3 ms·

> 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

> 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
  Corrected. Commented in frustration, cooled off. sigh
  - dang 7y ago
    Appreciated!
nodesocket 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.

dmitrygr 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
Corrected. Commented in frustration, cooled off. sigh
- dang 7y ago
  Appreciated!

nodesocket 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.