Missouri and Utah Compete for Filmmakers’ Favor Using Tax Credits

While I was up in the air traveling over the weekend, I found an article in my in-flight magazine that advertised Utah’s film tax credit program.

SKY magazine

Utah’s film tax credit program is less generous than Missouri’s — filmmakers get 20 cents back on every dollar they spend in Utah, but they get 35 cents back for every dollar they spend in Missouri.

According to the article, Utah has “a rare mix of different locales,” “limitless vistas,” and “abundant post-production facilities.” The state is “filled with good, honest, hard-working people,” and boasts “some of the most beautiful countryside.”

Doesn’t that sound familiar? Isn’t that exactly the language that supporters of film tax credit programs use to describe Missouri?

Additionally, from the article (emphasis mine):

“Currently, we offer a 20 percent cash rebate program based on a $1 million minimum direct spend in the state,” says Marshall Moore, director of the Utah Film Commission. It’s an incentive Utah hopes to extend for at least five more years and possibly increase to as high as 30 percent.

This shows how states try to out-compete each other by providing ever-increasing incentive packages to filmmakers. They engage in a bidding war. (I have highlighted before how this happens in the auto industry.) Policymakers have little incentive to keep the amount of these incentives in check, because taxpayers are the ones left to pick up the tab. This is obvious from the article, which says that Utah’s state government is considering increasing the amount of its tax credit. Hopefully, this won’t give policymakers in Missouri a reason to increase this state’s tax credit.

If Missouri and Utah both offered a tax credit of 30 to 35 percent of total in-state expenditures, how is that different than if neither had offered the credit at all?

As regular readers will know, film tax credit programs fail to make money for a state. Most of the production expenses are single-time costs that don’t resonate through the state economy. This is because the residents of the whole state pay for a movie that’s made in one town. A movie in St. Louis, for example, may add to the city’s revenue, albeit briefly, but it does nothing for Hannibal or Joplin. A better way to grow the economy than funneling taxpayers’ money through filmmakers would be to eliminate the program and let Missourians themselves keep their earnings to use as they see fit in the private sector.

Even if states like Utah continued their programs, policymakers in Missouri would be wise to stop providing tax credits to filmmakers. If film productions go to Utah instead of Missouri, Missourians would still be able to see films. However, instead of propping up an entire industry through their taxes, they would only have to pay the price of a movie ticket. I said it before and I will say it again: States would be better off if they disbanded their film tax credit programs.

Some people question whether ending the film tax credit program is feasible or realistic. I believe that it is. For example, the Tax Credit Review Commission recommended eliminating the film tax credit program because they determined that it is underperforming. Policymakers in the Missouri state legislature have yet to act on this recommendation, however. Fortunately for taxpayers, more and more states are realizing that they can entice businesses and industries without targeted tax credits.

Appointment of New LRA Commissioner “Imminent”

Last night, I attended the monthly meeting of the Special Administrative Board (SAB), which governs the St. Louis Public Schools. Following the meeting, I spoke with Rick Sullivan, SAB president, who confirmed that he is aware of the vacancy on the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) Commission caused by the resignation of Howard Hayes, the longest-serving commissioner.

In an interview, SAB President Sullivan said, “I would expect an appointment to be imminent. The board discussed it today.” He continued, “I need to confirm qualifications and willingness of some people we’re considering.”

Although Sullivan did not name any potential candidates for appointment to the LRA Commission, he elaborated on the SAB’s selection criteria: “[W]e want somebody who understands all of the issues related to LRA, familiarity with real estate or otherwise.”

When asked whose interests the new appointee will represent, the school district or residents, Sullivan said that the appointee “[has] a responsibility to represent the interests of the city and take into consideration how they’re appointed. So, first and foremost are the residents of the city, city interests, and then keeping in mind where that appointment came from.”‘

Sullivan hinted strongly that the SAB hopes to have its appointment in place by the March 30, 2011, meeting of the LRA Commission.

The Show-Me Institute will continue to follow these developments closely. Stay tuned to Show-Me Daily for the latest on this story.

Audrey Spalding on ‘St. Louis on the Air’ Thursday at 11:00 a.m.

Audrey Spalding will be on KWMU, 90.7 FM, tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. to discuss the city of Saint Louis’ landholding policies. Spalding’s research has found that the city rejects roughly one out of every two offers to purchase its vacant property. Today, the city owns more than 9,000 parcels of vacant land, in part because of its reluctance to sell.

