Quote:

Like anything else, you get what you pay for. The taxes might be higher but so is the cost of living based on the amount of options available. My prior employee was based outside of this region. They recognized that the talent pool to pull from was not available. As such, they have satellite offices, one in the NY region.

Just looking at the steps our awful governor has taken, I fail to see some of the benefits. Prudential, a company that was never going to leave Newark, decided to grab a tax break which they have stated will allow them to build a new building in Newark for essentially less money than it would to just remain where they are due to tax breaks. Goya moved from Secaucus to Jersey City and now they are paying less in taxes. Panasonic moved from Secaucus to Newark and now they are paying less in taxes. Pfizer took their animal medical research division and split it off under a new corporate name and therefore that division is paying almost no taxes.

In none of those situations were new jobs created. Instead, the companies that existed simply had their taxes reduced because they moved from one office building to another. Understanding that the bill was designed to lure businesses from out of state, it has seemingly backfired and companies that were in the state prior are moving one block over (Prudential) and are suddenly paying almost no taxes. Asking that the state cease in giving these handouts is prudent.

In regard to the low taxes versus job growth? well, nothing is free. Services provided by the state cost money. Look at a state like Alabama, which according to your graph is ranked 28th. Because their corporate tax culture is so friendly, they have no funds for the services. Because their state is so conservative and anti-tax, they refuse to raise taxes. Instead, they have gone to using fees. Essentially, they want more a regressive tax system that penalizes the poor over those with means. It?s a great theory, but I don?t know a person in JC that would want to move to Alabama, unless they were paid a ton of money, and even then it would be debatable.

You don't have to freeze the corporate tax break system to arrange for improved reporting regarding the system. You can fight for improved reporting regardless.

That'd be like asking to freeze the distributions of Medicaid or other welfare payments until we get improved reporting on how many illegal immigrants get the payments.

That would be just plain crazy.

Quote:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2015 ... usiness-tax-climate-index

Looking at NJ alone, you'd be fooled into believing that the bad tax climate for business has lead to slow growth and job creation. But counter-intuitively - there isn't a strong correlation across all states between low taxes and growth/jobs.

He must also mean those Tea Party Repubicans who are also against corporate welfare. Oh wait, no just those kooky Dems.

Nobody is asking to remove these breaks haphazardly. They are asking for better reporting, you know, that pesky transparency thing that everybody seems to want but can't agree on because of political gymnastics. With 5.1 B on the table, I don't think it is too much to ask for better reporting.

Quote:
I like how a moderately left wing group is now considered "radical."

Considering that all of these financial handouts have not exactly generated job growth, it should be asked if there really is a benefit to reducing the taxes. There is a reason that states like Alabama and Arkansas are so under water...

The group opposed is a radical, left wing organization looking for more public handouts from the tax paying earners.