- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Payroll Protection Plan shows the ineptness of Govt. and the fleecing of taxpayers
Posted on 4/23/20 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 4:55 pm
This plan was designed and pitched to the American people as protecting the payroll of employees that would’ve normally not kept their jobs. But profitable, still operating companies, with no layoffs, basically get their payroll paid for free for eight weeks courtesy of the taxpayer.
I know many small businesses even some who have had a reduction in revenue and have furloughed people will take this money and divert the payroll money from their current employees and do capital expenditures to better their business, for free with my tax dollars.
Not with this program was designed or pitch to us as.
And we want this government to run our healthcare system and handle this virus the right way?
For clarity I have injected this thought into other threats pertaining to the PPP but perhaps it needs a thread of its own.
I know many small businesses even some who have had a reduction in revenue and have furloughed people will take this money and divert the payroll money from their current employees and do capital expenditures to better their business, for free with my tax dollars.
Not with this program was designed or pitch to us as.
And we want this government to run our healthcare system and handle this virus the right way?
For clarity I have injected this thought into other threats pertaining to the PPP but perhaps it needs a thread of its own.
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 4:57 pm to cuyahoga tiger
quote:
I know many small businesses even some who have had a reduction in revenue and have furloughed people will take this money and divert the payroll money from their current employees and do capital expenditures to better their business, for free with my tax dollars.
That’s called fraud.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 5:00 pm to cuyahoga tiger
quote:
will take this money and divert the payroll money from their current employees and do capital expenditures to better their business, for free with my tax dollars.
Then they have to pay it back with interest.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:21 pm to cuyahoga tiger
Part of the application asks whether the current situation has hurt your ability to do business. If you check yes but are truly still operating like normal then that would be fraud.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 7:49 am to cuyahoga tiger
The biggest screw up as I see it is there wasn't a strict oversight apparatus included in the program. Of course companies are going to exploit a program with little oversight. It's a hallmark of capitalism.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 9:15 am to cuyahoga tiger
I understand the desire to incorporate some sort of "need" into the application.
By doing that, we would have to accept two things:
1) It would slow down the process, create more work for companies and banks, which would mean the flow of funds would dramatically slow down.
2) Like the bailouts we saw in 08/09, it creates moral hazard. The government comes in and helps those who didn't save for a rainy day, while those who did what they were supposed to do don't get any help. It sends the message that you shouldn't do the right thing. It's the "privatize gains, socialize losses" thing.
If I was grand emperor, I would have made the interest rate 10 percent, not 1 percent, started repayment 3 months after funding, not 6 months, and accrued interest from day 1.
If you meet the payroll spending rules, you would not be impacted in the least by that change. But if you are using this program simply as a ways to build future capital, then you would be penalized for that, at a level that would probably cause people to not do it.
By doing that, we would have to accept two things:
1) It would slow down the process, create more work for companies and banks, which would mean the flow of funds would dramatically slow down.
2) Like the bailouts we saw in 08/09, it creates moral hazard. The government comes in and helps those who didn't save for a rainy day, while those who did what they were supposed to do don't get any help. It sends the message that you shouldn't do the right thing. It's the "privatize gains, socialize losses" thing.
If I was grand emperor, I would have made the interest rate 10 percent, not 1 percent, started repayment 3 months after funding, not 6 months, and accrued interest from day 1.
If you meet the payroll spending rules, you would not be impacted in the least by that change. But if you are using this program simply as a ways to build future capital, then you would be penalized for that, at a level that would probably cause people to not do it.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 9:55 am to cuyahoga tiger
It seems as though something more similar to Canada's 75% wage subsidy (for companies with 30% revenue reduction) would have been better in the US, although not sure if that would have been much more expensive for the government.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News