In these US threads I haven't agreed with rubecube a whole lot.
However, in this case I do.
Whats the most cost effective and efficient way to get aid to people? A blanket stimulus cheque.
Here's how I look at it.
Flat taxes are bad as they disproportionately hurt the poor and actually benefit the rich.
A blanket stimulus cheque does the same thing in reverse. Disproportionately benefits the poor, basically unnoticeable for the rich.
If we can quickly get cheques into the hands of people that need them, and do it effectively and efficiently. Do it.
This isn't a normal thing, its an emergency measure.
There shouldn't be people starving and losing their homes because the system is bogged down trying to determine where in the middle class to draw a line.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
Aid should go to the people that have it, not people making $150,000 working from home in their office job. I don't know why that strikes you as privileged.
The way that was written made it sound like "everyone around here is doing fine, so I don't see the need for stimulus cheques" but apologies if I misread that.
Quote:
You strike me as just going with what you think suits your ideology, and just want your side to get a victory with little care whether it helps the people who need it.
The best way to guarantee the highest number of people who need a cheque get a cheque in the quickest fashion, is to cut everyone a cheque. Agree or disagree?
Regardless of how it makes you feel, it’s absolutely true. Most people with secure white-collar jobs are doing better financially from all of this. Savings rates have shot up. Home renos are booming. It might be unseemly to openly talk about, but it’s a reality that those in charge of our public finances have to recognize.
When we’ve moved on from the pandemic as health crisis to the pandemic as economic and financial crisis, the extremely uneven distribution of who took the hit from all this has the makings of a political firestorm. Sending billions of government dollars to people who will use it to put in marble countertops and pad out their pension plans won’t be a good look.
Do you think the people who need the money most right now give a crap about what the people who don't need it will spend it on?
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
what they should do is sends the cheques out but claw it back via on next years tax returns on those that can afford it, in fact if you do it that way you can send these out every three or four months
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
In these US threads I haven't agreed with rubecube a whole lot.
However, in this case I do.
Whats the most cost effective and efficient way to get aid to people? A blanket stimulus cheque.
Here's how I look at it.
Flat taxes are bad as they disproportionately hurt the poor and actually benefit the rich.
A blanket stimulus cheque does the same thing in reverse. Disproportionately benefits the poor, basically unnoticeable for the rich.
If we can quickly get cheques into the hands of people that need them, and do it effectively and efficiently. Do it.
This isn't a normal thing, its an emergency measure.
There shouldn't be people starving and losing their homes because the system is bogged down trying to determine where in the middle class to draw a line.
Yup, exactly right. Just send out blanket money and you ensure that everyone who needs it gets it. And those that don't need it, will just spend it and stimulate the economy as well as the tax base - not perfect, but hardly a terrible outcome.
There are two major problems with trying to do it through taxes:
1) that is far most expensive (and much slower) to administer
2) many of the very poorest, and thus neediest, don't pay any taxes and wouldn't receive anything
In situations like this, expedience and simplicity are important - just get the money out there so it can do its job. Don't sweat the imperfections.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
The way that was written made it sound like "everyone around here is doing fine, so I don't see the need for stimulus cheques" but apologies if I misread that.
The best way to guarantee the highest number of people who need a cheque get a cheque in the quickest fashion, is to cut everyone a cheque. Agree or disagree?
What I was trying to say is the greater economy is doing fine right now. A general injection of money into the economy is not a dire need right now. If that was needed, then I'd say sure give checks to everyone.
I don't know if it is the fastest way to get real money to the people. People with direct deposit all got it quickly. A lot of poorer people don't have that set up, and have to wait a few weeks for debit cards to arrive that can be kind of a pain to try to use for things like rent, etc.
I don't think $2000 is near enough for the people who really need it, and really is not efficient at all at trying to get them their jobs back either.
In my mind I just see this as equivalent to Louisiana getting devastated by a hurricane, and helping them by sending a $2000 check to everyone in the country.
Do you think the people who need the money most right now give a crap about what the people who don't need it will spend it on?
I’m old fashioned enough to believe government money isn’t infinite. $2k sent to a family with a household income of $130k to spend on home renos or put towards a new SUV is $2k not spent on health care, education, or subsidized housing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I’m old fashioned enough to believe government money isn’t infinite. $2k sent to a family with a household income of $130k to spend on home renos or put towards a new SUV is $2k not spent on health care, education, or subsidized housing.
How nice for you. I'm new-fashioned enough to believe that deficit-hawking on principle during a pandemic, when people are struggling to pay rent and put food, on the table is pretty ghoulish.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I’m old fashioned enough to believe government money isn’t infinite. $2k sent to a family with a household income of $130k to spend on home renos or put towards a new SUV is $2k not spent on health care, education, or subsidized housing.
It's not that simple though... government money may not be infinite per se, but it's not as restricted as you make it out to be. You made a solid argument for reversing the Trump tax cuts, and probably going quite a bit further than that in terms of beefing up the tax system, and (let's not forget) properly funding the IRS so they have what they need to crack down on tax cheats.
I’m old fashioned enough to believe government money isn’t infinite. $2k sent to a family with a household income of $130k to spend on home renos or put towards a new SUV is $2k not spent on health care, education, or subsidized housing.
And what is the problem if they spend it?
- companies have more demand, preserving jobs
- more taxes in return for government through sales taxes
And what is the problem if they spend it?
- companies have more demand, preserving jobs
- more taxes in return for government through sales taxes
That’s bad?
It’s not only not bad, it was the entire intent. Keep people spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I’m old fashioned enough to believe government money isn’t infinite. $2k sent to a family with a household income of $130k to spend on home renos or put towards a new SUV is $2k not spent on health care, education, or subsidized housing.
Wouldn’t someone in that scenario pay significant tax on that $2k?
It's not that simple though... government money may not be infinite per se, but it's not as restricted as you make it out to be. You made a solid argument for reversing the Trump tax cuts, and probably going quite a bit further than that in terms of beefing up the tax system, and (let's not forget) properly funding the IRS so they have what they need to crack down on tax cheats.
You're leaving out the fact that after the largest tax cuts in US history they are experiencing the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. Tax cuts = Employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I’m old fashioned enough to believe government money isn’t infinite. $2k sent to a family with a household income of $130k to spend on home renos or put towards a new SUV is $2k not spent on health care, education, or subsidized housing.
In fairness, isn't it $2,000 per person so a family would be receiving a minimum of $4,000.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
I think there's pretty obviously a reasonable debate to be had here about whether this policy is a good idea, and we have one side of that debate quoting news articles and making principled points while the other side accuses them of being "privileged" or "ghoulish" or "ignorant", other than Maritime Q Scout...
Personally I think means testing it is a bad idea simply because it creates a whole other bureaucracy at the front end that will be inefficient, but the way the people I'm agreeing with when I say that are conducting themselves here, I'm almost hesitant to say so.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
And what is the problem if they spend it?
- companies have more demand, preserving jobs
- more taxes in return for government through sales taxes
That’s bad?
That sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics. Isn't that the justification for cutting taxes for high-earners - they'll spend that money on home renos, restaurants, etc, and that's good for everybody?
The stock market is booming. Lots of comfortable white-collar earners plowing money into the market during covid. Is that good for everyone too?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
what they should do is sends the cheques out but claw it back via on next years tax returns on those that can afford it, in fact if you do it that way you can send these out every three or four months
It's not a stimulus, it's an advance!
(I actually think this might be a decent middle ground.)
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
