Wrong on film credit I
Published: Sunday, April 28, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
To Colin McNickle:
Your column “Cut through the film tax credit fiction” (April 21 and TribLIVE.com) referring to the April 17 “cluster cluck in Harrisburg” was troubling. I am not as fictional as Hollywood and the movies they subsidize. My employment relies on the film industry.
I was at the April 17 hearing, and the testimony showed a different side of the film and television industry. I can say it plainly by asking you a question: If the Trib had a 25-percent tax incentive for creating content that kept local jobs, would you support it? Would you support your own job the same way that I do?
My job, and the jobs of other Pennsylvania film workers, depend on the film tax incentive.
Competition is how this all started. Before 2007, the industry was taken to Canada, lured by its tax incentive. If you feel we should have let the jobs stay in Canada, that's all right by me. Once again, I must say that if the Trib decided to set up shop in Mexico or Canada, you would have to go with it.
The tax incentive is a reality in our business and it works. Pennsylvania film workers met with many Republicans who support it and do see the positive from our film industry. I hope you can see the positive as well, someday.
Casey T. LaRocco
The writer is a set medic and member of International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Studio Mechanics Local 489 (iatse489.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Privatization disastrous
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Christians must vote
- About Quinn & Rose II
- Unconstitutional funding
- Obits interesting
- About Quinn & Rose I
- More overreach
- Forgetting troops
- Working for their communities