4 ms·

GDP in the US in 2008 was 14.62 trillion. 3% of that is $438.6 billion. From TFA: >To encourage private sector investment in research, Obama said he wants to

by Femur 17y ago

GDP in the US in 2008 was 14.62 trillion. 3% of that is $438.6 billion. From TFA: >To encourage private sector investment in research, Obama said he wants to make the federal government's research and experimentation tax credit permanent. I love the idea of making it more tax friendly for business who wish to conduct research. I hate the idea of the government taxing people and then dolling out that money to whomever they deem most "worthy."

Retric 17y ago
I love the idea of making it more tax friendly for business who wish to conduct research. I hate the idea of the government taxing people and then dolling out that money to whomever they deem most "worthy." That's the same thing as a targeted tax break. If the government gives you money because you do X then I pay more taxes. If you pay less taxes because you do X then I still pay more taxes.
- Femur 17y ago
  >If you pay less taxes because you do X then I still pay more taxes. That is not necessarily true (although it practice i recognize that it is true). Theoretically (and in my opinion optimally) the government could give the tax break Y because you do X and then continue running with (Revenue - Y) = (Budget - Y)
  - Retric 17y ago
    If it can run with less money then it can lower everyone's taxes.
- ams6110 17y ago
  You don't necessarily pay more taxes. If a tax break motivates you to do X, and as a result you generate enough additional taxable income to offset the tax break, then the treasury comes out ahead.
- Radix 17y ago
  No it's not. With option one businesses choose where they intend to conduct research. With option two the government chooses what research should be funded. It becomes something that can be politicized. But thanks for pointing out the needed general increase in tax. EDIT: Thank you for disagreeing with me, but I would like to learn why I am wrong. Would someone tell me why my observation is wrong?
  - Retric 17y ago
    Politically there is a difference, numerically there is not. While handing out money for people to research whatever they want would be a non starter, people are happy to have the tax code do the same thing. Granted, procedurally when handing out money the government likes to say what you do with it, but manipulating the tax code is seen as more reasonable even thought the costs are identical. My point is if we are going to be handing out money through targeted tax breaks we should still treat it as spending tax payers money, because that's the net effect is.
natrius 17y ago
There is a great deal of basic scientific research that is not immediately profitable, but is still "worthy" of doing. Such research requires an non-profit-seeking entity to fund it. In an ideal libertarian paradise, individuals who choose to fund unprofitable research could band together and select projects, but if the government stops funding research tomorrow, what makes you think individuals are going to pick up the slack? How much unprofitable research is funded by private individuals today? Public goods merit public funding.

by Femur 17y ago

Retric 17y ago

I love the idea of making it more tax friendly for business who wish to conduct research. I hate the idea of the government taxing people and then dolling out that money to whomever they deem most "worthy." That's the same thing as a targeted tax break. If the government gives you money because you do X then I pay more taxes. If you pay less taxes because you do X then I still pay more taxes.

Femur 17y ago
>If you pay less taxes because you do X then I still pay more taxes. That is not necessarily true (although it practice i recognize that it is true). Theoretically (and in my opinion optimally) the government could give the tax break Y because you do X and then continue running with (Revenue - Y) = (Budget - Y)
- Retric 17y ago
  If it can run with less money then it can lower everyone's taxes.
ams6110 17y ago
You don't necessarily pay more taxes. If a tax break motivates you to do X, and as a result you generate enough additional taxable income to offset the tax break, then the treasury comes out ahead.
Radix 17y ago
No it's not. With option one businesses choose where they intend to conduct research. With option two the government chooses what research should be funded. It becomes something that can be politicized. But thanks for pointing out the needed general increase in tax. EDIT: Thank you for disagreeing with me, but I would like to learn why I am wrong. Would someone tell me why my observation is wrong?
- Retric 17y ago
  Politically there is a difference, numerically there is not. While handing out money for people to research whatever they want would be a non starter, people are happy to have the tax code do the same thing. Granted, procedurally when handing out money the government likes to say what you do with it, but manipulating the tax code is seen as more reasonable even thought the costs are identical. My point is if we are going to be handing out money through targeted tax breaks we should still treat it as spending tax payers money, because that's the net effect is.

natrius 17y ago

There is a great deal of basic scientific research that is not immediately profitable, but is still "worthy" of doing. Such research requires an non-profit-seeking entity to fund it. In an ideal libertarian paradise, individuals who choose to fund unprofitable research could band together and select projects, but if the government stops funding research tomorrow, what makes you think individuals are going to pick up the slack? How much unprofitable research is funded by private individuals today? Public goods merit public funding.