![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
mugofbeer
I ask this in all seriousness. TIFs are investments in "A" thru tax breaks (revenues you weren't receiving anyway) in order to (hopefully) reap benefits through new tax revenues generated by "A", both directly and through other resulting tax sources. I realize there are TIFs for total long-shot projects and there are TIFs for sure things like Panasonic.
If 1. money is fungible and 2. there were no significant tax revenues being generated by the unused land - why are you against providing an incentive (investment) in order to reap MORE revenues you weren't going to get without the TIF? A $ in new tax revenue is superior to no $ in tax revenue.
While l understand the corporate welfare issue and l wish they were outlawed, they aren't going to be.
Bookmarks