4 ms·
Not sure why what would matter. One party (US taxpayers) is paying another party (Intel shareholders) to do something specific. What recipients do with the mone
by sudhirj 3y ago
Not sure why what would matter. One party (US taxpayers) is paying another party (Intel shareholders) to do something specific. What recipients do with the money is their own problem.
EDIT: Sorry, read this as strings attached to what Intel could do with the money.
I would assume the subsidy is contingent on Intel actually setting up the fab and some output numbers, seems idiotic to do it any other way. Don't think this was a bailout or handout at all. I haven't seen the agreement though.
- buran77 3y agoPeople generally see subsidies given to companies as a contract. Subsidies in general aren't a contract. People don't have to "do their part" when they benefit from a subsidy (like vote for a specific party because they subsidized the price of gas), and usually neither do companies.
- javagram 3y ago> People don't have to "do their part" when they benefit from a subsidy (like vote for a specific party because they subsidized the price of gas), and usually neither do companies. This is typically false, usually the subsidies are in the form of tax credits that are only awarded once you perform the desired action, or at least have to be paid back if you fail to do so. They don’t just cut a check and wash their hands. This is true for individuals as well as corporations. When you do your taxes this year, take a look at credits like the renewable energy credit. You have to actually purchase insulation or solar panels to be eligible for the credit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]