California boosts film tax credits to $750 million
HOLLYWOOD'S home state of California will more than double annual tax incentives for film and television production to $750 million under a measure passed by the Democratic-led legislature on Friday.
The increase from the current $330 million was approved as part of a broader tax bill that is expected to be signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in the coming days.
Democrat Newsom had advocated for the boost, a step to help reverse a years-long exodus of production from California to places such as Britain, Canada and other U.S. states that offer generous tax credits and rebates.
Producers, directors, actors and behind-the-scenes workers have warned lawmakers that Hollywood was at risk of becoming the next Detroit, the automaking capital devastated by overseas competition, if current trends continued.
Permitting data showed production in Los Angeles, the location of major studios including Walt Disney and Netflix, fell to the second-lowest level on record in 2024. California has lost more than 17,000 jobs since 2022 from its declining share of the entertainment industry, according to union estimates.
Producer Uri Singer said he shot three films in New York to take advantage of its tax incentives. He received a California tax credit to shoot his current project, a horror flick called "Corporate Retreat," in Los Angeles.
"You can get such good cast and crew that are available that makes shooting in L.A. financially better," he said. "Besides that, creatively you find here anyone you want, and if you need another crane, within an hour you have a crane."
Plus, "the crew is happy because they go home every day," Singer added.
Local advocates applauded California's expansion of tax incentives, though they said more needs to be done.
Writer Alexandra Pechman, an organzier of a "Stay in LA" campaign by Hollywood workers, called on Hollywood studios to commit to a specific amount of spending in California to support creative workers.
"It's time for the studios and streamers to do their part to turn this win into real change for all of us," Pechman said.
Industry supporters also are pushing for federal tax incentives to keep filming in the United States.
Republican President Donald Trump has offered a different way to address the issue. Trump said in May that he had authorized government agencies to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced overseas. The movie tariff has not been implemented.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Martin Kove accused of biting Alicia Hannah-Kim, nearly drawing blood
Police in Washington state say Cobra Kai star Martin Kove (pic) bit the arm of co-star Alicia Hannah-Kim during a VIP meet-and-greet at a fan convention over the weekend. Brooklyn-born Kove — who reprised his Karate Kid role of villain John Kreese in the Netflix series — was asked to leave Summer Con on Sunday after Hannah-Kim, 42, said hello and he responded by biting her arm 'so hard he nearly drew blood,' according to a report from the Puyallup Police Department obtained by Variety. Kove then allegedly kissed the bite mark, after which Hannah-Kim and her husband confronted the 78-year-old Rambo actor, who police say 'exploded on them' for doing so. When the couple sought the help of an officer at the convention to diffuse the situation, Kove claimed he was only trying to be 'funny,' saying he and Hannah-Kim 'play fight all the time on the set of Cobra Kai .' Hannah-Kim — who played sensei Kim Da-Eun on Seasons 5 and 6 of Cobra Kai — said she wanted to file a police report 'in case this continues,' but did not intend to press charges. Both Kove and Hannah-Kim have shared content from the event, which included the VIP meet-and-greet, but do not appear to have publicly remarked on the alleged assault. Representatives for Kove and Hannah-Kim did not immediately respond to the Daily News ' request for comment. – New York Daily News/Tribune News Service
Barnama
2 hours ago
- Barnama
UNRWA Chief Says New Gaza Aid System 'Has Become A Killing Field'
GENEVA, June 28 (Bernama-Anadolu) -- The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees on Friday issued a scathing condemnation of the new aid distribution system operating in Gaza, warning it has turned into a "killing field" where over 400 desperate people have died in the past month, Anadolu Ajansi (AA) reported. "The new aid distribution system has become a killing field," UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini wrote in a post on X. "Over 400 starving people reported killed since it started operating just a month ago. They were shot at while trying to access food for themselves and their families," he said. bootstrap slideshow He was referring to the Israeli attacks that happened near points of its new aid distribution mechanism, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation— a new Israeli plan to coordinate aid distribution in Gaza, which has been broadly criticised by UN agencies and humanitarian actors. Lazzarini said testimonies emerging from the ground indicate that soldiers opened fire "indiscriminately" as crowds gathered for food. "In the chaos, children were separated from their families: disorientated and traumatised," he added. Blasting the system as incompatible with humanitarian principles, the UNRWA chief said it was "not designed to address hunger and is often justified using the pretext of aid diversion that is yet to be substantiated let alone proven." "Instead of 'orderly food distribution,' this system brings dehumanisation, chaos and death," he said. "This cannot become the new norm." Calling the current setup an "abomination" Lazzarini urged a return to UN-led humanitarian deliveries, including through UNRWA, and called for an immediate ceasefire and the lifting of the siege to restore the flow of basic supplies such as food, medicine, soap, and fuel. -- BERNAMA-ANADOLU
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. 'A BULLY PULPIT' "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognizes that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favor of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. 'NOT THE COURT'S ROLE' In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'" Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favor of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognized any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries." Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court," Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act." (Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Will Dunham, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)
