The economy of any country or group of countries is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created and wealth is lost or destroyed, mainly by governments, the pie gets bigger and smaller over time. Just because someone pays lower taxes does not automatically mean that another will have to pay more by any means. I don't pay higher taxes because my neighbors pay less... Arguing about the need to pay for firefighters and police is a rather childish distraction to the larger question, but any appropriation of government funds can be questioned by any citizen because the money the government spends does not belong to the government and the government can not spend without at least the tacit compliance of the citizens...
It is not up to me to prove that Airbus is not paying back loans for their commercial programs. Proving a negative is impossible. Can someone show us how the loans have been paid back and how any future A350 subsidy will be paid back?
Of course Airbus would be foolish to pass up free money from the EU government. My problem with the subsidy is a philosophical one and I have no taste for the details of convoluted legal harrangs that have been posted here. And if the A350 program is such a winner then Airbus should get moving on it and not wait for government assistance. Couldn't they just start up the program and ask for money later? If the A350 program is such a sound investment why does the money have to come from the EU? And if every company who could get government assistance waited on government money to start vital programs the industrial economy would be in pretty terrible shape I would suppose...
By the same token wouldn't Boeing be foolish not to take advantage of tax shelters to protect it's earnings? Like I said before no company has an obligation to fill the coffers of various governments. Boeing has no obligation to make sure that the state of Washington has an arbitrary amount of tax revenue.
I would assert that a corporations greatest responsibility is to protect its earnings. And if it is illegal for Boeing to protect their assets in the way you describe then the gang of federal regulators encamped at Boeing HQ
are not doing their job at all.
I don't believe the State of Washington was signitory to the treaty in question and as far as Japan goes, no one forced them to subsidize the companies that will produce 7E7 components and Boeing did not ask them to do it either. Japan did it of their own accord and philosophically I'm against that as well.
How about $2b from the DoD and $600 million from NASA just in 2003 alone for "R&D" that can be applied to any Boeing program at will?
One would think that any funds received by a corporation are "fungible" and all go into the same pot to be spent on whatever, but I think you are missing some details here. I'm sure there are some conditions that apply to Boeing's use of this money. Maybe someone could fill us in on the specifics.
In the big picture what I see is that the A350 is a losing propostion for Airbus from the start. They are too far behind the competition in terms of time and development work and the A350 looks to be a "face saving" effort at best. If the A350 was wholly viable on it's own why put up with delays and debates on whose money is going to pay for the development and production? Why waste any time at all, just get on with it.