http://www.mackinac.org/12024

Quote:The Michigan Film Incentive is a state economic development program whereby state government offers large tax credits and outright cash subsidies to filmmakers who make some portion of their films here. The program rebates up to 42 percent of a filmmaker's Michigan expenses. The amount that exceeds the filmmaker's state business tax liability is reimbursed by a check from the Treasury and signed by John Q. Taxpayer.

The highlighted statement makes zero, and I mean zero, sense.

So we fly in a film crew from Hollywood, get reimbursed by Michigan only to go back to Hollywood and spend the money there. Brilliant. No wonder the state is dying.

(01-30-2010 12:08 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:The Michigan Film Incentive is a state economic development program whereby state government offers large tax credits and outright cash subsidies to filmmakers who make some portion of their films here. The program rebates up to 42 percent of a filmmaker's Michigan expenses. The amount that exceeds the filmmaker's state business tax liability is reimbursed by a check from the Treasury and signed by John Q. Taxpayer.

The highlighted statement makes zero, and I mean zero, sense.

So we fly in a film crew from Hollywood, get reimbursed by Michigan only to go back to Hollywood and spend the money there. Brilliant. No wonder the state is dying.

What am I missing here? It says the rebates are for the portion of money spent while in Michigan not the amounts spent elsewhere.

(01-30-2010 02:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-30-2010 12:08 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:The Michigan Film Incentive is a state economic development program whereby state government offers large tax credits and outright cash subsidies to filmmakers who make some portion of their films here. The program rebates up to 42 percent of a filmmaker's Michigan expenses. The amount that exceeds the filmmaker's state business tax liability is reimbursed by a check from the Treasury and signed by John Q. Taxpayer.

The highlighted statement makes zero, and I mean zero, sense.

So we fly in a film crew from Hollywood, get reimbursed by Michigan only to go back to Hollywood and spend the money there. Brilliant. No wonder the state is dying.

What am I missing here? It says the rebates are for the portion of money spent while in Michigan not the amounts spent elsewhere.

Poorly worded... but if you consider he spends $1mm on people and things in Michigan.... pays sales and employment type taxes of 25% or 250k, then gets a rebate for 420k because he spent $1mm, he has an extra 170k "free" to spend back in Hollywood. Certainly he got "value" for his $1mm.

I'm not sure this is how it works, but that is what I took from the comment.

I think the idea was to try to get movie companies to make movies in the state and thereby spend money and hire local help to build sets, etc. and thereby stimulate local Michigan economies through trickle down. You are viewing it as the movie studios get 42% of their money back to spend in California. The state of Michigan sees it as a way to get an additional 138% purchasing power return on their investment, with no conflicts of interest in who the money goes to. It remains to be seen if this strategy will work or not.

(01-30-2010 02:54 PM)blah Wrote:  I think the idea was to try to get movie companies to make movies in the state and thereby spend money and hire local help to build sets, etc. and thereby stimulate local Michigan economies through trickle down. You are viewing it as the movie studios get 42% of their money back to spend in California. The state of Michigan sees it as a way to get an additional 138% purchasing power return on their investment, with no conflicts of interest in who the money goes to. It remains to be seen if this strategy will work or not.

Not sure if the details are the same but I believe Connecticut is offering a very desireable deal for film/tv companies to film there. The reason I bring this up is because Jerry Springer left Illinois(Chicago) for the better tax opportunities(I also noticed that Maury Povich is also in Ct) so it must have some effect.

N.B.

Tax breaks attract businesses--and jobs. Which generate economic growth--and tax revenues.

Mr. Obama? Are you listening?

(01-30-2010 08:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  N.B.

Tax breaks attract businesses--and jobs. Which generate economic growth--and tax revenues.

Mr. Obama? Are you listening?

You beat me to it.....

(01-30-2010 08:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  N.B.

Tax breaks attract businesses--and jobs. Which generate economic growth--and tax revenues.

Mr. Obama? Are you listening?

Of course, at the federal level, it would increase the debt because there is less tax revenue coming in. You can't grow an economy
enough(especially not one based on shuffling money around and not making anything) to get us out of the hole that Raygun and the Bush's(and current increases under Obama) put us in. You could cut services to the bone and still not grow the country enough to compensate for the tax cuts. Just won't happen. I don't think higher taxes would solve our problems either. The answer is somewhere in between.

It doesn't reduce revenue if the tax break is for NEW business, Robert.

You may not get much revenue from the new business, but you will get it from sales tax and income tax from the people they employ... and often by taking "worthless" property off the tax rolls and "giving" it to corporations, you improve the local tax base surrounding the project. Certainly the merits are debatable, and not all deals are good ones... but if it takes giving up tax revenue to get a company to build in Detroit as opposed to Ontario, then we should consider it.

and yes... Republican Presidents are responsible for ALL spending, while Democratic ones do nothing but save us money. Whatever