It's not subsidizing, the same money ends up in each hands. The difference is in who needs to bear the burden of reduced cashflow.
Should it be the small, innovative companies that made & make America great? Or the government who spends too much money as it is?
One of the government's jobs is to set rules such that they incentivize certain behaviors. The tax rules can be modified to a middle ground. Put some threshold in $X millions of dollars where you no longer get the choice and let the innovators leverage the money to build more great things. Big tech has the cashflow to weather the transition from 1y to 5y. Companies who spend every dollar that comes in are having a hard time. It means hiring fewer people in one of the most important industries
Should it be the small, innovative companies that made & make America great? Or the government who spends too much money as it is?
One of the government's jobs is to set rules such that they incentivize certain behaviors. The tax rules can be modified to a middle ground. Put some threshold in $X millions of dollars where you no longer get the choice and let the innovators leverage the money to build more great things. Big tech has the cashflow to weather the transition from 1y to 5y. Companies who spend every dollar that comes in are having a hard time. It means hiring fewer people in one of the most important industries