Taxpayer-funded grocery stores are good urban policy, not unfair competition.

Daily Debate #580: "Taxpayer-funded grocery stores are good urban policy, not unfair competition.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Bernie Sanders.

Funded grocery stores which pay taxes are a very good way of providing opportunities and providing a way to earn livings, to the one who may have never done something due to less resources and may have been a liability for the country.

You're conflating two separate things. A taxpayer-funded grocery store isn't a jobs program, it's a subsidy masquerading as one. If the real goal is employment and opportunity, why not fund job training or small business loans directly instead of propping up a retail operation that undercuts private grocers trying to do the same thing? Which outcome actually matters more to you: jobs or cheap groceries?

Those funded grocery stores can be more profitable for a government so that it adds to the funds of government which private grocers will not be able to do as good as they do. Funded ones comes in high tax payer category as they grow more with help and with that funding government can provide more jobs and cheaper groceries both at the same time.

You've just proved the opposite of what you're claiming. If government-run grocers are "more profitable," why do they need taxpayer funding to begin with? You can't simultaneously argue they're self-sustaining profit machines AND dependent on subsidies. Private grocers generate profit without drain on the public purse. Your model requires perpetual government investment to stay afloat, which means fewer dollars for actual essential services like hospitals and schools. Which is it: are they profitable or not?

A government need to fulfil the public purposes and so cannot rely on private grocers which generate profit without drain, if it do not add something to the society. Government run grocers become profitable after the funding by government so that's a necessary part. It is like a investment for the government. It do not make unfair competition as private funded fulfil the needs of the part of society who are capable enough and these government funded grocery stores are for the ones who cannot afford items of those private grocery store. So fulfilling necessities of all

You've just admitted they need perpetual funding to become profitable, then called it an "investment"—but investments pay returns. Where's yours? You're describing welfare wrapped in commerce, not fiscal strategy. If government grocers only serve the poor, why compete with private stores at all? Create food vouchers instead. But you won't, because the real goal is underpricing competitors, not helping the poor. Why does your solution require destroying the private grocery market rather than simply supplementing it?