IF THE NEXT STIMULUS/VIRUS BILL ......

El Paso Eagle · May 6, 2020

OK, for this conversation I am assuming there will be another very large bill

.... is full of Riders loaded with special project (from either party) should President Trump veto it?

El Paso Eagle · May 6, 2020

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-pushes-forward-with-massive-coronavirus-relief-bill

Are all areas open to relief? It will be interesting to see what gets passed

Pelosi talking guaranteed minimum income. Ocasio-Cortez has called $2,000 in monthly reoccurring payments to all families, regardless of immigration status, and $1,000 per child, and also wants rent canceled during the time.

Look this is a unrepresented event in our lifetimes, but you have to admit the Dems are looking at ways to get their socialist agenda implemented under the umbrella of virus relief.

Edited May 6, 2020 by El Paso Eagle

THOR · May 6, 2020

yes...big corporations don't need the cash...the typical american family is who needs it. they can't work, they can't provide. any stimulus bill should NEVER include business (even small businesses) or government entities.

El Paso Eagle · May 6, 2020

10 minutes ago, THOR said:

yes...big corporations don't need the cash...the typical american family is who needs it. they can't work, they can't provide. any stimulus bill should NEVER include business (even small businesses) or government entities.

Question, if you provide no support to business and they fail, there will be fewer jobs for people to return to. So many of those people will need to continue to receive support. Is that a good thing? If business were not receiving support now the unemployment rate might be well in excess of 50% and our economy would collapse.

THOR · May 6, 2020

58 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Question, if you provide no support to business and they fail, there will be fewer jobs for people to return to. So many of those people will need to continue to receive support. Is that a good thing? If business were not receiving support now the unemployment rate might be well in excess of 50% and our economy would collapse.

no idea...it's a rock and a hard spot, but i just believe the individuals need the help, not the businesses. the businesses are much more profitable and should have cash if needed. most people have to live paycheck to paycheck and they need the money, not a business.

i do believe that when one business fails, another one shows up. if the business is needed in the community, someone will take advantage of that and start another one. out on 380, it's funny how businesses close up, then quickly are replaced by the same type of business.

keith · May 12, 2020

On 5/6/2020 at 6:43 PM, THOR said:

no idea...it's a rock and a hard spot, but i just believe the individuals need the help, not the businesses. the businesses are much more profitable and should have cash if needed. most people have to live paycheck to paycheck and they need the money, not a business.

i do believe that when one business fails, another one shows up. if the business is needed in the community, someone will take advantage of that and start another one. out on 380, it's funny how businesses close up, then quickly are replaced by the same type of business.

This is an interesting topic.

Many businesses are sole proprietorships that either employ family (or extended family) or only a handful of employees. I suspect if people live paycheck to paycheck you can expect a lot of these small businesses to do the same. In fact, they may not be profitable at all. They may just be providing income.

Philosophically, I think you and I probably hold similar opinions, that if/when a business fails that is part of the "natural" process. Recessions are part of the normal economic cycle and serve to "clean out" inefficient business that probably were not viable entities in the first place and when governments intercede to prevent the cleansing process, it just sets up a more painful scenario in the future.

However, the current situation is not part of the normal economic/business cycle. Because of COVID-19, the government took direct and specific action that disrupted these businesses from operating. I think the idea behind the PPP was pretty good. Don't fire/layoff your employees and put them into the unemployment process. The government will provide funding (that you don't have to pay back if you keep paying your employees) for you to make payroll, etc. and when this thing is over, you can pick up where you left off.

That was the theory, but other things came into play. Like water finds its own level, people will do what makes the most economic sense to them. In some cases there was an economic incentive to push people into unemployment rather than take advantage of the PPP. Connecticut, for example, is throwing its own "state" stimulus on top of unemployment benefits so at certain income levels you are better off financially to be unemployed. You make more with your unemployment benefits + the state stimulus than you were from your paycheck. When faced with this choice, what do you think people will do?

El Paso Eagle · May 12, 2020

25 minutes ago, keith said:

This is an interesting topic.

Many businesses are sole proprietorships that either employ family (or extended family) or only a handful of employees. I suspect if people live paycheck to paycheck you can expect a lot of these small businesses to do the same. In fact, they may not be profitable at all. They may just be providing income.

Philosophically, I think you and I probably hold similar opinions, that if/when a business fails that is part of the "natural" process. Recessions are part of the normal economic cycle and serve to "clean out" inefficient business that probably were not viable entities in the first place and when governments intercede to prevent the cleansing process, it just sets up a more painful scenario in the future.

However, the current situation is not part of the normal economic/business cycle. Because of COVID-19, the government took direct and specific action that disrupted these businesses from operating. I think the idea behind the PPP was pretty good. Don't fire/layoff your employees and put them into the unemployment process. The government will provide funding (that you don't have to pay back if you keep paying your employees) for you to make payroll, etc. and when this thing is over, you can pick up where you left off.

That was the theory, but other things came into play. Like water finds its own level, people will do what makes the most economic sense to them. In some cases there was an economic incentive to push people into unemployment rather than take advantage of the PPP. Connecticut, for example, is throwing its own "state" stimulus on top of unemployment benefits so at certain income levels you are better off financially to be unemployed. You make more with your unemployment benefits + the state stimulus than you were from your paycheck. When faced with this choice, what do you think people will do?

This is something that stands to cause a lot of problems when business start to reopen. If a business furloughs an employee or reduces their hours they are eligible for benefits. If an employee is asked to return to work and refuses will they be disqualified from benefits? Should the programs in place encourage people not to work?

THOR · May 12, 2020

5 hours ago, keith said:

This is an interesting topic.

Many businesses are sole proprietorships that either employ family (or extended family) or only a handful of employees. I suspect if people live paycheck to paycheck you can expect a lot of these small businesses to do the same. In fact, they may not be profitable at all. They may just be providing income.

Philosophically, I think you and I probably hold similar opinions, that if/when a business fails that is part of the "natural" process. Recessions are part of the normal economic cycle and serve to "clean out" inefficient business that probably were not viable entities in the first place and when governments intercede to prevent the cleansing process, it just sets up a more painful scenario in the future.

However, the current situation is not part of the normal economic/business cycle. Because of COVID-19, the government took direct and specific action that disrupted these businesses from operating. I think the idea behind the PPP was pretty good. Don't fire/layoff your employees and put them into the unemployment process. The government will provide funding (that you don't have to pay back if you keep paying your employees) for you to make payroll, etc. and when this thing is over, you can pick up where you left off.

That was the theory, but other things came into play. Like water finds its own level, people will do what makes the most economic sense to them. In some cases there was an economic incentive to push people into unemployment rather than take advantage of the PPP. Connecticut, for example, is throwing its own "state" stimulus on top of unemployment benefits so at certain income levels you are better off financially to be unemployed. You make more with your unemployment benefits + the state stimulus than you were from your paycheck. When faced with this choice, what do you think people will do?

i have a friend that has a booth in a salon. she is getting 600/week from relief + unemployment....she is making more now compared to when she was working. she has zero desire to go back to work. that is a problem.

edit: i think my friend sucks for this mindset, i get it, but she sucks and just wants free money

Edited May 12, 2020 by THOR

keith · May 12, 2020

39 minutes ago, THOR said:

i have a friend that has a booth in a salon. she is getting 600/week from relief + unemployment....she is making more now compared to when she was working. she has zero desire to go back to work. that is a problem

Yep. To qualify for the $600/wk you have to file for unemployment. I know multiple individuals in this exact situation. So the conversation goes something like this. "Even though I can't have you come in to work, I can keep paying you your $500/wk wage while we get through this situation or I can lay you off and let you file unemployment. You'll get $600 a week + x% of your $500/wk as your unemployment benefit. What do you want me to do?"

BTW, I'm not sure how the $600 is treated for taxes. So far what I've seen is people are receiving the full $600/wk, while the $500/wk wages are taxable.

Edited May 12, 2020 by keith

Quoner · May 12, 2020

3 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

This is something that stands to cause a lot of problems when business start to reopen. If a business furloughs an employee or reduces their hours they are eligible for benefits. If an employee is asked to return to work and refuses will they be disqualified from benefits? Should the programs in place encourage people not to work?

2 hours ago, THOR said:

i have a friend that has a booth in a salon. she is getting 600/week from relief + unemployment....she is making more now compared to when she was working. she has zero desire to go back to work. that is a problem

"The economy is fundamentally broken for most people but also insanely good as is" is a powerful mission statement.

Got5onIt · May 13, 2020

Reopen the economy in stages and give families the stimulus money to spend, thus putting it back into the economy. Yes, some small businesses will fail but in this climate only the strong ones will survive and new small business will open up in needed segments. Much needed trimming of fat...

El Paso Eagle · May 13, 2020

1 hour ago, Got5onIt said:

Reopen the economy in stages and give families the stimulus money to spend, thus putting it back into the economy. Yes, some small businesses will fail but in this climate only the strong ones will survive and new small business will open up in needed segments. Much needed trimming of fat...

or, larger businesses will take over that share of the market.

Have no problem is small business do not make it during "normal" times due to how they are ran, but a lot of people who have worked very hard will be forced out over something they had no control over.