Georgia Taxpayers Lose $160,000 for Every Job Created by Film Tax Credits
The program generates just 19 cents for every dollar spent.

For nearly two decades, Georgia has lured big-time Hollywood movie studios with the promise of lucrative tax breaks for filming in the state.
And here's a predictable plot twist: Handing out welfare to wildly successful movies—like Avengers: Endgame, which earned more than $2 billion at the box office but nevertheless also qualified for tax credits because it was filmed in Georgia—hasn't been a good deal for taxpayers.
A new audit of Georgia's Film Tax Credit program found that the state "loses money" on the program. A lot of money, actually: about $160,000 for every job the program creates. Georgia is now spending about $1.3 billion annually on the program, but it generates a return on investment of just 19 cents per dollar, the auditors conclude.
"This program should be halted immediately," J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Georgia's Kennesaw State University and a longtime critic of government subsidy schemes, posted on X (formerly Twitter). In a 2020 paper, Bradbury estimated that the state's film tax credit program cost about $110,000 per full-time job created and that every Georgia household was on the hook for about $230 in additional taxes every year because of the program's existence.
In addition to highlighting the tax credit program's costs, the new audit also suggests that the film industry has inflated the supposed benefits of the program. Georgia's film tax credit is responsible for creating about 34,000 jobs annually in the state, according to the new audit, but that's well short of the 59,700 annual job-creation figure that a recent industry-funded study claimed, reported Variety.
Created in 2005, Georgia's subsidies for movie and TV production are the biggest such pot of cash available anywhere in the country. Production companies that spend at least $500,000 in the state during a single year are eligible for tax credits equal to 20 percent of their in-state expenditures. There is no cap on qualifying expenditures for production companies, and there is no aggregate cap for annual or lifetime tax credits, according to the audit report.
There's no doubt that Georgia's program has influenced where movie and TV production takes place. The new audit concludes that the program has induced "substantial economic activity in Georgia," but that's simply evidence of the fact that lighting a lot of money on fire will eventually produce some heat. The underlying numbers suggest that Georgia's subsidies are doing a poor job of generating economic growth or creating jobs.
It's been the same story pretty much everywhere else, though many states have gotten wise to the film tax credit scheme. In 2009, 44 states subsidized movie and TV production with some combination of rebates, tax credits, and grants. Today, just 22 states and Washington, D.C., offer those programs.
Even though Georgia's program has a long history of bipartisan support, changes could be coming. As Reason's Joe Lancaster reported earlier this year, Lieutenant Gov. Burt Jones and Georgia Speaker of the House Jon Burns (R–Newington) have pledged to undertake a thorough review of the state's tax credit programs, including the film tax credit, with an eye toward "ensuring a significant return on investment for Georgia's taxpayers."
With this new audit in hand, Jones and Burns should do their best Thanos impressions and turn Georgia's deeply flawed movie welfare program to dust.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Do we know if their analysis includes follow-on benefits like increased business at local shops?
That said, most of these programs are poorly structured and states end up realizing that they don't get what they thought they were getting. Unsurprisingly, industry lawyers (any industry) will never lose to legislators in writing legal documents. It isn't even close. It's like Shaq playing against middle-schoolers.
Yes, we know it and yes the analysis did include indirect benefits such as you describe. It's in the third paragraph of the executive summary on page 1 of the linked audit (third paragraph above). And it's still an appallingly bad deal.
Is there a Tiffany's branch in Georgia?
Film production has been one area where these programs have probably had some long-term success in places like Canada, but the advantage was much more pronounced in the 90s and 2000s when CA and Los Angeles were getting particularly aggressive with taxation targeted at film production; meanwhile Canada was giving generous tax credits for moving production work north of the border. Used to be that 90% or more of "hollywood" movie production happened within 30 miles of the geographic center of the studio locations (somewhere between DTLA and the SFV), now a huge amount, and especially a lot of post-production gets done in Vancouver, BC.
