Author Archive

Study: “Job Sprawl” Still Subsidized Despite Four States’ Modest Reforms

September 11, 2012

Four states’ efforts to curb “job sprawl” by altering economic development subsidies have had little effect on transit ridership, land use patterns or site location decisions, according to a report released today by Good Jobs First.

Attempts by officials in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey to break down “policy silos” and make job subsidies location-efficient have failed. Some of the policies were weak to begin with; others got watered down or ignored, and one got rapidly deregulated.

These are the key findings of Breaking Down Silos Between Economic Development and Public Transportation: An Evaluation of Four States’ Modest Efforts In Making Job Subsidies Location-Efficient,a study published today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit, non-partisan research center based in Washington, DC. In its review of the four states’ location efficiency policies, the report recommends restricting economic development business subsidies to transit corridors. Good Jobs First further recommends establishing clear program goals, requiring regular evaluation of location efficiency policies, and requiring subsidized companies to participate in transportation demand management programs. The full report is available at

“When states fail to align economic development subsidies with public transit investments, the result is state-sponsored job sprawl,” said Good Jobs First executive director Greg LeRoy. “Making more jobs transit-accessible is the most powerful way to give carless workers more job opportunity and all workers a healthier commuting choice.”

Founded in 1998, Good Jobs First is a non-profit, non-partisan research center promoting accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families.  Headquartered in Washington DC, it has a project office in New York.

Americans for Transit

June 14, 2012

Responding to the nation’s public transportation crisis, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and Good Jobs First (GJF) announced today the launch of Americans for Transit (A4T), a new non-profit to create, strengthen and unite grassroots transit rider groups.  They also announced Andrew Austin as A4T’s founding executive director.

Ridership on buses, trains, and ferries is skyrocketing with Americans taking 10.4 billion rides in 2011 – the highest number in decades.  But due to the recession, 85 percent of transit agencies have had to cut routes, borrow money and/or increase fares just to keep running.

“Transit is a major social justice issue of our day,” stated Larry Hanley, ATU International President and Chair of the A4T board. “Ridership is the highest in decades, but riders have suffered the worst wave of fare hikes and service cuts in post-war history. These are tax hikes imposed on the working poor, plain and simple. Americans need better, affordable transit service. The ATU and Americans for Transit will work to make that happen by organizing more riders, workers and advocates to fight for public transit.”

“Andrew Austin stood out because of his terrific track record as field director of the Transportation Choices Coalition in Washington State,”  said Greg LeRoy, GJF executive director and A4T secretary-treasurer. “He values local community organizing, is savvy with social media, and has a sophisticated grasp of transit policy.”

Americans for Transit is the latest response by ATU and GJF to the nation’s transit crisis. Since Hanley’s election in the fall of 2010, the two organizations have staged two community-labor “boot camps” training grassroots groups and local union leaders in 95 cities how to organize riders, and published Transit Rider Organizing: A How-To Manual that compiles eight case studies of winning campaigns, catalogs best practices, and provides the first-ever national directory of grassroots rider groups.

“Despite federal gridlock on the surface transportation act, at the state and local level Americans continue to show terrific support for transit,” said Austin. “Recent votes in Louisiana and Wisconsin prove again that Americans believe transit is critical for a healthy environment, a strong economy, and fairness to the working poor, seniors, students and the disabled.”

For more information stay tuned to, which will be live soon, and follow us on facebook at

The Amalgamated Transit Union is the largest labor organization representing transit workers in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1892, the ATU today is comprised of over 190,000 members in 264 local unions spread across 44 states and nine provinces.

Good Jobs First is a nationally recognized resource center promoting accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families.  Click here to read the Transit Rider Organizing Manual online.

Where Are Workers’ Taxes Actually Going? Report: State Withholding Taxes Increasingly Pay for Corporate Subsidies Rather than Public Services

April 12, 2012

Nearly $700 million a year in state income taxes withheld from worker paychecks in 16 states is being used to provide lavish subsidies to corporations rather than paying for vital public services. These diversions have gone to more than 2,700 companies, including major firms such as Sears, Goldman Sachs and General Electric. Few if any of the affected workers are aware, because no state requires they be informed on their pay stubs.

