I believe if we were to give tax breaks to corporations like Nvidia, And other research companies it would spur the industry and lower prices of the items purchased. Considering that they increase the price to pay for the research, I think the government should give them money for it.
After all it would lower the consumer index for buying the items, Giving you more cash to work with, Thereby creating better computers, In a shorter amount of time, By increasing research, it would also spur innovation.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;34037371]I believe if we were to give tax breaks to corporations like Nvidia, And other research companies it would spur the industry and lower prices of the items purchased. Considering that they increase the price to pay for the research, I think the government should give them money for it.
After all it would lower the consumer index for buying the items, Giving you more cash to work with, Thereby creating better computers, In a shorter amount of time, By increasing research, it would also spur innovation.[/QUOTE]
Or companies can choose to invest the money into advertising, as r&d may not yield fruitful results sometimes.
And why computers? Why not renewable energy companies?
Well Computer companies usually work on research most the time, They show results even now. it' would bolster production for the companies.
Computer hardware companies and renewable energy companies are probably the only companies out there that deserve tax breaks.
Companies should receive these breaks (if at all) only if they actually provide results (such as better renewable energy)
Intellectual property laws are how we encourage businesses to invest in research and innovation. We grant patents, which are just short-term monopolies, on new technologies to the individuals that invented them with the explicit purpose of letting them recuperate their R&D costs. Tax breaks aren't necessary.
I still think they should get tax breaks and subsides.
"Critics often point to the economic distortions created by subsidies, especially subsidies that are used to promote specific sectors or industries. Generally, such subsidies tend to divert resources from more productive to less productive uses, thus reducing economic efficiency.
Those who take a more benign view argue that subsidies can serve redistributive goals, or can help to correct market failures. But, as the public-finance economist Ronald Gerritse once warned, subsides defended on such grounds "may have externalities that we did not bargain for." Indeed it is such second-order effects that have come under attack by environmental economists in recent years."
[url]http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/resources/a-subsidy-primer/the-static-effects-subsidies-efficiency[/url]
Also: The above graph shows the gains in consumers' and producers' surpluses as a result of the subsidy. Although the effect of the subsidy seems beneficial the important question is the cost of the subsidy relative to the benefits. In the graph shown below the cost of the subsidy to the government is the gray rectangle including the colored triangles. The graph shows the balance is negative; i.e., the cost of the subsidy is always greater than the benefits to consumers and producers. This is an important result of analysis.
[url]http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/taximpact.htm[/url]
Subsidies are in general, inefficient. I can see where the can be beneficial. However, I don't think it is the Government's job to try and spur growth or innovation in markets artificially if there is no actual crises, the lack of efficiency is generally not worth the benefit.
Subsidies should instead be used to protect in the event of an industry or sector being near collapse, because of the harmful events of an industry collapsing to the entire economy. Although still inefficient, the benefit in the long run is in general worth it.
The Computer Engineering industry doesn't need subsidies, they are going along just fine. As yawmwen said, subsidies should only be used to maintain the stability of a market.
Oh and if you're going to give tax breaks to the Computer Engineering industry, you might as well give tax breaks to other industries as well, along the lines of your ideology. Why only Computer Engineering for tax breaks? What about renewable energy (eg solar panel producers)? Something that is of far more benefit to everyone or the world in general?
Also you're making an inane assumption, that if such businesses were to receive tax breaks that they would invest more of their income into research and development. What about into operations? Or marketing? Giving them tax breaks won't necessarily mean that it will lead to increased funding of research and development, and as such increased potential innovation. There is no guarantee that would happen.
[editline]4th January 2012[/editline]
The best thing for innovation is competitive markets, and patents if applied correctly. You can't expect businesses to somehow become more innovative if you throw money at them, especially when they may have better use for that money (aside from r&d) anyways.
Subsidies should only be used to correct market failure, or to pursue national interests at the cost of the market.
For example, farming subsidies retain a state's agricultural abilities, or subsidizing private spaceflight.
Personally I'd increase the funding of DARPA and direct the additional money towards supercomputer development, and alternate computing technologies. Sure, contracting out has it's problems, but it's a bit more controlled than blink subsidies.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;34038644]Computer hardware companies and renewable energy companies are probably the only companies out there that deserve tax breaks.[/QUOTE]
Why do computer hardware companies deserve tax breaks?
Why? This sounds silly, and I think you just want to build a cheaper gaming rig.
I really don't see a reason for this. Even for scientific research, computer speed only means the calculation is faster. You can do the calculation on a 166mhz Pentium I if you're willing to wait for it.
[editline]8th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;34045680]Subsidies should only be used to correct market failure, or to pursue national interests at the cost of the market.
For example, farming subsidies retain a state's agricultural abilities, or subsidizing private spaceflight.
Personally I'd increase the funding of DARPA and direct the additional money towards supercomputer development, and alternate computing technologies. Sure, contracting out has it's problems, but it's a bit more controlled than blink subsidies.[/QUOTE]
I think DARPA has stated they get too much funding already, and they can't spend it all.
Or maybe that was another department, but I think it was DARPA.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.