3 ms·

> State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so. But they don

by ardy42 6y ago

> State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so. But they don't have the money to do so. Plans like that require deficit spending, which the federal government can do but the states can't. Your alternative suggestions are not serious ideas. Do you really think the states could find the money to pay people to stay home by levying taxes on basically those same payments?

nradov 6y ago
I am seriously suggesting that if states want to pay people to stay home they should find the money by cutting other spending, selling assets, raising taxes on the wealthy (households with an income over about $200K who didn't receive a stimulus payment in the first place), and issuing general obligation bonds. Some states have legal restrictions on those things but those are entirely self imposed and can be removed without any federal intervention. It's time to make tough decisions and decide what to prioritize rather than pretending we can have it all and letting future generations deal with the consequences.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There's not dire future consequences to deficit spending during a demand shock. Austerity is the wrong response to such situations.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I am seriously suggesting that if states want to pay people to stay home they should find the money by cutting other spending, selling assets, raising taxes on the wealthy (households with an income over about $200K who didn't receive a stimulus payment in the first place), and issuing general obligation bonds. So, basically, you think they should do things like finance their house with their credit card (general obligation bonds) instead of taking out a mortgage (federal deficit spending)? And what's your reason for that? Honestly, this seems more like you're opposed to stay at home orders directly, but expressing that opposition indirectly by demanding arbitrary (unreasonable) policy restrictions to make them seems less desirable by making their implementation unnecessarily painful and difficult.

by ardy42 6y ago

nradov 6y ago

I am seriously suggesting that if states want to pay people to stay home they should find the money by cutting other spending, selling assets, raising taxes on the wealthy (households with an income over about $200K who didn't receive a stimulus payment in the first place), and issuing general obligation bonds. Some states have legal restrictions on those things but those are entirely self imposed and can be removed without any federal intervention. It's time to make tough decisions and decide what to prioritize rather than pretending we can have it all and letting future generations deal with the consequences.

maxerickson 6y ago
There's not dire future consequences to deficit spending during a demand shock. Austerity is the wrong response to such situations.
ardy42 6y ago
> I am seriously suggesting that if states want to pay people to stay home they should find the money by cutting other spending, selling assets, raising taxes on the wealthy (households with an income over about $200K who didn't receive a stimulus payment in the first place), and issuing general obligation bonds. So, basically, you think they should do things like finance their house with their credit card (general obligation bonds) instead of taking out a mortgage (federal deficit spending)? And what's your reason for that? Honestly, this seems more like you're opposed to stay at home orders directly, but expressing that opposition indirectly by demanding arbitrary (unreasonable) policy restrictions to make them seems less desirable by making their implementation unnecessarily painful and difficult.