State Official Sees the Light on Business Tax Breaks
Chuck Sheketoff
It's hard to see why states should be encouraged to give away their limited tax bases so that, in effect, they can steal jobs from their neighbor states.
That is what the Oregon Center for Public Policy has been saying in our work talking about tax breaks and the decline of corporate income tax in Oregon.
But what makes this especially interesting is that it was said by someone in charge of handing out such breaks - Michael McMahon, executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corp.
Writing in the Providence Journal newspaper, McMahon said what a lot of state officials must be thinking: "...when I step back and look at the bigger picture, it is clear that tax incentives of this type are bad policy in the long run."
"Tax credits don't really create new jobs," McMahon writes. "They merely help apportion them...at the expense of investment in another area."
He goes on to note
It's practically a zero-sum game, in which a gain for one state means a loss for another. In this increasingly interconnected world, we're all in this together. We should be pursuing policies that create more net jobs in the United States, rather than fighting among ourselves for slices of a static pie.
McMahon wrote his article (pdf) in response to the decision by the US Supreme Court to hear an appeal of DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno, a groundbreaking case where the plaintiffs argue that some state tax breaks unconstitutionally interfere with interstate commerce. The Sixth Circuit court agreed with the plaintiffs.
Here in Oregon, where we used to look different and now apparently are dreamers, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers has filed papers with the US Supreme Court on the side of DaimlerChrysler and The Loophole Lobby. On the one hand that’s not too surprising, given that the acting head of Oregon’s economic development agency is a former public affairs manager for Intel Oregon and the former government affairs manager for the Portland Business Alliance. The state agency he now leads has never seen a tax break they didn’t like, so I have little reason to believe he’d be as enlightened - and honest - as his Rhode Island counterpart.
Corporations are now paying less than 5 percent of Oregon’s income taxes, down from 18 percent a generation ago. You’d think, given his concern for the long term disinvestment in education and other infrastructure, that Governor Ted Kulongoski would take the position that the game he’s been forced to play in – the race to the bottom doling out tax breaks – doesn’t work and ought to be ended.
It is not too late for Oregon to divorce itself from the case or, better yet, to follow Rhode Island’s lead and use the case to push for ending the Great American Jobs Scam. Wouldn’t it be nice if Hardy Myers “reserved the right to be wiser tomorrow” and changed course in the case? Maybe I'm just one of those dreamers.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
6:50 a.m.
Oct 7, '05
Actually, there are a lot of things wrong with the Rhode Island economic development director's analysis:
(1) He assumes companies are going to locate only in the United States and therefore states are just competing against each other. The truth is, we are increasingly competing in a global economy and other countries like China, India and Korea are very aggressive in offering incentives for new development.
(2)He seems to assume that companies are primarily picking up from one place and moving to another when, in fact, most of the competition is for expansions and new locations. Thus it isn't a question of "stealing" jobs from other communities but instead competing to attract new investment and new job creation.
(3) He assumes any reduction in tax revenue is permanent, rather than a "loss leader" to attract new investment which will creat tax revenue. In Eugene, for example, after the all the comlaints about tax breaks for Hynix (formerly Hyundai), they are now the largest property taxpayer in Eugene, and in fact are paying more property taxes than the next 9 largest taxpayers combined.
(4) He ignores the multiplier and spin-off effects from major new investments. Does anyone really think Washington County has been a net revenue loser in the tax revenues they "gave up" to get Intel to build their campus in Hillsboro?
(5) He may also be lumping together incentives purely to attract new jobs and incentives for specific corporate behavior. Examples of the latter are things like the child care tax credit and the energy tax credit. I can vouch for the fact that both of these credits, while not geared directly to economic development, are presented to companies thinking of locating here as part of our overall incentive package.
(6) Finally, he assumes the national economy is the only thing that matters. He doesn't seem to care whether jobs are created in Rhode Island or in Oregon. The question is, "Do we?"
Oct 7, '05
Oregon policymakers would benefit from a valid and reliable mechanism to analyze both existing and recently enacted tax expenditures.
Glossy interest-group sponsored studies often lack credibility yet are certainly in abundance in Salem.
While "objective" economic analysis is largely a pipe-dream, instituting a rigorous & consistent analytical instrument would provide much-needed data for informed decision-making.
