Ouch!

Ever feel like you’re hitting your head against a brick wall? I feel that way every time I open a newspaper these days or listen to the administration's rhetoric on business taxes.

The business tax reform debate here in Pennsylvania continues to be clouded by a misunderstanding of the negative effects the governor’s mandatory unitary combined reporting proposal (MUC) would have on job creation. The editorial writers and anyone who chooses to listen only to the Governor, fail to understand the business community’s position on this issue.

The administration claims that the Commonwealth would capture approximately $100 million in revenue by addressing “abuses” in the tax system. MUC, on the other hand, is estimated to capture nearly half a billion dollars, and many experts suggest this number is underestimated. This burdensome proposal has not been adopted by any major state in the past 20 years, and with good reason!

Clearly, MUC goes well beyond capturing any “abuses” there may be in the system, as the governor purports to address. Therein lies the business community’s objection.

The PA Chamber has continuously expressed its willingness to sit down with the administration to identify these abuses. The administration, on the other hand, would rather continue using sensationalized figures to imply that a majority of corporations are unethically avoiding taxes – all part of an effort to gain support for a flawed plan.

If the governor truly regrets not helping Pennsylvania’s job creators in the new budget, as he recently told an audience at the Harrisburg Regional Chamber, he should work with the business community to create a competitive tax system that fosters job creation, not one that merely shifts the tax burden, creating winners and losers.

Until we hear from him, I'll stock up on bandaids!

Comments

[Kirk Liddell]

Well stated, Jim. We count on the press to examine arguments made for and against public policy proposals and not just to parrot them out to their readership. This is not editorializing; it is checking facts and confirming sources. And this includes checking for errors in logic. When the administration justifies MUC on the grounds of stemming abuses with passthrough companies, the press should ask obvious quesitons such as 1) what, specifically, are the abuses that you are talking about, 2) why does your proposed solution raise five times more revenue than your alleged abuses cost, and 3)why aren't you meeting with the Chamber to come up with an alternative solution.