First off: This is not a call out thread. I'm not hating on IB. You all should really dig into this on your own. You'll find out that he has a very valid point. I'd just like to hear his opinion (and others) on these questions, and perhaps it'll give people a chance to read more about options rather than hating on these threads.

So my questions are as follows:
1. Ignoring the amount, do you think that subsidizing the film industry provides tangible positive benefits to the state in the form of PR, Tourism, and Small Business growth?
2. Ignoring the amount, do you think that our state Tourism dollars (or a portion thereof) would be more effectively spent this way, as opposed to random commercials and/or flyers?
3. If answering yes to #1 or #2, what dollar amount could you live with the state putting out for film productions?
4. If not a straight subsidy, do you have a better idea that would encourage the growth of the industry without putting the state at risk financially?

I think that the industry does provide tangible benefits to the state, and I think its better bang for the buck than a lot of state programs in theory. I do agree with IB 100% that the "no cap" is absurdly risky for LA. With the production studios opening up here, many more movies are going to be spending the bulk of their costs in state and be eligible for subsidies. All its going to take is for a big year with a couple of summer blockbusters filming and being produced here for the price tag of this program to get out of control. I don't have a good idea, although I think capping this is a start.

But above all else, I think the State needs to be honest and upfront with the people about what this is and could cost the state vs what return on investment the taxpayers are getting out of it.

Some links:
LA Budget article explaining "Tax Credits" arent really "Tax Credits"

LA Film.gov

NOLA.com article proving that this stuff is misleading and confusing as hell

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by kingbob

Sorrento, LA

Member since Nov 2010

67115 posts

Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:16 pm to elprez00

quote:
1. Ignoring the amount, do you think that subsidizing the film industry provides tangible positive benefits to the state in the form of PR, Tourism, and Small Business growth?
2. Ignoring the amount, do you think that our state Tourism dollars (or a portion thereof) would be more effectively spent this way, as opposed to random commercials and/or flyers?
3. If answering yes to #1 or #2, what dollar amount could you live with the state putting out for film productions?
4. If not a straight subsidy, do you have a better idea that would encourage the growth of the industry without putting the state at risk financially?

1. yes. Just because the state doesn't make it's money back on the films doesn't mean it doesn't make it's money back on the sales tax from merchandise and additional tourism revenue.
2. not a chance
3. no clue
4. I don't have a better idea at the moment, but I would like to see it become more of a true tax credit.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by LSUnation78

Northshore

Member since Aug 2012

12074 posts

Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:49 pm to elprez00

I've stated a few times in these threads that I have seen first hand the intangible benefits of the increase in film industry activity in South LA.

I think the large subsidy should be somewhat reduced in the next few years now that the film industry has setup more of the supporting facilities needed for movie productions in LA.

This isn't really supported with facts, its just my opinion from what I've seen.

I do agree with IB that the cost is greater than the measurable benefits, I just think the intangible benefits are pretty extensive.

I would add this question to the OP...

1) If you think the subsidy is a waste of money, what do you think would be a superior alternative for the funds?

I think in this case opportunity cost is the real question. I just don't see many alternative uses for these funds that would provide a greater bang for the buck.

Page 1