The Government Is Better at Picking Losers Than Winners
It's taxpayers who lose when politicians give gifts, grants, and loans to private companies.

All investment is risky. What better way to avoid that risk than to use other people's money? Federal, state, and local governments dispense gifts, grants, and loans to private companies, generously funded by taxpayers and usually with vague promises of economic development in return. While politicians say they don't like to pick winners and losers, even the "winners" sometimes turn out to be losers for taxpayers.
General Motors I.T.
Innovation Center
Chandler, Arizona
General Motors announced in 2013 that it had picked Chandler for the site of its fourth Information Technology Innovation Center, an internal software development facility. The company would invest $21 million and create 1,000 jobs, and in return Chandler promised over $1 million in economic incentives between 2015 and 2017. In August 2023, G.M. announced that it would close the facility, laying off 940 out of 1,029 workers by the end of October. Chandler's development director told local news that the announcement "came as a complete surprise."
Lordstown Motors
Lordstown, Ohio
Amid the financial crisis in 2009, General Motors (G.M.) received $60 million in tax breaks to expand its Lordstown plant. All the company had to do was keep the plant open through at least 2039; instead, G.M. closed the plant in 2019. Rather than claw back the full amount, the Ohio government settled for a $20 million repayment. G.M. then sold the factory to upstart electric vehicle–maker Lordstown Motors, which received another $24.5 million in grants and tax credits. In June 2023, after delivering fewer than 40 vehicles to customers, Lordstown Motors filed for bankruptcy.
Tesla and SolarCity
Buffalo, New York
In 2013, New York pledged as much as $1 billion toward economic development projects to revitalize Buffalo as a manufacturing hub. The largest beneficiary was SolarCity, a solar panel manufacturer later acquired by Tesla in 2016. The state offered $1.25 billion in grants and tax credits in exchange for a factory that would create 5,000 jobs and generate 1,000 solar panel installations per week. But in 2023, after eight years of lowered job requirements and shifting deadlines, the factory employed just 1,700 people (mostly Tesla analysts) and averaged 21 solar panel installs per week.
Yellow Corporation
Overland Park, Kansas
In 2020, the Treasury Department was apportioned $17 billion in pandemic relief funds to disburse to companies it deemed vital to national security. It loaned $700 million of those funds to Yellow Corporation, a freight trucking company worth only $70 million that had lost $104 million the prior year. According to an audit released in 2023, Yellow had an outstanding balance of $729 million in March and had paid only a measly $230 toward the loan's principal. Yellow filed for bankruptcy in August 2023.
Amazon HQ2
Arlington, Virginia
When Amazon announced plans in 2017 to open a second headquarters ("HQ2"), it encouraged "local and state government leaders'' to compete for the project. After receiving several multibillion-dollar offers, Amazon chose Arlington—directly adjacent to Washington, D.C. The state offered as much as $750 million in conditional grants for Amazon to build its campus in Virginia, and in April 2023, the company requested its first tranche of taxpayer funds—over $152 million. While phase one of the project was completed in May 2023, construction is paused indefinitely on phase two.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Should be a much longer list. Movie industry credits offered in many states--all losers. Solyndra. Foxconn. Pro sport stadiums.
People are happier if they are more financially independent. Make 120 to 180USD / Hr by performing Qs simple tasks. We can help you achieve this. Join our strong community and earn money easily and safely from wherever you want. For More details..
Take A look—>>> https://Www.Smartcareer1.com
What I don't like in articles like this is the conflation of tax credits with grants. Let's say a polity "gives" an amount in credits against taxes for a business to start up. What did the taxpayers lose if the business doesn't materialize? It's money that was never there.
While I understand what you are saying, I'm not sure what the difference is between a tax credit and a grant on the ledger. Either the money not taken away (tax credit) or it's taken away and then put back (grant). The end result is the same.
I think Roberta is referring specifically to businesses that never really get off the ground. If the business never becomes profitable, they can never take advantage of the tax credit. It requires you to get to a certain point before you can even put it on the ledger.
Yes, partly that's what I had in mind. But even when the business makes considerable money, the taxing authority's take can only be reduced by the credit. It's not a payout, unless it's a "refundable" credit. And I never heard of any of these business credits being refundable.
If the business never becomes profitable, they can never take advantage of the tax credit.
Good point.
The trouble with this thinking is that then every dollar not taken in tax can be conceived as a giveaway. The concept might as well be that the state initially takes 100% of what you have, and then anything it lets you keep is your allowance, same as if they gave it to you out of the public fisc, i.e. the total pile taken from everybody.
I'm far from the first to observe this. And, if you want to follow the argument, it ends at the fact that there's never such a thing as neutral taxation; by its nature, any tax falls unequally by some measure, and has its effect (distortion) on the economy.
