4 ms·

Oh man, you should see how much money is wasted in private corporations. How many start-ups take millions of dollars and deliver nothing. There always be some p

by tgaj 3y ago

Oh man, you should see how much money is wasted in private corporations. How many start-ups take millions of dollars and deliver nothing. There always be some percentage of money lost, like there always be bugs in our software.

xyzzy123 3y ago
There's a big difference though; startups are fueled by private money, from people who knew the risks. Public sector waste comes out of all our pockets and could have been allocated to welfare, teacher salaries or infrastructure.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Or it could've just not come out of our pockets.
robertlagrant 3y ago
They are spending their own money. They aren't wasting other people's hard-earned money. VCs and other funders know the risks and take them anyway. That's why upping taxation to those who take big risks and they pay off is bad - they'll just stop taking risks and things will stop improving.
- altacc 3y ago
  No, private companies are spending their customer's money. If they spent less, costs to the customers would be less. All our fancy offices, high salaries and bonuses need to be paid for and in my company this is partially by selling legally mandated services that people have to purchase. The regular claims "taxes stop x,y & x" be it risk taking, R&D, investments or whatever, don't seem to actually have much consistent evidence. It's yet another economics theory, most of which are more opinion than proven rules. What seems to make the biggest difference is the stability of markets and perceived benefit. When tax rates are consistent or even declining, risk taking & investments drops when the economy is uncertain. If a company thinks there's money to be made, they're not going to sit back and do nothing based on if the tax they pay on that is 23% or 25%.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > No, private companies are spending their customer's money. No, their customers' money went on value received, not on internal projects. However you're not entirely wrong: they're spending money that could go on salaries, lower prices, or shareholder dividends. Thus they have three incentives not to waste, as if they do it too much a competitor will beat them. The public sector doesn't have this incentive, as it can just lock people in a box if they don't pay it money.

by tgaj 3y ago

xyzzy123 3y ago

There's a big difference though; startups are fueled by private money, from people who knew the risks. Public sector waste comes out of all our pockets and could have been allocated to welfare, teacher salaries or infrastructure.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Or it could've just not come out of our pockets.

robertlagrant 3y ago

They are spending their own money. They aren't wasting other people's hard-earned money. VCs and other funders know the risks and take them anyway. That's why upping taxation to those who take big risks and they pay off is bad - they'll just stop taking risks and things will stop improving.

altacc 3y ago
No, private companies are spending their customer's money. If they spent less, costs to the customers would be less. All our fancy offices, high salaries and bonuses need to be paid for and in my company this is partially by selling legally mandated services that people have to purchase. The regular claims "taxes stop x,y & x" be it risk taking, R&D, investments or whatever, don't seem to actually have much consistent evidence. It's yet another economics theory, most of which are more opinion than proven rules. What seems to make the biggest difference is the stability of markets and perceived benefit. When tax rates are consistent or even declining, risk taking & investments drops when the economy is uncertain. If a company thinks there's money to be made, they're not going to sit back and do nothing based on if the tax they pay on that is 23% or 25%.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > No, private companies are spending their customer's money. No, their customers' money went on value received, not on internal projects. However you're not entirely wrong: they're spending money that could go on salaries, lower prices, or shareholder dividends. Thus they have three incentives not to waste, as if they do it too much a competitor will beat them. The public sector doesn't have this incentive, as it can just lock people in a box if they don't pay it money.