Since the barrier to implementing tax expenditures is much lower than their subsequent removal (an understatement), empirical data on the existing 300+ expenditures is critical.
Oct 7, '05
Chunky post, Chuck. Way to kick off a dialogue. I don't even know what to begin to think about this. My knee-jerk reaction to the "race to the bottom" described here takes the basic form of, yes, it does seem modestly self-destructive to keep shovelling goodies at corporations; contrary to what Jack Roberts' #2, there's plenty of high-profile shutterings and relocations going on - it's not all new stuff and it's certainly not all manufacturing, which ties to his #1, namely, where those types of jobs seem to be going.
Where it kind of falls apart for me comes with the solution. I think, on principle, that monkeying with the tax code is a hell of a can of worms, a jello-squeezing act that ultimately bites the state and feds on the ass. How to get around it? Barring a national policy on corporate taxation (and here I'd go with something simple, but balancing the end of loopholes with a comparatively low rate), I don't see how one stops states from competing. So, first question, is a national corporate tax policy - in which all states maintain the same rate - a potential solution to ending the race to the bottom?
Hmmmm.
Oct 7, '05
Mr. Roberts seems to favor the subsidy status quo in spite of the general absence of subsidy accountability.
Roberts points out that "we are increasingly competing in a global economy" as if that was a justification for diverting significant public funds to private enterprise. Competition is supposed to be the foundation of the free market. Is Roberts suggesting taxpayers should underwrite the risks inherent in world-wide capitalism?
He minimizes the evidence that reveals how frequently corporations "shop" for greater subsidy and move from one community to the next. Without citing evidence, he claims most of the subsidy competition among local governments is for "expansions and new locations" as if that mattered. This overlooks the fundamental provblems with subsidy; lack of fiscal impact analysis of subsidies, emphasis on job importation rather than local job creation, the burden of externalities borne by local economies, subsidy "inflation" caused by intergovernmental competition, the costs of infrastructure growth triggered solely by subsidy, how subisidized businesses compete against unsubsidized ones etc..
Roberts uses Hynix as an example of a subsidy success story but avoids answering basic questions. How much did it cost Eugene taxpayers to provide the "loss leader" subsidy "? How does the revenue gained from Hynix compare to the expense of providing services and infrastructure? Does being the largest property taxpayer in Eugene mean that Hynix is covering all of its costs and impacts?
He mentions the "multiplier and spin-off effects" without admitting that these are the equivalent of "blue-sky". Whether or not Intel has been a net revenue loser for Washington County could be established by looking at the data if therer were any. Roberts offers none.
Roberts attempts to parse "incentives purely to attract new jobs" and "incentives for specific corporate behavior" may indiicate his willingness to see a difference. Many communities are feeling the effects of incentives for job creation when they are not tied to some aspect of corporate responsibility. One hopes Roberts would agree, at the very least all "incentive packages" could insist in the highest standards of corporate behvior .
His final question assumes the only way to create jobs is to subsidize them. Surely he realizes how this view gives the lie to a "free market". Could it be that Roberts and those who blindly endorse huge transfers to the private sector are unaware of the various ways government can enter the market and encourage economic activity without subsidy?
Oct 7, '05
So, first question, is a national corporate tax policy - in which all states maintain the same rate - a potential solution to ending the race to the bottom?
The smaller states(in size and population) will be at a slight disadvantage for potentially the lack of "geographical, intellectual and social infrastructure” vs. the larger states, to maintain a level of competitive marketing towards drawing corporations and people to those states. Overall, I think that you have a great point but it needs to have a “clause” to help smaller states to compete with the larger states with out going below the stated rate for all states.
Oct 7, '05
Substitute "absentee landlord" or some such phrase (framing phrasing) for the corporate hate agenda. Inject something that denotes regional interests rather than cloudy ideological debates.
The Equal Privileges and Immunities clause, in Oregon, should have application to economic regulation. Included in this is the notion of a direct focus on the owners of limited liability entities versus the unincorporated little folks with whom they deal. If we strip the privilege of obtaining limited liability then the whole notion of "corporate" this and that gets reduced to rich guy this and that, personally.
