Tax breaks for Ben Affleck. Tax hikes for everyone else.
As he calls for $1.9 billion in new taxes, that proposal didn’t add up for Governor Deval Patrick. So, he’s also proposing to cap the film tax credit at $40 million, according to CommonWealth Magazine.
Comments
Massachusetts dropped to number 49 in cost of doing business in 2012. did you know that Joan? Take away the tax credits and you'll take away jobs. It would be nice Joan if for a change you actually wrote an article about waste and abuse in the system, there's billions up for grabs there, saving both the tax payer and companies.
But it's easier to bash a non-target than it is to direct commentary to the real target.
Funny how all Democrats love those roads and bridges.
They're investments!
It is easy to see how tax breaks work. States like Tennesee, Texas and North Carolina have lower state taxes, and fewer business choking regulations.
Can speak for Tennesee and NC. Tennesee has no state income tax but sales tax is over 9% and retailers of non essential goods tell you they lose business hand over fist to the Amazons of the world. NC has a state income tax (7.75% on income over 60k) and the county I live in I pay close to 8% sales tax and a 5% tax on food from the supermarket. NC is a big state and a lot of rural land so the tax base comes from the cities. Good news is my house here has a real estate tax that is a quarter of what it is in MA. I don't have the high heating costs. Tax incentives for busiinesses is a slippery slope because if they do provide long term jobs it is revenue the state gets to collect.
This will seemingly be rectified by the Amazons forced into collecting state taxes for the products sold. What to do want to bet the states will use this money will be used to remedy odious taxes.
Indeed.
We could cut expenditures....nah!
I agree, Joan. It would be worthwhile to evaluate each effort with a cost benefit analysis and to report results annually if the state is going to use tax credits, tax breaks and other incentives to bring business to the Bay State. When does it end? Is there a maturity point in each of these business models when they are fully established and no longer need the tax breaks or is this simply one more way to endlessly siphon money to the super wealthy?
I'd rather see a model where unions make themselves useful and relevant, get out of the public sector and really organize in every private sector industry in the state. If you accept the tax credits, you accept the unions and their job is to assist employees to organize to become the owners of every operation. The state committment is for the amount of time it takes to establish the business and make it profitable. The state does an analysis annually. Then when the sharks pull the plug, the business doesn't leave because the ownership transfers to the employees. The unions check in periodically, but the employees really control their own business fate unburdened by both the original owners and the unions. Now that might be a worthwhile tax break system because if the initial capital leaves, the jobs don't disappear and each employee as a partial owner is no longer burdened by the unions in conducting business.The state is of the hook without losing a fortune, the jobs remain, the business is being run well all along and actually providing worthwhile goods and services.
Yeah and when there's an end Dale, Go ask the Johnson's of Fidelity Investments what is the next best move to make. When their lucrative deal ended, they moved their company out of the State after earning billions in revenue. But that's just Capitalism at it's best I guess.
The old "independant contractor" scheme where you're responsible for your own benefit payments without the employer match, which has led to failure to pay workmen's comp and social sec.
Joan doesn't like any group getting special tax breaks? She must really be against the fact that Deval wants to double the tax exemption for lower incomes so that these tax increases don't effect them and the burden is carried by those of us who pay most of the taxes anyways. Can you say . . . hypocritical . . . ?
.....or maybe just dumb.
pmrelay, don't forget that the Gov also proposed eliminating the $2000 Social Security deduction, so those still working can have that higher personal exemption blunted by that.
Joan you dont get it. Tax breaks for Ben Affleck? Not exactly. First of all. Ben Affleck will be paying taxes on the money he earned on the movies he filmed here because of the Film Tax Credit for as long as he makes money from that film.
More to the point. Me and the thousands of people who make their living from this film work have will be paying that higher tax rate.
Joan youve gone for the apparent easy target-Hollywood- but youve hit the local working person. Trying to raise a family, pay their mortgage and just make decent living. To say nothing of the local business' investing their own money. ($30 million alone at Devens)
Your AIM is off the target. We need to leave the FTC alone. To continue the local investment and to maintain and create jobs.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
And let's not forget the nonprofits Joan. The colleges and universities are now some of the largest landlords around and yet they pay no real estate or income tax on the rents they receive. Why does renting a room a room from a college earn non tax staus? They're charging these kids $2,000 a month and stuffing five to six kids into a dorm room for a total of $10,000-$12,000 a month in rent. Are you kidding me?
This comment has been removed.
They've already been mentioned. How about our government(s)--the biggest non-profits of them all.
It's eerie that the article titles on the left of this page are almost all about gun violence while the picture on the right is of Afflec with an assault weapon-the question raised being wether he should have special tax breaks.
I think the point being that breaks to the entertainment industry go towards the production of films with (gasp) guns in them. An expected heavy-handed symbolism.
No wonder the recent rush to make movies in Mass, I didn't the reason otherwise.
This comment has been removed.
Joan, you've got the wrong target in your sights--it's well past the time to begin directing your questioning to those who set up the laws in this state.
Also, your suggestion to scrutinize, with the aim of reducing, tax incentives to businesses in order to create and keep jobs here, is the kind of circular rationale that causes jobs to move elsewhere.
Is this really a tax break??
Exemption for Materials, Tools, Fuels, and
Machinery Used in Manufacturing
I own a manufacturing firm - the product gets taxed when it's sold - tax me on the material that go into the product and I'm not competitive.
BTW - there is a huge difference between tax breaks - the problem ones are Tax Credit where the state gives you money
Aka the Film Credit, Evergreen solar etc.