These are the key findings of Paying Taxes to the Boss: How a Growing Number of States Subsidize Companies with the Withholding Taxes of Workers, a study published today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit, non-partisan research center based in Washington, DC. It is available at

“Diversion of personal income tax revenues into subsidies violates how economic development has been defined,” said Good Jobs First Executive Director Greg LeRoy. “States are draining a revenue source that helps many of them address structural deficits.”

Paying Taxes to the Boss traces the rise of 22 subsidy programs derived from personal income taxes (PIT) that together cost about $684 million a year. “These programs are justified in the name of job creation, but they often end up subsidizing companies to move existing jobs from one state to another. In other cases, they go to employers that threaten to move unless they get paid to stay put,” said Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the report.

“We recommend that states seriously consider abolishing PIT-based subsidies. Short of that, we urge Truth in Taxation: that companies be required to disclose the details of how much money is going where on every pay stub of affected workers,”  LeRoy added.

The report examines the following PIT-based subsidy programs:

  • Colorado: Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit
  • Connecticut: Job Creation Tax Credit
  • Georgia: Job Tax Credits
  • Georgia: Research and Development Tax Credit
  • Illinois: Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) Tax Credit
  • Indiana: Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) Tax Credit
  • Kansas: Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) Program
  • Kentucky: Kentucky Business Investment (KBI) Program
  • Kentucky: Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Act (KIRA)
  • Maine: Employment TIF (ETIF)
  • Maine: Shipbuilding Facility Credit
  • Mississippi: Impact Withholding Rebate Program/Existing Industry Withholding Rebate Program
  • Mississippi: Mississippi Advantage Jobs Incentive Program
  • Missouri: Quality Jobs Program
  • Missouri: The Missouri Automotive Manufacturing Jobs Act
  • New Jersey: Business Employment Incentive Program (BEIP)
  • New Mexico: High Wage Jobs Tax Credit
  • North Carolina: Job Development Investment Grants (JDIG)
  • Ohio: Job Creation Tax Credit
  • Ohio: Job Retention Tax Credit
  • South Carolina: Job Development Credits
  • Utah: Economic Development TIF (EDTIF)

Some of the programs have been around since the 1990s, but in recent years more states have enacted them: six of the 22 programs (and portions of others) were enacted since the beginning of 2009.

The programs work in various ways. Some allow employers to immediately retain (and never remit to the state) a large portion of the withholding taxes generated by designated new or retained workers. Some provide cash rebates or grants calculated the same way. Others provide credits against corporate income taxes or other business levies, with the value of those credits based on the withholding taxes of new or retained workers. (Some of these credits are cash-refundable if the credit exceeds the company’s tax liability.)  The share of withholding taxes diverted into subsidies can be as high as 100 percent (such as EDGE tax credits in Illinois and Indiana) and the duration can be as long as 25 years (such as Mississippi’s Withholding Rebates). Twelve programs divert 75 percent or more of withholding, and 18 do so for ten years or longer.

The most expensive program is New Jersey’s BEIP, which in FY2011 approved new grants worth up to $73.2 million over their multi-year terms and disbursed $178 million during the year for previously approved contracts. Among states with subsidy recipient disclosure, those with the largest number of participants in PIT-based programs are: Ohio (567), Kentucky (509), Illinois (315), New Jersey (306) and Indiana (283).

The report also highlights how such programs fuel the “economic war among the states” and “job blackmail.” For example, Kansas gave AMC Entertainment $47 million in PEAK subsidies last year to get the movie theatre chain to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri about 10 miles across the state line to suburban Leawood. In Illinois, Motorola Mobility (now part of Google) last year got state officials to provide $100 million in EDGE tax credits over ten years to keep its headquarters in the Chicago suburb of Libertyville.

Report: States Lack Sound, Consistent Policies to Enforce Job-Creation and Other Performance Requirements in Economic Development Subsidy Programs

January 18, 2012

Despite the fact that many economic development deals fall short on job creation or other benefits, states are inconsistent in how they monitor, verify and enforce the terms of job subsidies. Many states fail to verify that companies receiving subsidies are meeting commitments, and many more have weak penalty policies for addressing non-compliance.

These are the findings of Money-Back Guarantees for Taxpayers: Clawbacks and Other Enforcement Safeguards in State Economic Development Subsidy Programs, a study published today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit, non-partisan research center in Washington, DC. It is online at

“It is not enough for states to have good job-creation and other performance requirements on paper in their subsidy programs; they must also enforce them diligently and consistently,” said Good Jobs First Executive Director Greg LeRoy. “Strong standards and strong enforcement are inseparable in making sure subsidy programs are not mere corporate giveaways,” added Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the report.

Using a scoring system covering performance standards and enforcement, Money-Back Guarantees rates 238 programs in 50 states and the District of Columbia on a scale of 0 to 100. Other findings:

  • Ninety percent (215) of programs require companies to report on job creation or other outcomes. Yet in 31 percent of those programs, the agency doesn’t verify the data.
  • Three-quarters (178) of the programs use penalties such as recapture of benefits already provided (clawbacks) and the recalibration or termination of future subsidies. Penalty provisions in 84 programs are weakened by the fact that their implementation is discretionary or allows exceptions.
  • Only 21 programs publish aggregate enforcement data; 38 list non-compliant companies; 14 list penalized companies.
  • The states with the highest averages are Vermont (79) and North Carolina (76); the lowest: District of Columbia (4) and Alaska (19).


  • Recipients should always be required to report on job creation and other benchmarks—and the data should be verified.
  • Agencies should penalize non-compliant recipients. Performance-based programs should operate without penalties only if recipients are required to fulfill all requirements before receiving subsidies.
  • Penalty systems should be not be weakened by exceptions or discretion on whether to implement them. Agencies should publish online data about enforcement.

Manual for Organizing Transit Riders Features Creative Community Victories

December 22, 2011

Good Jobs First today published a grassroots organizing manual for riders of public transportation seeking to preserve and improve transit service.

“Organizing Transit Riders: A How-To Manual” is a 64-page resource guide that includes six case studies of successful transit-funding campaigns plus interviews with the nation’s two oldest transit advocacy groups, the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign in New York and the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles.

The manual was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and is freely available at

“This manual draws upon two community-labor ‘boot camps’ we staged with the Amalgamated Transit Union,” said Greg LeRoy, director of Good Jobs First and primary author of the manual. “In recruiting to the boot camps, we found a motley rainbow of community groups organizing transit riders. Most had never met before and they shared terrific stories.”

“We applaud Good Jobs First for issuing this manual,” said Lawrence Hanley, International President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the nation’s largest union of transit workers. “Transit riders deserve a greater voice and rider organizing is critical to stemming the national tide of service cuts and fare hikes that are actually tax hikes on the working poor.”

The manual’s case studies feature exciting campaigns in the Twin Cities and Denver metro areas, Spokane and King County in Washington state, St. Louis County, and Toronto, Canada. The case studies are written by the community organizers who orchestrated the campaigns. The manual also includes an annotated set of links to other campaign resources, a series of constituency-recruitment checklists, a summary of common elements of successful campaigns, and a directory of every known grassroots group organizing transit riders in the U.S.

Good Jobs First is a non-profit, non-partisan resource center promoting accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families. It has published studies for 11 years looking at economic development subsidies and the geographic sprawl of jobs, job access via transit, organized labor’s role in smart growth, and transit-oriented development.

Report: States Spend Billions on Economic Development Subsidies that Don’t Require Job Creation or Decent Wages

December 14, 2011

States are spending billions per year on corporate tax credits, grants and other economic development subsidies that often require little if any job creation and lack wage and benefit standards covering workers at subsidized companies. These are the key findings of Money for Something: Job Creation and Job Quality Standards in State Economic Development Subsidy Programs, a study published today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit research center based in Washington, DC. It is available at

“With unemployment still so high, taxpayers have a right to expect that economic development investments create significant numbers of quality jobs,” said Good Jobs First Executive Director Greg LeRoy. “If subsidies do not result in real public benefits, they are no better than corporate giveaways,” added Good Jobs First Research Director Philip Mattera, principal author of the report.

