Should Michigan Taxpayers Have Been Forced to Spend $30 Million on 'Iron Man 3'?

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 10/25/2011 | Tom Gantert

[MichCapCon]

News reports state the movie makers of "Iron Man 3" left Michigan for North Carolina because Michigan wouldn’t meet demands for up to $30 million in incentives for the production company.

While Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, implied Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration made a mistake in losing Iron Man 3, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s James Hohman says politicians should have much higher priorities for state tax dollars.

For instance, Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy, estimated that 4,892 families that were kicked off welfare this year could get assistance again with $30 million.

Also, it would take all the tax receipts of nearly 2,000 small businesses to pay for that $30 million subsidy, Hohman estimated.

Sen. Richardville said negotiations for film tax incentives were ongoing to bring a Steven Spielberg movie to Michigan. Spielberg’s net worth is estimated to be $3 billion.

“Legislators have serious prioritization problems if they would rather give $30 million to Steven Spielberg than to improve Michigan's business climate or bolster its human service programs,” Hohman said.

[allmendream]

No argument from me as far as that goes, no doubt there IS legislation in Michigan that this tax credit would either fall under or not - according to how the law was written and how Michigan lawmakers want to interpret it.

All for taxes being fairer, flatter and evenly applied.

One set of rules for the rich powerful and politically connected and another set of rules for the rest of us is not consistent with American ideals - but it is par for the course these days.

My point is that this is NOT a case of Michigan giving money to or Michigan taxpayers being “forced to spend” $30 Million on Iron Man 3.

The idea that tax breaks are giving away government money, money they own, is the language of the left.

Don’t buy into it.

[Secret Agent Man]

So Michigan democrats believe that “progress” is getting 30 million from a private company (film) and then using it to ADD 4892 families to welfare.

THAT’S FRIGGING PROGRESS?!?!?!

TO liberals, yes. Anytime they get to TAKE from producers AND ADD to the welfare roles, to them they’ve just made the world better.

These people all just need to be cordoned off in a huge thunderdome. Nobody gets out.

[T-Bird45]

...NJ taxpayers whose reputation were the victim of its smears.

While I do not watch "Jersey Shore", I don't believe the show could have lowered my opinion of the reputation of NJ taxpayers any lower than it already was upon observing the usual political animals they elect at both the state and national level. Just in Lautenberg alone they lost points they can't make up ever again...

[Mr. Lucky]

Should the government pick the winners in all industries or just motion pictures?

[torchthemummy]

If tax breaks work, then make them blanket and uniform for everyone.

There are tax burdens and tax breaks from said burdens. Tax burdens overall deal with permanent tax payers via permanent businesses. This particular flat tax break would have been for a large temporary work force bringing in out-of-state funds (and employing many locals) that otherwise would go to another state. So when you say uniform you should be talking about lower tax rates in general of which, of course, I would agree.

What's unique here is that there are not many businesses that swoop in, spend large amounts of money, and then swoop back out. Thus attracting them is important since, discounts aside, the money added to the economy is still enormous positive cash flow that otherwise would simply have gone somewhere else.

[cuban leaf]

—Woodstock, IL reaped the ongoing tourist benefit by allowing the filming of “Groundhog Day”—

My wife and I have actually been there, and for the very reason that the film was shot there. We even used google maps to find the actual building where Bill Murrey stayed as a “bed and breakfast”. It took a while. We used street view and paused the movie when he is looking out the window.

[cuban leaf]

—Should the government pick the winners in all industries or just motion pictures?—

All. Each community has the right to control its taxes to enhance the local economy as they see fit. It’s also one reason I really like a flat tax or 999. I hate that governments can control people by playing with taxes.

[cuban leaf]

—Should the government pick the winners in all industries or just motion pictures?—

There is a reason Boeing is now an “Illinois” company, even though they have just a small presence there. And Washington STILL gave them huge tax breaks that no small number of smaller Washington businesses are complaining about.

[GeronL]

It’s a bad idea. It sounds like a bad idea from the get-go. There are no redeeming qualities to this sort of favoritism.

[Cobra64]

If tax breaks work, then make them blanket and uniform for everyone.

Then you've eliminated competition among the states. Competition is the essence in a FREE MARKET.

[GeronL]

competition?

Who chooses who gets the tax breaks? It’s favoritism and cronyism. This is no real difference from Solyndra and Stimulus. Most of that film money LEFT the state anyway because they bring most of their own crew and cast with them. The rest are paid about a hundred a day, those people are too poor to pay much tax on that. This is a loser for the taxpayers and a plaything for the politicians.

[Blue Ink]

You’re overstating the number of film locations that become tourist attractions.

And vastly overstating the local revenue generated by film shoots.

Film crews are middle-class workers who rent motel rooms and eat at moderately-priced restaurants. Will Smith brings his own chef.

Post-production is rarely if ever done on location.

Films bring their own crews. Regardless of what lies they tell you to get a chunk of your tax money, they’re not going to hire and train your kid to be a camera operator or other skilled technician. They might hire a few locals as gofers.

Handing money to movie producers from out of state is never offset by local spending. Never. You’d be much better off just cutting some checks to local motels and restaurants and eliminating the middleman.

In my opinion, handing taxpayer money to movie producers to attract them to your state is colossal idiocy. And it’s so easy to figure out it’s a non-starter with a little simple arithmetic, the politicians who engage in such should be prosecuted for unauthorized gifts of public funds.