The ancillary industries needed to do film/tv production don't just spontaneously develop, especially business like "Star Wagons" trailer rental, and post-production facilities (film developing, editing, audio studios) which don't have much use to many other types of operations, and craft service/catering which may not have enough local demand to be capable of operating at the scale to service a larger production. As well as labor pools of skilled (and union credentialed) crew workers who can't really justify the cost of traveling for a $30-40/hr job but can make a good living locally if they can stay employed for 6-8 months per year. Actors with significant speaking parts, as well as directors, cinematographers and various production designers all get paid more than enough to travel, but jobs like carpenters, grips, 2nd/3rd unit crews and most of the supporting crew don't, and it's expensive for the studio to try to pay for travel/accommodations for hundreds or thousands of them (depending on the scale of the production),. If these kinds of tax credits are used strategically, the evolution of the needed supporting businesses can be fostered to a point where it will eventually start to make sense for productions to go there with lower subsidies (say, the crew unions get to have enough workers to form a "local" that's willing to negotiate a lower wage scale than the one based on enabling workers to afford to live in Los Angeles or NYC without working 52 weeks/year because they're in a place where the cost of living is 40%-70% lower than in major cities).
A lot also depends on how the tax credits are structured, since if they're not "refundable", then the real revenue cost of the credits can only be what the actual liability of the companies receiving them rather than the full 20% of production spending (at "red" State tax rates, that liability might actually be relatively small), and with a high "but for" rate, the real cost would be even smaller since most of the activity not being taxed wouldn't have happened without the credit and still would have created zero total revenue in its absence. If the State structured the credits to a point where they're actually cutting checks to businesses for having brought an impermanent operation to the area, then that is a questionable deal (and a bad deal in the short term).
Film production has been one area where these programs have probably had some long-term success in places like Canada,
Yes, you can waste tax dollars and attract business from one place to another. But once you total up the tax dollars wasted and the lost business that you attracted away, you are invariably worse off than if you had done nothing at all.
In other words, such "successful programs" are really just a wasteful and inefficient government transfer from tax payers to special interest groups.
My whole point was that certain businesses (major film/TV production being a prime example) need to have certain ancillary business in an area to be able to do significant levels of activity in an area. A movie shoot can go somewhere and shoot a couple of scenes somewhere without needing the full cadre of trailer rentals, caterers, local craftsmen, experienced extras, and costume/prop rental houses, but if the bulk of a shoot for a major "studio" production is going to take place over multiple months (or shows like Walking Dead, or Breaking Bad for multiple years), they're going to need a lot of those things to be up and running in the area. If the tax incentives initially make it easier to build those kinds of businesses (who will be paying taxes from day one, as will their employees, as well as all of the local economic activity that's generated by those jobs being created locally). Once those supporting businesses, and local pools of workers with particular skill-sets exist in an area it's easier and less expensive for future productions be be done in the area even if the tax incentives are rolled back at some point.
The net impact to local tax revenues will depend highly on the structure of the incentives. If there's actually money being paid out by the State/Local government coffers to the companies that's one thing, but since State "tax credits" can only offset State/local tax liabilities (unless they're "refundable"), then all those incentives can cost the State is whatever tax the attracted businesses would have owed; how would the Studio/Production Company paying zero taxes while creating $Millions in new local taxable economic activity possibly be worse for the State than the same company paying no taxes in the state because they didn't do any business there and didn't create any second- and third-order economic activity as a result?
But the same goes for everything the government does, not just these programs, it's bad and inefficient at everything. Which is why the government should do much less. It's not really a matter of who is better at writing legal documents, since there is no reason for a legislature to give industry the opportunity to write laws in the first place, if they are dumb enough to do so haplessly then maybe they'll learn from that mistake.
"since there is no reason for a legislature to give industry the opportunity to write laws in the first place"
You'd think that, right? I agree that's the way it should be.
But everything from anti-abortion groups to defense contractors write model legislation that they give to their pet legislators to introduce. The more important it is to an interest group, the more likely that it wasn't written by a lawmaker.
An impeachment of a government program with good intentions.
A bit fuzzy on the details.
At the end of the day, this issue does pit business growth versus tax revenue.
I'm not seeing a clear picture here.
So it sounds like it’s an economic benefit to Georgie if they ban abortion. As the Marxists in the film industry have threatened to stop shooting tv and films in Georgia should they do so.
Also, would perhaps keep a lot of "hollywood-types" out of the local population and voter pool.
"The Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the West behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia's always on
My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my mind"
Hope you don't expect any civil answer to that.
https://reason.com/2023/12/15/in-godzilla-minus-one-government-wont-save-anyone-when-the-crisis-comes/?comments=true#comment-10359327
Wonder how much is lost for every job created by an illegal immigrant...
