Movie tax breaks are fiscally foolish
It’s not clear whether Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves is against incentives for the film industry because they are a poor investment, or because the Hollywood types who benefit from the tax breaks tend to be liberal and don’t support conservative politicians, such as the Republican Reeves.
Doesn’t matter.
Reeves is right and should hold firm against reviving the most ridiculous of Mississippi’s film incentives, which used to provide a 25 percent cash rebate on the payroll paid to cast and crew members who are not even Mississippi residents.
That giveaway died a deserved death two years ago after a legislative watchdog group reaffirmed what other studies have shown: The government bankrolling of filmmakers is one of the most senseless subsidies there is.
When the Legislative Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee crunched the numbers, it found that for every dollar Mississippi gave to filmmakers in incentives, the state ended up losing 51 cents. Although the communities, including this one, that hosted movie productions might have gotten a temporary economic boost and some thrills out of rubbing shoulders with the stars, the rest of the state came away poorer as a result. This week, state Rep. Jeff Smith, a Republican from Columbus, ignored that research and used his position as House Ways and Means Committee chairman to push through a bill to restore the payroll rebates for out-of-state cast and crew members. Somebody must be working on a movie deal in Columbus, because Smith’s arguments for his bill were dubious.
“To compete with Louisiana, we need to double what we are offering,” he said.
One point the PEER report implied was that the last thing Mississippi needs to do is compete with Louisiana, unless it wants to beat its neighbor to the poorhouse. While Mississippi was losing 51 cents on every dollar invested on filmmaking, PEER found, Louisiana was losing 77 cents. Let it keep all that business it wants.
If refusing to subsidize the salaries of Matthew McConaughey and Emma Stone means Mississippi won’t see many big movies made here anymore, so be it. The state would probably come out better to just buying every resident a ticket to go watch their films when they come out.
Tim Kalich
Editor and Publisher
Greenwood Commonwealth
Keep minors off tanning beds
Ultimately, it’s not the government’s responsibility to keep people from making decisions that could end up killing them.
But what it can do is not turn them loose to make those decisions until their brain has matured sufficiently to comprehend the possible consequences.
For this reason, a proposal to ban people younger than 18 from using tanning beds is a good idea.
Under current law, the use of tanning beds is prohibited for anyone younger than 14, but those between the ages of 14 and 18 can fry themselves all they want with written permission from a parent.
Parents may usually know best, but not if they condone exposing their children to a known carcinogen. It would be like saying parents should be able to give minors the permission to purchase cigarettes.
The American Cancer Society says the ultraviolet radiation in tanning beds is especially dangerous to teenagers because their skin is still developing, thus increasing their risks of developing melanoma and other skin cancers years after the exposure.
Teens are not alone in their obsession with body image, nor in the belief that a tan enhances it. But they are more susceptible of going to the extreme and need to be protected from those immature impulses.
Tim Kalich
Editor and Publisher
Greenwood Commonwealth
