Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by anamax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

anamax

> Never make incentive deals with megacorps unless it's for the film industry. They know how to scratch someone's back.

What kind of "back scratching" does the film industry do and why should I like it?

Speaking of "incentive deals with megacorps", how about those sports stadium deals?

At least the govt officials get tickets, right?

View on HN

I used to work in film, although not in the accountancy/deal-making aspect. Film tax breaks are direct discounts on money spent. If you make a film in Georgia, for example, you get a transferable tax credit (20-30%) on money spent in the state. It's a short term deal (productions usually only last a few months), and is immediate in effect. There's no "spend a billion of public money and maybe we'll hire some people" shenanigans like the Foxconn plant in Wisconsin.

I have friends who work in film and have heard about the way the productions play fast and loose with "local hires" that then get reported as jobs created.

But setting aside all of that research shows little to no impact https://www.nber.org/papers/w25963 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3155407

The prestige of films being made in their state keep the subsidies rolling in but there are many great "bang for your buck" subsidies states could be making that just aren't sexy.

These studies seem to focus primarily on the direct economic impact of moviemaking, but seem to not deal at all with tourism effects - and these can be significant, from benign tourism like with Star Wars [1] to outright madness like with the Breaking Bad house [2].

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/star-wars-destination...

[2] https://ew.com/tv/2017/10/13/breaking-bad-house-pizza-throwi...

Yea that's fair, but I would imagine the tourism effect, although real, happens for a tiny % of overall productions.

Much like incentives for NFL stadiums, it just doesn't seem like the public gets the benefit they are promised in all the glossy announcement spreads

And to be clear I support the government subsidizing the arts like film and I miss when my state had a subsidy and a lot of famous shows/movies were filmed in places I knew. I just haven't seen the data to back up the "impact" claimed.

Having worked in film in the US, I developed a deep hatred of film tax breaks because they work. "Work" in the sense that studios will chase them, and they make it harder for companies outside a tax-advantaged location to compete and make money.

Why should my money go to someone who is providing services to a movie company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com