The trouble with this thinking is that then every dollar not taken in tax can be conceived as a giveaway.
Right. I used to give Tony shit for saying that not giving is taking and not taking is giving. I understand the difference in principle.
I'm talking about ink, not principle.
There’s a difference between excusing a company from taxes and taking tax revenues and GIVING them to a company. A grant is money that is given to someone to be spent for a specific purpose, like a research grant or a tiny homes grant. If the government excuses an entity from paying taxes (like a homeowner deduction) the only effect it has on everyone else is that the government may have less revenue to spend, and sometimes uses that as an excuse to raise the taxes on everyone else – like “the rich (TM)” …
The taxpayers lost the opportunity cost of a different company coming in and building the community.
Granted, the different company could go belly-up too. No new venture is a sure thing. But the one where the owners have more at stake is always the better bet.
Point take, when we talk about discounted or waived taxes as that is money that didn't exist anyway.
But:
...Lordstown Motors, which received another $24.5 million in grants and tax credits.
...by Tesla in 2016. The state offered $1.25 billion in grants and tax credits in exchange for a factory
The state offered as much as $750 million in conditional grants for Amazon to build its campus in Virginia, and in April 2023, the company requested its first tranche of taxpayer funds—over $152 million.
Also, some people got Eminent Domained in the Foxconn deal.
I certainly agree with the assessment that waived taxes for jobs that didn't materialize is gambling with the house's money but, if you're getting nitpicky about accounting or libertarianism...
In meager defense of these sorts of deals however, if you told me the cost to the IL taxpayer of IL Unions or even just public sector unions over even just the past 10 yrs. was less than $1.25B, I'd laugh in your face at your embarrassingly low estimate. At least the politicians working deals to get jobs seem to understand competitive markets, incentives, and give-and-take. Even if they do so by stealing from taxpayers, they don't explicitly do it to take the means of production out of the haves and give it to the have nots.
It's Crony Socialism. Crony Capitalism is an oxymoron.
You can't fix an oxymoron (contradiction). So it would probably help to actually address the actual symptom of the problem ... USA being conquered and destroyed by [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
It’s Crony Socialism. Crony Capitalism is an oxymoron.
The term "crony capitalism" is an idiom, so regardless of whether the term is an oxymoron (which is arguable unless you hold that "capitalism" means purely laissez-faire capitalism), it stands on its own to describe a system where the means of production are privately owned but capitalists avail themselves of financing, and fiscal benefits etc. from public sources thanks to connections, cronies, etc.
Obviously such a system cannot be called "socialist" either because the means of production are not state/publicly owned.
No, actually the problem is the word "capitalism" if used to mean "free enterprise". "Capitalism" is a marxist term, and if constructed parallel to other -isms related to government, means "rule by capital", meaning by the owners of capital. As Clarence Carson pointed out, the USSR was about as capitalist as you could get. So say "free enterprise" if that's what you mean.
Disagree. Capitalism is a system based on 1) private ownership of the property (i.e. "means of production"); and 2) being allowed to keep the proceeds of your production, whether personal or corporate. It implies that "production" includes "investment" so that an investor in a productive enterprise gets to charge interest on the loan or a portion of the profits, as contrasted with socialism, where the state owns the major means of production; or islam, where one is not allowed to charge interest and can only get around it by "buying" part ownership of the enterprise and keeping a proportional amount of the profit.
Not to belabor the issue but crony capitalism implies that the cronies own an enterprise and that the government favors one enterprise over another with special benefits or contracts, presumably in exchange for political favors or outright graft.
No, there were lots of winners. It just wasn't the taxpayers.
DT LOTTERY is Lottery online
I Do Trust All The Ideas You've Offered For Your Post. They Are Very Convincing And Will Certainly Work. Nonetheless, The Posts Are Very Quick For Novices. Could You Please Lengthen Them A Bit From Next Time? Thank You For The Post. lottery online
Best bot placement of the day - - - - - - - -
How dare you judge government give-aways in terms of business success? Next time tell us about campaign contributions and votes.
list is glaringly incomplete without Solyndra ... and also I'm not a Graft Agent but if I was a Graft Agent I think it would be entirely easier to shed the stink of a loser while still walking away with my graft than it would be to continue to manage a winner I've already grafted
Just like Jim Cramer.
Enhance your well-being through financial empowerment! Unlock the potential to earn between $120 to $180 per hour by effortlessly completing straightforward tasks. Join our thriving community and experience the freedom to earn money securely from the comfort of your chosen location. For further information, explore the opportunities at https://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Government support works best when the government is funding clear research and development or buying services with clear end goals in mind. Look at government support for SpaceX, the government started out funding small research and development projects and now it's largest federal space contractor and has driven costs for getting into space dramatically.