this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
256 points (99.6% liked)

Futurology

1762 readers
111 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lugh@futurology.today 84 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Microsoft has cash reserves of $75 billion.

Microsoft - If you really want to convince us that nuclear power is part of the future, why can't you use some of your own money? Why does every single nuclear suggestion always rely on bailouts from taxpayers? Here's a thought, if you can't pay for it yourself - just pick the cheaper option that taxpayers don't have to pay for - you know renewables and grid storage? The stuff that everybody else, all over the world, is building near 99% of new electricity generation with.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Companies should EVER get tax payer money unless the taxpayers actually ask for something to be done by them.

If a company asks, it should be immediate denial since these companies don't pay shit for taxes to begin with.

[–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Proposals like this are exactly why corporations don't pay much tax. They have tons of deals and situations like this that offset their profits/tax burden

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Which is precisely why it should be an instant, guaranteed, "no".

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But muh jobs! /s

Depressingly, a factory is tangible, and the economic benefits of not subsidising things randomly based on political expediency are subtle. Add in the occasional edge cases where subsidies actually make sense (idle military manufacturing capacity during peacetime, for example) and this is a law that tends not to be put in place or stay in place.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

If you really want to convince us that nuclear power is part of the future

I somehow doubt that's the main priority here.