For some restaurants, takeout is easy and they can make it work! For others, it really really isn't. What about bars, where most money is made on alcohol?
You got it backward. These restaurants all presumably paid taxes and employed people, some for literally a century. Why do you expect them right now, when they're suffering the most, to "give something back" if they don't want to die?
Because they paid taxes and employed people. It's like an insurance company that drops you as soon as you file a claim... you pay into a pool, expecting it to be there when you need it.
This is an unheard of situation, don't forget. The government (rightfully so, in my opinion) is forcing these restaurants to shut down dining. It's not like they're shutting down because they're "lazy".
As a business owner in a 1st world country, for paying taxes I expect infrastructure, security and a functioning legal system.
It sounds like you think they’re a scam.
Which is a pretty dim view of both the service industry and third places like restaurants.
So I ask again, what do you think restaurants are for, since they aren’t, in your opinion, doing anything that is already worth preserving?
Normally restaurants provide food for customer money, and that is fine.
The suggestion is that if they get bailout money while not providing food then there is an unmet need for them to "give back".
You are considering the past and the present. The bailout is solving a problem in the present that, if not solved, guarantees they have no future.
You want guarantees and there aren’t any. If you three want cover for yourself or policy makers, that’s fine. We can tweak the rules a bit to avoid some bad press. We market it as a prorated, forgivable loan if they continue to operate for a year after this is over. That should cull the dozens of restaurants that were likely already about to close before this all happened, who see the handout as a way to avoid bankruptcy.
Enough of the rest have a future we get to look forward to.
Well you're mixing up something if you have to ask "what do you think restaurants are for". They are for providing food. The thing they are currently failing to give back is... providing food.
You might disagree with that idea but you shouldn't be confused by it.
Your accusation of a "pretty dim view" sounds like you think the claim is that restaurants never give back. But that's not it at all.
> You want guarantees and there aren’t any.
What? "make them provide food" has nothing to do with "guarantees", and also this is not my opinion that I am explaining for you.
As others have also asked, why are we discussing this now instead of six months ago? If we had anyone with any leadership in either the Legislative or Executive Branch of the Federal government, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.