Embedded In The Fiscal Cliff Deal: Hollywood Gets A Big Tax Break
from the how-nice dept
Last month, we wrote about some of the more ridiculous subsidies that Hollywood studios get these days, in which approximately $1.5 billion in taxpayer money goes straight to Hollywood studios in the US (and even more internationally). While the reasoning given for most of these programs is that they create jobs, a thorough study of the various programs showed that almost never happens. Of course, most of those programs have been state subsidies. The federal government also has its own subsidies for Hollywood -- and they just got renewed in the fiscal cliff deal, despite being scheduled to expire.It's one of the head scratchers that some noted would take people by surprise given all of the talk about the "fiscal cliff." Here's what it looks like:
The original tax incentive applied to productions costing less than $15 million to make ($20 million in low-income areas). The 2008 extension applies to all films, up to a deduction of $15 million (or $20 million in low-income areas). The incentive is especially generous to television series; it applies to each TV episode.Apparently, this sucker costs the American taxpayer about $150 million per year. As that link notes, "Disney's Gotta Eat." Yes, this was just one of many such "pork" efforts slipped into the fiscal cliff deal -- along with things like providing Goldman Sachs subsidies for its headquarters, special breaks for NASCAR, tax benefits for Puerto Rican Rum, and more -- so perhaps it's not that surprising. But, it's stories like this that explain why so few people trust Congress, and why they're fed up with "crony capitalism."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fiscal cliff, hollywood, movies, pork, subsidies, tax breaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Feel free to copy those movies and TV shows.
You helped paid for it.
Sincerely,
Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're a dirty pirate anti-american thief if you don't pay them at least 10 separate times for the same movie or television show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks, but I would rather pay for the stuff I do want than be forced to pay for the CRAP you produce year over year. If we are lucky we get one or two decent films a year.
So here is a novel approach, why don't you pay your own way you f-ing leeches! After all, I am expected to pay my own way (with less than a 6 figure income).
Sincerely,
U.S. Tax Payors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks, but I would rather pay for the stuff I do want than be forced to pay for the CRAP you produce year over year. If we are lucky we get one or two decent films a year.
So here is a novel approach, why don't you pay your own way you f-ing leeches! After all, I am expected to pay my own way (with less than a 6 figure income).
Sincerely,
U.S. Tax Payors
Speaking of leeches, the tech sector has all kinds of benefits lavished upon it at the expense of U.S. tax payers. And those subsidies make Hollywood's look like pocket change. Hope you haven't used up all of your contrived outrage.
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/01/pdf/corporate_r_and_d. pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However I do agree with you since the incentives go exactly for those who don't deserve it (ie: the big telcos)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The government spends nearly 30% more than it takes in, more than 40 cents out of every dollar is to pay interest on the debt and they refuse to get the federal fiscal house in order. I wonder how long I could get away with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copying The Hobbit as I won't pay a dime to see it.Just part of the money you steal from us and the Freedoms we are losing because of you.
Taxpaying US Citizen to MAFIAA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
really: THREE overlong movies for what was a relatively simple children's story ? ? ? *IF* the hobbit 'required' 3 movies (which it doesn't), then LOTR should have been 12 movies... (i would have been okay with *that*...)
i *loved* the hobbit/book, but the movie is ridiculous...
doubt i'll bother with ripoffs 2 & 3...
would have made ONE great movie, too bad it 'had to' be serialized for no good reason other than milking more money from the sheeple...
i think a LOT less of the producer/director, now...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our Wonderful Gummint
Federal Oath Of Office -
"The current oath was enacted in 1884:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Each and every one of our esteemed congresscritters, and the members of the Executive branch, are blatantly violating their oaths of office. In most cases, they are also violating the duties of their offices. They are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution. Instead, they are attacking it at every turn.
They are sworn to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter". Instead, they ignore or directly violate those duties with impunity. They seem to regard Federal service as license to print money, curry favor with the rich and powerful, and directly ignore the reason they were elected or appointed.
