- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Harvey Weinstein to California: Expand Production Tax Incentives
Posted on 3/8/14 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 3/8/14 at 6:36 pm
Taxes suck don't they.
I bet IB Freeman will love this.
Harvey Weinstein, appearing at the UCLA Entertainment Symposium in interview with Ken Ziffren, Los Angeles’ newly appointed film czar, called for California to expand its production tax incentives.
“There’s no reason for us not to shoot here, except when you do the numbers here and when you do the numbers in New Orleans, it is much more attractive financially,” Weinstein said in the Q&A on Saturday.
He cited the example of “Southpaw,” directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Jake Gyllenhaal, as project that could have shot in Los Angeles were it not for the generous tax incentives in the Big Easy.
But Weinstein said that Los Angeles and California “doesn’t even have to give the same discount” to remain competitive, noting the cost and hassle of having to locate actors and other talent in New Orleans is an added expense despite their generous tax incentives.
LINK
I bet IB Freeman will love this.
Harvey Weinstein, appearing at the UCLA Entertainment Symposium in interview with Ken Ziffren, Los Angeles’ newly appointed film czar, called for California to expand its production tax incentives.
“There’s no reason for us not to shoot here, except when you do the numbers here and when you do the numbers in New Orleans, it is much more attractive financially,” Weinstein said in the Q&A on Saturday.
He cited the example of “Southpaw,” directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Jake Gyllenhaal, as project that could have shot in Los Angeles were it not for the generous tax incentives in the Big Easy.
But Weinstein said that Los Angeles and California “doesn’t even have to give the same discount” to remain competitive, noting the cost and hassle of having to locate actors and other talent in New Orleans is an added expense despite their generous tax incentives.
LINK
4
Posted on 3/8/14 at 6:40 pm to Jbird
Moar incentives, moar! Unless you're a member of the non-film industry 1%, then you must pay your fair share.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:14 pm to Jbird
Paying companies to do something they wouldn't normally do is inefficient.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:16 pm to Asgard Device
So.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 8:32 pm to Jbird
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/3/14 at 11:54 am
Posted on 3/8/14 at 8:39 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:Then you are happy! me too.
Don't care! Frankly I like seeing LA in movies now. Looking forward to more.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 8:43 pm to Jbird
quote:
Harvey Weinstein
F him.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:00 pm to Dead End
Funny a Lib a-hole whining about needing tax relief.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:04 pm to Jbird
I wouldnt really count a a film producer/studio executive pushing for more free money as an argument against IB Freeman and his stance regarding Louisiana's credits.
Harvey is someone advocating for the film industry, and is heavily invested in movies continuing to be produced in Hollywood.
No doubt the incentives here have made LA a much more attractive filming location. Freeman has never argued that wasnt the case. His question has always been... at what cost?
I agree with his point to an extent. The silver lining I see is that after so many years of being THE place for film production... many of those advantages Hollywood has on us now (the ones mentioned by Harvey) could be negated. Paying more dividends down the road where the state can maybe start to peel back a little on the incentives, but still remain a viable option due to the infrastructure put in place in the early stages.
Maybe.
Harvey is someone advocating for the film industry, and is heavily invested in movies continuing to be produced in Hollywood.
No doubt the incentives here have made LA a much more attractive filming location. Freeman has never argued that wasnt the case. His question has always been... at what cost?
I agree with his point to an extent. The silver lining I see is that after so many years of being THE place for film production... many of those advantages Hollywood has on us now (the ones mentioned by Harvey) could be negated. Paying more dividends down the road where the state can maybe start to peel back a little on the incentives, but still remain a viable option due to the infrastructure put in place in the early stages.
Maybe.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:08 pm to LSUnation78
That's no fun. 
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:14 pm to Jbird
Hey don't get me wrong, I love that all this is being filmed down here now. I know a lot of guys, especially in home remodeling/ construction who are able to make a much better living now than they were before by doing almost entirely movie related work. Fixing up old plantation homes being leased to actors, updating and remodeling some old small-town downtown buildings just so they could do their 5 hours of shooting at that one location.
Ive seen alot of the good. I just can't help to flench when Freeman points out the cost per taxpayer.
Edit: And Louisiana is on the screen other than just when In The Heat of The Night is on TV.
Ive seen alot of the good. I just can't help to flench when Freeman points out the cost per taxpayer.
Edit: And Louisiana is on the screen other than just when In The Heat of The Night is on TV.
This post was edited on 3/8/14 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:17 pm to LSUnation78
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:27 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
I just can't help to flench when Freeman points out the cost per taxpayer.
Freeman and his studies are inadequate when it comes to measuring the full scale of short term and long term benefit.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:31 pm to Jbird
quote:
Funny a Lib a-hole whining about needing tax relief.
Yep, goes to show you that business, whether run by far left or right will choose to pay the least amount of tax they have to.
Tax credits are a gift. Alaska considers dropping them ever year, probably will. It creates a few jobs, circulates some fresh money in the State but may not be worth the cost to the state. It's definitely a subsidy. Everything I've read suggests they aren't a good investment, but I suppose some people like the publicity. I would hope no one who supports the subsidy complains about other State services who might lose out in the process.
This post was edited on 3/8/14 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:35 pm to VOR
quote:
Freeman and his studies are inadequate when it comes to measuring the full scale of short term and long term benefit.
I agree, as I pointed out in my first post. I think there is a lot that can't necessarily be measured there. A lot of unknowns regarding the future of it as well.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:37 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
I think there is a lot that can't necessarily be measured there.
That's certainly true with the limited methodology used by the opponents.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:40 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
I agree, as I pointed out in my first post. I think there is a lot that can't necessarily be measured there. A lot of unknowns regarding the future of it as well.
The amount spent per job produced is abysmal. I'm sure there are indirect factors which make it less crappy of an investment though. I'd say if La can get a permanent industry out of it, then it's probably worth it.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:51 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I'd say if La can get a permanent industry out of it, then it's probably worth it.
Thats exactly how I feel about it. We have to do something to attract big business back into the state. I remember when there were several fortune 500 companies headquartered in NO, not just the one which just so happens to be just about the only power provider in the region anyway.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 10:18 pm to LSUnation78
Film industry is pretty volatile. Probably need to attract big business that puts down some roots and makes some investments in the State instead of the State investing in the industry.
It may pay off down the road, never know. I have a feeling they'll be running to most lucrative suitor though.
It may pay off down the road, never know. I have a feeling they'll be running to most lucrative suitor though.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:18 am to RogerTheShrubber
So long as states are undercutting each other for good PR, there will never be a permanent film industry in Louisiana unless the tax payers are subsidizing it.
Let's say a "permanent" film industry is established (whatever that means) and you eliminate the subsidies. What happens when other states ramp up their subsidies to lure them away from Louisiana? Guess what? They move.
The idea of weening them off of subsidies is naive, if not plain delusional.
Let's say a "permanent" film industry is established (whatever that means) and you eliminate the subsidies. What happens when other states ramp up their subsidies to lure them away from Louisiana? Guess what? They move.
The idea of weening them off of subsidies is naive, if not plain delusional.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News