A film studio recently uprooted to Montana, chasing state tax breaks that promise big savings. But while the move could boost productions, it’s unclear if local communities will see much of the money.
Film Tax Incentives: A Magnet for Studios
When a film studio chooses where to shoot, dollars matter. States across the U.S. Have rolled out tax incentives to lure productions, offering rebates or credits that slash costs by up to 30%. Montana is the latest player in this game, using tax breaks to attract filmmakers who might otherwise look elsewhere.
But not every state plays this game well. Kansas, for example, once had film tax credits but let them expire in 2012. Lawmakers recently tried to revive a $10 million capped income tax credit for filmmakers, aiming to give a 30% credit on expenditures. The bill would have helped bring productions to Kansas, but Governor Laura Kelly vetoed it, calling the plan too costly and fiscally irresponsible.
What Kansas Lost, Montana Gained
Kansas’s hesitation stands in contrast to Montana’s aggressive push. The state’s tax incentives have already attracted at least one major studio to relocate, hoping to capitalize on the financial perks. For studios, that’s a practical choice: why film in a state that offers no breaks, even if the story is set there? Kansas’s hit show "Supernatural" never filmed on location despite the story being rooted in the state, choosing cheaper options like Vancouver, Canada.
Justin Begnaud, a film and TV producer based in Prairie Village, Kansas, has advised productions to avoid Kansas precisely because it lacks incentives. He notes that big players like Netflix won’t Look at the state without fiscal benefits, preferring states that give back 20 cents or more per dollar spent on production.
Economic Growth or Revenue Drain?
Tax incentives can be tricky. States like Georgia have seen a boom in film and TV production, with new jobs and tourism dollars flowing in. Yet audits reveal a more complicated picture. Georgia’s uncapped credits increased activity but cost the state significant revenue, returning only about 10 cents for every dollar spent on incentives.
So, do these subsidies actually pay off? Critics say these giveaways often don’t bring much economic benefit. Supporters believe the boost in jobs and economic activity makes it worth it.
Kansas’s governor expressed concern that tax cuts could jeopardize other budget priorities. She pointed out the risk of offering incentives without balancing state income and expenses, a budgeting approach she finds irresponsible.
Will Montana’s Locals See Benefits?
Montana’s strategy hinges on the assumption that film productions will create local jobs and stimulate the economy. But the industry often brings temporary work, and many high-paying positions go to experienced crews flown in from other states or countries.
Smaller towns and rural areas might see boosts from spending on lodging, food, and local services during shoots. Still, whether that translates into lasting economic growth is uncertain.
Also, tax breaks can start a race where states keep upping incentives, which can drain money from schools, roads, and healthcare.
Montana might succeed if it can grow a lasting film industry. But if the studio moves on once the credits end, locals could be stuck with empty sets and lost chances.
Kansas’s cautious approach contrasts with Montana’s leap. Whether Montana’s locals will truly cash in on the studio’s move remains a big question, as states wrestle with balancing incentives and budgets in the high-stakes film business.