Somebody needs to grab them by the scruff of the neck and shake them up a little. Some prison time wouldn't hurt.
I don't know, yet, what to do about it. They're pretty deeply entrenched. But there must be an answer somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
1st Term Governor, 2nd Term Prisoner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
Paging Dr, Freud.... Killer_Tofu just slipped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
The answer is really quite simple.
1. Throw them out of office.
2. Elect new officials with 'no experience'.
3. Goto step 1.
Unfortunately, most districts are rigged so that elected officials never have to worry about number 1 actually happening. Add to that most people have the "my representative is fine, it's all the other representatives that are the problem" syndrome, and the US is headed down the path of self destruction.
I have already committed to do my part. I will NEVER vote for an incumbent of any federal office. They are all totally corrupted after 4 years of service anyway.
If the above fails I think this great nation took the needed steps about 238 years ago. Might be time for a similar action yet again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Wonderful Gummint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Mutual Admiration Society posts every Sunday! Awards for Most Vulgar Ad Hom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
Bug Business (including Big Media!)
How dare you speak ill of them, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
That would be like Mike going on a cake recipe site and asking why there are no tips on making lasagna
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
He can't find a way to attack Mike personally or to attack the article itself, so he has to deflect. Admitting he's right, or merely shutting the hell up are beyond his capabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, could you EVER mention the 25 or so TRILLION of guarantees Wall Street got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point fingers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Point fingers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Point fingers
How much did Hollywood donate to election campaigns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Point fingers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did the President escape blame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How did the President escape blame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How did the President escape blame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How did the President escape blame?
However, you may have noticed that as congress has become more reticent and mired in partisan squabbling the executive branch as seized power and taken much more frequently to action by Executive Order.
Neither, congress nor the (current or in fact any living past) occupant of the oval office seem to give one rats ass about the constitution or the rule of law. They just want to get away with as much as they can. It is truly sad to watch what was once the number one nation worldwide slip down the toilet, flushed by our own leaders who seem oblivious to the fact that there is even an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How did the President escape blame?
This is not such a case. In general, the president can only do so much with executive orders anyway. The president cannot make new laws through executive orders, for example.
Whatever power-seizing has taken place is still with congressional approval. It's not so much power-seizing as it is power-abdicating. In the end, it's still Congress's responsibility and Congress gets the blame.
There's a strong strain of truth there, but that's as it has always been. The real problem has been the breakdown of the separation of powers. This has come about because of the defacto takeover of government by large corporate interests.
But we can't fix any of that without holding people responsible for what they're supposed to be doing, whether they're doing it or not. Congress writes and approves laws. Congress gets the blame or credit for any and all laws that are passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How did the President escape blame?
However, I think if you look at the history of orders coming from the office of the president over the last 40 years, you will see that more and more things that should be decided by legislation are allowed to be decreed by EO.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and since congress is, in most cases, incapable of action these days the president (and to some degree the courts) step in to fill the void left by the inaction of congress.
I say throw them all out. In fact I do more than say it, in fact I voted for no incumbents in the last federal elections and only 1 in the prior federal election. However, that will make little difference since something like 75% of the districts are rigged so that it is virtually impossible for the incumbent to lose. Therefore the incumbent has nothing to fear from the constituents they are supposed to serve.
Add to that that most people vote how they are told to either by the unions or the church and well, there you are.
There really isn't any way to hold them responsible. They are very well insulated from the people they are supposed to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How did the President escape blame?
Regardless of what Obama wants or pushes for, it is Congress that writes the bills, end of story. This is just like Obamacare, why do they call it that when it was written by Sen. Max Baucus (or rather, Elizabeth Fowler, one of his aides)
It's also why I got a great big kick out of Rep. Boehner passing the buck to Mr. Obama over the Fiscal Cliff. The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are the legislature and they are supposed to write laws, not the members of the executive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How did the President escape blame?
