Tax incentives don't work
In Timothy Puko's article “Cracker plant jobs claim may be way off” (June 16 and TribLIVE.com), he disputed the job estimates that Pennsylvania officials claim will result from a new Shell ethane cracker plant. Gov. Tom Corbett argues that these jobs justify an unlimited tax incentive for Shell to locate the plant in Beaver County. However, the benefits of these tax incentives targeted at specific businesses rarely outweigh their costs to taxpayers.
Economists define a created job as one that is filled by an unemployed individual, as opposed to someone who simply switches jobs. The problem with these claims of job creation is that politicians and industry leaders conflate the difference.
A new job does add value to the economy through new income, whereas someone accepting a different job only adds limited value if he or she receives greater income. As citizens, our interest dictates that tax dollars be used for real growth, not simply redistribution to companies.
The final job growth will doubtfully match the unlimited tax incentive, and Pennsylvanians will pay this bill. While adding real jobs is an important goal, tax incentives aren't the answer. Facts, not rhetoric, create jobs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Arnold’s garbage
- Pass GMO label bill
- ATI’s broken promises
- Protesters not law-abiding
- Library funds
- Cops usually not problem