Suppose we demanded that a so-called corporate entity that wants tax breaks must pledge the personal liability of their owners; specifically erasing their assertion of a future right to claim the benefit of limited liability (a limit that protects their personal liability). If the corporate entity doesn't act right then we can always go reclaim outlandish salaries and gains from stock options etc. etc. The so-called owners (shareholders) usually wish to race to fully extract the present value of the future stream of tax breaks that are only realized in future years . . . and then they move on. They make their deal, get a boost in the value of the company, then sell to someone else. Stripping out the claim to limited liability would serve to keep the owners -- at the time of the deal -- around rather than abscond. This is much that same as when a typical buyer of a home via a Land Sale Contract must usually obtain the assent of the seller (the de facto lender) before reselling the subject property, and must usually remain obligated to repay the debt if the new buyer does not.
The notion of international competition was embraced by good old Bill Clinton, just as with the other pro-monopolists, to justify not aggressively apply laws that are designed to protect the public from unlawful use of monopoly power.
I want more local (and smaller) owners, not merely a fleeting promise of jobs as crumbs by a fleeting absentee owner (schemer).
Chuck, did you study any developmental economics from an international context? That is, think as if your were in a little Latin American backwater with all the bargaining power that they have, and rebel.
My little poison pill, that of stripping the privilege of limited liability as a condition, would generate more rage from certain circles but it would likely pass constitutional muster at the federal level . . . in favor of the local folks. It must be applied neutrally to companies incorporated in Oregon and those incorporated else where. It is compatible with private ownership (i.e. capitalism), even if it does not favor increasing monopolization.
Signed, The Wild Economist
2:35 p.m.
Oct 7, '05
The problem with providing the "subsidy accountability" that Richard Reid wants is that it is impossible to answer the most fundamental question: "Would the company have come here without the incentive?" Variations on that theme are "Would they have created as many jobs?" and "Would they have made as sizeable an investment?"
Most economic development incentives are not subsidies in the strict sense of the word. They are more akin to marketing specials and discounts designed to get people to purchase a product (or, in this case, locate here rather than someplace else).
Enterprise zones, for example, which provide 3- to 5-year property tax exemptions for new investment are primarily an inducement to invest, thereby increasing the future tax base while also creating new jobs. They are most analogous to automobile mnufacturers offering no-interest financing during the recent recession. A lot of people who took advantage of that offer would have bought cars anyway and would have paid the interest charges, so in that sense the car companies were "losing" money. Somehow they figured that they would sell more cars and keep their heads above water if they did it--and, low and behold, it worked.
2:59 p.m.
Oct 7, '05
I sent Michael McMahon the link to this post, and here is his response to Jack Roberts, which he said I could post:
Here is my response to Mr. Roberts
My point is exactly the opposite – the US needs to focus all of our resources on competing internationally – let’s not waste a dime on zero sum state vs. state competition.
Job growth is job growth – there is no distinction between internal generation or attraction – although in RI we take a page out of marketing 101 (your next sale comes from a current client) we focus first on encouraging small, medium and large businesses already in RI to grow here, then we use innovation (our small size allows companies to experiment with change in a cost effective rapid prototype environment with a high degree of connectivity) – (see our website www.blueskyri.com)) as a way to attract new companies to grow in RI
You show me a company that stays with a loss leader strategy and I will show you a bankrupt company
What policy can not be justified with multiplier logic
Incentives that improve the platform for well trained workers, better public education, improved quality of place and innovation are clearly good public policy – everyone benefits – not just a few
Of course I care where jobs are created – Dante positioned his inferno around circles of hell – job creation circles of heaven are – US, North East, Boston Metro (of which RI is a part) and the highest level of course Rhode Island. I will even concede that a good job for an Oregon is ok too.
Oct 7, '05
Good points made by Galizio, Reid and the Wild Economist.
As far as job creation, there is that story today about high unemployment in some occupations but more jobs than employees in the fields of health care, call centers, and a few others.
Seems to me a serious look at business tax breaks would look at whether they go to the geographically needy (a small rural town where the major employer left, for instance) and to firms with high unemployment. Only a corporate lobbyist could love tax breaks for health care, call centers, or any other occupation where the supply of jobs is already greater than the supply of qualified employees.
