4 ms·

It would transfer wealth to the poor for about 2 seconds. Most of the recipients would quickly spend the money, which would transfer it back to the upper class

by nugget 13y ago

It would transfer wealth to the poor for about 2 seconds. Most of the recipients would quickly spend the money, which would transfer it back to the upper classes. The poor don't need helicopter drops of cash, they need a societal framework which supports and allows them to pursue real opportunities for social mobility.

paulbaumgart 13y ago
Right, and part of that is being able to spend less time worrying about how the pay the bills every month, therefore being able to assume a basic level of stability in their lives as a foundation for planning for the future.
tedsanders 13y ago
Could you please elaborate? Just because the poor spend the money in 2 seconds does not mean that the wealth evaporates after 2 seconds. They now have whatever goods they purchased with the money. And even if those goods are consumables, it's offset the spending/debt they would have otherwise needed. I find it rather offensive to accuse the poor of wasting all the money they receive (which is how I interpret your comment). If that's not what you meant, could you please re-explain? Thank you.
- gloverkcn 13y ago
  I don't think the judgement was that the money was wasted, but that the money would be spent immediately by the poor, and the rich wouldn't do much with it. If you have $5 Million in the bank and I give you $2K. The money I've given you won't change your spending habits. There is no purchase you have put off due to lack of money. If you have $100K in the bank it's more likely you'll spend it, but not a guarantee. If you are living paycheck to paycheck like roughly 3/4 of the country (http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/) then that $2k will most likely get spent. Just because it's spent doesn't mean it's wasteful. That spending will reflect things they are living without because they can't afford it. A more reliable car. A second car so their SO has a better opportunity to work. A computer. In the case of some low end works it could mean equipment and/or space to open their own business. Better/More food. An evening at the movies. Painting the house. These are all things they can't/won't take on debt for, but could do with a windfall.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    > I don't think the judgement was that the money was wasted, but that the money would be spent immediately by the poor, and the rich wouldn't do much with it. Yes. But they would have to give poor something back for that money. And that's what they currently are not doing because they are waiting for the poor to produce the money they have no means of producing. In order to manufacture the thing the rich can give poor in exchange for their helicopter money they have to increase production and probably hire some poor people which benefits poor even more.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  The quick offense makes the subject difficult to discuss objectively. A significant percentage of poor are so in large part because they squander opportunity; "free money" all too often gets blown on luxuries instead of improvements. (In no way am I accusing all of such behavior, but the topic's tendency toward B/W all/nothing imputations destroys sensible analysis.) Further, "free money" also in large (albeit not complete) part becomes a point of dependency from which more is demanded as a right (not appreciated as a gift). Insofar as a debatable percentage of such "free money" gets squandered, that money has arguably been taken from those who, having earned it, take greater care in spending it wisely. I'm all for giving people a hand up, just with the qualification that it be given voluntarily, and reasonably results in upward mobility. This "free money" aka Guaranteed Basic Income (same idea, different degree) notion is certainly better than the welfare morass currently in place, but still doesn't address the core flaw leaving so many to receive so much yet get nowhere with it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Zigurd 13y ago
What if, for most people without high aptitude and an expensive education, opportunity and social mobility is mostly a myth? If you really believe in social mobility, would you support a 100% estate tax?
patmcc 13y ago
Sure they'll spend it, but it might be on something that increases their wealth/earning potential. Maybe they buy a washer/dryer and can stop spending time and money at the laundromat. Maybe they'll buy supplies to start a small business, or pay tuition for a course that'll land them a job. Maybe they'll be able to fix their car so they can actually get a job, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards a better society, but cash is one thing that poor people desperately lack. Giving it to them directly might improve their situation. And if we're going to distribute money anyway, the real question is whether this proposed method is better or worse than the current one, not if it's completely perfect.

by nugget 13y ago

paulbaumgart 13y ago

Right, and part of that is being able to spend less time worrying about how the pay the bills every month, therefore being able to assume a basic level of stability in their lives as a foundation for planning for the future.

tedsanders 13y ago

Could you please elaborate? Just because the poor spend the money in 2 seconds does not mean that the wealth evaporates after 2 seconds. They now have whatever goods they purchased with the money. And even if those goods are consumables, it's offset the spending/debt they would have otherwise needed. I find it rather offensive to accuse the poor of wasting all the money they receive (which is how I interpret your comment). If that's not what you meant, could you please re-explain? Thank you.

gloverkcn 13y ago
I don't think the judgement was that the money was wasted, but that the money would be spent immediately by the poor, and the rich wouldn't do much with it. If you have $5 Million in the bank and I give you $2K. The money I've given you won't change your spending habits. There is no purchase you have put off due to lack of money. If you have $100K in the bank it's more likely you'll spend it, but not a guarantee. If you are living paycheck to paycheck like roughly 3/4 of the country (http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/) then that $2k will most likely get spent. Just because it's spent doesn't mean it's wasteful. That spending will reflect things they are living without because they can't afford it. A more reliable car. A second car so their SO has a better opportunity to work. A computer. In the case of some low end works it could mean equipment and/or space to open their own business. Better/More food. An evening at the movies. Painting the house. These are all things they can't/won't take on debt for, but could do with a windfall.
- scotty79 13y ago
  > I don't think the judgement was that the money was wasted, but that the money would be spent immediately by the poor, and the rich wouldn't do much with it. Yes. But they would have to give poor something back for that money. And that's what they currently are not doing because they are waiting for the poor to produce the money they have no means of producing. In order to manufacture the thing the rich can give poor in exchange for their helicopter money they have to increase production and probably hire some poor people which benefits poor even more.
ctdonath 13y ago
The quick offense makes the subject difficult to discuss objectively. A significant percentage of poor are so in large part because they squander opportunity; "free money" all too often gets blown on luxuries instead of improvements. (In no way am I accusing all of such behavior, but the topic's tendency toward B/W all/nothing imputations destroys sensible analysis.) Further, "free money" also in large (albeit not complete) part becomes a point of dependency from which more is demanded as a right (not appreciated as a gift). Insofar as a debatable percentage of such "free money" gets squandered, that money has arguably been taken from those who, having earned it, take greater care in spending it wisely. I'm all for giving people a hand up, just with the qualification that it be given voluntarily, and reasonably results in upward mobility. This "free money" aka Guaranteed Basic Income (same idea, different degree) notion is certainly better than the welfare morass currently in place, but still doesn't address the core flaw leaving so many to receive so much yet get nowhere with it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Zigurd 13y ago

What if, for most people without high aptitude and an expensive education, opportunity and social mobility is mostly a myth? If you really believe in social mobility, would you support a 100% estate tax?

patmcc 13y ago

Sure they'll spend it, but it might be on something that increases their wealth/earning potential. Maybe they buy a washer/dryer and can stop spending time and money at the laundromat. Maybe they'll buy supplies to start a small business, or pay tuition for a course that'll land them a job. Maybe they'll be able to fix their car so they can actually get a job, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards a better society, but cash is one thing that poor people desperately lack. Giving it to them directly might improve their situation. And if we're going to distribute money anyway, the real question is whether this proposed method is better or worse than the current one, not if it's completely perfect.