Alec Baldwin: supply-side economist
WSJ: Tax me if you can:
Don't you love the hypocrisy? Small businesses and investors are the bad guys and supposed to pay ever higher tax rates according to liberals like Baldwin, but those in the movie industry think that their work is so worthwhile they should be subsidized by state taxpayers. They say they create jobs so they should have a lower tax rate. Isn't this what small businesses do? What's the difference except that the Hollywood elite think that taxes are for thee and not for me?
And what happened to "spreading the wealth around?" Isn't this the change they voted for?
We're constantly told that taxes don't matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.
"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California." Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming "30 Rock" in Manhattan.....
According to the Motion Picture Association of America, nearly 40 states have corporate tax carve outs or generous cash rebates to lure movie studios to their states. In Michigan, producers negotiated a 40% tax credit on their production costs. A bipartisan bill introduced in the Texas legislature last week and supported by Governor Rick Perry would allocate $60 million into the Texas Film Incentive Program. Members of the Screen Actors Guild held a rally last week in front of the state capitol urging the tax breaks.
In some cases these state tax credits exceed a company's tax liabilities, which means that Disney, Dreamworks and others can get a net cash subsidy from state taxpayers. "In many states, today, movie producers actually pay a negative tax," says a Tax Foundation report on the subject.
Don't you love the hypocrisy? Small businesses and investors are the bad guys and supposed to pay ever higher tax rates according to liberals like Baldwin, but those in the movie industry think that their work is so worthwhile they should be subsidized by state taxpayers. They say they create jobs so they should have a lower tax rate. Isn't this what small businesses do? What's the difference except that the Hollywood elite think that taxes are for thee and not for me?
And what happened to "spreading the wealth around?" Isn't this the change they voted for?
Labels: liberal hypocrisy
posted by Helen at 6:54 AM
36 Comments:
Movie production tax credits are much like building stadia for sports teams. The idea is that the taxpayer funds the project at the entire cost to the state, and the sports teams will be so wonderful that fans/production-crew will come from far and wide and fill up hotels, restaurants and buy bags of peanuts on the side of the road. Then the hotels, restaurants and road-side peanut vendors will pay income tax, sales tax, property tax and peanut tax, and the state will be rich and happy. If this actually works I have no idea because I am not sure the money trail can be documented accurately.
I do know that it does cost a great deal of money to take a film production outside the studio and on location, especially locations that are far away from the film industry hotspots. The amount of gear and personnel to film a TV Show or movie is extensive. The cheapest way to make a movie is with nothing but a green screen, a few props and some actors.
On a personal note, if I never see another movie/show being shot on location I will be a happy camper. Living in the neighborhood that I do, it isn't unusual to get trapped in movie-hell. If the film industry is on location here they leave 10 or more tractor trailer's engines running all the time with diesel fumes spewing everywhere so you can't breathe, the staff is rude and they block off the streets so you can't get in or out. Every once in a while one of my actor friends gets cast as an extra and makes $84 for 4 hours of work, but that doesn't make it all okay.
Yep, mighty fine hypocracy in play here. Also, you have to realize that Baldwin is a slow learner. He learned the hard way about Domestic Relations Court and fathers' rights!
Great find, Helen.
Whoopi and Alec, and I suspect a whole host of other "stars" will expose their true, er, principles(?) when these policies hit them where they live.
Reminds me of a saying I heard once: integrity is on display - or not - only when it's about to cost you something.
"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California."
Why don't they just cancel the show? I mean, it encourages people to watch television and use electricity. It contributes to the obesity "problem" in America. It could also be argued that television has aided in the moral decline of our society. After Obama puts his cap and trade into play, no one will be able to afford to watch television, anyway.
Besides, isn't it "patriotic" to pay more taxes if you can afford it? Let 'em pay or hit the road.
Your need to pick on so-called liberals is just plain silly! Films are made by producers and their backers in any number of places, and more often than not, such places entice tv and film makers by granting tax breaks...My state--Connecticut has done this, with a Republican governor. Doing such things is a competitive way in a free market to attract potential sources of revenue. Note that the south attracted much industry from the north by lower taxes, non-union (terrible salaries too) offers. Later, these same southern states complained that the newly attracted companies were locating in Mexico!
So it goes. To pick on one well known actor, a liberal, is just a silly way of dissing those you don't care for and ignoring the realities: most films are made by moneyed interests and not by this or that "star." Get over it. It is the free market in play.
Now boycott his tv series...somehow it has managed to do ok thus far.
nathan --
Big TV and movies are pretty much synonymous with the auto industry. Spend huge amounts of money, produce trash and expect breaks from the government that they would rather the plebeians not get.
If TV and movies had to foot their own bill the entire way, we'd most likely get less and better. But, less and better doesn't bring the large flows of cash, more and crappy does.
Baldwin is being focused on at the moment because Baldwin opened his mouth, no other reason.
"non-union (terrible salaries too) "
Cite please. I lived even more south than I am now and that's not true from what I saw. Factor in cost of living in your response.
some twit wrote: "Your need to pick on so-called liberals is just plain silly!"
We are picking on hypocrisy and idiocy. Alec Baldwin and you respectively make that very easy.
Trey
Dr Helen,
Now there's something we can agree on. :)
The truth in life is not everyone gets to be a media celebrity. I do appreciate the conservatives when they stand up for small business though I wished they'd actually be more brave about it. In some ways, liberals can help and hurt small businesses and in some ways conservatives can do the same. Next stop, time to reign in Big Retail so we can get back our small mom-and-pop stores. The market's too rigged against us commoners anyway.
By the way, even my grandson wonders why today's music and filming is crappier than the good old days. I think it's all about money. My grandson had to pick out from our 1950s music collection to entice his date as the newer songs wouldn't click with her.
Technically, nathan is correct. If Dr Helen had replaced Alec Baldwin with HALLIBURTON, the same folks crying about "liberal hypocrisy" would have been foaming at the mouth saying crap like "Halliburton is very very patriotic and helping America win the war on terrorism, blah-blah-blah !" If there's a valuable lesson I learned, it's that there are hypocrites from both the "liberal" and "conservative" camps.
Besides, if it weren't for both parties gladly supporting obscene tax loopholes and breaks for big corporations all the while allowing small business to go to hell for the past 30 years, Alec Baldwin wouldn't be the big shot he is today. Fix those corporatist policies and then we won't have Alec Baldwin or Halliburton to kick around at. Get the picture?
Movie jobs are as temporary as can be and TV jobs as well, if the show doesnt' luck out into being hugely popular. Funny how other ordinary businesses are 'greedy" but The Movie Stahs and entertainment industry are special. How about tax breaks for everybody, Mr Baldwin?
And for you libtard trolls, you won't see many conservative minded folks supporting corporate welfare so please put out the strawman you just torched, its contributing to global warming.
"you won't see many conservative minded folks supporting corporate welfare so please put out the strawman you just torched, its contributing to global warming."
Speak for yourself Halliburton boy !
Part of me wishes that because they voted for Obama all of the Hollywood rich and famous would end up living in cardboard boxes and eating out of dumpsters and given the special hypocrisy of A.B. he should be so lucky. Yeah, I'm just a little angry about this whole pickn' mess and those who contributed to it by electing BO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thor's Dad,
Neither party is for the working class. They're both sellouts and Hollywood benefits no matter who's in office. I guess I was too stupid to not see that back when I voted twice for Nixon and twice for Reagan. Alec Baldwin was just making a stupid joke in 2001 that he'd leave the country but he knew that if he moved to Europe, he'd be dirt poor in a heartbeat. I don't want to fight here but I'd like to ask these same people angry about "liberal hypocrisy" why they did not hammer away at their party when they were in control of both the Congress and White House during Dubya's first 6 years in office? Alec Baldwin didn't get richie rich overnight. The GOP had their chance to close those obscene corporate tax cuts and loopholes but they blew it for the past 16 years and especially the past 8. And as for the last two years, fine if anyone wants to complain about the Democrats being in control of Congress then. The truth is both sides are equally hypocritical once you add them all up. The only reason most of the Republicans voted against the bailout late last year was it was election season and they knew that their "nurture the corporate elite" support was drawing fire from even ardent conservative voters and that the party had to make some ground and fast. If the month were March or even July instead of September or October in 2008, they would have silently went with the bailout no questions asked. Like the Democrats, they had to be given more pork barrel spending of their own and more tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy/corporate elite and then all of a sudden both the GOP and conservative Democrats rolled over like dumb dogs and gave the working class the middle finger by voting for the bailout packages. Nader, Barr, Mckinney, Paul, Baldwin, Perot, etc ... would never concede like that.
