So the state of California has enough tax money to give $18 million to a Disney production of “A Wrinkle in Time.”
Great book, hopefully a great movie, and I’m looking forward to seeing it. But it begs a question: if California has enough money to throw millions at a company like Disney, why exactly does it need more money from taxpayers?
Yes, yes, I realize the differences in scale. $18 million is less than pocket change in the state budget. But the optics, at the very least, are all wrong. A voter might ask: why am I being asked to pay more in taxes when you’re helping Disney pay less?
Now, that voter isn’t me, at least on the November state ballot. I don’t smoke, so I don’t pay tobacco taxes. And as an honest journalist, I don’t make nearly enough money to have to pay more under the extension of the Prop 30 income tax rates. And on the local level, the sales tax increase I’m facing – a half-cent sales tax for L.A.’s Metro—will give me more trains, buses and better roads. So I’ll be getting a lot for a very small tax.
Still, the Hollywood tax sticks in the craw. It goes to rich companies and investors. Studies have shown these production tax subsidies don’t’ pay for themselves. And the state is nickel-and-diming other programs, most notably the public universities.
Maybe this is the wrong time to be giving a tax break to ‘Wrinkle’?