Now, a tax break for a program which supplies a documented number of trainees for those unfilled jobs who actually graduate and are placed with such employers would be worthwhile. Years ago when I worked in a uniform store there was some such program where (a person on welfare, I think was the major requirement) would come in with a certificate for maybe one uniform and one pair of work shoes. The paperwork was done after the person was fitted for the uniform and shoes. And there was some documentation requirement like "graduate from the program, and the uniform and shoes are yours to keep". I think it was a CNA program. Healthcare is one of those industries where certain jobs cannot be outsourced because the personnel need to be here to directly deal with patients.
Wasn't there a story not too long ago when Toronto and maybe someplace in Alabama competed for a major employer? Alabama threw all sorts of tax breaks at the employer who decided on Toronto for infrastructure reasons.
I would support regulated tax breaks for such public purposes as hiring Miss. residents to rebuild Mississippi, or New Orleans residents for cleanup and rebuilding of New Orleans. That would put local residents on a payroll and give them some stake in rebuilding. I am encouraged that the new acting head of FEMA says there will be reexamination of all no bid contracts for hurricane cleanup.
But I don't believe in tax breaks as a magic wand. Recall when Measure 30 was being debated and petitioners claimed all sorts of jobs would leave the state if they lost but all sorts of jobs would be created if they won.
Last fall, Kim Thatcher was running for state rep. by saying things like "only businesses pay taxes"--a startling thought to those who fill out their own tax returns every year. There are people in this state who were unemployed the day of the Measure 30 election and still hadn't found work (or at least not permanent work) by that fall. At the end of a candidate forum, Kim was asked "Given what your side said about Measure 30 and job creation, and given that your side won, what do you say to someone who was unemployed the day of the Measure 30 election, is unemployed today, and wants to know what happened to all those promised jobs?". The candidate forum had ended and people had walked up onto the stage to talk to the candidates. Kim didn't answer that question, only ran down the stairs off the stage as fast as her legs could carry her. Someone said at the time "if she becomes a state legislator she won't be able to run away like that". Unfortunately, I am not sure that was an accurate prediction.
Why should those of us who want the same sort of accountability for tax breaks that is required of employees (public or private) not suspect some advocates of tax breaks are rhetorically doing the same thing--running away from tough questions?
One other question which should be a policy debate. Is it better to have local, individual employers or to have nothing corporations and chain stores? Think of where you live. How many employers are large corporations and chain stores, and how many are local businesses with roots in the community--the bookstore, shoe store, gift store, etc. As someone who has known owners of individual local businesses, I tend to think it is better not to be homogenized.
4:40 p.m.
Oct 7, '05
Jack,
As someone who drives a car with “question assumptions” on the bumper, and often wears a lapel pin with the same admonition, glad to have you on the team!
The problem, of course, is your faulty assumptions, based in part on misreading the op-ed.
You wrote (1) He assumes companies are going to locate only in the United States and therefore states are just competing against each other. The truth is, we are increasingly competing in a global economy and other countries like China, India and Korea are very aggressive in offering incentives for new development.
Wrong, Jack. McMahon notes that he’s looking at the “bigger picture,” while you are stuck with Lane County blinders. McMahon notes “We should be pursuing policies that create more net jobs in the United States, rather than fighting among ourselves for slices of a static pie.” State tax schemes will not stop investment overseas – Intel has proven that. At best (I don’t think they really matter) all they do is further interstate competition. The competition with India and China is not over taxes – it is over labor costs and with state and local taxes amounting to less than one percent of a business’s costs, you are fooling yourself Jack if you think lowering taxes in Lane County can compete with lower labor costs elsewhere.
You wrote (2)He seems to assume that companies are primarily picking up from one place and moving to another when, in fact, most of the competition is for expansions and new locations. Thus it isn't a question of "stealing" jobs from other communities but instead competing to attract new investment and new job creation.
Wrong again, Jack. McMahon doesn’t make that assumption. Whether it is expansion or new locations – or some of the picking up and moving that does occur (remember Boeing or Louisiana Pacific, to name just two) – McMahon correctly notes that when you take a big picture, nationwide look, every state has everything to lose and nothing to gain. The real issues in site location – infrastructure, quality workforce, and quality of life – need the investments that are lost when funds go to tax breaks.
You wrote (3) He assumes any reduction in tax revenue is permanent, rather than a "loss leader" to attract new investment which will create tax revenue. In Eugene, for example, after the all the complaints about tax breaks for Hynix (formerly Hyundai), they are now the largest property taxpayer in Eugene, and in fact are paying more property taxes than the next 9 largest taxpayers combined.
