Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Email this post | Back to Blog home
Monday, July 28, 2008

You can't be a business junkie without loving ranking things in various ways.

And I can't wait to dive into special lists like the Fortune 500, the Inc. 500 and the Forbes 400.

But sometimes rankings make you scratch your head. Like today. Two different pictures of Philadelphia and business.

First, Inc. magazine calls Philadelphia one of the worst cities in which to do business. Now the magazine calls its annual ranking the hottest cities for business. But looking at the 335 metropolitan statistical areas it ranked, I see Philadelphia stuck at No. 308. And it is the city, because it lists the 2007 nonfarm employment as 664,300.

Looking at just large cities, Inc. magazine tapped the Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina area as the hottest for business. The Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn area of Michigan was the worst among the group - No. 66. Philadelphia was No. 62, better than Providence, R.I., but worse than Rochester, N.Y.

How do they determine this? It's by employment growth rate, and that should tell you that the city would have trouble gaining ground. Its employment base has been shrinking for years.

The second ranking released Monday was by KPMG International, and it calculated a "tax index" for 21 U.S. citiies with populations of more than 2 million. Philadelphia did better than I would have expected. It was No. 10 - ahead of Boston, but behind Denver.

Here's how KPMG says it came up with its ranking:

The tax index is a measure of the total taxes paid by corporations in a particular location and industry, expressed as a percentage of total taxes paid by similar corporations in the United States.

KPMG looked at corporate income taxes, capital taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, miscellaneous local business taxes and statutory labor costs for 102 cities worldwide.

Still Philadelphia's total tax index of 101.9 was below the U.S. national average of 100, so I'm not sure the Commerce Department wants to be trumpeting the results. In fact, KPMG said Baltimore, our neighbor down I-95, had the most favorable tax structure for business.

The city with the worst tax index was San Jose, according to KPMG. Yes, worse than New York.

Posted by Mike Armstrong @ 5:01 PM  Permalink | 3 comments
SAVE AND SHARE
Comments
Posted by Echo 11:20 PM, 07/28/2008
Mike, did this study include the wage tax? It might not show up according to your description of the methodology since it is paid by workers....
Posted by StewieforPresident 09:15 AM, 07/29/2008
Did it include specific incentives offered by municipalities, such as the Keystone Opportunity Zone? Also, what about incentives directed at start-ups/small businesses? An argument can be made that these types of incentives are key in the battle between municipalities to lure top tier firms and to attract new talent/industry. My sense is that Philadelphia would have a very mixed record, as it seems to be enjoying some success in luring new firms (i.e. Unisys, assuming the ridiculous sign argument goes away) and giving other major firms such as Blackrock reason to look to moving here. On the small business/start-up side of the equation, it is incredibly difficult to start-up shop here as there are minimal incentives and a horrendous tax burden on emerging businesses.
Posted by Tim34 12:25 PM, 07/29/2008
The KOZ is the classic example of why this city's tax structure needs to be gutted and overhauled. The city will bend over backwards to try to lure Blackrock with a host of tax incentives, yet they don't understand how many more jobs could be created by providing those incentives across the board. But paying for ridiculous patronage jobs is more important to the politicians that run the city government than creating a pro-growth environment that will stem them exodus of city inhabitants over the last 50 years.
3 comments
About Mike Armstrong
Mike Armstrong, a business editor and writer for nearly two decades, is the Inquirer's business columnist and PhillyInc blog editor.