Whereas permanent tax cuts to businesses attract businesses and employees to Missouri. These are dependable jobs, and the salaries and profits are spent (for the most part) within in Missouri.

If you want to argue about the “multiplier effect,” why don’t we create permanent jobs in MO (and have much of the profit spent here) by lowering taxes across the board?

All of business works this way. You employ factors of production (typically workers, machines and raw materials), and pay for them with the revenues from the stuff you produce. Film is a little different. Almost all the costs are upfront, and once it is produced it can be resold 100 million times with very low marginal cost.

The attraction, then, seems to be that “we want to be the state where that initial windfall is spent.” But other industries provide jobs and money coming in, it just happens over time and far less visibly. The windfall of movie studio dollars is what is seen. The many other employers toiling to bring a product to market while paying their taxes and employing 90% of the population of this state seems to be what is not seen.

There may be benefits to lower taxes in general in order to attract businesses that would otherwise locate in other states, but let the businesses decide whether to locate here based on the comparative advantages the state offers in terms of employees and other resources: not based on our choosing a particular industry to favor.

Also, let us please, please consider the costs. Other businesses in Missouri also employ many people (approx 2.7 million people) and spend a great deal of money on supplies and salaries. That money also multiplies out into the economy when it is spent by the people whom they pay it to. Yet these businesses pay taxes and do not threaten to relocate to another state without a special tax break to keep them here.

If other states wish to subsidize film production, we get the benefits of a finished film, and pay only the cost of admission. We get to sell our ice and other supplies to someone who pays taxes and employs our residents in other, productive, tax-paying industries.

I just hope that people such as Steve Walsh and David Niklaus are continuing to read this blog so that they are provided with such information as well.

And also that the Columbia Missourian gives equal space both in the printed press and on the internet for these arguments that show the benefits of the film tax incentive.

Even if I gave you all the presumed credit for economic multiplier effects, which, as has been noted elsewhere is lower for the film industry than for many others, you still come nowhere near $4 million. The people commenting here should just admit that they like the film tax credit because it directly takes tax dollars from other people for their benefit. At some point in our lives probably all of us will benefit somehow in that way. But that does not make it right, and it does not make it good economics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/realestate/09film.html

“New businesses have begun or expanded because of the business that the film community brings – including Shooters Post & Transfer located in Philadelphia that has invested $2.5 million to upgrade its visual effects division; Location Lighting, Inc. of Oreland has utilized products and services from businesses in Jonestown, Leesport and Elroy; two new studios are being constructed in Pittsburgh; and over $155 million is being invested in three new studio projects in Southeastern Pennsylvania. These are just a few examples of businesses that are retaining jobs and creating new jobs, as well as new businesses that are opening in Pennsylvania because of the Film Production Tax Credit.

“We are building a new industry in Pennsylvania. Community College of Allegheny County has developed curriculum to train students for local jobs needed by the film industry. The program has been modeled after a similar program offered by Oakland Community College in Michigan which has been utilized in films such as “Gran Torino” starring Clint Eastwood. Membership in IATSE 489, the studio mechanics union for Pittsburgh and the surrounding area, has more than doubled since July 2007.”

2) the demand is there. Filmmakers want to come to the state to shoot their projects. As Ms. Garrett has pointed out there is a shift in film making from California studios to location shooting. Missouri should invest so they don’t lose more money to other states and countries. Money going somewhere else is money lost for the state of Missouri.

3)I don’t think I could possible state it better than Ms. Garrett, so I won’t try. The state benefits with new and more money coming in. The tax incentive IS a commodity used in trade to attract new business and money.

4) No, an individual film does not result in permanent jobs, but attracting filmmakers throughout the year most certainly will. Her plan for a “NO CAP” tax incentive will make that happen. Again, “NO CAP” does not mean money continuously pouring out of the state, but rather opening up the opportunity for more films to come and spend production money BEFORE receiving any tax incentive. It just means that MO will no longer limit how many films can basically shoot here in a year. But it will still maintain a positive flow of money into the state.

5)Every state has unique advantages to filmmaking with it’s own landscapes and attractions unlike any other state. Sadly, those attractions aren’t always utilized because of lack of financial incentives. I have no idea why Austin Powers did not shoot in England. Perhaps they wanted to, perhaps they would have liked an actual english countryside, but maybe England did not have enough financial incentive forcing them to make said joke.

