[dheera]

Not a bad thing at all.

When the government buys a piece of steel, a chunk of that is property taxes of the owner of the factory building, a huge chunk of that is business taxes, a huge chunk of that is income taxes of the workers that work there.

If the government can own that infrastructure as a fully nonprofit entity that pays zero taxes, the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100. That means our income taxes can also be much lower, because the government can be more efficient.

Right now a huge chunk of the taxes you pay to the government go toward paying second-order taxes.

[pavel_lishin]

Would the government be buying that steel, if they own the infrastructure for it? When I grab a cucumber from my garden, I'm not exactly paying myself for it.

And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.

[dheera]

That's the point. Instead of buying it, they can just have it. By $50 I meant that they're buying everything at-cost internally. Only $50 of taxpayer money is needed to procure that steel, instead of $100.

> And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.

Not if the government owns it and they decide it's tax exempt. They can also build it on government land, and decide that government land is property tax free.

[ajju]

Buying state owned enterprises and running them more efficiently to double their valuation (or more) has been a reliably profitable business in many countries. This suggests to me that government bureaucracy, lack of accountability etc. could result in “at cost” trending to $100 or more if government buys private companies, or starting close to $100 if government starts a new one.

[kevin_thibedeau]

This scheme didn't pan out for the Soviets.

[derf_]

> ... the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100.

And also lose $50 of tax revenue. I do not see how the government is any better off here.

[undersuit]

$50 of gross revenue discounted is not $50 of tax revenue lost.