But...but...every illegal alien is always an economic positive! Aren't they? That's what I've been told about 10 million times...
No you haven't. That's just what you hear when people say "immigration is a net economic positive to the US". Those are two different things.
Once again the experts who write these articles don't understand the difference between subsidies (i.e. spending) and tax credits (i.e. tax revenues that might - or might not - have failed to materialize.) If the tax credits mean some loss of tax revenues, it does not necessarily mean it "cost" taxpayers anything at all! If they didn't offer the tax credits and the film producers didn't film in Georgia as a result, then it cost jobs for Georgians. If the tax credits resulted in lost tax revenue which Georgia taxpayers did not have to make up in higher taxes, then it cost them nothing. If government only spends what it takes in from taxes, it's neutral. Please go back to basic logic when you write these screeds!
That may be a valid criticism generally but it is not in this case. Georgia's law allows the filmmakers to sell their credits to other taxpayers. In other words, the tax credits are so generous that not only do they have the potential to completely offset the taxes owed by the film company (which, as you say, are all incremental) but they can also reduce the taxes paid by businesses that already exist and operate in the state.
Yes, there is still a difference in timing - it's income waived rather than expenses spent. But from an income statement perspective, it doesn't matter. It's all money you don't have that you would have otherwise.
Not to mention all this crony stuff is bad for free market competition. When gov't selects one company/industry, they unethically tilt the playing field in that direction. And let's be honest, the gov't is simply shifting the burden of who pays...gov't isn't "forgoing" any revenue without making it up somewhere else.
But you can say that about any tax reduction. And any tax. There's no such thing as an economically neutral tax. For example, if you tax incomes, you're "unethically" tilting the playing field away from having income. Tax real estate, you're tilting the playing field away from land and buildings.
Feature, not a bug. Attracting film production has steered Georgia from a red state to battleground state.
"When gov’t selects one company/industry, they unethically tilt the playing field in that direction."
There's a significant difference between helping a specific company and incentivizing an industry. If a state wants to expand the breadth of its economy with new industries, it has to make itself competitive with established choices. That often requires some sort of incentives to overcome the "established and experienced" advantage that existing choices enjoy.
I would agree that legislative benefits to specific companies is unethical, but I don't see it as the same for entire industries. Especially industries that are un- or under-represented in the state's economy.
Either way, it reduces taxes! I fail to see the complaint here about a way for people to pay their government less.
Others will be taxed more.
Not if the company wouldn't have come to Georgia without the incentives. If they come, their taxes, while reduced from what they would have paid, still go into the state coffers. If they don't come, the state gets nothing.
The tax credits result in more tax revenues for the state of Georgia, not less. The tax revenue "lost" is imagining that the films would still be made in Georgia (rather than Vancouver or somewhere else) if the tax credit program didn't exist.
So those tax credits to EV purchases don't cost the rest of us taxpayers anything?
General Accounting Standards Board which determines this passed rule 77 dictating it must treated as a cost and listed so.It requires government entities to list them as an expense.
If you think Georgians are losing money think of what woke Disney is losing on all those flops.
Upwards of $800 million for 2023.
When you wish upon the woke,
The paying public makes you broke.
Elon could buy Disney in a few years.
At least Georgia appreciates Disney unlike that evil don't say gay state.
Maybe they will move Disney World to GA.
Reason: "Selectively cutting taxes is good, except when it isn't."
You people just can't make up your minds.
To be fair, given their political ideology Disney should probably be paying double the normal rate.
"A new audit of Georgia's Film Tax Credit program found that the state "loses money" on the program"
Not charging taxes is not the same as subsidies, Boehm. Georgia didn't actually lose money.
As eager as I am to pee on Hollywood, libertarians don't count taxes that never happened as the state's money.
You're smarter than that. If the program was not in place then state revenue would be greater. So it's a loss. And another example that not all tax cuts generate more revenue.
No, jackass, they would get no revenue at all because the production would be held elsewhere.
https://reason.com/2023/12/15/in-godzilla-minus-one-government-wont-save-anyone-when-the-crisis-comes/?comments=true#comment-10359327
Can you amaze us all with your definition of the Laffer Curve being a Laffer line again?
