There is no end in sight to either corona virus or the economic downturn, so it’s just throwing 8 weeks worth of taxpayer money into bad investments. What’s going to happen within 8 weeks to ensure these employees won’t just be let go again?
Because those same taxpayers voted in a government that prohibited many of those businesses from operating.
> There is no end in sight to either corona virus or the economic downturn, so it’s just throwing 8 weeks worth of taxpayer money into bad investments. What’s going to happen within 8 weeks to ensure these employees won’t just be let go again?
The purpose of the funds isn't to prevent future unemployment. It's to funnel funds to individuals who would otherwise be unemployed. The funds can only be used for payroll to be forgiven. So this is an unemployment payout by other means, in addition to the federal unemployment benefits that were expanded.
> The funds can only be used for payroll to be forgiven.
That an odd way to say up to 25% of the loan can be used for non-payroll expenses like business rent...why are businesses getting loans to pay rent if it’s about employees? Employees didn’t get money for rent.
If it was truly about “funneling funds to individuals” they could have just done that, not given it to businesses first with a 25% extra for non-payroll expenses.
Tax payer do own businesses due process under law and a respect for private property rights. In America, the government can’t seize a business without compensation. Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution and a violation of basic inalienable rights we as citizens each have.
As far as 25% being spend on other things. It’s kind of pointless to pay employees but not pay rent, get evicted, and have no place for them to go...kind of defeats the point. A restaurant kind of needs its physical location to operate and offer people jobs.
This isn’t about “funneling funds to individuals” that’s what unemployment insurance and stimulus checks were for. This was also about saving businesses so we don’t enter a depression.
False, government does this to businesses all the time and compensation isn’t due. Take hurricanes in Florida and mandatory shutdown/evacuation orders, there is no promised compensation.
Besides under imminent domain cases, I’d like to see some case law to support taxpayers bailing out businesses.
The existence of imminent domain proves my point, there are circumstances where tax payers owe An obligation to property owners and their actions are restricted by that obligation. Now we can argue about whether this specific act is a taking but I destroyed your blanket argument that tax payers don’t own business anything.
Own a business with a plot of land, tax payers want to expand a road and tear down your office and take the land? Can’t do it without paying.
Again feel free to cite any law supporting your argument: 1) the shutdown orders were a government taking of private property; And 2.) compensation for a temporary taking.
You missed the entire point of hurricanes, before any damage occurs governments order shutdowns and evacuations, there is no taking and there is no compensation for those shutdown and evacuation orders.
The time between evacuation order and landfall is at most four days. The economic damage from that phase is minor.
There are businesses in some parts of the US that are in their fourth month of being forcibly closed. The situation is not in any way, shape, or form comparable to a hurricane evacuation.
Your point of the hurricane is not persuasive, in that situation, the hurricane does the damage, the government order is ancillary. Here, the shut down order is more of a direct cause in the business harm.
Most states are re-opening, ill-advised or not, and businesses are being allowed to operate again.
It very much does. Amazing how much harder it's to stay in business when your revenue is 0.
Frame it in the alternative, why should businesses have their property seized by public health orders because the tax payers have decided that is the right social policy? Why should some individuals be deprived of liberty and property?
And no, government ordered shutdowns are not taking of private property, it’s done all the time for Natural disasters And taxpayers don’t bail out the businesses. Not to mention business don’t have “licenses” from the state, they may be incorporated and organized, but that wasn’t a requirement of the PPP loans, independent contractors were eligible and didn’t need a separate business entity to qualify for PPP.