[nthj]

This feels like a One More Level of Indirection solution. [1] The problem, I think most everyone agrees, is that the government isn't the greatest at growing businesses. The obvious, delete-all-the-code approach would be to leave more money in the hands of the businesses by lowering taxes.

Or, as the article suggests, we could pile on another layer of indirection: encourage the government to keep taking my money, hope they're halfway decent at identifying smart startups (which I'm sure they would be, the government is awesome at everything else they do right?), and, wonder of wonders, they identify the next Facebook 9 times out of 10, we still have to lose a significant percentage of the wealth to paperwork, inefficiencies, and bureaucracy.

> I’d be confident that I could do more for my startup, Plantedd, with whatever equivalent amount spent by government organisations to pay consultants to help us with marketing or IT or training.

Dude, I'd love that. Plantedd looks stellar. I think we want the same things. I also think it's far more straightforward to lobby for more tax breaks for startups and call it a day.

[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OneMoreLevelOfIndirection

[plantedd]

(The One Direction solution??)

I agree that more tax breaks for startups would help and it would be a more straightforward thing to achieve. The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive though, so I'd say we need both. For early-stage startups though, sometimes the challenge is more in actually reaching the stage where there's anything to tax - which is why I still think actually giving them the money in their pockets is vital.

Thanks for the compliment about Plantedd!

[nthj]

> For early-stage startups though, sometimes the challenge is more in actually reaching the stage where there's anything to tax

Sure, I get that. I live in the startup world too. I just disagree that it's the government's job to take my money and give it to you — and, of course, vice versa: I won't ask the government to take your money and give it to me.

We already have a solution for the problem you bring up. It's called investing. You exchange a percentage of your company for the capital you need to get going. If a startup has trouble convincing an angel investor to part with his money, he may need to revisit his business idea or iterate a bit further. That's a good thing, it helps improve the startup.

But "government money" is really my money, and you're proposing that the government force me to fund startups that have been unable to secure angel investment. To be blunt, this seems really lame. I'd rather keep my money that I've worked hard for and invest it into my own ventures.

[I should also note this is a debate of principles for me: I'm not saying "oh in my opinion startups aren't worth my tax dollars", so much as "government is inefficient at everything, and $PROPOSAL is a subset of everything, therefore, government shouldn't be $PROPOSAL when another solution already exists.", where $PROPOSAL = 'funding startups' in this instance.]

[plantedd]

You're right, it's a difference about the principles of the matter and no doubt we disagree over the government's role (especially in an economic downturn). Setting that to one side though, the truth is that the government is spending your tax dollars already and I'm suggesting that there may be a better way for them to do it.

[crusso]

the government is spending your tax dollars already

They should be spending a lot less of them, shouldn't they?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I mean, what business would ever be allowed to spend money endlessly without thought to income? Why do we let the government do it?

Besides, we already have angel funding, ycombinator, venture capital, self funding, debt funding, crowd funding, etc.

http://www.instigatorblog.com/an-introductory-guide-to-start...

We should not be taking tax money by force from some to fund the next facebook.

[bruceb]

The gov't isn't a business. If it were it would not be serving everyone. The post office (sorta of a gov't/business half breed) would charge you more to send a letter from Miami to Fairbanks, Alaska than from your town to the next town 10 miles down the road. Gov't has more responsibility than a business.

There are plenty of business with large amounts of debt.

This being said I don't back the proposal.

[crusso]

The gov't isn't a business.

Right. Businesses have more direct financial accountability. That's why the government stinks at doing business-like things and I'm objecting to a proposal that thinks government should do more business-like things.

Not sure what your point is with the post office. It's a great example of the government trying to do something that business came along and did ten times better - accomplishing things that the post office said were impossible like overnight delivery.

What's the merit in the subsidizing of people to live in out-of-the-way places? This isn't the 1800s.

There are plenty of business with large amounts of debt.

1X yearly revenue in current debt and 5X in long-term liabilities? Hardly.

People at Enron went to jail for the type of accounting shenanigans that the government considers to be common practice.

[lmm]

>Sure, I get that. I live in the startup world too. I just disagree that it's the government's job to take my money and give it to you — and, of course, vice versa: I won't ask the government to take your money and give it to me.

Fine, good for you - but that's your opinion, and one at odds with most of the electorate. Don't write as if it were obviously correct.

[nthj]

The Internet would be a really boring place if we had to prepend "It is my opinion that: " to every sentence.

[And now I'm wondering if I could write a Chrome extension to do exactly that, how hard could it be? pseudocode: `$('form').submit(function() { $('textarea').val().split('. ').map(function(){ return "It is my opinion that: " + this; } ); });`]

[michaelochurch]

The obvious, delete-all-the-code approach would be to leave more money in the hands of the businesses by lowering taxes.

I'm a left-libertarian, so what I want to see is a basic income and low levels of regulation. Taxes can be high. I'm fine with that as long as it's spent on useful things (more cancer research, less war). The tax rate we pay in the US is about right. What we get for our taxes is disappointing. We should have universal healthcare, for example. The current system is expensive and doesn't work.

You can tear out a lot of regulations if you have basic income in place. For example, you no longer have to support so many farmers with price floors. If market value for their produce declines, they're still OK; you don't get the cascading effect of rural poverty (1920s) that eventually impoverishes the whole society (1930s).

I also support a flat tax. Morally, I'm okay with the concept of progressive taxation; but if we get our house in order with a basic income and a certain basket of always-provided goods (food, education, housing, and healthcare at affordable prices) then it really doesn't matter that a billionaire is playing 40% instead 70%. He'll, I'd be happy just to see the billionaires pay the percentage that I do!

For example, I hate the concept of minimum wage. Before you conclude that I'm an asshole, hear me out. Without basic income, we absolutely need one. But what is a minimum wage? It's a clumsy basic income that's financed by low-end employers. How do they respond? They cut jobs.

The good of a minimum wage (which, again, is essential if you don't have basic income) is that employers have an incentive to automate the lowest of the low in menial processes. However, you'd still have that incentive with basic income because people just wouldn't do low-yield, unpleasant work for next-to-nothing. Right now, poor people can't get a fair wage because they are fucked if they are jobless, giving employers all the leverage. Basic income allows the market to find a fair value for work.

[nthj]

> Before you conclude that I'm an asshole, hear me out. Without basic income, we absolutely need one. But what is a minimum wage? It's a clumsy basic income that's financed by low-end employers. How do they respond? They cut jobs.

I haven't thought through a basic income well enough to render an opinion, but basic arithmetic skills are all you need to realize that minimum wage doesn't help unemployment numbers. We're definitely on the same page there.

[As an aside, my immediate gut-reaction to basic income is that I know a half-dozen people off the top of my head who would gladly just play video games 80 hours a week instead of delivering pizzas, so I am tempted to wonder who would be left to handle lower-end jobs if we had basic income? Not everyone is a workaholic like me.]