Money for Something rates the performance standards and job quality requirements of 238 key subsidy programs from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each is rated on a scale of 0-100.  Findings:

  • Only 135 programs have a performance standard relating to job creation, job retention or training of a certain number of workers.
  • Fewer than half (98) of the 238 programs impose a wage requirement, and only 53 of those are tied to labor market rates. Only 11 of the wage requirements raise pay levels by mandating rates somewhat above existing market averages. Wage requirements vary from just above the federal minimum to more than $40/hour in limited cases.
  • Only 51 programs require that a subsidized employer make available healthcare coverage, and only 31 require an employer contribution to premiums.
  • The states with the best average scores among their programs: Nevada (82), North Carolina (79) and Vermont (77). The worst: the District of Columbia (4), Alaska (5) and Wyoming (10).

Policy recommendations:

  • Every subsidy should contain job creation, job retention or training requirements strengthened by provisions barring employers from shifting existing jobs from other facilities and mandating that jobs be kept in place for a minimum period.
  • Every job in a subsidized facility should be covered by a wage standard that raises pay above market levels. They should also offer health coverage in which the employer contributes to premium costs.

$100 Billion Verizon is one of Country’s Most Aggressive Tax Dodgers

November 15, 2011

A new report released today reveals how Verizon Communications achieves a negative federal tax rate to avoid paying its fair share of taxes, and aggressively uses tax loopholes and subsidies to cut its tax bills even more.

Unpaid Bills: How Verizon Shortchanges Government Through Tax Dodging and Subsidies,” was produced by Citizens for Tax Justice and Good Jobs First, and released by the two organizations and the Communications Workers of America. The report shows that Verizon, a $100 billion dollar corporation, paid an effective federal tax rate of –2.9 percent between 2008 and 2010. For the year 2010 alone, Verizon’s federal tax rate was -5.7 percent. While most Americans are struggling to make ends meet and pay their fair share of taxes, Verizon actually received a federal tax rebate of nearly $1 billion rebate from the United States Treasury.

The report is especially timely as the congressional “super committee” meets on budget and tax issues. Verizon has put the “Reverse Morris Trust” tax loophole to extensive use, avoiding $1.5 billion in taxes on the sale of its landlines and other assets, said CWA chief of staff Ron Collins.

“Verizon doesn’t use its tax avoidance gains to keep up its copper network or extend its fiber optic technology to cities like Boston, Baltimore, Buffalo or other communities or create quality jobs. It isn’t negotiating a fair contract with the workers who have made this company so successful but instead is demanding nearly $1 billion in givebacks and making sure that its top executives stay in the top 1 percent of Americans. That’s why we say ‘the 99 percent’ are picking up Verizon’s tax tab,” Collins said.

Earlier this month, CTJ placed Verizon as one of the nation’s top tax avoidance offenders, manipulating state revenue rules, seeking economic development subsidies, and structuring its business and tax affairs to produce a negative federal income tax rate. Verizon has received state and local tax subsidies in at least 13 states.

Robert McIntyre, director of CTJ and the report’s lead author, said the billions of dollars that companies like Verizon receive are simply “wasted dollars, that could have gone to protect Medicare, create jobs and cut the deficit. Too many corporations are gaming the system at the expense of the rest of us.”

Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First, said Verizon and other tax dodgers “aren’t using these tax givebacks to create good jobs or invest in their companies in ways that would improve our communities. Ordinary Americans are struggling to pay their own taxes and are picking up the tab for these corporations as well. It’s a system out of control.”

Study: Poverty Wages at BWI Create Hidden Taxpayer Costs

November 7, 2011

Many workers providing food and retail service at Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) are paid so little that they and their families depend on Medicaid, the Maryland Children’s Health Program, and food stamps, according to a study released today.

The study, entitled “Behind the Counter at BWI: Engine of Development or Pocket of Poverty?” was issued today by Good Jobs First at

“Maryland taxpayers have already paid enormous sums to build, maintain and operate the state’s largest airport,” said Greg LeRoy, the report’s author and Good Jobs First’s director. “But hundreds of workers there remain mired in poverty wages and scant benefits that force them and their families to depend on social safety-net programs, creating hidden taxpayer costs.”

