Um, Mr Jackson, can you leave my money alone please, now you have your $68 million Gulfstream

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Fri, 2010-07-23 00:06

Hey, great plane Peter: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominio...

Quote: Oscar-winning film-maker Sir Peter Jackson has splashed out on a top-of-the-range private jet worth about NZ$68 million – but it will be parked in Melbourne.

The Gulfstream G550 is described as the creme de la creme of private planes and capable of flying non-stop from Australia to Los Angeles.

In the ordinary course of events I'd say good on you mate, but please explain to this taxpayer why you are and have always been, one of the chief advocates for the supposed special 'cultural' status of NZ's film industry, whereby this special industry deserves tax breaks, Government grants and largesse, and, generally, my money to be extorted from me by the coercive State taxation system to prop it up? Given how much of my money must have gone into that plane, I hope you don't mind if I dial you up next time I'm in Melbourne. Or would you be up for a contribution to my booze bill, which went up this week when I saw your shiny new plane? Though I would settle for you simply taking your hand out of my wallet.


( categories: )

Goodness. They're the single

Mark Hubbard's picture

Goodness. They're the single government on the world stage at the moment showing some real promise - although it might be said their policy announcements to date have been forced on them by the state of their economy, at least they're doing it, and it's not just words as we have here.

Government to axe UK Film Council

Marcus's picture

Mark, you need to emigrate as soon as possible! Smiling
...............................................................................

Chairman of film industry support body condemns move to shut it down as part of cost-cutting measures affecting 16 public bodies.

Catherine Shoard
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 July 2010

"The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, today confirmed plans to abolish the UK Film Council.

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) statement confirmed the proposal, rumours of which first emerged on the Deadline London blog.

The move is part of a raft of DCMS cost-cutting measures that involve the merger, abolition or streamlining of 16 public bodies.

Hunt answered questions in the Commons this afternoon about his proposed abolition of the council, which comes alongside plans to do away with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film...

Mark

Rosie's picture

I see.

You stood for Libertarianz last election. Did you find much support for its philosophy?

Was your book about what you wanted politically? I find that no one knows anything about libertarian philosophy but when they hear about it they like it. Do you think a well written, yet simple, book might generate a bit more support?

I told you about that Maori woman client I had last year - she liked the libertarian philosophy including the taking away of all benefits. Then I met the financial adviser who stood for National in the last election but who had been a member of Libz and whose purpose was to bring Libz policy to the National Party. There seems to be support but the PR and party are lacking in some way.

Do you have any good ideas?

Rosie, you are not connecting

Mark Hubbard's picture

Rosie, you are not connecting at all here with my posts on the level of comprehension.

I've done everything you say in your list (including write a book). But that is not the issue.

My soul demands earthly freedom; it doesn't have it, and is losing the freedoms it is left, daily.

The problem is not money. It's that the government is taking mine to build a society I have no philosophic agreement with. This is causing soulful anxiety.

But for me to be able to

Rosie's picture

But for me to be able to convince them their role should not be the funding of films, will be for me to convince them of the need to largely dismantle democratic government in its current form. It is the same argument.

Oh nonsense, Mark. The pensions/insurance tax laws were undone to create a level playing field in the 80s without the dismantlemt of government!

Well not his life surely! Just some financial aspects....
And the difference is?

Love, friendship, fun, laughter, music - play or learn an instrument, create something, draw, play some games - chess?, go for walks (you live in the most beautiful location), get fit, write a book, study something that interests you; this is all the best life has to offer and it is free!

What do you want that costs you so much money that you can have lost your soul?

Don't get attached to money. It isn't the answer to your problems provided you have enough to survive.

My imaginings of your

Mark Hubbard's picture

My imaginings of your singlehanded attack on parliament did not actually envisage the entire dismantling of government, Mark! I only meant the removal of that which PJ persuaded them: taxpayer-funded benefits for the film industry.

But for me to be able to convince them their role should not be the funding of films, will be for me to convince them of the need to largely dismantle democratic government in its current form. It is the same argument.

Well not his life surely! Just some financial aspects....

And the difference is?

We've given them what 'they think' is the mandate to micromanage all aspects of our lives, including financial ... that latter is the biggest wedge they use, though.