A Sky-Is-the-Limit Federal Budget

In Charles Dickens’ classic novel David Copperfield, one character observes the need for careful budgeting: “Annual income, twenty pounds; annual expenditures, nineteen pounds, ought and six; result, happiness. Annual income, twenty pounds; annual expenditures, twenty pounds, ought and six; result, misery.”

If you are not in the happy position of earning at least slightly more than you spend, what portion of your household budget comes from borrowing, or selling the family silver? Is it the seemingly modest 3 percent that spelt M-I-S-E-R-Y for Dickens’ character, who wound up in debtors’ prison? Or is it even worse than that? Say, a mind-boggling 43 percent? In percentage terms, that is the expected shortfall between U.S. government receipts and expenditures in the 2011 federal budget.

According to revised numbers released last week, the Barack Obama administration expects its annual revenues for fiscal 2011 to come in at $2.173 trillion, versus annual expenditures of $3.818 trillion. That leaves a deficit of $1.645 trillion. As a result, our government will have to borrow (or find other ways to paper over) 43 cents out of every dollar that it intends to spend.

The Obama administration has more than tripled the national deficit since the last full year of the George W. Bush administration. In doing so, it has achieved a remarkable feat: It has made the gap between federal receipts and outlays even wider than it was at the height of World War II.

U.S. spending during the war increased by a factor of eight, rising from $8.5 billion in 1940 to $70.6 billion in 1945. The huge increase in federal expenditures happened for many reasons. Among other things, it supported the 12 million men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces at the peak of the war. It also supported a hundredfold increase in annual production of military airplanes, on the way to annual production of more than 96,000 fighters, bombers, and transport aircraft in 1944.

To raise additional revenues during the war, the government came up with the ingenious device of a withholding tax on payroll checks. Federal tax receipts rose from $8.2 billion in 1940 to $41.5 billion in 1945 — a fivefold increase. That left an annual deficit in 1945 of $29.1 billion, or 41 percent, on total expenditures of $70.6 billion.

Thus, during the greatest war in human history, the United States — supplying not just its own forces, but those of Britain and Russia — had a budget deficit two percentage points below the gap that now looms for fiscal 2011.

When a nation is at war against a deadly enemy, many people accept that the government will demand sacrifices on the part of citizens. During World War II, this included not just increased taxes, but rationing, price controls, conscription, and other limitations on individual freedom. As Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom, “The only exception to the rule that a free society must not be subjected to a single purpose is war and other temporary disasters when subordination of almost everything to the immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our freedom in the long run.”

Does the Obama administration live up to Hayek’s test? I believe not. The all-encompassing unity of national purpose of which Hayek spoke disappears under all but the gravest and most immediate peril.

Federal spending will reach an estimated 25.3 percent of gross domestic product in fiscal 2011, up almost five percentage points since 2008. To what end? Far from kick starting the economy, the government’s heavy reliance on deficit spending has only served to expand an already bloated public sector and to constrict the private sector. This is, indeed, the road to serfdom.

Andrew B. Wilson is senior editor at the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Longest-Serving LRA Commissioner Resigns

The head of the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), which owns more than 9,300 vacant city parcels, has resigned. The resignation of LRA Commissioner Howard Hayes came two weeks after the Show-Me Institute began inquiring about Hayes’ appointment, and three weeks after the institute met with LRA staff members to discuss the city’s landholding policies. The LRA’s Board of Commissioners consists of three members, one each appointed by the city’s mayor, comptroller, and Board of Education.

Hayes was the longest-serving member of the LRA, having begun his service on Jan. 1, 1999, as the representative appointed by the Saint Louis Public Schools. During his tenure, the LRA’s property holdings rose from 8,729 parcels to more than 9,300 — an increase of nearly 8 percent.

The Show-Me Institute made an effort to contact each member of the LRA Commission prior to publication of the institute’s initial LRA findings. Indeed, the institute contacted Saint Louis Public Schools for comment about our research multiple times, on Jan. 31, Feb. 2, and Feb. 11, and met with LRA staff members in late January.

On Feb. 14, Hayes resigned his unpaid position as a member of the LRA Commission with the following statement:

This letter is to serve as my official resignation from the Land Reutilization Authority.

It has been a unique experience that will long be remembered.

A phone call today to Saint Louis Public Schools confirmed that the Special Administrative Board will meet Thursday night, March 10. The school district’s communications director promised me that he will ask the SAB whom it intends to nominate as Hayes’ replacement.

Our yearlong study into the practices of the LRA found that the agency rejects roughly one out of every two offers to purchase vacant city property.

