Enterprise zones

[Henk Vreekamp]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Ik begrijp dat het om een soort 'free zones' gaat. Wel dan vind ik het feit
dat de vennootschaps- en omzetbelasting etc. hoger is dan de gemiste
loonbelasting etc. weinig overtuigend bewijs voor het succes van zulke
zones. Die eerste belastingen zouden elders ook zijn geind zonder
vermindering van de tweede soort belastingen.

Verder domineert hier het etatistische perspectief. Het zou aardig zijn als
eens ook de sociale kant werd bekeken: hoeveel slechter zijn de lonen en
arbeidsomstandigheden? Of moeten de werknemers daar structureel overwerken
of drie baantjes nemen? Is er doorstroming naar gewone bedrijven? Kijk,
zulke info mis ik. Vooralsnog zie ik er niks positiefs in.

hv,u
------

>Reply TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl
>
>
>De Contra Costa Times (San Jose,CA,US) heeft wat onderzoek over
>zogenaamde 'enterprise zones' bij elkaar gesprokkeld. Werken ze of
>werken ze niet en wie profiteert er het meest van? Geen eenduidige
>conclusies maar toch wel interessante info. Enfin, hieronder heb ik het
>'onderzoeksartikel' en de 'editorial' erover gecopy-paste.
>
>Mijn indruk is dat het meeste geld gaat naar slimme bedrijfjes die ze
>gebruiken als tax loopholes en naar de reeds op een bepaalde locatie
>gevestigde bedrijven die deze wetgeving gebruiken om de ROI van hun
>politieke campagnegelden te verhogen.
>
>Groeten,
>Mark Giebels
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Posted on Sun, Apr. 10, 2005
>TIMES WATCHDOG
>
>Boom or bust? Zone studies conflict
>
>By Jessica Guynn
>
>CONTRA COSTA TIMES
>
>In economic circles, they are zones of contention.
>
>Touted as an economic elixir for high rates of poverty and unemployment,
>enterprise zones offer special tax breaks to businesses in an effort to
>bring money and jobs to 39 struggling communities in California. But
>economists and planning experts disagree sharply on the healing power of
>the two-decade-old program.
>
>Bottom line: Economists lack conclusive evidence that enterprise zones
>work. The root causes of economic growth are too complex and difficult
>to isolate. And the state does not collect the kind of hard data that
>economists need to analyze if tax breaks spark new economic activity.
>
>Consequently, studies nationwide and in California have yielded
>conflicting results.
>
>One recent study commissioned by the trade association representing
>California's 39 enterprise zones found a substantial upside. The 2003
>research study estimated that the program cost the state $570 million
>from 1986 to 2002, but reaped nearly $1.8 billion in benefits.
>
>"We showed that the zones are getting more jobs, sales tax and corporate
>taxes," said Ted Bradshaw, a UC Davis community development professor.
>"The growth is paying off in increased revenue for the state."
>
>Workers' wages -- particularly those of low-income workers -- also get a
>small boost in enterprise zones, a recent study by University of
>Southern California professor Raphael Bostic and Franchise Tax Board
>economist Allen Prohofsky found. But the researchers could not establish
>whether the jobs or income gains lasted longer than the five years
>during which companies can collect the hiring credits.
>
>But other research studies dispute that enterprise zones are good for
>anyone but businesses.
>
>A 2003 report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office
>concluded that enterprise zone incentives increase economic activity
>within small areas, but are "very costly" and have "little if any impact
>on the creation of new economic activity or employment."
>
>The report cited other barriers to private investment in economically
>depressed areas, from aging infrastructure to lack of adequate public
>services to a shortage of qualified workers.
>
>"To the extent that the Legislature wished to expand the economic base
>of the state as a whole, the use of (enterprise zone) incentives would
>not appear to be a particularly effective means," the report found.
>
>Alan Peters, a University of Iowa professor who co-authored a book on
>enterprise zones, says these corporate tax incentives that target
>communities for economic boom have been a bust.
>
>"These programs deliver tax breaks to businesses. That's what they do,"
>he said. "Surely, it would be better to fundamentally alter the state
>tax codes rather than have special areas where you give special stuff
>away. Why not bring down business taxes in general rather than give out
>incentives in politically designated zones?"
>
>Enterprise zone coordinators defend millions in tax breaks with
>anecdotes. Ursula Luna, who manages Pittsburg's enterprise zone, says
>she knows from experience that targeting blighted commercial districts
>works.
>
>Pittsburg has one of the smallest zones in square miles and tax dollars
>spent. But a growing number of businesses from a Harley-Davidson
>dealership to a rail manufacturer are moving there in part to take
>advantage of the tax breaks, giving jobs and hope to low-income
>residents, Luna said. One of the city's largest employers, USS-Posco,
>which at the time was booming along with the steel industry, was left
>out of the city's enterprise zone to reward new, not old, investment.
>
>"Enterprise zones benefits don't last forever. But if you can get
>somebody started in one of these areas, there is a high chance of them
>staying," said John Troughton, a Cushman & Wakefield broker in Contra
>Costa County. "If you do that, then you are doing something."
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>
>Posted on Wed, Apr. 13, 2005
>EDITORIAL
>
>Mend enterprise zones
>
>
>BACK IN THE 1980s, one of the more promising ideas to combat poverty in
>economically depressed areas was the establishment of so-called
>enterprise zones. The policy is commendable, using substantial tax
>breaks to attract businesses to move to poor neighborhoods with high
>rates of unemployment and hire local people.
>
>Unfortunately, enterprise zones, in California at least, are not living
>up to the rosy forecasts about their effectiveness. The problem is not
>so much with the concept behind the zones, but the manner in which the
>zones have been created and the lack of oversight regarding the extent
>of their success or failure.
>
>In some cases, the tax incentives have worked well, bringing new
>businesses into depressed areas or preventing businesses from leaving.
>But too often the enterprise zones have not delivered on their promises,
>according to a Times study.
>
>Time and again, enterprise zones have been drawn to accommodate existing
>businesses that were not likely to move. Richmond's zone, for example,
>was configured to include the ChevronTexaco refinery, an operation that
>had no plans to relocate.
>
>In Oakland, much of the city was placed inside the enterprise zone,
>including the airport and shipping port. These facilities have drawn new
>businesses, but were likely to do so with or without the enterprise
>zone.
>
>In San Francisco, only six of the 69 census tracts that make up that
>city's enterprise zone meet two of the three criteria that would qualify
>the zone now. Instead of bringing new businesses to poor neighborhoods,
>the enterprise zones are using taxpayer money to fatten the profits of
>companies that have long been in the area and were not apt to leave.
>
>There is also a major problem with accountability. One of the most
>lucrative tax breaks companies receive is based on hiring credits. But
>there is inadequate and sloppy data on the number of jobs created in
>many of the enterprise zones, particularly in Oakland.
>
>We still believe enterprise zones can be valuable tools in improving
>economic conditions in impoverished areas, but changes are necessary.
>The zones need to be more tightly drawn, based on accurate and current
>data on unemployment, household income and blight. Tax breaks should be
>restricted to new hires inside the enterprise zone. Most important,
>up-to-date information on hiring and retention of workers must be
>compiled.
>
>Without such reforms, enterprise zones are more likely to be drains on
>state revenues at the expense of taxpayers and public services. That is
>not acceptable.
>
>
>
>
>
>**********
>Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst
>(D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
>Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het
>tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
>Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het
>tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
>Het on-line archief is te vinden op:
>http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
>**********

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********