The study is based upon a survey of 175 non-union, non-supervisory food and retail workers at BWI. It finds that:

  • Typical pay is just $8.50 an hour for 36 hours per week—or just $15,912 a year—below the federal poverty line for a small family and far below a more realistic bare-subsistence budget published by Wider Opportunities for Women.
  • Almost two in five workers have no health insurance coverage at all, and of those with coverage, two in five depend on Maryland Medicaid.
  • Although seven-eighths of those workers with children report having them covered, almost two-thirds of those are dependent upon the Maryland Children’s Health Program (MCHP). (Both Medicaid and MCHP are state-administered and funded with federal and state dollars.)
  • More than one-sixth receive food stamps at an average rate of $300 per month.

States and Cities Finally Declare Jobs Truce

April 1, 2011

For Immediate Release April 1, 2011; Contact: Greg LeRoy 202-232-1616 x 211

Good Jobs First today announced a comprehensive treaty agreement among the nation’s leading associations of public officials to end the “economic war among the states” and the far more common “economic war among the suburbs” and finally direct job-creation subsidies where they are needed most.

“I applaud the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the International Economic Development Council, the Council of Development Finance Agencies, and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board for this stunning breakthrough,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First. “America’s public officials are finally realizing that they are not each other’s enemies, and that corporate tax dodging, off-shore job flight, and unsustainable sprawling land use are the real issues.”

To deliver on the 50 states plus-D.C. cease-fire, all of the governors have agreed to sponsor legislation that would prohibit the use of state economic development funds to subsidize interstate job flight. The same bills will also prohibit the use of state or local job subsidies to relocate jobs within a state. To end the “prisoners’ dilemma” game, the states have entered a compact to call each other and tattle on companies seeking to play states against each other. The new state laws will require mayors to do the same within a state.

“We know we can’t use federal funds to drag jobs across state lines,” said one Midwestern governor who requested anonymity. “But we’ve always used state and local dollars for interstate job piracy and of course federal money is often fungible. We have finally seen the light: state-eat-state is a futile net-loss game and a distraction from globalization.”

Getting back to basics, the new laws will allocate deals to communities based on how badly they have suffered job loss as recorded under the federal WARN Act on plant closings and mass layoffs.

To make development programs more transparent and encourage taxpayer engagement, the governors and big-city mayors also agreed to enact uniform legislation mandating that every deal be disclosed online, with reporting standards based on Good Jobs First’s recent study Show Us the Subsidies. Mimicking the Recovery Board’s new iPhone app for federal stimulus projects, each state will also mandate that all smart phones come installed with an app for detecting nearby economic development dollars via GPS.

Guided by new rules issued by GASB, each state will publish a Unified Development Budget annually, detailing all forms of spending for jobs, especially tax breaks, which have never been uniformly reported. The rules include a requirement that states project revenues lost to each tax break program for the next 10 years. “We are very keen to see these new Unified Development Budgets,” said a credit-rating agency official on background. “We suspect that some states have been hiding huge tax-break liabilities. Now we will be able to compare apples to apples and whack states that generate bogus forecasts.”

Money-back guarantee clawbacks will also be attached to every program, and every tax break subsidy will be sunsetted every three years and not eligible for renewal unless a performance audit determines it is effective. “We are embarrassed that more than 20 years after clawbacks became a common safeguard, some states are still getting ripped off by runaway shops,” said a New England governor who asked his name be withheld.

In addition to locating deals where plant closings have been concentrated, the new laws will use other rules to explicitly address poverty and reduce greenhouse gas emissions: for deals in metro areas with public transportation systems, the new state laws will require that subsidized jobs be accessible via mass transit (for carless workers). To get employers to act in their own economic self-interest (and the environment’s), the new laws will also require that all subsidized buildings be built or retrofitted to LEED standards or equivalent green building efficiency.

Job Quality Standards will be attached to every program, requiring subsidized companies to pay wages at least as good as the market, i.e., the wages for that industry in that labor market, with a living-wage floor, plus health care.

Site location consultants will be registered and regulated as lobbyists under the new state laws, making commissions to them illegal. The states with film production tax credits will deny them to G, PG and PG-13 movies that include smoking.

To plug corporate tax loopholes and shore up state revenues, the states with Single Sales Factor will repeal it. The states that lack combined reporting will enact it. And the states with the sales tax “vendor discount” will repeal it.