The Show-Me Institute will be following the selection of a new commissioner closely, because this represents an opportunity for a fresh start at the LRA. Will a new commissioner choose to sell more property? Will a new commissioner change LRA policy? We’ll keep you posted.

David Stokes Guest Hosting on the Marconi Machine This Afternoon

Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst David Stokes will be guest hosting on the Dr. Gina Loudon Show this afternoon from 4:00 to 6:00, on KJSL 630 AM in St. Louis. Please listen in, if you can. Scheduled topics include nuclear power expansion, and housing prices and demography in St. Louis. Other potential topics include:

  • The harms of occupational licensing
  • Mardi Gras
  • The earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City
  • English punk rock of the 1970s with a focus on The Clash
  • The Missouri minimum wage
  • St. Louis University High School
  • Public pension fund problems
  • David’s adorable children

Eliminating Missouri’s Income Tax Is One Road to Greater Prosperity

A current legislative proposal seeks to eliminate Missouri’s income tax and replace it with a higher sales tax rate. It may not seem obvious to readers that one form of taxation is clearly better than the other, but economics teaches us a valuable lesson about how income taxes in particular slow down economic growth and prosperity.

There’s a pretty straightforward correlation between taxes and economic activity. When you tax something, you usually encourage people to do less of it. Income taxes induce people to be less productive, because the financial return that people gain from work and entrepreneurial activities, which are difficult, are reflected in other things that are less costly at the margin. In short, the other things they could do with their time become a little more valuable in comparison. Similarly, sales taxes induce less consumer spending, because people receive fewer goods and services for their dollar. Each type of tax makes people a little worse off, but in different ways.

So, why should we be particularly concerned about the income tax? For more than half a century, economists have understood that people will realize higher after-tax returns when income tax rates are lowered. In simple terms, this means that when income is taxed less, aggregate effort and employment increase, on average, leading to more money in people’s wallets. In addition to the total pie increasing, there is an incentive to invest more in the future, because the returns to entrepreneurial activity also increase when income tax rates are lowered. People’s savings flow to new investment, and economic growth rates rise as a result. When the economic pie gets bigger, people’s individual slices also grow. This has been a consistent finding in economics, both in theoretical models and real-world observations.

People benefit directly when their income is taxed less, but if Missouri eliminates its income tax, the government still needs to maintain a source of revenue. In this case, the proposed source for that revenue is a higher sales tax rate, with fewer tax exemptions. This has drawbacks, true enough. When people have to pay more for the goods and services they purchase, they generally choose to consume less. It’s no secret that people like to consume, so higher prices are a cost. It’s important to realize, however, that this decrease in consumption is only a short-term effect. Remember that the elimination of a state income tax allows people to take home, save, and invest more money — growing the economy. So, consumption spending benefits from the increase in take-home pay. Moreover, as the economy expands, consumption grows at a faster rate.

With respect to consumer spending, the increase in the sales tax rate and the broadening of the base will have its effects. Whatever the immediate costs, though, it is important to recognize that the growth rewards are permanent. This comparison of current costs to future rewards holds true for any number of investments — things like plant expansion, education, and kitchen remodels. In each case, there is an initial cost, and rational people can decide whether the rewards are worth that cost. But the two points must be considered together. If we focus only on the near-term costs, we miss the gains of faster growth unleashed by the change in the tax structure.

Another potential drawback is that retailers might relocate across the state border if Missouri implemented a higher sales tax rate. It is true that a few retailers might make this decision, but there is another half to this story. Because income taxes would be simultaneously eliminated, there would be an incentive for many other out-of-state businesses to relocate here. Missouri’s economy would experience a change in its industry composition if the income tax were replaced with a higher sales tax. It is wrong, however, to ignore the growth benefits that go with eliminating the income tax. Some stores may cross the state line, but Missouri shoppers will be richer.

Other states have successfully implemented this revenue model. Our neighbor Tennessee, for one, has an economy that is outpacing Missouri’s growth. There’s more. From August 1998 to August 2008, the nine states without an income tax added more than 4 million jobs, a 16.3-percent increase that doubled the national job growth rate. Only one of those states failed to exceed the national job growth rate.

Some people may decide they do not want to give up some short-term consumption to achieve higher growth rates in the future, which is understandable. Ultimately, though, paying careful attention to the long-term effects of government policy helps to make the world a better place — not only for ourselves, but for our children. Eliminating Missouri’s income tax is one road to greater prosperity.

Joseph Haslag is an economics professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia and chief economist for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging