MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => COVID-19 => Topic started by: GooooMarquette on March 25, 2020, 12:55:41 AM
-
Finally....
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-24/congress-white-house-stimulus-deal-coronavirus
-
Well, that'll help a bit.
-
Not enough.
Much like anyone with a budget both spending and income need to be taken into account.
Need to suspend rent/mortgage, utilities and loan payments
-
Paywall
-
Not enough.
Much like anyone with a budget both spending and income need to be taken into account.
Need to suspend rent/mortgage, utilities and loan payments
This bill is actually pretty generous, not only for the direct payments, but for the increased unemployment insurance.
Suspending mortgage payments across the board is a huge problem. Banks need that money to loan back out via lines of credit, etc.
If that doesn't work, the feds need to do more of the same.
-
The bill needs to include checks for low income Seniors, the disabled, the poor, or it's unacceptable.
-
The bill needs to include checks for low income Seniors, the disabled, the poor, or it's unacceptable.
Did you read the article?
-
The bill needs to include checks for low income Seniors, the disabled, the poor, or it's unacceptable.
That was the biggest change from the initial bill the Senate pushed out - it is not regressive against those that don't pay federal taxes. Will hold judgment until we get the final bill's text, but early returns are that this isn't perfect, but something.
I would have preferred a UBI model given uncertainty of how long this will last. But I doubt this is the final stimulus.
-
Did you read the article?
For example:
Disabled income is not taxed.
What about poor people that did not file 2018/2019 taxes?
If it is tied to tax retruns, and the above do not get it, the deal is unacceptable trash in my opinion.
-
This bill is actually pretty generous, not only for the direct payments, but for the increased unemployment insurance.
Suspending mortgage payments across the board is a huge problem. Banks need that money to loan back out via lines of credit, etc.
If that doesn't work, the feds need to do more of the same.
Agreed. Those who can continue to pay should.
Under the circumstances, just about the last thing the banks want on their hands right now is a bunch of empty and devalued properties. So, they're going to be highly motivated to suspend payments for those who legitimately cannot make them. But most people continue to work, and most businesses continue to operate, and there's really no reason for them not to make their payments.
-
That was the biggest change from the initial bill the Senate pushed out - it is not regressive against those that don't pay federal taxes. Will hold judgment until we get the final bill's text, but early returns are that this isn't perfect, but something.
I would have preferred a UBI model given uncertainty of how long this will last. But I doubt this is the final stimulus.
I have heard different things back and forth. This article and some others suggest that if someone did not file taxes, disabled, poor, some elderly etc...they wouldn't be getting a check.
Other things have already been mentioned in this thread of which I agree that apparently are not included either.
-
A slight tangent.
I get providing funds to the airline companies because we need to travel by air for business, as well as visiting family.
I don't get the idea of bailing out cruise lines. Other than jobs, is the functioning of cruise ships vital to US interests?
Thanks
-
A slight tangent.
I get providing funds to the airline companies because we need to travel by air for business, as well as visiting family.
I don't get the idea of bailing out cruise lines. Other than jobs, is the functioning of cruise ships vital to US interests?
Thanks
Beyond that, these companies pay virtually no federal taxes.
Carnival Corporation is incorporated in Panama. Royal Caribbean in Liberia. Norwegian Cruise Line in Bermuda
We'd essentially be spending American tax dollars to prop up foreign companies.
-
Many Scoopers will get $0. Sad!
-
For example:
Disabled income is not taxed.
What about poor people that did not file 2018/2019 taxes?
If it is tied to tax retruns, and the above do not get it, the deal is unacceptable trash in my opinion.
I get what you're saying, but how else would you suggest processing all the requests and the means testing aspect without creating new forms, websites, agencies, etc? When you're dealing with a review of the entire country, this is a very logical way to go about it. Not being perfect is far from being trash.
-
I get what you're saying, but how else would you suggest processing all the requests and the means testing aspect without creating new forms, websites, agencies, etc? When you're dealing with a review of the entire country, this is a very logical way to go about it. Not being perfect is far from being trash.
It’s trash. These are among the people that need it most.
-
It’s trash. These are among the people that need it most.
The link below says about 5% of citizens fail to file returns. Helping 95% or more of the population is usually considered a success. Again, I understand your point about some of the most vulnerable potentially being left out here, but logistically, this makes sense. Holding up the process and the payments for 95% of citizens doesn't seem like a good alternative.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/irswatch/2014/08/27/7-million-taxpayers-fail-to-file-their-income-taxes/#879a106706f6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/irswatch/2014/08/27/7-million-taxpayers-fail-to-file-their-income-taxes/#879a106706f6)
-
It’s trash. These are among the people that need it most.
Details continue to leak out, but from what little I've seen the bill does include measures aimed at including the poor and those who don't file taxes.
-
The link below says about 5% of citizens fail to file returns. Helping 95% or more of the population is usually considered a success. Again, I understand your point about some of the most vulnerable potentially being left out here, but logistically, this makes sense. Holding up the process and the payments for 95% of citizens doesn't seem like a good alternative.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/irswatch/2014/08/27/7-million-taxpayers-fail-to-file-their-income-taxes/#879a106706f6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/irswatch/2014/08/27/7-million-taxpayers-fail-to-file-their-income-taxes/#879a106706f6)
“Men and Women for others”
Aren’t we supposed to help the most vulnerable first, not last or not at all? It doesn’t have to be an either or.
I would like to see a good deal in a wide variety of areas for a wide variety of people. That of course is important. But helping these categories of people is essential and a priority in my opinion.
-
Details continue to leak out, but from what little I've seen the bill does include measures aimed at including the poor and those who don't file taxes.
Thanks. I spend some time around a lot of these people. I will wait and see what else comes out today. I have yet to see anywhere that these people will be getting checks.
-
I get what you're saying, but how else would you suggest processing all the requests and the means testing aspect without creating new forms, websites, agencies, etc? When you're dealing with a review of the entire country, this is a very logical way to go about it. Not being perfect is far from being trash.
Process for all individuals so there is no need for income validation etc. Accept that you're giving money to people who don't need it at the expense of more timely disbursement to those that do. Efficiency vs effectiveness tradeoff.
-
Thanks. I spend some time around a lot of these people. I will wait and see what else comes out today. I have yet to see anywhere that these people will be getting checks.
Dems were addressing these issues, so I doubt they would have signed off on this, otherwise. Hopefully.
The problem with those who didn't file tax returns is that it will take longer to get their checks. For those of us that file, they will get use IRS data to get us the money and I'm guessing it will probably be done through direct deposit as that is how most get their tax refunds. With the poor, it will need to be done manually.
-
Process for all individuals so there is no need for income validation etc. Accept that you're giving money to people who don't need it at the expense of more timely disbursement to those that do. Efficiency vs effectiveness tradeoff.
Sure, that's a possibility. Honest question, though - where would the federal government get the details of who to include and how to get their money out to them if the feds aren't using tax returns? This might sound dumb, but if someone isn't filing their taxes, where else does Uncle Sam get their info? Maybe state databases?
It also makes it hard to ensure that families get an extra boost if you don't use tax info. Or maybe we just assume all households have 2-3 kids? No added support for families in the plan?
Last, I assume the direct deposit info from tax return processing increases the security of all this too. If everyone knows there will be a bunch of checks for a couple grand in everyone's mailbox next week, don't you think more than a few of those checks don't end up in the right hands?
There might have been a more complete way to do this, but it seems like this was a pretty darn good solution to move quickly and have a significant impact.
-
Sure, that's a possibility. Honest question, though - where would the federal government get the details of who to include and how to get their money out to them if the feds aren't using tax returns? This might sound dumb, but if someone isn't filing their taxes, where else does Uncle Sam get their info? Maybe state databases?
Social Security.
-
Social Security.
Automatic voter registration rolls
-
Some concern in the house that the UI benefits are too much money. Might encourage some workers to stay on unemployment rather than seeking a new job when economy comes back.
-
Some concern in the house that the UI benefits are too much money. Might encourage some workers to stay on unemployment rather than seeking a new job when economy comes back.
I believe the enhanced unemployment benefits are only extended four months, not indefinitely. If so, their concerns are meaningless.
-
Ah yes.
Let's get hung up on the moral hazard of the working poor getting enhanced unemployment for four months, but bail out the same airline industry that was bailed out just over a decade ago with barely any strings attached.
-
Ah yes.
Let's get hung up on the moral hazard of the working poor getting enhanced unemployment for four months, but bail out the same airline industry that was bailed out just over a decade ago with barely any strings attached.
Per language in the proposed bill, airlines and associated companies are to have money transferred within 10 days of passage. Nuts.
-
Some concern in the house that the UI benefits are too much money. Might encourage some workers to stay on unemployment rather than seeking a new job when economy comes back.
Sasse, Scott, and Graham were some of the ones listed. They even used home health workers as an example. They don’t want these people to get an extra few hundred bucks. It is evil hypocritical crazy town.
Anyone ever spend time with home health workers? (Raises hand) These people are often making less than $10 an hour, zero gas mileage, live far from work, and have challenging, physically, mentally, and emotionally draining positions. They have to pay for their own certifications etc...and often receive little to no other benefits, insurance etc...
The bill is terrible as are some of these people, some for their hypocritical discrimination and others for their unwillingness to take a stand for something worth fighting for.
-
With regards to money...
The @nytimes reports that Americans who are eligible for the coronavirus relief cash payments but who *don't already have direct-deposit bank info on file with the IRS "will need to wait up to four months" to get a check, per Democratic aides. https://t.co/LOomu3GTiS
-
Sasse, Scott, and Graham were some of the ones listed. They even used home health workers as an example. They don’t want these people to get an extra few hundred bucks. It is evil hypocritical crazy town.
Anyone ever spend time with home health workers? (Raises hand) These people are often making less than $10 an hour, zero gas mileage, live far from work, and have challenging, physically, mentally, and emotionally draining positions.
The bill is terrible as are some of these people, some for their hypocritical discrimination and others for their unwillingness to take a stand for something worth fighting for.
From the article I read, Sasse, Scott and Graham are merely trying to limit the benefits to 100% of what the employees would otherwise make and that what they are doing is clearing up a drafting error. Just to clarify, are you saying that the workers referred to should make out better from the stimulus package than they would have if the world was normal and they continued working as usual?
-
From the article I read, Sasse, Scott and Graham are merely trying to limit the benefits to 100% of what the employees would otherwise make and that what they are doing is clearing up a drafting error. Just to clarify, are you saying that the workers referred to should make out better from the stimulus package than they would have if the world was normal and they continued working as usual?
I’m saying this is trash.
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201
-
I’m saying this is trash.
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201
I'm not suggesting that nurses, and some other professions, aren't underpaid. I'm just asking if you're saying that the stimulus package should have them coming out ahead of where they'd otherwise be if there had been no disruption in the workforce because of the current situation.
-
I'm not suggesting that nurses, and some other professions, aren't underpaid. I'm just asking if you're saying that the stimulus package should have them coming out ahead of where they'd otherwise be if there had been no disruption in the workforce because of the current situation.
Coming out ahead? Wow. .....I’m saying grandstanding to a base (sad that he has a base and this is what his base wants) with pretend threats to uphold a bill to help Americans during the time of a public health crisis, is trash. (spoiler alert he isn’t) I’m saying using nurses, assistants, home health workers as your example is trash. Over a few hundred bucks? Really? Really? Going after nurses and the like is trash. People are aren’t choosing to be in this situation. People aren’t saying well, I don’t really want to work, I’ll just stay home.
-
I’m saying this is trash.
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201
Utter ignorance, but consider the source (Graham).
1. I don't think any nurses are getting laid off.
2. My wife made over $40.00 an hour as a nurse before she retired early. The windfall he describes would have been about a 45% pay CUT.
-
I’m saying this is trash.
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201
In the current environment, where nurses are risking their lives to save ours, this is an incredibly bizarre hill to die on.
-
From the article I read, Sasse, Scott and Graham are merely trying to limit the benefits to 100% of what the employees would otherwise make and that what they are doing is clearing up a drafting error. Just to clarify, are you saying that the workers referred to should make out better from the stimulus package than they would have if the world was normal and they continued working as usual?
This...anyone who would think it would be okay for people to make more on unemployment than at their actual job says a lot about them actually. Now, redrafting it(which they are said to be doing), so that anyone on unemployment makes their actual salary?? That's acceptable to me, but more?? Unjustifiable.
-
This...anyone who would think it would be okay for people to make more on unemployment than at their actual job says a lot about them actually. Now, redrafting it(which they are said to be doing), so that anyone on unemployment makes their actual salary?? That's acceptable to me, but more?? Unjustifiable.
Do you know ANY nurse who makes less than $24/hour?
FWIW, here is a list of average hourly pay for nurses...which shows hourly pay ranging from a high of $49.37 in California to a low of $27.41/hr in South Dakota. Forty out of the fifty states average over $30/hr.
https://nurse.org/articles/highest-paying-states-for-registered-nurses/ (Note that these are 2018 numbers, so the current numbers are likely a bit higher.)
So again, do you know ANY nurse who makes less than $24/hour? Given the numbers above, do you REALLY believe the number (if any) is large enough to justify delaying the entire stimulus package?
-
This...anyone who would think it would be okay for people to make more on unemployment than at their actual job says a lot about them actually. Now, redrafting it(which they are said to be doing), so that anyone on unemployment makes their actual salary?? That's acceptable to me, but more?? Unjustifiable.
That’s unjustifiable but bailing out airlines again is apparently a-ok with you.
Btw, I am ok with this getting fixed as long as it can be done so quickly.
-
Did I just hear Mnunchin say that SBA loans would cover 50% of payroll? Thats definitely far less than they were making it seem. Not exactly going to keep workers comfortably afloat and patiently riding this out.
-
For example:
What about poor people that did not file 2018/2019 taxes?
If it is tied to tax retruns, and the above do not get it, the deal is unacceptable trash in my opinion.
If they got a W-2 and had taxes taken out, they should have filed to get it refunded and/or to collect EIC.
It may not be too late to do it now. Go to a VITA tax preparer. They will do it for free.
How many poor people got absolutely no income of any kind last year? And if all of their income was from non-taxable government entititlements, then are they really being affected income-wise by the coronavirus? I am not trying to be smartass here, I am asking the question.
-
If anyone who hasn’t filed taxes and speaks up in an effort to get $ now, they should be arrested on the spot.
-
If they got a W-2 and had taxes taken out, they should have filed to get it refunded and/or to collect EIC.
It may not be too late to do it now. Go to a VITA tax preparer. They will do it for free.
How many poor people got absolutely no income of any kind last year? And if all of their income was from non-taxable government entititlements, then are they really being affected income-wise by the coronavirus? I am not trying to be smartass here, I am asking the question.
Top of head example:
Disabled person, lives alone, has mortgage or rent, utilities, doesn’t pay taxes, no W2, has bills 3 times more than their monthly income to get by. They eat, wear clothes etc need transportation costs basic needs expenses. What about them? Their lives are being greatly disrupted by the virus. I am not being a smart ass but do you spend much time around poor people or disabled people?
-
Do you know ANY nurse who makes less than $24/hour?
FWIW, here is a list of average hourly pay for nurses...which shows hourly pay ranging from a high of $49.37 in California to a low of $27.41/hr in South Dakota. Forty out of the fifty states average over $30/hr.
https://nurse.org/articles/highest-paying-states-for-registered-nurses/ (Note that these are 2018 numbers, so the current numbers are likely a bit higher.)
So again, do you know ANY nurse who makes less than $24/hour? Given the numbers above, do you REALLY believe the number (if any) is large enough to justify delaying the entire stimulus package?
Those always scamming and scheming fat cat nurses would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling Senators.
TTTTTTTTT-EEEEEE-AAAAAA-LLLLL
-
Top of head example:
Disabled person, lives alone, has mortgage or rent, utilities, doesn’t pay taxes, no W2, has bills 3 times more than their monthly income to get by. They eat, wear clothes etc need transportation costs basic needs expenses. What about them? Their lives are being greatly disrupted by the virus. I am not being a smart ass but do you spend much time around poor people or disabled people?
But is their income impacted? Are their expenses impacted? My point is that the stimulus is for people being economically affected as a direct result of the virus. Yes, your disabled person example is poor and their life sucks, but that is a separate issue from what the problem they are trying to solve with the stimulus package.
If you try to solve everyone's problems with this bill, it would never come to vote.
-
But is their income impacted? Are their expenses impacted? My point is that the stimulus is for people being economically affected as a direct result of the virus. Yes, they are poor and their life sucks, but that is a separate issue from what the problem they are trying to solve with the stimulus package.
If you try to solve everyone's problems with this bill, it would never come to vote.
I totally agree with you technically. But IMO the margin of error on this one is a lot less than the checks that end with a M and B getting written everywhere else. Besides, if they give someone down and out an extra couple hundred bucks, it’s going to get spent. Which is kind of the point of this right?
-
But is their income impacted? Are their expenses impacted? My point is that the stimulus is for people being economically affected as a direct result of the virus. Yes, your disabled person example is poor and their life sucks, but that is a separate issue from what the problem they are trying to solve with the stimulus package.
If you try to solve everyone's problems with this bill, it would never come to vote.
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1242881655712473097?s=19
Their lives are greatly impacted economically.
How? Home health workers can't show up to work and help them. That is out of pocket cost. Transportation shuts down or gets reduced. This is financial impact. Their programs get canceled, others cost $$$. This doesn'r evwn take into account other costs of having to stay home. Surely you are not this obtuse?
Saying oh well their lives suck let me get back to my portfolio isn't good enough.
-
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1242881655712473097?s=19
Their lives are greatly impacted economically.
How? Home health workers can't show up to work and help them. That is out of pocket cost. Transportation shuts down or gets reduced. This is financial impact. Their programs get canceled, others cost $$$. This doesn'r evwn take into account other costs of having to stay home. Surely you are not this obtuse?
Saying oh well their lives suck let me get back to my portfolio isn't good enough.
So pass a separate bill for those people. Just because a program doesn't benefit every single person who needs help, doesn't mean it's a horrible bill.
-
So pass a separate bill for those people. Just because a program doesn't benefit every single person who needs help, doesn't mean it's a horrible bill.
I haven't seen a separate bill. Have you seen a separate bill? Will you post a link to that bill? Thanks. I believe, some, many would say some of these people are more deserving than some others will be benefit from this bill. Let's just give entitlements to corporations, especially the ones that love buy backs and preying upon consumers. Got it.
-
Can someone on here explain why the f*ck the cruise lines are getting one penny of US taxpayer money? They're foreign companies. I don't mind that I don't see a single penny (just like I didn't see a single penny of tax savings from the "tax cut") but this is DOGSH!T!!!!!! Porky porky porky. Glad I get to foot the bill of this crap. I'd rather send more money to out of service industry people than to float big boats.
