Like many other states, Massachusetts offers tax credits for film and television productions that film in the state. In particular, Massachusetts offers credits worth 25 percent of a production’s expenses and payroll tax liability incurred in the Bay State. If the credits exceed the production’s Massachusetts tax liability, they can claim 90 percent of the remainder as a refund.

All in all the article was a bit of a hit piece against these tax credits in both MA and other states. Could be completely on point for all I know though, no clue if they’re representing the facts accurately or not

I love this comment because I learned something.

From the article, “Supporters of such programs argue that they stimulate the economy: “The level of impact and the amount of benefits the film tax credit brings to Massachusetts is immeasurable, creating local jobs and boosting overall economic activity in our cities and towns,” state House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D–Quincy) said in 2021 after the legislature voted to make the credits permanent.”

The fallacy:

"Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.[1] "

The commentors point: This is a dumb excuse to spur the economy and if they want to do that there are better more direct and impactful ways to spend that money.

A study was done where I live and we have a negative return on investment on subsidies to the private sector…

What is the difference between Voice of America (VOA) and Reason?

That’s upsetting. I adore it and think it should be seen by all.

Yeah it felt like the movie equivalent of when all those celebs sang Imagine.

Agreed.