They can take your money but they can't take your soul

Ah, but the happiness of my soul can only achieve full flight in freedom, on this Earth (not Heaven Smiling ) in this, my single life-time (no after-life for me Rosie); the taking of my money is both the actual and symbolic process that indicates how far from such freedom my life is.

Mark

Rosie's picture

I'm asking the politicians to resign, to take themselves from my life and go do something useful;

My imaginings of your singlehanded attack on parliament did not actually envisage the entire dismantling of government, Mark! I only meant the removal of that which PJ persuaded them: taxpayer-funded benefits for the film industry.

Jackson is giving them his life to run for him,

Well not his life surely! Just some financial aspects.... I don't recall the politicians on the sets or in the credits of his films. Though I guess one could be forgiven for confusing them for the orcs.

I despise their intrusion in my life.

They can take your money but they can't take your soul - at least, I thought this until I met you~!!!
Don't forget about those inalienable rights!

Cheer up, Mark.

And if he can get these laws

Mark Hubbard's picture

And if he can get these laws through singlehandedly, be excited that you too could singlehandedly remove them if you feel as strongly and can be as persuasive and powerful in your argument as he.

That's way too naive Rosie.

Think about it: I'm asking the politicians to resign, to take themselves from my life and go do something useful; Jackson is giving them his life to run for him, and asking they tax and do the same for all the sheeple. For me they are scum and I despise their intrusion in my life. For Jackson they are the Gods of funding and are thus Important People. Given this, no matter how good my argument, and we all know it is unarguable, how much chance do you think I have to win this one?

Indeed, my failure will be the inverse of the strength of my argument.

Context.

Marcus

Rosie's picture

Doesn't make it right, just understandable for a man not driven by Libertarian ideology.

I totally agree with you, Marcus.

Rather than push tax breaks for film, he should have been pushing tax breaks, period.

Mark, Peter is not a politician. I doubt that he gives political theory a second thought. He is a creative, special effects man and film maker. One who needed money to pursue a dream. It is an indictment on our NZ culture that a person in this position looks to Nanny State for help.

But, having said that, if Peter Jackson managed to singlehandedly, by force of his argument, persuade someone to draft a Bill and then persuade Parliament and their many advisers to pass that Bill to allow tax cuts/grants/subsidies for the industry in which Peter is only concerned (film) then I take my hat off to him for his abilities and drive.

And if he can get these laws through singlehandedly, be excited that you too could singlehandedly remove them if you feel as strongly and can be as persuasive and powerful in your argument as he. Eye

Thanks Mark...

Marcus's picture

...I take your point that he is a statist, although I don't care if Jackson gets tax credits or tax breaks.

What do you expect? He's not a Libertarian, so he's never going to make the argument that there should be tax breaks across the board.

He was helped by some state funding when he started making films, ipso facto, he believes other NZ film-makers need to go the same route as him.

However I can tell you for sure after reading his biography, that if there had been no state funding, he would have gotten the money from somewhere else. The man is definitely driven in what he does.

Doesn't make it right, just understandable for a man not driven by Libertarian ideology.

Marcus

Mark Hubbard's picture

If his statist ideology is your beef

Yes, that is it.

rather than his being able to afford a jet

His jet is the proof that his statist ideology isn't even necessary for his industry. But he buys this jet, yet still presses the line the State owes the film industry a special treatment over others. Rather than push tax breaks for film, he should have been pushing tax breaks, period. What works for his industry, works for every other. And it's not just the tax breaks, it's the entire ethic behind them thinking this industry must have grants of my money to exist. Film has no more call on my money than the plumber I have coming to fix my dishwasher, whom I shall pay only for his services rendered.

then just say so.

Well, that was the point I thought I was making in my original post Eye Where did I go wrong?

By the way, I've criticised Jackson in the past, before he even got his plane:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

And the predecessor of that post here:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Regarding Avatar (Weta Workshops) receiving $45 million worth of tax credits ... that was my money.

Heavenly Creatures

Lindsay Perigo's picture

He *had* to have Mario in HC. The girls' shared infatuation with Mario was an integral part of the true story. But he could have made much better musical selections, and, inexplicably, used another tenor singing E Lucevan le Stelle which is one of Mario's best. Go figure. I was told once it was because of the cost of using Mario's recordings.

Linz, the Tall Poppy charge didn't...

Marcus's picture

...refer to his talent, which he definitely has from a technical and movie business point of view.

I was referring to his success.

I don't think Mark or Greg do suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome, that's why I was surprised they were disgusted by the purchase of the jet.

No poppies

gregster's picture

"It seems to be Jackson would be OK with you guys if he was an abject failure who had no money or was bankrupt.
Tall poppy syndrome, anyone?"

My original comment didn't suggest that. He deserves his jet. And he had Mario Lanza in Beautiful Creatures. Despite that he's wrongheaded, but talented!!

Perhaps an edit:

My original comment didn't suggest that. He deserves his jet. Despite that he's wrongheaded, but talented!! And he had Mario Lanza in Beautiful Creatures. Smiling

I did read a biography on Jackson...

Marcus's picture

...that covered the time until the King Kong film.

What the book shows is that he had to constantly scrape to get any funding and the amounts he received from the NZ taxpayer was small and puny compared to the amounts he raised privately or later from US film studios. He didn't get any direct state funding for his films after he made "forgotten silver" in 1995 I believe. He may have received tax breaks since then though.

If his statist ideology is your beef, rather than his being able to afford a jet, then just say so.

Liked Brain Dead

gregster's picture

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ente...

Sir Peter Jackson has called for an overhaul of the Film Commission in a report that shows wide discontent with the adversarial organisation.

It includes extensive negative feedback from the industry; a bunch of bludgers in clever t-shirts who believe the world owes them a living; grouped under six headings, all of them harshly critical:

"An us and them attitude"

Us the looters, you the moochers, or you the looters we the moochers?

"It's death to creativity."

I can’t rely on my regular dole-outs.

"Hollywood can be very tough but they don't treat you with the level of contempt that the Film Commission does."

Why can’t we all live in fantasy land – and get paid?

"Creative interference has expanded until now it resembles micro management."

They tell me I’m crap – no-one talked to me like that at my nice art course!

"The staff should be empowered and accountable"

Larger credit card limits, and more expensive-looking comfortable shoes for the ladies. But we’ll provide receipts.

"The politics between staff and Board are Byzantine. Decisions are often incomprehensible."

You’re not giving any backhanders - dummy.

"Lost focus"

They talk of breaking even.

"Part of the problem is the Film Commission is trying to carry the whole industry. It shouldn't reward mediocrity."

Then they’d be no representation from the yoof.

"Film and bureaucracy don't go together"

They got that correct!

"I find it annoying when they have a new scheme. What I'm doing never fits."

The world owes me a living.

"Distant and unapproachable"

I can’t get out of bed.

"The climate is crushing the talent. They don't really see what we're saying. They don't understand our world."

Maybe the climate will change like you say.

"A culture of not believing"

My Gran always liked my work.

"There's no blind mechanism for giving feedback to the Commission, and you can't bite the hand that feeds you."

Or the teat from which you wish to suck.

Sir Peter and Mr Court were asked to review the commission 31 years after its inception to assess whether it was working "in the most effective way possible as New Zealand's film funding agency".

They have suggested a new model for the organisation that is "involved" rather than "aloof" and "co-operative" rather than "controlling".

"There is an obvious question: 'Do we need the New Zealand Film Commission?'," the report asked.
"The answer is unreserved: Yes," it said.

The Film Commission board's chairwoman, Patsy Reddy, said she was concerned the report showed some people in the industry felt the Commission was a barrier to their film making aspirations.

“Darlings have feelings.”

"It's a tough position we're in - there's never enough money to go around. But we believe we can do better.

"We have already been talking to filmmakers during the course of this review about ways to improve our work with them," Ms Reddy said.

But she was pleased to have such a strong affirmation of the importance of the Film Commission's role, she said.

They wouldn’t be making films without us.

Marcus!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Your sentiment is admirable in principle but ludicrous in application. Jackson hasn't done a decent movie in his life. It's all crap. "Tall poppy"? He's nothing of the sort. Just a squalid little pomowanker.

Tax breaks? We all deserve them, since it's our money, as much as Jackson does.

Jackson endorses the principle of it. Coerced subsidization of crap, I mean. That's what makes him evil, apart from his relentless, boring mediocrity. As Rand said, the only worthy recipient of government privilege is someone who doesn't believe in it.

