Midwest Voices

Yael T. Abouhalkah

The Kansas City Star

Tired of local companies trying to squeeze taxpayers for some extra bucks to help their bottom line?

No?

Then meet Freightquote, a Johnson County-based business and the latest to publicly ask Kansas and Missouri for a good helping of corporate welfare.

If Freightquote, now based in Kansas, is lured to Missouri, it will create no net new jobs for the metro area. It will hurt Kansas’ tax collection efforts. And it won’t help Missouri or Kansas City as much as bringing in a new company would help. That’s because Freightquote’s employees won’t be moving to Missouri; they already live in the area.

Once again, I’m not arguing against all subsidies for all businesses, even those moving across the state line.

But it makes a lot more sense for the public to help support certain areas of the metro region - especially downtown and the urban core - with public subsidies.

Well, Freightquote doesn’t fit that bill. In fact, the company blatantly says it won’t go downtown.

Instead, it appears Freightquote is looking at land out south in KC.

At some point the companies that aren’t getting huge tax breaks to move around like chess pieces are going to put enough pressure on local and state politicians to ratchet back on these ridiculous tax breaks.

Until then, more companies will be like Freightquote, asking for public handouts.

Just once, it would be nice to see a local economic development official or politician tell a local business that it won’t get what it wants from the taxpayers.

Comments

1. 

   Kent Mueller

   12 months ago

   I agree with you, Yael. Wholeheartedly.

   However, I am curious if there were in public subsidies granted for the Star’s printing plant. Yael, do you know?

2. 

   Steven Fetter

   66223

   12 months ago

   Amen.

   There should be across the board support from taxpayers to end this insanity. Instead, there appears to be bipartisan support amongst liberal big city politicians and conservative suburban politicians for granting favored tax breaks to the few.

3. 

   George Harris

   Kansas City

   12 months ago

   At the national level, professional sports franchises get tax breaks by threatening to move the team if they don’t get what they want. At the local level, businesses threaten to move across state line if they can’t get what they want. It’s hard for any political entity to unilaterally withdraw from the bidding war. There has to be legislative restriction on this. At the national level, Congress could withhold highway tax dollars from any jurisdiction that gives money to support stadiums. At the local level, there would have to be simultaneous legislative agreements to stop the business poaching. Exhorting elected officials to draw the line unilaterally isn’t going to work. It doesn’t make any difference what political party they happen to be in; corporations will play them against each other.

4. 

   Steven Fetter

   66223

   12 months ago

   I have no problem with granting tax breaks to corporations. I think lower taxes equal healthier companies.

   My issue is when politicians pick individual companies that get favor at the expense of their competitors. This leads to unfair advantages and corruption of the political system.

5. 

   Kent Mueller

   12 months ago

   George, I agree that nothing will change without a more global type of change. I am a state’s rights guy, and I prefer to have local governess for most things. But, this could be a reason for federal law.

   I am not a legal expert, so I am interested in a response from a knowledgeable source. This is too obvious, so there must be a reason for this. But…how can two similar, side by side, businesses be taxed differently for the same thing (i.e. real estate) and have that situation comply with the equal protection clause of the US Constitution? I’m just curious.

   Another help would be if a local newspaper would maintain a list of all subsidized projects, both public and private, and periodically update them to see how actual results compared with the projections on which the proposals became reality. If that comparison would be made, I would thing fewer would get passed in the future.

6. 

   Joseph Wells

   12 months ago

   Jobs are jobs. As Yael says it would be OK if it were for downtown or the urban core then why not south KC? It has lost jobs in the past at the Bannister complex and will lose more when GSA moves downtown. Yes, it would be nice to say no but until the rules of the game are changed then why fight with one hand tied behind your back?

7. 

   Ray Cyst

   12 months ago

   But there is no net change in jobs in the area. Should Kansas pay a company to move from Missouri to Kansas? There is no increase tax revenue, but Kansas will profit from Missouri loss. However does Kansas profit as much as the TIF costs?

   If Kansas reduces the taxes the company pays 50% of something is more than 100% of nothing. But a multi-million dollar payment and no tax is a loss.

   My gut feel is that politicians are so stupid and vote greedy that it may be done tho’ it loses money in the long run.

8. 

   Kent Mueller

   12 months ago

   Does anyone know if the Star got tax relief when they built their printing plant?

Sign in with Facebook to comment.