Wrong again, Jack. McMahon doesn’t make that assumption – he correctly assumes that other investments are necessary for states to compete in the global economy. If Hynix had been paying the full tax load all along imagine what public investments in infrastructure and other aspects of the business climate could have been made.
You wrote (4) He ignores the multiplier and spin-off effects from major new investments. Does anyone really think Washington County has been a net revenue loser in the tax revenues they "gave up" to get Intel to build their campus in Hillsboro?
Wrong again, Jack. Read Intel’s web pages (cited here) and you will see that they came and invested in Washington County because of proximity to Santa Clara by air, a good workforce, a “K-Life” education system (Oregon doesn’t have that anymore), cheap electricity and clean water. What Washington County and Oregon gave up has been unnecessary. Intel has been bluffing. Your assumption that there is a correlation and causal connection between tax breaks in Washington County and Intel’s investments belies facts.
You wrote (5) He may also be lumping together incentives purely to attract new jobs and incentives for specific corporate behavior. Examples of the latter are things like the child care tax credit and the energy tax credit. I can vouch for the fact that both of these credits, while not geared directly to economic development, are presented to companies thinking of locating here as part of our overall incentive package.
Wrong again, Jack.And silly. Just because you offer something to people and they take it, doesn’t meant it is determinative in the decision to stay or expand or move to a location. Nice gravy but hardly proof that it was the motivator. Do you only buy tires from Les Schwab when free beef is offered, or do you buy them for the quality of the service and product and enjoy the beef?
You wrote (6) Finally, he assumes the national economy is the only thing that matters. He doesn't seem to care whether jobs are created in Rhode Island or in Oregon. The question is, "Do we?"
Wrong again, Jack. He knows they all matter. And he knows that the Rhode Island economy is controlled in large part by other jurisdictions’ policies and decisions. Oregon’s economy is about one percent of the national economy and if you think a tax break in Lane County can change the course of national and international economic forces pressuring business decisions of businesses that might locate, expand or stay in Lane County, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Oct 7, '05
One thing that bother me is how these special deals are not offerred to smaller and medium sized businesses who are already in the community. I build a building, spend tens of thousands on new equipment and create five new jobs and I get squat. Do you think Hillsboro would agree not to tax my new computers? The jobs I create are just as valuable as five similarly paid jobs at Intel. IN fact, probably more vlauable because of the family friendly policies I have.
If our current tax system is out of whack when it comes to busnesses like Intel (because of the high personal property tax on their expensive equipment) then fix the tax xystem, don't just impose an ad hoc benefit on the big corporations who threaten to pull up stakes and leave.
The argument that inventices attract new businesses. Of course they do. THats not the point. If it were, lets just get rid of all taxes on the corporations we "like"..or better yet, lets pay them to locate here.
It would be much better to fix the problems in our tax system, not allow ad hoc benefits and treat eveyone the same, big and small, new and old, and tell everyone that they will always get a fair shake in Oregon.
7:19 a.m.
Oct 8, '05
Nice try, Chuck, but you really need to get around more. If you don't think China and India are offering tax incentives you really are out of touch.
However, no one should think incentives are the primary factor in the competition for jobs and businesses. They aren't. Economic fundamentals such as the ones you mentioned--workforce, transportation, energy, etc.--are by far the most critical factors. However, when you have several locations that satisfy those needs, incentives can make the difference as to which location is chosen.
I admire the certainty with which you proclaim that Intel has been bluffing when it negotiates for incentives. I suppose we should be crowing that the Arizona legislature fell for that bluff when it approved economic incentives last session with an eye to recruiting Intel's latest fab plant. The fact that Intel is now building that plant in Arizona rather than Oregon may give some of us pause to question who in fact has the last laugh.
Robert Harris does make a good point when he complains that incentives should be available to existing businesses, and particularly medium and small businesses, not just large, out-of-state businesses. The fact is that every business incentive I am aware of in Oregon is available to both existing and new businesses. And while incentives like the Strategic Investment Program (SIP) that Intel uses are available only to companies making very large investments, enterprise zones such as Hynix has used are available to medium and small businesses as well. By far most of the incentives offered by the state of Oregon fall in the latter category.