Joan,
Do you honestly think that all those movies made here in MA in recent years would be made here without the tax credits? Do you want to go back and look at the numbers to show how NOTHING was being shot here before those credits? Even movies set in MA were shot in Toronto or other places. If you remove the tax credits, the movies go elsewhere. So what have you gained exactly? Your calculation assumes that those movies would be made here regardless, and so we are "giving money away". But, 100% of $0 is ZERO. I don't understand how you can just gloss over that.
My brother has been making his living working as an Extra in these movies. He would lose his source of income. He pays income taxes to the State...he has money to go to the store and buy things and pay sales taxes to the state...without that industry, he and everyone else loses their jobs.
This article is not about taxing low-income people
DOWN IN PA. A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR REDUCE THE BUDGET TO FUND SCHOOLS BY $900 MILLION A YEAR. HE THEN TURNED AROUND AND GAVE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL CORPORATION $1.7BILLION IN TAX INCENTIVES TO PUT IN A "CRACKER" PLANT. NOT ONLY DID HE GIVE AWAY $1.7BILLION,HE ALSO PUT PA. ON THE SPOT FOR CLEANING UP THE SITE OF CONTANIMATION. THEREFORE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GETS A FREE RIDEWHILE THE SCHOOLS IN PA.SAW AN ADDITIONAL CUT OF ANOTHER $900 MILLION AGAIN TO COVER THE CUTS GIVEN TO ROYAL DUTCH SHELL.
NOW IN PA. YOU CUT THE BUDGET ON EDUCATION AND YOU GIVE THE MONEY TO A COMPANY THAT PROFITS ARE OVER $5BILLION. WOW,WHAT AN EXCHANGE.
THE SAME IS HAPPENING HERE. COMPANIES ARE DRAINING THE STATE COFFERS AND NOT DELIVERING. WE NEED TO CLEAN THIS MESS UP.
There have been numeorus studies on film tax credits that show the direct credit costs more than the direct benefit. The big talent, producers and directors salaries are subsidized while the per-job cost exceeds the wages and taxes paid. Most of the in state jobs are temporary, low-skill and low wage. Politicians are suckers for the entertainment industry; ours are more so than most.
Personally, resent the large non-profit intuitions for not paying their fair share, especially the cultural institutions in Boston. The quality of life for those that live in the city would be so much better if these large non-profits would only pony up their fair share. Look, the Boston Public Schools (BPS) Art Department has been decimated for the last 25 years, and BPS students have had limited, if any, of the art classes that their suburban peers received. So I find that the Museum of Art (MFA) particularly egregious and arrogant in their refusal to contribute their fair share toward municipal services. According to the 2011, MFA IRS 990's, the MFA has NET assets of $941,781,237! I am not talking about art hanging on the walls, that is not even considered part of the formula! I am talking about CASH! The MFA has INVESTMENT FUNDS in Central America and the Caribbean totaling $76,796,906.00! Look on their IRS 990!
The City of Boston PILOT program asked the MFA to contribute $518,887, $259,443. (50%) was credited to the the MFA for "community service!" As a taxpayer and homeowner in Boston, I wouldn’t have! The MFA stiffed the city, and only contributed $56,319. - $9,904.00 LESS than they contributed in 2010! If I were Mayor Menino, I would have taken over the MFA parking garage as public domain!
Malcolm A. Rogers, MFA Director, was paid $827.930.00! He received a "housing allowance" of $62,500.00! The Boston Emergency Shelter Commission, a Boston municipal service, reported that there were 6,647 homeless in 2011. Does anyone beside me see a problem of greed here! $259,443.00 is chump change to the MFA! A "Non-profit" like the MFA, who keeps millions in offshore accounts is not a charity and should be paying taxes to Boston and Massachusetts.
It is time to "reform" the Internal Revenue Code of the IRS 990's and remove the non-profit 501c status of many of these large cultural institutions, who have moved on to become big money making corporations, and the Museum of Fine Arts is one of them!
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/FY12%20Second%20Half%20PILOT%20Status%20Report%20for%20Web_tcm3-33007.pdf
http://www.charities.ago.state.ma.us/charities/index.asp?charities_app_ctx=details&charities_sub_ctx=entry∨igin=search&did=30322734&bod=1358094074
It so funny that you think the suburbs have more art classes than Boston...we are struggling to keep Foreign Language in middle schools...art classes are long gone. And we can't afford PE for most of high school..and we don't have specialized high schools to pick from either...
Yeah that tax break thing worked really well for State Street Corp $11.5 million and three months later 265 Boston redients get a good boot in the rear end... Yeah mayor Menino, that was a BRILLIANT IDEA,,,
As long as Aunt Zetueni sits in her comfy pad in Southie, with her free heat, cable TV and EBT card, keep your freakin' hands out of my pockets!
It's not the cost of transportation infrastructure that is the problem. It's all the money that is wasted on layabouts throughout the Commonwealth.
Ans Deval wants in-state tuition for illegals! I am already struggling to send my own family to college wiothout paying for someone elses!
Just once, I wish the liberal dogooders like Joan would realize that we are going down for the count once and for all! Liberal policies have ruined this once great country!
Welder, jshore and jvennochi, you are right.
I can tell you for certain that state street and emc will bail soon if something is not done to keep them here. Losing your employeers offsets any increase in revenue from tax hikes. Its a lose lose scenerio. I knew Fidelity would bail in 2004 and so didnt the current governor. Pattrick was outright lying when he said he got blindsided. I know this as fact.