$2000 Individual Payments - where does this end?

[tooqk4u22]

I am so disgusted with american politics.  Trump throws a grenade to dismantle his party (party when convenient), dems jump on it bc citizens need want it (btw, who doesn't want free money but that doesn't make it prudent), and republicans are trying to figure out how to find a new way to fuck it all up in greater fashion.   I get relief fund for certain business and unemployed and very low income, but for fucks sake an individual making less than $75k or family making less than $150k - c'mon that's just throwing out bread to the masses to buy votes and both sides are guilty.   

Targeted support is what is needed.   Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

Every day we inch closer to becoming a banana republic and having a worthless currency.   Is it too much to ask for some reasonableness - nevermind I know the answer.   

[bacchi]

If the stimulus payment was limited to, say, those making under $30k, there would be massive whinging. With claims of being unfair and claims of how a family of 3 can't make it on $100k in San Francisco, it's easier to just set the cutoff high enough that complaining about not getting it makes you look like an entitled tool.

[ctuser1]

I am so disgusted with american politics.  Trump throws a grenade to dismantle his party (party when convenient), dems jump on it bc citizens need want it (btw, who doesn't want free money but that doesn't make it prudent), and republicans are trying to figure out how to find a new way to fuck it all up in greater fashion.   I get relief fund for certain business and unemployed and very low income, but for fucks sake an individual making less than $75k or family making less than $150k - c'mon that's just throwing out bread to the masses to buy votes and both sides are guilty.   

Targeted support is what is needed.   Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

Every day we inch closer to becoming a banana republic and having a worthless currency.   Is it too much to ask for some reasonableness - nevermind I know the answer.

Bold claim for someone who hasn't yet identified the problem.

[ixtap]

If the stimulus payment was limited to, say, those making under $30k, there would be massive whinging. With claims of being unfair and claims of how a family of 3 can't make it on $100k in San Francisco, it's easier to just set the cutoff high enough that complaining about not getting it makes you look like an entitled tool.

If the stimulus was aimed at those making under $30k, it would be more of a support system than a stimulus. The wider range that receives direct payments, the more the money is spent around.

[JLee]

I am so disgusted with american politics.  Trump throws a grenade to dismantle his party (party when convenient), dems jump on it bc citizens need want it (btw, who doesn't want free money but that doesn't make it prudent), and republicans are trying to figure out how to find a new way to fuck it all up in greater fashion.   I get relief fund for certain business and unemployed and very low income, but for fucks sake an individual making less than $75k or family making less than $150k - c'mon that's just throwing out bread to the masses to buy votes and both sides are guilty.   

Targeted support is what is needed.   Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

Every day we inch closer to becoming a banana republic and having a worthless currency.   Is it too much to ask for some reasonableness - nevermind I know the answer.

Ok so Trump says $2k stimulus, Democrats agree, therefore they are both buying votes for each other after the election?

This hypothesis might need a little more work.

[sixwings]

If the stimulus payment was limited to, say, those making under $30k, there would be massive whinging. With claims of being unfair and claims of how a family of 3 can't make it on $100k in San Francisco, it's easier to just set the cutoff high enough that complaining about not getting it makes you look like an entitled tool.

If the stimulus was aimed at those making under $30k, it would be more of a support system than a stimulus. The wider range that receives direct payments, the more the money is spent around.

yeah it's called a stimulus payment, not a support payment. This is meant for people to spend it on stuff.

But really it should just end at UBI.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Well, under McConnell's new offer, all Congress has to do to get $2000 stimulus payments to people is to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. Thanks, Mitch.

[bacchi]

If the stimulus payment was limited to, say, those making under $30k, there would be massive whinging. With claims of being unfair and claims of how a family of 3 can't make it on $100k in San Francisco, it's easier to just set the cutoff high enough that complaining about not getting it makes you look like an entitled tool.

If the stimulus was aimed at those making under $30k, it would be more of a support system than a stimulus. The wider range that receives direct payments, the more the money is spent around.

Yeah, that's part of the whinging that would happen. "Welfare masquerading as a stimulus payment!!!11!!"

We do know that, at a certain level of income, more of the last stimulus payment was saved instead of spent. That income level is higher than $30k but probably less than $150k.


Eta: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/finding/how-did-us-consumers-use-their-stimulus-payments/

For example, lower-income households were significantly more likely to spend their stimulus checks, as were households facing liquidity constraints. Individuals out of the labor force were also more likely to spend their checks than either employed or unemployed individuals, consistent with motives of consumption smoothing and hand-to-mouth behavior.

[tooqk4u22]

I am so disgusted with american politics.  Trump throws a grenade to dismantle his party (party when convenient), dems jump on it bc citizens need want it (btw, who doesn't want free money but that doesn't make it prudent), and republicans are trying to figure out how to find a new way to fuck it all up in greater fashion.   I get relief fund for certain business and unemployed and very low income, but for fucks sake an individual making less than $75k or family making less than $150k - c'mon that's just throwing out bread to the masses to buy votes and both sides are guilty.   

Targeted support is what is needed.   Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

Every day we inch closer to becoming a banana republic and having a worthless currency.   Is it too much to ask for some reasonableness - nevermind I know the answer.

Bold claim for someone who hasn't yet identified the problem.

Yeah, the problem is too much money to too many people who don't need or benefit from it. 

I am so disgusted with american politics.  Trump throws a grenade to dismantle his party (party when convenient), dems jump on it bc citizens need want it (btw, who doesn't want free money but that doesn't make it prudent), and republicans are trying to figure out how to find a new way to fuck it all up in greater fashion.   I get relief fund for certain business and unemployed and very low income, but for fucks sake an individual making less than $75k or family making less than $150k - c'mon that's just throwing out bread to the masses to buy votes and both sides are guilty.   

Targeted support is what is needed.   Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

Every day we inch closer to becoming a banana republic and having a worthless currency.   Is it too much to ask for some reasonableness - nevermind I know the answer.

Ok so Trump says $2k stimulus, Democrats agree, therefore they are both buying votes for each other after the election?

This hypothesis might need a little more work.

Not really, the Georgia runoff has a lot to do with this.


Anyway where does it end. In reality I am not even sure we have really begun - $2000 now (up to $10k for fam of 5) to what another round in February and May and who knows what else - its not their money and its not real money anyway (printed out of thin air)

[tooqk4u22]

If the stimulus payment was limited to, say, those making under $30k, there would be massive whinging. With claims of being unfair and claims of how a family of 3 can't make it on $100k in San Francisco, it's easier to just set the cutoff high enough that complaining about not getting it makes you look like an entitled tool.

If the stimulus was aimed at those making under $30k, it would be more of a support system than a stimulus. The wider range that receives direct payments, the more the money is spent around.

Yeah, that's part of the whinging that would happen. "Welfare masquerading as a stimulus payment!!!11!!"

We do know that, at a certain level of income, more of the last stimulus payment was saved instead of spent. That income level is higher than $30k but probably less than $150k.


Eta: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/finding/how-did-us-consumers-use-their-stimulus-payments/

For example, lower-income households were significantly more likely to spend their stimulus checks, as were households facing liquidity constraints. Individuals out of the labor force were also more likely to spend their checks than either employed or unemployed individuals, consistent with motives of consumption smoothing and hand-to-mouth behavior.

Helps my point, won't do much good anyway.   And I get back in March when they HAD to get money out quick to avoid a major crisis but that is not the case now.   Create a way for people/companies in need or experiencing extreme hardship due to the pandemic to get some help - is it as easy as just throwing money out the window, no, but why is that the standard.  Shit, unemployment benefits are extended and will cover about 85% of most workers lost earnings.    Year there are some exceptions.  Maybe provide funding and resources to all the food banks and other outreach programs. 

The corporate welfare has to stop as well for those that don't need it.

[dividendman]

The answer is: it doesn't end.

The wealth gap is getting too large with too much money concentrated in too few pockets, UBI is the only way to keep the economy going in the long term, this is the start (although this won't pass).

I think it's a good thing.

[tooqk4u22]

The answer is: it doesn't end.

The wealth gap is getting too large with too much money concentrated in too few pockets, UBI is the only way to keep the economy going in the long term, this is the start (although this won't pass).

I think it's a good thing.

It might make people feel good in the short term but long term it either is either neutral to negative in consequence as people and the broader economy adapt.   We have to ignore the trickle down econ theory and start attacking from the top.   Fed manipulation rate policy disproportionately favors the wealthy.   Do away tax loopholes for individuals and companies such as carried interest, 1031 exchanges, pass throughs, carry forwards, and so on and so on.   Make the tax code favor employment and capital investment more than it does - I don't know, its very complicated.  I get that going to far stymies innovation but


But UBI isn't it, that will just reset the base line for poverty level and costs, which we already have via the variety of social programs (welfare, snap, SSDI, medicaid, etc.)

[katsiki]

Fiscal conservative here.  I think it is needed.  Millions needs the money and the rest will stimulate the economy.  Get the money out now and stop screwing around with the political back & forth BS.

[the_gastropod]

I think it’s important to remember means testing is both not free and not accurate. Remember, for the last round, people’s 2019 tax returns were used to determine eligibility. How many ineligible people have since lost their jobs completely or now earn significantly less? Sometimes it’s actually cheaper to just skip means testing altogether. It’s “fortunate”, I guess, that the income disparity is so stark in the US. It means for every undeserving rich person who gets money, many more very deserving poor people will get money too.

It’s an imperfect plan. But as the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good.

[TempusFugit]

It's a sick cycle of pandering. It's bribing the public using the public's money.  It's also an irresistible political maneuver to put the GOP in an awkward position with the Georgia runoff next week.  The GOP would do it too, if the roles were reversed.   

I'm all in favor of giving help to people who really were affected by COVID.  Extending (and increasing) unemployment benefits are that and I support that. I think there should be more support targeted to some industries, such as restaurant/hospitality that have taken the brunt of the impact from this pandemic (economically). 

Stimulus?   I doubt it.  Some will spend it, but most of our economic issues right now aren't because of a lack of demand but because we can't go out and spend!  Putting a few hundred dollars in the pockets of people who have not suffered financially at all from COVID is not going to unleash a lot of economic activity.  They already have money!  Anyone who is invested in the market or who owns a home has done pretty well this year (if you aren't one of those directly impacted by the virus or the shutdowns). 

Income inequality is not a serious problem in and of itself.  It results ina serious problem: envy.  Sure, I'd love to be filthy rich (I think).  I'm certain that many many people that are filthy rich don't "deserve" it. I can rationalize easily how it's unfair, whatever that means.  But someone else being rich doesn't mean I have to be poor. 

The "poor" in the modern west today are materially better off than the wealthy of a few decades ago. Let alone the middle class!  We're fabulously wealthy compared to how people used to live not very long ago.  But now we see all that consumption from the super wealthy; it's in our faces every day through media. That breeds a sense of envy and entitlement. 

[American GenX]

But really it should just end at UBI.

UBI is the only way to keep the economy going in the long term, this is the start (although this won't pass).

Ummm.... definitely not!   I would like to see a complete end to "free" money being given out to wide swaths of people that don't need it.  UBI is even worse!

But UBI isn't it, that will just reset the base line for poverty level and costs, which we already have via the variety of social programs (welfare, snap, SSDI, medicaid, etc.)

Yes, UBI definitely isn't it.  I've read up on it quite a bit, linked to various references on it in one of the other UBI threads, and I'm not satisfied with any plan I've seen to date.  The more I read, the more I oppose it.

[American GenX]

Remember, for the last round, people’s 2019 tax returns were used to determine eligibility.

Only if your 2019 return had been processed at the time.  I would have never gotten the stimulus based on my 2019 return, which STILL has not been process after filing an extension.  Since my 2018 AGI was significantly lower than 2019, I got the full stimulus.  They will not fall back to 2018 AGI for this stimulus, so I'm SOL.   But, I rather it just went to people that had a real need for it.  Unemployment benefits make more sense, but even those were too high, and many people preferred to keep getting those rather than going back to work as they had higher income staying home from generous benefits.  So, $300 is better than $600.  That's $1300/mo on average on top of their state benefits.

[Tigerpine]

Make the tax code favor employment and capital investment more than it does - I don't know, its very complicated.  I get that going to far stymies innovation but...

One might argue taxing long term capital gains at a preferential rate compared to short term capital gains favors capital investmest (for periods exceeding one year).

[tooqk4u22]

Make the tax code favor employment and capital investment more than it does - I don't know, its very complicated.  I get that going to far stymies innovation but...

One might argue taxing long term capital gains at a preferential rate compared to short term capital gains favors capital investmest (for periods exceeding one year).

On one hand they do, provided they are in fact capital investment.   You and I buying a share of Apple, Amazon, GE, Boeing or whatever in the open market is not capital investment in the truest sense.  Yes we are investing OUR capital but we are not investing in a NEW capital investment, the company doesn't benefit one way or another from are after market investment so while it is an investment for us it is not a capital investment. 

Same goes for buying real estate...the biggest tax dodge ever when you factor in the initial "Capital Investment" and depreciation of said investment combined with previously aforementioned ability to do 1031 exchange or take LP units (instead of common) from REITS or even stepped up basis later on when death or trusts come in play.      So no long term capital gains as we know it is a fallacy.....I am a dear beneficiary of said fallacy but still a fallacy.   Lower rates for new investments in a new company/endeavor, then sure that makes sense.   For real estate,  a new construction project, then sure that makes sense.  Buy an existing apartment building, then no on the existing portion of the investment but yes on any new work that is put in to the project. 

As for dividends, I am against taxing those anymore than the greater of the companies effective tax rate or the individual investors effective tax rate - there is no reason why dividends, which are after tax income at the corporate level, should be taxed again at a greater rate at the individual level.

[NaN]

I would support $2,000 to every individual who gets a vaccine. If front-line workers are getting it first, great. They deserve it. And we would be guaranteed to reach herd immunity.

[Sid Hoffman]

But really it should just end at UBI.

Let Switzerland or Norway or some other rich country do UBI first. The USA is simply too divided and too poor to do it. If it works in a rich European country for at least 10 years or so, then they can roll it out to the whole of the EU. Then probably Japan, Australia/NZ, maybe even China. Only after all of that will the USA could be willing to adopt it. It needs to work elsewhere before the USA will sign up.

[FIRE Artist]

But really it should just end at UBI.

Let Switzerland or Norway or some other rich country do UBI first. The USA is simply too divided and too poor to do it. If it works in a rich European country for at least 10 years or so, then they can roll it out to the whole of the EU. Then probably Japan, Australia/NZ, maybe even China. Only after all of that will the USA could be willing to adopt it. It needs to work elsewhere before the USA will sign up.

This theory of adoption hasn’t worked for universal healthcare after what? Near 70 years of proof of concept?

[ender]

To be fair, it's weird when both Trump and AoC are in favor of the same thing ($2k stimulus checks).

My issue with the stimulus bill is that it's a small amount of actual directed benefit and a lot more corporate welfare.

[ministashy]

Obviously $2K stimulus is not going to happen (thanks Mitch).  $600 is a pittance compared to what folks without jobs need.  So what's the answer?

The fact that Republicans/conservatives can't fathom giving Americans $2K each to keep the economy on a lifeline, especially when they didn't bat at an eye at giving big corporations literal TRILLIONS of dollars in tax cuts a couple years ago says everything you need to know right there.  And like every other complaint I've heard about how the U.S. is 'too generous' with its welfare--you know what?  It's a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare we give Big Oil, Big Ag, Pharma, etc.  When did our U.S. companies get so entitled and soft-bellied?  Shouldn't they be out scrounging for every dime they can get, bootstrapping the whole way, in good ol' American fashion? 

Get rid of all corporate welfare first, then come talk to me about how you want to tinker with the welfare/unemployment benefits for ordinary folks struggling to survive.

[TempusFugit]

Obviously $2K stimulus is not going to happen (thanks Mitch).  $600 is a pittance compared to what folks without jobs need.  So what's the answer?

The fact that Republicans/conservatives can't fathom giving Americans $2K each to keep the economy on a lifeline, especially when they didn't bat at an eye at giving big corporations literal TRILLIONS of dollars in tax cuts a couple years ago says everything you need to know right there.  And like every other complaint I've heard about how the U.S. is 'too generous' with its welfare--you know what?  It's a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare we give Big Oil, Big Ag, Pharma, etc.  When did our U.S. companies get so entitled and soft-bellied?  Shouldn't they be out scrounging for every dime they can get, bootstrapping the whole way, in good ol' American fashion? 

Get rid of all corporate welfare first, then come talk to me about how you want to tinker with the welfare/unemployment benefits for ordinary folks struggling to survive.

Folks without jobs are getting quite generous unemployment pay.  I know people who were out of work earlier in the year and more than one expressed the opinion that "it was great, making more money not working than I was making working."  I'd say that was pretty generous. 

I might agree about some of the corporate tax policies, beginning with our ridiculous farm subsidies in the US, but there is a fundamental difference between taking less of someone's money (tax breaks) and giving them money.  There is also the moral hazard of everyone getting more used to the idea of standing around waiting for a government check. That's bad.

Help where help is needed.  Confetti cannon of 'free' money to everyone is stupid. 

[JLee]

Obviously $2K stimulus is not going to happen (thanks Mitch).  $600 is a pittance compared to what folks without jobs need.  So what's the answer?

The fact that Republicans/conservatives can't fathom giving Americans $2K each to keep the economy on a lifeline, especially when they didn't bat at an eye at giving big corporations literal TRILLIONS of dollars in tax cuts a couple years ago says everything you need to know right there.  And like every other complaint I've heard about how the U.S. is 'too generous' with its welfare--you know what?  It's a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare we give Big Oil, Big Ag, Pharma, etc.  When did our U.S. companies get so entitled and soft-bellied?  Shouldn't they be out scrounging for every dime they can get, bootstrapping the whole way, in good ol' American fashion? 

Get rid of all corporate welfare first, then come talk to me about how you want to tinker with the welfare/unemployment benefits for ordinary folks struggling to survive.

Folks without jobs are getting quite generous unemployment pay.  I know people who were out of work earlier in the year and more than one expressed the opinion that "it was great, making more money not working than I was making working."  I'd say that was pretty generous. 

I might agree about some of the corporate tax policies, beginning with our ridiculous farm subsidies in the US, but there is a fundamental difference between taking less of someone's money (tax breaks) and giving them money.  There is also the moral hazard of everyone getting more used to the idea of standing around waiting for a government check. That's bad.

Help where help is needed.  Confetti cannon of 'free' money to everyone is stupid.

Not when the total sum of money that needs to be collected in the end is the same.  Taking less from big corporations means taking more from people.

[Michael in ABQ]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

[WhiteTrashCash]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

There's a pandemic right now and a lot of people are out of work. I assume you haven't watched the news lately.

[Michael in ABQ]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

There's a pandemic right now and a lot of people are out of work. I assume you haven't watched the news lately.

And many of us who are still employed are going to get a bunch of "free money" that we don't really need, paid for in future inflation or higher taxes.

I'll make around $100k this year and I'm going to get $4,800. Is that really going to help the millions who are out of work or struggling? Probably not.


We're well into bread and circuses territory at this point and it can't last forever. At some point we'll have to pay the piper for tens of trillions in debt.

[TempusFugit]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

There's a pandemic right now and a lot of people are out of work. I assume you haven't watched the news lately.

And many of us who are still employed are going to get a bunch of "free money" that we don't really need, paid for in future inflation or higher taxes.

I'll make around $100k this year and I'm going to get $4,800. Is that really going to help the millions who are out of work or struggling? Probably not.


We're well into bread and circuses territory at this point and it can't last forever. At some point we'll have to pay the piper for tens of trillions in debt.

Exactly.  Wanting to help people who truly were impacted by the virus does not require 'free' money to everyone.  And the idea that this is to 'stimulate' the economy is pretty dubious.   Most people have money to spend, they just can't go out and spend it.  It's really the same as the dumb idea to forgive student loans.  It's a giveaway to generally upper middle class people who don't need the money. And it's a political game to make the other side look mean and heartless. 

[six-car-habit]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

There's a pandemic right now and a lot of people are out of work. I assume you haven't watched the news lately.

And many of us who are still employed are going to get a bunch of "free money" that we don't really need, paid for in future inflation or higher taxes.

I'll make around $100k this year and I'm going to get $4,800. Is that really going to help the millions who are out of work or struggling? Probably not.


We're well into bread and circuses territory at this point and it can't last forever. At some point we'll have to pay the piper for tens of trillions in debt.

IIRC  your wages have a federal govt connection ,  which is a relatively steady paycheck, and although covid protocols have had some adverse affects for federal employees, there aren't many who have had to apply to their state's unemployment offices for help. 

  2 quotes from a recent Dec 17th op-ed written by Rand Paul.   "I have great respect and honor for those who serve in uniform. In fact, I recently introduced a bill to give each soldier who served in the war on terror a $2,500 bonus and at the same time officially end the war in Afghanistan. Ending the war in Afghanistan would save us about $50 billion a year. "
   "  Another problem with our insatiable appetite for more military spending is that it requires conservatives to make bad compromises. If you want $40 billion in new defense spending, then you have to give the other side $40 billion in new domestic spending. That’s the nature of today’s bipartisanship: you can have your money as long as we get our money."
  { How far back do his proposed $2500 veteran bonuses go back, retroactive to anyone with military service since 2001 ? - thats a lot of folks who've gone on to solid jobs, who might not really need the money }

    You could spend the $4800 your family expects to receive by....
 a] giving it to those who you feel actually are in need .
 b] writing a $4800 dollar check to the treasury. and direct them to apply it to the national debt.
 c]  placing it into UGMA "gift to minors" type account individually @ $600 for each of your kids - which they can use to pay for something when they turn 18 .  They can use the money in the future to offset some of the inflation on an item costing $600 today.

[Michael in ABQ]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

There's a pandemic right now and a lot of people are out of work. I assume you haven't watched the news lately.

And many of us who are still employed are going to get a bunch of "free money" that we don't really need, paid for in future inflation or higher taxes.

I'll make around $100k this year and I'm going to get $4,800. Is that really going to help the millions who are out of work or struggling? Probably not.


We're well into bread and circuses territory at this point and it can't last forever. At some point we'll have to pay the piper for tens of trillions in debt.

IIRC  your wages have a federal govt connection ,  which is a relatively steady paycheck, and although covid protocols have had some adverse affects for federal employees, there aren't many who have had to apply to their state's unemployment offices for help. 

  2 quotes from a recent Dec 17th op-ed written by Rand Paul.   "I have great respect and honor for those who serve in uniform. In fact, I recently introduced a bill to give each soldier who served in the war on terror a $2,500 bonus and at the same time officially end the war in Afghanistan. Ending the war in Afghanistan would save us about $50 billion a year. "
   "  Another problem with our insatiable appetite for more military spending is that it requires conservatives to make bad compromises. If you want $40 billion in new defense spending, then you have to give the other side $40 billion in new domestic spending. That’s the nature of today’s bipartisanship: you can have your money as long as we get our money."
  { How far back do his proposed $2500 veteran bonuses go back, retroactive to anyone with military service since 2001 ? - thats a lot of folks who've gone on to solid jobs, who might not really need the money }

    You could spend the $4800 your family expects to receive by....
 a] giving it to those who you feel actually are in need .
 b] writing a $4800 dollar check to the treasury. and direct them to apply it to the national debt.
 c]  placing it into UGMA "gift to minors" type account individually @ $600 for each of your kids - which they can use to pay for something when they turn 18 .  They can use the money in the future to offset some of the inflation on an item costing $600 today.

Yes, I can donate all my money or send it back to the Treasury, but that's a drop in a very large bucket that I wish Congress would stop filling up so quickly.

I do work for the federal government and I see the fraud, waste, and abuse first hand. Hiring a contractor to do a job and then when they fail, spend more money on another contractor to do the work you've already paid the first contractor for (while still rating them as succeeding because otherwise they'll protest and probably get it overturned). Spending 2-3x on almost everything because of all the red tape and small pool of companies willing to jump through all those hoops to provide goods and services. Renovating an office or moving and throwing away perfectly good furniture because it's easier to just buy new. The list goes on. I am a very small cog in a very large machine and I try to be as fiscally conservative as I can, but when I see a quote of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a job that would cost a fraction of that in the private sector, there's not much I can do.

There's zero incentive for either party to not spend everything the government collects and then some. It's not their money. As Senator Paul pointed out, "you can have your money as long as we get our money". The only thing holding them back is making sure the other side doesn't "win" by getting more of the pie for their special interests. But they're happy to compromise all day long on both sides getting more.

[Paul der Krake]

https://nathantankus.substack.com/p/much-ado-about-checks

Tankus's last post sums up my view pretty well. It's an inefficient tool that distracts from the bigger picture.

[John Galt incarnate!]

If $2k is good, why not $10k for everyone? I mean it's all just monopoly money at some point when we're printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Inflation? Bah, who cares. $1 million in VTSAX may not mean a whole lot in the future if we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7P4EOqCG8

There's a pandemic right now and a lot of people are out of work. I assume you haven't watched the news lately.

And many of us who are still employed are going to get a bunch of "free money" that we don't really need, paid for in future inflation or higher taxes.

I'll make around $100k this year and I'm going to get $4,800. Is that really going to help the millions who are out of work or struggling? Probably not.


We're well into bread and circuses territory at this point and it can't last forever. At some point we'll have to pay the piper for tens of trillions in debt.

IIRC  your wages have a federal govt connection ,  which is a relatively steady paycheck, and although covid protocols have had some adverse affects for federal employees, there aren't many who have had to apply to their state's unemployment offices for help. 

  2 quotes from a recent Dec 17th op-ed written by Rand Paul.   "I have great respect and honor for those who serve in uniform. In fact, I recently introduced a bill to give each soldier who served in the war on terror a $2,500 bonus and at the same time officially end the war in Afghanistan. Ending the war in Afghanistan would save us about $50 billion a year. "
   "  Another problem with our insatiable appetite for more military spending is that it requires conservatives to make bad compromises. If you want $40 billion in new defense spending, then you have to give the other side $40 billion in new domestic spending. That’s the nature of today’s bipartisanship: you can have your money as long as we get our money."
  { How far back do his proposed $2500 veteran bonuses go back, retroactive to anyone with military service since 2001 ? - thats a lot of folks who've gone on to solid jobs, who might not really need the money }

    You could spend the $4800 your family expects to receive by....
 a] giving it to those who you feel actually are in need .
 b] writing a $4800 dollar check to the treasury. and direct them to apply it to the national debt.
 c]  placing it into UGMA "gift to minors" type account individually @ $600 for each of your kids - which they can use to pay for something when they turn 18 .  They can use the money in the future to offset some of the inflation on an item costing $600 today.

Yes, I can donate all my money or send it back to the Treasury, but that's a drop in a very large bucket that I wish Congress would stop filling up so quickly.

I do work for the federal government and I see the fraud, waste, and abuse first hand. Hiring a contractor to do a job and then when they fail, spend more money on another contractor to do the work you've already paid the first contractor for (while still rating them as succeeding because otherwise they'll protest and probably get it overturned). Spending 2-3x on almost everything because of all the red tape and small pool of companies willing to jump through all those hoops to provide goods and services. Renovating an office or moving and throwing away perfectly good furniture because it's easier to just buy new. The list goes on. I am a very small cog in a very large machine and I try to be as fiscally conservative as I can, but when I see a quote of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a job that would cost a fraction of that in the private sector, there's not much I can do.

There's zero incentive for either party to not spend everything the government collects and then some. It's not their money. As Senator Paul pointed out, "you can have your money as long as we get our money". The only thing holding them back is making sure the other side doesn't "win" by getting more of the pie for their special interests. But they're happy to compromise all day long on both sides getting more.

This pernicious, long-standing congressional practice is known as "logrolling."

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I question the assumption that we even should be trying to grow the economy in the first place.

Nothing wrong with a bit of deflation and letting bubbles burst a little. Especially the tech / stock bubble.

As a young person trying to build up a stash to retire, it annoys me that I can't benefit from asset valuations that are unaffected by cheap stimulus.

If we spent all the bailout/stimulus money on pure welfare (for those who've lost their jobs and chewed through their life savings), we'd have enough to pay those genuinely in need of support and ensure no one starves or lacks shelter. And we would let the rest of the economy take care of itself and readjust. It would be a much fairer system.

[ministashy]

If we spent all the bailout/stimulus money on pure welfare (for those who've lost their jobs and chewed through their life savings), we'd have enough to pay those genuinely in need of support and ensure no one starves or lacks shelter. And we would let the rest of the economy take care of itself and readjust. It would be a much fairer system.

And how much money and time are you willing to waste on means testing to ensure that those 'genuinely in need' are the only ones getting money?  Especially when we have a good chunk of the population who needs help *now*, thanks to Trump and the Republican party fiddling while the pandemic burns, not months or years from now whenever these hypothetical systems would be up and running.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Just put part of the money towards food banks, emergency shelters, second-hand clothing stores and hospitals. Then there's no means testing required. People can use the services or they can choose not to. In my experience no one uses a food bank other than the actually needy.

And there are easy ways of means testing - one is via income taxes. One is via a simple statutory declaration which is punishable by subsequent fine for lying. Even if there is no "hard" barrier, just saying that "only those with an income under $30,000 can apply for these food stamps. Everyone must submit a declaration. We will audit a random sample. Anyone caught lying will be fined" will help compliance.

You're effectively saying, "It's impossible to monitor every car's speed at every location. Therefore, let's just abolish speed limits."

[rudged]

Targeted support is what is needed.

My understanding is that the amount of time and money necessary to figure out who needs it and who doesn't would be counter productive. If the goal is indeed stimulus, this is a blunt tool with flaws, but the best we have if you want to do it quick.

[scottish]

Anybody have thoughts on how much inflation (including none or even deflation) that this expansive monetary policy is going to cause down the road?

I've done my best to catch up on modern monetary theory, but I always struggle with economics.    As I understand it MMT seems to say something like:   "Expansive monetary policy shouldn't cause inflation unless the economy is very strong."

[six-car-habit]

Just put part of the money towards food banks, emergency shelters, second-hand clothing stores and hospitals. Then there's no means testing required. People can use the services or they can choose not to. In my experience no one uses a food bank other than the actually needy.

 Not disagreeing with this proposal, but i'd submit that funding of many of the agencies/groups you listed above, would typically come down thru local and state goverments , then flowing into the aid groups coffers.
   Congressional USA republicans have been holding up a covid-stimulus bill for months, with one of their main premises being -" state and local governments are wastefull, especially when run by democrat party leadership, so we do not approve any covid relief type appropriations going to state / local govt".    This same argument was keeping help/funding away from untold numbers of republican led states.

[GuitarStv]

Anybody have thoughts on how much inflation (including none or even deflation) that this expansive monetary policy is going to cause down the road?

I've done my best to catch up on modern monetary theory, but I always struggle with economics.    As I understand it MMT seems to say something like:   "Expansive monetary policy shouldn't cause inflation unless the economy is very strong."

Yeah, the smart people seem to be saying that we don't get inflation until the economy is going.  But they also seem to be buying up stock like motherfuckers . . . Soo . . .

[BudgetSlasher]

Anybody have thoughts on how much inflation (including none or even deflation) that this expansive monetary policy is going to cause down the road?

I've done my best to catch up on modern monetary theory, but I always struggle with economics.    As I understand it MMT seems to say something like:   "Expansive monetary policy shouldn't cause inflation unless the economy is very strong."

I struggle with this too. To me, it feels like since 2008 the federal government has just been pumping money into the system in one way or another. Bailouts, low interest rates, bond buying, and now direct payments. Seemingly without ever really pulling back during the times that the economy appears good.

[tooqk4u22]

Anybody have thoughts on how much inflation (including none or even deflation) that this expansive monetary policy is going to cause down the road?

I've done my best to catch up on modern monetary theory, but I always struggle with economics.    As I understand it MMT seems to say something like:   "Expansive monetary policy shouldn't cause inflation unless the economy is very strong."

I struggle with this too. To me, it feels like since 2008 the federal government has just been pumping money into the system in one way or another. Bailouts, low interest rates, bond buying, and now direct payments. Seemingly without ever really pulling back during the times that the economy appears good.

Political policy is such that once its on the menu it never comes off.    As far as inflation goes, theory goes that we should be seeing a lot of it in the near future but the problem is that inflation is not measured at all correctly anymore and hasn't factored in the nature of the speed of technological advancements and manufacture and import of overseas goods.  As those countries continue to advance their costs to us will rise thereby causing inflation for us.

[tooqk4u22]

Targeted support is what is needed.

My understanding is that the amount of time and money necessary to figure out who needs it and who doesn't would be counter productive. If the goal is indeed stimulus, this is a blunt tool with flaws, but the best we have if you want to do it quick.

I get that, so maybe a more target approach or less firehose to everyone approach.   I mean individuals up to $75k and couples up to $150k plus more for each kid, these aren't low income limits - the individual limit is greater than avg household income in the US - that seems absurd to me.   Also its a up front tax credit, so you can put it out there to anybody you want and reconcile it at the end of the year when tax returns are filed.  Unemployed now so the cash helps, but end up getting a job in a month and make $50k (or whatever limit) for the year then you owe it back.  And I know, that could put people in jam at the end of the year - fuck that shit, they can save some money or adjust their withholding.   Done - targeted and immediate without any effort at all, just need to set the limits at better levels. 

I would even add that there should be a investment income cap set really really low so the blokes like us on this forum don't get it, bc as everybody that posted on another thread said that all they would do with it would be invest it or pay down debt (not stimulative).

[ender]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

[Paul der Krake]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

[ender]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

Well, 75k income in say SF is very different than where I live which is different than a much lower cost of living area.

While I understand the federal government is constrained on being able to provide meaningful amounts to various folks, it seems weird to phase out a credit at the same income regardless of cost of living.

[JLee]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

It's not like anything else, because a $50k car is a $50k car no matter where you live. A $200k house in one place might be a $800k house someplace else.

[Paul der Krake]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

It's not like anything else, because a $50k car is a $50k car no matter where you live. A $200k house in one place might be a $800k house someplace else.

No, the two houses are not comparable. You pay for their respective desirability.

Nobody tricked anyone in living in a given market. It's consumption like anything else.

[katsiki]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

Well, 75k income in say SF is very different than where I live which is different than a much lower cost of living area.

While I understand the federal government is constrained on being able to provide meaningful amounts to various folks, it seems weird to phase out a credit at the same income regardless of cost of living.

Agreed.  This is another reason in my opinion to push the money out now with minimal limits.  The people who need it cannot wait while we figure out how to do means testing, optimize it by COL etc