IBJNews

Cities weigh new law allowing bigger tax breaks

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Communities across the state are trying to decide how they will use a new law that provides them more flexibility to employ economic development incentives but could increase pressure to give companies more tax breaks.

The law allows cities and counties to waive all taxes on new business investment, such as equipment and buildings, for up to 10 years. It also lets localities funnel back to the company, rather than to government units, up to 100 percent of the local option income taxes paid by the new employees a company hires.

Proponents of the law say the leeway it provides will help make Indiana municipalities more competitive in attracting jobs. But some economic development and government officials worry that it could give businesses more leverage in negotiations by pitting communities that can’t afford to utilize the incentives against those that can.

“It’s a race to the bottom almost,” said David Bottorff, executive director of the Association of Indiana Counties. “This tool is out there now, so the pressure can be applied to get locals to use it.”

Leaders from Develop Indy, the economic development arm for Indianapolis, and city officials say they’re still in the process of analyzing the law and evaluating whether—and to what extent—the city will use it. Any policy changes would have to be approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission.

Previous state law prescribed a formula that local governments had to follow in giving abatements on real and personal property. Under the law, city officials would calculate how much a business would pay in new taxes and reduce that by a certain percentage every year.

For example, a 10-year abatement on real property would reduce taxes by 100 percent in the first year but only 5 percent by the 10th year.

Any deductions only applied to the company’s new investment in the property, not the existing assessed value—a point that remains in the new law.

But the new law allows communities to alter the abatement schedule as they see fit, based on factors such as the company’s amount of investment and how many jobs the business says it will create.

It also allows communities to offer income-tax credits as a hiring incentive, but excludes from that benefit companies moving from one site in Indiana to another.

Indiana Rep. Mark Messmer, the Jasper Republican who authored the law, said cities with sophisticated economic development operations already could have found ways to maximize tax abatements under the old law. But “this would allow it to be a lot more cookbook,” Messmer said, particularly for cities such as Jasper, which hasn’t used tax abatements in the past.

In fact, early discussions of the law change surfaced after a task force in Jasper identified expanded abatement power as one way to make that community more competitive for jobs.

The Jasper City Council is beginning to work on an ordinance that would outline its abatement policy. But city officials such as Mayor Bill Schmitt, who finishes his final term at the end of this year, are urging caution that when the city moves forward with incentives, it doesn’t give away too much of its tax base.

That concern is shared by groups such as Washington, D.C.-based Good Jobs First, which advocates making communities more accountable for economic development incentives.

Thomas Cafcas, a researcher with the group, said 24 states allow for some sort of property-tax abatement. He said that allowing full abatements for up to 10 years isn’t unprecedented but is a potentially dangerous policy.

“If you’re eating away at the property tax and you’re eating away at the income tax—if you’re eroding these stable forms of taxes, then what’s left?” Cafcas said.

Messmer said those fears shouldn’t overshadow the residual benefit a community receives, such as new residents moving in and new jobs created. And, he points out, communities eventually receive the full value of the new investment once the abatement expires.

“It’s increasing jobs and development to your local economy,” Messmer said. “You’re just delaying the increased revenue to one, three, five, seven years down the road.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ARE U KIDDING
    JON, are u kidding? You think people are doing okay on $7.25 an hour? How long have you been living with your parents? I'm not saying raising the min. wage to $14 - $15 is the answer, because businesses would just start shifting their production to countries like Mexico and China, and smaller businesses simply couldn't afford it unless they are EXTREMELY profitable, which could take years, but to assert the one can actually LIVE on $7.25 an hour in this country - pay rent, buy food, pay for insurance, pay utilities, maintain a car, etc and etc - is just ridiculous.
  • Another example of breaks for elite business
    With a state that is forced to cut everything but the governor’s highways and prisons....this is another break for elite business owners. The business income tax cut was not enough to give Mitch's friends.

    Mitch will publish more fake accounting which will say that screwing the citizen tax payers is good for the state. Mitch doesn't seem to believe corporations have any obligation for state revenue.

    At the rate Mitch is working to kill the middle class: each taxpayer will be forced to pay corporations an additional kickback. Free just is not good enough.

    Let’s consider doing this the other way, give each homeowner a tax break for going to work at a new corporation!!!! Talk about savings!!!
  • economics
    No government should be able to set a false floor on the economy, including labor, unless it is deemed unlivable. People seem to be doing okay at the current $7.25, why should we DOUBLE the minimum wage for, well no reason whatsoever? It's not like inflation has gone sky-high.
    • living wage
      No company should be able to take advantage of any tax breaks unless they are willn to pay a livable wage of at least 15 an hour

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. liek the rest of America

      2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

      3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

      4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

      5. whoa!

      ADVERTISEMENT