$1B in the red, Oklahoma gives out $5.6 Billion in corporate tax breaks a year. Equals budget.

[sinkingfeeling]

This story was run on the local (NW Arkansas) news this morning. It got me thinking about how much the total bill for corporate welfare must be, including all states and the federal tax 'incentives'. So I went looking for something in print.

I found this story about the minority Democrats in Oklahoma and their plan to cut some of those incentives.

http://okhousedems.com/2010/04/27/house-democrats-offer-budget-solutions/
<snip>
Democratic members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives today presented a plan to fill the billion-dollar deficit in the state budget for the coming year without damaging job cuts and service reductions.

Prompted by three months without any apparent progress by the majority party in dealing with the budget, Democrats today said Republicans have been willing to impose cuts of up to 10 percent on spending for the agencies and departments that provide important services to state residents, but have failed to consider cuts in the area where spending by government has increased the most, tax expenditures.

Tax expenditures is a category which includes tax breaks and loopholes of all kinds, such as incentive programs, credits, exemptions and deductions. Spending on tax breaks has increased by approximately $1 billion over a two-year period, and now total $5.6 billion per year, an amount nearly equal to the entire annual state budget. The bulk of the increase has gone to corporate recipients.

“At a time when we are asking our parents and children to accept teacher firings and larger class sizes, when we are asking our senior citizens to make do with less food, when we are asking everyone to make sacrifices, we cannot afford to continue running giveaway programs that provide dubious results,” said Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City, House Minority Leader-elect.

< >

I can't locate a compilation of all 50 states. I found a pdf from the Tax Foundation, but it uses an 'index' to rank those states most favorable to corporations and doesn't have the total tax 'incentive' amounts. Found a marvelous chart on California's expected $2 Billion a year loss of revenue due to these tax breaks. ( http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/100412_pp_who_pays_taxes.pdf )

If you have any information on your state's gifts to corporations, I'd like to hear from you.

[Blue_Tires]

1. I have a feeling my state is right up there with corporate breaks, too

[pipoman]

2. These 'incentives' are often used

to entice prospective employers to locate in a state or city. It has been going on for decades. To determine the actual cost of these incentives one must weigh the tax liability of the employees, including property taxes, income taxes, sales tax, etc against the incentive. I have seen incentive packages which appear to exceed the prospective benefit, others which the incentives are far less than the benefit to the state and local economy. Not all of these incentives are bad for states and localities...some of them certainly are.

[Soylent Brice]

3. corporate welfare.

K&R

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Repealing the sales tax exemptions in Kansas for one year

will meet the deficit for 2 years.

But of course the GOP reps oppose this.

[Travis_0004]

6. Lets say a company wants to move to your state. . .

A company wants to move to your state, or possibly another state, and bring 5,000 jobs. If they don't move to your state, your tax revenue is 0.

If they do, the company usually pays some tax still. If they hire 5,000 people, unemployment goes down, saving the state money. Some people may come from other states to work at that company and they pay income tax, property tax, sales tax etc, so these deals increase the tax revenue, not decrease it. Also, these agreements are in contracts, so you can't just not honor them, and even if you could, it would make it tougher to recruit future businesses.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. The state has a budget of $5.75 Billion and is $1 Billion in the red. They have freely given up

$5.6 Billion in revenue annually and you think that's helpful?

[petronius]

9. You can't tell from those numbers - if the business hadn't moved to OK,

that potential revenue wouldn't exist at all, so the question is what benefits have accrued to the state as a result of these incentives. It's perfectly possible that the state is better off as a result of these tax 'giveaways'. And it's possible that state leaders have given sweetheart deals to the detriment of the state...

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Silly me. I find kids and education far more important.

It's way beyond time for corporations to pay their fair share. Currently in this state they do not. Individuals pay more taxes than corporations. We are supposed to be grateful for the jobs they bring us, but they don't. We are supposed to be thankful for the boost these companies give to the local economy, but we still have a high unemployment rate.

Your argument is falling on deaf ears. This taxpayer is sick of corporate welfare at the expense of our children, elderly and disabled. Screw that.

[okieinpain]

5. it's the only way we can get companies to relocate to this state.

and with the way the state legislature is going, it's probably going to take more money to get them to stay.

[atreides1]

8. If that's the case

Then the state's deficit will only increase and public services will all but disappear.

They could always adjust the child labor laws, and that way the state can close the schools for half a day, while the children are working.

But as you said it's the only way to get companies to relocate.