Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Would they be returning the money if they hadn't been found out?

I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. Hence, me giving the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SJHovey]

Sorry but this is evil. Ruth Chris is not a small business needing of protection. Large hotel chains aren't small businesses. They were fine and dandy taking money though they don't need and did so while others that actually need it suffer waiting.

This is the crap Republicans always say Welfare Queens do...only this isn't a couple hundred bucks scamming...this is millions. And it wasn't a mistake and it wasn't an oversight they saw an opportunity and took it. Not some Rogue funky looking to get ahead...this was a concerted effort and the only reason they changed was they got caught and faced backlash.

I don't begrudge companies from making as much as they can but this crap is disgusting.

The law as drafted permitted companies with up to 500 employees to apply and further allowed commonly owned businesses like chain restaurants that are separate legal entities, but owned by one individual or a holding company to also be eligible. I think that was a bad decision by Congress but one discussed before passage. I don’t fault the businesses. They did nothing illegal. Blame Trump and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

The law as drafted permitted companies with up to 500 employees to apply and further allowed commonly owned businesses like chain restaurants that are separate legal entities, but owned by one individual or a holding company to also be eligible. I think that was a bad decision by Congress but one discussed before passage. I don’t fault the businesses. They did nothing illegal. Blame Trump and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

I would agree. Then, upon receiving the monies, the companies that really didn't need it, returned the monies. The motives? Undetermined. That will probably be all speculation and spin. (PS, also see: Harvard).
End result? Many "loans" were returned, and to me, that is what matters.

 

[aparch]

And I'm not saying there are no companies doing that. I'm saying to automatically assume the worst of all companies is wrong.

I get your point, I do. But the delivery of what you mean is not arriving as you think it is.

Here's the thing. There *are* companies that needed the loan, are going to use it as intended, and meet the guidelines as they loosely were formed and recently tightened down. We all agree that they needed the help, and for them this program is likely a Godsend. I forget which poster here is balls deep into this loan program himself because his small business genuinely needed it.

The problem is the large corporations, those with well in excess of the (first penciled in, later inked) 500 employee cap, who have enough capital to make it through this with nary a dent to the bottom line, standing with hat in hand purposely finding loopholes (or blatantly applying with no disregard) to take the money with no intent of it being seen by the employees that it was intended to.

YOU make it sound like we're making this out to be a Venn diagram where every successful applicant to the paycheck protection program and greedy *ssholes are perfectly overlapping circles.

Meanwhile, you mistakenly believe someone like yourself sitting at a desk filled out the applications out of the goodness of their heart to save their corporation.

Both are wrong.


There are lots of good small businesses who applied and were denied because some corporate CEOs felt that they needed to use separate tax ID's from their departments to maximize the amount they could, for lack of better wording, steal.

Take the L and stop. We're all saying the same thing, yet you continue to argue like this is a goddammed Frank Capra film. Newsflash: in 2020, Mr. Potter keeps the envelope of cash, George Bailey jumps from the bridge, and Clarence doesn't exist.

And I'm one of the ******** optimists around here.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

I get your point, I do. But the delivery of what you mean is not arriving as you think it is.

Here's the thing. There *are* companies that needed the loan, are going to use it as intended, and meet the guidelines as they loosely were formed and recently tightened down. We all agree that they needed the help, and for them this program is likely a Godsend. I forget which poster here is balls deep into this loan program himself because his small business genuinely needed it.

The problem is the large corporations, those with well in excess of the (first penciled in, later inked) 500 employee cap, who have enough capital to make it through this with nary a dent to the bottom line, standing with hat in hand purposely finding loopholes (or blatantly applying with no disregard) to take the money with no intent of it being seen by the employees that it was intended to.

YOU make it sound like we're making this out to be a Venn diagram where every successful applicant to the paycheck protection program and greedy *ssholes are perfectly overlapping circles.

Meanwhile, you mistakenly believe someone like yourself sitting at a desk filled out the applications out of the goodness of their heart to save their corporation.

Both are wrong.


There are lots of good small businesses who applied and were denied because some corporate CEOs felt that they needed to use separate tax ID's from their departments to maximize the amount they could, for lack of better wording, steal.

Take the L and stop. We're all saying the same thing, yet you continue to argue like this is a goddammed Frank Capra film. Newsflash: in 2020, Mr. Potter keeps the envelope of cash, George Bailey jumps from the bridge, and Clarence doesn't exist.

And I'm one of the ******** optimists around here.

That is all you really needed to say.

 

[rufus]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. Hence, me giving the benefit of the doubt.

So precious.

 

[aparch]

The law as drafted permitted companies with up to 500 employees to apply and further allowed commonly owned businesses like chain restaurants that are separate legal entities, but owned by one individual or a holding company to also be eligible. I think that was a bad decision by Congress but one discussed before passage. I don’t fault the businesses. They did nothing illegal. Blame Trump and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

This I agree with. The intent was there, but the guidance as written in the initially passed bill coupled with the lack of guidance that banks had at first allowed this free for all to happen. The revised guidance and narrowed the scope is what should have been formalized originally, but was left alone like they were unwritten rules of baseball.

 

[aparch]

That is all you really needed to say.

I too like to use an excess of words when simply hanging up and listening would do.

 

[Handyman]

And again, I really want to believe that this is someone trying to impress their bosses. The fact that the companies are returning the money...

Yes, it may be simply because of PR. I have an issue of automatically assuming that. That's it. I hope, really hope, that it's because they are doing the right thing. I could be wrong. And we'll never truly know.

Stop it. You are an adult. Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

Read what aparch said the CEOs aren't even hiding what they did.

 

[Handyman]

And I'm not saying there are no companies doing that. I'm saying to automatically assume the worst of all companies is wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a thing, right?

No. As we tell you every time you trot out that line unless we are on a jury we can decide on our own using whatever level of proof we feel is enough. That phrase is not relevant outside of a court of law.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Stop it. You are an adult. Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

Read what aparch said the CEOs aren't even hiding what they did.

And some automatically assume guilt, where I assume innocence, unless guilt is proven. You know, like the law dictates (although like MNS said, not the public opinion).

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

No. As we tell you every time you trot out that line unless we are on a jury we can decide on our own using whatever level of proof we feel is enough. That phrase is not relevant outside of a court of law.

And that is part of the bigger problem in this world. We always assume the worst. It sucks.

 

[Handyman]

The law as drafted permitted companies with up to 500 employees to apply and further allowed commonly owned businesses like chain restaurants that are separate legal entities, but owned by one individual or a holding company to also be eligible. I think that was a bad decision by Congress but one discussed before passage. I don’t fault the businesses. They did nothing illegal. Blame Trump and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Where did I say it was illegal? I said it was disgusting. Or am I "moving the goalposts" again

I even said they found a loophole in a previous post. What they did followed the law it just is greedy and wrong.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Where did I say it was illegal? I said it was disgusting. Or am I "moving the goalposts" again

You are correct, it's not illegal. And yes, those who take advantage of it when not needed are disgusting. Just don't automatically assume their motive as a whole.

 

[SJHovey]

Where did I say it was illegal? I said it was disgusting. Or am I "moving the goalposts" again

I even said they found a loophole in a previous post. What they did followed the law it just is greedy and wrong.

I don’t think you did say it was illegal.

 

[Handyman]

And some automatically assume guilt, where I assume innocence, unless guilt is proven. You know, like the law dictates (although like MNS said, not the public opinion).

What innocence? What are you even talking about? They did it and admitted it. Even the ones that returned it admitted it. They aren't even claming others did only you and Kepler are. They saw the loophole and went after it cause they could and they had zero to lose. They did it out in the open for everyone to see. They still don't think they did anything wrong. (ethically not legally). They would do it again tomorrow.

You have a point in a hypothetical but in this case you are defending the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I don't need a trial to know my girlfriend ate my piece of pizza when she spilled sauce on her shirt.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

What innocence? What are you even talking about? They did it and admitted it. Even the ones that returned it admitted it. They aren't even claming others did only you and Kepler are. They saw the loophole and went after it cause they could and they had zero to lose. They did it out in the open for everyone to see. They still don't think they did anything wrong. (ethically not legally). They would do it again tomorrow.

You have a point in a hypothetical but in this case you are defending the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I don't need a trial to know my girlfriend ate my piece of pizza when she spilled sauce on her shirt.

And where did the CEO or shareholders say they were behind it? It's whoever in charge of the finance. The big bosses may or may not have had a clue that the finance dept applied for it. Depends on the managing. If the big boys say "Hey, we effed up," then fine, bring the thunder.

 

[Handyman]

I don’t think you did say it was illegal.

Yet you quoted my post to go off of?

The sad thing is if this program would have been funded right they never get found. Of course if it had been set up right the loophole doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

And where did the CEO or shareholders say they were behind it? It's whoever in charge of the finance. The big bosses may or may not have had a clue that the finance dept applied for it. Depends on the managing. If the big boys say "Hey, we effed up," then fine, bring the thunder.

I don’t think you know how large businesses work

 

[Handyman]

And where did the CEO or shareholders say they were behind it? It's whoever in charge of the finance. The big bosses may or may not have had a clue that the finance dept applied for it. Depends on the managing. If the big boys say "Hey, we effed up," then fine, bring the thunder.

It's the God honest truth. I've read articles that said large banks worked with these large cores because the lending banks get a cut as a courtesy for running this program.

I've listened to business owners talk on live radio about how they have no plan on paying back the loan because they got a loan at rates they couldn't have gotten without the pandemic.

I heard of a corporate CEO flat own admit to CNBC analysts that he can't wait to weed through his layoffs and hire back less employees at lower pay rates because "wages were inflated."


I believe there *is* good in this world, and that there *are* business owners who genuinely needed the loans and got them. I'll even believe that maybe a couple businesses took the loan when they weren't sure about the details.

But, this is coordinated theft by the banks and the large corporations who actively participated.

Google it not one of them blame "finance guys" or anyone else.

And also...large corporations don't work the way you are suggesting.