"And requires 5040 days to provide $4032.00 of electrical power. Or 13.8 years.

Now factor-in interest rates and the cost of your $4032 in capital. (Plus installation costs and , maintenance - OPEX), and "opportunity cost" - what ELSE could you have done with a lazy $4000?

It is generally true that any item with a notional interest-free "payback period" exceeding 10 years is actually a loss-maker after interest costs. You would be better-off putting your money in the bank and paying your future bills from the interest. (But don't put the money in the stock market! or in dodgy debt finance!)"

They say the govt will pay for 1/2 of it. But it even then it's still not worth it.

With the solar panel you looking at 20 year investment.
The [DJI] stock market 20 years ago was just above 2000
it's now over 8000. And the DJI is at the moment at very low levels. If bought DJI now, you probably have a return of over 10% per year for the next few decades. 10%:
1000-1100-1210-1331-1464-1610-1771-1948-$2143.58
So 8 years doubles, but you also losing about 3% to inflation per year- so it would need to be about s 13% return per year to double your money in real dollars within 8 years.

The govt would need to pay for more than 3/4 of the cost for solar energy to have return comparable to the stock markets- [or be a real investment] though of course the tax payer [nation] is losing money/wealth.

But the nation loses and the buyer of solar panels lose more in areas of low solar energy per year.

Govt in it's stupidity and directed by it's citizens who value fairness, generally think one should provide more subsidies to areas which have less solar energy [so, everyone has the pleasure of wasting money].
But if you are handing out subsidies, you should not subsidize areas which have low yearly solar energy, instead you should subsidize areas which have high solar energy per year.

Now, if your total solar panel subsidize dollar is focused upon area which have more solar energy- you might get a lot of people buying solar panels- because these people are maybe breaking even or even making some profit.
Now, if people can actually make some profit from buying solar energy, the govt could have a "govt problem"- a lot people are going use this govt benefit- it could turn out to be a higher budgetary cost.

Now, if you accept the idea that govt should subsidize areas with highest solar energy per year- then should look at solar energy in Space. And I said "look" not go.
At the moment the cost of lifting anything into space is too expensive. But this cost can be lowered.
My idea of "water in orbit" is one step in this direction of lowering launch costs, which could could lead to harvesting energy from space at a profit within a few decades. If you can harvest energy from space at a profit [not govt subsidizes making fairy land profits] then Earth no longer has a energy problem- ever.