3 ms·
I’d be on board with both of these, provided that becoming involuntarily unemployed since the beginning of the year automatically qualified for the $2k/month. T
by pmiller2 7y ago
I’d be on board with both of these, provided that becoming involuntarily unemployed since the beginning of the year automatically qualified for the $2k/month. There should preferably be no phase out, but as long as people who are losing income through no fault of their own qualify, I’d be satisfied. As it is, it looks like this is just another half measure.
- bdcravens 7y agoWhat you're describing is just unemployment payments, which has already been funded. This plan will cover everyone, employed or otherwise, as long as they don't exceed the income guidelines ($130k/single or $260k/couple)
- pmiller2 7y agoNo, I’m describing $2k/month for everyone, but I’d be satisfied if the unemployed automatically qualified. I don’t care if a few who don’t really need it get it as long as everyone who does does.
- bdcravens 7y agoAs written, someone who exceeded the income guidelines won't, regardless of how they lost their job. Then again, that gets into a question of need, with the assumption being that high-income earners have savings as a product of that income.
- pmiller2 7y agoThat’s correct. I would rather have the means tests eliminated. $130k is roughly a 90th percentile individual income. Just give it to everyone without means testing, and you pay out to ~10% more people, but guarantee that literally everyone who needs it gets it. I don’t care if people who don’t need it also get it.
- bdcravens 7y agoI suspect there's a number of families out there where one person makes over $130k, but makes less than $260k as a couple (so they'll still qualify).