Also, the Michigan economy is in the dumps because it “focused” its resources into “what it did best” and unfortunately has found out over the last 30 years that somebody else did it better. It was not the film industry that brought the economy down in Michigan, but rather it may be that the state’s choice to invest and diversify into the film industry is keeping it from getting worse.

6) All industries are “infant” at one point or another. No industry has sprung fully formed. Also, the fact that the film community uses tax incentives to entice new money does not make it necessarily infant, but rather innovative and diverse in the way the state chooses to invest and grow its economy.

Chris, you are allowed to believe whatever you want. That’s what’s great about the country, BUT you don’t have to necessarily agree with someone in order ACKNOWLEDGE that their argument is still valid.

For example, YES, the money can be spent in other beneficial ways as well. There are lots of beneficial ways to spend money all of which may or may not have hidden costs.

But, you should acknowledge that spending it in the local film industry is one of those ways. The local film community has a legitimate claim to that 4.5 million. Acknowledge that what they have done by bringing a large amount of out of state money into the state with their trade is beneficial for a large amount and wide variety Missourians.

And again, it does not favor one particular group (ref: Mr. Rutherford, Ms. Cacciatore) or even location. Up in the Air was shot in Saint Louis, but it pulled people and resources from all over the state including K.C, Columbia and Springfield. Also, the next film project might very well shoot in one of those locations. Such as “Last Will” – K.C, “Winter’s Bone” – Springfield and “Saving Grace B. Jones” – Booneville.

It is a versatile industry that has a unique ability to add anywhere from a few hundred thousand dollars to even more than 12 million to any part of the state in any variety of ways.

It is an option that should be heard AND SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED by the state government as a way to further improve the state economy.

You are arguing just as vehemently. By your suggestion one would be forced to question your motives as well.

Let’s talk about the real issues, please.

Bastiat’s parable is still not applicable. It deals with the circulation of a finite amount of money ALREADY existing in a community and how to distribute it amongst the community. It does not take into account an industry that brings money into the community from an outside source and you have still failed to recognize the scope of the community that the new money reaches.

Not every parable or theory applies to every situation. The film industry did not exist when Bastiat was alive. Theories expand and change to accommodate the changing times and industries.

Let’s talk about hidden costs. The word “hidden” refers to the unknown, and by definition, unknowable, otherwise they would no longer be unknown.
Whatever the money is spent on, there will be hidden costs.

This is not just a opportunity to combine your econmic and french majors. http://twitter.com/idiosynchrissy

40 percent of every budget stays in the community it’s working in…for every Dollar spent it goes out 20 times…so the dollar spent is multiplied by 20.
Des Moines Iowa was sad to their film industry come to a screeching halt because of the way the governor handled the whole incentive mess there.
Des Moines welcomed the film makers, because we were there staying in their hotels, eating in their restaurants, shopping in their stores, buying gas, airfares, etc. That is the same as turning away Tourism in this state.
California has lost the bulk of it’s production business. Many people I know in this industry are looking to move out of California because it is no longer the center of film making. Productions go on location alot more, and if they don’t stay here and film, they go places like Hungary, or Budapest, or Canada, who because of NAFTA descriminates against US crews working there, but the US lets them come here to work with no limitations.

Yeah, I’d love to work in the same state I live in. For me I can live here cheaper than I can in New Mexico or Louisiana. I will never work NEAR where I live, but to work IN state would be a huge advantage for me personally. Situations often cause you to make sacrifices. I’d love to live in New Mexico, but I have older relatives who often need me here, so going to live where I would/could work, is not an option I have at the moment.

This state allows the sale of tax credits, and as I said before, those buyers are companies in this state looking to reduce their tax burden. So basically, MO maybe giving a film Production a $3Mil credit, that credit in turn is going to be sold for 80-90 cents on the dollar. While a production will recoup $2.4 Mil on the sale of the credit, Walmart, or an oil company is going to use the entire $3 Mil to offset their taxes within this state…so basically you are subsidizing other industry like the big ones because they aren’t paying all the taxes they should be. You aren’t coddling film production, you are coddling Walmart..and that’s worse.

I don’t understand why this state continually wants to turn down revenue to the state. Regardless of what business it is. The Economic Development Office in this state doesn’t understand Film Production, so they choose to be adversarial to the industry in general.
People will come to locations they see in films, because it intrigues them, they want to see where FIELD OF DREAMS was shot. Build it they will come…We need to not be so short sighted here. If you fear what you don’t understand, you’ll never see the benefits of the industry to Missouri economy.