It is not uncommon for states or municipalities to enact tax incentives to attract or keep companies (and the jobs they provide) in the area. These days, when there are far fewer jobs than there are job-seekers, every politician is interested in doing what can be done to ensure that his or her voting district can maintain a decent employment rate. That includes altering the tax law in such a way as to make doing business in a certain area more attractive.

In a recent report assessing these sorts of program, North Carolina's was singled out as one of the best. While other tax incentive programs were criticized for not asking enough of the companies that take advantage of the benefits, North Carolina's won praise for requiring that participating companies offer their workers healthcare coverage and for demanding that they pay part of the premium. The state's program also mandates that tax-subsidized facilities stay open for a certain period of time and has a wage standard that goes a long way toward making sure living-wage jobs are the end result of the incentive program.

Of course, the businesses that these sorts of tax incentive programs are meant to attract would prefer it if there were fewer strings attached. Businesses often make the argument that conditioning the receipt of tax incentive benefits on things that might be affected by future economic or business climate events, like employment or a minimum duration of operation, is a bad idea because it's too hard to see into the future.

What do you think about this? From what you personally know about North Carolina's tax incentive system, do you think it is doing a good job, or do you think we should relax it in hopes of attracting even more employers?

Source: The New York Times, "With States Desperate to Keep Jobs, Companies Have Upper Hand, Report Shows," Michael Cooper, Dec. 14, 2011