• May 16th 2006 at 9:34AM
  • 7
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the state of Ohio's decision to use tax incentives to attract DaimlerChrysler's business was unconstitutional. Ohio had granted DCX an investment tax credit after the company decided to build its Toledo North Assembly plant in the state but a "taxpayer group" headed by who else but Ralph Nader challenged it. DCX sees the ruling as a victory for America that will help keep investment and jobs within our borders in an increasingly competitive global market.

A statement made by Ohio government Bob Taft reveals that the tax in question levied against an incoming company's machinery and equipment is no longer in effect anyway, though the Supreme Court's ruling means Ohio will be able to honor the incentives it had offered other companies in return for their investment in the state.

[Source: DaimlerChrysler]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 9 Years Ago
      Schools also go without students if you don't have growth, that generally means you get less money going to the schools.

      Schools and Economic development are handled in different ways. Generally schools get money from the federal, state level and a voted on local tax levy.

      Economic development is generally handled with grants, a combination of federal, state, county and local monies, a revenue bond, or incremental tax adjustments.
      Most of the time they are tied to a jobs created number. Depending on the amounts and how each city handles them, most of the time they do not require a vote.

      I agree that our schools need a better way, but, if we're truly concerned it's time to take a very hard look at our schools upper management and admisitrative costs first. In our district fully 1/2 of our total salaries and benefits go to 3 people. Apply a portion of those salaries towards textbook purchases and the problem goes away.

      If tax incetives are used carefully and you build poulation, jobs, homes and students, it works well. But, they need to be used carefully. I hate the giveaway program.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Tax incentives are ok, but in our little town of Fargo, ND Tax incentives are given at the expense of othere, because others have to pay highter taxes to support the schools ect. therefore in this respect I believe Tax incentive should be use very carefully.

      Eugene Dumont
      Fargo, ND
      • 9 Years Ago
      Mr. Neff's piece provides good instruction on how not to report judicial opinions.

      Besides the first sentence's lack of clarity (without context it's unclear whether the 6th Circuit or the Supreme Court ruled the tax incentives were unconstitutional), the Supreme Court said no such thing. #1 summarized the Supreme Court's opinion well.

      Mr. Neff's error is much worse than the usual one about Supreme Court "decisions". Many reporters, including those working for big papers and wire services, say the the Supreme Court decided a case when it did not--it merely refused to hear the matter. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case (in legalese it "denies certiorari"), it says zippo about the merits of the case and does not qualify as an opinion.

      Whereas in this case the Supreme Court actually had an opinion but Mr. Neff's explanation bears little relationship to it.
      • 9 Years Ago
      It's insane for juridictions to wage bidding wars for corporate favors. Meanwhile schools go without textbooks.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Did you change the wording of my comments regarding the subjeck of this blog?
      • 9 Years Ago
      The Supreme Court never actually determined whether it was okay for Ohio to have given the tax incentives to DCX. Instead it dismissed the case because the taxpayer group lacked "standing," in other words they couldn't show how the incentives would injure them in any meaningful way and therefore had no right to bring the lawsuit.
      • 9 Years Ago
      anahit, you have it exactly right.

      The sad thing that Neff's 5th grade reading/reporting skills were not caught by his editor. Sadder still, Neff has no idea that sloppy reporting is oftimes worse than no reporting at all. Sago mines, anyone?

    Share This Photo X