My question would be slightly different. I don't have a problem incenting businesses to locate in the area, but I do have a problem with the amount of the incentives. Is any real research done to prove the exact value of having a particular business locate in the area? Will having Dell in Forsyth County ever repay the taxpayers for all the incentive money that is being spent? Or are we as taxpayers out of luck?

If it can be shown that having a particular business in the area pays for itself in the long-term, I'm all for incentives. I just don't know that our elected officials have the kind of information available to them that will allow them to make a decision like that.

It seems to me that this incentives "tradition" is more like a shakedown by businesses. Dell says "We have to build a new plant, but we'll only put it in a place that makes it worth our while." This is extortion, and state and local governments happily line up to pay ransom money to get new jobs in THEIR areas.

If all governments would stop paying these thugs billions of dollars in ransom, plants would still get built... but corporations would sadly have to curtail paying obscene bonuses to their CEO's. Boo *&(^#@ HOO!

I have to agree a little more with Kehaar on this one. It isn't really the incentives that are the problem, it's the levent of incentive being given.

One way to look at it is this: with incentives local communities, represented by their governments, have the opportunity to compete for new jobs. They can be proactive rather than reactive. If the local governments screw up, then they can be voted out. The members of the community have that power.

Of course Eric is also right that if all the governments refused to use incentives then the playing field would be even in terms of cash, but the competitive nature of economic development would still exist. Things like quality of life, schools, cost of living, etc. would be the only factors.

The reality today is that the competitive landscape includes a combination of incentives and cost of living, schools, etc. The incentives genie is out of the bottle, and unless the genie is legislated back in then this is a reality we're going to have to live with.

By the way, I think that the only reason the Triad was even in the running to go after the Dell business with incentives is because it ranks very high in all those other factors, especially quality of life. (This comes from a recent transplant from the DC area).

Oh, and I absolutely agree with Eric about the exorbidant compensation enjoyed by many CEOs. Unfortunately it doesn't look like many Boards of Directors or shareholders are willing to do anything about it.

Maybe the state should get spending under control so taxes can be lowered. Then companies will actually want to move here. Until then, you're not going to find any fortune 5+ companies that will move here without a tax incentive.

Why should they? Why pay income taxes when you can relocate your headquarters to Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and Washington? The cost of living and wage discrepancy doesn’t out weigh the taxes.

It may be a good idea to put a stop to our Government using our money to fund an October surprise like Dell. The worst part is that they have now set a precident that will ensure that our taxes will go up.