To be fair, the Laffer curve is a joke. Supply-side economics has never worked.
But its adherents will tell you the same thing the socialists do, that it's never *really* been tried.
They're both dishonest, deluded supporters of economic theories that have been proved to be failures.
Not charging taxes is what brought the filmmakers to Georgia. If they charged taxes they'd still be getting nothing because they filmmakers wouldn't have come.
This isn't hard.
That’s what she said!
Yeah, it's a loss...to the state treasury. Which is bad, why?
Sure they don't collect taxes on the act of movie making but all those folks they bring into town need lodging, food, entertainment, etc etc. They wind up collecting taxes on all that so it is still a net positive for the state. Not saying that's a good thing.
See above. If the deal had been restricted to the actual movie producers, your statement would be true but given the way Georgia actually structured it, that's not actually true. (See, specifically, the clause allowing the movie producers to sell their excess tax credits to others.
Hey, it works for carbon credits.
We can quibble with the wording of things in the article, but we shouldn't quibble with the basic premise that gov't shouldn't be intervening by picking and choosing what companies/industries get privileges or advantages. A much better thing would be to reduce everyone's tax burden by a small amount than a single industry's or company's tax burden by a large amount.
That would be a better thing, but since they're not doing that, this is next best.
Again you are trying to falsely conflate companies and industries.
Government helping specific companies is a very bad thing. Incentivizing industries as a whole in an attempt to grow a state's economic base is a good thing.
So Hollywood never helps anyone but Hollywood.
Well, damn, whodathunkit?
You'd think they would say, "thanks for the offer of the generous tax credits, but being progressives, we'd prefer to pay our fair share."
Simple solution: The state should receive profit participation based on the amount of money it invests. Of course, we've all heard about the funny business Hollywood does with its books, so it should be a straight percentage on box office. If Georgia got 20% of gross receipts in exchange for providing the 20% tax credit, I think they'd do pretty well ($400+M off Avatar, for instance).
Not stealing from someone is not the same as "investing" in their productive efforts.
Don't allow the tax credits to be resold. See how effective the program actually is.
- A Georgia taxpayer
Yeah, that part of the program is just begging for abuse.
“but it generates a return on investment of just 19 cents per dollar, the auditors conclude.”
I expect that someone in Georgia is getting a higher return on investment, even if it’s not their money being invested.
I am honestly surprised it's that high of a return.
So Georgia takes in $0 in taxes and generates $0 in related activity taxes if nobody comes to Georgia is good but Georgia bringing in $0 in taxes, but generating $500 million in related activity taxes is bad because people that wouldn't go to Gorgia without the credit didn't pay taxes directly to the tune of billions. WTF do leftists think moved the decision from the first category to the second? Just one more example that leftists believe incentives do not matter and that all money actually belongs to the government, not the people that work to earn it.
Do you think it's leftists who are complaining?
I have no problem with every dollar of this policy "costing" the state $1 in money they would've otherwise taxed from these businesses.
So how many jobs does this program produce for those Georgians who refuse to work?
So that's why those Marvel superheroes have southern accents!
Oh no! There's extra money being spent in the state at the cost of some people not paying taxes! That's clearly terrible for the economy somehow.
"The program generates just 19 cents for every dollar spent."
Sounds like it's approximately 19% more efficient than most government programs.
I see there is another deadly firearm incident in Atlanta. Did Alec Baldwin take advantage of this where he is in Georgia shooting on location?
It's all about funding Nazi-Indoctrination.
I find it amusing. Disney has filmed a lot of their recent movies in Britain to take advantage of a similar program. For the Marvels, they made $100M off ticket sales (since they only get half the box office) but $55M off the subsidy.
The impact of film tax credits on Georgia taxpayers is indeed a significant concern. While job creation is vital, the cost per job seems alarming. It raises questions about the effectiveness of such credits and the overall economic benefit. Shifting focus, ensuring proper documentation of taxes becomes crucial. I stumbled upon a useful article, the "Substantial Employer Guide to Payroll Taxes" on the https://blog.pdfliner.com/employer-guide-to-payroll-taxes blog. It sheds light on navigating the complexities of payroll taxes, providing valuable insights for businesses and individuals alike. Understanding these nuances is vital in making informed decisions about tax policies and their implications. Knowledge is power in the realm of taxes.