Collectors Universe (read PSA)

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

It's not shameful for a company to take the money that they rightfully qualify for, it was shameful the most expensive bill in the history of the country was passed without a recorded vote.

The funds do not even appear to be being used for PPP purposes. Their NJ site is closed and should either be open or their employees should be getting paid to stay at home without filing for unemployment. And just because they "rightfully qualify" for it does not mean it's not shameful for them to "take" funds that are not needed. No way that company, with their stock numbers and a NJ office closed needs 4.4 million dollars, most of that a free grant.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

The funds do not even appear to be being used for PPP purposes. Their NJ site is closed and should either be open or their employees should be getting paid to stay at home without filing for unemployment. And just because they "rightfully qualify" for it does not mean it's not shameful for them to "take" funds that are not needed. No way that company, with their stock numbers and a NJ office closed needs 4.4 million dollars, most of that a free grant.

The loans can be used for interest, rents, and utilities as well as payroll. Some of the money would not be forgiven based on the percentage of people laid off compared to the payroll as a whole.

"Need" is a relative term. If a company is eligible to take the money, either as a loan or a forgivable grant, they should do it. They didn't write the law, the politicians did. The same is true for the $1,200 amounts given to individuals. A lot of them have not lost their jobs so it's not logical for them to receive grants. However, they would be fools to not accept it.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

The same is true for the $1,200 amounts given to individuals. A lot of them have not lost their jobs so it's not logical for them to receive grants. However, they would be fools to not accept it.

Not really; the economic stimulus payments are completely separate from the unemployment benefit expansion. The goal of the $1200 is to mail it to people with the hope they spend it. Has nothing to do with being a replacement for lost income.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Not really; the economic stimulus payments are completely separate from the unemployment benefit expansion. The goal of the $1200 is to mail it to people with the hope they spend it. Has nothing to do with being a replacement for lost income.

I agree but the point is that not accepting it because someone else might “need” it more doesn’t make a lot of sense and that’s why I doubt many people will reject receipt.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Not really; the economic stimulus payments are completely separate from the unemployment benefit expansion. The goal of the $1200 is to mail it to people with the hope they spend it. Has nothing to do with being a replacement for lost income.

Here is an article on the unemployment boost:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/polit...mic/index.html

[mantlefan]

NPR on the Small Business Loan Program:

The Lakers basketball team received a $4.6 million loan but decided to give it back, according to a statement from the team.

"Once we found out the funds from the program had been depleted, we repaid the loan so that financial support would be directed to those most in need. The Lakers remain completely committed to supporting both our employees and our community," a statement said.

The Lakers are the eighth most valuable sports team in the world, worth an estimated $3.7 billion, according to Forbes.


SMH. 4.6 mill is pocket change for these guys.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

This is why the comparisons between loans and $1200 stimulus don't hold up. Me taking the $1200 doesn't affect someone else's ability to collect their $1200.

[MooseDog]

Hmm...I just took a very quick look at the CU financials and they reported in Feb to have about $24M in cash and receivables on the books. Clearly they didn't NEED the $4M but what the heck, if the government's giving it away we'll take it, eh?

I hope at least the money goes to putting all the graders and staff back to work as it is supposed to, but I kind of think that $4M is more than needed to keep those folks in magnifiers. Expect the execs will all be made whole with plenty left over.

MEANWHILE, I have a very small one-person company. When the bill was first announced it sounded like exactly what was needed, money for small business owners to either keep paying employees even if they don't actually open, and help with rent.

I did everything "right" and got in fast. My loan amount was for less than 10K. Was left hanging by my bank (Chase) from the first round, then actually turned down by two lenders (this is a guaranteed loan, remember, no risk to the bank) for round 2. One said I hadn't been in business long enough (not true, 3.5 years is longer than required) and the other gave no reason.

Then the sh*t hits the fan about Chase and the other big banks prioritizing their existing customers and letting them get to the front of the line. I see a couple of the public companies that Chase funded got the money before Chase even started taking apps from people like me...Hmm. That certainly explains why Chase wasn't taking apps until like 2-3 days after they were allowed.

There are about 9 self-employed folks in my circle. Men, women, minorities, non-minorities, a very diverse group. All applied, only 1 got funded (just happened to be the one Caucasian in the group BTW ) This seems to mirror the demand nationwide but all of the requests from my circle were for $25K or less. So far in round 2 no one else has gotten funded.

I'm going take a huge hit as I won't have any income for at least two months, possibly up to six, and it's entirely possible I won't have any clients to go back to. I think I'll be OK, I'm pretty resourceful but it's like starting over again at the age of 60 and getting hired at a decent job is probably not going to happen in this environment. I think three of those in my circle will manage OK but I suspect up to 5 of them are going to have to close their businesses and basically lose everything they've built.

This was supposed to be a lifeline for "small", really small businesses but it didn't work out that way and they didn't fix it for round 2. If you play by the rules this is free money thanks to the government, and while the very small number of truly small businesses did get the lifeline, over half the money went to big companies and is STILL going to them.

Most self-employed folks are not eligible for unemployment. Some states like California are now allowing SE and gig workers to apply, which I have done, but the state departments handling claims are just getting hammered.

This is not a dem vs repub thing. EVERYONE involved at the government level screwed this up.

But has become very clear that some pigs are more equal than others.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

The loans can be used for interest, rents, and utilities as well as payroll. Some of the money would not be forgiven based on the percentage of people laid off compared to the payroll as a whole.

"Need" is a relative term. If a company is eligible to take the money, either as a loan or a forgivable grant, they should do it. They didn't write the law, the politicians did. The same is true for the $1,200 amounts given to individuals. A lot of them have not lost their jobs so it's not logical for them to receive grants. However, they would be fools to not accept it.

About 3.5 of 4.4 million is a grant, not a loan. So don't you dare spin it as "some" of the money. The calculations for PPP by CU likely include employee wages and rent from NJ which CU is required to use those funds to reopen business but have remained closed for COVID concerns (which is fine just leave it out of the application). I swear, no moral compass with you. I guess only if it's illegal it's off limits. Wonder how your sick mind thinks - we just got a glimpse.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

The loans can be used for interest, rents, and utilities as well as payroll. Some of the money would not be forgiven based on the percentage of people laid off compared to the payroll as a whole.

"Need" is a relative term. If a company is eligible to take the money, either as a loan or a forgivable grant, they should do it. They didn't write the law, the politicians did. The same is true for the $1,200 amounts given to individuals. A lot of them have not lost their jobs so it's not logical for them to receive grants. However, they would be fools to not accept it.

About 3.5 of 4.4 million is a grant, not a loan. So don't you dare spin it as "some" of the money. The calculations for PPP by CU likely include employee wages and rent from NJ which CU is required to use those funds to reopen business but have remained closed for COVID concerns (which is fine just leave it out of the application). I swear, no moral compass with you. I guess only if it's illegal it's off limits. Wonder how your sick mind thinks - we just got a glimpse.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

About 3.5 of 4.4 million is a grant, not a loan. So don't you dare spin it as "some" of the money. The calculations for PPP by CU likely include employee wages and rent from NJ which CU is required to use those funds to reopen business but have remained closed for COVID concerns (which is fine just leave it out of the application). I swear, no moral compass with you. I guess only if it's illegal it's off limits. Wonder how your sick mind thinks - we just got a glimpse.

Once again, the biggest immorality of it is the Congress not doing a proper vote on the biggest spending bill in history. I oppose printing money to pay current bills which the government has been doing for decades. As for who the bill was intended to help, it was broadly defined as under 500 employees with relaxed rules for certain restaurants and other franchises which normally would not qualify for an SBA loan with the understanding they were hurt very badly by forced government shutdowns. So clearly PSA was intended to be helped by the bill. As for the morality of accepting government grants and loans, it is only moral to accept it if you oppose it and consider it restitution since other people (in this case, future generations) are being forced to pay for it.