Friday, October 12, 2007

Not good news for Ohio

The newly released 2008 State Business Tax Climate Index ranks how "business friendly" the 50 state tax systems are, providing a roadmap for state lawmakers concerned with keeping their states tax-competitive, says the Tax Foundation.

According to the Foundation:

* The five most business friendly states are Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Alaska and Florida.
* Next on the list are Montana, New Hampshire, Texas, Delaware and Oregon.
* At the opposite end of the spectrum are Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, California and Ohio, the least business friendly states.
* Following those are Iowa, Vermont, Nebraska, Minnesota and Maine.

"There's no question that states are competing with one another for companies, jobs and people," said study co-author Curtis Dubay. "Taxes matter to businesses and the states with better business tax climates will reap the rewards."

Dubay added, "States need to constantly be on the lookout for ways to improve their business tax climates. If they're standing still, they're losing ground to states actively improving their climates."

Source: "Which States Are Best for Business? The 2008 State Business Tax Climate Index," Tax Foundation, October 10, 2007.

5 comments:

Frank said...

It seems that Ohio has been in the bottom 10 for some time now. It would be interesting to see what would happen if our government officials would take a look at how other states are making it business friendly for their states. Indiana has been in the Top 15 the last few years. Maybe the folks down in Columbus need to look at our neighbors to the west and find out what makes them so friendly.

The A-Hole Lawyer said...

Sadly true and yet consistently denied by not only local but statewide politicians.

Notice the bottom 10 is NOT shared by neighbor states, so any midwest minded companies are likely to go to IN, MI, KY, WV or Penn, just to mention the border states.

Every time I hear a michigan.org commercial, with the likes of Tim Allen and Jeff Daniels touting their states "upper hand" I wonder why Ohio is not actively working to change its business environment and recruit new jobs.

The A-Hole.

Maggie Thurber said...

A-Hole Lawyer - actually, during the end of Taft's term and continuing into Strickland's term, the state did have some very nice advertisements in the Wall Street Journal.

They were about 1/3 page - tall, narrow and featured various ceo's and business owners who told their own story of why they'd moved into Ohio for their business. They were nicely done and utilized top executives to speak to other top executives about the reasons why they'd chosen Ohio.

I expect that the state entered into a contract that has since expired as it's been months since I saw a new ad in the WSJ.

There are good things about our state, county and city ... but the tax structure isn't one of them.

Right Wing Toledo said...

A tax structure promoted by a liberal Republican governor, and taken to the next level by a socialist Democrat governor. Are we really surprised that Ohio is business unfriendly?

Frankly, I'm surprised the unemployment figure isn't higher than it already is. And, once the businesses leave the state, what happens to the housing market?

The A-Hole Lawyer said...

A corporate giant buys HCR Manor care. Manor care appears to be a well run company providing quality service. (Notice before the buyout there were no cries of mistreated residents or poor health care at their facilities.) The corporate giant at this point may not have any reason to move the headquarters, fire personnel, or make any large scale changes, all of which would cost substantial amounts of money.

BUT.

A union - seeing a chance to make some headlines - decides to protest the corporate buyout, knowing full well that they will have ZERO IMPACT in the decision to sell. In standard union form they attack the income of the director, make false allegations about the quality of the service provided (health care will decline), and attempt to influence people through fear -- "The 700 jobs will be lost to elsewhere!!!"

SO.

The corporate giant, who previously did not have a reason to make changes, sees this political stunt as in indication of the headaches it may face if it maintains the headquarters of its newly acquired corporation in Toledo, Ohio. Measuring the cost of change against the cost and heartache of the status quo, do you think the union has DECREASED the likelihood of Toledo losing these 700 jobs or INCREASED that chance?

Do you think other large employers who may consider NW Ohio as a potential investment location are encouraged to do so when faced with this union protest, or more likely to choose another city for investment?

We won't even talk about the other businesses in that building being adversely effected by the locked doors. Ficocia's apparently was "closed for repairs," or the expenditure of YOUR TAX DOLLARS on the increased police presence at this sham of a political stunt.

The A-Hole.

Google Analytics Alternative