Rep. Craig R. Fry, D-Mishawaka, would like both incentive programs done away with."TIFS and tax abatements are a direct shift of responsibility from businesses to homeowners," Fry said. But he concedes that view puts him in the minority.Others said they want to look at tweaking the programs.Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis, said the state could consider modifying the programs so homeowners in areas heavy with abatements and the tax districts -- such as the IPS taxing districts -- don't have to bear so much of the burden."If these (incentives) are appropriate for the region, we shouldn't put all of the burden on the taxpayers in IPS," Orentlicher said. "We need to figure out a way to make sure the costs are shared."Rep. Bill Crawford, the Indianapolis Democrat who heads the House Ways and Means Committee, thinks school corporations should get a say in approving abatements. And he wants the state to require counties to maintain an easily accessible database of companies that receive the breaks so the public knows what's going on and can weigh in.
For those who think tax incentives are improper, consider the following:
Unless Indiana finds a different way of attracting business, think what not competing on tax incentives will cost the state. Which leads me to mention something I do not see in this article or in John Ketzenberger's column, Tax incentives well spent, despite critics: what is the return on investment? Anderson and every other city has dealt in tax incentives. They all need to show what they have gotten with our tax dollars.Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who has led property tax reform efforts and who is spearheading the bipartisan panel, agreed that some modifications are possible. But he doesn't expect anything drastic."Our competitors in other states are doing these things, and we need to be on the playing field," he said.
Comments for this post