And speaking of Obamacare, they had a chance to do away with the insurance mandate by putting a provision in the fiscal cliff bill. Guess they were too busy thinking how they could reward their Hollywood friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're too "rich" to receive aid but too poor for anything in life to be easy.
Despite working endlessly, doing everything the "right" way, their story is little told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People who are in this position are no longer middle class families. They're poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Anonymous Coward
Middle class moving into poverty is more likely to die from the consequences, than people living in it. It is the new black here and I must admit that it does cover a pretty good range of issues and the reasoning seems pretty sound!
Keep the rich from loosing money and you can finance your emperial dreams. Keep the middle class people from falling and you are more likely to avoid a revolution. Keep the poor from dieing to gain international prestige!
That is political ideology today. When money are tight it is pretty obvious where you turn... Nasty, but pretty true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more confused
Why is everyone concerned about a fiscal cliff and the impacts, when these same individuals are porking up the bill with unnecessary spending? Where are the checks and balances and why does it continue?
Please make it stop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even more confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even more confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even more confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even more confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even more confused
Not everybody is incredibly concerned about the "fiscal cliff". I'm not, nor are most of my friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even more confused
If that isn't feasible why not demand from our congressional members to put these big bills online and let us read it in an easy to understand format so we can note which sections we as a people disagree with.
Oh yeah I forgot...we are a Republic not a Democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's pretty easy to demonstrate, although it is inevitably followed by ad-homs about "Marxist!" even though nobody can refute the idea.
Acme Corp pays Wile E. Coyote $10/hour to make widgets. It takes Mr. Coyote one hour to make one widget. Let's say the "management fee" per widget comes to about $2.50 and each widget costs $2.50 in resources. Acme Corp then sells the widget for $20, making $5 of pure profit. Mr. Coyote has created $15 in wealth ("management" consumed $2.50 and the $2.50 in resources already existed) but he only gets $10 of it.
In other words, Acme is paying Mr. Coyote less than his work is worth so that the owners can redistribute some of the wealth Mr. Coyote has created to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about we start with their pork and bs like this first.
That and lets cut their pay too, we all have to feel the pinch never seems to apply to them.
I'd like to see them make it on 22K a year.
Its real easy to sit and say what people need when your making more than them, and handing out trophies that make sure they will take care of you later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Similar to that idea, I have often thought that there should be a Congressional "lottery". Every year, one Senator and four Representatives are picked at random (without replacement). The unlucky winners should then be forced to live for one year at the current federal poverty level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This. It amazes me that anyone thinks otherwise. Nobody lives on welfare or food stamps if they have another option, and the vast majority of people who collect food stamps or welfare get off of those programs as soon as they can. That life sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More widening of the stupid wealth gap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
glad I'm a fucking pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/275317-tech-groups-laud-rad-tax-credit-exten sion-in-fiscal-cliff-deal
Glenn Beck should learn from you, Chubby. You got skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Laws
1. No federal or state government can spend more money than it has, and borrowing money is illegal. Punishable by jail time and loss of ever serving in the government again.
2. No more military bases in other countries, where there is absolutely no need. Too much money is spent on bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Where there is no conflict of any kind.
3. No more subsidies, no more tax credits, no laws that mention any specific industry or business. If it applies to any of them, it applies to all of them.
4. No laws that mention specific Genders, Races, or Religions. No special treatment of specific groups at all regardless of these factors.
6. If any government official goes against the constitution, they lose citizenship and are shipped to whatever country will take them. Also, no "interpretation" of the constitution, it's straight forward, and interpretation is only necessary when you're trying to change its intended meaning.
5. The governments stops recognizing marriage at all, just to fix any problems and finally shut everyone up. It's not their business to be in your private relationship anyway.
