Maybe a dumb take but I’d really like for the population to earn an ownership stake in the company for providing subsidies. I don’t know much about subsidies but it seems like it would be in the best interest of the population to be able to have an ownership stake in the companies that are providing a head start through monetary or policy subsidizing. Can someone tell me if there is a way for the US to recoup subsidy money or how this works?
We the people recoup the subsidy money in non-monetary rewards.
Culture is becoming so focused on only the money: I guess because capitalism appears to optimise for the single dimension of dollars so that is all we see.
Let's not forget the value of what we are buying: called "consumer surplus" in economics.
So often commenters seem to focus on the dollars or sometimes the negative externalities, but completely forget what we receive that isn't measured in dollars: in this case access to the internet for people in the boondocks ⃰.
Albeit I am not a US tax payer (however the USA charges me in many many other joyful ways).
This whole thread is about the govt handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to private companies; the topic couldn't be more about money. There are plenty of worthwhile non-monetary things that can be done to improve society, but a discussion about how to allocate government cash subsidies seems like an odd place to object to a focus on financial matters.
It’s funny how these corporations can hoover up billions of taxpayer dollars and only care about cold hard cash, but as soon as someone suggests that perhaps the people in whose name those subsidies are granted should get an ownership stake in the corporations receiving those subsidies if only to have a sliver of control into what those companies do with said subsidies, all of a sudden the guitar is whipped out, and people start singing Kumbaya because “it’s not all about the money.”
I want to make a counterproposal that should be perfectly in tune with that philosophy:
How about instead of receiving billions in subsidies, these corporations do the funding themselves and provide broadband internet to these rural communities at no cost?
Let’s not forget the value these corporations buy, which they call “goodwill” in economics.
So often, corporations seem to focus on the dollars or sometimes the negative externalities but completely forget what they receive that isn’t measured in dollars: in this case, provide a service to the society they benefit so much from.
Funny how you are complaining about a corporation receiving billions in subsidies, when the article is about Starlink not receiving subsidies. Especially when the corporation is providing the service without government help.
I thought it was pretty obvious, and don't detect any snark.
A business/industry gets subsidies and is able to grow faster than it would have or just simply grow where nothing would before. Those businesses are then subject to taxes which the government collects and puts to use, which then benefits the populace at large.
Businesses that don’t get subsidies pay the same exact taxes. And businesses pay very little tax in the first place. Finally, tax revenue isn’t an ownership stake in a company; no amount of money is.
> Businesses that don’t get subsidies pay the same exact taxes.
But the point of a subsidy is to create a business where one did not, possibly could not exist before. Therefore the tax revenue coming from companies created by subsidies is in addition to other businesses tax revenue, not replacing it.
It’s really not all that obvious to me. In particular you’re saying the reason to hand SpaceX nearly a billion is so I can do business with them faster because the subsidy reduces their time to market? If so, that’s a bogus argument in my opinion. I’d prefer a more direct mechanism like ownership and profit sharing. There is plenty of venture capitalists out there, if we can float WeWork, I’m sure there’s people who can float SpaceX and other perhaps more valuable to society businesses.
well first you have to imagine, what is a gain from holding stake? At the end of the day, is it really a claim on future profits? Maybe more reasonably just a stock that you can trade/sell for money. And what does one do with that money? Buy things I guess to increase your welfare.
Tax expenditure in the ideal setting would be spent on clean water, education, etc. things that increase your welfare. And successful companies paying lots of taxes hopefully increase the welfare of a country.
So it is kind of like taxes emulate welfare increase...is the way I see it.
