucks

Los Angeles Times: Liberal think tank and Hollywood's lobbying arm trade barbs over state film subsidies


Thanks so much for reading our article.

We've been a free service since 1999 and now rely on the generous contributions of readers like you. If you'd like to help support our work, please join the hundreds of others and become an fxinsider member.

  • Jay

    It took me about half-way through the article to realize that this had some political underpinnings, so I went to the ‘about me’ page of the link and found that it was just a sounding board and cheerleader for the expansion of government programs.

    They look for ways to free up money from the state in order to fund food stamps and handouts for the poor. They basically engage in class warfare in order to sway politics in their favor so they can continue their pursuit of a Welfare State – a.k.a Nanny State – a.k.a Socialism (the only successful outcome from such an endeavor).

    The articles on the website from the link above are meant to paint a picture of how horrible it is to be poor (heck, I’m poor and the last thing I want is pity), and how people should better spend their money on solving world poverty. They try and bring the issue of poverty to the awareness of those with money in order to make them feel guilty (class warfare) while they beg the government to tax the rich, and in turn raise their begging palms to the now-rich government.

    Whatever. There will always be poverty, and there will always be those that leech off the rich, demanding their money in the name of ‘fairness’. Ha. Look, in America we’re free to be whatever we want. Even poor. Some people simply don’t like to work hard: it’s stressful to work hard, I understand why people don’t want to do it. Likewise, having money is not just a state of being, it’s a state of mind. One has to really lust for money in order to make it, but that’s their choice! They choose to stress themselves out in order to make money. Follow me so far? When you give people free money it teaches them that begging is more lucrative (in the short term) than some kind of long-term commitment to bettering their own life (and the lives of the people around them) through hard work, despite (or even FOR) the type of stress that it brings induces. Giving people money only keeps them poor.

    If you want to solve world hunger once and for all, the only way you’re going to do it is with jobs and physical/ mental WORK. Plain and simple. The people that create jobs for the poor are the ones with money: businesses. Whey you scrape away at a business’s profits, in order to turn around and give it out to the the poor, you’re directly removing money that could be invested back into the company, which would create jobs and economic wealth. See how that works? In short: when you strangle the rich and their ability to make money, you strangle the ability of the country to grow and expand through job creation. Businesses literally CREATE money through the work of real people, it’s the only way money and wealth is actually created — the only thing the Government can do is take it and redistribute it; shuffle it around. When the government starts creating wealth, it’s not to make the county more wealthy, it’s to get votes and stay in power.

    I agree with the article that state subsidizing is wasteful, but I disagree with the underlying message: that the money would be better spent given to the poor. The government is simply not a business. It should stay out of subsidies altogether. I read a wise sentence once that said: the prerogative of a business is to make money, the prerogative of our government is to get votes. When the government becomes increasingly interested in money it should throw up red flags: money gives the government the power to limit the flow of information in order to get more power (power = more votes = more money). And when they limit the flow of information we suddenly lose our ability to think for ourselves, at which time the government loses touch with the public because at that point it doesn’t matter what you think – they’re no longer working in our interest – as long as you produce them with more money. When the government wants more money they simply take it from the rich with higher taxes, and when you steal from the rich you strangle the nation’s ability to grow.

    Ever wonder why we don’t have those majestic cities of the future like we see in films? That’s why ^^^

    If the Government was a business, most of them would have been fired long ago.

  • steved

    Are you saying Robin Hood… is… a baddie?

  • P

    Jay,
    subsidies aside, how can a government not to be interested in money. How will you fund your schools?, hospitals? fire, polic depts? the good will of the rich?
    One of the fundamental aspects of operation is it’s duty to the citizens that elected it and the cohesion of society. I don’t think anyone would advocate a return to the dark ages. This is especially relevant in today’s world where certain corporations yield a highly skewed amount of influence.

  • steve

    Schools, police, fire….this is ALWAYS the garbage liberals fall back on when discussing how to cut gov’t spending.

    Jay, I want to thank you for a very well written comment.

    • andy

      Foodstamps, Handouts, Socialism… this is ALWAYS the garbage conservatives fall back on when discussing how to cut gov

      • Chuck

        Andy,
        do you really think the number is as high as twelve?! LOL..

        IMHO, the issue with subsidies is the mere validity or sustainability of it all. for every $70K spent here in Michigan, approx. $14K in actual job salary results. Now, regardless of political fervor, this is unsustainable. very few high skill/pay jobs are created at all.

        if this subsidy “jump starts” a movie industry in Michigan, it should eventually taper off and go away, right?
        this may cause production to dry up completely or enough to then prevent large scale productions from coming to the state. it’s a catch 22. In the short-term its very enticing and everyone should take advantage of it, in the long run, it goes away (because it has to) and it could ruin the artificially inseminated industry… and if it is permanent, then we must increase taxes to support it… that is in fact state sponsored corporate welfare… so everyone pays for the industry that cant support itself.. that doesn’t seem remotely fair.