Tax abatements are another corporate "bait and switch". Look at WalMart - the kings of the corporate tax breaks at all levels. For every dollar given to WalMart over the past 20 years, the local and county govts spend two dollars filling the gaps (i.e. - for public healthcare program funding as WalMart did not provide affordable health insurance to most of its employees).

Tax abatements are based on "magic money". No real assessments are done in most tax abatement agreements, the only evidence of benefit to the community usually comes from the corporation wanting the breaks. Corporations (including sport teams, they are worst at waving around "magic money" returns) give the numbers the local government wants to hear - then they don't provide a single guarantee that those "magic" numbers are going to be acheived.

Most of the time - local and country govts are left with a negative return of investment and the profits go to the corporation and Wall Street. The company thrives as the local govts lay off teachers, police officers and firefighters.

Great Deal - NOT!!

Yes, tax breaks and abatements are a great deal for local and county governments, not to metion the federal government. Tax abatements do in fact draw in business and industry. Business cannot exist without a work force. A work force pays taxes; local sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes. A work force then spends a portion of its new found income in the local and national community thus envigorating the economy. An envigorated economy allows for other business expansion, job market expansion, and so on it goes in a positive spiral. It is so short sighted to hold to the belief that the only way to grow an economy is to tax its people and its industry. When business(or individuals) is negatively impacted by over taxation the spiral is downward. Business cuts back on work force, production is reduced, jobs are lost and the economy shrinks.

I generally oppose tax breaks because i believe we should pay our fair share.A business may need a break to start ,but the major companies don't even need it and most cities need the tax revenue.Unfortunely ,we made this a common business practice and this is what is expected.

Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes, but don't over due the taxes. If more people are working, and paying taxes, the tax base could be lower. Let everyone pay their fair share of taxes, say 10% straight tax. No free rides to anyone. No work no benefits, unless you are handicapped or disabled. There is nothing in the constitution that we owe anyone a free ride in work. Where does it say we have to pay welfare to people that do not want to work? Only reason why there is a welfare system is for votes. Only reason congress would vote to make illegal aliens legal, is for the vote. Wake up and smell the coffee. Our for fathers, came into this country through Elis Island. They waited years to leave communist countries.
Where is out bailout money going to banks. Right after they received the bailout taxpayers money, they raised interest rates on credit cards. How can anyone afford to buy a home, or pay your bills, if you don’t have a job. If Obama would have put people back to work, as he promised, the banks would have came back on their own. People would have had money to pay their bills. Get people back to work, instead of wasting taxpayer money on banks, Freddie and Fannie, and AIG and auto companies.

Separate the health coverage from all business do not let the business or corp. pay health benefits to employees, instead give basic health care to the people as a health care pool, this would give business a better than a tax break, by them not having to pay billions of dollars a year for the employees, it would be the same as giving businesses billions of dollars, money that would not have to be payed back, and freeing up business to be able to operate at a lower cost level, include all people in the country to be covered, and average the cost to to be able to do this, if they were given a small tax break at the same time, this could put people back to work, which would in turn help to jump start the economy and also help the mortgage problem, the cost of health care could be taken from the gross pay like S.S. is, this in turn would create an economic surge of new construction more sales in medicine, and more people hired to handle all of the new patients that would be eligible for health care, things are not that simple but the details could be worked out and the economy could start to work again. also anyone who wanted to could buy their own helth care insurance, from a private sourse.

Tax abatements-better described as legal extortion-have become a necessity. The passage of laws allowing companies to pit communities against one another for tax breaks under the threat of leaving a community or the country. There also needs to be a review of religious and charitable group tax exemptions. It would be interesting to know just how much is lost to those groups. Besides, those type of exemptions are forcing people to make up the difference and support organizations they may not wish to support.

Tax abatement does not cost the county or city anything except providing normal city services. It does not abate the taxes that are already assessed on the building or property. The fact of the matter is that communities all over the country use this tool and it is a very competitive marketplace. If your municipality or county does not "believe" in tax abatement, you are at a distinct cometitive disadvantage.

Taxes in place that prevent business from coming or expanding equal zero revenue. Therefore any abatement that brings business is a winner and benefit to the community. Most people forget that corporations do not pay taxes their customers and employees do! Lower taxes result in lower prices and higher wages.

It's the ONLY thing that creates jobs...

The libbie doofs think that doesn't work, that you should RAISE taxes on businesses,

THAT only makes businesses eliminate jobs...

But the libbie idiots always use ANTI-Logic and kool-aid thought process, and have NEVER understood basic economics..

Only government-dependent welfare Entitlements...

Yeah, the last 8 years of your Republican logic sure created a job boom didn't it.  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool; than to speak up and remove all doubt.  How does Limbras butt taste anyway?

Anyone who believes that higher taxes help a community needs to look at Michigan and California.......... They have over an 11% unemployment level.

Texas, as an example, has ZERO state income taxes and has around 6.25% unemployment.

California is seeking the US government to bail them out.

Only a socialistic idealist could not see the elephant in the room!

a corporation is not much different than an individual.....they have set cost that they must pay and a variable income they must use to pay those bills......if their costs go up they either make cuts or raise their income, if they cannot raise prices then they are forced to either cut workforce or move operations some where cost are reduced...(a new locality, state or country).......its pretty simple... and whether you know it or not most companies survive on a 3-5% profit margin (with notable exceptions)

I think we should give tax breaks to small businesses, but raise them on the mega stores. (And I agree with the earlier comment that universities and churches have been given a free ride for too long.) The mega stores, Walmart, Home Depot, etc., have made so many little stores go out of business, that the business district of most small towns is a series of boarded-up, empty store fronts. It then forces us to patronize the mega stores...they're all that's left. Let's tax the hell out of the mega stores, give breaks and bonuses to the small business owners, and see how small towns can begin to thrive again.

Tax abatement can mean just a shift in where there is unemployment and the important people to the company get first dibs at that locale.

Does anybody remember Raytheon in Ma. there tax abatement was coming to an end so they wanted to get what you could call a renewal Ma. didn't want to do this so Ratheon threatened to leave so we gave in tax abatements are supposed to be short order to give a business a helping hand for all the costs and overhead they need to put in that state to get there business running effectively not a way to basicly blackmail a state into keeping you.

That is where tax abatement is wrong.

On the matter af health care a company not offering health care does not automaticly equate to more jobs. A companies job is to turn a profit with as few people as necessary look in you supermarkets they have they do-it-yourself check out it will only increase.

Car manufacturing humans only for select parts that robots can't do and quality checks,where they can get a consumer to do it themselves or using robots for higher productivity they will the less people they need to use the better for them.

Companies also increase and decrease there workers for profitability if say I'm building cd players and they're going off the shelves like no tommorrow now everybody likes the brand so the market gets saturated with my brand now there starting to sit on store shelves longer than they should and the warehouse is starting to get really full that means I have to slow production of product which means I have more people than I need for production so I release them no if my product is still not moving I have to reduce the cost to sell them the store that sells the product has to reduce the cost of the product for a loss on there end for more shelve space for said product if it got really bad to the point where any products going out chances our the companies going to fold and be liquidated.

this is in responce to THE DAVE!!! town B orffers high taxes, while town C orffers nice tax breaks. so the new company moved to town C . you forgot to point out that town C was in china ore taiwan!!! the tax base in the USA is near the lowes in the world, plus with all the deductions corporation and the rich pay only 13% on all income. look at the past 8 years , with all the tax-breaks,we still lost mill. of jobs.to create jobs, you have to invest in the infra structuar of this country, this is were most jobs would be created

Whenever I do not fully understand a problem I try to think of what would happen if we take the parameters to the extreme. If we were to raise taxes and fee's on ALL businesses to the point that they must forfeit all net profit to the government, what would happen. The business is not allowed to keep a single dollar beyond the break even point. What would this due?

At a minimum, there would be no new business ventures, existing businesses would not expand, or possibly move to a different city, state, or another country to avoid the taxes and fees. No companies - no jobs.

Those that think that it is unfair that people that own a business are making more money than they are have flawed thinking to say the least. What other reason is there for an individual to invest his time and money into a business other than to make more money? Take that incentive away and you take away the business.

As an example, my son and I had a plumbing business primarily doing new residential construction. Our average profit per house was $2,800-3,000 per house. With the government taxes/fee's and business expenses, we had to take in approximately $55,000 a year before we could make a single dollar in the form of a paycheck. That worked out to 18-19 houses a year without earning a single dollar of income. We had to plumb approximately one house per week on average to achieve a $14.00 per hour income before taxes, SS, FICA just to name a few.

We later shut the business down and went in building houses as general contractors. We employed six carpenters at the prevailing rate of $17.50 per hour. Just the state mandated workman's comp insurance was 23% of gross wages which was well over $50,000 a year and came directly out of the business - not their paychecks. This sum did not even include my son and I because we were the corporate officer's. Needless to say that these costs coupled with all the other taxes and fee's we shut all the business down. A lot of people were out of jobs because it was not economically wise to continue.

My exerience tells me that government, both state and federal should make every effort to promote creation of new businesses or expansion of existing ones in the form of tax reductions and other benefits. It is not a question of the rich getting richer. As long as they pay a decent days wages for a decent days work, everyone will prosper.

We are headed in the opposite direction as evidenced by the amount of businesses that are shutting down, failing to expand, and laying off their employee's. For those workers that think they should be working more I say they probably would if the government was not taking so much off the top. On the flip side, if the worker thinks he could make better money somewhere else, give it a try. Vote with your feet and find out the hard way.

The UAW is a prime example of taking from the company more than they earned ffor the company. The vast majority of auto plant workers are in unskilled jobs installing a single item on a repetitive basis making $50-70 per hour in a package for a job that could be learned in less than a day on the job.

Of course tax breaks will get industry going (again).  Infra-structure jobs just stop after the bridge or highway is built.  Companies continue to grow, add jobs, etc.  That's why Obama's stimulus package won't fix the economy.

