At a time of severe fiscal constraint the effect to the states is that one state loses tax revenue, while the other forgives it. The states are being pitted against each other and the only real winner is the business who is “incentive shopping” to reduce costs. The losers are the taxpayers who must provide services to those who are not paying for them.

The situation in Kansas City is only the most dramatic example of a nationwide problem. When state governments come to the table ready to tailor their tax policies to the desires of a single industry or firm, it is like playing poker with our cards face up. When a company knows that claiming to need a tax incentive will help them pay less taxes, of course they will say they need it, whether true or not. The result is a destructive race to the bottom, where businesses play states against each other and even against their own employees.

We saw a recent example in Oklahoma with the Mercury Marine company. The company initially promised to bring more operations to Stillwater and convinced the legislature to offer them more than $1 million in Oklahoma taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, the company used Oklahoma as leverage against its plant in Wisconsin, where the company had been founded.

After winning a $50 million low-interest loan to be paid for by a countywide sales tax increase, another $3 million in incentives from the city of Fond du Lac, and significant wage and benefit concessions from its employees, the company ended up closing down Oklahoma operations to go to Wisconsin. It’s unclear whether the company ever intended to move to Oklahoma, or if it was simply using us to extract money from its home state.

Even broader based tax reductions show little evidence of attracting new businesses. Nationwide, state and local taxes on businesses (corporate income taxes, sales taxes, and local property taxes) make up on average only about 1.8 percent of business costs. Tax variation between states and their impact on business profits are dwarfed by factors like cost-of-living, quality of the workforce, access to transportation and supply lines, and proximity of customers, not to mention cultural and historical ties to a particular location. As stated by economist Robert G Lynch in a report that examined hundreds of studies on this issue, “The bottom line is that state and local taxes, at their current low levels, may be largely irrelevant to business investment decisions.”

So what does determine economic outcomes? As a report on the effects of right-to-work in Oklahoma shows, the state’s economy closely follows regional and national trends regardless of state policy differences. Certainly state differences exist, but those are easily explained by economic differences unrelated to taxation. Rather than low taxes, today’s rising cities are attracting people with shorter commutes, more affordable housing, and the simple fact that there is more room to grow. According to a Forbes report on the fastest-growing cities (which included OKC):

Over the past decade, the biggest migration of Americans has been to cities with between 100,000 and 1 million residents. In contrast, notes demographer Wendell Cox, regions with more than 10 million residents suffered a 10% rate of net outmigration, and those between 5 million and 10 million lost a net 2.4%.

Often a region prospers because it happens to be home to industries on the upswing, or falters because it relies on industries past their prime (see: Detroit). Unfortunately economic growth can be fickle, but because of that, it makes far more sense to invest in a strong general infrastructure and workforce ready for whatever comes our way. For example, Oklahoma has benefited due to federal government expansion during wartime, not to mention significant public investments in Oklahoma City that make it a more exciting place to live.

Rather than going hat in hand to out-of-state businesses, ready to trade public resources for jobs that may only last until they get a better offer, those dollars are better spent on infrastructure, public safety, education, workforce development, and other measures that directly improve the quality-of-life and competitiveness of all Oklahomans.

share this post

One common argument for tax incentives is that in the competitive world of state economic development, states that fail to offer tax breaks to entice companies to invest or stay put will see investment and jobs shift elsewhere. Critics, such as Good Jobs First, view this “economic war among the states” as precisely the problem, amounting to a “ruinous zero-sum race to the bottom that benefits only footloose corporations while undermining state and local budgets, especially schools and infrastructure.”  Good Jobs First has blogged recently on two prominent examples where costly tax credit deals intended to lure jobs and investment have instead ended up leading to a major plant shutdown (Dell in North Carolina) and a criminal probe (film tax credits in Iowa).

Readers interested in a close-to-home example of the costs and drawbacks of state subsidy wars should check out a spirited new paper [PDF] by Jack Norman and Karen Royster, researchers at the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, titled “The Twisted Saga of Mercury Marine”. Oklahomans may remember Mercury Marine as the marine engine manufacturing company that persuaded the Oklahoma Legislature to pass a bill this past session, SB 929, that made the company eligible for tax credits in return for keeping open  its plant in Stillwater. Mercury Marine then used this leverage to wrest concessions for its plant in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and promptly announced the closure of its Stillwater operations.

In addition to winning wage and benefit concessions from the union in Wisconsin to keep their jobs from moving to Oklahoma, the taxpayers of Fond du Lac and Wisconsin were persuaded to cough up as well. According to Norman and Royster:

• Fond du Lac is giving Mercury Marine a $50 million, low-interest publicly financed loan;
• To pay for the loan, Fond du Lac County Board imposed a countywide one-half percent sales tax;
• The Fond du Lac City Council approved a $3 million package of taxpayer-funded incentives;
• The state of Wisconsin is offering additional incentive package that has not yet been divulged.

