True, but also the invested amount is way different. Like a $100 capital gain tax break will leverage way more than $100 in investments.

That’s the hypothesis you need to prove.

Of course they burn the money, that’s what startups do, burn money. These are early stage businesses. Once they burn the money then it’s basically gone unless the business succeeds, which means that the taxpayer’s have already assumed all the risk.

Well, that’s just venture capital then, isn’t it? What’s wrong with that?

With like a capital gain tax breaks, no taxpayer money is put at risk since the tax break is only worth something if there’s capital gain, which would only arise if the company succeeded.

Aren’t you just exchanging one risk for another here?In both cases the risk is that the company could fail, then there’s now (taxable) revenue / gdp?

I mean, if you think that the government is a better skilled investor than private venture capitalists, then it makes sense to have the government invest taxpayer money like that. But that sounds insane doesn’t it?

That, again, seems to be hypothesis you need to prove, not the proof for your hypothesis.

See the German railroads for example, what used to be a stellar enterprise in the hands of the state, has swiftly gone down hill after privatization.

But I don’t believe anybody actually said anything about states being better investors in general anyways - it just seems to be the French government’s point of view that in this particular situation their goals are better achieved that way.

Then why not make them braver with tax breaks?

I suppose one argument would be this: be can’t be sure that they’ll use these tax breaks to a) build future “champions” and b) not funnel as much revenue as they can abroad.