-
But is their income impacted? Are their expenses impacted? My point is that the stimulus is for people being economically affected as a direct result of the virus. Yes, your disabled person example is poor and their life sucks, but that is a separate issue from what the problem they are trying to solve with the stimulus package.
If you try to solve everyone's problems with this bill, it would never come to vote.
Isn’t the stimulus just what it says? A stimulus for the economy?
Yes, it is both. A help for people who have lost income AND a stimulus to get (keep) the economy going.
-
Can someone on here explain why the f*ck the cruise lines are getting one penny of US taxpayer money? They're foreign companies. I don't mind that I don't see a single penny (just like I didn't see a single penny of tax savings from the "tax cut") but this is DOGSH!T!!!!!! Porky porky porky. Glad I get to foot the bill of this crap. I'd rather send more money to out of service industry people than to float big boats.
I'm guessing it's because lots of senators like to go on cruises. If not, I'm stumped....
-
If you had The Cheesecake Factory leading the Rent Strike revolution, kudos to you.
-
I'm guessing it's because lots of senators like to go on cruises. If not, I'm stumped....
It's mind boggling. I mean if there is a huge demand another company will form to fill that. Let those foreign ones die. They don't fill a vital need the economy like airlines do. When was last business trip scheduled by someone via a cruise?
This is a complete corporate welfare pork sandwich to South Florida for votes. It's disgusting.
-
If you had The Cheesecake Factory leading the Rent Strike revolution, kudos to you.
I had to google that - but hah
https://la.eater.com/2020/3/25/21194144/cheesecake-factory-rent-strike-chain-restaurant
-
I'm guessing it's because lots of senators like to go on cruises. If not, I'm stumped....
Di$ney $tand$ to lo$e a lot otherwi$e
-
Top of head example:
Disabled person, lives alone, has mortgage or rent, utilities, doesn’t pay taxes, no W2, has bills 3 times more than their monthly income to get by. They eat, wear clothes etc need transportation costs basic needs expenses. What about them? Their lives are being greatly disrupted by the virus. I am not being a smart ass but do you spend much time around poor people or disabled people?
Was their social security, medicaid, disability, retirement, pension, etc impacted in the last few weeks?
Like chick, not trying to be insensitive, but those on fixed incomes should have the same income streams.
Its the bartenders, hairstyles, retail workers, daycare teachers, etc. that have been the most affected and they are the ones that should be getting made whole.
And yes to means testing the lump sum payments. Yes to helping small businesses with grants, not loans from the SBA.
-
Isn’t the stimulus just what it says? A stimulus for the economy?
Yes, it is both. A help for people who have lost income AND a stimulus to get (keep) the economy going.
Then why am I not getting jack sh1t?
-
Was their social security, medicaid, disability, retirement, pension, etc impacted in the last few weeks?
Like chick, not trying to be insensitive, but those on fixed incomes should have the same income streams.
Its the bartenders, hairstyles, retail workers, daycare teachers, etc. that have been the most affected and they are the ones that should be getting made whole.
And yes to means testing the lump sum payments. Yes to helping small businesses with grants, not loans from the SBA.
But everyone who makes under a certain threshold will be made whole (by income or unemployment) AND will receive a stimulus payment. I think shoot is suggesting that those who don't file taxes should still be receiving the stimulus check.
I think you are mixing up two issues here.
-
Was their social security, medicaid, disability, retirement, pension, etc impacted in the last few weeks?
Like chick, not trying to be insensitive, but those on fixed incomes should have the same income streams.
Its the bartenders, hairstyles, retail workers, daycare teachers, etc. that have been the most affected and they are the ones that should be getting made whole.
And yes to means testing the lump sum payments. Yes to helping small businesses with grants, not loans from the SBA.
Nah. Couldn't disagree more. Their cost of living went up on a variety of ways due to COVID-19 in acute fashion.
-
Nah. Couldn't disagree more. Their cost of living went up on a variety of ways due to COVID-19 in acute fashion.
How? Genuinely curious.
-
Nah. Couldn't disagree more. Their cost of living went up on a variety of ways due to COVID-19 in acute fashion.
What about me, buddy?
-
How? Genuinely curious.
I already posted some of it
No home care during COVID-19. Previously that's covered under Medicaid. Medicare Primary, Medicaid secondary if you are disabled. Transportation is also limited. Previously this would be covered under Medicaid for some different categories (many medical but some not) Other free transportation not running during the crisis. Daily/weekly programs canceled during the crisis. Some include meals. And so on and so on.
I have hired home health workers (they make $9 an hour, drive far, no bennies, no mileage. I supplement their agency
income out of my pocket. Many are single parents) and agencies for many years. I have coached some kids and teams who's families have a wide variety of challenges. I have spent a lot of time around disabled young adult people, kids, low income Seniors, you name it. I know some low income Seniors that file taxes for exactly one reason only, rental tax breaks to collect a few hundred bucks a year. I've seen a thing or two in my time.
I lack patience for people who don't live empathy and fairness and just say oh well that sucks or me me me me me what about me. It's one thing to talk the talk and simply say oh well, and go back to wondering if one's portfolio is going to take a temporary hit during a public health crisis where deaths, permanent long term health conditions remain high and the low income continue to get marginalized.
I am certainly not naive when I hear terms such as entitlement programs as if that applies to only poor people and not wealthy people too. Corporate welfare bailouts, trillion dollar wealthy tax cuts. Somehow some have convinced themselves that is somehow different. My own portfolio isn't thrilled with recent events but some things and some people are more important to me and come first. I'm all for a strong economy for everyone, not picking and choosing some over others. These aren't lazy people, bad people, or unlucky people. They have the exact same value as anyone else. Those that think so can take their self absorbed heirarchy elsewhere. We are living in a society where minimum wage hasn't increased in a decade. Cost of living has gone up yearly.
I'm not a Bernie Bro and didn't vote for him but he is 100% on point in this short clip today:
https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1242989219598884865?s=19
-
Here's another question .. I saw that there's $350b for "small business loans for those who don't lay off workers" or some summary.
Why would a small business go into debt to pay unneeded workers? Grants, I understand, but loans? Unless you saw a pretty big payoff later, I don't quite get it.
-
Here's another question .. I saw that there's $350b for "small business loans for those who don't lay off workers" or some summary.
Why would a small business go into debt to pay unneeded workers? Grants, I understand, but loans? Unless you saw a pretty big payoff later, I don't quite get it.
What is your definition of 'unneeded workers'?
-
Senate passed 96-0. House to vote Friday.
-
I am certainly not naive when I hear terms such as entitlement programs as if that applies to only poor people and not wealthy people too. Corporate welfare bailouts, trillion dollar wealthy tax cuts. Somehow some have convinced themselves that is somehow different. My own portfolio isn't thrilled with recent events but some things and some people are more important to me and come first. I'm all for a strong economy for everyone, not picking and choosing some over others. These aren't lazy people, bad people, or unlucky people. They have the exact same value as anyone else. Those that think so can take their self absorbed heirarchy elsewhere. We are living in a society where minimum wage hasn't increased in a decade. Cost of living has gone up yearly.
I'm not a Bernie Bro and didn't vote for him but he is 100% on point in this short clip today:
https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1242989219598884865?s=19
It sounds like you do some really important and underappreciated work. So, thank you. You're a big part of why we can all be proud of the MU community. I think some of the frustration you're expressing here is valid, but in the current situation, no fix is perfect. And you can't let perfect get in the way of good.
Thinking through the current scenario where a very significant portion of the population has suddenly become vulnerable, speed has to be a huge priority. Working through all the potential scenarios to ensure 100% coverage would take time that I'm sure many people feel they don't have. For every person left out, there are probably 50 people who really needed to pay rent or buy medicine or groceries. There is a lot of good intent here. To use another colloquialism, we can't miss the forest for the trees in this situation.
And while I'm sure many people will be skeptical of the money going to certain sectors or big businesses, there are a ton of people that could be out of work if big businesses fail or are significantly set back by the current situation. It's easy to just look at big revenue numbers and assume large corporations don't need any help, but without the stimulus, there would probably be a lot of people out of work.
-
As someone who is a principal in a small/mid sized business that was hit EXTREMELY hard by the trade war and also had a number of people, including myself, who took substantial pay cuts in late 2019 to keep people employed and the lights on, we’ve had our global business screech to a halt, many customers flat out tell us they can’t/won’t pay until after lockdowns, and have no meaningful revenue come in while we’re shut down. I’m skeptical of how much we are truly going to be “assisted” and to add insult to injury, I and multiple others did “too well” in 2018 to meet the threshold for stimulus despite coming under in 2019 for various reasons. Corporate taxes hadn’t been finished so I and others couldn’t file personal yet.
I know I’m not alone, and I’m part of a segment of people that get shouted down with everyone that says we shouldn’t care about the stock market and that people caring about the economics are heartless and greedy. It’s getting pretty old how cut and dried people are making this out to be. JMHO
-
Here's another question .. I saw that there's $350b for "small business loans for those who don't lay off workers" or some summary.
Why would a small business go into debt to pay unneeded workers? Grants, I understand, but loans? Unless you saw a pretty big payoff later, I don't quite get it.
Small businesses need to continue to pay workers so they stay employees and are there when the businesses open up again at full strength. As I read it, the loans are to be used for rent, payroll and utilities. Provided the employer maintains the payroll through a certain date (June 30, 2020 was proposeed), the loans become grants. If they didn't have this available to them, many small businesses would fold, all the employees they have would be looking for work and on the unemployment line, landlords would be after the tenants for defaulting under their leases, lenders would be after the landlords for defaults under their mortgages, etc. So the $350B in loans will be turned into grants if employers maintain the payroll, keeping everyone happy. This is huge for many businesses I represent whose owners would otherwise be looking at their employees and deciding which ones to keep and which to layoff.
-
Small businesses need to continue to pay workers so they stay employees and are there when the businesses open up again at full strength. As I read it, the loans are to be used for rent, payroll and utilities. Provided the employer maintains the payroll through a certain date (June 30, 2020 was proposeed), the loans become grants. If they didn't have this available to them, many small businesses would fold, all the employees they have would be looking for work and on the unemployment line, landlords would be after the tenants for defaulting under their leases, lenders would be after the landlords for defaults under their mortgages, etc. So the $350B in loans will be turned into grants if employers maintain the payroll, keeping everyone happy. This is huge for many businesses I represent whose owners would otherwise be looking at their employees and deciding which ones to keep and which to layoff.
So, as a small business owner, how do I get this cash? What about my employees that have already filed for unemployment because there has been no work for a week and a half?
-
Provided the employer maintains the payroll through a certain date (June 30, 2020 was proposed), the loans become grants.
Ah, that's the piece I was missing, the loans become grants. Now it makes sense.
Probably shouldn't call it a loan program .. it's a free money program with strings attached. (Not that there's anything wrong with that..)
-
So, as a small business owner, how do I get this cash? What about my employees that have already filed for unemployment because there has been no work for a week and a half?
The original plan proposed by Rubio, which was expected to remain unmodified in the final draft, would be retroactive to March 1, to help bring workers who may have been laid off back onto payrolls. Here are the key provisions:
-Loans would be immediately available through existing Small Business Administration-certified lenders, including banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, and SBA would be required to streamline the process to bring additional lenders into the program.
-The Secretary of Treasury would be authorized to expedite the addition of new lenders and make further enhancements to expedite delivery of capital to small employers.
-The size of the loans would be tied to an applicant’s average monthly payroll; mortgage, rent, and utility payments; and other debt obligations over the previous year. The maximum loan amount would be $10 million.
-Conditional upon business retaining their employees and payroll levels during the covered period (March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020), the portion of the loan used to cover payroll and payments on pre-existing debt would be forgiven. Further, employers with tipped employees would receive forgiveness for additional wages paid to such employees during the covered time.
I don't know for sure that none of these provisions was changed in the final draft, but this will be huge for many small businesses.
-
As someone who is a principal in a small/mid sized business that was hit EXTREMELY hard by the trade war and also had a number of people, including myself, who took substantial pay cuts in late 2019 to keep people employed and the lights on, we’ve had our global business screech to a halt, many customers flat out tell us they can’t/won’t pay until after lockdowns, and have no meaningful revenue come in while we’re shut down. I’m skeptical of how much we are truly going to be “assisted” and to add insult to injury, I and multiple others did “too well” in 2018 to meet the threshold for stimulus despite coming under in 2019 for various reasons. Corporate taxes hadn’t been finished so I and others couldn’t file personal yet.
I know I’m not alone, and I’m part of a segment of people that get shouted down with everyone that says we shouldn’t care about the stock market and that people caring about the economics are heartless and greedy. It’s getting pretty old how cut and dried people are making this out to be. JMHO
I think most are saying that in the sort term, worrying first about health is more important than worrying about the economy. And that the economy would be worse in the long term if we "come back" to early. Because it's just going to spike the disease up again and we may need to shut down again.
-
The original plan proposed by Rubio, which was expected to remain unmodified in the final draft, would be retroactive to March 1, to help bring workers who may have been laid off back onto payrolls. Here are the key provisions:
-Loans would be immediately available through existing Small Business Administration-certified lenders, including banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, and SBA would be required to streamline the process to bring additional lenders into the program.
-The Secretary of Treasury would be authorized to expedite the addition of new lenders and make further enhancements to expedite delivery of capital to small employers.
-The size of the loans would be tied to an applicant’s average monthly payroll; mortgage, rent, and utility payments; and other debt obligations over the previous year. The maximum loan amount would be $10 million.
-Conditional upon business retaining their employees and payroll levels during the covered period (March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020), the portion of the loan used to cover payroll and payments on pre-existing debt would be forgiven. Further, employers with tipped employees would receive forgiveness for additional wages paid to such employees during the covered time.
I don't know for sure that none of these provisions was changed in the final draft, but this will be huge for many small businesses.
So, as an employer I have to take a loan in the hopes that I remain in business until June 30? Why would I take that risk when I can just layoff my people? I'm not worried about retention because there is no one else that is hiring for their job skill set at the moment. In this situation, I am taking all of the risk by grabbing these loans, that might turn into grants assuming I can remain in business while generating much lower revenue.
Please tell me if I have this wrong. Just spit-balling here.
-
I think by and large, this was a good piece of legislation given the competing political interests. Hopefully it will work and my initial observation is correct.
-
So, as an employer I have to take a loan in the hopes that I remain in business until June 30? Why would I take that risk when I can just layoff my people? I'm not worried about retention because there is no one else that is hiring for their job skill set at the moment. In this situation, I am taking all of the risk by grabbing these loans, that might turn into grants assuming I can remain in business while generating much lower revenue.
Please tell me if I have this wrong. Just spit-balling here.
Maybe I'm being too optimistic here...but I think the employees' sense that you have their back in a crisis will make them more loyal and effective employees. Think about how you handled the choice from their perspective:
*you had a chance to take out a loan (that would become a grant) and you did, making it MUCH easier for them to weather the crisis. They see you as a "good" employer, who will remain loyal and take a chance on them when the chips are down.
or
*you had a chance to take out a loan (that would become a grant) but you didn't, so they had to scramble to get unemployment or other assistance. Maybe they cover their income; maybe they don't, but in either case they are FAR more stressed and uncertain. They see you as a "bad" employer, who just looks out for #1 when the chips are down.
Even assuming that you could just hire them back after the crisis, which would you prefer as the employer? The employees who view you as a good, stand-up employer who has their backs in times of crisis...or the employees who view you as selfish at the expense of their mental well-being in times of crisis?
So yes, there is some risk if your business isn't still around...but if you are still around, you will have MUCH happier and loyal employees when you get back to work.
-
Maybe I'm being too optimistic here...but I think the employees' sense that you have their back in a crisis will make them more loyal and effective employees. Think about how you handled the choice from their perspective:
*you had a chance to take out a loan (that would become a grant) and you did, making it MUCH easier for them to weather the crisis. They see you as a "good" employer, who will remain loyal and take a chance on them when the chips are down.
or
*you had a chance to take out a loan (that would become a grant) but you didn't, so they had to scramble to get unemployment or other assistance. Maybe they cover their income; maybe they don't, but in either case they are FAR more stressed and uncertain. They see you as a "bad" employer, who just looks out for #1 when the chips are down.
Even assuming that you could just hire them back after the crisis, which would you prefer as the employer? The employees who view you as a good, stand-up employer who has their backs in times of crisis...or the employees who view you as selfish at the expense of their mental well-being in times of crisis?
So yes, there is some risk if your business isn't still around...but if you are still around, you will have MUCH happier and loyal employees when you get back to work.
Maybe. But they may also see this for what it is... risking their future for a couple months of current wages. Messed up either way... Which is why I am thinking I am misunderstanding the proposal.
-
I think most are saying that in the sort term, worrying first about health is more important than worrying about the economy. And that the economy would be worse in the long term if we "come back" to early. Because it's just going to spike the disease up again and we may need to shut down again.
Agreed. My worry is that trying to “reopen” the economy too soon just keeps this problem going longer, which stagnates the economy. If we take some short term pain to get back to normal sooner, then the economy will bounce back quicker in the end than if we take half measures.
-
As someone who is a principal in a small/mid sized business that was hit EXTREMELY hard by the trade war and also had a number of people, including myself, who took substantial pay cuts in late 2019 to keep people employed and the lights on, we’ve had our global business screech to a halt, many customers flat out tell us they can’t/won’t pay until after lockdowns, and have no meaningful revenue come in while we’re shut down. I’m skeptical of how much we are truly going to be “assisted” and to add insult to injury, I and multiple others did “too well” in 2018 to meet the threshold for stimulus despite coming under in 2019 for various reasons. Corporate taxes hadn’t been finished so I and others couldn’t file personal yet.
I know I’m not alone, and I’m part of a segment of people that get shouted down with everyone that says we shouldn’t care about the stock market and that people caring about the economics are heartless and greedy. It’s getting pretty old how cut and dried people are making this out to be. JMHO
Wags, I appreciate you sharing all of this; it's valuable to get the perspective of somebody who actually faces a particular situation vs speculating about those who might or not be affected.
I hope that this all ends soon so that good, hard-working folks like you and your employees can be made whole again sooner than later.
-
It sounds like you do some really important and underappreciated work. So, thank you. You're a big part of why we can all be proud of the MU community. I think some of the frustration you're expressing here is valid, but in the current situation, no fix is perfect. And you can't let perfect get in the way of good.
Thinking through the current scenario where a very significant portion of the population has suddenly become vulnerable, speed has to be a huge priority. Working through all the potential scenarios to ensure 100% coverage would take time that I'm sure many people feel they don't have. For every person left out, there are probably 50 people who really needed to pay rent or buy medicine or groceries. There is a lot of good intent here. To use another colloquialism, we can't miss the forest for the trees in this situation.