"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California.
Funny, I'm hearing similar threats in California re film production leaving the country altogether. I wonder what they tell other countries...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Look I couldn't have said it better myself.
4 years ago there were about 100 major films shot in Los Angeles a year. Now it is down to 3. Why? In the name of getting more money they cut the tax incentives. So how is that working out Mayor Villar?
I bet the people in Los Angeles that don't work in the film industry are jumping for joy. Jurisdictions should concentrate on small businesses that don't have the power to demand huge tax incentives and will steadily employ a number of decent hard-working honest tax-payers with strong ties to the community who pay their income and property taxes on a regular basis. Mayor Villar sees the light.
Stop following the red herring!!!
The elite actors want tax cuts? Fine! How about construction businesses? They should get tax cuts too! What about deli's? Don't want them leaving! How about taxi companies? Or hospitals? Or tourist industry? Or pottery makers? Why is it ok for ONLY entertainment production to get a break?
Someone mentioned that that's free market in a sense. True, if the local gov decides they want to attract that kind of business with a cash incentive then I'm all for that. But how can you pay for government when you give taxes breaks to everyone?
Here's an idea, shrink government! Taxes are the red herring! The size and power of government are the real thing we ought to be arguing about. Taxes are a diversion that lets us get bogged down in the minutia of who should pay what. It polarizes us. Not that shrinking government wouldn't do the same but it would have a more direct impact on the real problem. It would take power away from those elected into it.
Financial incentives for the entertainment industry? Sure! How about some financial disincentives for the political industry? If you were a politician, would you vote for that?
In Vancouver Canada where I live the movie industry has done the same scam and gotten huge tax breaks. This on top of our cheaper dollar has brought a billion dollars a year worth of lame TV and movie production. Every few years they come begging for more breaks threatening to leave if they don't get them. Of course we always oblige being the suckers we are. Why we give tax breaks to get Americans to come to Canada to make movies to pay their stars millions of dollars which is not taxed here is beyond me.
Which brings me to my second point - Why are bankers and businessmen greedy if they make lots of money but not movie stars or athletes or day time TV stars like Oprah? Since the government gives tax breaks to these industries and funds stadiums shouldn't all athletes and movie/tv stars have their salaries capped at $250,000?
Frederick Johnson:
Please don't confuse "conservatives" with "Repubican". While conservatives make up a large part of the base of the Republican Party (and the Libertarian Party as well), they are not one and the same.
If liberals like you had had your ears open the last 8 years, you would know that conservatives lambasted Bush and the Republicans over many key issues: out-of-control spending, immigration, prescription drug benefits, No Bureaucrat Left Behind, and lots of others.
Sometimes out of an inate sense of fairness, we would strongly defend Bush against the insane, vulgar, despicable personal attacks from the left. Perhaps you (deliberately) conflate that with the drooling, mewling, adoration of the very water your new Messiah
jogs upon coming from your side.
If the film industry is getting government money, there should be a salary cap on actors, producers, directors and craft services workers.
Well, maybe no craft services. I like the doughnut tray.
And it's "rein in" not, "reign in."
Fritz beat me to it, but you do realize that windfall profit taxes do not apply to movie stars and athletes.
My CEO got a $2 million bonus. He keeps 130,000 people employed. He has to sell $95 million worth of product PER DAY to keep us profitable and employed.
Yet he's an evil "fat cat industrialist" while athletes and movie stars get $20 million per season or per picture and don't get dinged as having a windfall profit.
@FrederickJohnson: " if it weren't for both parties gladly supporting obscene tax loopholes and breaks for big corporations"
Why is the loophole obscene but never the tax per se? Corporate taxes are folly anyhow, they are simply reflected in the price the consumer pays. If the corporation is so obscenely taxed that it's products or services become uncompetitively priced then the corporation must relocate or die.
