Sabertooth
Footballguy
How would I know? I didn’t get a nickel. Ask one of the rich guys on the board how they jobbed the system.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Joe Manchin (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The General
- Start date
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I thought you’d know because the premise of your initial post was a statement of fact about shareholders making out with PPP funds. I asked given the program’s parameters how that could be true. It seems odd to be that upset about shareholders gaining something from that program if you genuinely have no idea as you just said what occurred.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
If I'm reading @Sabertooth post correctly, his Google search provided an answer to his question. He posted it. He didn't personally make a statement of fact regarding shareholders getting PPP funds, the NBER analysis did. Not fully understanding how a fact could be does not preclude one from being upset about said fact.
My impression from that "Key Takeaways" paragraph that he posted is that businesses who received PPP funds turned around and distributed those funds at their own discretion. Thus shareholders getting a piece of the pie.
I can understand creditors and suppliers getting a piece of the PPP pie because a business doesn't remain open if they can't pay their bills and workers have nothing to do if there are no supplies. The problem I have is owners and shareholders getting funds that were meant for workers. Seems reasonable to me to be upset by this. If this program worked as intended the breakdown of fund distribution would have been more in the neighborhood of 40% to creditors/suppliers to keep businesses open, 60% to workers to keep them employed.
Seems to me that businesses distributing funds to owners/shareholders instead of workers likely contributed to workers becoming unemployed as less money was available for them. Couple that with the additional funds the federal government shoveled to States unemployment coffers which raised monthly benefits also contributed to the reasons why many workers weren't in a hurry to go back to work. They got crapped on, again, by their employers who instead chose to enrich themselves instead of taking care of their workers and, the additional unemployment benefits made the decision rather easy to not return to employment situations where the likelihood of getting crapped on again still remained.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Desert_Power
Footballguy
I guess nobody cares about Manchin's corruption that I bumped this thread for.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Caveman33
Footballguy
I worked for a small landscaping company when covid started. When PPP was introduced, the owner suddenly pressured the other landscapers to produce a SSN and be put on the books. Covid never slowed down his business. Sales were booming on the nursery side. His landscaping service was only limited by his $16/hr starting wage while charging customers close to $50/hr. All the Covid money he received was pure profit.
The stimulus could have been given directly to essential workers during covid. It would have cost less, with less fraud, etc.
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/
Everyone should look up their town or businesses they know and see how much PPP money they received. My local church got over 350K. A friend's law firm took 1.5 million. I even saw multiple individuals using the same address in my town's ghetto with forgiven claims for 10-20K each.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
I do. I read a similar article, raising all of the same issues with Manchins corruption tendencies, a month or so prior. It's why I read through your entire link, to see if anything additional was provided. This guy can claim he hasn't broken any laws which is likely true but, he can't claim that his actions and votes have consistently been a positive for his constituency when in fact they largely haven't. They've consistently been a positive for Joe Manchin, his family and his businesses. Period.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Yeah. Just seems particularly galling how much power he has over something he profits from/makes future generations worse off.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
No. I expect elected representatives to be held to high standards. I expect a very bright light shined on anyone who is corrupt. Otherwise the folks who need to be the face of change, the voting public, aren't going to become that voice. Each and every corrupt politician needs to be held accountable and the only way to do that is to expose that corruption. While you may hate to be jaded your post reflects an attitude of defeatism.
FairWarning
Footballguy
I expect higher standards also. It’s also becoming more and more that corporations and big donors have too big a say. How many of these people are ever really accountable for their actions? Few.
Last edited by a moderator:
FairWarning
Footballguy
Term limits, the inability to trade stock while in office, and show tax filings (since WE re paying them) would go a long way. Now I know none of this will happen.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Eventually the pitchforks will come out anc one of these guys is going to get assaulted or worse. You can only #### 90% of the country so long and eventually they will literally fight back. I have no problem with politicians being harassed. It’s a class war, why do the poor need to be polite? The rich sure aren’t polite as they line their pockets with constituents’ blood.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
None. Elizabeth Holmes will get 2 years in country club and then walk out with hundreds of millions still sitting in Switzerland.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
To boil it down you are referring to fraud then. Nothing about the plan allowed for transfers of funds down the line to shareholders. To be clear, PPP had specific guidelines for how to use the funds in order for it to be reimbursed.
I’ll said it earlier and I’ll say again, there’s plenty of room to complain about the program. But you need to understand what it did and what truly occurred. It was one of the few times I think the bipartisan intent of the program was good, even though IMO it should have been geared to businesses truly impacted by the pandemic.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I’m 100% with you on this. There’s no doubt small businesses who didn’t hit a bump in the road used it for their payrolls as well.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Listened this morning. Interesting stuff.Desert_Power said:
HellToupee
Footballguy
I really can’t see how anyone middle class and up would be for this
Joe Manchin on Biden's Wealth Tax: 'You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned.'
Joe Manchin keeps saying out loud the part that Joe Biden would rather keep quiet.
PETER SUDERMAN | 3.30.2022 9:58 AM
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
(Bonnie Cash / CNP / SplashNews/Newscom)
Ever since Joe Biden entered the White House, he's had a Joe Manchin problem. Most accounts of Biden's presidency cast this as a problem with Manchin's unwillingness to go along with Biden's agenda. Democrats hold exactly 50 seats in the Senate, and thus need every Democratic senator to pass a party-line vote; Manchin, the Senate's most centrist Democrat, has consistently resisted.
But the problem is not only that Manchin is withholding his vote. It's that Manchin keeps bluntly and accurately describing the problems with Biden's policy proposals. To twist the Twitter-cliche, Joe Manchin keeps saying out loud the part that Joe Biden would rather keep quiet.
Joe Manchin on Biden's Wealth Tax: 'You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned.'
Joe Manchin keeps saying out loud the part that Joe Biden would rather keep quiet.
PETER SUDERMAN | 3.30.2022 9:58 AM
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
(Bonnie Cash / CNP / SplashNews/Newscom)
Ever since Joe Biden entered the White House, he's had a Joe Manchin problem. Most accounts of Biden's presidency cast this as a problem with Manchin's unwillingness to go along with Biden's agenda. Democrats hold exactly 50 seats in the Senate, and thus need every Democratic senator to pass a party-line vote; Manchin, the Senate's most centrist Democrat, has consistently resisted.
But the problem is not only that Manchin is withholding his vote. It's that Manchin keeps bluntly and accurately describing the problems with Biden's policy proposals. To twist the Twitter-cliche, Joe Manchin keeps saying out loud the part that Joe Biden would rather keep quiet.
Caveman33
Footballguy
Why would the middle class oppose this?
https://www.axios.com/biden-wealth-tax-plan-7caf4947-5e8b-4e04-9c96-0dbe77a38804.html
Details: "The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax" would apply to more than just billionaires. Per a White House fact sheet, it would require American households worth at least $100 million to pay at least a 20% minimum tax on all income, realized and unrealized.
We're still awaiting all sorts of specifics, including how that $100 million would be calculated. For example, does it include the value of illiquid assets like fine art or real estate? What about highly volatile assets like cryptocurrencies? It's pretty complex stuff, which is a big reason why the IRS has historically taxed Americans on realized cash values.
The bottom line: Tax the rich is usually a surefire winner at the ballot box. But not on Capitol Hill.
HellToupee
Footballguy
This is why. Unrealized gains , especially on real estate . Once they hit the extremely wealthy with this and is entrenched it will flow downhill
I’ll give my personal experience of ppp loans. I own a preschool and the loans saved the business. Our school closed 6 times during covid, the first time was 2 months (March 2020 to May 2020). No tuition money coming in and continuing expenses. When we reopened, we had lost 75% of the kids. It wasn’t until early 2021 that we recouped the pre-pandemic levels. We have about 12 employees. Let me know if you have any questions.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Shareholders would benefit indirectly. The pizza chains around me are franchises. It’s in pizza Hut’s (Pepsi owned) best interest to make sure those franchises are open, and they help them cut thru the red tape to get the PPP loan. Pizza Hut corporate is getting a cut of the gross sales. Independent small businesses like you struggled to get money.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Would you say the PPP you received were less than you need, about what you needed, or more than you needed. Did you have to pay them back?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
So corporation didn’t struggle at all and actually made record profit while mom and pops were crushed. And all those mom and pops who got crushed now get to go work themselves to the bones to repay their debts while corporation get it wiped out.
Anyone thinking we don’t live in a corporate oligarchy is kidding themselves. Eventually the mom and pops will be all gone and we can all go sacrifice ourselves at the foot of Pepsi and Amazon.
Both ppp loans are forgiven and they totaled 90k. Absent the loans, I lost money during 2020 when under normal circumstances the business should have cleared 100k so I was made whole.
FairWarning
Footballguy
MY main supplier was bought out by wall st, it’s been a nightmare ever since. But hey, their numbers are good for the shareholders.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
This story is more and more common. Wall Street runs this country. Not Democrats or Republicans. I read something that the average bonus on Wall Street this year was something like $225,000. It’s sickening.
FairWarning
Footballguy
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
You can't tax something that isn't earned. lol
Can't believe they even thought this might have the slightest chance in hell.
Dems are throwing desperate Hail Mary's with the clock running out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I’m seriously considering starting a MAGA type company that caters to the extreme right. It’s free money. They buy low quality crap all the time.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
My county is below the poverty line and went 65% Trump. The only county in the UP that didn’t go Trump is Marquette county. Marquette is by far the largest town. They have the most doctors and the largest university. They are booming. Maybe that’s because they don’t vote for knuckleheads like Beau LaFave who brought his AR15 to the State Capitol building to look like a badass. He then promptly got it stolen from his apartment in Lansing like 3 days later. I chuckled.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Berrien has been red for years. I think it will switch in the next couple of elections. A lot of Chicagoans moved here permanently and will bring their voting habits, while living on the Lake Michigan beach.
at least you had a couple HS basketball teams in the finals last weekend from the UP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Caveman33
Footballguy
You can tax unrealized gains. However, I doubt it will pass because of the power that wealthy people wield within both parties. I wonder if the Biden admin put this forward while knowing that it would never pass.
The proposed tax is on households with a net worth over 100 million. If you think this is a threat to the "middle class" then we should abandon the idea of taxing the wealthy because apparently any tax imposed upon them will be twisted by talking heads and presented to folks as a threat to the middle class.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
No you can't.
"You can't tax something that isn't earned" - Joe Manchin This thing is dead.
Biden should have known it would never pass, but, he's been quite incompetent so who knows.
When something that is titled as a "Billionaire" tax and then reported that it's for less than that you might want to read the fine print. But, it's dead anyway, good riddance.
I am all in for abandoning the idea of taxing the wealthy, good idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
Caveman33
Footballguy
Uhh, yes, you can tax it. Parroting Joe Manchin's quote doesn't demonstrate why unrealized gains can't be taxed. I'm open to hearing you explain in your own words, though.
Property taxes increase when a home receives a higher appraisal. The owner has not received capital gains and yet they are paying more in taxes to reflect the increased value of their asset. This wealth tax would likely rely upon yearly appraisals. If the asset is sold at a future date and the tax owed on the gains is less than what has already been paid, the owner would be due a refund.
Did you read the fine print? You are up in arms over a proposed tax on 100MM+ net worth individuals. 'These people aren't billionaires--they're basically middle class!'
Last edited by a moderator:
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
so by your example, a stock/crypto/whatever is up pretty big at the end of 2021, the person holding it is taxed for their unrealized gains.Caveman33 said:
then in Q1 2022, because of inflation/war/whatever other unforeseen event, the stock drops 70% (by the way, this isn’t even an unrealistic example, it just happened to a bunch of stocks). So you get to recognize that total loss in 2022 as negative income? Nope, you’re limited to capital losses of $3K a year.
I don’t care if this happens to Jeff Bezos, that’s complete BS.
Caveman33
Footballguy
No. In the scenario you've described where the unrealized gains turn into a loss the next year, the individual would be due a refund of the taxes they already paid for the unrealized gains. Similar to how if your income tax withholding for the year exceeds the amount of income tax you owe, you receive a refund.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2023.pdf
The relevant section is on pages 34-36.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
So the government is going to take on some risk for things like the crypto market? Yeah right.
Stock market crashes, crypto dies, government owes all the millionaires and cyber punks billions of dollars.
What a stupid idea. So glad this thing is D E A D dead.
Caveman33
Footballguy
I don't see how the government is taking on risk. If the 100MM+ net worth individual loses all their money on foolish investments, the government would not be refunding their losses, only the previous years "wealth tax" or prepayments that the individual made on those investments when they were unrealized gains.So the government is going to take on some risk for things like the crypto market? Yeah right.
Stock market crashes, crypto dies, government owes all the millionaires and cyber punks billions of dollars.
What a stupid idea. So glad this thing is D E A D dead.
Now that I am actually reading the tax proposal, I see more of the complications. I think all of us are talking about something that we don't fully understand. Maybe some tax experts can chime in with clarity and insight.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I'm a CPA and I couldn't begin to tell you how you'd fairly value assets like real estate and the games that would go on for valuations. It would make the accounting profession more wealthy though, that I can guarantee. Wealth taxes were tried in Europe and failed.
The Big Donkey
Footballguy
