30 ms·

The House Always Wins

135 points by jasondc 12y ago

Afforess 12y ago
Called it, 2.5 months ago. Most of HN said I was wrong. If the 1.25B tax break causes a net gain in tax receipts due to the expansion of the economy, then the deal is a net positive for everyone, job-seekers, Nevada, and Tesla. No one loses when the economic pie gets bigger. Economics is not zero-sum. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271914
- tokenadult 12y ago
  Economics is easy for people who can faultlessly predict the future. But who is that? Lots of states a lot of the time make tax-incentive deals with business corporations that may or may really make the economic pie bigger. (Well, almost all of those deals make the economic pie bigger for the business corporation, at least in the short term, but the question is always whether they really make the pie bigger for an individual taxpayer like you or me who isn't a direct party to the deal.)
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  You are still wrong, because "net gain in tax receipts for Nevada" is not identical to a net gain in the economic pie. It's not necessarily better for the USA, and if a loss of benefits per capita is realized, might not even be better for Nevada. You are correct when you say economics was not zero-sum, and according to some people the government is too big, but that wasn't what your claim was about.
- reitzensteinm 12y ago
  I find this post crass. gph's reply to you was reasonable, and you made no counter. It's a pretty obviously a difference of opinion (and politics), and reasonable points were made in either direction. So now two months later, you paint a picture wherein you've been vindicated - using the proof that Elon Musk says that the deal Elon Musk made is good for everyone. What was he going to say; the ink's dry on our signatures now, Nevada, so I can admit I totally screwed you over and there's nothing you can do about it? Come on. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but no new information has come to light since the last discussion, and claiming victory based on a press release is intellectually dishonest.
  - Afforess 12y ago
    As a general rule I don't participate in HN arguments, which is why I didn't reply to GPH. There is nothing I could have really added to the discussion and it would have simply devolved into a shouting match over which economic pet theories were HN's favorite. I am not really interested in shouting the loudest, it's a poor way to win arguments. I am replying to you, because there is something I can add. My explanation of why I avoid replies. Take it as you want.
wittekm 12y ago
I realize this is off topic, but I take serious issue with the statement that "Nevada is the entertainment capital of the world."
- bhauer 12y ago
  What would you say is the entertainment capital of the world? I live in Los Angeles, and at one time in the past I would have associated this city with entertainment. But it's been many years since our business climate was especially amenable to film and television production; now much of what we used to do here is done out of state, in Canada, or overseas.
  - porsupah 12y ago
    I suppose it depends on how you'd even define something like that - headquarters, production, shooting, effects.. it's all so distributed now. Consider SohoNet's reach, as a network provider that specialises in high capacity connections to studios, effects houses, et al: http://www.sohonet.com/our-global-reach/ http://www.sohonet.com/our-global-reach/ That said, I'd wager you could ask people around the world, and they'd still say "Hollywood", though plenty of folk are, I'd imagine, aware of Vancouver's popularity for doubling as many US cities, Pinewood Studios, and WETA.
  - prawn 12y ago
    If Vegas matters, Macau has 6x the gambling. Not sure about floor shows or film/TV/games.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- grecy 12y ago
  > I take serious issue with the statement that "Nevada is the entertainment capital of the world." I wouldn't worry about it, Americans are notorious for saying "world" when they mean "country", because they're usually not thinking about anything or anyone outside their borders.
ginko 12y ago
> Our automotive plant in California has been in operation for over 60 years with no foreseeable end in sight. How can this be? Tesla Motors was founded in 2003. Did they take over the plant from some other manufacturer?
- pacofvf 12y ago
  the plant was previously owned by General Motors and Toyota
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    More info for the curious: The joint GM / Toyota project started in 1984: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI And the GM Fremont Assembly plant opened in 1962: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Assembly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Assembly
  - apayan 12y ago
    This American Life has a great podcast about the manufacturing plant, and how it went from being one of the worst in America to producing the best cars (all pre-Tesla). http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/NUMMI http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/N...
- judk 12y ago
  Everyone seems to believe that Musk invented all of Tesla singlehandedly, so presumably he will be credited with building a time machine as well.
- smsm42 12y ago
  Yes, it gave me a pause too. The trick is "our factory" represents current factory state, but it was not claimed that it has been "our factory" for 60 years, just that it operated for 60 years. Indeed, they took over from previous owner, but Musk puts it in a way that casual reader may conclude they somehow contributed to the whole lifespan, which is not true, obviously. Still, the larger point - that the factory can provide jobs and tax revenue long after the credits expire - is valid.
swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
The responses Elon has previously written to criticisms have been very concise and convincing. This article isn't too far off the mark, but I do feel his frustration for the petty politics he deals with shows through the article. Is it even necessary for him to respond to petty accusations such as the inflated claims that he's masterminding Nevada's politics? Wouldn't it benefit him more to let the nay-sayers nay say?
- eridius 12y ago
  I agree. In the past the responses have always been to things that actually seem worth responding to (though there's plenty of disagreement about specific responses). In this case, I haven't seen any of these negative articles, so anecdotally, it seems perhaps not widely-reported enough to be worth a public blog post. Furthermore, while I think describing why the deal is a good idea is reasonable, that whole lead-off with "haha they're gamblers, you think Tesla could pull a fast one on them?" is kind of strange. It's basically an appeal to authority, where the "authority" is people who oversee the gambling industry, and the claim is that because casinos are really good at not being tricked, then their overseers (i.e. the Nevada legislature) must be even better. Except it doesn't work like that, the casinos are not gambling with the state, or trying to pull a fast one on the state at all. And the Nevada legislature doesn't directly oversee the casinos anyway; they simply tax them. It's the Nevada Gaming Commission that does the actual regulation of the casinos. Basically, that second paragraph is just a combination of multiple rhetorical fallacies intended to imply that it's preposterous to claim that Tesla could ever get the Nevada legislature to agree to a bad deal. And for any readers who recognize this, it only serves to weaken the rest of the blog post. If that entire paragraph (and the single word "Moreover" from the start of the next paragraph) were to be deleted from the post, the post would make just as much sense and would have a stronger, more focused point. And it would also make Elon look better by virtue of being willing to just state the facts and let them speak for themselves.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    I think Elon Musk chooses a narrative for each post that supports the overarching image of Tesla and also couches the points he is going to make for public consumption. One major component of that is presenting an image to organize everything else around. "The House Always Wins" is a powerful one. Rhetoric involves more than just logos but also pathos and ethos.
venomsnake 12y ago
Are the contracts open to the public? Between Tesla and Nevada?
foobarqux 12y ago
I don't know if the benefits were too large but Musk spends the entire article refuting something else: that the deal would be net negative to Nevada. If I paid $1 for something and today's market price is $10 then I got a bad deal if I sell it for $5, even though I made a profit.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > If I paid $1 for something and today's market price is $10 then I got a bad deal if I sell it for $5, even though I made a profit. That depends on the circumstances. If you paid $1 for something, and someone else went in on the deal with you for 50% of the revenue if it went up but 100% of the loss if it failed, then selling it for $5 for you and $5 for the person shouldering the risk is not a bad deal for you at all.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    It was a simple example used to illustrate that there are obvious situations where you get a bad deal even though you profit. You can also create other examples that do different things and aren't germane to that point.
mempko 12y ago
Bullshit. There are always externalities in these deals. Since I do not know the details, I can.not say. But what about things like pollusion and waste. These are negatives to the people of nevada that are most likely not accounted for. Also work olace hazards ir worse damage, explosions, etc. Also what about surrounding infrastructure like roads, sewage, etc. Who is paying for that?
- LanceH 12y ago
  Nope, Elon is rolling back entropy on this one, 2nd law be damned.
- sfeng 12y ago
  Your argument is that all deals governments make are bad, this is a deal, so it must be bad?
  - phkahler 12y ago
    I would argue that they are. States competing on deals like this is bad. If no state gave an incentive, they'd have to pick one at full price anyway. Also, if the deal is good with Tesla, why not give similar deals to every company that wants to put up a building? In the end states will just forego corporate taxes altogether and get all their revenue from the people. Is that bad? I'd have to think harder before answering that, but I'm inclined to say yes. Corporations don't retire, people do. People need to be able to get of the monetary treadmill, but companies don't.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      >> If no state gave an incentive, they'd have to pick one at full price anyway Or build it in another country and people could scream at them for being unpatriotic. >> Also, if the deal is good with Tesla, why not give similar deals to every company that wants to put up a building? You are arguing for lower taxes. This is a noble goal, but much harder to achieve than such deal. As Bismarck said, politics is the art of the possible. It's not ideal, but given current situation it's also not the worst outcome. >> In the end states will just forego corporate taxes altogether and get all their revenue from the people. Corporate taxes are about 10% of budget income, despite US corporate tax rates being one of the highest in the world. So it's neither unprecedented not unimaginable to have lower corporate tax rates. As for the people, corporations are ultimately owned by people, so it's still tax on people, just certain kind of people - doing business in the US. Every dollar taken as corporate tax is not paid as dividend, not invested in hiring another worker, not spent on buying supplies or services. So ultimately it's people all the way down.
yc1010 12y ago
Seems to me like their competition must have been busy trying to smear them, it is much easier to smear someone than clear ones name.
lbradstreet 12y ago
These deals are net positive for Nevada (tax breaks don't really hurt them that much if they wouldn't have gotten the facility anyway), and net negative for the US overall (revenue wise, at least). If nobody engaged in these kinds of deals then Tesla would surely pay more tax. I don't blame Nevada for engaging in it, and I think they probably won overall. Other factors (cheap land, regulatory, etc) almost definitely came into play but nobody is really complaining about those.
- smsm42 12y ago
  It's hard to say if Tesla paid more tax, as Tesla might not build the factory at all, or could build it in other country. The thing is there's nothing sacred in current level of taxation, so I personally consider tax breaks the least evil form of subsidizing, especially if the tax is not a purpose tax for shared resource (e.g., if there's a property tax to finance common school and somebody uses the school but doesn't pay the tax, all others pay more) but a tax break on indefinite further earnings which may not have happened without the tax break. Yes, it looks like crony capitalism and sometimes it is, but if the opportunity cost is low (i.e., nothing really was being built there otherwise) then I don't see why Nevada shouldn't do it.
trhway 12y ago
what is wrong with such deals is that one needs to be big (and/or extremely politically connected) to get one. I.e. the game is tilted. I mean why a small shop should pay higher taxes than a big one? How is that good for economy/society?
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  > why a small shop should pay higher taxes than a big one? As long as money will buy political power, the little guy will always lose this game. Get money out of politics if you want to change anything. Separation of Money and State.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    You can not get money of politics if major part of politics is deciding who gets billions of money. If Nevada has power of taxation (and thus of tax breaks) and somebody comes and says "give me 1bn of tax breaks for next 20 years and I'll put $lots_of_money of new taxable income in your state budget, and that wouldn't cost you anything to current budget" their voice would be heard by Nevada politicians much louder than a voice of somebody whose yearly revenue doesn't break into six figures. As long as the politicians have their hands in the economy (and they do quite a lot) it would be negligent for them not to listen to major economic movers. It's their (budget) money that are on stake, of course they'd listen.
- sysk 12y ago
  Exactly. All the benefits Nevada gains from this deal would equally apply to a small business albeit at a much smaller scale. It's hard to blame Elon though, he is just playing the game.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >It's hard to blame Elon though, he is just playing the game. of course. Anybody is entitled to whatever break/deal he can get. It is just that government is [in the naive theory of "we the people"] exactly there to keep the playing field level/fair, to not allow big players to tilt it in their favor.
JamesBarney 12y ago
I had never read much Elon Musk before but I am incredibly impressed with his Elon Musk's eloquent Elon Musk is. This deal is undoubtedly good for Nevada. These tax incentives always seem to me to be a zero sum game. They benefit large corporations who have the ability to negotiate with states at the expense of smaller corporations who do not have that ability. In essence they cause small corporations, or individuals to subsidize large corporations.

135 points by jasondc 12y ago

Called it, 2.5 months ago. Most of HN said I was wrong. If the 1.25B tax break causes a net gain in tax receipts due to the expansion of the economy, then the deal is a net positive for everyone, job-seekers, Nevada, and Tesla. No one loses when the economic pie gets bigger. Economics is not zero-sum. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271914

tokenadult 12y ago
Economics is easy for people who can faultlessly predict the future. But who is that? Lots of states a lot of the time make tax-incentive deals with business corporations that may or may really make the economic pie bigger. (Well, almost all of those deals make the economic pie bigger for the business corporation, at least in the short term, but the question is always whether they really make the pie bigger for an individual taxpayer like you or me who isn't a direct party to the deal.)
cynicalkane 12y ago
You are still wrong, because "net gain in tax receipts for Nevada" is not identical to a net gain in the economic pie. It's not necessarily better for the USA, and if a loss of benefits per capita is realized, might not even be better for Nevada. You are correct when you say economics was not zero-sum, and according to some people the government is too big, but that wasn't what your claim was about.
reitzensteinm 12y ago
I find this post crass. gph's reply to you was reasonable, and you made no counter. It's a pretty obviously a difference of opinion (and politics), and reasonable points were made in either direction. So now two months later, you paint a picture wherein you've been vindicated - using the proof that Elon Musk says that the deal Elon Musk made is good for everyone. What was he going to say; the ink's dry on our signatures now, Nevada, so I can admit I totally screwed you over and there's nothing you can do about it? Come on. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but no new information has come to light since the last discussion, and claiming victory based on a press release is intellectually dishonest.
- Afforess 12y ago
  As a general rule I don't participate in HN arguments, which is why I didn't reply to GPH. There is nothing I could have really added to the discussion and it would have simply devolved into a shouting match over which economic pet theories were HN's favorite. I am not really interested in shouting the loudest, it's a poor way to win arguments. I am replying to you, because there is something I can add. My explanation of why I avoid replies. Take it as you want.

wittekm 12y ago

I realize this is off topic, but I take serious issue with the statement that "Nevada is the entertainment capital of the world."

bhauer 12y ago
What would you say is the entertainment capital of the world? I live in Los Angeles, and at one time in the past I would have associated this city with entertainment. But it's been many years since our business climate was especially amenable to film and television production; now much of what we used to do here is done out of state, in Canada, or overseas.
- porsupah 12y ago
  I suppose it depends on how you'd even define something like that - headquarters, production, shooting, effects.. it's all so distributed now. Consider SohoNet's reach, as a network provider that specialises in high capacity connections to studios, effects houses, et al: http://www.sohonet.com/our-global-reach/ http://www.sohonet.com/our-global-reach/ That said, I'd wager you could ask people around the world, and they'd still say "Hollywood", though plenty of folk are, I'd imagine, aware of Vancouver's popularity for doubling as many US cities, Pinewood Studios, and WETA.
- prawn 12y ago
  If Vegas matters, Macau has 6x the gambling. Not sure about floor shows or film/TV/games.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
grecy 12y ago
> I take serious issue with the statement that "Nevada is the entertainment capital of the world." I wouldn't worry about it, Americans are notorious for saying "world" when they mean "country", because they're usually not thinking about anything or anyone outside their borders.

ginko 12y ago

> Our automotive plant in California has been in operation for over 60 years with no foreseeable end in sight. How can this be? Tesla Motors was founded in 2003. Did they take over the plant from some other manufacturer?

pacofvf 12y ago
the plant was previously owned by General Motors and Toyota
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  More info for the curious: The joint GM / Toyota project started in 1984: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI And the GM Fremont Assembly plant opened in 1962: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Assembly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Assembly
- apayan 12y ago
  This American Life has a great podcast about the manufacturing plant, and how it went from being one of the worst in America to producing the best cars (all pre-Tesla). http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/NUMMI http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/N...
judk 12y ago
Everyone seems to believe that Musk invented all of Tesla singlehandedly, so presumably he will be credited with building a time machine as well.
smsm42 12y ago
Yes, it gave me a pause too. The trick is "our factory" represents current factory state, but it was not claimed that it has been "our factory" for 60 years, just that it operated for 60 years. Indeed, they took over from previous owner, but Musk puts it in a way that casual reader may conclude they somehow contributed to the whole lifespan, which is not true, obviously. Still, the larger point - that the factory can provide jobs and tax revenue long after the credits expire - is valid.

swagasaurus-rex 12y ago

The responses Elon has previously written to criticisms have been very concise and convincing. This article isn't too far off the mark, but I do feel his frustration for the petty politics he deals with shows through the article. Is it even necessary for him to respond to petty accusations such as the inflated claims that he's masterminding Nevada's politics? Wouldn't it benefit him more to let the nay-sayers nay say?

eridius 12y ago
I agree. In the past the responses have always been to things that actually seem worth responding to (though there's plenty of disagreement about specific responses). In this case, I haven't seen any of these negative articles, so anecdotally, it seems perhaps not widely-reported enough to be worth a public blog post. Furthermore, while I think describing why the deal is a good idea is reasonable, that whole lead-off with "haha they're gamblers, you think Tesla could pull a fast one on them?" is kind of strange. It's basically an appeal to authority, where the "authority" is people who oversee the gambling industry, and the claim is that because casinos are really good at not being tricked, then their overseers (i.e. the Nevada legislature) must be even better. Except it doesn't work like that, the casinos are not gambling with the state, or trying to pull a fast one on the state at all. And the Nevada legislature doesn't directly oversee the casinos anyway; they simply tax them. It's the Nevada Gaming Commission that does the actual regulation of the casinos. Basically, that second paragraph is just a combination of multiple rhetorical fallacies intended to imply that it's preposterous to claim that Tesla could ever get the Nevada legislature to agree to a bad deal. And for any readers who recognize this, it only serves to weaken the rest of the blog post. If that entire paragraph (and the single word "Moreover" from the start of the next paragraph) were to be deleted from the post, the post would make just as much sense and would have a stronger, more focused point. And it would also make Elon look better by virtue of being willing to just state the facts and let them speak for themselves.
- EGreg 12y ago
  I think Elon Musk chooses a narrative for each post that supports the overarching image of Tesla and also couches the points he is going to make for public consumption. One major component of that is presenting an image to organize everything else around. "The House Always Wins" is a powerful one. Rhetoric involves more than just logos but also pathos and ethos.

venomsnake 12y ago

Are the contracts open to the public? Between Tesla and Nevada?

foobarqux 12y ago

I don't know if the benefits were too large but Musk spends the entire article refuting something else: that the deal would be net negative to Nevada. If I paid $1 for something and today's market price is $10 then I got a bad deal if I sell it for $5, even though I made a profit.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
> If I paid $1 for something and today's market price is $10 then I got a bad deal if I sell it for $5, even though I made a profit. That depends on the circumstances. If you paid $1 for something, and someone else went in on the deal with you for 50% of the revenue if it went up but 100% of the loss if it failed, then selling it for $5 for you and $5 for the person shouldering the risk is not a bad deal for you at all.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  It was a simple example used to illustrate that there are obvious situations where you get a bad deal even though you profit. You can also create other examples that do different things and aren't germane to that point.

mempko 12y ago

Bullshit. There are always externalities in these deals. Since I do not know the details, I can.not say. But what about things like pollusion and waste. These are negatives to the people of nevada that are most likely not accounted for. Also work olace hazards ir worse damage, explosions, etc. Also what about surrounding infrastructure like roads, sewage, etc. Who is paying for that?

LanceH 12y ago
Nope, Elon is rolling back entropy on this one, 2nd law be damned.
sfeng 12y ago
Your argument is that all deals governments make are bad, this is a deal, so it must be bad?
- phkahler 12y ago
  I would argue that they are. States competing on deals like this is bad. If no state gave an incentive, they'd have to pick one at full price anyway. Also, if the deal is good with Tesla, why not give similar deals to every company that wants to put up a building? In the end states will just forego corporate taxes altogether and get all their revenue from the people. Is that bad? I'd have to think harder before answering that, but I'm inclined to say yes. Corporations don't retire, people do. People need to be able to get of the monetary treadmill, but companies don't.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    >> If no state gave an incentive, they'd have to pick one at full price anyway Or build it in another country and people could scream at them for being unpatriotic. >> Also, if the deal is good with Tesla, why not give similar deals to every company that wants to put up a building? You are arguing for lower taxes. This is a noble goal, but much harder to achieve than such deal. As Bismarck said, politics is the art of the possible. It's not ideal, but given current situation it's also not the worst outcome. >> In the end states will just forego corporate taxes altogether and get all their revenue from the people. Corporate taxes are about 10% of budget income, despite US corporate tax rates being one of the highest in the world. So it's neither unprecedented not unimaginable to have lower corporate tax rates. As for the people, corporations are ultimately owned by people, so it's still tax on people, just certain kind of people - doing business in the US. Every dollar taken as corporate tax is not paid as dividend, not invested in hiring another worker, not spent on buying supplies or services. So ultimately it's people all the way down.

yc1010 12y ago

Seems to me like their competition must have been busy trying to smear them, it is much easier to smear someone than clear ones name.

lbradstreet 12y ago

These deals are net positive for Nevada (tax breaks don't really hurt them that much if they wouldn't have gotten the facility anyway), and net negative for the US overall (revenue wise, at least). If nobody engaged in these kinds of deals then Tesla would surely pay more tax. I don't blame Nevada for engaging in it, and I think they probably won overall. Other factors (cheap land, regulatory, etc) almost definitely came into play but nobody is really complaining about those.

smsm42 12y ago
It's hard to say if Tesla paid more tax, as Tesla might not build the factory at all, or could build it in other country. The thing is there's nothing sacred in current level of taxation, so I personally consider tax breaks the least evil form of subsidizing, especially if the tax is not a purpose tax for shared resource (e.g., if there's a property tax to finance common school and somebody uses the school but doesn't pay the tax, all others pay more) but a tax break on indefinite further earnings which may not have happened without the tax break. Yes, it looks like crony capitalism and sometimes it is, but if the opportunity cost is low (i.e., nothing really was being built there otherwise) then I don't see why Nevada shouldn't do it.

trhway 12y ago

what is wrong with such deals is that one needs to be big (and/or extremely politically connected) to get one. I.e. the game is tilted. I mean why a small shop should pay higher taxes than a big one? How is that good for economy/society?

Florin_Andrei 12y ago
> why a small shop should pay higher taxes than a big one? As long as money will buy political power, the little guy will always lose this game. Get money out of politics if you want to change anything. Separation of Money and State.
- smsm42 12y ago
  You can not get money of politics if major part of politics is deciding who gets billions of money. If Nevada has power of taxation (and thus of tax breaks) and somebody comes and says "give me 1bn of tax breaks for next 20 years and I'll put $lots_of_money of new taxable income in your state budget, and that wouldn't cost you anything to current budget" their voice would be heard by Nevada politicians much louder than a voice of somebody whose yearly revenue doesn't break into six figures. As long as the politicians have their hands in the economy (and they do quite a lot) it would be negligent for them not to listen to major economic movers. It's their (budget) money that are on stake, of course they'd listen.
sysk 12y ago
Exactly. All the benefits Nevada gains from this deal would equally apply to a small business albeit at a much smaller scale. It's hard to blame Elon though, he is just playing the game.
- trhway 12y ago
  >It's hard to blame Elon though, he is just playing the game. of course. Anybody is entitled to whatever break/deal he can get. It is just that government is [in the naive theory of "we the people"] exactly there to keep the playing field level/fair, to not allow big players to tilt it in their favor.

JamesBarney 12y ago

I had never read much Elon Musk before but I am incredibly impressed with his Elon Musk's eloquent Elon Musk is. This deal is undoubtedly good for Nevada. These tax incentives always seem to me to be a zero sum game. They benefit large corporations who have the ability to negotiate with states at the expense of smaller corporations who do not have that ability. In essence they cause small corporations, or individuals to subsidize large corporations.