And while I'm sure many people will be skeptical of the money going to certain sectors or big businesses, there are a ton of people that could be out of work if big businesses fail or are significantly set back by the current situation. It's easy to just look at big revenue numbers and assume large corporations don't need any help, but without the stimulus, there would probably be a lot of people out of work.
Many have suggested that getting money into the hands of the people that need it most in various categories without means testing would have been faster and better for the economy.
Previous corporate bailouts of Obama etc..were successful but didn’t include enough restrictions. And that is understandably a concern for many when it comes to big business.
-
As someone who is a principal in a small/mid sized business that was hit EXTREMELY hard by the trade war and also had a number of people, including myself, who took substantial pay cuts in late 2019 to keep people employed and the lights on, we’ve had our global business screech to a halt, many customers flat out tell us they can’t/won’t pay until after lockdowns, and have no meaningful revenue come in while we’re shut down. I’m skeptical of how much we are truly going to be “assisted” and to add insult to injury, I and multiple others did “too well” in 2018 to meet the threshold for stimulus despite coming under in 2019 for various reasons. Corporate taxes hadn’t been finished so I and others couldn’t file personal yet.
I know I’m not alone, and I’m part of a segment of people that get shouted down with everyone that says we shouldn’t care about the stock market and that people caring about the economics are heartless and greedy. It’s getting pretty old how cut and dried people are making this out to be. JMHO
I saw this graph this week. And I just caught up on 4 months of my trade magazines about how much uncertainty tariffs created.
They increased metal pricing in 2018 and then crated metal prices in 2019 while demand was merely lethargic.
All of this is before Coronavirus disruption.
We export to China and we were planning to expand here in Connecticut, but Trump tariffs made the powers that be decide to transfer the manufacturing for the Chinese market to China.
From what I read we're not the only company experiencing. Sounds somewhat like JWags situation.
-
Bill still has to clear the house. Though i saw pelosi say she expected to pass. But you never know what will get slipped in by either side that could deep six the whole deal. Because Washington DC.
-
Bill still has to clear the house. Though i saw pelosi say she expected to pass. But you never know what will get slipped in by either side that could deep six the whole deal. Because Washington DC.
The key is that the House Rules are much more restrictive about bringing in amendments from the floor. I think the biggest problem they are facing is how to approve this without bringing everyone back.
-
Agreed. My worry is that trying to “reopen” the economy too soon just keeps this problem going longer, which stagnates the economy. If we take some short term pain to get back to normal sooner, then the economy will bounce back quicker in the end than if we take half measures.
I don’t know that this will be a problem. The president didn’t close the economy. Governors did. Most of them seem to be putting the health of their citizens over money. I trust their decisions.
-
Ah yes.
Let's get hung up on the moral hazard of the working poor getting enhanced unemployment for four months, but bail out the same airline industry that was bailed out just over a decade ago with barely any strings attached.
-
I think most are saying that in the sort term, worrying first about health is more important than worrying about the economy. And that the economy would be worse in the long term if we "come back" to early. Because it's just going to spike the disease up again and we may need to shut down again.
Fluff
Very reasonable, nuanced POV. Also very different from some of the bumper sticker sloganeering engaged in here. No perfect solution, any attempt to thread this needle will be difficult. In the short term, I lean in your direction.
-
I just saw a report that California has 2 million unemployment claims since March 16 and Pennsylvania had 500,000 claims.
Scary numbers.
-
I just saw a report that California has 2 million unemployment claims since March 16 and Pennsylvania had 500,000 claims.
Scary numbers.
The Texas system crashed on Tuesday. Florida won't release numbers yet, but estimates are at least 800k.
-
Now that so many more are eligible for unemployment benefits, it's gonna be interesting to see how various states' systems can handle the crush. I'm guessing there will be a bazillion problems, especially at first.
-
Now that so many more are eligible for unemployment benefits, it's gonna be interesting to see how various states' systems can handle the crush. I'm guessing there will be a bazillion problems, especially at first.
You can guess who will be the first to be blamed if systems crash.
-
Final text of the bill has not been released, but according to a legislative draft, the new law would establish a $4.5 trillion corporate bailout fund overseen by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, with few substantive constraints. Some outlets are reporting this as a $500 billion fund, but $425 billion of that can be leveraged 10 times over by the Federal Reserve, resulting in a multi-trillion-dollar program.
The bill permits bailed out companies to lay off up to 10% of their workforce over the next six months, with no restrictions thereafter. Mnuchin would have authority to waive any upside for the public in its new investments, and the bill’s restrictions on stock buybacks at bailed-out firms are too temporary to be significant. Bailed out companies could even pay dividends to their shareholders.
:o
Emphasis is mine
-
Backing up some of shoothoops' concerns:
The latest version of the Senate bill offers its full cash benefits — $1,200 per adult tax filer, $500 per child — to even the poorest Americans, correcting a big problem with the first GOP draft of the bill that left out low-income people entirely. But you need to have filed taxes for 2018 or 2019 to get the benefit, which leaves out millions of Americans who do not typically need to file.
Nonfilers typically either rely on mostly nontaxable income — like Social Security retirement or disability benefits or retirement income from a Roth account — or do not have enough money to owe taxes. Either way, they tend to be among the most economically vulnerable people in the country.
That could exclude up to 30 million individuals.
Also noted that if you don't have direct-deposit info on file with the IRS, it could delay individual payments by up to 4 months.
-
Didn't notice if this was posted..
Thankfully, workers - including gig and tipped workers - can receive 100% of their salary up to $75k through the expanded unemployment.
That's huge.
-
Does anyone know if you still get the stimulus payment if you have been declared a dependent on someone else's taxes?
-
Didn't notice if this was posted..
Thankfully, workers - including gig and tipped workers - can receive 100% of their salary up to $75k through the expanded unemployment.
That's huge.
Ha, so that should bite the average tipped worker right in the ass since the ones I know do not report anything close to the amount of tips they receive.
-
Ha, so that should bite the average tipped worker right in the ass since the ones I know do not report anything close to the amount of tips they receive.
Sucks to cheat on your taxes.
I had a co-worker whose husband was self-employed as a chemist (he developed flavors for food companies). He died unexpectedly, leaving her with a very young child. She went to collect Social Security survivor benefits and discovered that her late spouse seriously under-reported his taxable income - so much so that the monthly amount she and her daughter received was a fraction of what it would have been if he had declared his real income. And it wasn't like he put that extra money in a savings account or anything.
-
I saw this graph this week. And I just caught up on 4 months of my trade magazines about how much uncertainty tariffs created.
They increased metal pricing in 2018 and then crated metal prices in 2019 while demand was merely lethargic.
All of this is before Coronavirus disruption.
We export to China and we were planning to expand here in Connecticut, but Trump tariffs made the powers that be decide to transfer the manufacturing for the Chinese market to China.
From what I read we're not the only company experiencing. Sounds somewhat like JWags situation.
Check out the index put out by one of my favorite economists, Steven Davis at the University of Chicago
(https://snipboard.io/E3z1ot.jpg)
By this measure, the tariffs (and threat of them) created as much uncertainty as the Financial Crisis and 9/11!
I have some evil genius hypotheses about the tariffs that have nothing to do with nationalism, bringing jobs back, etc. But I'll leave those in my head.
-
Sucks to cheat on your taxes.
I had a co-worker whose husband was self-employed as a chemist (he developed flavors for food companies). He died unexpectedly, leaving her with a very young child. She went to collect Social Security survivor benefits and discovered that her late spouse seriously under-reported his taxable income - so much so that the monthly amount she and her daughter received was a fraction of what it would have been if he had declared his real income. And it wasn't like he put that extra money in a savings account or anything.
Well, that's terrible.
-
Does anyone know if you still get the stimulus payment if you have been declared a dependent on someone else's taxes?
You do not. But I think your parents would be eligible for the $500 bump per dependent.
This NBC News Q&A was really helpful overall. It addressed the dependent question specifically. - https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-checks-direct-deposits-coming-105454070.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-checks-direct-deposits-coming-105454070.html)
-
You do not. But I think your parents would be eligible for the $500 bump per dependent.
This NBC News Q&A was really helpful overall. It addressed the dependent question specifically. - https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-checks-direct-deposits-coming-105454070.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-checks-direct-deposits-coming-105454070.html)
Ok so if I have a college student then nothing. He is a dependent but over the age of 17.
-
Now that so many more are eligible for unemployment benefits, it's gonna be interesting to see how various states' systems can handle the crush. I'm guessing there will be a bazillion problems, especially at first.
Texas’s crashed Tuesday. Luckily brilliant folks from their software company fixed it in short order.
-
Ok so if I have a college student then nothing. He is a dependent but over the age of 17.
My understanding is that if you claim your college student as a dependent, then you get the extra bump as a parent, but your child will not be eligible for the $1,200 individual payment.
-
As someone who is a principal in a small/mid sized business that was hit EXTREMELY hard by the trade war and also had a number of people, including myself, who took substantial pay cuts in late 2019 to keep people employed and the lights on, we’ve had our global business screech to a halt, many customers flat out tell us they can’t/won’t pay until after lockdowns, and have no meaningful revenue come in while we’re shut down. I’m skeptical of how much we are truly going to be “assisted” and to add insult to injury, I and multiple others did “too well” in 2018 to meet the threshold for stimulus despite coming under in 2019 for various reasons. Corporate taxes hadn’t been finished so I and others couldn’t file personal yet.
Some are being punished because they couldn't file taxes yet, others are being punished because they did file in a timely manner. That aspect of this seems quite poorly planned and could have been fixed by allowing people to get whatever the higher amount would be based on 2018/2019 taxes. And if you would have been better off with 2019 taxes, and couldn't or didn't file yet, you would get the difference added to your refund.
But those in Washington don't really think.
-
Some are being punished because they couldn't file taxes yet, others are being punished because they did file in a timely manner. That aspect of this seems quite poorly planned and could have been fixed by allowing people to get whatever the higher amount would be based on 2018/2019 taxes. And if you would have been better off with 2019 taxes, and couldn't or didn't file yet, you would get the difference added to your refund.
But those in Washington don't really think.
For once I will stand up for Washington. As hastily as they had to do this, there were no perfect answers and some people will get hurt more than others.
But, I really feel for people like Wags. He owns a business that could go under due to the virus and not enough was done for small businesses.
He is a very articulate poster, and God knows we are in short supply of those here. It's easy for me to ramble on about my feelings and my disgust at how we have been lied to, but this is about survival for guys like Wags and others. I do not take his thoughts lightly.
-
The original plan proposed by Rubio, which was expected to remain unmodified in the final draft, would be retroactive to March 1, to help bring workers who may have been laid off back onto payrolls. Here are the key provisions:
-Loans would be immediately available through existing Small Business Administration-certified lenders, including banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, and SBA would be required to streamline the process to bring additional lenders into the program.
-The Secretary of Treasury would be authorized to expedite the addition of new lenders and make further enhancements to expedite delivery of capital to small employers.
-The size of the loans would be tied to an applicant’s average monthly payroll; mortgage, rent, and utility payments; and other debt obligations over the previous year. The maximum loan amount would be $10 million.
-Conditional upon business retaining their employees and payroll levels during the covered period (March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020), the portion of the loan used to cover payroll and payments on pre-existing debt would be forgiven. Further, employers with tipped employees would receive forgiveness for additional wages paid to such employees during the covered time.
I don't know for sure that none of these provisions was changed in the final draft, but this will be huge for many small businesses.
Getting back to this, so this is retroactive to 3/1? This is going to be a really hard pill to swallow for anyone that had to tell their employees to claim unemployment starting last week. I'd wager that almost no small businesses can afford to pay their employees to stay home for weeks at a time. How does this help small businesses that were forced to make decisions based on the information at the time? Better yet, how does it help the employees that could be getting full time pay when this kicks in but now can't because their bills come due whether or not the government thinks they can pass this bill? Someone help me out here, am I misunderstanding?
-
Seems like Canada had their crap together when it came to navigating this situation
-
Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.
"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."
-
Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.
"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."
Good.
-
Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.
"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."
Good. Now I hope the airlines get tons of restrictions with theirs.
-
Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.
"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."
Can’t make a Tomlette without breaking a few Gregs
-
The explanation below goes through some of the key provisions for companies receiving funding from the stimulus. I haven't seen anything unique to airlines yet.
"Companies accepting loans may not repurchase outstanding stock or pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid; must maintain employment levels they had March 24, 2020, "to the extent practicable" through Sept. 30, and not cut jobs by over 10 percent from that level; or give raises to executives earning over $425,000 annually until loan repaid."
I think this is pretty fair, personally. The employment levels piece seems kind of gray, so I'll be interested to learn a little more about who decides what is practicable or not.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/26/stimulus-package-here-highlights/2918723001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/26/stimulus-package-here-highlights/2918723001/)
-
Can’t make a Tomlette without breaking a few Gregs
(https://media.giphy.com/media/oxU4aYICwH4Aymx1jt/giphy.gif)
-
For once I will stand up for Washington. As hastily as they had to do this, there were no perfect answers and some people will get hurt more than others.
But, I really feel for people like Wags. He owns a business that could go under due to the virus and not enough was done for small businesses.
He is a very articulate poster, and God knows we are in short supply of those here. It's easy for me to ramble on about my feelings and my disgust at how we have been lied to, but this is about survival for guys like Wags and others. I do not take his thoughts lightly.
Appreciate the words. Its been tough and anxiety filled to say the least. Gotta try to tune out some of the noise and hope for the best unfortunately. Had a productive CC with our banker yesterday, and pending details of the stimulus, we're working on contingencies. Survive and advance.
-
The explanation below goes through some of the key provisions for companies receiving funding from the stimulus. I haven't seen anything unique to airlines yet.
"Companies accepting loans may not repurchase outstanding stock or pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid; must maintain employment levels they had March 24, 2020, "to the extent practicable" through Sept. 30, and not cut jobs by over 10 percent from that level; or give raises to executives earning over $425,000 annually until loan repaid."
I think this is pretty fair, personally. The employment levels piece seems kind of gray, so I'll be interested to learn a little more about who decides what is practicable or not.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/26/stimulus-package-here-highlights/2918723001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/26/stimulus-package-here-highlights/2918723001/)
The only thing that disappoints me is that companies accepting loans may not pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid.
Unlike stock buybacks, dividends matter to millions of smaller retail investors. Many seniors live on dividends and Social Security; many have built their entire investing strategy around dividends. This could hurt some of them a lot.
I kind of see why a company that accepts loans shouldn't be allowed to increase dividends, and maybe even shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends. But I absolutely do not see why they should have to wait a year after repaying loans to reinstate dividends. Once they repay their obligation, they should be allowed to pay dividends again.
Disclosure: Dividends aren't the end-all and be-all for me, but they are a pretty big part of my investing strategy because over time companies that grow dividends have outperformed non-dividend payers.
I invest almost exclusively in large, blue-chip, dividend-growing companies, but this shouldn't affect me because few (if any) of the companies I own will need to accept bailout money. Also, I also don't need to live off my dividends yet. I am concerned about those who do, however.
-
Another question. Assume I have 30 employees normally, and only 5 are currently working... so when I file for the loan to pay my workers, what incentive do my 5 current workers have to continue to work? Would they be able to earn normal wages above and beyond what their payroll normally would be? I guess I could tell those folks that we have work so they have to work for their money... but how is that fair? They're working for full pay, while some get to stay home? I suppose a rotation could work, but some people have kids at home and can't find daycare, and some are old and at risk.
Maybe I'm just a bit overwhelmed here and I haven't read enough about this yet.
-
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/27/donald-trump-throw-kentucky-rep-thomas-massie-out-gop/2924610001/
What an a$$hole. Apparently is rejecting to having a voice vote on the meausre, so now Reps have to return to Washington to have a role call.
Deservedly getting it from both sides including the President.
-
Another question. Assume I have 30 employees normally, and only 5 are currently working... so when I file for the loan to pay my workers, what incentive do my 5 current workers have to continue to work? Would they be able to earn normal wages above and beyond what their payroll normally would be? I guess I could tell those folks that we have work so they have to work for their money... but how is that fair? They're working for full pay, while some get to stay home? I suppose a rotation could work, but some people have kids at home and can't find daycare, and some are old and at risk.
Maybe I'm just a bit overhelmed here and I haven't read enough about this yet.
This is something I'm also confused about.
My girlfriend works at a daycare. They sent out that they would have limited hours and children etc.
So you had 2 options. They would pay the normal wage for the ones who were at home. While the ones who continued to work got a 4 dollar an hour raise. Which my girlfriend was ecstatic about.
But I thought that basically sounded like working for 4 dollars an hour instead.
-
This is something I'm also confused about.
My girlfriend works at a daycare. They sent out that they would have limited hours and children etc.
So you had 2 options. They would pay the normal wage for the ones who were at home. While the ones who continued to work got a 4 dollar an hour raise. Which my girlfriend was ecstatic about.
But I thought that basically sounded like working for 4 dollars an hour instead.
I would literally pay someone 4 dollars an hour to be able to work in my regular office.
-
The only thing that disappoints me is that companies accepting loans may not pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid.
Unlike stock buybacks, dividends matter to millions of smaller retail investors. Many seniors live on dividends and Social Security; many have built their entire investing strategy around dividends. This could hurt some of them a lot.
I kind of see why a company that accepts loans shouldn't be allowed to increase dividends, and maybe even shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends. But I absolutely do not see why they should have to wait a year after repaying loans to reinstate dividends. Once they repay their obligation, they should be allowed to pay dividends again.
Strongly agree with this
-
It is non political to state that Thomas Massie should be catapulted into the unnatural carnal knowledgeing sun, right?
-
It is non political to state that Thomas Massie should be catapulted into the unnatural carnal knowledgeing sun, right?
Finally something everyone can agree on!
-
It is non political to state that Thomas Massie should be catapulted into the unnatural carnal knowledgeing sun, right?
I can promise you that the GOP is already on the phone with candidates to run against him in the next primary. Too bad it's too late for 2020.
-
Strongly agree with this
I actually disagree. The owners of the company should not be getting income from the company when it is using a federal loan to keep its operations gooing. I would agree that once the loan is paid in full, a dividend could start immediately.
-
I actually disagree. The owners of the company should not be getting income from the company when it is using a federal loan to keep its operations gooing. I would agree that once the loan is paid in full, a dividend could start immediately.
That is what 82 said (OK, he was undecided on continuing to pay current dividends) that I agreed with.
"I kind of see why a company that accepts loans shouldn't be allowed to increase dividends, and maybe even shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends. But I absolutely do not see why they should have to wait a year after repaying loans to reinstate dividends. Once they repay their obligation, they should be allowed to pay dividends again."
-
OK...then I disagree "in part." :)
-
https://news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-declares-gop-rep-160500468.html?ncid=twitter_yahoonewst_sjwumo1bpf4 (https://news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-declares-gop-rep-160500468.html?ncid=twitter_yahoonewst_sjwumo1bpf4)
-
https://news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-declares-gop-rep-160500468.html?ncid=twitter_yahoonewst_sjwumo1bpf4 (https://news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-declares-gop-rep-160500468.html?ncid=twitter_yahoonewst_sjwumo1bpf4)
Never thought I would agree with both John Kerry and Donald Trump...but I agree with both John Kerry and Donald Trump.
-
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/27/donald-trump-throw-kentucky-rep-thomas-massie-out-gop/2924610001/
What an a$$hole. Apparently is rejecting to having a voice vote on the meausre, so now Reps have to return to Washington to have a role call.
Deservedly getting it from both sides including the President.
However, he had no problem adding $1T+ to the national debt and deficit when it came to giving a thumbs-up to the Tax Cut For Billionaires Act.
-
Immigrants and the stimulus checks:
https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1244629337845960704?s=19
-
Looks like the administration will be ignoring the regulatory oversight in the stimulus bill.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/28/trump-pushes-back-against-congressional-oversight-for-500-billion-bailout-fund.html
That's a real kick in the nuts. Free $4.5 trillion for whoever has the best lobbyists.
The results of this will be worse than the 2008 bailout.
-
Looks like the administration will be ignoring the regulatory oversight in the stimulus bill.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/28/trump-pushes-back-against-congressional-oversight-for-500-billion-bailout-fund.html
That's a real kick in the nuts. Free $4.5 trillion for whoever has the best lobbyists.
The results of this will be worse than the 2008 bailout.
He won’t really do that because it is against the law.
-
He won’t really do that because it is against the law.
Yeah, because people in Washington follow the law.
-
Yeah, because people in Washington follow the law.
Because the president’s lawyers argued in court that he was above the law - all laws.
-
LET MEEEEEE GET SOME $$
-
LET MEEEEEE GET SOME $$
I presume you will be a man of principle and refuse any gov't handout.
-
I presume you will be a man of principle and refuse any gov't handout.
Not sure that would be based on principle. I wouldn't trust the gov't to take my refund and would likely donate to charity. Nonetheless, they don't care about me and my situation, only my pay grade in 2018 or whatever.. and therefore I will get $0. It's very upsetting. Please share some of your take.
-
Nonetheless, they don't care about me and my situation, only my pay grade in 2018 or whatever.. and therefore I will get $0. It's very upsetting.
You can make a lot of money and have an AGI under 99k (or 198k). If you don't, you're doing it wrong.
-
Not sure that would be based on principle. I wouldn't trust the gov't to take my refund and would likely donate to charity. Nonetheless, they don't care about me and my situation, only my pay grade in 2018 or whatever.. and therefore I will get $0. It's very upsetting. Please share some of your take.
It’s very pleasing that you mention that you would give the check to charity. My wife and I had that discussion the day the stimulus became law. Millions are not in a position to do so, but for those that are OK financially it is a great suggestion.
-
And so it begins...
https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1245377592921862148?s=19
-
You can make a lot of money and have an AGI under 99k (or 198k). If you don't, you're doing it wrong.
What is “a lot of money” to you? At what point - in your mind - are you not “doing it wrong” and simply just make a lot more than $99k?
-
If you are married filing jointly, and you have an AGI of $198,000 (the point at which you won't receive a stimulus payment), you are well within the top 10% of earners nationwide.
You make "a lot of money."
-
If you are married filing jointly, and you have an AGI of $198,000 (the point at which you won't receive a stimulus payment), you are well within the top 10% of earners nationwide.
You make "a lot of money."
If you make a flat $100k, u ain’t in no top 10
-
If you make a flat $100k, u ain’t in no top 10
You're awfully close, though.
-
You're awfully close, though.
Especially when you consider many poor don’t file income taxes.
-
Why cutoff the welfare at $99k/yr?
$300k seems better to me
-
Why cutoff the welfare at $99k/yr?
$300k seems better to me
Hell why not 3 million.
Why would we send a check to somone who makes 22k a month
-
Why cutoff the welfare at $99k/yr?
$300k seems better to me
still think they should have just issued across the board. What if my income of, say $125k, is commissions based? Yes, should have saved, yada yada yada, but when the economy freezes, that goes to sh!t.
I also don't think they're done issuing things. What I really don't understand is what political benefit Pelosi seeks to extract from purportedly lifting the SALT cap in the next wave.
-
What is “a lot of money” to you? At what point - in your mind - are you not “doing it wrong” and simply just make a lot more than $99k?
As a single person, you should be able to make about $150k and get your AGI under the cap. Double that for married folks. Perhaps a lot more if you're really sophisticated - which I'm not necessarily...
-
still think they should have just issued across the board. What if my income of, say $125k, is commissions based? Yes, should have saved, yada yada yada, but when the economy freezes, that goes to sh!t.
Or if you live in NY/LA/SF. Someone making $60K in Milwaukee is getting a check and they are far more financially comfortable than someone making $105K in one of those high COL areas
-
As a single person, you should be able to make about $150k and get your AGI under the cap. Double that for married folks. Perhaps a lot more if you're really sophisticated - which I'm not necessarily...
OT - any further tips you want to pass off here or provide direction to resources that would further explain?
-
As a single person, you should be able to make about $150k and get your AGI under the cap. Double that for married folks. Perhaps a lot more if you're really sophisticated - which I'm not necessarily...
Wouldn’t agree that at $150k “you should be able to get under $100k or you’re doing it wrong”, but helpful to understand you weren’t talking about my situation when you said “....or you’re doing it wrong”
Anyway, a lot of people care excluded from this welfare — and the cutoff is such that a lot of people who might “need it” are excluded
-
Wouldn’t agree that at $150k “you should be able to get under $100k or you’re doing it wrong”, but helpful to understand you weren’t talking about my situation when you said “....or you’re doing it wrong”
lol, ok.
OT - any further tips you want to pass off here or provide direction to resources that would further explain?
Last I'll say of it here - probably worth a superbar topic, for those smarter than me with other tips. If you're making that much, obviously take advantage of 401ks, HSA's, and any other "pre tax" deductions you may have access to.
https://www.thebalance.com/tax-planning-basics-3193487
That's the easy $25k-ish per person. I'd also argue, that if you make that much, you should be working your way towards investment property. Just depreciation, insurance and "management" costs offset a lot - all while you're building equity for essentially "free" - cuz renters are generally paying for the place.
https://www.fool.com/millionacres/taxes/real-estate-tax-deductions/how-real-estate-investing-can-reduce-your-tax-bracket/
Alright - I'll save the rest for a superbar topic, where I'm sure others will educate me!
-
still think they should have just issued across the board. What if my income of, say $125k, is commissions based? Yes, should have saved, yada yada yada, but when the economy freezes, that goes to sh!t.
I also don't think they're done issuing things. What I really don't understand is what political benefit Pelosi seeks to extract from purportedly lifting the SALT cap in the next wave.
The salt cap is just so unpopular in high property tax states.
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so sorry if a repeat.
With the fed unemployment benefit of $600 per week, some people will make more gross income on unemployment versus working.
In MN, the break even point is approximately $70k. At that point you are “better off” working from a gross income perspective.
This will help those who have to pay for benefits out of pocket. I have no idea if that was the intent.
I’ve had a young single person state they’d volunteer for a layoff Doing the noble thing? Or, seeing perceived personal gain?
I have no idea of this person’s real motives. Does make for some interesting conversation, though.
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so sorry if a repeat.
With the fed unemployment benefit of $600 per week, some people will make more gross income on unemployment versus working.
In MN, the break even point is approximately $70k. At that point you are “better off” working from a gross income perspective.
This will help those who have to pay for benefits out of pocket. I have no idea if that was the intent.
I’ve had a young single person state they’d volunteer for a layoff Doing the noble thing? Or, seeing perceived personal gain?
I have no idea of this person’s real motives. Does make for some interesting conversation, though.
Chili I think there will be many anecdotes of abuse of this law for personal gain (people and corps and govt).
However, with the massive stoppage in labor that we are having, as a business person and citizen I actually don't care on the people side. If my goal is to keep as many people employed or spending (or living) as possible to keep the economy on life support while the virus puts people on life support--all the scenarios above are a win.
PS: if all this is short-lived and we have a labor 'shortage' due to generous government benefits, there is a way to fix that.
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so sorry if a repeat.
With the fed unemployment benefit of $600 per week, some people will make more gross income on unemployment versus working.
In MN, the break even point is approximately $70k. At that point you are “better off” working from a gross income perspective.
This will help those who have to pay for benefits out of pocket. I have no idea if that was the intent.
I’ve had a young single person state they’d volunteer for a layoff Doing the noble thing? Or, seeing perceived personal gain?
I have no idea of this person’s real motives. Does make for some interesting conversation, though.
Does it matter what their motives are? It's three months of enhanced unemployment.
-
The salt cap is just so unpopular in high property tax states.
Oh I get it, and it's easy for me to say here in WI vs CA/NY/IL/NJ. But if broad relief is Pelosi's goal, this ain't it. Even in high property tax states, claimants of that deduction who were affected by the cap are predominantly not middle class. Lots are, but a lot are not.
-
Oh I get it, and it's easy for me to say here in WI vs CA/NY/IL/NJ. But if broad relief is Pelosi's goal, this ain't it. Even in high property tax states, claimants of that deduction who were affected by the cap are predominantly not middle class. Lots are, but a lot are not.
I am in one of those states and totally agree overall. The issue is more local though as these govts rely on property tax from the wealthy to fund....the SALT cap has depressed property values and the next reassessment is coming over the next year for many. Thereby putting pressure on local services (schools, fire, police, etc).
I advocated for what you are saying in the 08/09 downturn (have govt pay % of all mortgage obligations to keep people in their houses) and think its appropriate here too. Keep the banks running/funded and get as much money to people that will spend it as possible. Likely the best way to blunt the impact.
-
Oh I get it, and it's easy for me to say here in WI vs CA/NY/IL/NJ. But if broad relief is Pelosi's goal, this ain't it. Even in high property tax states, claimants of that deduction who were affected by the cap are predominantly not middle class. Lots are, but a lot are not.
I was totally screwed by the SALT cap limitation. I'm paying more taxes now than previous. I'm definitely middle class and I disagree about those affected by the cap are predominantly not middle class. Not true at all.
As someone else said compounding things, I got sales commisions in 2018 that I sure didn't see in 2019.
-
I was totally screwed by the SALT cap limitation. I'm paying more taxes now than previous. I'm definitely middle class and I disagree about those affected by the cap are predominantly not middle class. Not true at all.
As someone else said compounding things, I got sales commisions in 2018 that I sure didn't see in 2019.
What is middle class? If you make just $100k some on here think you’re in an elite class smh
-
Wouldn’t agree that at $150k “you should be able to get under $100k or you’re doing it wrong”, but helpful to understand you weren’t talking about my situation when you said “....or you’re doing it wrong”
Anyway, a lot of people care excluded from this welfare — and the cutoff is such that a lot of people who might “need it” are excluded
care vs are
-
What is middle class? If you make just $100k some on here think you’re in an elite class smh
A person who makes $118K is in the top 10 percent.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/
-
What is middle class? If you make just $100k some on here think you’re in an elite class smh
If you make $100k a year, your take-home pay is likely around $70-75k. If you live in San Fran, the average 1-bedroom apartment cost $4k a month. So before you pay for anything besides a roof over your head, you've spent $48k. You have at most $22-27k for every other aspect of your life.
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so sorry if a repeat.
With the fed unemployment benefit of $600 per week, some people will make more gross income on unemployment versus working.
In MN, the break even point is approximately $70k. At that point you are “better off” working from a gross income perspective.
This will help those who have to pay for benefits out of pocket. I have no idea if that was the intent.
I’ve had a young single person state they’d volunteer for a layoff Doing the noble thing? Or, seeing perceived personal gain?
I have no idea of this person’s real motives. Does make for some interesting conversation, though.
I *thought* the expanded benefits say that you can only receive 100% of your pay up to 75k. You can't actually go over what you make.
Anyone confirm?
-
Interesting article today how the enhanced unemployment benefits basically green-lighted companies to let go their employees. In retrospect, it would have been better to just give small businesses (under 300 employees) grants to pay their employees. Would have cost $500M for three months.
Then companies could have more easily ramped back up as needed versus going through the hassle of applying for benefits, rehiring, etc.
-
Interesting article today how the enhanced unemployment benefits basically green-lighted companies to let go their employees. In retrospect, it would have been better to just give small businesses (under 300 employees) grants to pay their employees. Would have cost $500M for three months.
Then companies could have more easily ramped back up as needed versus going through the hassle of applying for benefits, rehiring, etc.
Aren't small businesses offered loans (that become grants) through the stimulus bill?
-
Aren't small businesses offered loans (that become grants) through the stimulus bill?
Right but why take out a loan when you can just lay-off people instead.
-
Right but why take out a loan when you can just lay-off people instead.
Because you care about your employees?
Also, so that when things return to normal you cAn hit the ground running instead of going through a process of hiring to then be at max capacity
-
Because you care about your employees?
Also, so that when things return to normal you cAn hit the ground running instead of going through a process of hiring to then be at max capacity
Yep. And you’d have happier, more dedicated employees.
-
Yep. And you’d have happier, more dedicated employees.
And, by some estimates, it costs almost $1,900 for a small business to recruit, hire and train a new employee.
-
Here they come!
-
Right but why take out a loan when you can just lay-off people instead.
And if you maintain the employees and payroll, the loan turns into a grant. Win-win.
-
And, by some estimates, it costs almost $1,900 for a small business to recruit, hire and train a new employee.
That's way low, for most jobs. $5-10k easy, new hire training, with ramp up time in training.
-
Here they come!
That'll help pay for the redtube and pornhub. Not sure I believe that pic at all. Especially withe the IRS saying they'll start around Apr 13...
-
That'll help pay for the redtube and pornhub. Not sure I believe that pic at all. Especially withe the IRS saying they'll start around Apr 13...
Agreed. Unless that's his personal account...then it's tough to dispute.
-
That'll help pay for the redtube and pornhub. Not sure I believe that pic at all. Especially withe the IRS saying they'll start around Apr 13...
It’s a joke... apologies.
-
It’s a joke... apologies.
Hah. I kinda assumed based on the Apr 1 dates, but you posted it on the 2nd!
-
So loan/grant applications and such begin tomorrow. Chase said they are already not prepared, another big bank that hasn’t been made told CNBC they aren’t ready cause they haven’t gotten guidelines necessary from the government. There is a building queue and we’re already being cautioned that funds will be tapped quickly.
In applying for both EIDL loans and prepping for PPP, there has been some eye rolling peculiarities (Such as applying for EIDL, and being informed days later that you need to re-apply on a different part of the website, with the same form, to get the $10K immediate grant, but it wouldn’t impact the existing app :o)
You expect some of this red tape and process, but when you have people literally taking home $0 over one, stretching into 2-3 paychecks waiting for the grants, it doesn’t bring much confidence
-
Yeah, I know some big bank small business finance guys. Basically the bank doesn't want to do the loans because when they turn into grants, it means there's no money in it for them. Capitalism!
But to the other questions of whether small businesses should do the loans or layoff...I can't blame them for being wearly about how long they need to retain the employee after the "loan" ends. (I've done no research, so don't know how it works) But if a business isn't confident about things returning to normal within the period of the loan, I can't blame them. Most of Colorado ski businesses (supporting ski towns, not vail resorts themselves) would fall into the boat of "I have no confidence in the timing of these loans".
-
Because you care about your employees?
Also, so that when things return to normal you cAn hit the ground running instead of going through a process of hiring to then be at max capacity
And laying off employees hits your unemployment rating and you will pay more unemployment taxes when you hire them back.
-
Yeah, I know some big bank small business finance guys. Basically the bank doesn't want to do the loans because when they turn into grants, it means there's no money in it for them. Capitalism!
But to the other questions of whether small businesses should do the loans or layoff...I can't blame them for being wearly about how long they need to retain the employee after the "loan" ends. (I've done no research, so don't know how it works) But if a business isn't confident about things returning to normal within the period of the loan, I can't blame them. Most of Colorado ski businesses (supporting ski towns, not vail resorts themselves) would fall into the boat of "I have no confidence in the timing of these loans".
I *think* it's 6 months. So, take the loan, fire no one for 6 months and the loan becomes a grant.
-
So loan/grant applications and such begin tomorrow. Chase said they are already not prepared, another big bank that hasn’t been made told CNBC they aren’t ready cause they haven’t gotten guidelines necessary from the government. There is a building queue and we’re already being cautioned that funds will be tapped quickly.
In applying for both EIDL loans and prepping for PPP, there has been some eye rolling peculiarities (Such as applying for EIDL, and being informed days later that you need to re-apply on a different part of the website, with the same form, to get the $10K immediate grant, but it wouldn’t impact the existing app :o)
You expect some of this red tape and process, but when you have people literally taking home $0 over one, stretching into 2-3 paychecks waiting for the grants, it doesn’t bring much confidence
We are experiencing the same thing. This is going to be a huge problem.
-
I’m really talking about restaurant and retail. But everyone’s points are good. Forgot about the loan becoming a grant for instance.
-
I’m really talking about restaurant and retail. But everyone’s points are good. Forgot about the loan becoming a grant for instance.
I was told last night that my previous company of 4 years ago laid off 186 people yesterday. That's probably half the company.
They are in aerospace & defense component manufacturing and the parent owner has an obsessively strict "$s per head count" formula they adhere too. Apparently business had been down (but not that much down) and they are using Coronavirus as the excuse.
-
I am still on the Board of Directors of my former company, and spent yesterday and this morning preparing and reviewing information for applying for the loan today (hopefully).
I'll post on how it goes.
-
I was told last night that my previous company of 4 years ago laid off 186 people yesterday. That's probably half the company.
They are in aerospace & defense component manufacturing and the parent owner has an obsessively strict "$s per head count" formula they adhere too. Apparently business had been down (but not that much down) and they are using Coronavirus as the excuse.
This just happened to my wife. She works for a major title company as an attorney examiner. They let a lot of people go, many of whom had been with the company for a lot of years. It's a convenient excuse to shed expensive salaries without getting called out for age/sex/other discrimination.
-
This just happened to my wife. She works for a major title company as an attorney examiner. They let a lot of people go, many of whom had been with the company for a lot of years. It's a convenient excuse to shed expensive salaries without getting called out for age/sex/other discrimination.
If this is what is happening, true unemployment is going to soar for people over 55... This could have an enormous effect on our economy for years or decades.
-
I *think* it's 6 months. So, take the loan, fire no one for 6 months and the loan becomes a grant.
