Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Yes and how is this a question?   (usatoday.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Unemployment, Small business, small businesses, Unemployment benefits, stimulus package, Minimum wage, wage subsidies, forgivable loans  
•       •       •

7685 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 08 Apr 2020 at 9:14 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



14 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-04-08 9:15:25 PM  
Bootstraps
 
2020-04-08 9:15:36 PM  
Because 'Murica.
 
2020-04-08 9:19:09 PM  
Nah.  Just let Donnie give the money to whoever he wants to with no accountability.  What could possibly go worng?
 
2020-04-08 9:19:14 PM  
It was asked in the form of an Answer?
 
2020-04-08 9:20:47 PM  

Linkster: It was asked in the form of an Answer?


[Jeopardy_music.mp3]
 
2020-04-08 9:24:39 PM  
If you're going to subsidize furloughs, you'd better literally be holding a gun to the heads of businesses, and be willing to pull the trigger, because otherwise they're just going to pocket the money just like every other time business have gotten subsidies meant to help the people below a C-level suite.

So there is no chance of a miscommunication, I am talking about the American government unilaterally executing American citizens with no due process and no chance of parole or talking your way out of it.  Pocket the money instead of using it for workers' salaries, and die.

If we aren't up for that, then it's better off that the government hands the checks directly to the citizenry.  I still won't believe in the check until it's been cashed and cleared, but there's still a better chance of the populace actually getting the money that way, than there would be by putting it through the hands of business owners first.
 
2020-04-08 9:33:25 PM  
Because all that "small government" rhetoric has always been bullsh*t?
 
2020-04-08 9:39:48 PM  
Just expand the SBA loan program to include bridge loans with better terms and expand unemployment programs to include a long-term loan assistance program. These things are already in place - we should use them.

Due to the situation with outstanding US bonds, we have a massive serviceable debt - $23.2 trillion. Realistically, we're never going to pay it back down to 0; we're just going to keep paying it on a conveyor belt, progressively taking on more. Any money paid out to individuals or businesses is a loan whether they like it or not, and should be explicitly labeled as such. People and businesses should have to consciously pay it back.

Is it fair? No, it's unfair - as is the massive existing debt of $23.2 trillion, which we and our children for generations (assuming they remain citizens) are likely going to have to pay on. People should realize how unfair this is, and get motivated to do something about it. We're already going to have to pay it back anyway, through our taxes. Making it an explicit loan would just make it more clear to people that it's a loan and also shorten the timescale on the payback. But that way we'll avoid ending up with an even larger debt.

Nothing is free in life. The government doesn't just "give out money" - it has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is Future You and Your Future Children, who is paying Current You money, and then also paying interest on it.
 
2020-04-08 9:41:51 PM  
That kind of scheme is easier for countries with mandatory income tax systems, because all employees are obliged to report all employees' incomes in sufficient detail for the government to calculate how much income tax to withhold.  The "voluntary" income tax scheme in the US means the government doesn't know that in near-real time.

(It's not called voluntary because passing it is voluntary, but because individuals control how much of their paycheck is withheld, and the IRS has to persecute scofflaws after the fact.)
 
2020-04-09 1:22:06 AM  
Inflection?
 
2020-04-09 4:35:40 AM  

khatores: Nothing is free in life. The government doesn't just "give out money" - it has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is Future You and Your Future Children, who is paying Current You money, and then also paying interest on it.


Obviously, but it would be a lot easier to pay that money back if Republicans would quit cutting taxes while the economy's booming.
 
2020-04-09 12:14:54 PM  
That's socialism
socialism is evil
 
2020-04-09 5:08:04 PM  

Dork Gently: That kind of scheme is easier for countries with mandatory income tax systems, because all employees are obliged to report all employees' incomes in sufficient detail for the government to calculate how much income tax to withhold.  The "voluntary" income tax scheme in the US means the government doesn't know that in near-real time.

(It's not called voluntary because passing it is voluntary, but because individuals control how much of their paycheck is withheld, and the IRS has to persecute scofflaws after the fact.)


You are (mostly) wrong.

Under US Tax Code, employers are required by law to report to the IRS all wages paid to each of their employees.  This means the government DOES have a means of tracking how much was actually paid to workers. 

Even without the tax code, If the stimulus package had been drafted as a reimbursement policy, the government could have required businesses to submit their payroll information, then the government would send a check for a percentage of the reported amount.

But, nope ... congress would rather have all the businesses out there lay-off their entire workforce, and destroy the economic safety net for the working poor.
At this rate, I honestly expect the Minimum-wage act to be repealed, and a new class of slave labor created from the ashes of our economy.
 
2020-04-09 5:44:39 PM  

Loreweaver: Dork Gently: That kind of scheme is easier for countries with mandatory income tax systems, because all employees are obliged to report all employees' incomes in sufficient detail for the government to calculate how much income tax to withhold.  The "voluntary" income tax scheme in the US means the government doesn't know that in near-real time.

(It's not called voluntary because passing it is voluntary, but because individuals control how much of their paycheck is withheld, and the IRS has to persecute scofflaws after the fact.)

You are (mostly) wrong.

Under US Tax Code, employers are required by law to report to the IRS all wages paid to each of their employees.  This means the government DOES have a means of tracking how much was actually paid to workers.


Thus my "in near-real time" qualifier -- US employers have to report that information to the federal government quarterly or annually, depending on the situation.  In contrast, under the German (mandatory income tax) system, employers typically report employees' incomes each month.

Even without the tax code, If the stimulus package had been drafted as a reimbursement policy, the government could have required businesses to submit their payroll information, then the government would send a check for a percentage of the reported amount.

Yes, the government could have required that.  But the government does not currently have a system to automate that, and because of this pandemic, the government does not have enough staff on-site to verify or process so much paperwork manually.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.