Flat rate tax! Fair for all lower for all why should I pay for someone else’s kids education? Why should I or anyone who cannot buy a house pay the negative cash flow tax deduction for someone who can? Other benefits of flat rate simpler accounting for small business, no IRS, less tax collectors needed so less cost to the Gov. and while we are at it get rid of all paid lobbyists they cast us more tax dollars than anything!

#1. Much of our economic theories and practices worked (and would still work) well whenever we were dealing with a relatively closed system i.e. American companies operated predominantly in America with American workers, and their American dollars were recycled through other predominantly American companies.

#2. Following several international agreements by multiple administrations and bipartisan politics (i.e. blaming one side is pointless), our economy quickly became a non-closed system (outsourcing of jobs, increased imports, money hidden in overseas banks, increased purchasing of international goods and services at home and abroad, etc).

#3. With the explosion of the computer (good old-fashioned American ingenuity and entrepeneurism, and the real reason we had an economic boom in the 90's, not Bill Clinton) and the global spread of the internet, our American economy quickly became a non-closed system. In fact, it is now part of the new closed economic system of the world (and will remain so barring a trading space-faring alien race, an extremely successful isolationist movement, or other armageddon-like events).

#4. In other words, most of our future economic plans must factor in the loss of revenue, taxable income, and jobs to overseas markets. Whether this is by closing loopholes, changing tax policy, drastically reworking our laws and international agreements regarding American companies and their productive endeavors, or some other unknown solution is for us to decide. However, any plan that does not recognize our place as just one part (albeit a vital, and perhaps the most potentious) of the global economic system will surely underperform.

#5. I should add that increased automation, computerization, and use of robotic technology will only increase in the coming decades. Anyone currently working a job involving repetitve processes requiring only limited thought should be actively considering and/or seeking a new career or additional training if they are greater than 10-15 years from retirement age. These jobs are those that already can be primitively performed by a computerized entity and will rapidly be filled as the technology becomes more sophisticated. Many companies and individuals are actively developing this technology as it will *surprise* make them extremely rich when they sell it to a company (which will result in the company being richer due to the decreased salaray, insurance, and, yes, health benefit costs required by human beings). In short, the ability to think complexly and abstractly is what sets human beings apart from machines and the rest of the animal kingdom. If you do not like to think or actively avoid it (unlike the members posting here, who must be thinking, so who am I writing to?), prepare for your economic situation to only worsen as you age.

This article (predictably) is written from the wrong angle. What it should focus on is the effect on jobs by increasing the tax burden on businesses that hire and provide jobs. In fact, there's lots and lots of history and precedent about that very subject. The "paper" written by academics with little to no real-world experience outside of the theoretical classroom is laughable on it's face. That the robots writing this "article" (sic-press release) would have to resort to using a theoretical paper as opposed to actual information available to anyone is all the evidence you need to sort through the malarky. A first year law student could conjure up a better argument. Lmao.  ; )

I don't really like giving corps tax breaks to move to my town but a small one is OK. Tax breaks to small biz certainly adds to employment. Raising taxes on Large and Small Biz costs jobs. I am a small biz person and I get rid of people when taxes go up. It is tough but there is usually one or two people who should be let go and the increase in taxes is a good reason to do so. Vote for the likes of Obama and you may lose your job. You wanted change - you got it.

Plain and Simple, Tax abatements are corporate welfare.

Tax abatements are seldom accurately followed or accounted for. In our locall communities large corporations have received countless abatements for every addition to their plants with a net job loss of over 10,000 jobs in thelast five years. If this is a positive system why are the schools failing on reduced proerty values and income? The magic word folks is accountability. If big business means to create jobs and they do so tax abatements work, if they lie, move jobs overseas and layoff their employees they should be made to repay the governments that they embezzeled, or indicted and prosecuted for fraud.

Do the math using the numbers from the article:

499 jobs, total $15.5M in added payroll leads to an average salary of $31K per job

499 jobs, with $8841 lost tax revenue per job.

Unless each worker's paying 28% in local & state taxes (EXTREMELY doubtful at 33K/year avg), the state/locality is losing money. That means less services and infrastructure support for the community. Now, you can argue that $15.5M (minus taxes etc) is being spent elsewhere in the community and potentially other jobs are created, but that's not a given, and again, only a fraction goes back to the state, so they are still losing money Nor is the long-term benefit the company provides a given - they can move anytime they want to.

More numbers: Like was mentioned earlier, most companies make 3-8% profit. And generally, taxes are only collected on profit - not revenues or salaries paid. They deduct everything & the kitchen sink to reduce their tax burden to a tiny sliver of a percent on the cost of doing business. On the other hand, labor is typically about 80% of the cost of doing business. So the question is, if they can save 70-80% on their labor costs by moving to China/Mexico versus moving from one US town to another to save a fraction of a %, its fairly clear that tax abatement is not a real incentive to do business in the US.

I agree that if we shifted the burden of health care from business, THAT would be a real boost to staying in the US.

Tax abatement may help business and increase jobs to a small degree, but it also simply pits town vs town in a race to the bottom and increases the likelihood that business will jump ship as fast as sports free agents. Maybe that is the new business model, and maybe the new age of competition requires it, but its not necessarily what's best for society in general.