4 ms·

I'm thinking more along the lines of the giant stimulus the United States cut to almost everyone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone who paid taxes just got

I'm thinking more along the lines of the giant stimulus the United States cut to almost everyone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone who paid taxes just got a check in the mail.

sam0x17 4y ago
It really wasn't giant. It was less than the average cost of one month of rent in most locations
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  BS, especially since the 3-time IRS checks were just one small part of the stimulus. The enhanced unemployment lasted for months, and the increased amount alone was more than many people's regular paychecks.
  - calculatte 4y ago
    And that's one of the reasons supply chain issues continue today as well as the record inflation.
  - sam0x17 4y ago
    For middle-class workers who didn't lose their job it's as I said, just a little bit less than one month's rent. Definitely not enough to compensate for increased cost of living and inflation across the board, especially now.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Precisely. I'm trying to imagine how one would have implemented something similar atop the cryptocurrencies I'm familiar with and coming up empty. Stabilizing an economy when a national quarantine had shut down production and trade is one of those challenges that's much easier to solve in a centralized fashion.
- salawat 4y ago
  Correct. When you are poor, a one time check does nothing. Your issue is lack of cash flow. You want to talk really uplifting those in poverty, we need to talk stipend.
engineer_22 4y ago
The handout went to the wealthy in the form of Payroll Protection Loans that never were required to be disbursed to employees or repaid. And Wall Street got a huge multi-trillion-dollar boost. The stimulus checks were a door prize.
- brightball 4y ago
  PPP loans were required to be paid out or paid back. Issuing those loans prevented nationwide layoffs and insurance termination for millions of people.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/data-stories/how-many-paycheck-protection-program-loans-have-been-forgiven https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/dat... Update: 10.2 million PPP loans were forgiven. Here's why. > If borrowers use at least 60% of the loan to cover payroll within 8 or 24 weeks after receiving the loan, they can submit an application to have the loan forgiven. ----- edit: if anybody can clear this up for me, I'd appreciate it, but what could it possibly mean for "at least 60% of the loan to cover payroll?" Does that mean that the company has to spend its way into insolvency first, then after becoming insolvent pay out 60% of the loan to employees, or does it simply mean that an employer's payroll has to sum to at least 60% of the loan within 24 weeks, no matter how much cash the employer has? It seems like the difference between 1) handing out gifts to employers of up to 40% of their 24-week payroll, or 2) handing out gifts to employers that are up to 166% of their 24-week payroll. But I'm not a math scientist. Either way, making direct cash payments to employers in proportion to their payrolls is as stark an example of welfare for the rich as you could cite. That's like paying money to people in proportion to their total stockholdings, as long as they promise to spend at least 60% of those payments to buy more stock. Even worse in the execution, where tons of the smallest employers and the self-employed were left out in favor of companies with high-powered accounting firms or lawyers on staff.
    - nightski 4y ago
      There were limits on what you could spend the other 40% on (defined categories of expenses). You could spend 100% on payroll if you wanted, but it had a minimum of 60%. The other 40% had to be used for specific things such as building maintenance, etc... No owner could take a distribution of these funds (directly at least, although if this loan allowed them to be profitable they could of taken those profits). Businesses that wanted to be legit put this money into a specific account (in their accounting system) and tracked all expenses against that specific account for auditability. The only loans that had less strict rules were for sole proprietors/self employed businesses. But the size of the loan was capped pretty low relatively. Of course this program was highly flawed. But it was thrown together quickly in response to the pandemic. Personally I wish our government would already have plans in place ahead of time so everything wasn't done so hastily and last minute causing massive fraud.
belltaco 4y ago
>Everyone who paid taxes just got a check in the mail There was an income limit of $75,000, thats not close to everyone.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the giant stimulus the United States cut to almost everyone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone who paid taxes just got a check in the mail.

sam0x17 4y ago

It really wasn't giant. It was less than the average cost of one month of rent in most locations

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
BS, especially since the 3-time IRS checks were just one small part of the stimulus. The enhanced unemployment lasted for months, and the increased amount alone was more than many people's regular paychecks.
- calculatte 4y ago
  And that's one of the reasons supply chain issues continue today as well as the record inflation.
- sam0x17 4y ago
  For middle-class workers who didn't lose their job it's as I said, just a little bit less than one month's rent. Definitely not enough to compensate for increased cost of living and inflation across the board, especially now.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Precisely. I'm trying to imagine how one would have implemented something similar atop the cryptocurrencies I'm familiar with and coming up empty. Stabilizing an economy when a national quarantine had shut down production and trade is one of those challenges that's much easier to solve in a centralized fashion.
salawat 4y ago
Correct. When you are poor, a one time check does nothing. Your issue is lack of cash flow. You want to talk really uplifting those in poverty, we need to talk stipend.

engineer_22 4y ago

The handout went to the wealthy in the form of Payroll Protection Loans that never were required to be disbursed to employees or repaid. And Wall Street got a huge multi-trillion-dollar boost. The stimulus checks were a door prize.

brightball 4y ago
PPP loans were required to be paid out or paid back. Issuing those loans prevented nationwide layoffs and insurance termination for millions of people.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/data-stories/how-many-paycheck-protection-program-loans-have-been-forgiven https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/dat... Update: 10.2 million PPP loans were forgiven. Here's why. > If borrowers use at least 60% of the loan to cover payroll within 8 or 24 weeks after receiving the loan, they can submit an application to have the loan forgiven. ----- edit: if anybody can clear this up for me, I'd appreciate it, but what could it possibly mean for "at least 60% of the loan to cover payroll?" Does that mean that the company has to spend its way into insolvency first, then after becoming insolvent pay out 60% of the loan to employees, or does it simply mean that an employer's payroll has to sum to at least 60% of the loan within 24 weeks, no matter how much cash the employer has? It seems like the difference between 1) handing out gifts to employers of up to 40% of their 24-week payroll, or 2) handing out gifts to employers that are up to 166% of their 24-week payroll. But I'm not a math scientist. Either way, making direct cash payments to employers in proportion to their payrolls is as stark an example of welfare for the rich as you could cite. That's like paying money to people in proportion to their total stockholdings, as long as they promise to spend at least 60% of those payments to buy more stock. Even worse in the execution, where tons of the smallest employers and the self-employed were left out in favor of companies with high-powered accounting firms or lawyers on staff.
  - nightski 4y ago
    There were limits on what you could spend the other 40% on (defined categories of expenses). You could spend 100% on payroll if you wanted, but it had a minimum of 60%. The other 40% had to be used for specific things such as building maintenance, etc... No owner could take a distribution of these funds (directly at least, although if this loan allowed them to be profitable they could of taken those profits). Businesses that wanted to be legit put this money into a specific account (in their accounting system) and tracked all expenses against that specific account for auditability. The only loans that had less strict rules were for sole proprietors/self employed businesses. But the size of the loan was capped pretty low relatively. Of course this program was highly flawed. But it was thrown together quickly in response to the pandemic. Personally I wish our government would already have plans in place ahead of time so everything wasn't done so hastily and last minute causing massive fraud.

belltaco 4y ago

>Everyone who paid taxes just got a check in the mail There was an income limit of $75,000, thats not close to everyone.