re: New accounting firm, same story; films are a big loser.

I've said this before on these threads. It's all about what your viewpoint is, and what you think is "important".

No one has ever, to my knowledge, even attempted to make the claim that the film credit program was going to be a revenue raiser for the state budget. If we spend 180 million in credits/payments a year, and the fisc gets back roughly 60 million due to increased tax revenues from money sloshing through the local economy, then it costs the state $120 million a year.

Now, what does the people and businesses of Louisiana get for the state spending $120 million a year?

They film a lot of movies her in St. Bernard. Because movies are filmed here:

1) We have two formerly vacant big box stores that have become studios. This has increased the value of those buildings, which means local property tax dollars.

2) Someone has to maintain/clean those buildings. Jobs.

3) All of the locals who serve as extras. Jobs. All of the Hollywood Trucks type companies - jobs.

4) I know a lot of business owners who act as vendors for these movies, providing catered meals, ice, supplies, etc. This is additional revenue and business for these small business owners.

5) Sometimes they film out in the streets and hire off-duty officers to patrol and stand watch. That's money in the pockets of local police officers.

A lot, a lot, of local families and small businesses benefit from the state spending that $120 million a year.

But, to bang on the film industry while ignoring the other industries that benefit from government spending is dishonest. You have the obvious examples like the professional sports teams. But, we have a number of programs here - for example, the quality jobs program - where the state basically pays part of the operating cost for a company.

There's no doubt that people - a lot of people - benefit from these film credits.

The question I have, and the one I think is worthy of debate is... if that $120 million was spent by the state in other areas, would the people be better or worse off?

but,but, Georgia made over a billion last year from having movies made there.


A rant i heard from a Mo politician who wants to go back to giving out $$$ to bring in movie producers.

My fathers firm were one of the leaders in getting this done nearly 20 years and the intent was always to have the program shut by ten years. What they wanted was more
Consolidated infrastructure to help bolster long term investment, we got some but not enough to make this viable from a tax standpoint long term

quote:

---

My fathers firm were one of the leaders in getting this done nearly 20 years and the intent was always to have the program shut by ten years. What they wanted was more
Consolidated infrastructure to help bolster long term investment, we got some but not enough to make this viable from a tax standpoint long term

---

No offense to your father and his firm, but they got it wrong.

A credit was created for infrastructure, and one for film expenses. They never, ever, ever should have created one for film expenses. Focused on building studios, creating schools and a labor force, etc. Then, with a reduced overhead (because some of their costs were paid by the state), the studios could have charged lower fees which would have attracted the business.

The "pay a percent of your movie costs" was a much easier path, so most everyone took that, instead of focusing on the infrastructure.