Hacker News Reader

Comment by revnode | Hacker News Reader

> Why should taxpayers have bailed out businesses that couldn’t keep employees on payroll though?

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.

View on HN

Taxpayers owe businesses nothing, if a business can’t survive 8 weeks without a taxpayer bailout then it’s a bad investment and at this scale it is a fundamental weakness of the entire economy that should be fixed not propped up with taxpayer money.

> 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.

No business can survive under those conditions and that is not a valid critique of their viability under a range of ordinary conditions.

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.

> Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution

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.

Actually there is promised compensation in hurricane emergencies in the form of SBA EIDL (economic injury disaster loans).

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.

In imminent domain if your property is taken you receive compensation, here many businesses closed and didn’t get PPP money, the government picked winners and losers.

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.

> 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.

I wouldn't expect there to be law given that the government as never responded to a pandemic in the way that it has now. Your argument that it is temporary may be persuasive, but I wonder if that disappears if the shutdown order is long enough that it results in the business failing.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com