Generally that's right, but one nit that is tough for businesses is that you actually have to use all of the loan proceeds by June 30, and it cannot be used to cover more than 8 weeks of payroll total. I absolutely get the rationale behind wanting companies to push out that loan to their employees in order for it to be converted into a grant. But no one thinks this is going to be over by June 30, either, so you're essentially making business owners decide between restructuring in a way that feels wise to face this over the long haul or making them dependent on a second government cash infusion to keep covering the payroll for all those employees they can't afford after June 30.
-
I’ve got friends saying that they’ve heard the $1200 check is more a loan that we will have to pay back on our taxes next year. Any truth to that?
-
Generally that's right, but one nit that is tough for businesses is that you actually have to use all of the loan proceeds by June 30, and it cannot be used to cover more than 8 weeks of payroll total. I absolutely get the rationale behind wanting companies to push out that loan to their employees in order for it to be converted into a grant. But no one thinks this is going to be over by June 30, either, so you're essentially making business owners decide between restructuring in a way that feels wise to face this over the long haul or making them dependent on a second government cash infusion to keep covering the payroll for all those employees they can't afford after June 30.
Thats a worry for us. Even if the shelter at home orders or similar are relieved by June, I find it hard to believe a ton of businesses will flip back on and start generating the revenue needed. 8 weeks coverage is great for a month out of business and then another month getting back up to speed. Not "well, we bridged you, the country is back to open, good lucK!"
-
I’ve got friends saying that they’ve heard the $1200 check is more a loan that we will have to pay back on our taxes next year. Any truth to that?
No they are misinterpreting a provision.
The $1,200 is a credit that tax filers can qualify for in 2020 - depending on your income. The checks being sent are an advance on that particular credit. The reason for this is because if you don't qualify based on your 2019 income, you CAN qualify based on your 2020 income if you lose your job. You just have to claim the credit next year.
And if you qualify NOW, but don't qualify in 2020, you dont have to pay it back.
Does that make sense?
-
No they are misinterpreting a provision.
The $1,200 is a credit that tax filers can qualify for in 2020 - depending on your income. The checks being sent are an advance on that particular credit. The reason for this is because if you don't qualify based on your 2019 income, you CAN qualify based on your 2020 income if you lose your job. You just have to claim the credit next year.
And if you qualify NOW, but don't qualify in 2020, you dont have to pay it back.
Does that make sense?
I think I missed this somewhere, but do you know how they're determining eligibility? Are they using 2018 or 2019 tax returns?
I ask because individually, I would have been over the threshold for a check using 2018 returns. In that year (2018) I was engaged, but we filed separately. In 2019, we filed jointly and we would qualify as a couple to receive a check.
-
I think I missed this somewhere, but do you know how they're determining eligibility? Are they using 2018 or 2019 tax returns?
I ask because individually, I would have been over the threshold for a check using 2018 returns. In that year (2018) I was engaged, but we filed separately. In 2019, we filed jointly and we would qualify as a couple to receive a check.
My understanding is they're using your most recent filing, since 2019 filing is not due yet.
-
Right. But you can claim this NEXT year if your 2020 income falls below the threshold.
-
I think I missed this somewhere, but do you know how they're determining eligibility? Are they using 2018 or 2019 tax returns?
I ask because individually, I would have been over the threshold for a check using 2018 returns. In that year (2018) I was engaged, but we filed separately. In 2019, we filed jointly and we would qualify as a couple to receive a check.
I read they are using whatever return is on file. If you haven't filed 2019 yet and it's more beneficial to you to have that as the most recent, hold off on filing. If it will help you to get the 2019 return on file, do it immediately. That could be old advice though, as it's possible that they made the determination already.
-
Thats a worry for us. Even if the shelter at home orders or similar are relieved by June, I find it hard to believe a ton of businesses will flip back on and start generating the revenue needed. 8 weeks coverage is great for a month out of business and then another month getting back up to speed. Not "well, we bridged you, the country is back to open, good lucK!"
Very important. Chamber of Commerce said in a survey that 25% of small businesses say they are on the brink of bankruptcy.
Unemployment - though said to be up to 4.4% is actually in the 14-16% range after the last couple of weeks. It will go higher than that in the next month as things filter down. Gonna take a long time to ramp back up.
-
My understanding is they're using your most recent filing, since 2019 filing is not due yet.
Thanks.
I just filed mine on Monday. So, I guess we'll see?
-
Unemployment - though said to be up to 4.4% is actually in the 14-16% range after the last couple of weeks. It will go higher than that in the next month as things filter down. Gonna take a long time to ramp back up.
Jockey,
I read only 4.4% because the monthly numbers only account like through the 17th of each month.
-
Jockey,
I read only 4.4% because the monthly numbers only account like through the 17th of each month.
Correct. But most people don’t know that. Currently the number is way higher.
-
Why are only the poors getting this $1,200?
-
Why are only the poors getting this $1,200?
Right?
Is the $500/offspring prorated too?
-
Why are only the poors getting this $1,200?
Well look who's a socialist now
-
No specific thread to post this ..
Last week, my formerly $800m company downsized. Predicted contraction between 50-80% for 4-6+ months. 10% laid off .. no numbers on furloughs but I'd estimate 50%. Everyone else has a 20-30% pay cut (of which I feel blessed to fall into that category.)
-
Well look who's a socialist now
;D
-
No specific thread to post this ..
Last week, my formerly $800m company downsized. Predicted contraction between 50-80% for 4-6+ months. 10% laid off .. no numbers on furloughs but I'd estimate 50%. Everyone else has a 20-30% pay cut (of which I feel blessed to fall into that category.)
The pay cut category is going to be an interesting one with all of this. I think that will be widespread. There is no "stimulus" package for that, and it will likely erase the $1200 bolus to the economy, and will delay economic recovery.
-
No specific thread to post this ..
Last week, my formerly $800m company downsized. Predicted contraction between 50-80% for 4-6+ months. 10% laid off .. no numbers on furloughs but I'd estimate 50%. Everyone else has a 20-30% pay cut (of which I feel blessed to fall into that category.)
Sad to hear this for you and your co-workers, 'topper. This all sucks.
-
Sad to hear this for you and your co-workers, 'topper. This all sucks.
It really does and .. I have guilty emotions. I'm tremendously lucky to have a job so I have a sense of joy/relief, but half my co-workers will have zero paychecks coming in for 2-3-4-5-6-10 months, who knows. They woke up today in shock.
Interestingly, the company is picking up health insurance for the furloughed .. if I heard correctly, they are paying both the employer and employee portion, which is huge.
-
Interestingly, the company is picking up health insurance for the furloughed .. if I heard correctly, they are paying both the employer and employee portion, which is huge.
That IS huge. Hopefully you heard correctly!
-
I am still on the Board of Directors of my former company, and spent yesterday and this morning preparing and reviewing information for applying for the loan today (hopefully).
I'll post on how it goes.
As of Saturday afternoon, the bank application system (SunTrust) is not yet up and running.
-
As of Saturday afternoon, the bank application system (SunTrust) is not yet up and running.
When the Obamacare system had glitches, certain people were apoplectic. Now those exact same people say that glitches are "normal".
So which is it?
-
Umm...
https://twitter.com/ReneeIsFabulous/status/1246571465744449537?s=19
Wut?
-
Umm...
https://twitter.com/ReneeIsFabulous/status/1246571465744449537?s=19
Wut?
Think it's just confusing verbiage. You can choose to take the credit in 2020 if you know you'll be in a worse financial situation. If you take it this year you won't pay it back.
-
Think it's just confusing verbiage. You can choose to take the credit in 2020 if you know you'll be in a worse financial situation. If you take it this year you won't pay it back.
If it was always going to be a tax credit, why did it need to be means-tested?
-
It really does and .. I have guilty emotions. I'm tremendously lucky to have a job so I have a sense of joy/relief, but half my co-workers will have zero paychecks coming in for 2-3-4-5-6-10 months, who knows. They woke up today in shock.
Interestingly, the company is picking up health insurance for the furloughed .. if I heard correctly, they are paying both the employer and employee portion, which is huge.
Dont you do COBOL progamming? New jersey needs cobol programmers, governor sent out a specific request.
-
Dont you do COBOL progamming? New jersey needs cobol programmers, governor sent out a specific request.
Hmm .. last time I programmed in COBOL was a good 25 years ago, so I'm a bit rusty.
-
Hmm .. last time I programmed in COBOL was a good 25 years ago, so I'm a bit rusty.
I cant help you then. Arby's.
-
As of Saturday afternoon, the bank application system (SunTrust) is not yet up and running.
SunTrust got a beta version up and running this morning for testing by a select number of existing customers, and my former company was one of those selected to apply. The application is currently being submitted along with 2019 Form 941's as verification of payroll.
-
Is anyone else concerned that we're not giving enough to individuals?
If we can give $4.5 trillion to large corporations and trillions more from the Fed to the markets, you'd think we could do more for individuals
-
Is anyone else concerned that we're not giving enough to individuals?
If we can give $4.5 trillion to large corporations and trillions more from the Fed to the markets, you'd think we could do more for individuals
I just want what the next guy is getting. #fairness
-
I just want what the next guy is getting. #fairness
Your opinion on gov’t handouts is known by everyone here.
Be a man and stand up for your beliefs. Don’t sell out every time someone waves a dollar bill in your face.
-
Is anyone else concerned that we're not giving enough to individuals?
If we can give $4.5 trillion to large corporations and trillions more from the Fed to the markets, you'd think we could do more for individuals
With all due respect, why do you keep hammering on this "bailout" point with incorrect information. Initial stimulus bill was $2.2T, only $500B was allocated for corporations, and those were loans similar to the ones that were repaid in 2008. $60B of that for the airlines and air cargo. $350B was for small businesses and another $250B for unemployment benefits. Stop framing it like individuals got a pittance while the evil large corporations got bags of money.
And the Fed injecting liquidity into the market is a completely different situation. There are issues with it as well, but viewing it as the same bucket is like the people who thought the money "saved" by not giving AMZN tax breaks in NYC would then be given to education and public transit.
-
With all due respect, why do you keep hammering on this "bailout" point with incorrect information. Initial stimulus bill was $2.2T, only $500B was allocated for corporations, and those were loans similar to the ones that were repaid in 2008. $60B of that for the airlines and air cargo. $350B was for small businesses and another $250B for unemployment benefits. Stop framing it like individuals got a pittance while the evil large corporations got bags of money.
And the Fed injecting liquidity into the market is a completely different situation. There are issues with it as well, but viewing it as the same bucket is like the people who thought the money "saved" by not giving AMZN tax breaks in NYC would then be given to education and public transit.
But that would kill an OMB talking point.
-
With all due respect, why do you keep hammering on this "bailout" point with incorrect information. Initial stimulus bill was $2.2T, only $500B was allocated for corporations, and those were loans similar to the ones that were repaid in 2008. $60B of that for the airlines and air cargo. $350B was for small businesses and another $250B for unemployment benefits. Stop framing it like individuals got a pittance while the evil large corporations got bags of money.
And the Fed injecting liquidity into the market is a completely different situation. There are issues with it as well, but viewing it as the same bucket is like the people who thought the money "saved" by not giving AMZN tax breaks in NYC would then be given to education and public transit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/economy/fed-coronavirus-stimulus.html
-
And the Fed injecting liquidity into the market is a completely different situation. There are issues with it as well, but viewing it as the same bucket is like the people who thought the money "saved" by not giving AMZN tax breaks in NYC would then be given to education and public transit.
The first half of this is absolutely true and isn't akin to the direct stake's in financial institutions that had to occur in 08/09. The Fed's actions quickly put to rest the initial wave of liquidity concerns and stabilized the CP markets in fairly short order. Much of this can be unwound at a gradual pace as markets/recovery occurs. The banks are well capitalized right now and the combination of these two factors put off any talk of a 'financial crisis' for the time being. Now the long-term ramifications as you point out are much different and debatable...
-
With all due respect, why do you keep hammering on this "bailout" point with incorrect information. Initial stimulus bill was $2.2T, only $500B was allocated for corporations, and those were loans similar to the ones that were repaid in 2008. $60B of that for the airlines and air cargo. $350B was for small businesses and another $250B for unemployment benefits. Stop framing it like individuals got a pittance while the evil large corporations got bags of money.
And the Fed injecting liquidity into the market is a completely different situation. There are issues with it as well, but viewing it as the same bucket is like the people who thought the money "saved" by not giving AMZN tax breaks in NYC would then be given to education and public transit.
I don't think large corporations are evil. I also think there is requirement that they receive money.
But, IMO, budgeting requires acknowledgement of income and spending. As a country, we've decided to get money to individuals in the form of a one-time $1200 payment (but not everyone). And, I suppose so far, that's it. I truly don't believe that's enough. That will barely sustain some individuals through 1 month and rent was due a week ago. Multiple payments or freezing spending requirements should be considered as long as distancing is maintained. I think that should be the next step.
My apologies for the presentation of pitting one vs the other. I happen to believe any further stimulus/bailout should be focused on the above.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/economy/fed-coronavirus-stimulus.html
Thats not what you said. And by that metric, sure, the government and the Fed can give everyone $5000...that they will pay back with interest like every company potentially getting "bailout" money from the Fed have to.
Companies are given money with guidelines and specifications on their usage. Thats going to go much farther than a check. I can't fathom how people honestly would rather let more businesses fail to give people a few grand more in a lump sum in the short term.
EDIT: I see your follow up. And I guess as a business principle I look at it differently. I know my employee salaries. And its nice to have both, but when you're weighing more business support stimulus vs individual stimulus, allowing those companies to not have to layoff workers, close their doors, end their earning potential... that should be tantamount IMO.
-
Thats not what you said. And by that metric, sure, the government and the Fed can give everyone $5000...that they will pay back with interest like every company potentially getting "bailout" money from the Fed have to.
Companies are given money with guidelines and specifications on their usage. Thats going to go much farther than a check. I can't fathom how people honestly would rather let more businesses fail to give people a few grand more in a lump sum in the short term.
EDIT: I see your follow up. And I guess as a business principle I look at it differently. I know my employee salaries. And its nice to have both, but when you're weighing more business support stimulus vs individual stimulus, allowing those companies to not have to layoff workers, close their doors, end their earning potential... that should be tantamount IMO.
Why not both? I mean, we're in unprecedented times and writing nearly blank checks. So, why not both?
-
https://twitter.com/MarketWatch/status/1248413563649048578?s=19
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1248425968529821696?s=19
"Let them fail."
-
https://twitter.com/MarketWatch/status/1248413563649048578?s=19
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1248425968529821696?s=19
"Let them fail."
Aw man. Are you telling me that voodoo economics is actually voodoo economics???
But we all know this will never happen. The middle and lower class isn't the one making campaign contributions. Furthermore we have tied the financial health of the country to stock market performance, which is weird.
-
Aw man. Are you telling me that voodoo economics is actually voodoo economics???
But we all know this will never happen. The middle and lower class isn't the one making campaign contributions. Furthermore we have tied the financial health of the country to stock market performance, which is weird.
Ive never liked this dude. He's always been a massive hypocrite to me. Early exec at Facebook that got incredibly wealthy helping it become a monster, left the company, and says Facebook and social media is wrong and he regrets doing it. Like if Terry Pegula came out and said he was against shale oil and fracking now as he pushed his sports initiatives.
To his actual point, it would make total sense and be valid for the 2008 crash, but applying it now seems reckless and foolish to me. You can argue the airlines were acting selfishly in returns to monetization and buybacks, but thats not the reason they are in dire straits. Hoarding billions to float them through emergencies and this crisis would be terrible economically. Thinking that letting all these companies, who had their revenues slashed by 75-80% or more, fail will end up benefiting the employees and only hurt Wall St is so beyond stupid.
I do agree that we tie too much of a company's health and the country's financial situation to the markets, however, there are few things that get me more annoyed than suggesting that the stock market, its health, etc... is only the concern of or beneficial to Wall St and the ultra wealthy. Ignores 401Ks, IRAs, etc.. My GF works in institutional finance. Pension funds are REELING.
-
To his actual point, it would make total sense and be valid for the 2008 crash, but applying it now seems reckless and foolish to me. You can argue the airlines were acting selfishly in returns to monetization and buybacks, but thats not the reason they are in dire straits. Hoarding billions to float them through emergencies and this crisis would be terrible economically. Thinking that letting all these companies, who had their revenues slashed by 75-80% or more, fail will end up benefiting the employees and only hurt Wall St is so beyond stupid.
I agree that hoarding capital is inefficient. However in the case of the airlines who have proven to have a low margin business susceptible in two ‘once in a lifetime’ downturns in the past 15 years, we should force them to be capitalized better (like no debt or AA rating better).
-
I agree that hoarding capital is inefficient. However in the case of the airlines who have proven to have a low margin business susceptible in two ‘once in a lifetime’ downturns in the past 15 years, we should force them to be capitalized better (like no debt or AA rating better).
Again, I view this differently than 2008 cause that was a demon of our own design. But I have absolutely no issues with better structured guidelines for businesses that get “bailout” funding. Good chance to build back better
-
News today that PPP funds have already been depleted. My business bank just opened applications for businesses like mine on Monday, had tech issues through late last night (sent me a text at 2:00 am this morning that those were resolved) and now evidently the money is gone. Anyone else run into issues with their lender not having their crap straight in time to process applications for their customers?
I have to think there's another round of funding coming for this program because this has been pretty much a mess.
-
News today that PPP funds have already been depleted. My business bank just opened applications for businesses like mine on Monday, had tech issues through late last night (sent me a text at 2:00 am this morning that those were resolved) and now evidently the money is gone. Anyone else run into issues with their lender not having their crap straight in time to process applications for their customers?
I have to think there's another round of funding coming for this program because this has been pretty much a mess.
The good news is that national chains took some of this money.
-
News today that PPP funds have already been depleted. My business bank just opened applications for businesses like mine on Monday, had tech issues through late last night (sent me a text at 2:00 am this morning that those were resolved) and now evidently the money is gone. Anyone else run into issues with their lender not having their crap straight in time to process applications for their customers?
I have to think there's another round of funding coming for this program because this has been pretty much a mess.
If you didn%u2019t have an existing relationship with a smaller bank, you were pretty much DOA. We fortunately got funded on Monday, but that%u2019s as because we have a smaller regional bank that we%u2019ve worked closely with over the last 3-4 years on a variety of debt servicing, so we were a priority.
They knew they were gonna be way short last week, but getting any more money for this will be as big of a cluster as the first time around. Way more will tap out before more funds are made available
-
The good news is that national chains took some of this money.
And the bad news is that national chains took some of this money. Ruth's Chris got $20,000,000 by applying through each of two subsidiaries. That's a lot of money used by them that many other small businesses could have used. Other publicly traded companies are doing the same thing. Not saying they didn't go through the process legally, but allowing them to be part of the "small business" definition for this money? Personally, I think they shouldn't have been able to do so.
