11 ms·
This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.
by Ididntdothis 7y ago
This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.
- schaefer 7y agoif you're referring to the US initiative, isn't it just an early tax "refund"? as in - no one's giving anyone anything. It's all just shell games.
- amf12 7y agoOr payroll tax reduction. While it might help some deserving people, it's also going to benefit people who don't need any help.
- Ididntdothis 7y agopayroll tax deduction also hurts social security and Medicare.
- SilasX 7y agoBecause it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?
- megablast 7y agoIt doesn’t penalise anyone. The money goes to those who need it.
- amf12 7y agoNo because the money will also be paid to middle class + people who still have jobs and who can WFH or have paid sick leave.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoThis is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.
- SilasX 7y agoWhether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.
- melvinram 7y agoYes, but the goal should not be to treat everyone fairly. The goal should be to help people get through this crisis.
- tomxor 7y agoWhat penalty? it's the other way around, you take a 20% penalty if you stop working, and note that it's not for people who voluntarily stop working.
- user5994461 7y agoYou can easily save 10 to 20% when unemployed because you don't have to pay for daily transportation (tube/train/car), lunch outdoors every day and a few other things. So the difference in disposable income is about null in most cases.
- watwut 7y agoYou can take lunch from home and eat that. I know enough people who do that. People who bought yearly or other long term tickets (majority of frequent travellers) dont save.
- tomxor 7y agoEven if that is the case, it's not your choice, as I said before - it does not apply to those voluntarily unemployed. You are projecting arguments of basic income onto an economic solution for a pandemic where people are suddenly forced into unemployment or unpaid leave for a very specific reason... Given a lack of choice how can paying wages make any difference to their employment behavior. I'll repeat: this is not basic income.
- zxienin 7y agoEssential occupation folks can be paid at the top. Premium for weathering challenging times on the front.
- monadic2 7y agoHow so? Their money still buys things, they keep living. What else matters?
- agildehaus 7y agoThe money is meant to keep the economy working by encouraging spending, not specifically to help the recipient (though that will be a side effect in many cases).
- nicky0 7y agoHow do you justify that interpretation?
- Mvandenbergh 7y agoGiving everyone money makes sense as fiscal stimulus once the economy is back to normal. It does not make sense now because people are avoiding spending and many will not need the $1000 and not spend it. Targeted help now and then a jolt when it's over.
- ericd 7y agoMm no, a lot of people are already wondering how to pay rent. If anything, that $1000 needs to be higher, and adjusted for cost of living by area.
- Mvandenbergh 7y agoSure but then isn't it better to take this approach - 80% of your salary for people out of work and nothing for people still employed - than to give an arbitrary amount of $1000 to everyone regardless of local cost of living?
- ericd 7y agoSure, they could do it through unemployment claims as well.
- Mvandenbergh 7y agoWhile that supports people, which is the most important thing, it does not preserve the status quo jobs. That means that when we are able to restart the economy, we start with massive unemployment and with companies which have simply ceased to exist. Much better to just put everything in the deep-freeze and then pull it out, ready to go when we can.
- ericd 7y agoYeah, that would be nice, I just don’t know that we can pull off what you’re talking about.
- JulianMorrison 7y agoNot to me. Just sending out money to everyone is simple. It can be done fast.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoBut can it actually be done fast, whilst making sure none is double-dipping? Are all 18 year olds eligible, including folks that never worked? You might be right, but it's not obvious that the difference is material.
- jlokier 7y agoThe point of paying everyone, or at least every adult, as that it's a lot easier to check for double-dipping (especially later when people know you will pursue them after finding out), than to spend weeks or months checking for all the zillions of corner cases and rules and demanding complex proof needed in ordinary benefits / social security schemes. In the UK it is known, by government studies, that a huge amount of money that people are entitled to in benefits is never claimed because people either don't know about it or are put off by bureaucratic hurdles. Government officials generally don't draw people's attention to what they are entitled too, and often make mistakes, occasionally fatal (people have starved to death). And some people get what they are entitled to only by appealing bad decisions, with the appeal success rate being rather high. Right now, especially for people such as those who are self-employed or with complex finances (savings and debt at the same time, etc), proving elegibility to benefits is very difficult, especially if done from scratch when they don't have well organised documentation to hand. (Normally it's a once-a-year thing, to file taxes.) But the need for urgent finance in the current crisis is the same for everyone without enough cash. Some self-employed or gig economy people are panicking about affording food right now, and retaining shelter; let alone bills, and that's a terrible situation to suddenly happen, especially to large numbers of people. What I would advocate for, in a crisis such as this, is helicopter money to everyone at first, and then gradually introduce more nuanced systems that take a bit longer, and give people time to plan for. So that at least nearly everyone can be safe with regards to food and shelter in the short term.
- ksec 7y agoBut what happen to those they were out of Jobs just before the Virus, and now could not get a new job because of the Virus?