Nevada educators oppose $1.65B in tax credits for Hollywood studios amidst funding crisis
May 10, 2025 | 2025 Legislature NV, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
In a heated session of the Nevada Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, educators and advocates voiced strong opposition to Assembly Bill 238, which proposes a staggering $1.65 billion in tax credits for Hollywood studios over the next 15 years. The meeting, held on May 9, 2025, revealed a growing frustration among educators who feel their pleas for increased funding for public schools are being overshadowed by corporate interests.
As the meeting unfolded, the stark contrast between the needs of Nevada's education system and the proposed financial incentives for the film industry became painfully clear. With Nevada ranking 47th in per pupil funding and facing the largest class sizes in the nation, many speakers argued that the state should prioritize its schools over subsidizing Hollywood. "Education is economic development," emphasized one speaker, highlighting that strong public schools attract families and businesses, ultimately benefiting the state's economy.
Guy Hobbs, chair of the commission on school funding, reiterated the commission's plan for optimal funding, which has been largely ignored in favor of the film tax credits. He warned that the proposed tax credits would not generate sufficient revenue to benefit the state, predicting a loss of over $1.3 billion in the long run. "You do not solve systemic issues by starving our schools and feeding the rich," he stated, encapsulating the sentiment of many present.
The financial implications of AB 238 were a focal point of the discussion. Critics pointed out that the state stands to lose 91 cents for every dollar invested in these tax credits, with projections indicating a $350 million budget shortfall looming over Nevada. Tess Opperman from the Nevada Women's Lobby highlighted the illogical nature of the proposal, stating that only 46% of the investment would be returned to the state, resulting in a projected loss of nearly $900 million over 15 years.
As the committee heard from various stakeholders, including representatives from education, social services, and economic advocacy groups, a unified message emerged: public funds should serve the public good, not subsidize corporate profits. The overwhelming consensus was that the legislature must reject AB 238 and instead focus on investing in essential services like education.
As the meeting concluded, the future of Nevada's budget and its commitment to education hung in the balance. Advocates left the session hopeful that lawmakers would reconsider their priorities and ensure that the needs of students and educators take precedence over corporate interests. The call for "schools over studios" resonated strongly, leaving a lingering question: will Nevada choose to invest in its future or continue down a path of fiscal recklessness?
As the meeting unfolded, the stark contrast between the needs of Nevada's education system and the proposed financial incentives for the film industry became painfully clear. With Nevada ranking 47th in per pupil funding and facing the largest class sizes in the nation, many speakers argued that the state should prioritize its schools over subsidizing Hollywood. "Education is economic development," emphasized one speaker, highlighting that strong public schools attract families and businesses, ultimately benefiting the state's economy.
Guy Hobbs, chair of the commission on school funding, reiterated the commission's plan for optimal funding, which has been largely ignored in favor of the film tax credits. He warned that the proposed tax credits would not generate sufficient revenue to benefit the state, predicting a loss of over $1.3 billion in the long run. "You do not solve systemic issues by starving our schools and feeding the rich," he stated, encapsulating the sentiment of many present.
The financial implications of AB 238 were a focal point of the discussion. Critics pointed out that the state stands to lose 91 cents for every dollar invested in these tax credits, with projections indicating a $350 million budget shortfall looming over Nevada. Tess Opperman from the Nevada Women's Lobby highlighted the illogical nature of the proposal, stating that only 46% of the investment would be returned to the state, resulting in a projected loss of nearly $900 million over 15 years.
As the committee heard from various stakeholders, including representatives from education, social services, and economic advocacy groups, a unified message emerged: public funds should serve the public good, not subsidize corporate profits. The overwhelming consensus was that the legislature must reject AB 238 and instead focus on investing in essential services like education.
As the meeting concluded, the future of Nevada's budget and its commitment to education hung in the balance. Advocates left the session hopeful that lawmakers would reconsider their priorities and ensure that the needs of students and educators take precedence over corporate interests. The call for "schools over studios" resonated strongly, leaving a lingering question: will Nevada choose to invest in its future or continue down a path of fiscal recklessness?
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting