Hacker News Reader

Comment by ckinnan | Hacker News Reader

It is not a net positive because they tax successful parts of the economy and, through a political process, redistribute that money to favored businesses and connected insiders.

Anyway, the U.S. government already operates SBA ($28 billion) and SBIR ($2 billion) among other programs...

And those startups blessed by govt subsidy get an advantage over all other startups...these programs should properly be viewed as hostile to the HN community, because they disadvantage the majority of startups with higher taxes and an unlevel playing field.

View on HN

And those startups blessed by govt subsidy get an advantage over all other startups

Not that I disagree with your overall premise, but this is true of any kind of investment, and getting an advantage over your competitors is kind of the whole point of business.

Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile; what's to stop them from applying? Couldn't one argue that all external investment disadvantages the majority of startups since they don't get any of that investment, which results in an unlevel playing field?

The standard counterargument runs like this:

"Great, now founders have to waste time pitching to VCs and applying for government aid. Even less time available for working on the product."

Of course, this doesn't quite address your point :)

>Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile

Building a company based on merit is admirable.

Building a company by getting the government to use its (not insignificant) power is not admirable (by the HN community).

Says who, do you speak for the whole community?

> Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile

We view it as hostile because they're taking our money to do it.

You want my money for your biz? Ask me. Don't take it from thugs who took it from me at the point of a gun.

Yes, I've heard all of the "but taxes go for good things". Maybe some do, but ...

Here's my test. If I'm not willing to fund something by pointing a gun at my mother and saying "give me money", it shouldn't be paid for with tax money. Why? Because taxes come from pointing a gun at folks, including my mother.

Is your biz so worthy that I should point a gun at my mother?

How many of the money-losing ventures here pay taxes, seriously?

Why does that matter?

Do you really want to argue that it's okay to take other people's money?

It is okay for the government to do that, yes, because they're spending it on stuff that everyone needs in order to have a functional society that allows you to consider making money in the first place.

Some govt spending might meet that description, but do you really think that it all does? If not, what fraction does?

And, even for the money that is spent that way, how do you get from "everyone needs" to "should be funded by govt". For example, everyone needs shoes. Should govt provide shoes?

Man, I'm glad I'm in the US, where the use of deadly force is clearly outlined.

It must suck to get a gun pulled on your mom for not paying taxes.

Ha Ha.

Seriously - do you really want to argue that taxes aren't taken using a threat of violence?

Well, going by your comment above, do you consider the small business Administration a slush fund beset by corruption? I await further details on this new initiative, but noticed they spoke of reducing red tape; it's not easy for a brand new business straight out of the gate to get SBA funding ('small' businesses can have up to several hundred employees in the US), so personally I like the idea of a 'micro business administration' that could offer bootstrapping assistance and possibly small amounts of seed capital to garage/loft sized outfits.

The SBA has a reasonable good reputation for both utility and probity, so why not use that as a comparison rather than some speculative stereotype of waste and corruption?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com