6. No person shall serve more than 8 total years in government service.
There are a few more, but I don't want to make too long of a post, but I think this is a good template to start from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amendment 1:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sad part is that many will be dragged along with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only fly in the ointment I can see is nuclear weapons. No previous society has had them available. We apparently have enough to destroy the world many times over and are probably stupid enough to use them if threatened. Good thing I'm too old to worry about it. My children and grandchildren, however, are not. I give us maybe ten years, maybe less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They may not trust Congress, but if enough people were truly fed up with "crony capitalism" the same bunch of lame duck politicians would get reelected term after term after term. Defeating "progress" like SOPA and ACTA while leaving the Dianne Feinstein's, the Orrin Hatch's, and the Lamar Smith's still safely secure in the seats does not indicate a particularly high level of "fed up".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech also benefitted
Tech Companies Are The Winners In The Fiscal Cliff Fight Because Their Favorite Tax Avoidance Policy Got Extended - Business Insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End Corporate Welfare!
As Rex Nutting of Marketwatch noted in his 12/18/2012 article “Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?”, “$2.6 trillion could be saved [...] It’s possible to achieve all the budget savings we need for the next 10 years simply by cutting the fat out of discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures [removing all of the corporate welfare] without raising tax rates on the wealthy or cutting the safety net at all.”
Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!
Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury?
White House petition to End Corporate Welfare: http://wh.gov/Qa6f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Rex Nutting of Marketwatch noted in his 12/18/2012 article “Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?”, “$2.6 trillion could be saved [...] It’s possible to achieve all the budget savings we need for the next 10 years simply by cutting the fat out of discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures [removing all of the corporate welfare] without raising tax rates on the wealthy or cutting the safety net at all.”
Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!
Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury?
White House petition to End Corporate Welfare: http://wh.gov/Qa6f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Rex Nutting of Marketwatch noted in his 12/18/2012 article “Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?”, “$2.6 trillion could be saved [...] It’s possible to achieve all the budget savings we need for the next 10 years simply by cutting the fat out of discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures [removing all of the corporate welfare] without raising tax rates on the wealthy or cutting the safety net at all.”
Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!
Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury?
White House petition to End Corporate Welfare: http://wh.gov/Qa6f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Rex Nutting of Marketwatch noted in his 12/18/2012 article “Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?”, “$2.6 trillion could be saved [...] It’s possible to achieve all the budget savings we need for the next 10 years simply by cutting the fat out of discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures [removing all of the corporate welfare] without raising tax rates on the wealthy or cutting the safety net at all.”
Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!
Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury?
White House petition to End Corporate Welfare: http://wh.gov/Qa6f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How To Cut Spending: End Corporate Welfare!!!
Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!
Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury?
White House petition to End Corporate Welfare: http://wh.gov/Qa6f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How To Cut Spending: End Corporate Welfare!!!
2. While I agree with you entirely, the reason it won't happen is the money those same corporations are spending in DC to continue the welfare. The cash for said welfare has to come from somewhere, and, as usual, it's the little people that pay the bill. Surely you don't expect the rich or the corporations themselves to make any sacrifices. Heaven forfend! Bah!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 181 creates jobs
If you knew anything about the nuts and bolts of film/TV production, you'd know that the $20MM ceiling disqualifies 80%+ of studio movies. Most of the big movies you see in the cinema are $100MM-$200MM or more. So section 181 benefits smaller independent movies that create jobs.
If you know real, blue-collar entertainment workers (electricians, truck drivers, greensmen, carpenters) you know that the biggest loss of jobs has been to overseas production. Productions shoot in Canada, Bulgaria and other countries to cut costs and collect incentives.
The tax deduction in section 181 only applies to projects shot at least 75% in the USA. This will bring jobs back to the USA, as well as the money that a production spends on local businesses -- which means even more jobs.
The section 181 deduction provides tax incentive for investors to back films made in the US using American workers. It stimulates the economy and helps out a lot of middle-class workers who have lost work to foreign competition.
This is a tax break that helps the little guy in the entertainment industry, not the corporate titan. It took a lot of effort to get this break which is tiny in comparison to other tax incentives given to the rich in other industries.
Please don't ruin it for those who really need it.
-Member, Producers Guild of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]