3 ms·

There are many ways we could have routed money back to businesses without using the byzantine process defined by the SBA. This system benefitted banks at the e

There are many ways we could have routed money back to businesses without using the byzantine process defined by the SBA. This system benefitted banks at the expense of taxpayers, just like the last financial crisis. One fairer approach would have been to just refund everybody's 2019 federal income taxes and let the market figure out how to use it. Instead, we propped up a bunch of businesses that failed anyway. But hey, the banks got a percentage. Edit: To add a disclaimer: I run two companies which each received both PPP loans. I benefitted. My employees benefitted. I still think it would have been fairer to give that money to individuals and not to business owners like myself. Also, there is no reason we would have had to stop at refunding income taxes. That is just something that should have been ridiculously easy for the IRS to do quickly.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> One fairer approach would have been to just refund everybody's 2019 federal income taxes... That sounds incredibly unfair.
- mcculley 5y ago
  It would be unfair and yet fairer than the PPP, which mostly benefitted banks and corporations.
Godel_unicode 5y ago
You're aware that a significant portion of people and businesses in the United States pay essentially no taxes, right? Especially the more vulnerable parts of society?
- mcculley 5y ago
  You think it is better that corporations received welfare?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If the purpose is to keep payroll flowing to individual people for a while, yes, that’s exactly better than a system that is fairer-sounding but doesn’t accomplish the stated goal.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      Why should the purpose be to keep payroll flowing? Why not give money directly to people and let the market figure out where the payroll should be? The focus on payroll is exactly why corporations benefitted at the expense of people.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Because one of the concerns that would lead to an economic collapse is 40+% unemployment. Providing payroll protection is a very targeted measure against that. The last thing I need is for my six-figure 2019 taxes (good investment returns that year) to be rebated back to me for a job I wasn’t going to lose anyway while 1000s of people in my town lose their restaurant and retail jobs. That’s targeted in exactly the wrong direction I think.
        mcculley 5y ago
        I am not interested in the outcome for people like you and I. There could have been a ceiling on the refund. As I said in an edit to my original comment, I run two businesses which each received both PPP loans. I and my employees benefitted. I still think it was unfair. My employees should have received money directly and been allowed the agency to determine how to spend that money in a pandemic world. Instead, we propped up businesses that failed anyway and now there is less money to invest in new businesses. I know of businesses that employed people doing nothing. I also know of businesses that took the loan and still laid people off. This is not good for GDP. It would have been better to stimulate at the individual level.
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    I think that pausing our economy to the extent possible and allowing people and businesses to pick back up where they left off after the pandemic is incomparably better than screwing over the poorest in our society, yes. I understand that not everyone feels that way.
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> One fairer approach would have been to just refund everybody's 2019 federal income taxes and let the market figure out how to use it. Wouldn't that mean those with the least income would also get basically no support, and the wealthier, with the greater capacity to create and maintain a slushfund, would make out like bandits?
- mcculley 5y ago
  Yes, it would have been unfair and yet still fairer to the individuals. The system we have benefitted a bunch of business owners more than it did individuals.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    I'm not saying that the current system was good, but I don't think your solution helps at all given that it doesn't help those who need it but hands out truckloads of cash to those who don't. There's zero reason to give a huge payment to someone who wasn't in financial distress and who probably never even lost their job. As has been mentioned Canada's CERB, which was a "if you say you need it we'll give you some money now and we can sort it out later" approach helped the poorest the same as the more well off, which makes a lot more sense.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      I agree that a refund of income taxes alone is not a good solution. I was thinking we should have also given money to those who did not pay any federal income taxes, just as we are doing with unemployment benefits now. We could also have capped the size of the refund. Regardless, I still think giving money directly to individuals is much better than PPP. PPP was offered because it benefitted banks and existing businesses, who have more political power than the poor.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> One fairer approach would have been to just refund everybody's 2019 federal income taxes... That sounds incredibly unfair.

mcculley 5y ago
It would be unfair and yet fairer than the PPP, which mostly benefitted banks and corporations.

Godel_unicode 5y ago

You're aware that a significant portion of people and businesses in the United States pay essentially no taxes, right? Especially the more vulnerable parts of society?

mcculley 5y ago
You think it is better that corporations received welfare?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If the purpose is to keep payroll flowing to individual people for a while, yes, that’s exactly better than a system that is fairer-sounding but doesn’t accomplish the stated goal.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    Why should the purpose be to keep payroll flowing? Why not give money directly to people and let the market figure out where the payroll should be? The focus on payroll is exactly why corporations benefitted at the expense of people.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Because one of the concerns that would lead to an economic collapse is 40+% unemployment. Providing payroll protection is a very targeted measure against that. The last thing I need is for my six-figure 2019 taxes (good investment returns that year) to be rebated back to me for a job I wasn’t going to lose anyway while 1000s of people in my town lose their restaurant and retail jobs. That’s targeted in exactly the wrong direction I think.
      - mcculley 5y ago
        I am not interested in the outcome for people like you and I. There could have been a ceiling on the refund. As I said in an edit to my original comment, I run two businesses which each received both PPP loans. I and my employees benefitted. I still think it was unfair. My employees should have received money directly and been allowed the agency to determine how to spend that money in a pandemic world. Instead, we propped up businesses that failed anyway and now there is less money to invest in new businesses. I know of businesses that employed people doing nothing. I also know of businesses that took the loan and still laid people off. This is not good for GDP. It would have been better to stimulate at the individual level.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  I think that pausing our economy to the extent possible and allowing people and businesses to pick back up where they left off after the pandemic is incomparably better than screwing over the poorest in our society, yes. I understand that not everyone feels that way.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> One fairer approach would have been to just refund everybody's 2019 federal income taxes and let the market figure out how to use it. Wouldn't that mean those with the least income would also get basically no support, and the wealthier, with the greater capacity to create and maintain a slushfund, would make out like bandits?

mcculley 5y ago
Yes, it would have been unfair and yet still fairer to the individuals. The system we have benefitted a bunch of business owners more than it did individuals.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  I'm not saying that the current system was good, but I don't think your solution helps at all given that it doesn't help those who need it but hands out truckloads of cash to those who don't. There's zero reason to give a huge payment to someone who wasn't in financial distress and who probably never even lost their job. As has been mentioned Canada's CERB, which was a "if you say you need it we'll give you some money now and we can sort it out later" approach helped the poorest the same as the more well off, which makes a lot more sense.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    I agree that a refund of income taxes alone is not a good solution. I was thinking we should have also given money to those who did not pay any federal income taxes, just as we are doing with unemployment benefits now. We could also have capped the size of the refund. Regardless, I still think giving money directly to individuals is much better than PPP. PPP was offered because it benefitted banks and existing businesses, who have more political power than the poor.