I’m assuming as a subsidy for filming in Mass?
Like many other states, Massachusetts offers tax credits for film and television productions that film in the state. In particular, Massachusetts offers credits worth 25 percent of a production’s expenses and payroll tax liability incurred in the Bay State. If the credits exceed the production’s Massachusetts tax liability, they can claim 90 percent of the remainder as a refund.
All in all the article was a bit of a hit piece against these tax credits in both MA and other states. Could be completely on point for all I know though, no clue if they’re representing the facts accurately or not
Reason is billionaire republican talking rag.
They are targeting industries they don’t like here.
For example, you will never see them cover tax credits and other transfers to Koch Industries and its subsidiaries get in place like Georgia.
Or oil majors being funded by the taxpayers.
With that being said, we should not be providing these clown ass transfers to “private enterprise”
I shill this point regularly and most people appear to support these transfers around here as long as it is their “team” getting them.
most people appear to support these transfers around here as long as it is their “team” getting them.
I mean, that’s what politics is. You make a good point about “Reason” being a crappy source, but handouts to different industries are intended to help those industries. That’s the point.
If you don’t like it: vote, volunteer, donate, etc.
Why is the taxpayer funding corporate entities owned by the rich?
I thought we are a free market economic system where private capital drives economic growth?
if are giving these people cash transfers, why is the state not taking equity position in these ventures?
It gets real awkward when you start asking such questions as most people can’t reconcile propaganda with how the system actually functions.
All of this while people are crying we can’t provide free lunch to school kids lol
A corresponding proportion of profits were also distributed back to the state, right?
What an idiotic broken window fallacy. Use the money directly on a jobs program maybe???
I love this comment because I learned something.
From the article, “Supporters of such programs argue that they stimulate the economy: “The level of impact and the amount of benefits the film tax credit brings to Massachusetts is immeasurable, creating local jobs and boosting overall economic activity in our cities and towns,” state House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D–Quincy) said in 2021 after the legislature voted to make the credits permanent.”
The fallacy:
"Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.[1] "
The commentors point: This is a dumb excuse to spur the economy and if they want to do that there are better more direct and impactful ways to spend that money.
Oh look, corporations (of any type) bilking the US taxpayer out of their money again.
I doubt it brought in 46m worth of revenue to the state though.
A study was done where I live and we have a negative return on investment on subsidies to the private sector…
Have you simply switched from spamming Voice of America to spamming Reason articles?
What is the difference between Voice of America (VOA) and Reason?
I’d ask for my money back. It wasn’t that great of a film.
That’s upsetting. I adore it and think it should be seen by all.
Yeah it felt like the movie equivalent of when all those celebs sang Imagine.
Agreed.
We pay all for this all shit folks… never forget.