Facts that fly in the face of a collectivist ideology may be unpleasant, and covered up or denied by an outburst of emotional bafflegab, but the facts don't care. A is still A.
Why we give tax breaks to get Americans to come to Canada to make movies to pay their stars millions of dollars which is not taxed here is beyond me.
You do it because of the local goods and services they buy while doing it -- i.e. the same "local economic" reason the Germans whine whenever we talk of closing down a military base in Germany.
You need to suck it up, stand on principle, stop whining, and tell those greedy local merchants they need to take one for the team, and do without that business. Its that simple.
Depend on Alec Baldwin to be unintentionally hilarious. He's the Joe Biden of Hollywood.
It's nice to snipe about what a waste tax credits are for the film/tv industry, but the amount of money making movies and TV shows brings into a community isn't insignificant.
Incidentally, the other reason LA is losing film and TV shows is because of the unions. This is as big a reason as tax breaks as to why many productions went to Vancouver and New Zealand. If you think unions are part of the problem with building cars, you haven't seen the film industry (and yes, the actors union is a huge part of the problem--SAG contracts are draconion, the director's guild is composed mostly of idiot asshole has beens.
In my state, we've attracted not just TV shows, but corporations through tax breaks. There have been a few blunders, but several have paid off in a big way. Over all, despite the bad taste they leave at times, they've been positive.
Frankly, corporate and property taxes are still too high and should be cut nationwide.
(BTW, did anyone ask Alec Baldwin whether he supported the writers strike? And did he vote for the SAG strike before they called it off?)
Here's an idea, shrink government! Taxes are the red herring! The size and power of government are the real thing we ought to be arguing about. Taxes are a diversion that lets us get bogged down in the minutia of who should pay what. It polarizes us. Not that shrinking government wouldn't do the same but it would have a more direct impact on the real problem. It would take power away from those elected into it.
I agree, Scott, and have in fact been arguing about this myself, most recently here and here.
If nothing else, the Obama presidency thus far has sharply defined the true struggle we're in as a nation: There is a class war, but it's not rich vs. poor; it's the productive class vs. the non-productive class (and its seamier subsidiary, the parasite class). It's time for the productive class to take over again and let the non-productive class do our bidding instead of the other way around.
Alec Baldwin did not leave America after George Bush was re-elected. After Barack Obama was elected, he is going John Galt.
Our first celebrity endorsement!
Kev, re: shrinking government -
That's a non starter. Locally, government is police, fire, 9-11, parks, library and occasional civic pride events. Nobody wants to cut those things. The real fat is not in local government, but in state government and federal. But once again, non starter because there are too many "takers":
* SocSec/SSI recipients
* welfare recepients
* disablity
* government employees(probably 50% of which are really useless)
* farm subsidies
* military industrial complex subsidies(we are overspending by $200 billion I think)
and on and on it goes. There are too many vested interests to allow the government to shrink.
Everyone is a liberal until they get mugged, right? This doesn't surprise me, especially after his debacle in the family court system. Alex had nothing to say about activist judges until he suffered at their hands.
Kev, re: shrinking government -
That's a non starter
I didn't say they would start it. We have to.
Locally, government is police, fire, 9-11, parks, library and occasional civic pride events. Nobody wants to cut those things.
Of course not. And I wasn't talking about local government, which, despite its faults, is one of the only segments that gets things done most of the time (probably in part because they're closer to the people they serve and are often restricted by term limits). I meant the federal government (where the entrenched bureaucrats and other unproductive-class members reside).
There are too many vested interests to allow the government to shrink.
But none of those interests--selfish all--should take precedence over the interest of the nation as a whole. That's why the federal government needs to be shrunk, against its will if need be.
Kev:
But none of those interests--selfish all--should take precedence over the interest of the nation as a whole. That's why the federal government needs to be shrunk, against its will if need be.
I agree they shouldn't, but there isn't anything WE can do about it since we're the minority. Just poll your neighbors, I guarantee you that most of them are for big government programs.
@Alex "there isn't anything WE can do about it"
Ah but there is something - stop sending huge chunks of your assets to DC. Starve the beast.
Post a Comment
<< Home