-
If you didn%u2019t have an existing relationship with a smaller bank, you were pretty much DOA. We fortunately got funded on Monday, but that%u2019s as because we have a smaller regional bank that we%u2019ve worked closely with over the last 3-4 years on a variety of debt servicing, so we were a priority.
They knew they were gonna be way short last week, but getting any more money for this will be as big of a cluster as the first time around. Way more will tap out before more funds are made available
Same with us. We had that application filled out and turned in less than an hour after it became available.
-
The stimulus check rollout seems like a gigantic clusterf*ck. One thing that I really wish or hope comes out of this pandemic is how deficient America's digital infrastructure is in 2020.
I get that this is an unprecedented time, and hit like a tsunami with sudden impact, but it's woeful how inept our digital infrastructure is.
I am by no means trying to make this political at all, but America's inability to quickly gather info, keep said info, process it, and deliver is so poor. Yes, there will be mistakes, but people/small businesses really need help right now, and it really sucks to hear people who need these funds trying to cut through red tape right now, or see the same message on the IRS site with really no ability at all to communicate the error to anyone.
-
Havent got my check yet.
-
The stimulus check rollout seems like a gigantic clusterf*ck. One thing that I really wish or hope comes out of this pandemic is how deficient America's digital infrastructure is in 2020.
I get that this is an unprecedented time, and hit like a tsunami with sudden impact, but it's woeful how inept our digital infrastructure is.
I am by no means trying to make this political at all, but America's inability to quickly gather info, keep said info, process it, and deliver is so poor. Yes, there will be mistakes, but people/small businesses really need help right now, and it really sucks to hear people who need these funds trying to cut through red tape right now, or see the same message on the IRS site with really no ability at all to communicate the error to anyone.
Absolutely agree. We have been complacent for decades.
-
The stimulus check rollout seems like a gigantic clusterf*ck. One thing that I really wish or hope comes out of this pandemic is how deficient America's digital infrastructure is in 2020.
I get that this is an unprecedented time, and hit like a tsunami with sudden impact, but it's woeful how inept our digital infrastructure is.
I am by no means trying to make this political at all, but America's inability to quickly gather info, keep said info, process it, and deliver is so poor. Yes, there will be mistakes, but people/small businesses really need help right now, and it really sucks to hear people who need these funds trying to cut through red tape right now, or see the same message on the IRS site with really no ability at all to communicate the error to anyone.
Both the stimulus and the PPP has been a disaster. Would have been much easier to have all of the money in the PPP and have companies keep people on the payroll, even if they were furloughed. Of course, we can't get the PPP to work through the banks either. But this hodgepodge of unemployment payments(states run the unemployement system, so 50 different sets of rules), stimulus, bailouts, etc. should have been streamlined from the start.
-
The stimulus check rollout seems like a gigantic clusterf*ck. One thing that I really wish or hope comes out of this pandemic is how deficient America's digital infrastructure is in 2020.
I get that this is an unprecedented time, and hit like a tsunami with sudden impact, but it's woeful how inept our digital infrastructure is.
I am by no means trying to make this political at all, but America's inability to quickly gather info, keep said info, process it, and deliver is so poor. Yes, there will be mistakes, but people/small businesses really need help right now, and it really sucks to hear people who need these funds trying to cut through red tape right now, or see the same message on the IRS site with really no ability at all to communicate the error to anyone.
Its truly shocking. I remember using the "Wheres My Refund" and its gotten better but it was the same issue, and its baffling to me, in this day and age, that statuses only update once a day. Absurd.
Not just the government, I had a discussion yesterday about the banks. Chase was one of the only major without significant issues. US Bank, Fifth Third, and PNC all had serious outages, much less smaller regional players. Talked to my friend who works in the space and he said its to be expected cause the vast majority of non-major (Chase, BoA, Wells Fargo) consumer banks have woefully antiquated technology and systems in that regard.
The PPP I cant even properly verbalize my disgust. Glad Hards was fortunate like us. If we had these issues and now the funds were tapped before we recieved, I would be apoplectic. The EIDL program is an absolute mess too. Very very few people had success there. There hasn't been an update to our status in that application stream...since 3/31
-
Havent got my check yet.
We got ours via direct deposit this morning.
-
Both the stimulus and the PPP has been a disaster. Would have been much easier to have all of the money in the PPP and have companies keep people on the payroll, even if they were furloughed. Of course, we can't get the PPP to work through the banks either. But this hodgepodge of unemployment payments(states run the unemployement system, so 50 different sets of rules), stimulus, bailouts, etc. should have been streamlined from the start.
Agree.
But that would have required the feds to not push responsibility to the individual states. They clearly have preferred that method from the beginning
Btw, I disagree it all should have gone through PPP. I believe it all should have gone direct to individuals with everyone being furloughed that are non-essential.
But, different viewpoints are okay.
-
Agree.
But that would have required the feds to not push responsibility to the individual states. They clearly have preferred that method from the beginning
Btw, I disagree it all should have gone through PPP. I believe it all should have gone direct to individuals with everyone being furloughed that are non-essential.
But, different viewpoints are okay.
IMO, PPP keeps people on payrolls, keeps their health insurance, keeps them engaged. Their companies can still communicate with them. Etc. Fire someone only due to furlough, you now pay that back to the feds.
Instead, by doing mass layoffs, it will be chaos when people are trying to get their jobs back. Didnt like someone, don't have to hire them back. Companies can shed payroll by not hired experienced people in lower skilled jobs and pay a fraction of what tenured employees were making (not saying that this is a good idea, but companies will do it.) Especially impacting low skill/low wage workers.
And PPP should have been capped. Companies like Ruth Chris getting $20m is just horrible optics, and unfair to small or mid-sized businesses that dont have a ton of cash or cash equivalents on hand.
-
IMO, PPP keeps people on payrolls, keeps their health insurance, keeps them engaged. Their companies can still communicate with them. Etc. Fire someone only due to furlough, you now pay that back to the feds.
Instead, by doing mass layoffs, it will be chaos when people are trying to get their jobs back. Didnt like someone, don't have to hire them back. Companies can shed payroll by not hired experienced people in lower skilled jobs and pay a fraction of what tenured employees were making (not saying that this is a good idea, but companies will do it.) Especially impacting low skill/low wage workers.
And PPP should have been capped. Companies like Ruth Chris getting $20m is just horrible optics, and unfair to small or mid-sized businesses that dont have a ton of cash or cash equivalents on hand.
Agreed. It also would have been good if we had addressed the post-2008 paperwork fiasco that has caused banks to manage this in this manner.
-
Agreed. It also would have been good if we had addressed the post-2008 paperwork fiasco that has caused banks to manage this in this manner.
Banks mostly run on COBOL, legacy systems dont like change....
-
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/21/large-public-companies-are-taking-small-businesses-payroll-loans.html
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/04/14/why-are-rich-americans-getting-17-million-stimulus-checks/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
👍
-
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/21/large-public-companies-are-taking-small-businesses-payroll-loans.html
Many of these picking companies are hedge fund backed. No wonder they got their cash.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/04/14/why-are-rich-americans-getting-17-million-stimulus-checks/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
👍
What garbage clickbait headlines. Tax write offs and pass through loss exemptions are not stimulus checks. Pretending that rebates and future tax benefits are the same as lump sum payouts or checks is one of the lamest tactics to rile up a group of people. Its the same crap they did to try and run Amazon out of NYC.
-
What garbage clickbait headlines. Tax write offs and pass through loss exemptions are not stimulus checks. Pretending that rebates and future tax benefits are the same as lump sum payouts or checks is one of the lamest tactics to rile up a group of people. Its the same crap they did to try and run Amazon out of NYC.
Agree on the headline. Subject of the article is more where my problem lies.
-
Lots of hypocrites out there ...
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article242231476.html?
Former S.C. governor and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley says that states shouldn’t be asked to be “bailed out” from the COVID-19 crisis by the federal government. Instead, they should “tighten up, make some cuts and manage,” Haley said in a tweet Thursday morning.
The tweet reflects the latest GOP talking point in a growing debate over state shortfalls during the coronavirus crisis. On Wednesday, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell rejected calls from Democrats to give those struggling states, many of them blue, tens of billions of dollars in emergency pandemic relief legislation. Said McConnell: “There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations.”
That’s rich, coming from the senator of a state, Kentucky, that takes out $148 billion more out of the federal pot than it takes in, as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo noted Thursday.
That’s especially rich for Haley, who as North Carolina’s neighboring governor had no hesitation about federal aid when her state’s rainy day came in the form of flooding after storms in 2015. Not to mention that like Kentucky, South Carolina under Haley collected more federal money than most states.
-
That’s rich, coming from the senator of a state, Kentucky, that takes out $148 billion more out of the federal pot than it takes in, as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo noted Thursday.
Which is a misleading statistic. It always has been. Of course Kentucky is going to get more federal money then it pays in. It has a relatively small population and federal installations like Fort Campbell, which doesn't just benefit Kentucky but the entire country.
Don't get me wrong. McConnell's comments aren't helpful. But these types of stats are always taken completely out of proper context.
-
Which is a misleading statistic. It always has been. Of course Kentucky is going to get more federal money then it pays in. It has a relatively small population and federal installations like Fort Campbell, which doesn't just benefit Kentucky but the entire country.
Don't get me wrong. McConnell's comments aren't helpful. But these types of stats are always taken completely out of proper context.
Size of the state had nothing to do with it. Connecticut, Delaware, Rhide Island, etc.all smaller than Kentucky yet bring more tax And they get less money per person.
Plus all those states are net winners to fed coffers
-
Size of the state had nothing to do with it. Connecticut, Delaware, Rhide Island, etc.all smaller than Kentucky yet bring more tax And they get less money per person.
Plus all those states are net winners to fed coffers
You only addressed one side of the equation.
-
federal installations like Fort Campbell, which doesn't just benefit Kentucky but the entire country.
Isn't this true of every state, including those who pay a lot more to the feds than they take in? Particularly New York? Let's move the UN to Lexington. I'm sure some of those foreign delegates would appreciate good thoroughbreds.
-
You only addressed one side of the equation.
Anyway you slice it Kentucky costs the Fed money. And smaller states than Kentcuky do not. If you travel like I do it to states like Kentucky it isn't surprising.
-
Anyway you slice it Kentucky costs the Fed money. And smaller states than Kentcuky do not. If you travel like I do it to states like Kentucky it isn't surprising.
When those states have large miltary installations, like Fort Campbell, of course they do.
But it's not a relevant statistic. It is used to influence the simple minded because it lacks nuance.
-
If, as expected, Haley is one of the faves for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, it will be interesting to hear her explain why it was OK for her to beg for money in 2015 but bad for governors to ask for money now.
-
When those states have large miltary installations, like Fort Campbell, of course they do.
But it's not a relevant statistic. It is used to influence the simple minded because it lacks nuance.
Yeah states with military all lose money. Like California, Texas, North Carolia, New Jersey.
-
Yeah states with military all lose money. Like California, Texas, North Carolia, New Jersey.
<sigh> Which are states with a lot of tax payers.
-
<sigh> Which are states with a lot of tax payers.
I get your point, but Fort Campbell ain’t costing the state of KY 148 bil a year. Not too mention it shares a border with TN. But I think you can agree, KY outside of things military bases takes in waaaaaay more $$$ than it puts into federal coffers.
-
<sigh> Which are states with a lot of tax payers.
No. Has to do with just not enough wealth in the state per person to cover their bills. Do we need to break down servicemen per state in small states to prove small states can still make money even with military. All on the GAO website.
-
No. Has to do with just not enough wealth in the state per person to cover their bills. Do we need to break down servicemen per state in small states to prove small states can still make money even with military. All on the GAO website.
Go ahead. Keep trying to prove something that’s not a relevant stat. Waste your entire weekend for all I care.
-
Go ahead. Keep trying to prove something that’s not a relevant stat. Waste your entire weekend for all I care.
Weak. Looks like someone can't handle being wrong which you absolutely are in this case.
-
Weak. Looks like someone can't handle being wrong which you absolutely are in this case.
1. I am absolutely not wrong. You simply stating it doesn't make it right.
2. The stat is not relevant anyway. So if you want to prove me wrong, which you can't by the way, go ahead. It's a futile effort and I don't care anyway.
3. But you travelled to Kentucky before. ::) Hope you enjoyed your bourbon tour. Apparently it makes you an expert.
-
Only the poors get the stimulus. Where is the outrage?
-
1. I am absolutely not wrong
2. The stat is not relevant anyway. So if you want to prove me wrong, which you can't by the way, go ahead. It's a futile effort and I don't care anyway.
Well hard to argue that. You are not wrong, no matter what the numbers prove.
Agree with you on a lot of things. Just not this topic.
Edit: my comments towards the state of Kentucky could have been seen as disparaging.
My apologies
-
Only the poors get the stimulus. Where is the outrage?
Maybe we have enough, JB.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/business/tax-breaks-wealthy-virus.html
Lol
-
Only the poors get the stimulus. Where is the outrage?
I have enough. Others don't. Celebrate that in some microscopic way that Jesus' call to be our brothers' keeper and to give to the poor is being answered at the government level.
http://www.usccb.org/about/domestic-social-development/resources/upload/poverty-common-good-CST.pdf
I'll pray for you.
And the haves are doing just fine.
-
I have enough. Others don't. Celebrate that in some microscopic way that Jesus' call to be our brothers' keeper and to give to the poor is being answered at the government level.
http://www.usccb.org/about/domestic-social-development/resources/upload/poverty-common-good-CST.pdf
I'll pray for you.
And the haves are doing just fine.
I know people who are working and got stimulus checks. There are many. It’s bonus pay for them; they love it.
I realize there’s no easy way to determine who gets it and who doesn’t, but I will point out it’s unfair, discretionary and lacking logic. I kindly ask you to send me money to help me feel better. Thanks!
-
You shouldn't be defined by money. And I already subsidize those with more than me.
-
I know people who are working and got stimulus checks. There are many. It’s bonus pay for them; they love it.
I realize there’s no easy way to determine who gets it and who doesn’t, but I will point out it’s unfair, discretionary and lacking logic. I kindly ask you to send me money to help me feel better. Thanks!
Sure there is. Did you make over 75k? Then you don't get it. Pretty easy.
-
Sure there is. Did you make over 75k? Then you don't get it. Pretty easy.
Oh, it’s very understandable (and your #’s are WRONG), but any logic behind it is lacking.
-
Oh, it’s very understandable (and your #’s are WRONG), but any logic behind it is lacking.
I don't care about the numbers, and the frankly don't matter. A line has to be drawn in the sand. It isn't hard. They chose one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ
-
I don't care about the numbers, and the frankly don't matter. A line has to be drawn in the sand. It isn't hard. They chose one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ
Horrible line and without any sound reasoning. Lazy. And discriminatory!
-
Horrible line and without any sound reasoning. Lazy. And discriminatory!
Pretty ironic coming from you.
-
Possible corporate lobbyist bailout in next stimulus bill. Unbelievable.
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/05/lobbyists-trade-groups-bailout/
-
Possible corporate lobbyist bailout in next stimulus bill. Unbelievable.
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/05/lobbyists-trade-groups-bailout/
Set out a billion dollar trough and the pigs are bound to show up.
-
Overheard two twenty-something's talking in the park today. Mentioned their poor co-worker that has to go in 6 days a week, while they sit at home and collect more money than they would working. Talking about all the crap they were buying with the extra money.
Sigh...I mentioned before, I wish the fed govt would have thought about something like the CCC. Volunteer your time to improve public places and earn an extra $600 per week.
Nope, here's some cash, buy some crap on Amazon. Have fun!
-
Overheard two twenty-something's talking in the park today. Mentioned their poor co-worker that has to go in 6 days a week, while they sit at home and collect more money than they would working. Talking about all the crap they were buying with the extra money.
Sigh...I mentioned before, I wish the fed govt would have thought about something like the CCC. Volunteer your time to improve public places and earn an extra $600 per week.
Nope, here's some cash, buy some crap on Amazon. Have fun!
Hey now, remember when I posted this exact same thing weeks ago and you all blasted me for it. No? :-\
-
Hey now, remember when I posted this exact same thing weeks ago and you all blasted me for it. No? :-\
All depends on who posts it, aina?
Edit: not a knock on wocky necessarily, but rather on the mope summit squad.
-
It is good to be a moderator.
-
Hey now, remember when I posted this exact same thing weeks ago and you all blasted me for it. No? :-\
This thread? https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=60355.0
I didn't reply or post in that thread at all. Don't lump everyone together. Other than this post where I mentioned the CCC the first time, I don't think I've commented on unemployment perks.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59849.msg1227859#msg1227859
Anyhow, because of virus spread, and PPE, my CCC idea probably isn't feasible. Also just disappointing that when given some extra dough, "kids these days" are blowing it rather than thinking maybe they should save some for a rainy day. I guess I should thank them for keeping the economy humming...
-
Overheard two twenty-something's talking in the park today. Mentioned their poor co-worker that has to go in 6 days a week, while they sit at home and collect more money than they would working. Talking about all the crap they were buying with the extra money.
Sigh...I mentioned before, I wish the fed govt would have thought about something like the CCC. Volunteer your time to improve public places and earn an extra $600 per week.
Nope, here's some cash, buy some crap on Amazon. Have fun!
Couldn't possibly agree more. My upstairs neighbors all worked part time or less prior & the days after the shutdown started, they threw a couple parties bigger than any they'd ever had. Those that were already on state assistance & getting 90% of their rent paid, food, etc (a surprisingly large population of people in my current state of CA) - life is better for them than ever. They don't even have any concerns about eventually having to pay back the rent because the payments they're missing are inconsequential.
$1,200 for hard working, honest people doesn't get you anywhere, but if you're already a scammer, you'd be surprised how far you can stretch that when you're already used to doing so. It gives you even less reason to contribute.
I'm against giving anyone anywhere free money. The payments could've surely been targeted better but even still, any money we continue to hand out should have an IOU on it, whether it be on your next tax bill or for a promise of labor/volunteering/service during the rebuild. Everyone is capable of fulfilling that. If you can't then don't take it.
I'm a gay Democrat & I'm 30.
-
The program isn't perfect, but paying people who don't "deserve" it is better than not supporting people who do.
And we give people "free" money all of the time through various tax breaks and credits. We let people carry forward capital losses for years, if not decades, completely wiping out their tax liability before electing them president.
I think society can handle some young people partying it up a little with their unemployment money.
-
Some people say...
-
I'm confused, didn't they give us that money to spend to actually keep the economy moving? I added mine to my down payment for a house, GF paid off her car. But people who spend it on toys etc are using it in the way it was supposed to from what I recall (unless those people need food or other necessities but spent it on toys)
-
I'm confused, didn't they give us that money to spend to actually keep the economy moving? I
Exactly. They were checks to help stiimulate the economy.
-
Rocky isn't talking about the stimulus.
He's talking about the extra 600 dollars a week everyone is receiving in unemployment. For a lot of people, that's more then they were making at their jobs.
I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people who are continuing to work essential jobs not getting anything extra. Some people putting in 40 hours per week would be better off not working at all and collecting more money. That is bs.
It's also be that I'm now working 2 essential jobs, but theres no support system for me. Reward the ones pulling the country through.
-
Rocky isn't talking about the stimulus.
He's talking about the extra 600 dollars a week everyone is receiving in unemployment. For a lot of people, that's more then they were making at their jobs.
I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people who are continuing to work essential jobs not getting anything extra. Some people putting in 40 hours per week would be better off not working at all and collecting more money. That is bs.
It's also be that I'm now working 2 essential jobs, but theres no support system for me. Reward the ones pulling the country through.
100%. We are starting to bring in some of our employees who are catching full checks from us because of the PPP. Some are fully on board, and some say they can't make it in for three hours on a Tuesday... even though we give them notice on Friday. Now, I'm sympathetic that people can't just find a baby sitter or drop their kids at grandma and grandpa's house, but there are solutions.
Additionally, we have a former employee who didn't want to take the full time check and instead wanted to file for unemployment, because she, "made more money that way". What she may not realize is that when she goes to file for her next unemployment check she will be denied because she abandoned her job. So, the money she has collected since the day she left will have to be paid back. We explained all of this to her, but she does not care. Literally turned down FREE MONEY FOR DOING NOTHING... plus her job security so she could try to scam the system to make MORE. I've complained about this before, and my stupid ex-employee should never have been put in that position. Flat number checks were stupid. They're great for people earning low wages, but I know plenty of people who make close to the upper limit to qualify who said that the money they were getting isn't nearly enough to maintain their financial obligations.
It was a dumb system, but they had to pass something. Hopefully, the next round makes a lot more sense... because they've had a lot of time to work on it... but I'm not holding my breath.
-
The program isn't perfect, but paying people who don't "deserve" it is better than not supporting people who do.
And we give people "free" money all of the time through various tax breaks and credits. We let people carry forward capital losses for years, if not decades, completely wiping out their tax liability before electing them president.
I think society can handle some young people partying it up a little with their unemployment money.
So it is or isn't ok for young people to party (bigger parties than ever before) despite being in quarantine? Just want to be clear on your stance.
-
So it is or isn't ok for young people to party (bigger parties than ever before) despite being in quarantine? Just want to be clear on your stance.
They shouldn’t party because they are in quarantine. The fact that they are “wasting” their three months of enhanced unemployment benefits on a party doesn’t bother me.
-
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-bailout-is-working-for-the-rich/amp
-
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-bailout-is-working-for-the-rich/amp
So you truly think it would be better to give everyone $5K and let the companies employing those people fail? While their 401Ks to fall 50% or more?
It’s an imperfect system, and those with capital investment are benefitted by Fed intervention more than low level employees, but I’m genuinely curious what you think should have been done. Because all you’ve been feverishly posting every link is about how the rich are robbing the country blind in incredibly slanted articles and or being “terrified” by founders benefitting from increases in their company’s stock price. Ignoring plenty of middle class Americans with various investments also benefitting.
Again, argue the Fed is doing too much in propping up the market, but it would never be printing money to hand out to individuals as the article states but people can’t seem to comprehend. They can’t. You’re basically asking for massive social welfare direct handouts which is completely out of bounds in American history, or letting everything burn to the ground and rebuild from scratch. Which isn’t going to help the lower level at the expense of the wealthy either.
-
Rocky isn't talking about the stimulus.
He's talking about the extra 600 dollars a week everyone is receiving in unemployment. For a lot of people, that's more then they were making at their jobs.
I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people who are continuing to work essential jobs not getting anything extra. Some people putting in 40 hours per week would be better off not working at all and collecting more money. That is bs.
It's also be that I'm now working 2 essential jobs, but theres no support system for me. Reward the ones pulling the country through.
Agreed. I feel especially bad for low-paid employees like grocery and convenience store workers who are risking their health every day and not being rewarded for helping to get us through this crisis.
-
Amen. Give it to the $12 an hour stockboys or delivery truck driver. Give it to the nurses and the hospital janitors. Give it to the nursing home personnel. Give it to the $17.50 an hour paramedics.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-05-11/gop-finds-deficit-scold-voice-again-adding-snag-to-talks-on-aid?__twitter_impression=true
Oh.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-05-11/gop-finds-deficit-scold-voice-again-adding-snag-to-talks-on-aid?__twitter_impression=true
Oh.
I wonder why we’re concerned about the deficit again 🤔
-
The millionaires have all gotten paid. This round might actually pay those suddenly deemed 'essential.'
-
Some people in need can't even get their $1200 but example after example of wealthy corporate payouts.
$27 million for a private jet company:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/14/private-jet-company-owned-by-trump-donor-gets-27-million-bailout.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1262084931779518465?s=19
-
Some people in need can't even get their $1200 but example after example of wealthy corporate payouts.
$27 million for a private jet company:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/14/private-jet-company-owned-by-trump-donor-gets-27-million-bailout.html?__twitter_impression=true
There is no surprise here. The rich and powerful ALWAYS get theirs.
And if you are on Team Trump, you get it first.
-
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1262084931779518465?s=19
He’s not wrong. It’s just a bandaid to keep your staff employed/the lights on. It does nothing for business health. It was great to allow us some business continuity but unless it’s funded to ride out months of continued lockdown/staged reopen, plus time to allow consumer demand to return/stoked fear to subside, it’s just prolonging eventual bankruptcy.
-
He’s not wrong. It’s just a bandaid to keep your staff employed/the lights on. It does nothing for business health. It was great to allow us some business continuity but unless it’s funded to ride out months of continued lockdown/staged reopen, plus time to allow consumer demand to return/stoked fear to subside, it’s just prolonging eventual bankruptcy.
It was intended as a pause on business. But that isn't realistic.
Cuban sounds down right Presidential... hmmm some coincidence.
-
From the NYT:
There have clearly been problems with the business loan programs in the federal government’s coronavirus stimulus.
Many companies, especially small businesses, have struggled to get loans. And in a high-profile hearing yesterday, several senators criticized Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, and Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, for those problems.
More quietly, though, there also seems to be a growing recognition in Congress — among members of both parties — that the execution of the stimulus program hasn’t been the main problem. The design of the program has been.
Much of the rest of the world — including Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and South Korea — has followed one strategy on coronavirus stimulus. Governments have temporarily paid the salaries of workers in order to prevent millions of layoffs.
The United States has taken a different path. It created a complicated mix of different stimulus policies, including loans to businesses and checks for families. This approach doesn’t appear to be working: The U.S. has had a sharper rise in unemployment than other countries. Many jobless Americans have also lost their health insurance — in the midst of a pandemic.
Now Congress may be on the verge of changing its approach.
The stimulus bill that House Democrats passed last week includes a new paycheck subsidy program, similar to those in other countries. For businesses that have lost substantial revenue, it would cover — as grants, not loans — as much as 80 percent of payroll costs, up to $60,000 per worker in annual salary. The policy would be expensive, yet still cheaper than the previous stimulus plans.
The bill is only one sign of the idea’s growing popularity. Yesterday, almost 100 House Democrats introduced a more ambitious version of the program. And senators across the ideological spectrum — from Josh Hawley (a Missouri Republican) on the right to Doug Jones (an Alabama Democrat) in the center to Bernie Sanders (you know who he is) on the left — are pushing their own versions of the plans.
Janet Yellen, the former Fed chair, has praised the idea as a “smart, quick and effective way to channel aid to workers through their firms.”
It’s still not clear what will happen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, continues to speak skeptically about the need for any further stimulus. Regardless, any bill is likely to be more diffuse and complex than the approach of other countries, and any paycheck subsidy is likely to be less ambitious.
But the U.S. may soon be moving in the direction of those other countries.
-
I’m having a hard time with all of the reports of businesses not obtaining their PPP loans. I know multiple people who recently applied via PayPals portal and went through the process and received their money in less than a week. And this is all is the past 2 weeks.
-
It was intended as a pause on business. But that isn't realistic.
Cuban sounds down right Presidential... hmmm some coincidence.
I’d be very interested in what a Cuban Campaign would look like. Bring on a VP with good global foreign policy chops and that would be a very intriguing duo.
-
I’d be very interested in what a Cuban Campaign would look like. Bring on a VP with good global foreign policy chops and that would be a very intriguing duo.
His past would not be a good thing he wants to come to the forefront.
-
His past would not be a good thing he wants to come to the forefront.
That is a lot of people. And since we don't care about a little kitten grabbing anymore, why should anyone fear their past?
-
His past would not be a good thing he wants to come to the forefront.
Did you guys overlap at IU at all?
-
Did you guys overlap at IU at all?
Was he at the two games I attended in my life at IU? If so, then we may have overlapped for a few hours.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56316.msg1023881#msg1023881
Why would you want another celebrity president after the current idiot?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/business/coronavirus-hospitals-bailout.html
-
Which businesses are receiving bailout money?
https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1271099152706011137?s=19
-
Which businesses are receiving bailout money?
https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1271099152706011137?s=19
As was fully expected. Laws do not matter to this group.
-
Or maybe, just maybe, you can look past your automatic lens of corruption to realize that many companies don’t want everyone to know they accepted PPP funds. Public corporations will have it clearly stated in their financial reporting. But disclosing millions of private companies? I don’t know your respective business backgrounds but any whiff of financial distress is blood in the water for competitors to blast to anyone they are trying to take business from. Or for a company to turn down bids from. It doesn’t matter that there was a global pandemic, that is easily viewed as weakness, lack of financial preparation, etc...
This isn’t the slush fund, it’s just not broadcasting readily and easily who received funds. And of course it’s quick to be labeled “bailout” as if every company receiving these funds are 2008 AIG. It’s was business stimulus until the narrative needed to be changed to grind this axe
-
Or maybe, just maybe, you can look past your automatic lens of corruption to realize that many companies don’t want everyone to know they accepted PPP funds.
Yes, God forbid the public knows where its money is going.
-
Or maybe, just maybe, you can look past your automatic lens of corruption to realize that many companies don’t want everyone to know they accepted PPP funds. Public corporations will have it clearly stated in their financial reporting. But disclosing millions of private companies? I don’t know your respective business backgrounds but any whiff of financial distress is blood in the water for competitors to blast to anyone they are trying to take business from. Or for a company to turn down bids from. It doesn’t matter that there was a global pandemic, that is easily viewed as weakness, lack of financial preparation, etc...
This isn’t the slush fund, it’s just not broadcasting readily and easily who received funds. And of course it’s quick to be labeled “bailout” as if every company receiving these funds are 2008 AIG. It’s was business stimulus until the narrative needed to be changed to grind this axe
Wags they should be disclosing this...it’s an investor and an over site issue on where the money is being deployed.
Remember the financial bailout this was so sensitive that they forced all banks to take money as to not create the perception that some needed and some not. Ford carried a badge of honor as being the one auto that made it through without needing money....
-
Or maybe, just maybe, you can look past your automatic lens of corruption to realize that many companies don’t want everyone to know they accepted PPP funds. Public corporations will have it clearly stated in their financial reporting. But disclosing millions of private companies? I don’t know your respective business backgrounds but any whiff of financial distress is blood in the water for competitors to blast to anyone they are trying to take business from
It's public money. The public has the right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.
If a private company doesn't want it to be known that they're accepting public money, they can choose not to accept public money.
-
It's public money. The public has the right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.
If a private company doesn't want it to be known that they're accepting public money, they can choose not to accept public money.
Bingo
-
Wags they should be disclosing this...it’s an investor and an over site issue on where the money is being deployed.
Remember the financial bailout this was so sensitive that they forced all banks to take money as to not create the perception that some needed and some not. Ford carried a badge of honor as being the one auto that made it through without needing money....
Any investor knows whether or not a company they are involved with took money, public or private. This is not about that.
I think these are extraordinary circumstances. Private companies forced to take public funds because of overarching government action to “protect” the public.
And for the “public needs to know where it’s money is going” then maybe they should just bury the names of the companies in a 550 page piece of legislation that nobody has the ability to read or understand like every bit of pork barrel out there that is far more egregious than this.
Everyone is salivating for a reason to nail Trump and Mnuchin throwing a couple billion at companies they are affiliated with and not giving a crap about negative implications on most companies did nothing wrong and took the money out of survival necessity. We’ve already had adverse financial action taken on us as a result by both our bank we got the PPP from as well as another we were looking to finance a new venture with. I can only imagine the similar effects if there was a nice cleanly searchable database of PPP funds distributed.
I’m not saying that Trump and company haven’t earned this level of suspicion and mistrust, but this feels like a financial witch hunt more than a general oversight concern
-
I’m not saying that Trump and company haven’t earned this level of suspicion and mistrust, but this feels like a financial witch hunt more than a general oversight concern
Wags ... this has nothing to do with Trump. It's Civics 101. It's no different than your local school board needing to disclose teacher salaries or the county government disclosing where it's buying road salt. It's a fundamental principle of open government.
It's really shocking that anyone is arguing that the business interests of a private company arer more important than the public's long-established right to know how its money is being used.
Again, nobody is requiring these companies to take our money. But if they want it, we get to know they're getting it.
-
I’m not saying that Trump and company haven’t earned this level of suspicion and mistrust, but this feels like a financial witch hunt more than a general oversight concern
Everything is going to feel that way and it's only going to intensify.
There are things though that i feel are shared truths--it shouldn't be controversial in my mind. Corporate bailouts need to be public. Lobbying has already corrupted our system so much that you do have to dig to find out what legislation benefits an interest. If you now start giving my cash to a company, it just needs to be public.
-
Wags ... this has nothing to do with Trump. It's Civics 101. It's no different than your local school board needing to disclose teacher salaries or the county government disclosing where it's buying road salt. It's a fundamental principle of open government.
It's really shocking that anyone is arguing that the business interests of a private company arer more important than the public's long-established right to know how its money is being used.
Again, nobody is requiring these companies to take our money. But if they want it, we get to know they're getting it.
Our private company took PPP money, and I'm fine with anyone knowing that. We took care of our employees in a time of crisis for a minimal amount of work.
-
Our private company took PPP money, and I'm fine with anyone knowing that. We took care of our employees in a time of crisis for a minimal amount of work.
+1, my company decided not to take it assuming it would become public that we didn't really need it. Even though it would have been nice to get a couple of months of payroll for free.
I wouldn't make a different decision knowing what I know now. But I would like to see a few companies shamed in giving the money back to taxpayers instead of lining their own pockets. There are a lot of companies/individuals that could use the funds. This thing isn't even close to over yet.
-
https://www.propublica.org/article/this-treasury-official-is-running-the-bailout-its-been-great-for-his-family?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/16/congress-small-business-loan-320625
The public has a right to know where their money is going
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/16/congress-small-business-loan-320625
The public has a right to know where their money is going
So why can't I go online and find out which of my neighbors get SNAP or Medicaid?
-
So why can't I go online and find out which of my neighbors get SNAP or Medicaid?
Fair.
How about anyone/org who took >$500k needs to be made public?
-
So why can't I go online and find out which of my neighbors get SNAP or Medicaid?
Congrats WC, you win the Whataboutism Award for June 16th, 2020.
-
Congrats WC, you win the Whataboutism Award for June 16th, 2020.
I was not saying "what about". jes said that the public has a right to know where their money was going, and I pointed out an example of where they don't.
-
I was not saying "what about". jes said that the public has a right to know where their money was going, and I pointed out an example of where they don't.
It is exactly whataboutism. It's I'll take false moral equivalencies and deflecting accountability for 100 Alex.
It's in the family of gaslighting, pre-emptive inverted accusations, etc...
The topic is show us where the $600 billion plus went, including the several hundred wealthy publicly traded companies among others.
Here is a solid John Oliver video from 2017 that can help with whataboutism.
https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY
-
Shoothoops - not every example of something similar is "whataboutism."
-
Shoothoops - not every example of something similar is "whataboutism."
I didn't say it was but I did say her post was, yes, because that is my opinion.
We're talking about wealthy businesses, corporations and people receiving large sums of money during this time, while many others aren't. And the response is what about low income SNAP and Medicaid? Really? Really? Interesting choice there. At minimum, the disconnect is enormous.
Again, show us the $600 billion recipients.
-
This is a start. Now it needs to be online, searchable, and regularly updated:
https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/1274105538511429634?s=19
-
The Ayn Rand Institute received a PPP loan between $350k and $1 million.
https://twitter.com/PatFitzgerald23/status/1280217058677084160?s=19
-
The Ayn Rand Institute received a PPP loan between $350k and $1 million.
https://twitter.com/PatFitzgerald23/status/1280217058677084160?s=19
Symbolic of so many things.
-
Grover Norquist getting a PPP loan is a bit too on the nose. 2020 needs to go back to the drawing board for a more realistic storyline.
-
Robin Vos got between $150,000-&350,000.
He is a guy who built his career by railing against government benefits.
No surprise.
-
I was not saying "what about". jes said that the public has a right to know where their money was going, and I pointed out an example of where they don't.
So, people are corporations too?
-
So, people are corporations too?
The distinction was not made in the original argument.
-
Symbolic of so many things.
That is effing hilarious.
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/here-are-some-billionaires-who-got-ppp-loans-while-small-n1233041
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/06/sba-ppp-loans-data/
-
Pearl Jam, the Eagles and GnR among those that received PPP loans.
-
Pearl Jam, the Eagles and GnR among those that received PPP loans.
Really thought Eddie vedder was better than that. Rose it's expected.
-
Really thought Eddie vedder was better than that. Rose it's expected.
I suspect Eddie Vedder and Axl Rose don't personally handle the business affairs of their bands.
-
There is no shame taking the loan - that is their right and it's available to them to essentially helped keep people off unemployment.
That being said, I have found the Ayn Rand Foundation and Grover Norquist loans as the leaders out of the gate for to win the 'most inconsistent with the mission of the organization award'.
-
There is no shame taking the loan - that is their right and it's available to them to essentially helped keep people off unemployment.
+1, if their business was negatively impacted by the pandemic (touring musicians, fashion brands, etc) and PPP helped keep people on their payroll during the downturn then PPP is working as expected.
If the pandemic didn't injure their business at all, and actually bolstered it (pajama companies, videogame publishers, Lysol) and they took PPP as well to get free payroll for a few months? That sucks.
-
That being said, I have found the Ayn Rand Foundation and Grover Norquist loans as the leaders out of the gate for to win the 'most inconsistent with the mission of the organization award'.
Right.