This is a hefty price for a division of a larger company (Brunswick Corporation) which, Norman and Royster reveal, has seen its stock price fall 71 percent since 2005, laid off 5,300 North American workers,  forced pay freezes for current employees, and imposed steep pay cuts for new hires and employees back from layoffs – all the while continuing to  pay its CEO  in excess of $3 million in 2008.

At least in this instance, the Oklahoma Legislature prudently included a “clawback” provision in its subsidy bill which required Mercury Marine to return over $1 million in payments once it pulled up stakes for Wisconsin.  But while clawback clauses can provide some protection against being shaken down by a few businesses, might it not be time instead for Oklahoma to withdraw from the subsidies war? Oklahoma offers businesses a productive, hard-working labor force, a central location, a low cost-of-living, and among the lowest state and local taxes in the nation. Rather than further erode our tax base through deals that offer questionable returns, the dollars may be more productive if invested in the things that will make Oklahoma more broadly appealing to all businesses – for example, improving teacher quality, workforce development system, transportation infrastructure, and public health. That way we can stop allowing businesses to grab a slice of the pie before agreeing to sit down at the table.

share this post

Last week, a Joint Legislative Task Force created by legislation authored by Rep. David Dank and Sen. Randy Brogdon met to begin examining transferable tax credits. These are  tax incentives where one company qualifies for a tax  and sells that credit for cash to another company that wants to reduce its tax obligations.

According to a presentation by House staff attorney Mark Harter, the “general rule is that a tax credit can only be used by the person or entity who performed some economic activity or who invested money in some way.” Yet the Task Force heard that two of the state’s most notorious transferable tax credits – for non-stop coast-to-coast air service (Great Plains Airline) and for space transportation vehicle providers (Burns Flats spaceport) – provided much weaker standards. In those cases, taxpayers ended up on the hook for tens of millions of dollars for projects that failed (literally) to get off the ground.

But even where eligibility requires performance of certain economic activity, either job creation or capital investment, oversight and compliance is often uncertain. Rep. Dank was especially critical of the state’s coal credit intended for the purchase of Oklahoma mined coal. Businesses and individuals claimed anywhere from $5 million to $12 million in coal credits in 2007. Yet, according to Rep. Dank (quoted in the Journal Record, subscription only):

But there is no evidence that these were ever used to produce more coal or to hire more miners. Instead, tax credits given to the coal industry in Oklahoma were sold to companies that had nothing to do with coal, reducing revenues to the state with no economic gain.

The next meetings of the Task Force will no doubt dig deeper into how particular credits have been used, or misused.

Over the past several years, the state has made genuine progress in improving accountability and transparency of tax incentives.  An Incentives Review Committee, created by statute, has been reviewing major tax credits and making recommendations; their work was responsible, in part, for the decision to allow one of the most expensive and controversial incentive programs, the Venture Capital Credit, to expire at the end of 2008. As we discussed in this blog post, implementation of the Taxpayer Transparency Act (SB 1) led earlier this year to the launch of a searchable online database that generates lists of all individuals and businesses that claimed tax credits (so far information is available only for 2007).  And for the first time ever in the state, the Legislature this session passed a tax credit bill, SB 929,  that included a “clawback provision” allowing for the state to demand repayment of credits in the event that companies failed to uphold their obligations – as promptly occurred when Mercury Marine announced it was pulling up stakes from Stillwater and returning over $1 million in payments.

So what more can be done? One interesting idea was proposed recently by Good Jobs First, a national policy organization that focuses on corporate accountability:

We also need responsible budgeting. Let’s also require each state to enact a Unified Development Budget: an annual report to the legislature itemizing all forms of spending for jobs—both appropriations and tax expenditures. Tax breaks typically dwarf appropriations by ratios of 4 to 1, 6 to 1, 8 to 1 or more, so we need the whole iceberg up on the table for an annual check-up.

While Oklahoma has made strides in making available information on tax incentives with the Taxpayer Transparency Act and biannual Tax Expenditure Report, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to find comprehensive information on the full array of tax credits, especially regarding credits claimed on taxes other than the income tax (insurance premium tax, gross production tax, ad valorem tax).  A Unified Development Budget such as proposed by Good Jobs First could go a good ways towards helping pull the various pieces together into a single picture – and ultimately help policymakers with the tough but essential goal of reaching informed decisions about which tax credits are working to promote good jobs and investment, and which are purely handouts to special interests.

share this post