Last week we wrote about the NYT series looking at tax incentives. Since then, I’ve come across a number of reports that shed additional light on the issue.

Economist Tim Bartik, quoted in the Times stories, points out that the paper flubs the figures on Michigan’s tax breaks.

…most public finance economists would argue that the sales tax should not be applied to business purchases of business inputs, regardless of whether those business inputs are goods or services. If business inputs are subject to the sales tax, then the sales tax pyramids as businesses buy inputs from suppliers, who in turn buy inputs from other suppliers.

Read the whole piece. Earlier this year Bartik consulted with the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee here on Washington’s R&D tax incentives. (Appendix 4 of this report.) In a blog post, Bartik extends the discussion of incentives to address what makes sense and what doesn’t.

Kenneth Thomas, a political science professor, also contributes valuable perspective.

The Pew Center has released a guide to how states can make more effective use of tax incentive programs. WSJ story here. It’s an important and legitimate discussion. Again, this assumes we’re looking at tax incentives designed to stimulate business investment, not those policies necessary to avoid pyramiding.

Statenet.com has a good roundup of responses to the NYT series from several states. (Scroll down.)