2 ms·

> Sure, more might go back to the government in the form of a tax Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on resea

> Sure, more might go back to the government in the form of a tax Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on research; 5-2 < 5-0. > but that's more reasonable to me than the university taxing the government for the privilege of paying them to do research. We can debate about the extent to which the federal government should support education and research, but let's stop bullshitting for one damn second. Removing tax incentives for government-funded research is exactly equivalent to reducing NSF/NIH funding. This is literally a basic arithmetic fact.

ameister14 9y ago
>Right, so we agree that this effectively reduces the amount of money the USFG spends on research; 5-2 < 5-0. No, we don't. If the funding actually went to research, maybe, but it doesn't, and even then it's pretty convoluted. In any other program, if I get a grant from the government and use it to pay staff, they pay income tax on what I pay them, even though the money comes from a grant. That doesn't really mean the government spends less to fund grant programs. >Removing tax incentives for government-funded research is exactly equivalent to reducing NSF/NIH funding. No, it isn't. It's related, but not exactly equivalent. The money still goes to fund NSF/NIH projects, even if there is tax on that income the people were paid to do the research.