4 ms·

Yet the rich get richer as Congress passes 'relief' plans that allow the wealthy to sneak massive chunks of cash directly into their pockets. Here's just one e

Yet the rich get richer as Congress passes 'relief' plans that allow the wealthy to sneak massive chunks of cash directly into their pockets. Here's just one example: "According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), about 85% of all the approved Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were for less than $150,000...The bipartisan bill holds the intention of automatically forgiving loans of less than $150,000." [1] 85% of so called 'paycheck protection' loans didn't/won't actually have to go to paying staff after all. Up to $22,000 per employee directly in the owner's pocket regardless of how the business was doing at all. [1]https://www.solo401k.com/blog/news-ppp-forgiveness-for-loans-under-150k/ https://www.solo401k.com/blog/news-ppp-forgiveness-for-loans...

enriquec 6y ago
Class warfare is pointless. Businesses are shuttering. Sure, make accusations of fraud (do you have any proof?) - but those expenses can't be frivolous unless you want a huge issue with the IRS. Should relief be so strict and policed (its own cost) or should it be flexible for businesses that may have had to build outdoor accomodations?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Class warfare is pointless. The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false. As, for that matter, does the (arguably modest, but still very real) progress of the working class from the height of the system first described as “capitalism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through its replacement by the modern mixed economy from the mid-20th century to today as a result of class warfare by the working classes against the entrenched capitalist class. Though “class warfare is pointless” is always what those defending class warfare by the capitalist class say when the working classes fight back.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    >The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false. Name me a socialist/communist gov that did any better. Each implementation grew the class divides even more. So far China, I would say, is the most economically viable model due to their opening to international market practice. However, the party still controls it and divvies out the work to a select few. Their social credit system helps them determine who is more worthy by putting people in different categories... oh wait that's just a class system with extra steps. It's not a capitalist fault. It's a human fault. We've done it for not hundreds of years, but thousands upon thousands. Long before Adam's or Marx parents were a twinkle in anyone's nethers. Finding a scapegoat for problems you dont quite understand and refuse to research beyond a 10min youtube cartoon does not constitute as good logic.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      Most socialist Scandinavian countries are doing better than the US by most measures of societal wellness (life expectancy, divorce rates, crime, etc).
      - NoOneNew 6y ago
        Also extremely high dependence on oil. They are also not as socialist as people imagine. I think it was Sweden that implemented a bunch of socialist laws in the 70s, their econ tanked and they back peddled on a lot of it. The myth they're still as socialist remains today. Check out Norway's expenditure on welfare programs. It's like 136m euro or something like that per year. I researched this a year or two ago. Then check out how much their state oil brings in. I want you to do it so you can see for yourself how much "norway hates fossil fuels and capitalism". Because without the free market on oil, there would be zero Norwegian welfare system. Yes, Americans call the Scandinavians socialists, the same way dry rub BBQ pit masters call BBQ sauces the devil's abomination to food. It's either anachronistic hyperbole or just plain hyperbolic. Steps toward socialism sure, but we're not talking about comrade level stuff.
      - 6y ago
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Sure, make accusations of fraud The OP didn't allege fraud. He stated two facts... relief loans were not required to cover wages. Loans <$150k can be forgiven. I don't think it's unreasonable to require some % of the loans to cover wages of employee's whose hours were cut or were furloughed completely. That said, a better option would have been direct payments to employees from the government. The $1200 check model but on a larger scale (ie, $1200/month or similar).
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    There were several months of direct Federal payments made to people collecting state unemployment. In May and June, many of the people hot to open things back up were partly motivated by unemployment, they didn't want states making the payments.
coderintherye 6y ago
You combined a source with a follow-up statement that appears nowhere in that article and is factually incorrect. I don't know where you came up with your made up number of $22,000, but this isn't some big conspiracy, what is forgivable is directly viewable in the SBA's PPP Loan Forgiveness Application: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/PPP%20Loan%20Forgiveness%20Application%20%28Revised%206.16.2020%29-fillable_0-508_0%202020-11-25%2018.01.22.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/PPP%20Loan%2...
- purple_ferret 6y ago
  The 22,000 number is off of the original caps per employee. 2.5 months of salary capped at $100,000 = 21,000. I misremembered the number. As for forgiveness, the forgiveness is part of the latest, yet to be passed, bill. My point is that PPP loans were sold as something, and are now being revised to be not that all, for the benefit of employers and not employees. >While until the SBA issues revisions to that IFR the final answer can’t be known for sure, one likely option is that the SBA limits owner-employees to 2.5/12 of their 2019 employee cash compensation and employer retirement and health care contributions made on their behalf, with a likely cap at $20,833 across all businesses. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/6/16/new-24-week-limits-announced-for-employee-payroll-costs-and-owner-income-replacement-for-ppp-loan-forgiveness https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/6/16...
  - dantheman 6y ago
    They were a bad idea from the get go, and calling them loans was a scam - they were handouts.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It seems correct as a matter of policy to not earmark PPP loans directly to employee wages. We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It seems correct as a matter of policy to not earmark PPP loans directly to employee wages. At a minimum, it should be tied to maintenance of payroll, since that's the entire theory of the Paycheck Protection Program. Alternatively, it should just not have existed, and direct individual aid should have been increased instead. > We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills. The fungibility of money means that earmarked funds for payroll frees up any other funds for other uses. It might make sense to earmark less than 100% for paychecks, or to have a separate relief mechanism, to account for ongoing fixed costs. If business is reduced so that revenue is not available for marginal costs, than those marginal costs should also not exist.
- purple_ferret 6y ago
  You can debate it, but the reality is paying businesses to pay employees was what the PPP loans were sold as. And it was sold with a lot of exploitable flaws under the premise that it would ultimately help employees from getting laid off.

enriquec 6y ago

Class warfare is pointless. Businesses are shuttering. Sure, make accusations of fraud (do you have any proof?) - but those expenses can't be frivolous unless you want a huge issue with the IRS. Should relief be so strict and policed (its own cost) or should it be flexible for businesses that may have had to build outdoor accomodations?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Class warfare is pointless. The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false. As, for that matter, does the (arguably modest, but still very real) progress of the working class from the height of the system first described as “capitalism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through its replacement by the modern mixed economy from the mid-20th century to today as a result of class warfare by the working classes against the entrenched capitalist class. Though “class warfare is pointless” is always what those defending class warfare by the capitalist class say when the working classes fight back.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  >The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false. Name me a socialist/communist gov that did any better. Each implementation grew the class divides even more. So far China, I would say, is the most economically viable model due to their opening to international market practice. However, the party still controls it and divvies out the work to a select few. Their social credit system helps them determine who is more worthy by putting people in different categories... oh wait that's just a class system with extra steps. It's not a capitalist fault. It's a human fault. We've done it for not hundreds of years, but thousands upon thousands. Long before Adam's or Marx parents were a twinkle in anyone's nethers. Finding a scapegoat for problems you dont quite understand and refuse to research beyond a 10min youtube cartoon does not constitute as good logic.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    Most socialist Scandinavian countries are doing better than the US by most measures of societal wellness (life expectancy, divorce rates, crime, etc).
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      Also extremely high dependence on oil. They are also not as socialist as people imagine. I think it was Sweden that implemented a bunch of socialist laws in the 70s, their econ tanked and they back peddled on a lot of it. The myth they're still as socialist remains today. Check out Norway's expenditure on welfare programs. It's like 136m euro or something like that per year. I researched this a year or two ago. Then check out how much their state oil brings in. I want you to do it so you can see for yourself how much "norway hates fossil fuels and capitalism". Because without the free market on oil, there would be zero Norwegian welfare system. Yes, Americans call the Scandinavians socialists, the same way dry rub BBQ pit masters call BBQ sauces the devil's abomination to food. It's either anachronistic hyperbole or just plain hyperbolic. Steps toward socialism sure, but we're not talking about comrade level stuff.
    - 6y ago
alistairSH 6y ago
Sure, make accusations of fraud The OP didn't allege fraud. He stated two facts... relief loans were not required to cover wages. Loans <$150k can be forgiven. I don't think it's unreasonable to require some % of the loans to cover wages of employee's whose hours were cut or were furloughed completely. That said, a better option would have been direct payments to employees from the government. The $1200 check model but on a larger scale (ie, $1200/month or similar).
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There were several months of direct Federal payments made to people collecting state unemployment. In May and June, many of the people hot to open things back up were partly motivated by unemployment, they didn't want states making the payments.

coderintherye 6y ago

You combined a source with a follow-up statement that appears nowhere in that article and is factually incorrect. I don't know where you came up with your made up number of $22,000, but this isn't some big conspiracy, what is forgivable is directly viewable in the SBA's PPP Loan Forgiveness Application: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/PPP%20Loan%20Forgiveness%20Application%20%28Revised%206.16.2020%29-fillable_0-508_0%202020-11-25%2018.01.22.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/PPP%20Loan%2...

purple_ferret 6y ago
The 22,000 number is off of the original caps per employee. 2.5 months of salary capped at $100,000 = 21,000. I misremembered the number. As for forgiveness, the forgiveness is part of the latest, yet to be passed, bill. My point is that PPP loans were sold as something, and are now being revised to be not that all, for the benefit of employers and not employees. >While until the SBA issues revisions to that IFR the final answer can’t be known for sure, one likely option is that the SBA limits owner-employees to 2.5/12 of their 2019 employee cash compensation and employer retirement and health care contributions made on their behalf, with a likely cap at $20,833 across all businesses. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/6/16/new-24-week-limits-announced-for-employee-payroll-costs-and-owner-income-replacement-for-ppp-loan-forgiveness https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/6/16...
- dantheman 6y ago
  They were a bad idea from the get go, and calling them loans was a scam - they were handouts.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It seems correct as a matter of policy to not earmark PPP loans directly to employee wages. We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It seems correct as a matter of policy to not earmark PPP loans directly to employee wages. At a minimum, it should be tied to maintenance of payroll, since that's the entire theory of the Paycheck Protection Program. Alternatively, it should just not have existed, and direct individual aid should have been increased instead. > We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills. The fungibility of money means that earmarked funds for payroll frees up any other funds for other uses. It might make sense to earmark less than 100% for paychecks, or to have a separate relief mechanism, to account for ongoing fixed costs. If business is reduced so that revenue is not available for marginal costs, than those marginal costs should also not exist.
purple_ferret 6y ago
You can debate it, but the reality is paying businesses to pay employees was what the PPP loans were sold as. And it was sold with a lot of exploitable flaws under the premise that it would ultimately help employees from getting laid off.