If the movie industry wants regulation of what people can do in music theaters,
I tend to think that they should be able to get whatever rules
they want, as long as they pay the costs of enforcement. (by contrast, the
internet "belongs to us", the world-wide user community, and no movie industry
or music industry should be allowed to interfere with how we choose to network
or computers together.)
But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?
Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?
$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws.
Bank robbers endanger the general public. Also, banks hire private security. The cops are only needed if the situation escalates.
Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.
$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.
The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.
I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.
Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?
If preventing camcorders is mo
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:4, Insightful)
$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:4, Informative)
Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.
$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.
The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.
I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.