Lawmakers have agreed to pony up extra money next year to keep "House of Cards" filming in Maryland.
During budget negotiations Thursday, they also rejected the possibility of seizing film companies' property if they leave the state after accepting tax credits.
Warren Descheneaux, the legislature's top budget analyst, says a House committee will likely vote to raise the annual cap on film tax credits from $7.5 million to $11 million. More
So, that's $16,000 per employee. They get to work here tax free while we carry the load. I can't think of any of the other 49 that would even consider that!
The maximum income tax rate is 5.75%. So the average employee would have to make $278,000 in order for the state to get their money back. Production Assistants make about $30k - $40k per year, and none of these projects operate year round. So what are the chances the state gets even a majority of their money back?
11:47 - you mean 57...but I digress...meanwhile, many states make deals like this...we usually find out waaay after - in conjunction with finding out which politician's family member works for (and got money from) the company that just got the break!
You really don't get it do you? The film industry doesn't just get this money. They must spend money, wages and purchase products and services in MD. They are then eligible to get a refund for the tax that they paid. How many people take advantage of the back to school tax free shopping days the state does during August. It is similar to that but on a larger scale. Cut the tax credit to the film industry and they will spend they money elsewhere and not hire MD companies, contractors, restaurants, hotels etc.
1:01 - You don't get it. Absolving one party of tax liability just passes the liability on to somebody else. How is this fair, or a good idea?
And if lower tax liabilities spurs economic activity, investment, and jobs, shouldn't everybody be afforded the same opportunity? Why should legislation pick winners and losers?
I'm all for lower taxes but it ain't gonna happen with the current government but why push even more business (film industry) away. Take what you can get until there is a republican governor, which has only happened twice in the past 40 years or so in MD. I'm betting it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
505, if the film industry is not paying us taxes, I have to cover the loss. Kick the red-headed stepchild to the curb, and get businesses in here who will pay at least HALF the taxes!
Zero is NOT acceptable to those of us who have to pay DOUBLE to cover them!
The people and businesses that the film industry pays while filming here pay taxes on their income, real estate, gasoline and they spend the money that they make in their home state MD. But it is not really worth trying to explain something to people that are not capable of or willing to learn the concepts involved. It is OK, they will take their business elsewhere leaving you to pay more taxes anyway. Louisiana is a good example: In Louisiana, for instance, after the production incentive bill was passed in 2005, the industry grew from supporting 5,437 jobs and having $7.5 million in output in 2003 to supporting 18,882 jobs and producing $343.8 million in output in 2005.
Isn't it interesting that the liberal Hollywood directors and producers who support more taxes for others like to make their movies where they can get the most tax credits for themselves?
What 5:52? Movie/TV production tax credits/incentives go above and beyond what ANY other type of business gets, so to say "they want tax credits for their business just like every other business owner/stockholder" doesn't make any sense due to the fact that "every other business owner/stockholder isn't getting the same treatment as far as taxes are concerned. Most states (if not all) have this type of incentive. It was implemented when production companies were going out of the country to film and as a way to get them to stay in the US. Other companies aren't afforded this same privilege and that is one of the reasons they operate offshore and don't pay as much in corporate taxes as they could be. The opponents of this tax credit argue that it should be extended to companies such as manufacturing, which would offer a more steady and stable form of employment. The point 8:49 makes is valid. Hollywood in general screams over and over, that the "rich" need to pay more, but don't put into practice what they preach by jumping on whatever form of tax savings they can.
.jpg)
So, that's $16,000 per employee. They get to work here tax free while we carry the load. I can't think of any of the other 49 that would even consider that!
ReplyDeleteThe maximum income tax rate is 5.75%. So the average employee would have to make $278,000 in order for the state to get their money back. Production Assistants make about $30k - $40k per year, and none of these projects operate year round. So what are the chances the state gets even a majority of their money back?
ReplyDeleteThis is corporate welfare.
11:47 - you mean 57...but I digress...meanwhile, many states make deals like this...we usually find out waaay after - in conjunction with finding out which politician's family member works for (and got money from) the company that just got the break!
ReplyDeleteWhat does Maryland get out any film or tv deals? Why are we hoping they will stay here? We don't need celebrities that bad.
ReplyDeleteWTF? So, where is that money coming from, since we are broke? Bend over MD, O'Malley's going in DRY.
ReplyDeleteHow about a tax credit for those of us stuck in this state?
ReplyDeleteYou really don't get it do you? The film industry doesn't just get this money. They must spend money, wages and purchase products and services in MD. They are then eligible to get a refund for the tax that they paid. How many people take advantage of the back to school tax free shopping days the state does during August. It is similar to that but on a larger scale. Cut the tax credit to the film industry and they will spend they money elsewhere and not hire MD companies, contractors, restaurants, hotels etc.
ReplyDeletel:01pm Finally someone with a brain. Thanks you for explaining this to some of the commenters.
ReplyDeletel:01pm Finally someone with a brain. Thanks you for explaining this to some of the commenters.
ReplyDelete1:01 - You don't get it. Absolving one party of tax liability just passes the liability on to somebody else. How is this fair, or a good idea?
ReplyDeleteAnd if lower tax liabilities spurs economic activity, investment, and jobs, shouldn't everybody be afforded the same opportunity? Why should legislation pick winners and losers?
Wow, there must be a echo here!
ReplyDeleteI'm all for lower taxes but it ain't gonna happen with the current government but why push even more business (film industry) away. Take what you can get until there is a republican governor, which has only happened twice in the past 40 years or so in MD. I'm betting it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
ReplyDelete505, if the film industry is not paying us taxes, I have to cover the loss. Kick the red-headed stepchild to the curb, and get businesses in here who will pay at least HALF the taxes!
ReplyDeleteZero is NOT acceptable to those of us who have to pay DOUBLE to cover them!
Get it?
The people and businesses that the film industry pays while filming here pay taxes on their income, real estate, gasoline and they spend the money that they make in their home state MD. But it is not really worth trying to explain something to people that are not capable of or willing to learn the concepts involved. It is OK, they will take their business elsewhere leaving you to pay more taxes anyway. Louisiana is a good example: In Louisiana, for instance, after the production incentive bill was passed in 2005, the industry grew from supporting 5,437 jobs and having $7.5 million in output in 2003 to supporting 18,882 jobs and producing $343.8 million in output in 2005.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting that the liberal Hollywood directors and producers who support more taxes for others like to make their movies where they can get the most tax credits for themselves?
ReplyDeleteOh how Keynesian of you
ReplyDelete8:49 that is true they want tax credits for their business just like every other business owner/stockholder but they still pay personal income taxes.
ReplyDeleteWhat 5:52? Movie/TV production tax credits/incentives go above and beyond what ANY other type of business gets, so to say "they want tax credits for their business just like every other business owner/stockholder" doesn't make any sense due to the fact that "every other business owner/stockholder isn't getting the same treatment as far as taxes are concerned.
ReplyDeleteMost states (if not all) have this type of incentive. It was implemented when production companies were going out of the country to film and as a way to get them to stay in the US.
Other companies aren't afforded this same privilege and that is one of the reasons they operate offshore and don't pay as much in corporate taxes as they could be. The opponents of this tax credit argue that it should be extended to companies such as manufacturing, which would offer a more steady and stable form of employment.
The point 8:49 makes is valid. Hollywood in general screams over and over, that the "rich" need to pay more, but don't put into practice what they preach by jumping on whatever form of tax savings they can.