Every episode of Duck Dynasty now receives $70,000 in taxpayer subsidies

[Triana]

. . .

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported back in 2010, states have been collectively spending roughly $1.5 billion a year just on subsidies to filmmakers. That’s roughly equivalent to “the salaries of 23,500 middle school teachers, 26,600 firefighters, and 22,800 police patrol officers,” according to the watchdog group.

Though shrouded in the argot of helping the arts, many of these subsidies are not Works Progress Administration-style programs tailored to support struggling indy filmmakers – they aim to subsidize studio conglomerates’ big-budget enterprises.

Perhaps diverting so much money from basic public services and giving it to wealthy media conglomerates might be justifiable if doing so was a proven way to create jobs and generate a net tax revenue gain. But in its state-by-state analysis of the subsidies, CBPP notes it is quite the opposite: “The revenue generated by economic activity induced by film subsidies falls far short of the subsidies’ direct costs to the state(s).”

Individual examples among the 45 states that offer film subsidies tell that larger story.

In Louisiana, which offers some of the most lucrative tax giveaways to Hollywood, the Legislative Auditor’s Office reported that the subsidies cost the state $170 million in lost tax revenue in a single year. By one estimate, the state is handing $70,000 per episode to the cast of Duck Dynasty – all while pleading poverty to justify deep cuts to public health care programs and to retirement benefits for police officers, firefighters and teachers.

THE REST:

http://pando.com/2014/02/20/hollywood-handouts-how-subsidies-to-the-entertainment-industry-are-fleecing-taxpayers/

[progressoid]

1. 43 States offer subsidies to filmmakers totalling 1.5 billion

Like a Hollywood fantasy, claims that tax subsidies for film and TV productions — which nearly every state has adopted in recent years — are cost-effective tools of job and income creation are more fiction than fact. In the harsh light of reality, film subsidies offer little bang for the buck.

State film subsidies are costly to states and generous to movie producers. Today, 43 states offer them, compared to only a handful in 2002. Over the course of state fiscal year 2010 (FY2010), states committed about $1.5 billion to subsidizing film and TV production (see Appendix Table 1) — money that they otherwise could have spent on public services like education, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.

The median state gives producers a subsidy worth 25 cents for every dollar of subsidized production expense. The most lucrative tax subsidies are Alaska’s and Michigan’s, 44 cents and 42 cents on the dollar, respectively. Moreover, special rules allow film companies to claim a very large credit even if they lose money— as many do.

etc... http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3326

[PoliticAverse]

2. Article from January: Hollywood seeks to bolster California film and TV tax credit

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/02/business/la-fi-ct-onlocation-20140102

[bvar22]

3. They would have to give me a big subsidy to watch that crap.

.

[Bandit]

4. Apparently Capitalism doesn't work without Government Subsidation.

[BrotherIvan]

5. Winner!

[Democat]

6. DU usually complains that America doesn't do enough to help the arts

When articles talk about how much money each country spends on the arts, programs like this are probably included in those figures?

This argument sounds a little like the conservative arguments against the NEA.