IBJNews

Panel OKs plan to cut Indiana corporate tax rate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A proposed cut of more than 20 percent in the state's corporate income tax rate would improve Indiana's business climate without hurting the state budget, the leader of the Indiana Senate's tax committee said Wednesday.

The plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent starting in July 2012. Originally, lawmakers proposed cutting the rate to 5 percent but decided on a smaller scale-back because other provisions in the bill would raise $67 million by ending a handful of tax credits and imposing a tax on some bonds, said Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Chairman Brandt Hershman, R-Lafayette.

"Our goal is to help make Indiana's business-tax climate friendly for job creation and retention while not impacting our overall budget," Hershman said.

His committee debated the plan Tuesday before sending the bill to the full Senate on a 8-2 vote.

Supporters of the proposal said Indiana's current corporate tax rate is among the nation's highest and discourages businesses from moving to the state.

Hershman's proposal includes an estimated $59.5 million annual revenue boost by starting to tax the interest on out-of-state bonds held by Indiana companies and residents and $7 million from the elimination of various tax credits.

The corporate income tax is projected to raise about $688 million — or just over 5 percent — of the state's $13.4 billion in revenue for the coming budget year.

Hershman said about 16,000 small to mid-sized companies based in Indiana would be helped most by the rate cut.

"This is not a bill that primarily helps the Walmarts of the world because they already have the ability to move income to other jurisdictions to limit their taxing structure," he said.

Mark Cahoon, a vice president of the Indiana Manufacturers Association, said the rate reduction to 6.5 percent was significant and would help removing a sticking point in attracting business investment while not cutting into state revenues.

"It is a very difficult balancing act," Cahoon said. "What exemptions, deductions or credits can be reduced or eliminated and not do any harm to the economy but then allows those funds to be used for rate reduction?"

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Face it
    Corporate tax rates aren't the reason companies don't want to be here. Keep passing stuff like the gay marriage ban and you'll make sure folks who want to attract progressive employees (i.e. anything future-oriented) will stay far away. Not to mention that flights here are impossible, there's no public transportation, and our school systems are just abysmal. Why not invest taxes in something that will actually make the state attractive? Too radical?

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT