4 ms·

Where do you draw the line though. What if companies stop trying because they know they'll be bailed out and it's safer to just remain closed and take the money

Where do you draw the line though. What if companies stop trying because they know they'll be bailed out and it's safer to just remain closed and take the money. Several restaurants have changed to delivery/take-out only. How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down.

leetcrew 7y ago
> How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. if you were really interested, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a reasonable figure. take average revenue n weeks before the shutdown, then subtract average revenue during the crisis. pay out in proportion to calculated losses, conditional on backpaying employees their average weekly pay. real productivity is down by a lot, so no one is going to be made completely whole, but we could share the burden a lot better than we are now. as an aside, just giving everyone a flat sum would be the best outcome for me personally. I'm still getting paid and my company is doing fine. I'm arguing against my own interests here, which I don't do often.
tathougies 7y ago
> Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. Well yeah, citizens also own American companies, so they need the money lost due to their companies (which is their property) not operating. They should be compensated for the loss of enjoyment of their personal property. > The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. Sure, but that's not fair at all. > It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. Well, yeah their wealth doesn't matter, but their income does. Someone making more money and now not making any money due to government intervention is actually owed more than the guy making less money. > I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down. No, you need to give money to both. People own businesses. If their business is not making money, then that is their money that the government must compensate. Even the largest businesses are owned by people. If some company had a dividend scheduled and is now not doing that due to losses incurred by government activity, the government must pay it.

leetcrew 7y ago

> How do you decide how much to give a business? I don't think it's fair to just give specific industries money. Maybe the company you work for got hurt too but not as bad. Don't you they deserve money? You need to distribute the money to every business in a fair way, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what's fair. You can't just give every "business" the same amount of money and have it be "fair" for several reasons. if you were really interested, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a reasonable figure. take average revenue n weeks before the shutdown, then subtract average revenue during the crisis. pay out in proportion to calculated losses, conditional on backpaying employees their average weekly pay. real productivity is down by a lot, so no one is going to be made completely whole, but we could share the burden a lot better than we are now. as an aside, just giving everyone a flat sum would be the best outcome for me personally. I'm still getting paid and my company is doing fine. I'm arguing against my own interests here, which I don't do often.

tathougies 7y ago

> Ultimately, at the end of the day it's the citizens who need the money. Well yeah, citizens also own American companies, so they need the money lost due to their companies (which is their property) not operating. They should be compensated for the loss of enjoyment of their personal property. > The easiest way to fairly divide money among people is to divide it evenly. Sure, but that's not fair at all. > It doesn't matter if they are rich or not. Well, yeah their wealth doesn't matter, but their income does. Someone making more money and now not making any money due to government intervention is actually owed more than the guy making less money. > I say give whatever money you were going to give to businesses and give it to the people instead. Don't rely on trickle down. No, you need to give money to both. People own businesses. If their business is not making money, then that is their money that the government must compensate. Even the largest businesses are owned by people. If some company had a dividend scheduled and is now not doing that due to losses incurred by government activity, the government must pay it.