4 ms·

330 million americans at $24,000 a year comes out to $7.9 trillion dollars a year. How exactly are we going to afford that?

dmitrygr 6y ago
Short term: printing presses at full blast. Medium term: raised taxes. Long term: we cannot afford this.
- hndamien 6y ago
  The trick is you never make it to the long term. The future is now!
kennywinker 6y ago
> The bill, known as the Emergency Money for the People Act, would issue monthly payments of $2,000 to individuals and families for six months, or until the U.S. economy recovers from the coronavirus outbreak. and then: > Every American adult age 16 and older making less than $130,000 annually would receive at least $2,000 per month. So every single number in your back-of-the-envelope is wrong. 1. We're looking at some number between $12k and $24k / year. 2. The number of americans who qualify is going to be much lower than 330mil. Since many americans make more than $130k/year, and also many americans are CHILDREN which only qualify for a $500/month check for their parents. ~3. For MANY of the americans who qualify, a significant chunk of the of up-to-$24k would be eaten up by taxes.~ edit: apparently it is not going to be considered income, which suggests it's not taxable. That differs from the canadian strategy. Canada is doing this now. It is absolutely the correct thing to do. You can't tell people not to work to help other people, and not support them in doing that.
- dmitrygr 6y ago
  > and also many americans are CHILDREN only approx 18.7% [1] . > Since many americans make more than $130k/year Actually, approx 90% of americans make under 130k/yr [2] . > a significant chunk of the of up-to-$24k would be eaten up by taxes. "Under the proposal, the payments would not be considered income" . So we can calculate approximately: (1 - .1) * (1 - .187) * 330M = 241M people 241M x $2000 x 12 = $5.8T/year = A LOT . [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-... [2]http://theglitteringeye.com/u-s-income-distributiona-chart-to-contemplate/ http://theglitteringeye.com/u-s-income-distributiona-chart-t...
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    10% of americans is 33 million people. That is many. You're still using 12 months in your calculation. The act says at least six months, or until it is not needed. So some number equal or greater than 2.9T Thinking about it as an annual expense seems very wrong. Even if it takes 18 months to recover, I wouldn't say it cost x/year + 1/2 * x/year I would say it cost the total cost over the 18 months. Fair point about it not being considered income, I missed that detail in my haste to make sure the only comment wasn't such a blatant misrepresentation of the cost of a program like this. edit: now I'm just nitpicking your math, but 10% of americans make over $130k and 18.7% of americans are children. I have to think a VANISHINGLY small number of those two percentages overlap (children making over 130k) so your calculation: (1 - .1) * (1 - .187) * 330M = 241M people should probably be: (1 - (0.1 + 0.187)) * 330M = 235M people Which is not materially far off your number, but it is 6M * 2k * 6 = 72B saved for the american taxpayer ;)
- dang 6y ago
  Could you please read and follow the site guidelines when posting here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment contains some good points, but badness destroys more than goodness builds up in internet comments.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    Corrected. Commented in frustration, cooled off. sigh
    - dang 6y ago
      Appreciated!
- nodesocket 6y ago
  Law of unintended consequences. Some people are making more from expanded unemployment benefits than they did at their job previously. There are stories of employees refusing to go back to work, that's not productive.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    Idk at a moment with such high unemployment, that seems like a mostly self-solving problem. Sure person A won't return to work because they're living high on an expanded benefit, but person B doesn't qualify so they are happy to take up the job. If you give EVERYONE the benefit, as long as it's not counted as income (as this proposal suggests) then I can have this money AND the money i'd earn at the job! Do you want $2k or 4k this month?
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  > So every single number in your back-of-the-envelope is wrong. So do the estimate with your numbers, and explain how that gets paid for. It’s still a staggering amount of money that will affect markets and the US ability to deficit spend.
millstone 6y ago
The literal answer to your question is deficit spending, financed through borrowing. War is the proper mindset. If your country goes to war, what matters is the number of factories you have that can produce tanks and airplanes and guns. You worry about your soldiers running out of ammo or your cities being bombed, not higher prices next year due to borrowing-driven inflation. What matters is real resources. We are all going to pay for this horrible luck one way or another: through direct payments, or unemployment benefits, or worst case - pounds and pounds of flesh.
lmilcin 6y ago
The answers are always the same: 1. Redistribution. 2. Debt. That's it. The money will be redistributed from people who were able to prepare for it beforehand one way or another or we are going to indebt ourselves and/or our children. It is also possible to save money by not expending it (for example on infrastructure repairs), but this should be treated as short term loan. Expenses typically are not avoidable forever, because each one is done for some particular reason.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  The language you use around prepration seems judge-y. For example, would you consider "deciding not to work at a restaurant" preparing for a pandemic? Because up until now deciding to work at a restaurant is something I really appreciated that people did because I like going to restaurants. If we as a society ask people to stop work to avoid the worst case version of a pandemic, we MUST support them during that time, because we are ALL benefitting from them stopping work. The fact that your job is not gone is luck not preparation.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    It is a fact that some people save money and some don't, that some people decide not to do fun stuff and instead learn things and some go partying, that some people try to make their best and some don't. Every case is individual, but ON AVERAGE, when you print money you dilute the value of existing money which means you take away from people who have money and put it in the hands of ones that were more careless ON AVERAGE.
    - kennywinker 6y ago
      I completely disagree with your opinion that the majority of people who have more money got it through personal characteristics like hard work and not partying. But, that said, so some people were able to learn skills that society values more, get paid more, and are thus able to save more money. Great. But lots of THOSE people got their livelihoods crushed by social distancing. You are saying printing money makes everybody subsidize the people who lost their jobs, but not printing money is bleeding their savings to save other people's lives. How is that right? Like even if you have 6-12months of savings on hand, at the end of this you've drained your personal finances to save someone else's life??
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dmitrygr 6y ago

