4 ms·

>I know many households who received $4k+ in stimulus checks that didn't need it. Should they not have taken it? I'd rather have some of the waste money going

>I know many households who received $4k+ in stimulus checks that didn't need it. Should they not have taken it? I'd rather have some of the waste money going to families over businesses for once. Families have to worry about loss of income and loss of health during this. Businesses just have to worry about income. Families are more fragile and should be prioritized.

dfxm12 6y ago
Yeah, I don't understand the obsession with means testing support through such a crisis. Forgetting the issues with means testing in general [0], in this specific case, you can genuinely go from not needing it to needing it pretty quickly. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test#Criticism
codegeek 6y ago
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but a lot of small businesses in the US survive on thin margins and the owners also don't make a lot of money necessarily. So it is not always the case that a company only has to worry about income. They have to worry about paying employees, ensuring they can meet payroll (which in turn helps families of those workers), keep liabilities in check and many other issues. I am totally with you when it comes to companies with deep pockets but a lot of very small businesses are really just a group of individuals trying to survive together.
- balls187 6y ago
  The outrage is that the money didn't go to small businesses, but rather large ones who had the means to cheat the system.
  - robhunter 6y ago
    Why would there be outrage? There is $130b+ in PPP remaining for small businesses and it's incredibly easy to apply now.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      Why would there be outrage at the government handing billions of taxpayer dollars to people who are already billionaires while only giving $1200 to everyone else? My guess is because the government is handing billions of dollars to people who are already billionaires while only giving $1200 to everyone else.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    While that could possibly be true, it's worth noting that the database this thread is about can't really help support that claim as it exclusively contains data for loans over $150k (which might still cover some smallish businesses, but definitely not the smallest).
    - balls187 6y ago
      True. My comment was based on prior reporting on PPP funding problems, not based on the recently released names.
- saghm 6y ago
  I don't see how this is an argument against giving it directly to families/individuals rather than businesses. The reason the government has an interest in subsidizing payroll is to make sure the employees don't suffer due to not having income, so the question is why not just give 75% of the allocated directly to individuals anyways (since it's supposed to be used for payroll anyways), and then just have businesses apply for the non-payroll portion? If anything, that would be _better_ for small business owners; they'd get money as individuals from the 75% to keep rather than using for payroll, and then they would still get as much non-payroll money as they would before from the remaining 25%. The only other differences from what I can see are that giving it as payroll preserves existing salaries rather than distributing equally to all individuals (which could be a pro or a con depending on your views) and potentially enabling businesses to use the money for things that they're not supposed it, in which case it ends up being a loan that they have to pay back.

dfxm12 6y ago

Yeah, I don't understand the obsession with means testing support through such a crisis. Forgetting the issues with means testing in general [0], in this specific case, you can genuinely go from not needing it to needing it pretty quickly. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test#Criticism

codegeek 6y ago

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but a lot of small businesses in the US survive on thin margins and the owners also don't make a lot of money necessarily. So it is not always the case that a company only has to worry about income. They have to worry about paying employees, ensuring they can meet payroll (which in turn helps families of those workers), keep liabilities in check and many other issues. I am totally with you when it comes to companies with deep pockets but a lot of very small businesses are really just a group of individuals trying to survive together.

balls187 6y ago
The outrage is that the money didn't go to small businesses, but rather large ones who had the means to cheat the system.
- robhunter 6y ago
  Why would there be outrage? There is $130b+ in PPP remaining for small businesses and it's incredibly easy to apply now.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    Why would there be outrage at the government handing billions of taxpayer dollars to people who are already billionaires while only giving $1200 to everyone else? My guess is because the government is handing billions of dollars to people who are already billionaires while only giving $1200 to everyone else.
- contravariant 6y ago
  While that could possibly be true, it's worth noting that the database this thread is about can't really help support that claim as it exclusively contains data for loans over $150k (which might still cover some smallish businesses, but definitely not the smallest).
  - balls187 6y ago
    True. My comment was based on prior reporting on PPP funding problems, not based on the recently released names.
saghm 6y ago
I don't see how this is an argument against giving it directly to families/individuals rather than businesses. The reason the government has an interest in subsidizing payroll is to make sure the employees don't suffer due to not having income, so the question is why not just give 75% of the allocated directly to individuals anyways (since it's supposed to be used for payroll anyways), and then just have businesses apply for the non-payroll portion? If anything, that would be _better_ for small business owners; they'd get money as individuals from the 75% to keep rather than using for payroll, and then they would still get as much non-payroll money as they would before from the remaining 25%. The only other differences from what I can see are that giving it as payroll preserves existing salaries rather than distributing equally to all individuals (which could be a pro or a con depending on your views) and potentially enabling businesses to use the money for things that they're not supposed it, in which case it ends up being a loan that they have to pay back.