Uninformed bullshit

Mark Hubbard's picture

Uninformed bullshit Marcus.

Jackson's latest job was to head the Film Commission taskforce to ensure the darlings in the film industry were receiving enough government funding. Just this year (or end of the last).

Do a Google.

To be the Tall Poppy, you have to have not bought into the Statist ethic of using it's coercive power to push its favourites: Jackson is the Mussolini of the special culture called the film industry. His ethic is the social democrats, every bit as repulsive as the Chris Trotters' of New Zealand: that the needs of the film industry, that special cultural activity, must be met by all other sectors of private enterprise through the tax system.

Don't make him to be something he's not. I'm just taking him at the words that come from his own mouth. A parasite praying on my freedom to pursue my happiness without the all clobbering state taxing me to fund his hobby.

The facts of reality: refer to them, and them only.

What now?

Marcus's picture

Did Jackson receive a tax-break or a subsidy recently?

For Jackson's first few films I know for certain that he received grants from the NZ Film Commission.

Still a highly dubious argument though.

All sorts of industries are forced onto their knees by taxes and regulations and thereby forced to seek government subsidies.

It doesn't make those people who work there evil when they have no alternative.

At least Jackson returned something productive in return for any taxpayer money received. It could even be argued that he added unprecedented amounts of money to the NZ economy in terms of tourism and huge hollywood budgets.

It seems to be Jackson would be OK with you guys if he was an abject failure who had no money or was bankrupt.

Tall poppy syndrome, anyone?

Yes, Gregster has my point

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes, Gregster has my point Marcus Smiling

Jackson's point has always been, if the movie industry didn't have to pay tax, there would be more movies.

My point is, apply that to every human endeavour. Without taxation, there would be more wealth creation, full stop.

Jackson believes the film industry is latched into this liberal wet dream called culture, and thus is special. Fuck him.

I want to live in a free society, and that can only happen when every industry gets not just a tax break, but a break from government, period; whereas Jackson believes every other industry should be forced to fund the needs of his pet projects. He's a Statist slave master, and reprehensible because of that. His Gulfstream is a symbol of my slavery to his 'freedom'.

Not a tax-break

gregster's picture

It's a subsidy. Funded by the tax payer. There should be no subsidies. And the whole notion goes to prove that if there was less taxation on industry -we'd all be better off!!

Mark...

Marcus's picture

..that's incredibly inverted logic.

You begrudge those who get tax-breaks, because the burden is then placed upon you?

It's like begrudging someone for running away from a thief because you might be the next in line.

I applaud all tax loop-holes, tax-evasion and tax-breaks (as long as it doesn't involve government corruption).

If you want to criticise Jackson for his jet, do it based on his hypocrisy for having made Lord of the Rings with such a pro-greenie anti-industry message.

Mark

Rosie's picture

Are there any tax breaks for films nowadays? Didn't those close in 2000?

And this article states that since about 2000 government grants are for non-NZ film companies filming in NZ as a "lure". Presumably that "lure" is to generate jobs, income and other benefits which exceed the grant.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/technol...)

"Weta Digital spokeswoman Judy Allen says the company did not receive any tax breaks. The only incentives offered to the industry were those provided to productions that come here from overseas and receive the well-understood package of grants that have been around since early 2000."

I think begrudging Peter Jackson his well earned income because he may have utilised some tax breaks (not of his creating) prior to 2000 is like begrudging pensioners their pensions prior to the mid 1980s. These pensioners enjoyed MAJOR tax breaks throughout their lifetimes : full deductions for employee contributions and employer contributions in addition to no tax on any investment earnings or benefits payable from pension schemes - thereby making pension schemes the most tax efficient means of savings in New Zealand. In the mid 1980s these tax breaks were removed by the Labour Government to create "a level playing field" for all forms of savings, resulting in a major restructuring of the pension schemes industry.

It may be unfair that Governments provide tax breaks/grants for certain industries to "promote" particular activities but is it "fair" to begrudge a person utilising those tax breaks/grants where available? In addition, Peter Jackson has put a huge amount back in to this country (rather than shooting off overseas like almost everybody else who succeeds in the film industry) and to target and criticise him and want a share of his earnings 10 years after the tax breaks have been exercised, strikes me as about as unreasonable as to insist upon a slice of someone from the mid-1980's pension!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.