Re:GM closing all operations in Oshawa, Ontario: sources
by int_19h on Sunday November 25, 2018 @11:10PM
(#18531006)
It's not exactly the same, though. Bailout uses the money that government already has, and that could be used on something else. Tax break is using the money that you don't have yet - and, crucially, will only have if the company actually is there!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:GM closing all operations in Oshawa, Ontario: sources
by throwawaythekey on Monday November 26, 2018 @12:36AM
(#18531330)
You are forgoing the tax revenue that would've been earned by the workers as well as any benefits that they claim.
In Australia it was estimated that each auto job produces 6 other jobs through network effects [1]. All up that number would be fairly substantial and likely enough to justify some subsidies/bailouts.
[1] - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sen...
Re:GM closing all operations in Oshawa, Ontario: sources
by cryptonector on Monday November 26, 2018 @11:57AM
(#18534699)
Bailouts also use money that the government doesn't yet have.
In 2008 and its aftermath the U.S. ran up huge budget deficits, and the Federal Reserve for the first time monetized enormous amounts of debt. That was all money that the government did not have.
Besides, money is fungible. It doesn't matter if an entity has the money or can quickly raise it, especially if when it has the money it was already earmarked (or soon was going to be) for some other particular purposes.
Re:GM closing all operations in Oshawa, Ontario: sources
by tanilama on Monday November 26, 2018 @11:19AM
(#18534376)
Not necessarily, the government might not have that money, they will likely raise debt to do so. It is technically not the tax payers money
Re:GM closing all operations in Oshawa, Ontario: sources
by cryptonector on Monday November 26, 2018 @11:53AM
(#18534674)
In the end, either taxpayers pay for it, or all holders of the currency of equivalent instruments do (through inflation).