Like 'em or not, incentives are here to stay

Published May 2, 2015

Editorial by Rocky Mount Telegram, April 30, 2015.

As a reader writes elsewhere on this page today, industries spend a great deal of time assessing the quality of an area’s business climate, labor pool, schools and access to major highways, airports and other transportation hubs before making a decision to relocate a new plant.

But while those attributes certainly factor into the courtship of a major manufacturer, sooner or later, there has to be a dowry to land the bride.

It would be nice to think otherwise, but history tells a different story:

In 1992, South Carolina put up an incentives package estimated at $192 million to attract a major BMW plant.

In 1993, Alabama attracted a major Mercedes Benz facility after offering a $253 million incentives package.

Twenty years later, those companies – and the many suppliers that followed – continue to thrive in those states, and the impact they have made on employment, the economy and quality of life can’t be overstated.

Would those plants have been built in those states without the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of incentives?

Not by many smart businessmen.

It would be nice to imagine a playing field where all states competed without those kinds of enticements. Save those tax dollars to use on something that benefits everyone – not just one giant company.

It would be nice – but highly unlikely. Outlawing incentives nationwide would take an act of Congress, and even if such a thing were possible, the most immediate result would be to put the United States at a huge disadvantage in competing with job-hungry countries all over the world.

Incentives are giant, ugly tax-funded monsters. But like ’em or not, they’re here to stay.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/8217em-or-not-incentives-are-here-stay-2863693

Read More NC SPIN >>

May 2, 2015 at 10:36 am
bruce stanley says:

Single sales tax policy may be the answer to bribery not being here to stay in NC.

May 2, 2015 at 11:33 am
Richard L Bunce says:

No, government picking winners and losers is never acceptable. Lower State and Local government taxes and regulations for all State businesses, existing and new, and the issue of other States incentives will be moot.

May 4, 2015 at 7:53 pm
Norm Kelly says:

' the most immediate result would be to put the United States at a huge disadvantage in competing with job-hungry countries all over the world.' Ok. So let's look around the world. Are the places with high taxes, low wages, uneducated citizens garnering new business moves? Are places with low/fair taxes, educated citizens, decent wages, more likely to win a new business move?

As others have said already, if we actually had a level playing field, would this help our economy? Local economy, not national. It MUST not take an act of Congress to do away with bribing companies. This is a state's rights issue and Congress does NOT belong here. Not that socialists care a whit about state's rights, based on somewhat recent history. Heck, the group currently occupying Washington don't even care about laws on the books; they do what they want anyway and make excuses for why they just HAD to do it!

When I mention 'level playing field' I'm talking about an actual level playing field. What we get from too many pols, every lib/socialist, and most media lib allies is a make-believe level playing field. The kind where someone is penalized for being 'too successful' in order to benefit someone who isn't quite as successful. And the lib/socialist makes up the rules as to what constitutes 'too successful' or 'too much money' or 'their fair share'. Which, by the way, has ANY lib or media ally EVER defined 'their fair share'? Or do they just throw that useless line around like it means something.

Anyway, I'm talking an actual level playing field where every business knows the rules BEFORE moving here or expanding here. Where the rule of law has meaning. Where the tax rate is the same for every business. Where every business knows that their competitor down the street isn't getting a bribe from some government agency providing an unfair advantage. You know, a level playing field. If we stopped bribing specific entities to reside here, would that affect the over-all tax rate at all? Would it allow some government agency to go away, saving EVERYONE some tax dollars? Would the government then be able to concentrate on the job they are SUPPOSED to be doing, instead of fiddling with markets. Markets that these government types usually don't know anything about.

There are options other than bribes. There are options other than penalizing some to benefit some others. I'm tired of pols telling me they MUST take money from me because there's a group that THEY want to reward. I don't care who gets the reward, this creates an extremely un-level playing field. It hurts one group so another group can suck at the government teet! It's bad all the way around.

Instead of continuing to get editorials telling us that this terrible program just has to continue, how bout we get some information on how bad they USUALLY work out. How about we get an expose on some of the alternatives. How bout we get SOME support for any pol that offers a real alternative. Not some lib scheme. But a real alternative. We've had enough schemes. It's time for a PLAN! It's past time for the bribes to stop. They are illegal when the government doesn't do it, so why isn't it illegal when the government does it?