From the Rand people in particular, it exposes them as frauds.
-
Right.
From the Rand people in particular, it exposes them as frauds.
They wrote a massive letter on their website explaining why they did it.
-
They wrote a massive letter on their website explaining why they did it.
People who know better shrugged.
-
People who know better shrugged.
<tip my cap to you>
-
They wrote a massive letter on their website explaining why they did it.
Oh and it's just as hilarious as you think it would be:
"The CARES Act has created a moral dilemma for those Americans who value freedom. The pandemic has cost them their jobs, their savings, their businesses. And they blame a significant part of this loss on the government."
and...
"At the Ayn Rand Institute, we are dedicated to philosophic principle. And because we are, we will take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice."
-
Oh and it's just as hilarious as you think it would be:
"The CARES Act has created a moral dilemma for those Americans who value freedom. The pandemic has cost them their jobs, their savings, their businesses. And they blame a significant part of this loss on the government."
and...
"At the Ayn Rand Institute, we are dedicated to philosophic principle. And because we are, we will take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice."
That's priceless.
-
Oh and it's just as hilarious as you think it would be:
"The CARES Act has created a moral dilemma for those Americans who value freedom. The pandemic has cost them their jobs, their savings, their businesses. And they blame a significant part of this loss on the government."
and...
"At the Ayn Rand Institute, we are dedicated to philosophic principle. And because we are, we will take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice."
No Koch brother bail out for the Rand Institute?
-
Oh and it's just as hilarious as you think it would be:
"The CARES Act has created a moral dilemma for those Americans who value freedom. The pandemic has cost them their jobs, their savings, their businesses. And they blame a significant part of this loss on the government."
and...
"At the Ayn Rand Institute, we are dedicated to philosophic principle. And because we are, we will take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice."
Glad you posted it. I didn't want to read through that drivel again
-
Oh and it's just as hilarious as you think it would be:
"The CARES Act has created a moral dilemma for those Americans who value freedom. The pandemic has cost them their jobs, their savings, their businesses. And they blame a significant part of this loss on the government."
and...
"At the Ayn Rand Institute, we are dedicated to philosophic principle. And because we are, we will take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice."
"Any government help to business is just as disastrous as government persecution.... only the way a government can be as of service is by keeping its hands off. Unless they are willing to give a below market rate loan. Then all is well."
- Ayn Rand
Oops... italics part was recently added by the Institute. ;D
-
Shame on you guys for mocking people who base their life's philosophy on poorly written fiction.
-
Catholic Church gets $1.4 billion in COVID-19 aid:
https://apnews.com/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6
-
Catholic Church gets $1.4 billion in COVID-19 aid:
https://apnews.com/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6
So they already don't pay taxes... but they're allowed to collect taxpayer dollars?
In any other year this would be an enormous scandal.
This year? Won't even register.
What a heist.
-
So they already don't pay taxes... but they're allowed to collect taxpayer dollars?
In any other year this would be an enormous scandal.
This year? Won't even register.
What a heist.
That isn't fair. There are many non-profits taking PPP loans. This is about keeping people employed in the US...
-
That isn't fair. There are many non-profits taking PPP loans. This is about keeping people employed in the US...
Non profits pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.
Churches do not.
-
Non profits pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.
Churches do not.
Churches, and their employees, are taxed like any other non-profit.
-
Churches, and their employees, are taxed like any other non-profit.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. They don't pay property taxes.
While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.
So, I guess I can back off a little because the PPP is meant to bail out the clergy, not the church.
-
And parachoial school teachers, lay people who work for the church, etc.
And other not for profits don't pay property tax as well.
-
And parachoial school teachers, lay people who work for the church, etc.
And other not for profits don't pay property tax as well.
So you agree that churches don't have to report their income, correct? So, no income tax report, and no property tax.
Just income tax for its employees.
-
o, I guess I can back off a little because the PPP is meant to bail out the clergy, not the church.
I think you're being a little unfair here.
Because of necessary stay-at-home orders, churches were forced to cancel in-person services and countless fundraising events for schools and programming. Given that the purpose of the PPP was to recompense entities that suffered economic losses because of such orders, I see no reason why they should have less of a right to these funds than the local dive bar or carpet installer.
If your argument is "they don't pay some taxes," then you're leaving plenty of corporations and individuals out as well.
-
I think you're being a little unfair here.
Because of necessary stay-at-home orders, churches were forced to cancel in-person services and countless fundraising events for schools and programming. Given that the purpose of the PPP was to recompense entities that suffered economic losses because of such orders, I see no reason why they should have less of a right to these funds than the local dive bar or carpet installer.
If your argument is "they don't pay some taxes," then you're leaving plenty of corporations and individuals out as well.
Yeah, that's why I said I'd back off on the PPP since it went to the clergy and not the church.
Literally, what you quoted. ;D
-
Catholic Church gets $1.4 billion in COVID-19 aid:
https://apnews.com/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6
Still paying lawyer fees?
-
Yeah, that's why I said I'd back off on the PPP since it went to the clergy and not the church.
Literally, what you quoted. ;D
What's the difference? The "church" is just a group of people, including clergy, not some separate, autonomous entity.
-
What's the difference? The "church" is just a group of people, including clergy, not some separate, autonomous entity.
Probably nothing. I just have a personal problem with religious organizations not paying taxes. I probably knee jerked a bit.
My tax dollars already subsidize churches enough... I'd rather the money went to small businesses rather than religious orgs. When you guys pointed out to me that the money goes into employee pockets and not the overreaching organization... I backed off. I was wrong. I hope I've cleared this up. :P
-
Probably nothing. I just have a personal problem with religious organizations not paying taxes. I probably knee jerked a bit.
My tax dollars already subsidize churches enough... I'd rather the money went to small businesses rather than religious orgs. When you guys pointed out to me that the money goes into employee pockets and not the overreaching organization... I backed off. I was wrong. I hope I've cleared this up. :P
Two rosaries and four 'Our Fathers' and all will be forgiven. ;)
-
trump attempting to line his pockets in new stimulus bill.
Ain’t gonna happen. Trump.
-
Texas man buys Lamborghini with COVID-19 relief money. Florida man did the same:
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1290865124178366465?s=19
-
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/09/900675086/a-national-lockdown-could-be-the-economys-best-hope-says-minneapolis-fed-preside
Minneapolis Fed Chief believes that a nationwide six week lockdown might be the best thing for the economy.
Should have done this June 15.
-
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/09/900675086/a-national-lockdown-could-be-the-economys-best-hope-says-minneapolis-fed-preside
Minneapolis Fed Chief believes that a nationwide six week lockdown might be the best thing for the economy.
Should have done this June 15.
Would have been cheaper to support, too.
-
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/09/900675086/a-national-lockdown-could-be-the-economys-best-hope-says-minneapolis-fed-preside
Minneapolis Fed Chief believes that a nationwide six week lockdown might be the best thing for the economy.
Should have done this June 15.
Should have done March 15. Complete incompetence at the top.
-
Should have done March 15. Complete incompetence at the top.
YUP
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/13/recession-is-over-rich-working-class-is-far-recovered/#click=https://t.co/csGZqYefLN
-
(To quote the late, great Richard Dawson) ... Survey says ...
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27693?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20200821&instance_id=21487&nl=dealbook®i_id=108420427&segment_id=36692&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa&utm_campaign=ntwh&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntwg13
Using a large-scale survey of U.S. consumers, we study how the large one-time transfers to individuals from the CARES Act affected their consumption, saving and labor-supply decisions.
Most respondents report that they primarily saved or paid down debts with their transfers, with only about 15 percent reporting that they mostly spent it.
When providing a detailed breakdown of how they used their checks, individuals report having spent or planning to spend only around 40 percent of the total transfer on average. This relatively low rate of spending out of a one-time transfer is higher for those facing liquidity constraints, who are out of the labor force, who live in larger households, who are less educated and those who received smaller amounts.
We find no meaningful effect on labor-supply decisions from these transfer payments, except for twenty percent of the unemployed who report that the stimulus payment made them search harder for a job.
My wife and I got $2,400. I used about half to start a college fund for my just-turned-1 grand-twins, and I used the rest to contribute to my Roth IRA, so I certainly fit the profile of "save, not spend."
Over and over again, not just for this pandemic period but throughout the last many decades, unemployment benefits have been the single best form of economic stimulus. People who lose their jobs face serious, immediate financial distress. They use any aid they receive to buy food, shelter, clothing, utilities, schooling, etc. They are the ones who put stimulus money right back into the economy. Even those who "misuse" such funds by buying relatively expensive things like updated smartphones (something that seems to outrage a segment of society who believe only rich folks are entitled to decent cellphones) are in fact putting money into the economy.
But sure, if our elected officials want to give me and my wife another $1,200 in the next stimulus package, we will find a very good use for it.
-
Richard Dawson was a skeeze.
-
Cat wuzant bad on Hogan's Heros and Family Feud, aina?
-
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-surged-14-in-2019-to-21-3-million-ceos-now-earn-320-times-as-much-as-a-typical-worker/
CEO pay vs median worker:
1965 21x
1978 31x
1989 61x
1995 118x
2019 320x
-
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-surged-14-in-2019-to-21-3-million-ceos-now-earn-320-times-as-much-as-a-typical-worker/
CEO pay vs median worker:
1965 21x
1978 31x
1989 61x
1995 118x
2019 320x
And we wonder why our society is acting this way.
-
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-surged-14-in-2019-to-21-3-million-ceos-now-earn-320-times-as-much-as-a-typical-worker/
CEO pay vs median worker:
1965 21x
1978 31x
1989 61x
1995 118x
2019 320x
This has ??? to do with Covid?
-
This has ??? to do with Covid?
It has to do with the hundreds of billions of dollars wealthy individuals and wealthy corporations have received during COVID-19 while many of their workers have received one $1200 check. This is the stimulus thread.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/24/powell-set-to-deliver-profoundly-consequential-speech-changing-how-the-fed-views-inflation.html
Hmm....
-
New Gallup poll:
Both Democrats and Republicans strongly support additional stimulus.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/318452/broad-bipartisan-support-additional-stimulus.aspx?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20200902&instance_id=21833&nl=dealbook®i_id=108420427&segment_id=37322&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
-
New Gallup poll:
Both Democrats and Republicans strongly support additional stimulus.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/318452/broad-bipartisan-support-additional-stimulus.aspx?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20200902&instance_id=21833&nl=dealbook®i_id=108420427&segment_id=37322&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
I don't like the idea of another direct stimulus check.
I love the idea of extending the additional $600 benefit through the end of the year. Even if it does "incentivize people not to work," it will help the people who need it most.
-
I don't like the idea of another direct stimulus check.
I love the idea of extending the additional $600 benefit through the end of the year. Even if it does "incentivize people not to work," it will help the people who need it most.
My argument for direct stimulus: Unemployment doesn't cover contractors, anyone that was running a small business, or anyone in the gig economy. Stimulus checks are not enough. There will be a lot of people going hungry soon.
The economy has gotten worse since March/April, not better.
-
My argument for direct stimulus: Unemployment doesn't cover contractors, anyone that was running a small business, or anyone in the gig economy. Stimulus checks are not enough. There will be a lot of people going hungry soon.
The economy has gotten worse since March/April, not better.
A lot of my umpire friends - who are basically contractors and/or 1-man corporations - did receive unemployment benefits earlier this year. Their claims were rejected by the state, but they got the $600/week from the Feds.
-
Yep all of the above in the above few posts, as well as benefit for other categories of people as well. Direct payments are an essentia priorityl, and, by all accounts are not a sticking point in current discussions. If anything it isn't enough especially when one considers the massive money given to wealthy corporate individuals and entities.
-
Nah.
Just give more of our money to the rich and large corporations.
Oh, and when the appropriate timelines are met, allow those corps to layoff hundreds/thousands.
-
Nah.
Just give more of our money to the rich and large corporations.
Oh, and when the appropriate timelines are met, allow those corps to layoff hundreds/thousands.
To be fair, I am not exactly sure what you expect these airlines to do. There just isn't enough demand for air travel, and there won't be IMO for the next nine to 12 months.
I have come full circle on this. A few months ago, I thought a payroll protection program was the best model. But I made the assumption that this was going to be a shorter event and that ramping things up would go more smoothly than it has.
Now I think giving employees more direct unemployment support is the better option. Yeah it initially overwhelmed the state unemployment offices but most states were able to handle this and distribute the money.
Oh and this payroll tax holiday that is being proposed with the assumption of an eventual forgiveness by Congress? Terrible idea.
-
To be fair, I am not exactly sure what you expect these airlines to do. There just isn't enough demand for air travel, and there won't be IMO for the next nine to 12 months.
I have come full circle on this. A few months ago, I thought a payroll protection program was the best model. But I made the assumption that this was going to be a shorter event and that ramping things up would go more smoothly than it has.
Now I think giving employees more direct unemployment support is the better option. Yeah it initially overwhelmed the state unemployment offices but most states were able to handle this and distribute the money.
Oh and this payroll tax holiday that is being proposed with the assumption of an eventual forgiveness by Congress? Terrible idea.
I'm not an expert on any of this stuff.
But it made sense to me to give the money to the individuals. If people kept their jobs, great. If they didn't, that sucks, but at least they'd have the money.
Now they have no job and no money.
I dunno.
The payroll tax holiday is one convenient step toward eventually gutting social security/medicare.
Trickle down economics does not work.
-
I'm not an expert on any of this stuff.
But it made sense to me to give the money to the individuals. If people kept their jobs, great. If they didn't, that sucks, but at least they'd have the money.
Now they have no job and no money.
I dunno.
The payroll tax holiday is one convenient step toward eventually gutting social security/medicare.
Trickle down economics does not work.
I don’t know how big of a lump sump you think would have been given to people. But if they didn’t fund airlines and others, they would have had no job for the last 3-6 months. It’s terrible that layoffs will still come in many sectors and, like Fluffy said, this has gone longer than anticipated, but pure finances say you’re better off keeping your job and your benefits than a handout.
My sister worked for a performing arts management company that didn’t get PPP funds cause it wouldn’t have mattered. There was literally zero money coming in at that time or into the future. But she was kept employed until June 1. So she still got the best of the unemployment benefits but unequivocally stated she’d rather have been employed longer for myriad reasons, beyond simple dollars deposited in her bank account.
Now I don’t believe the unemployment benefits and supplements should be stopped, but at the time, it’s always better to keep jobs intact and companies alive. $2500 a month from a paycheck with your insurance, benefits, 401K contribution, etc... is not like for like with a $2500 check from the government
-
I don’t know how big of a lump sump you think would have been given to people. But if they didn’t fund airlines and others, they would have had no job for the last 3-6 months. It’s terrible that layoffs will still come in many sectors and, like Fluffy said, this has gone longer than anticipated, but pure finances say you’re better off keeping your job and your benefits than a handout.
My sister worked for a performing arts management company that didn’t get PPP funds cause it wouldn’t have mattered. There was literally zero money coming in at that time or into the future. But she was kept employed until June 1. So she still got the best of the unemployment benefits but unequivocally stated she’d rather have been employed longer for myriad reasons, beyond simple dollars deposited in her bank account.
Now I don’t believe the unemployment benefits and supplements should be stopped, but at the time, it’s always better to keep jobs intact and companies alive. $2500 a month from a paycheck with your insurance, benefits, 401K contribution, etc... is not like for like with a $2500 check from the government
For me, the amount of money available should be heavily dependent upon whether or not covid significantly impatcted your business. Some companies have made a bunch of money, and some have been devastated. Saying corporations shouldn't get any help is very short sighted, but I see why people tend to rally around corporations as bad guys... more than a few of them are bad actors.
What should probably come out of all of this is some sort of UBI and universal health care. Stability in life is important.
-
I don't like the idea of another direct stimulus check.
I love the idea of extending the additional $600 benefit through the end of the year. Even if it does "incentivize people not to work," it will help the people who need it most.
We agree, Fluffy BM. The first stim check should have been delayed until now. I could see another one in 2021.
Agreed with the unemp benefit, although I think I'd lower it from $600 to $300-400 and stretch it 2x as long.
And change some rules, to wit:
Half our staff was put on 32 hours a week -- which gave them the $600 bonus. They were literally doubling their incomes, which was overkill.
Additionally .. anecdotally .. I was told of non-working folk, like college students, who applied for unemployment and were approved for a large abundance of beer money. -- Not to say that's not a nice thing to do, but the point was to help those who actually had lost income.
-
We agree, Fluffy BM. The first stim check should have been delayed until now. I could see another one in 2021.
Agreed with the unemp benefit, although I think I'd lower it from $600 to $300-400 and stretch it 2x as long.
And change some rules, to wit:
Half our staff was put on 32 hours a week -- which gave them the $600 bonus. They were literally doubling their incomes, which was overkill.
Additionally .. anecdotally .. I was told of non-working folk, like college students, who applied for unemployment and were approved for a large abundance of beer money. -- Not to say that's not a nice thing to do, but the point was to help those who actually had lost income.
Instead of a $300 or $400 or $600 unemployment bonus, wouldn't a percentage bonus of the income be better, but capped based on the original income?
-
We agree, Fluffy BM. The first stim check should have been delayed until now. I could see another one in 2021.
The first stimulus check should have been $6k, with enough food to last a month. Then everyone nationwide is required to stay home for that month.
The lack of national response is turning this from an economic blip on the radar like Europe, into a sustained national disaster.
-
Instead of a $300 or $400 or $600 unemployment bonus, wouldn't a percentage bonus of the income be better, but capped based on the original income?
Yes it would be better. But senators in the poorer states will not go for it.
-
The first stimulus check should have been $6k, with enough food to last a month. Then everyone nationwide is required to stay home for that month.
The lack of national response is turning this from an economic blip on the radar like Europe, into a sustained national disaster.
Yeah, well that's what happens when you have petulant children running a society of petulant children.
And I absolutely agree with you. Should have been a hard lock down for a month... But, I've only been saying that since late March.
-
There seems to be far too many people out of touch with a few things. Federal Minimum Wage hasn't changed in 12 years. When I think of stimulus this is the type kf thing thay comes to mind initially before anything and anyone else.
The Economy is not the stock market.
-
There seems to be far too many people out of touch with a few things. Federal Minimum Wage hasn't changed in 12 years. When I think of stimulus this is the type kf thing thay comes to mind initially before anything and anyone else.
The Economy is not the stock market.
Too many equate the economy with the stock market. They don’t understand the real economy until it collapses and the market goes with it. You’d think we’d have learned by now but alas
-
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/pentagon-used-most-of-its-pandemic-cash-on-jet-parts-report.html
From the taxpayers to defense contractors
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/judge-orders-trump-administration-reveal-ppp-loan-data-it-sought-n1246792
About time. The taxpayers paid for this. They deserve to know where the money went.