Oh, and Chuck, I'm going to ignore your snide references to Lane County. The geographic snobbery that folks in the Portland-Salem axis have toward the rest of the state is one of our greatest advantages. Keep it up.
7:58 a.m.
Oct 8, '05
Jack,
I know China and India are offering tax deals - but if you think we can compete on labor and tax costs with India or China you are misinformed.
Oregon was not in the running for the production fab that Arizona got -Intel's Oregon operations are tied more to research and development.
Moreover, Oregon already gave the tax break that Arizona's legislature granted - single sales factor. So there's no "last laugh" there, Jack.
Third, Intel began the process of building that plant (design, permits, etc.) well before the AZ leg acted and notably NEVER said that their plant was the direct result of the single sales factor legislation - that would have been a lie; they let politicians and sloppy reporters make the claim and then Intel committed the sin of omission for not correcting the record. Read Intel Oregon's comments in the Oregonian about how it was not in competition with that Arizona plant.
Single sales factor apportionment means Intel will be paying just $10 a year in taxes, down from paying about one-fifth of Oregon's corporate income taxes. Add that tax break to the R&D tax break and I don't think you will find that in terms of cost to the state the big guys are getting the favoritism.
I love Lane County - you are reading my comments with a negative eye. Your refusal to acknowledge why Intel came here in the first place - according to their own website - shows your bias.
Chuck
9:31 a.m.
Oct 8, '05
Chuck, I conceded in the second paragraph of my last post that economic fundamentals, such as the ones you mentioned, are a critical component in attracting and keeping businesses in the state. If you want me to be more specific, I am glad to concede that these were the primary reasons Intel chose Hillsboro. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have satisfied those needs elsewhere or that the SIP wasn't also an important factor.
Your analysis seems to be that if A is a critical factor, that means B is unimportant. It's more accurate to say that a company may think A is most important, B is somewehat less so, C is even less, etc. But if several sites offer A and B, the company may chose the site that has C over the site that doesn't have C, even though C is far less important than A or B.
Finally, we both have to take any company's public statements about why they locate one place rather than another with a grain of salt. Just as a company may be bluffing when they say they'll go somewhere else if they don't get the incentives they want, many companies are also very reluctant to be seen as shopping for incentives, low taxes or other government benefits.
I just don't accept the notion that states all over the country (and countries all oveer the world) are foolishly throwing incentives at companies that have no impact on their locational decisions. And I probably will not be convinced no matter how many academics who have never participated in an economic development recruitment swear that it's true.
4:26 p.m.
Oct 8, '05
Jack,
And the reason we shouldn't take your public statements - even when you "swear that it's true" - about the importance of opening the cookie jar with a grain of salt?
Can't accept that it is foolish to throw incentive dollars around, eh? Why don't you imagine all the states agreeing not to throw away their public investment funds in a bidding war. Then they'd compete on the terms we know are important, most of which require public investments - from household and corporate tax collections. That's not so difficult to imagine, is it?
And why don't you let BlueOregon readers know whether you think it is okay that Intel will be a $10 a year taxpayer, down from $50 million or more and providing one-fifth of Oregon's corporate income taxes? My bet is you support their end run around responsible corporate citizenship.
Chuck
5:37 p.m.
Oct 8, '05
I think we should probably take everyone's arguments on most issues with a grain of salt and evaluate their evidence and their reasoning, not just their assertions.
As to the move to a single sales factor in apportioning the corporate excise tax, I always thought that (along with proposals such as cutting the capital gains tax) should have been part of a more comprehensive tax reform package and not enacted in isolation.
Oct 8, '05
Jack Roberts posts mostly echo Wall Street Journal editorial positions on taxes and markets. That approach to economics doesn't make much sense to me. It is true that states are competing with other nations for business investment, due to increasing globalism. This is one of the reasons globalism should be reversed. It is a dead end, which will become obvious as energy costs continue to increase. Unfortunately, the farther we travel down the globalism road, the more expensive and painful it will be to rebuild local economy.
Ending tax breaks for business relocation and expansion might cost some jobs in the short term, but would lead to a more rational economy that will be more able to adapt to conditions likely in the future.
Oct 11, '05
Oregon is giving it all AWAY to small and big biz and the greedy businesspeople actually scream for another pound.... of tax breaks.
Oregon is 46th outta 50 in tax burden and look out Alabamee!
<hr/>