Perhaps you are being a bit cynical? There are certainly no problems that can't be solved by giving more money to government initiatives like the MaRS Centre in Ontario. These institutions also create jobs and are businesses of a certain sort, so funding them is supporting business directly.
And who can argue with the results? Several promising entrepreneurs each year take advantage of these critical programs to consult with pro-business advisers who assist in job creation by recommending they apply for 3k tax breaks.
If people can improve their economic performance so much with just a small cash grant then, why haven't businesses jumped in on this apparently incredible opportunity? Seems like a great chance for businesses to make some money in tandem with people reaching their potential.
Naturally it would be much better for businesses to do this than the government. Businesses have much higher motivations to use their money wisely (i.e. give the right amount to the right people and create the right incentives to ensure people are motivated to use the funds wisely, go bankrupt or get sued by investors if they spend poorly) than a government (which just gets to shrug or inflate the currency or embark on a fresh round of vilifying productive citizens).
Oh wait, don't we already have that? Bank loans or something, I don't know, lol.
I'd prefer to see the government take even half the amount of money and offer lots of smaller grants/loans to innovative entrepreneurs to launch our country into the next wave of growth. That's where the new jobs and economic growth will be. Give it to people creating value.
"If you want to see big changes, create big rewards for solutions without constraint to how they are accpomplished. So let's see $50 Billion to anybody who can take us to a repeatable $10/kilo to low earth orbit. Or $10 Billion for the first 3D printer able to print an electric car."
Arguably that's what government grants do or should do. Taking 50 billion dollars in tax money and stoking the fire in an area we are interested in WITHOUT THE EXPECTATION OF A MONETARY RETURN is the kind of thing the government can and does do. Of course, some of that 50 billion gets eaten by graft, and that's where the problem a lot of people have with government programs. Although private companies don't seem to have any better levels of control (usually much worse control) over corruption, a lot of people seem to think only 100% success demonstrates "working" government.
Grants are dangerous for society, because they encourage private businesses to cooperate with current-term politics, and they take money out of the market. Last year, our federal government gave nearly $400mm to one company expecting the creation of just 1300 jobs. There are federal tax incentives for any company that does essentially anything novel (SRED) and that somewhat works, since acceptance is only conditional on meeting the criteria. Grants are preferential.
It is a big mistake to think that merely paying taxes is a sufficient substitute for donations. Governments are like the biggest of big companies: they tend to be very conservative about what they'll fund. Individual donors and small foundations play a crucial role in funding the sort of risky outliers that new ideas come from.
If this millionaire is not creating jobs, are they not free to pay more taxes than the government sets as minimum to pay?
Go ahead, donate it, make it more useful. Don't let the minimum stop you.
I suppose they prefer the government decide where it should be spent. Why not donate to the gov program they prefer themselves? Or Donate to the efficient programs, or donate to the one with ornery staff, if you like. No one will stop them.
Wouldn't it be great if some smart, driven, altruistic people used a small ratio of our tax money to create something qualitatively new, with a potential of providing a better future to all of us?
When you throw millions at something, there is always something that works. The question being, is it better than not taking this tax money at all so citizen could revitalize their economy themselves.
businesses yes. But governments abuse public spending - at least in the UK a significant chunk gets funnelled to conservative friends and family...why should I therefore want to fund that?
That is ok. Those same people will now have more money to spend on the businesses you are building.
Your comment goes against your original point. You went from saying that it is politicians trying to benefit, to saying that you are upset that you have to support your fellow humans. Which is it?
No. As a taxpayer, my money is already going to 1230987587123 government frivolities. I don't need to be funding infrastructure for bigcorps any more than I already am.
e: To the downvoters, do you seriously believe that Tesla, Apple, MSFT, Amazon, etc require MORE government assistance?
Or the tl;dr, there’s always money available for things that directly make money and when it comes to government repayment is in the form of jobs and GDP growth.
“But free school lunches also provide a positive ROI!” I agree with you, now convince your representative of it.
Government economists say the government needs more tax money. Very convincing.
Instead of making people dependent on social welfare systems, and funneling money to useless bureaucracies, how about we force the billionaires to put that money to use in the markets? Not just stocks and bonds. Most certainly not NGOs/non-profits (they siphon enough public money). Venture capital, urban renewal projects, interests that promote science + discovery.
There is an alternative model for paying for things that can't be provided through market forces. Readers of Hacker News don't particularly like it, and you tend to get down-voted for suggesting it, but whatever.
Things like scientific research, roads, health care (in many developed countries outside the US), education, the BBC in the UK and ABC in Australia. Yes, the government funds it.
We can tie this in with a desire to do something about underemployment, by job-guarantee type government programs. On the minimum wage perhaps, but that's better than some people get now.
Government programs optimize for people willing to fill out grant applications, and always mix in government vote buying objectives with supporting actually valuable things. Look at Canadian arts funding as an example. It will turn into a waste of taxpayer money that produces things that nobody wants. I would not support it
Uhh, that's not how it actually works. Now, if you want to limit the tax break to some set of things the government actually does anyway then I think you would be hard pressed to find donors unless they did more than the government. At which point your only limiting it to the same kinds of things (ex: new roads) not the exact same things.
And who can argue with the results? Several promising entrepreneurs each year take advantage of these critical programs to consult with pro-business advisers who assist in job creation by recommending they apply for 3k tax breaks.
reply