There's a weird sort of thing here going where you seem to expect the government to act as a parachute for say a pandemic, but if the results are in any way negative they have to both eat the cost of the pandemic, and reimburse you if for some reason fighting it involves negatives for you.
That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not.
> but if the results are in any way negative they have to both eat the cost of the pandemic, and reimburse you if for some reason fighting it involves negatives for you.
Yes, like how I expect the government to do things like conduct high speed chases of dangerous criminals, but if their police car hits me, I expect reimbursement.
> That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not.
The Government's checkbook ultimately comes from people's taxes, and yes, I expect people to be willing to float the cost of this economic shutdown. After all, the government's actions are undoubtedly keeping you safe.
Taxes are a way of reallocating the cost. As someone making income during the shutdown, my taxes will be higher than someone who is not (even if they get a bailout). Thus I will help pay for them. This is good.
Not every business is equally affected. Those that continue to remain active are able to do so because the government has taken massive steps to prevent a lot of people from dying. These businesses are unfairly benefiting from the current economic climate, while some businesses are being forced to suffer. The costs of this economic shutdown ought to be socialized, since the benefit of the shutdown is for society.
This kind of economic action is unprecedented. I do not expect government compensation for natural disasters in general, because those are not the government's fault. I especially do not expect government compensation when people or businesses make mistakes. For example, in 2008, banks wrote bad loans, and irresponsible consumers took them on. There should have been no bailout at all. None of what happened was really the government's fault. However, if we did that, I don't see how anyone can escape responsibility here.
They are saying that, due to restrictions put in place by the government, certain industries have been adversely affected and need to be made right. Closed restaurants, for example, have absolutely no revenue due to the actions of the government. How does that not warrant compensation by the entity that imposed the restrictions? Yes, it was for the best. But it still hindered certain industries ability to thrive (or make money at all).
That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not.