Short term: printing presses at full blast. Medium term: raised taxes. Long term: we cannot afford this.

hndamien 6y ago
The trick is you never make it to the long term. The future is now!

kennywinker 6y ago

> The bill, known as the Emergency Money for the People Act, would issue monthly payments of $2,000 to individuals and families for six months, or until the U.S. economy recovers from the coronavirus outbreak. and then: > Every American adult age 16 and older making less than $130,000 annually would receive at least $2,000 per month. So every single number in your back-of-the-envelope is wrong. 1. We're looking at some number between $12k and $24k / year. 2. The number of americans who qualify is going to be much lower than 330mil. Since many americans make more than $130k/year, and also many americans are CHILDREN which only qualify for a $500/month check for their parents. ~3. For MANY of the americans who qualify, a significant chunk of the of up-to-$24k would be eaten up by taxes.~ edit: apparently it is not going to be considered income, which suggests it's not taxable. That differs from the canadian strategy. Canada is doing this now. It is absolutely the correct thing to do. You can't tell people not to work to help other people, and not support them in doing that.

dmitrygr 6y ago
> and also many americans are CHILDREN only approx 18.7% [1] . > Since many americans make more than $130k/year Actually, approx 90% of americans make under 130k/yr [2] . > a significant chunk of the of up-to-$24k would be eaten up by taxes. "Under the proposal, the payments would not be considered income" . So we can calculate approximately: (1 - .1) * (1 - .187) * 330M = 241M people 241M x $2000 x 12 = $5.8T/year = A LOT . [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-... [2]http://theglitteringeye.com/u-s-income-distributiona-chart-to-contemplate/ http://theglitteringeye.com/u-s-income-distributiona-chart-t...
- kennywinker 6y ago
  10% of americans is 33 million people. That is many. You're still using 12 months in your calculation. The act says at least six months, or until it is not needed. So some number equal or greater than 2.9T Thinking about it as an annual expense seems very wrong. Even if it takes 18 months to recover, I wouldn't say it cost x/year + 1/2 * x/year I would say it cost the total cost over the 18 months. Fair point about it not being considered income, I missed that detail in my haste to make sure the only comment wasn't such a blatant misrepresentation of the cost of a program like this. edit: now I'm just nitpicking your math, but 10% of americans make over $130k and 18.7% of americans are children. I have to think a VANISHINGLY small number of those two percentages overlap (children making over 130k) so your calculation: (1 - .1) * (1 - .187) * 330M = 241M people should probably be: (1 - (0.1 + 0.187)) * 330M = 235M people Which is not materially far off your number, but it is 6M * 2k * 6 = 72B saved for the american taxpayer ;)
dang 6y ago
Could you please read and follow the site guidelines when posting here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment contains some good points, but badness destroys more than goodness builds up in internet comments.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  Corrected. Commented in frustration, cooled off. sigh
  - dang 6y ago
    Appreciated!
nodesocket 6y ago
Law of unintended consequences. Some people are making more from expanded unemployment benefits than they did at their job previously. There are stories of employees refusing to go back to work, that's not productive.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  Idk at a moment with such high unemployment, that seems like a mostly self-solving problem. Sure person A won't return to work because they're living high on an expanded benefit, but person B doesn't qualify so they are happy to take up the job. If you give EVERYONE the benefit, as long as it's not counted as income (as this proposal suggests) then I can have this money AND the money i'd earn at the job! Do you want $2k or 4k this month?
ChrisLomont 6y ago
> So every single number in your back-of-the-envelope is wrong. So do the estimate with your numbers, and explain how that gets paid for. It’s still a staggering amount of money that will affect markets and the US ability to deficit spend.

millstone 6y ago

The literal answer to your question is deficit spending, financed through borrowing. War is the proper mindset. If your country goes to war, what matters is the number of factories you have that can produce tanks and airplanes and guns. You worry about your soldiers running out of ammo or your cities being bombed, not higher prices next year due to borrowing-driven inflation. What matters is real resources. We are all going to pay for this horrible luck one way or another: through direct payments, or unemployment benefits, or worst case - pounds and pounds of flesh.

lmilcin 6y ago

The answers are always the same: 1. Redistribution. 2. Debt. That's it. The money will be redistributed from people who were able to prepare for it beforehand one way or another or we are going to indebt ourselves and/or our children. It is also possible to save money by not expending it (for example on infrastructure repairs), but this should be treated as short term loan. Expenses typically are not avoidable forever, because each one is done for some particular reason.

kennywinker 6y ago
The language you use around prepration seems judge-y. For example, would you consider "deciding not to work at a restaurant" preparing for a pandemic? Because up until now deciding to work at a restaurant is something I really appreciated that people did because I like going to restaurants. If we as a society ask people to stop work to avoid the worst case version of a pandemic, we MUST support them during that time, because we are ALL benefitting from them stopping work. The fact that your job is not gone is luck not preparation.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  It is a fact that some people save money and some don't, that some people decide not to do fun stuff and instead learn things and some go partying, that some people try to make their best and some don't. Every case is individual, but ON AVERAGE, when you print money you dilute the value of existing money which means you take away from people who have money and put it in the hands of ones that were more careless ON AVERAGE.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    I completely disagree with your opinion that the majority of people who have more money got it through personal characteristics like hard work and not partying. But, that said, so some people were able to learn skills that society values more, get paid more, and are thus able to save more money. Great. But lots of THOSE people got their livelihoods crushed by social distancing. You are saying printing money makes everybody subsidize the people who lost their jobs, but not printing money is bleeding their savings to save other people's lives. How is that right? Like even if you have 6-12months of savings on hand, at the end of this you've drained your personal finances to save someone else's life??

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]