Comments on: A Rebuttal to Ray McCarty’s Rebuttal http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/a-rebuttal-to-ray-mccartys.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Thu, 24 May 2012 12:24:42 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: State Policy Blog » Blog Archive » The Lesson Applied to Film Production Incentives http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/a-rebuttal-to-ray-mccartys.html/comment-page-1#comment-5553 State Policy Blog » Blog Archive » The Lesson Applied to Film Production Incentives Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:48:44 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=11760#comment-5553 [...] $4.5 million to $10 million. Although I’m getting bored of blogging about the production incentives program in Missouri, I want to refute the specific points that Hunt made in his most recent [...] [...] $4.5 million to $10 million. Although I’m getting bored of blogging about the production incentives program in Missouri, I want to refute the specific points that Hunt made in his most recent [...]

]]> By: Cole Payne http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/a-rebuttal-to-ray-mccartys.html/comment-page-1#comment-4985 Cole Payne Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:00:39 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=11760#comment-4985 Well to say, “money spent by filmmakers via tax credits would have been spent anyway in the market” is a bit off. The private individuals in Missouri will rent hotel rooms and eat at restaurants regardless of the presence of filmmakers, so why not add to the money spent by bringing in more business? Not to mention that filmmakers won’t be renting a room, they will be renting 50 and they won’t be getting a table, they will have the restaurant cater a lunch for 100. Without the tax credits Missouri resources will not be unemployed, but with the credits it will increase employability. I’ve worked in different industries and as a current filmmaker I have to say it’s the most nontraditional industry I’ve been involved with, there’s hardly anything traditional about it. Where has the government intervened besides offering tax credits? And to say the government has “distorted the market,” the only alteration in the industry from the government tax credits is that people local to states other than California are now able to make films and profit from filmmaking. Yes, California lost a lot of money to runaway film productions and that is why California is now implementing a tax credit because of the economic advantage it brings to the state. Michigan provided a tax credit program without realizing their capacity for film productions or the abundance of film productions their aggressive program would attract, that isn’t to say a tax program can’t work in Missouri. The key is to make sure the credit is right for the state, work with the film commission and consult actual filmmakers to plan for what can benefit Missouri the best. Missourians are already benefiting from the product, but the state could benefit much more from bringing in productions. The money spent on a film production doesn’t just stop with hotel rooms and restaurants, it reaches out into the whole state. In one paragraph it’s stated, “Missouri shouldn’t feel it has to compete” and in another its implied Missouri should use its “competitive advantage,” which is it? Missouri does have a competitive advantage, the state itself and the way that it is unique. Missouri is a beautiful state that would attract many filmmakers with the right tax credits. I spent months in Saskatchewan, Canada on a film production because of their great tax credit and that was millions of dollars that I or any other member of my team would have much rather spent in Missouri. Places like Saskatchewan have multiple productions lined up to come and spend millions of dollars because of their tax credits and Missouri could be one of these places. These tax credits aren’t giving the film industry an advantage; the credits are giving the industry an opportunity to exist. It’s allowing the industry to compete in the first place, it hasn’t even become a viable enough industry to say if it has failed or succeeded. Hog farming on the other hand is an industry that was given a chance in Missouri and is not doing so great. I’m not saying don’t help out Missouri’s hog farmers or any other current Missouri industry for that matter, but why not help create a new industry that will help Missouri as a whole. Posted by a Native Missourian and Filmmaker Well to say, “money spent by filmmakers via tax credits would have been spent anyway in the market” is a bit off. The private individuals in Missouri will rent hotel rooms and eat at restaurants regardless of the presence of filmmakers, so why not add to the money spent by bringing in more business? Not to mention that filmmakers won’t be renting a room, they will be renting 50 and they won’t be getting a table, they will have the restaurant cater a lunch for 100. Without the tax credits Missouri resources will not be unemployed, but with the credits it will increase employability.

I’ve worked in different industries and as a current filmmaker I have to say it’s the most nontraditional industry I’ve been involved with, there’s hardly anything traditional about it. Where has the government intervened besides offering tax credits? And to say the government has “distorted the market,” the only alteration in the industry from the government tax credits is that people local to states other than California are now able to make films and profit from filmmaking.

Yes, California lost a lot of money to runaway film productions and that is why California is now implementing a tax credit because of the economic advantage it brings to the state. Michigan provided a tax credit program without realizing their capacity for film productions or the abundance of film productions their aggressive program would attract, that isn’t to say a tax program can’t work in Missouri. The key is to make sure the credit is right for the state, work with the film commission and consult actual filmmakers to plan for what can benefit Missouri the best.

Missourians are already benefiting from the product, but the state could benefit much more from bringing in productions. The money spent on a film production doesn’t just stop with hotel rooms and restaurants, it reaches out into the whole state. In one paragraph it’s stated, “Missouri shouldn’t feel it has to compete” and in another its implied Missouri should use its “competitive advantage,” which is it? Missouri does have a competitive advantage, the state itself and the way that it is unique. Missouri is a beautiful state that would attract many filmmakers with the right tax credits. I spent months in Saskatchewan, Canada on a film production because of their great tax credit and that was millions of dollars that I or any other member of my team would have much rather spent in Missouri. Places like Saskatchewan have multiple productions lined up to come and spend millions of dollars because of their tax credits and Missouri could be one of these places.

These tax credits aren’t giving the film industry an advantage; the credits are giving the industry an opportunity to exist. It’s allowing the industry to compete in the first place, it hasn’t even become a viable enough industry to say if it has failed or succeeded. Hog farming on the other hand is an industry that was given a chance in Missouri and is not doing so great. I’m not saying don’t help out Missouri’s hog farmers or any other current Missouri industry for that matter, but why not help create a new industry that will help Missouri as a whole.

Posted by a Native Missourian and Filmmaker

]]>