State and local governments have been using a variety of tax breaks to help businesses in Utah -- and to draw them here from outside. Supporters call the breaks "incentives" and say that they pay off for Utah. Critics call them corporate welfare.

Is it time to rein them in, to accept them as a fact of life, or to get even more aggressive in their use to build a commercial base in Utah?

Consider a proposed redevelopment agency for the old Geneva Steel property in Vineyard: Still being drafted, the plan would grant the developer a lighter tax burden in exchange for their making improvements in that key location.

A case can be made for a redevelopment authority, or RDA, there. At 1,800 acres, it's a big job. And it's a crucial one: The land lies near the nexus of key transportation lines, including Interstate 15 and the FrontRunner rail line.

It's also a tough job: Cleaning up the old mill site will be no cakewalk. Moreover, if a proposed Utah Lake bridge makes its east shore link there, that chunk of land will become more valuable than ever.

It might be said that such a demanding task merits financial assistance.

A more complex issue is a proposal to give an incentive to Thanksgiving Park, a major office complex that is seeking a property tax break from Utah County, Lehi and the Alpine School District to build environmentally friendly buildings. Alpine School District has tentatively approved a $1.6 million property tax break over 15 years.

The key to the plan is the estimate that the break will bring $6 million of added property tax revenue to the district. In other words, like a landlord trying to attract a plum customer, the district figures that the discount will bring in more funds in the long run.

Thanksgiving Park also aims to lure top-caliber businesses to the area.

Microsoft has already opened an office there. Incentive supporters say that drawing more such businesses and their well-paid, talented employees should bring additional benefits to the district and the region.

Yet it might be wondered why such successful businesses need more advantages.

It's true that state and local governments are getting smarter about offering sweetheart deals. Nowadays there's little or no money up front.

Companies get tax credits, often spread out over decades, and only after the promised business activity materializes.

Still, not all such incentives bring cheers. Goldman Sachs, the huge financial company, has snared almost $48 million in tax breaks in return for a promise to expand in Utah. The company was in the middle of the Wall Street meltdown, and has drawn plenty of criticism. Does it really need -- or is it entitled to -- a special deal?

First of all, critics say, the events of the past year or so should make it clear that no financial scenario is risk-proof.

As one example of a deal gone bad, state and local governments offered $15 million in incentives to software giant Oracle to build a data center in West Jordan. But the project ground to a halt this summer and remains in limbo. Granted, the project could be revived, but this is a reminder that it's hard to predict what big companies will be doing 10 or 20 years down the road; thus it's hard to predict whether they'll be paying taxes.

The big question is this: Should Utah of all places be offering breaks? It's one thing if a struggling Rust Belt city cooks up a special deal. But as elected officials and business leaders love to say, Utah has tremendous advantages for business. Its business climate is one of the very best in the nation; it offers a prime workforce; quality of life is great.

So if Utah already offers more than most states, why does it need to sweeten the deal by cutting taxes? It's sort of like saying Catherine Zeta Jones needs to splash on perfume to look attractive, or that Brad Pitt needs new deodorant to pose for a billboard photo.

Critics also point accusingly to incentives when they note that Utah (like most other states) is struggling with red ink. Their assumption seems to be that the companies are bluffing, and that they'd pay the full freight if Utah governments stood firm. That would be more money for schools and other needs.

Finally, there's a fairness argument. A pizza stand or a little machine shop must pay taxes and hire workers. Why should they pay the full tax when a huge and profitable company gets a special deal? After all, perhaps that little company will become the Google or Wal-Mart of the future.

The logic seems sound: If tax breaks are a good idea and spark commerce, why not give them to everybody?