[notacoward]

That's a really good question, and - contrary to HN tradition - I'm not even going to pretend I have a complete answer. Some cases are easy, for example a lot of non-tech startups are funded by loans rather than equity exchanges. Other cases are surely harder, but I think clear lines can and should be drawn.

The key IMO is that the company should be paying tax somewhere along the line. Right now VC is a double gift - it provides funds to grow, and the corresponding expenditures magically turn into "losses" that erase future tax. Besides its effect on government revenue, it also gives VC-funded companies an unfair advantage (as though they didn't have enough) over competitors who are being taxed more for having the audacity to grow organically.

[icebraining]

The effects on government revenue seem more complex than that. For example, if a customer of a startup spends $8 instead of $12 thanks to VC subsidization, those $4 remaining in their pocket will be spent somewhere else, and the IRS will get to tax that expense too.