> If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless.

Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about.

> all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you?

Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining.

▲

AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent [-]

> Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about.

Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings.

On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it.

> Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining.

Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with?

▲

yorwba 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> that's what loans are for

Upthread: "interest free loan of 15k" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48904009

	▲	AnthonyMouse 17 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Loans for non-trivially profitable investments don't require government interest subsidies.
	▲	mothballed 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		... for purchases from "approved" "accredited" suppliers[]. AKA the interest differential is regressive tax to funnel money to favored suppliers. Notice there's no option for the poor to simply install it themselves, which would save them more money than an interest free loan, but wouldn't funnel money to rich government approved install contractors. And there's your grift. As soon as the home owner wants to allocate the "profit" of install to themselves, it is a swift kick in the ass but that will go to our buddies, and thank you very much for your taxes. [] https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/households/grants-rebates/home...

▲

embedding-shape 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings.

I understand what you mean, and yeah, "it's just your money", but also, it really isn't. Poor people have to pay taxes, no way around it, getting them back as subsidies is still better for them than not getting it back at all. The choice isn't "Keep the money or have subsidies", the choice is "The money goes to other stuff or get subsidies".

> On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it.

Are those interest-free or managed by for-profit entities? Because "loans" are vastly different things compared to subsidies, but I'm guessing you already knew this.

> Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with?

Because "not taking it from you to begin with" isn't a practical and realistic alternative, that's not how the world, and especially taxes and government works...

▲

AnthonyMouse 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The choice isn't "Keep the money or have subsidies", the choice is "The money goes to other stuff or get subsidies".

That's the false dichotomy that happens in a broken government, but then why hold that out as something desirable?

> Are those interest-free or managed by for-profit entities?

Is the larger amount of mortgage or car loan debt they have to carry when they pay the extra money in tax?

> Because "not taking it from you to begin with" isn't a practical and realistic alternative, that's not how the world, and especially taxes and government works...

Your argument seems to be that lowering taxes on ordinary people is impossible?

▲

embedding-shape 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

> That's the false dichotomy that happens in a broken government, but then why hold that out as something desirable?

Personally I see it as stuff that happens in countries where the government care about the well-being of all, not just a select few (usually the ones with the most money). It's desirable that society improves, lots of that happens because of tax money. Subsidies usually means re-allocating funds, not raising taxes, although that might happen over time. Still, increasing taxes isn't inherently bad, especially when used for good. But I also know this is a somewhat controversial point of view in many hyper-capitalistic societies.

> Your argument seems to be that lowering taxes on ordinary people is impossible?

Yeah sure, I'm also clearly arguing for murdering children. Fun discussion, hope you'll enjoy the rest of your Tuesday :)

	▲	AnthonyMouse 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm honestly having trouble comprehending what your position is supposed to be here. It really seems to be that using the money to lower taxes on ordinary people rather than providing them with subsidies is a thing that could never happen. As if the prospect that their taxes could be lower than they are now, rather than only the same or higher, is something you can't even imagine.