“Tax Breaks” for New developments are a two edged sword. It may entice new investors, but is that fair to their compitors who have been in business for years in surrounding areas? I think not.

I have opened new businesses in three different States and would never even consider asking for a “tax break”. Want delays, want to involve politics, and want to make enemies of other competing businesses? Ask for a tax break. You’ll have all that.

On the other side of the coin the author of the article, in effect, said that tax breaks for new developments costs the taxpayers money. Obviously, if the taxpayers did not have the money before, it cost them nothing.

Further the author alluded that tax breaks derive schools of money for education. How is that possible? The schools never had that money at any time before.

For the writer’s edification schools in Missouri and Illinois do not suffer from a lack of money. They suffer from a lack of purpose and efficiency. Is their purpose to hire teachers and administrators? If so, they are doing very well. If the purpose is to provide education to the masses, they are an abject FAILURE. That is undeniable.

Unfortunately, granting tax breaks to developers has become the American Way over the last 10-15 years. Particularly in smaller communities, it’s become the way that a developer pushes a particular community to come in with jobs. Essentially, they say, “You want this warehouse facility that will bring in 200 jobs? Then give me a better tax break than town X 10 miles away and I’ll move in. Of course, when the tax break expires in 10 years, I’ll move on to another town, leaving you with nothing.”

It’s a way for a corporate entity to be irresponsible. If it makes business sense to build a new building, open a new facility, or whatever, then it makes business sense. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. It’s a way for the business to reduce risk (or even eliminate it).

The way it costs the other taxpayers is actually simple: In the case of the downtown St. Louis developments, for example. Let’s say that when all is said and done, the ballpark village developments bring in 1000 jobs to the downtown area. Well, those 1000 people in downtown will require the city to hire a couple new cops and build a new downtown fire station and staff it. By rights, the taxes the businesses pay would go to paying for those services. However, because they won’t BE paying taxes, somebody ELSE will have to pay for them. Guess who that is? Plus the city will be building infrastructure to support these facilities…sewers, water mains, street lights, etc. The businesses aren’t paying taxes to support those services….who is?

Now, to the practical side of taxes. Three years ago a food distribution plant near Eldorado. Illinois closed and went across to Kentucky. Blago Boy. Our Gov. announced that the state was going to get a new company to come in and provide the some 200 jobs that were lost. The building is still empty.

In a moment when I was delusional from drinking too much Heinekin beer, I considered making an offer for purchase or lease of the building. Yes I had a widget that could have been assembled in the structure that could have provided jobs.

Blago Boy, came out with his plan to tax new corporations whether or not they were making a profit.

Get the picture? My widget is being produded in China at only pennies more than the STATE TAX would have been in Illinois.

Welcome to the global economy.

I think they definitely cost the current residents of the city. There is now more demand for city services and less revenue to cover the demand.

What upset me the most about the recent Centene deal is the Earnings Tax abatement which will last for almost 21 years. So for 21 years, the .5% from Centene and the 1% from the employees check will go back into the development instead of going to the city. Currently, the city gets over 30% of their budget from Earnings Tax revenue.

There was of course no deal made where the Earnings Tax could be forgone if some the employees of Centene actually MOVED into the city. As it stands now I would expect few workers actually live there. The tax could be abated for the total number of workers who actually live in the city but still be applied to those who do not.

If the reason no company wants to move downtown because of the tax-happiness of our local politicians, then the taxes need to be reduced across the board. The city needs to ween itself away from the Earnings Tax if it wants to see any sort of move forward in terms of being business and resident friendly.

Two more thoughts:

In these cases, will the developers give their tenants a break on their leases because of the tax breaks? I doubt it. Second thought: Let’s say our buddy johnh sees all that is happening over there in downtown and sees opportunity in the air. He makes a proposal to open a bar and grill in one of the vacant storefronts on Pine street to (a) take care of the construction workers who want a beer after a day of climbing the steel and (b) feed these office workers who will be coming in after the project is done. Will HE get a tax break for himself and his 6 employees? I would doubt it.

When will we say “enough is enough” in regards to the corporate handouts? As citizens, we need to convey this to our elected officials. We need to make sure that we are getting something beneficial in return. How ’bout promised to make it a green (environmentally friendly) development? How ’bout promises to be a stellar employer and provide extra bennies like on-site child care, time off for volunteerism (especially for work in the schools), etc?

I don’t know if any of you saw the movie The Corporation. In this documentary, it points out that corporations are legally considered an individual, then goes on to outline that if an individual they display all the symptoms of a psychopath.

If we took this one step further, all these tax break games that corporatiosn play could be considered extortion.

I have little sympathy for people that constantly want to portray corporations as the “evil entity”. Not that I implicitly trust them or that I think they do no wrong. They should be regulated. But I also believe municipalities should work with them instead of against them. An area like downtown St. Louis is dead, lacking in business development and citizens to tax. I think granting these sort of breaks starts the process of luring business and people back to the area. Someone suggested that the city might look to ween itself from high tax rates that scare business away. Wouldn’t this be a process to start that weening? But what would I know anyway, I’m sure someone will call me a corporate lacky instead of addressing what I’ve said.

“An area like downtown St. Louis is dead, lacking in business development and citizens to tax. I think granting these sort of breaks starts the process of luring business and people back to the area.”- RCJ

And of course by no people and no businesses RCJ, you mean the appox. 90,000 downtown workers (highest single concentration in the region, more than double the concentration in Clayton) and 10,000 downtown residents.

re johnh (your previous posts claimed that you only opened businesses in one state (Alaska) not three……also, you said you were retired (at age 37) and not engaged in a offshore venture making Chinese widgets……caught you fibbing again!

I’m not against paying my share of taxes unless they are WASTED or DEFRAUDED away. This is the norm today on all levels. Stop that drain and it won’t be as necessary to give away the farm, or city, in this case.