Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Will Intel Become Yet Another Cautionary Tale of State Subsidies’ Unseen Costs?

by September 19, 2024
September 19, 2024
Will Intel Become Yet Another Cautionary Tale of State Subsidies’ Unseen Costs?

Krit Chanwong and Scott Lincicome

In a new Cato policy analysis out today, September 19, we show that state and local corporate subsidies have increased substantially in recent years, even though their economic costs typically exceed any plausible regional benefits. The paper finds, among other things, that the growth of these corporate incentives is likely owed to their enduring political attractiveness and to new federal industrial policy initiatives. It also finds that state and local subsidies routinely create problems beyond their high budgetary (taxpayer) expense.

Ohio’s latest subsidies to US chipmaker Intel may unfortunately provide us with yet another example.

As Scott Lincicome explained in a recent op-ed, Intel was just awarded the largest federal subsidy package under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act (up to $44.5 billion in grants, loans, and tax credits), even though the company faces financial and strategic headwinds that have been building for decades. Key to Intel’s federal subsidy award was its promised construction of a huge chip facility in New Albany, Ohio, which has received further financial support from state and local governments, including:

A $1.941 billion subsidy from Ohio’s state government. These include $600 million in grants and $650 million in tax incentives over thirty years. This is the largest incentive package in Ohio’s history and represents almost seven percent of the state’s general fund revenue in 2022–2023.
A 100 percent property tax abatement over thirty years from the New Albany local government. 

As is often the case, Intel’s Ohio plans were announced to much fanfare in Washington, DC, and Ohio, even though the subsidies’ expected returns were immediately suspect. Intel promised, for example, that the New Albany project would generate 3,000 Intel jobs, 7,000 construction jobs, and “tens of thousands of additional jobs with suppliers and partners.” This would mean, however, that – even under the rosiest of projections – governments were paying at least $1.94 million for each job directly created by the New Albany facilities. And this assumes, of course, that Intel’s plans fully materialize.

There are already reasons to doubt that they will. As of 2023, Intel only employed 69 people in Ohio, and the firm has delayed the opening of its first New Albany plant from 2025 to 2026, with full operations supposedly starting in 2027. The company is also contemplating scaling back the scope of its factory investments in Ohio and elsewhere. Since many of the state and local subsidies to Intel can’t be clawed back, Ohio taxpayers could end up with an even worse deal than the bad one their elected officials signed them up for in the first place.

Some officials are expressing anxieties about Intel’s future in New Albany and in the process are demonstrating some of the corporate incentives’ political realities. For example, Licking County Commissioner Tim Bubb admitted that he and his fellow government officials were “overly optimistic” and didn’t do their due diligence when offering Intel all this taxpayer money. They simply “knew the name Intel.” Today, meanwhile, Bubb shows the political and practical difficulty of unwinding subsidy packages once offered: “We’re somewhat at their mercy. They own the site.” And he now admits that delays to the construction “could have somewhat of a cooling effect on the land speculation market” caused by the subsidies, thus adding to the possible economic pain in the area should Intel’s promises not pan out.

As we explain in our paper, these and other “unseen” costs are difficult to quantify and usually ignored, but they help to explain why so many economists warn against state and local business subsidies. Time and time again, the incentives’ direct and indirect costs are substantial, and there is little evidence that they generate broader economic spillovers—economic growth, job creation, increasing productivity, etc.—that might justify such an expense. The measures thus persist not for economic reasons but political ones, namely because politicians find them irresistible. Our paper suggests some guardrails to temper these political incentives and to help state and local legislators pursue pro-growth policies that don’t rely on costly corporate handouts like the ones Ohio and Licking County gave to Intel.

That deal might not be fixable, but perhaps its lessons and our reforms can help to prevent future ones like it.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Harris team ‘not aware’ of stolen Trump docs sent ‘directly’ to Biden camp
next post
Australian Bill Targets Harmful Misinformation Online but Hits Free Speech Around the World

You may also like

Prohibition Kills

July 10, 2024

Why the Chevron Victory Won’t End the Administrative...

July 18, 2024

That’s Not How the BRAC Commission Worked: No...

November 28, 2023

Argentina’s Milei Should Dollarize after Legislative Setback

February 16, 2024

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Loan‐​Forgiveness Program

June 30, 2023

Memo to Congress: Before Acting on FISA, Get...

February 9, 2024

Only 45 Percent of Employment-Based Green Cards Went...

December 11, 2023

Steve Ballmer’s New Public Sector 10‑K Report Illustrates...

April 20, 2023

Reflections on the Libertarianism vs. Conservativism Debate

August 20, 2024

The Occupational Licensing Elves on the Shelf

December 13, 2024

Prohibition Kills

July 10, 2024

Why the Chevron Victory Won’t End the Administrative...

July 18, 2024

That’s Not How the BRAC Commission Worked: No...

November 28, 2023

Argentina’s Milei Should Dollarize after Legislative Setback

February 16, 2024

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Loan‐​Forgiveness Program

June 30, 2023

Memo to Congress: Before Acting on FISA, Get...

February 9, 2024

Only 45 Percent of Employment-Based Green Cards Went...

December 11, 2023

Steve Ballmer’s New Public Sector 10‑K Report Illustrates...

April 20, 2023

Reflections on the Libertarianism vs. Conservativism Debate

August 20, 2024

The Occupational Licensing Elves on the Shelf

December 13, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Good Riddance to Grad PLUS Student Loans

      July 8, 2025
    • ‘Bait and switch’: Schumer warns of bitter funding fight over GOP cuts plan

      July 8, 2025
    • UK Government unveils £92bn transport overhaul to drive growth and connect communities

      July 8, 2025
    • New book exposes Jill Biden’s power grab amid husband’s political demise

      July 8, 2025
    • Tariff Shock Spurs “Buy-the-Dip” Setups in Tesla and ON Semiconductor

      July 8, 2025
    • Trump’s tariffs send UK borrowing costs soaring, forcing Reeves to rethink economic roadmap

      July 8, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,421)
    • Investing (2,106)
    • Politics (15,967)
    • Stocks (3,193)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved