Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Rural County Sales/Use Tax Deferment

Health Factors: Employment
Decision Makers: Government - Local, Government - State
Evidence Rating: Insufficient Evidence
Population Reach: 10-19% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Under rural county sales/use tax deferments, businesses that open facilities in rural or economically depressed areas and fulfill sufficient hiring criteria can defer or waive tax payment on capital investments.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Increased employment opportunities
Reduced unemployment

Evidence of Effectiveness

Sands 2006 finds mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of tax incentives on economic development. The article notes a 2004 meta-analysis indicating that after four decades of research, there is no consensus on whether tax incentives have any effect.

Implementation Examples

United States

This strategy is widely used by states and municipalities. The Washington Department of Revenue is one example of an entity implementing rural county sales/use tax deferments.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin has Development Zone Tax Incentives for businesses opening in rural areas that employ targeted populations: TANF recipients, veterans, disabled workers, vocational rehabilitation, and ex-felons.

Citations - Evidence

Sands 2006* - Sands G, Reese LA, Khan HL. Implementing tax abatements in Michigan: A study of best practices. Economic Development Quarterly. 2006;20(1):44-58. Accessed on June 18, 2012
Webpage: http://edq.sagepub.com/content/20/1/44.abstract

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities