Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
It’s not at all. The idea of policing how people spend their own money or that everything is on merit when we know most of the “merit” is what class and race you’re born into is pretty common especially around those who are in a comfortable place.
$600 is pissing on people and telling them it’s rain. 2k and demanding they spend it as you see fit is pissing in their mouth and asking them to swallow. Help the people and let them do with it what they want.
Is it all going to go to amazon? A chunk of it yeah I bet so. But if it’s to buy what people need who the hell is anyone to tell them what to do? If theyre a freedom loving American that’s the thing right? The freedom to do what you want with your money. The cries of it being hoarded or spent incorrectly harken back to the Reagan “welfare queen” hysterics Americans are so prone to. Argue about the exception instead of focusing on the rule.
|
And yet, there
is something to be said about restricting how people can spend money that was given to them by the government. In the UBI thread, someone made an apt point about how some people would just spend an extra $1000/month on drugs if you gave them a $1000/month UBI. We can clamour all we want about how that's tone deaf or offensive to say, but it's simply a fact that some people buy drugs on the black market and would buy even more if they were given money to do so.
In this thread, someone made an apt point that a lot of people would use the stimulus money to simply put down a payment against their debts, and then that money would flow to a rich person's bank account, doing nothing for the economy.
And don't even get me started on those pay-to-win apps that get people addicted and end up extracting inordinate amounts of money from people who get hooked on them...
So simply giving people money with no strings attached does not seem like the best approach to dealing with the current situation (albeit it's far better than letting people fend for themselves during these troubled times, but still...)
Here's what I'm thinking could be done instead... how about issuing each adult a prepaid card with $2000 loaded onto it, but the card only works when paying in person at an approved business, and can only be used to pay for rent/mortgage payments or groceries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
It should at least be a lower income cut off. It makes no sense to be giving these checks to salaried white collar workers working from home. Taking the money from unemployment boosts/extensions and giving it to people not affected seems like the worst possible idea. A one time payment of $2000 does not help the people who are really hurt one bit, and 75% of those checks will go to people not financially affected.
This isn't means tested stimulus, this is figuring out how to help the right people. Lower income people have been more likely to lose work from this, so at least a lower cutoff would target the help a bit better. But unemployment streamlining/boosting/extending is probably the best answer. As is helping businesses like restaurants survive.
|
Going to have to disagree on this one. The whole "money would be given to people who don't need it" argument is a superfluous one, IMO. If you want to do something about inequality, get serious about taxing the wealthy... and get serious about closing tax loopholes and cracking down on tax cheats. The Trump tax cuts were an absolute heist (and I'd argue the Bush tax cuts as well).
I also don't agree with the idea of helping businesses survive for the sake of helping businesses survive. Sure, if you run one of these businesses, you're going to be looking out for your own interests and hence will want to leave no stone unturned in your attempt to keep your business afloat. But from a overall economic standpoint, it seems like once economic conditions return that will allow for restaurants to survive, restaurants will naturally return.