Mrs. Runge has not been found guilty of anything. Calling her a “scammer” is inappropriate at this point.
1:21 am February 11, 2011
CALIFORNIAMARTY wrote:
California would be grateful if all forty four states and Canada repeal their tax incentives so that they can bring back the two hundred fifty thousand jobs and thirty billion a year lost to these other venues. Just because one production company outsmarted those in charge of the program means little.
Yes Michael Bloomberg is a pretty smart guy and his tax incentive programs have made New York City the film and television capital of the world, not Hollywood.
Vendors and Hollywood crews implore these states to stop these reckless tax incentive programs now. Let the producers stay close to home when filming for the good of their children. Cancel your tax credits please.
5:44 am February 11, 2011
Erik Nelson wrote:
I think it is pretty clear, the people of Iowa do not appreciate someone trying to take advantage of them. It is real simple, play by the rules and you will not have any problems; break the rules and get an education on the law.
9:17 am February 11, 2011
Iowafilmmaker wrote:
And Iowa would love it if no other state grew corn or raised hogs. CA should come up with some incentives to keep production there. States compete for business. If you want to compete with Iowa, grow some corn and take advantage of ethanol subsidies.
10:48 am February 11, 2011
BD wrote:
Back in the early 90′s Pittsburgh was a hot bed of film making. So they added some incentive and even build an indoor studio. By the mid to late 90′s the industry had pretty much stopped coming there to film. As the article seems to conclude, these subsidies are a waste of tax payer dollars.
11:29 am February 11, 2011
Nolan wrote:
Scammers definitely try to get away with misdeeds until they are caught
12:01 pm February 11, 2011
Iowa Producer/Director wrote:
The “potential total liability to the state of Iowa is $200 million” is incorrect. That was the potential if all productions that filed applications completed their productions AND received 50% tax credit on Iowa production expenses. Most of those projects did not proceed because the film incentive program was suspended in 9.09. $32 million has been paid, and pending the outcome of the court cases some funds may be returned.It is highly doubtful any additional funds will be paid out.
Hundreds of Iowans were employed on feature films, with new production equipment and service businesses developing. Iowa is still a great place for any type of production, with skilled crews, cast, and vendors.
12:17 pm February 11, 2011
gottafly wrote:
this sounds as if it has little to do with film making, and much to do with fraud. i’d think all businesses look to find cheaper ways and places to produce their product (including film companies). which is why a lot of products we use every day are imported from China, Korea, etc. and why more cars are built in places like Tennessee instead of Detroit… if it WAS cheaper to grow and harvest corn in California than Iowa, I am sure farm businesses would move there in droves. but of course reality is NOTHING is cheaper in California.
12:20 pm February 11, 2011
Roger B34 wrote:
Iowa is the movie industry rube that fell off the turnip truck.
1:19 pm February 11, 2011
Dept. of Waste wrote:
San Francisco loves to waste taxpayer money on movies too; vanity projects for the local bureaucrats and no-show “extra” jobs for political supporters already supported as “non-profits” with SF tax money doled out by the Board of Stupidvisors.
1:23 pm February 11, 2011
Steve Lustgarten wrote:
I was one of the producers who was in line to make a film in Iowa when the Governor froze the program effectively ending our year of work on the project. Much of what is being described as fraud on closer inspection shows that the state film commission officer authorized and encouraged these types of expenditures in many cases. The Iowa legislature passed the film tax bill nearly unanimously under emergency provisions. Don’t they read the bills? Iowa claimed in printed ads to have a 50% tax incentive and then back pedaled and said their own film commission and economic department were mistaken and it was actually 25%. Is this a bait and switch gone bad? As for paying out of state persons and companies; can you imagine trying to crew and cast and get gear in Iowa for a large feature film? There was nothing there. I feel bad for those who are now having to deal with these issues in court that a little bit of oversight could have eliminated.
3:08 pm February 11, 2011
Mr. Reynolds wrote:
I have been following this case closely, and have found a mountain of comments that point to evidence against the state. I hope the defendant’s attornies are smart enough to gather all of it and crush the state’s case. This is an atrocity against Wendy Runge. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
1:10 am June 23, 2011
Adiana wrote:
Well done artclie that. I’ll make sure to use it wisely.
Mrs. Runge has not been found guilty of anything. Calling her a “scammer” is inappropriate at this point.
California would be grateful if all forty four states and Canada repeal their tax incentives so that they can bring back the two hundred fifty thousand jobs and thirty billion a year lost to these other venues. Just because one production company outsmarted those in charge of the program means little.
Yes Michael Bloomberg is a pretty smart guy and his tax incentive programs have made New York City the film and television capital of the world, not Hollywood.
Vendors and Hollywood crews implore these states to stop these reckless tax incentive programs now. Let the producers stay close to home when filming for the good of their children. Cancel your tax credits please.
I think it is pretty clear, the people of Iowa do not appreciate someone trying to take advantage of them. It is real simple, play by the rules and you will not have any problems; break the rules and get an education on the law.
And Iowa would love it if no other state grew corn or raised hogs. CA should come up with some incentives to keep production there. States compete for business. If you want to compete with Iowa, grow some corn and take advantage of ethanol subsidies.
Back in the early 90′s Pittsburgh was a hot bed of film making. So they added some incentive and even build an indoor studio. By the mid to late 90′s the industry had pretty much stopped coming there to film. As the article seems to conclude, these subsidies are a waste of tax payer dollars.
Scammers definitely try to get away with misdeeds until they are caught
The “potential total liability to the state of Iowa is $200 million” is incorrect. That was the potential if all productions that filed applications completed their productions AND received 50% tax credit on Iowa production expenses. Most of those projects did not proceed because the film incentive program was suspended in 9.09. $32 million has been paid, and pending the outcome of the court cases some funds may be returned.It is highly doubtful any additional funds will be paid out.
Hundreds of Iowans were employed on feature films, with new production equipment and service businesses developing. Iowa is still a great place for any type of production, with skilled crews, cast, and vendors.
this sounds as if it has little to do with film making, and much to do with fraud. i’d think all businesses look to find cheaper ways and places to produce their product (including film companies). which is why a lot of products we use every day are imported from China, Korea, etc. and why more cars are built in places like Tennessee instead of Detroit… if it WAS cheaper to grow and harvest corn in California than Iowa, I am sure farm businesses would move there in droves. but of course reality is NOTHING is cheaper in California.
Iowa is the movie industry rube that fell off the turnip truck.
San Francisco loves to waste taxpayer money on movies too; vanity projects for the local bureaucrats and no-show “extra” jobs for political supporters already supported as “non-profits” with SF tax money doled out by the Board of Stupidvisors.
I was one of the producers who was in line to make a film in Iowa when the Governor froze the program effectively ending our year of work on the project. Much of what is being described as fraud on closer inspection shows that the state film commission officer authorized and encouraged these types of expenditures in many cases. The Iowa legislature passed the film tax bill nearly unanimously under emergency provisions. Don’t they read the bills? Iowa claimed in printed ads to have a 50% tax incentive and then back pedaled and said their own film commission and economic department were mistaken and it was actually 25%. Is this a bait and switch gone bad? As for paying out of state persons and companies; can you imagine trying to crew and cast and get gear in Iowa for a large feature film? There was nothing there. I feel bad for those who are now having to deal with these issues in court that a little bit of oversight could have eliminated.
I have been following this case closely, and have found a mountain of comments that point to evidence against the state. I hope the defendant’s attornies are smart enough to gather all of it and crush the state’s case. This is an atrocity against Wendy Runge. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
Well done artclie that. I’ll make sure to use it wisely.
-1′
1