4 ms·

>So it kind of irks me to see some people frame this like a large percentage of these loans will be paid back. I constantly see this..."its not free money, its

>So it kind of irks me to see some people frame this like a large percentage of these loans will be paid back. I constantly see this..."its not free money, its a loan, and the money will be paid back with interest, just like in 2008." No, its free money for businesses, many of which will fail and let their employees go anyway. Then you hear people claim how somehow it was a victory to keep people off unemployment for 8 weeks, but not a single person can explain why that is such a benefit. Its sort of like saying hey when Corona virus began I stopped flights from Country X and saved 10's of thousands of lives...maybe deaths were delayed but there is no evidence they were prevented.

robhunter 6y ago
I think it's helpful to follow the money. If it goes to salaries, those salaries are taxed (both payroll taxes for the employer and income taxes for the employee). Those salaries, for the most part, get spent - on things with sales tax, creating business profits that are taxed, and supporting the employment of employees' whose wages are also taxed. The idea that it's one giant money suck for businesses with no immediate return to the economy is not really accurate - it's not a zero-sum game.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  >The idea that it's one giant money suck for businesses with no immediate return to the economy is not really accurate - it's not a zero-sum game. No one argues $600B wouldn't help the economy. Can you point to where I said PPP will not help the economy? Most people are starting to understand the fraud involved with PPP and understanding those funds could have gone to individuals and the money would have found its way back into the economy just the same...only faster as its not distributed out over 8 weeks with 25% reserved for non-payroll business expenses. Of course there are arguments for why the money should have gone to businesses as it did and not people...but you don't hear any lawmakers making those argument publicly and if you do its limited to "we are saving jobs." My argument, if you feel compelled to call it that, is that there is no proof these jobs have been saved unless delaying unemployment by 8 weeks is considered a job.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > those funds could have gone to individuals and the money would have found its way back into the economy just the same...only faster how could this possibly be true? the economy started tanking because people stopped going out and spending money. giving people money wouldnt fix this.
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      >the economy started tanking because people stopped going out and spending money. People continued spending money...mortgage/rent; car loans/insurance; food; etc... >giving people money wouldnt fix this. PPP didn't fix it did it? There is an eviction and foreclosure crisis looming...giving people money may have done a better job than PPP in avoiding this coming disaster.
      - kryogen1c 6y ago
        > People continued spending money i must be misunderstanding. surely you're not claiming that ordering people to stay inside and restricting building capacities didn't severely lower business revenue, are you? > PPP didn't fix it did it? i dont know why you said this. the PPP almost certainly fixed the short term problems created by a national quarantine. we're not out of the woods yet, but what do you think happened to all the money? you think hundreds of thousands of small business owners simultaneously committed fraud and didnt use the PPP for payroll? the PPP gave people money for rent, how did it not?
azinman2 6y ago
If you can help a business stay afloat, then people get to keep their jobs long term. Many businesses are on a threshold, especially a place like a restaurant. They might be still doing take out, people are still working, but business isn't as good as it was previously. If you do nothing and let tons of businesses close, then there's a huge chunk of the machinery of the economy missing once you start loosening the health regulations.

robhunter 6y ago

I think it's helpful to follow the money. If it goes to salaries, those salaries are taxed (both payroll taxes for the employer and income taxes for the employee). Those salaries, for the most part, get spent - on things with sales tax, creating business profits that are taxed, and supporting the employment of employees' whose wages are also taxed. The idea that it's one giant money suck for businesses with no immediate return to the economy is not really accurate - it's not a zero-sum game.

throwaway_USD 6y ago
>The idea that it's one giant money suck for businesses with no immediate return to the economy is not really accurate - it's not a zero-sum game. No one argues $600B wouldn't help the economy. Can you point to where I said PPP will not help the economy? Most people are starting to understand the fraud involved with PPP and understanding those funds could have gone to individuals and the money would have found its way back into the economy just the same...only faster as its not distributed out over 8 weeks with 25% reserved for non-payroll business expenses. Of course there are arguments for why the money should have gone to businesses as it did and not people...but you don't hear any lawmakers making those argument publicly and if you do its limited to "we are saving jobs." My argument, if you feel compelled to call it that, is that there is no proof these jobs have been saved unless delaying unemployment by 8 weeks is considered a job.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > those funds could have gone to individuals and the money would have found its way back into the economy just the same...only faster how could this possibly be true? the economy started tanking because people stopped going out and spending money. giving people money wouldnt fix this.
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    >the economy started tanking because people stopped going out and spending money. People continued spending money...mortgage/rent; car loans/insurance; food; etc... >giving people money wouldnt fix this. PPP didn't fix it did it? There is an eviction and foreclosure crisis looming...giving people money may have done a better job than PPP in avoiding this coming disaster.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > People continued spending money i must be misunderstanding. surely you're not claiming that ordering people to stay inside and restricting building capacities didn't severely lower business revenue, are you? > PPP didn't fix it did it? i dont know why you said this. the PPP almost certainly fixed the short term problems created by a national quarantine. we're not out of the woods yet, but what do you think happened to all the money? you think hundreds of thousands of small business owners simultaneously committed fraud and didnt use the PPP for payroll? the PPP gave people money for rent, how did it not?

azinman2 6y ago

If you can help a business stay afloat, then people get to keep their jobs long term. Many businesses are on a threshold, especially a place like a restaurant. They might be still doing take out, people are still working, but business isn't as good as it was previously. If you do nothing and let tons of businesses close, then there's a huge chunk of the machinery of the economy missing once you start loosening the health regulations.