Finally, the new state laws will shield public education from property tax abatements and tax increment financing (TIF). The school share of property taxes will no longer be eligible for abatement or TIF diversions. “We finally realized that K-12 is our best economic development investment,” said a big-city mayor. “It was nuts that we allowed abatements and TIF to undermine our economic foundation.”

Indeed, the law will go further: school boards will take control of abatement and TIF decisions now made by city and county boards. School boards will determine whether funding for non-education purposes is abated or TIFed. “They’ve played with our money for decades,” said one state’s school board association president. “It’s payback time.”

“Liberated by these safeguards, America’s leaders will now be free to focus on the things that really matter in economic development,” said LeRoy, author of The Great American Jobs Scam. “Now we can all focus on skills, infrastructure, clusters, innovation—and fair trade—to restore the nation’s ailing economy.”

Editor’s note: Happy April Fool’s Day!

Report: Slashing Ineffective Corporate Subsidies Can Bolster State Budgets

March 21, 2011

Eliminating or reducing ineffective corporate subsidy programs can make a significant contribution to the efforts of state governments to address budget deficits, according to a report released today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit, non-partisan research center based in Washington, DC. The report, Slashing Subsidies, Bolstering Budgets, is available at

“Billions of dollars are being wasted each year on subsidies that fail to deliver on their intended purpose of creating jobs and growing the tax base,” said Good Jobs First Executive Director Greg LeRoy. “That money could be put to much better use.”

The report presents ten case studies of wasteful programs that cost states a total of $2.8 billion per year (see below for the full list). “These are just a sample of the large numbers of subsidies that states could target instead of cutting vital public services such as education and healthcare,” said Philip Mattera, Research Director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the report.

The programs are plagued by problems such as:

Cost. Some of the programs cost state and local governments enormous amounts of money, in a few cases more than half a billion dollars a year. For example, Louisiana’s Industrial Tax Exemptions cost some $745 million annually; New York’s Industrial Development Agencies give out some $645 million a year in tax breaks.

Poor or undocumented job-creation/retention results. Most of the programs have been criticized for failing to create or retain many jobs, especially in relation to their cost. Programs such as New Jersey’s Urban Enterprise Zones have actually been found to produce zero or even negative job growth.

Disproportionate shares going to large corporations that need help the least, shortchanging small businesses. In Iowa’s Research Activities Credit program, more than 80 percent of the tax breaks have been going to fewer than a dozen firms, some of them large multinational corporations.

Awards to poverty-wage employers such as retailers. Among the recipients in programs such as New Jersey’s Urban Enterprise Zones and New York’s Industrial Development Agencies have been large retailers such as Wal-Mart, which are known for not paying family-supporting wages or benefits.

Poor accountability practices.  Many of the state agencies running the programs do a poor job of tracking how money is spent and whether the desired outcomes are achieved. The lack of clear standards in Pennsylvania’s Keystone Opportunity Zone program caused one development official to refer to it as “legalized tax evasion.”

Other accountability problems include poor disclosure of recipient data and conflicts of interest. The Texas Emerging Technology Fund has been accused of recurring cronyism involving major campaign contributors.

Given these drawbacks, reconsideration of such programs would make sense at any time, the report argues. There are precedents for abolishing or curtailing subsidy programs to deal with budgetary problems. In fact, as this report is published, the California legislature is considering abolition of the state’s expensive and poorly performing Enterprise Zone program.

Yet there are still scores of costly and often ineffective programs that remain unexamined and untouched. Eliminating or scaling back these subsidies would by itself probably not solve the budget gap in any state, the report acknowledges, but it would make a significant contribution to the effort.

The full list of profiled programs follows:

  • Iowa: Research Activities Credit
  • Louisiana: Industrial Tax Exemptions
  • Massachusetts: Single Sales Factor
  • Michigan: Film Tax Credits
  • New Jersey: Urban Enterprise Zones
  • New York: Industrial Development Agencies
  • Oregon: Business Energy Tax Credit
  • Pennsylvania: Keystone Opportunity Zones
  • Texas: Emerging Technology Fund
  • Texas: Texas Enterprise Fund