Georgia Lawmakers Propose Modest Changes to State Film Tax Credits
The credits cost the state over $1.3 billion per year with a 19 percent return on investment. Lawmakers' proposals will do little to change that.

After nearly two decades, Georgia lawmakers have proposed cutting back on the state's generous tax credits for film and TV productions, but the proposed cuts are much too meager to make a difference.
Georgia's entertainment tax credits have been in place since 2005. A film or TV project can qualify for a 20 percent tax credit, plus an additional 10 percent if the final product includes a "Made in Georgia" logo. A production company must spend at least $500,000 in the state to qualify. The generous subsidies led to a boom in production, leading Atlanta to become the "Hollywood of the South."
This week, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, House Speaker Jon Burns, Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Hufstetler, and House Ways and Means Chairman Shaw Blackmon—all Republicans—announced plans to raise the minimum required investment from $500,000 to $1 million, as well as requiring more effort to qualify for the extra 10 percent. (Currently, a movie or TV show can get the extra bump just by including a peach logo in the end credits.) The announcement came nearly a year after Jones and Burns said that they would "review of all Georgia tax credits, including Georgia's film tax credit" in order to "ensur[e] a significant return on investment for Georgia's taxpayers."
Opinions are divided on the credits' effectiveness—namely, divided between the film industry and financial auditors. Last year, a study underwritten by the film industry and its advocates concluded that the tax credits had been a boon for the state's economy, boosting not just the "production sector" but "the overall climate for business development."
But auditors consistently sing a different tune. A 2020 audit by the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts found that "the economic activity generated by the film tax credit does not generate sufficient additional revenue to offset the credit, even after considering tourism and studio construction." In 2016, for example, the state dispensed over $667 million in tax credits which "resulted in a net revenue loss to the state estimated at $602 million."
A 2023 audit by Georgia State University concluded that the tax credits cost taxpayers just over $160,000 for every job created. It calculated that the program currently spends over $1.3 billion per year with a return on investment of just 19 cents per dollar.
Based on those numbers, then, it's disappointing for lawmakers to propose such meager changes to the program.
J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University, tweeted that changing the minimum required investment from $500,000 to $1 million would "have about as much impact on reducing the taxpayer burden of film tax credits as raising the minimum wage to $7.26/hour [from its current $7.25] would have on the labor market."
Indeed, many of the biggest beneficiaries of the tax credit—including franchises like the Avengers and Hunger Games films—cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and earn considerably more at the box office.
Notably, most production companies are not based in Georgia and therefore pay very little in Georgia taxes. But since the credits are transferable, a company can sell its credit to an individual or business to offset state income taxes. "About 97% of the credits are sold by film companies that pay little in Georgia taxes," often at close to face value, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
"The majority portion of credits is utilized by individual taxpayers," according to the 2023 audit. "This shows that most production companies end up transferring a significant amount of the credits to individuals, rather than firms."
Blackmon suggested that under the new proposal, companies would collectively only be able to sell credits up to 2.5 percent of the previous year's state budget, which would still total just over $900 million.
"We're certainly not limiting the credit at all," Blackmon told reporters this week. That's too bad: Given that 97 percent of credits are sold, it's clear that few of the companies actually rely on them for anything other than a way to make a quick buck by fleecing Georgia taxpayers.
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
Once again conflating tax credits with expenditures. Seriously, Joe, what am I missing? How is income not collected a “cost?” Are all tax cuts a “cost?”
Explain it to me like I’m five because I can’t see how these are the same thing.
Read the article. Those "credits" are transferable and are primarily used by people who should have (and now don't) pay Georgia taxes. This is not merely opportunity costs.
But to your larger point, yes, an income statement perspective means that anything that reduces net income can be thought of as a "cost" whether it's in fact a direct expenditure or the opportunity cost of a foregone revenue.
“fleecing taxpayers” / earnings is what it’s all about.
Original definition of the USA = Gov-Guns are for ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Today’s definition = Gov-Guns are for ‘fleecing’ earners for lazy non-earners because lazy non-earners are ‘poor’ for some unexplainable reason. Surely it’s a discriminated identity reason – not because they just don’t *earn* anything. Oh heck no. /s
tax and state duties are every citizen responsibility, just to avoid any mishap, it is better to increase source of income and value our government.
for this purpose i make my online Quran teaching website which provide services in UK.
for more information you can visit site
https://myqurantutor.co.uk/
I find it kinda strange that a "libertarian" publication is grousing that any industry needs to pay more taxes. I think this author got lost on his way to the New York Times....
It's worse than that; it's using the idea that a specific business or industry not paying taxes is an expense. It's a cost, the state is owed that. When the entire reason the film industry is even in Georgia is because they can get tax breaks. They wouldn't be working in Georgia at all if it weren't for the tax breaks, so how much money would that cost if they weren't involved in the economy at all?
The purpose of the economy isn't to be taxed.
The subhead says 19% ROI. That's pretty damn good, you would think. Only buried in the text do we learn that the subhead is a complete wrong-head.
It calculated that the program currently spends over $1.3 billion per year.
Again, these are tax credits. How are they "spending"? I'm gonna go read that report shortly, but just using taxes not collected as definitionally a "cost" is confusing as hell to me.
Why should we care what it costs the state? Aren't you selling this to the wrong audience?
...nothing. It seems to have cost tax collectors something.
How about this: Just make movie production tax exempt. Instead of haggling over how much to squeeze out of free speech activity, just don't.
"This shows that most production companies end up transferring a significant amount of the credits to individuals, rather than firms."
And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with paying someone else to reduce your own taxes? People do it all the time in tax preparation.