OT Public Subsidies for Private Companies

User Forum Topic
Submitted by lindismith on December 15, 2009 - 4:01pm

Hi Piggs,
Long time, no post. Of course I still lurk, and talk to a few of you... You know who you are.

Anyway, question:

How do you feel about private companies using public funding to build their business and provide their goods/services? I know a lot of conservatives believe strongly in privatization.

Philosophically, I'm trying to understand if it's ok to fund a private start-up with taxes? Should a private company ever have access to that sort of funding? And what about the product cost? If it's really high, (like water, say) should that be subsidized through taxes?

There are some projects with public benefits that use tax-free bonds. Is this a good idea? What if a particular project is not supposed to make any money for at least 10 years. Is that reasonable to ask for public funding to start-up and then additional public subsidies on product costs?

I'm curious as to what peoples' thoughts are on this matter, especially from people on the Right.

Thanks!

‹ OT: Men, the Gender Wars Are Over — We Won ***piggington.com going down tonight*** ›
Keep it private so that I can
Submitted by NeetaT on December 15, 2009 - 5:17pm.

Keep it private so that I can loan money to businesses at high interest rates.

LET THE CHARGERS PAY FOR
Submitted by svelte on December 15, 2009 - 9:40pm.

LET THE CHARGERS PAY FOR THEIR OWN DAMN STADIUM.

svelte wrote:LET THE CHARGERS
Submitted by creechrr on December 16, 2009 - 6:44am.

svelte wrote:
LET THE CHARGERS PAY FOR THEIR OWN DAMN STADIUM.

This!^^^^^

I'm so far on the "keep the
Submitted by sdduuuude on December 16, 2009 - 8:36am.

I'm so far on the "keep the government out of our lives" camp, this isn't even a question for me.

If it's so useful and important, someone will have to figure out a way to do it privately. If they can't, it's probably not that useful or important.

If they can't, it's probably
Submitted by lindismith on December 17, 2009 - 8:29am.

If they can't, it's probably not that useful or important.

What if it's water?

Or electricity?

Why would the product being
Submitted by Noob on December 17, 2009 - 3:12pm.

Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea--and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?

Government subsidies for
Submitted by EconProf on December 17, 2009 - 4:32pm.

Government subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today's politicians would have saved them!

Noob wrote:Why would the
Submitted by sdduuuude on December 18, 2009 - 10:13am.

Noob wrote:
Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea--and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?

Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn't need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.

Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that's for sure, but if you can't convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn't enough payback to justify the risk. Period.

So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it's worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn't be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn't do grows daily, it seems.