Harrison's Reports (1944)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States $15.00 Rrtrtiri 1 «1 9 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 iwwm iou Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 . „, .. _. . _ . . „ . Oreat Britain 1 <5 7K A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Australia, New' Zealand! Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 T. . . _ ,. ,T _ , , _ _, . , , n Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 d&c a L-opy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXVI SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 1944 No. 1 THE TAX QUESTION According to a recent bulletin issued by Abram F. Myers, National Allied's General Counsel, the future of the proposed amusement tax of lc on each ?c or fraction of admission is uncertain. Myers points out that, when the tax bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, it seemed as if the Senate would pass on it quickly, and that an effort would be made to reconcile the differences between both Houses so that the bill might be enacted before Congress recessed for the holidays. ". . . Since Congress recessed," states Myers, "Secretary Morganthau has launched an attack on the bill which appears to forshadow a determined fight against it by the Administration. Opposition to the bill is based on (a) its alleged failure to provide adequate revenue to finance the war and curb inflation ; (b) its limitations on the re-negotiation of war contracts. "Therefore, we may wake up some morning early in 1944 to find that the Treasury is still waging its battle, perhaps more furiously than ever, to step up the tax to 3c on each 10c or fraction. "If the storm signals are raised you will be duly notified. . . . When this fight is finished this office will issue a bulletin giving some of the details and making definite suggestions for the future. Every man and woman interested in any way in the operation of theatres must be organised to resist future attempts at discriminatory taxation." Myers1 warning of a possible fight against the tax bill by the administration should be heeded by every exhibitor, for the campaign against discriminatory taxation is yet to be won. Any laxity at this stage of the game may prove fatal to your business. Keep on bombarding your Senators and Congressmen with letters and telegrams of protest. Tell them than an increase in the admission tax will prove ruinous, not only to yourself, but also to the industry as a whole. The intensive campaign waged thus far by you and your organizations has been chiefly responsible for the downward revision of the originally proposed 30% tax by both the Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committees. Your efforts will have to be intensified even more if you are to frustrate the Treasury Department's attempts to impose on admissions a greater tax. Act now! — your business is at stake. * * * Although the proposed tax increase on admissions is to be borne by the public, we cannot get away from the fact that the exhibitors will suffer from it. It is to be expected that an increase in admission prices, owing to the tax rise, will have an adverse effect on theatre attendance. Public opinion, which for a time was geared for an increase in the general cost of living, has definitely changed, for the cost of living has by far outdistanced the rise in wages. As a result, the public today is not in the mood to accept increased prices, whether they may be for commodities or for entertainment. The devious methods employed by many sellers to circumvent OPA rulings; the deliberate flaunting of ceiling prices by arrogant and discourteous shopkeepers; and other rank abuses, to numerous to mention, has raised public indignation to a point where a price rise, even one that is justified and beyond the control of the seller, is resented deeply. So strong is this indignation that each day more and more people are assuming an 'Tll-simply-get-alongwithout it" attitude. And they mean it! So far as the exhibitor is concerned, he can offset this resentment to some extent by educating his patrons to the fact that an increase in admission price represents a government amusement tax. This can be done through trailers, handbills, and suitable notices posted in the lobby of the theatre. Even though an exhibitor will take the precaution to inform his patrons that an admission price rise is the result of a government tax, I doubt if it will stem the decrease in patronage to an appreciable degree for, in addition to those who resent price increases in the belief that it is a form of profiteering, there are millions of workers whose pockets are not lined with excessive cash, and who find it difficult enough to make ends meet just buying the bare necessities of life. In the latter class is generally found the family man, who together with his wife and children make up a large percentage of the steady picture-going public, for the motion picture has always been the type of entertainment he can best afford. Without this family man's patronage, many small-town and neighborhood theatres could not exist. Yet the exhibitors are being compelled to raise their prices, thus risking his loss as a customer. Since the exhibitor, burdened by high operating costs and exhorbitant film rentals, cannot afford to absorb the tax increase, thus retaining his present admission level in order to prevent decreased attendance, it naturally follows that he will suffer financial losses, perhaps to the extent, in some cases, of losing his business. For this reason something has to be done about it. (Continued on last page)