Economic development is usually associated with attracting and retaining business and industry to bolster the tax base while adding to the payroll.

Yet retaining people should be part of the equation, too. According to USA Today, many states and communities are recognizing the 79 million baby boomers soon to enter retirement as economic assets -- often with 401(k) portfolios and profits from the sale of homes held for many years.

Seventy-nine million baby boomers were born between 1946-1964. After raising families, their children may be dispersed around the country, making it easier to dig up the roots planted in their hometowns as they contemplate retirement. Gene Warren, president of a Phoenix consulting firm that works with communities to lure retirees, estimates 20 percent of baby boomers will move to a new state. That's double the current rate of relocation.

Iowa currently has a disincentive for retirees to stay with an income tax on pensions and Social Security. Even Iowans wanting to retain their roots in the Midwest can live more comfortably by moving to communities just across the border.

In their never-ending quest to cut taxes, Republican leaders again have targeted the income tax on pensions and Social Security for elimination.

Iowans pay taxes on pension income exceeding $6,000 per year for an individual and $12,000 for a couple. The income tax on Social Security hits individuals making more than $25,000 and couples at more than $32,000.

The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency reported in 2005 that a five-year phase-out of the tax would cost only $4.3 million in the first year, but steadily ramp up to a final-year figure of $249.2 million in 2012.

With the state in better fiscal shape -- and with the help of Democrats from border communities -- this may be the tax cut Republicans succeed in getting this year.

"We want that wealth to come back to the state and stay in the state," said House Majority Leader Chuck Gipp, R-Decorah.

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved the five-year phaseout, 19-6, with only Democrats in opposition. Some critics are adamant foes of tax cuts, saying the state needs the revenue to maintain and enhance existing programs. Others argue the higher priority is overall reform of the income tax system.

While those points have validity, they also are shortsighted.

We concur with Rep. Jamie Van Fossen, R-Davenport, the chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, who said, "People say the state can't afford it. I say we can't afford to have these people leave the state."

The current policy promotes a mass exodus of retirees. While the Legislative Service Agency focused on the considerable revenues to be lost in income tax, other factors must be weighed.

Retirees will continue to have homes in their communities, which adds to the tax base. Indeed, in anticipation of the boomers retiring, the senior housing market -- including retirement communities -- has been booming in the Cedar Valley.

Successful seniors, who will benefit most from the elimination of the tax, also have a fair amount of discretionary income at their disposal, which will be as important to the community as a company payroll.

And no dollar amount can be placed on the volunteer hours retirees contribute to their communities, often helping out in schools and in worthy social programs.

We have been reluctant to back tax breaks that specifically target demographic groups, including proposals in recent years bereft of logic aimed at stemming the brain drain of young Iowans who leave for better job opportunities or a geographic preference.

The situation is somewhat different for people who have made a long-term commitment to living in Iowa and should be encouraged to stay, not leave.

While we have some qualms about the revenue loss associated with phasing out the state income tax paid by seniors, many of whom will be well-to-do, on balance the benefits would seem to outweigh the costs in both dollars and sense.