The use of property tax incentives for business by local governments throughout the United States has escalated over the last 50 years. While there is little evidence that these tax incentives are an effective instrument to promote economic development, they cost state and local governments $5 to $10 billion each year in forgone revenue. Three major obstacles can impede the success of property tax incentives as an economic development tool. First, incentives are unlikely to have a significant impact on a firm's profitability since property taxes are a small part of the total costs for most businesses--averaging much less than 1 percent of total costs for the U.S. manufacturing sector. Second, tax breaks are sometimes given to businesses that would have chosen the same location even without the incentives. When this happens, property tax incentives merely deplete the tax base without promoting economic development. Third, widespread use of incentives within a metropolitan area reduces their effectiveness, because when firms can obtain similar tax breaks in most jurisdictions, incentives are less likely to affect business location decisions. This report reviews five types of property tax incentives and examines their characteristics, costs, and effectiveness: property tax abatement programs; tax increment finance; enterprise zones; firm-specific property tax incentives; and property tax exemptions in connection with issuance of industrial development bonds. Alternatives to tax incentives should be considered by policy makers, such as customized job training, labor market intermediaries, and business support services. State and local governments also can pursue a policy of broad-based taxes with low tax rates or adopt split-rate property taxation with lower taxes on buildings than land.State policy makers are in a good position to increase the effectiveness of property tax incentives since they control how local governments use them. For example, states can restrict the use of incentives to certain geographic areas or certain types of facilities; publish information on the use of property tax incentives; conduct studies on their effectiveness; and reduce destructive local tax competition by not reimbursing local governments for revenue they forgo when they award property tax incentives.Local government officials can make wiser use of property tax incentives for business and avoid such incentives when their costs exceed their benefits. Localities should set clear criteria for the types of projects eligible for incentives; limit tax breaks to mobile facilities that export goods or services out of the region; involve tax administrators and other stakeholders in decisions to grant incentives; cooperate on economic development with other jurisdictions in the area; and be clear from the outset that not all businesses that ask for an incentive will receive one.Despite a generally poor record in promoting economic development, property tax incentives continue to be used. The goal is laudable: attracting new businesses to a jurisdiction can increase income or employment, expand the tax base, and revitalize distressed urban areas. In a best case scenario, attracting a large facility can increase worker productivity and draw related firms to the area, creating a positive feedback loop. This report offers recommendations to improve the odds of achieving these economic development goals.

Although widely utilized, industrial property tax abatements have a dubious record of accomplishments. In addition to failing to deliver promised jobs and investments, tax abatements appear to contribute to urban sprawl, impose substantial cost burdens on older municipalities and have limited positive effects on community economic health, This book uses Michigan's Industrial Facilities Tax abatement program to develop policy recommendations to make the use of these incentives more efficient and equitable.

This report outlines the problems underlying the erosion of Detroit's property tax base--a factor that contributed to the city's bankruptcy in 2013. It offers recommendations for reform at the local and state level, as well as insight and analysis to help policy makers across the country protect their communities from economic decline.

In A Good Tax, tax expert Joan Youngman skillfully considers how to improve the operation of the property tax and supply the information that is often missing in public debate. She analyzes the legal, administrative, and political challenges to the property tax in the United States and offers recommendations for its improvement. The book is accessibly written for policy analysts and public officials who are dealing with specific property tax issues and for those concerned with property tax issues in general.

Economist David Merriman of the University of Illinois at Chicago reviews more than 30 individual studies in the most comprehensive assessment of tax increment financing (TIF) with practical recommendations for policy makers and practitioners. The report finds that while TIF has the potential to draw investment into neglected places, it has not accomplished the goal of promoting economic development in most cases. First implemented in the 1950s, TIF funds economic development within a defined district by earmarking increases in future property tax revenues that result from increases in real estate values in the district. The tax revenue can be used for public infrastructure or to compensate private developers for their investments, but TIF is prone to several pitfalls: it often captures some revenues that would have been generated through normal appreciation in property values, it can be exploited by cities to obtain revenues that would otherwise go to overlying government entities such as school districts, and it can make cities' financial decisions less transparent by separating them from the normal budget process. The report recommends several ways that state and local policy makers can reform TIF practices going forward.