|
Post by The Captain on Apr 2, 2020 7:46:02 GMT -5
I'm really struggling with one aspect of the US government's Coronavirus financial package, but not one that most people would think of.
As I understand it, individuals receiving Social Security (such as both of my parents, each in their 70s) will be receiving the designated $1200 apiece ON TOP of their monthly Social Security checks. There were, in December 2018, 46.8MM retired workers and dependents receiving SS benefits.
Taking the $1200 and multiplying it by 44.8MM individuals comes to nearly $54B of the package going to people who aren't working and will still be getting their SS checks every month throughout this situation.
I get that SS doesn't allow people to live lavish lifestyles, but we've got millions of people in the gig economy currently displaced from work, not to mentions thousands of small businesses that were only given $350B to divvy up, so why are people whose income isn't going to be affected by lack of work getting extra money?
I'm not 100% against this, but I am definitely conflicted about it.
There. I said it.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Apr 2, 2020 8:27:25 GMT -5
A couple of justifications I can think of: We can identify the Social Security crowd as a segment that "doesn't need the check", so we could cut them out to reduce the total payout. But there are plenty of others still working who likewise "don't need it", but needs-based evaluation would be complex, contentious, and prevent expeditious implementation of the stimulus. So there's an impression of unfairness, and that impression will hit mostly on seniors, who form a big part of the conservative base which tends to disapprove of people getting stuff from the government that they "don't deserve." So unless we can refine the giveaway so that it only goes to those whose income is definitely impacted by the economic shutdown, the safest course to maximize public approval is to discriminate as little as possible. There will still be a contingent that gripes because many recipients "don't need it", but most of those will be placated with checks of their own: "At least the parasites didn't get anything I didn't get." There's less risk in the phase-out for higher income people, who are far fewer in number and who, even if they are affected, are less likely to find that $1200 makes up for any losses they are suffering. The better justification is to put ready cash in the hands of a broader swath of the public so that when this does lift, the economy gets a juicing. The seniors will retain more of the $1200 for spending in the local economy, as opposed to those who needed it to get by during the crisis.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 2, 2020 8:58:34 GMT -5
A couple of justifications I can think of: We can identify the Social Security crowd as a segment that "doesn't need the check", so we could cut them out to reduce the total payout. But there are plenty of others still working who likewise "don't need it", but needs-based evaluation would be complex, contentious, and prevent expeditious implementation of the stimulus. So there's an impression of unfairness, and that impression will hit mostly on seniors, who form a big part of the conservative base which tends to disapprove of people getting stuff from the government that they "don't deserve." So unless we can refine the giveaway so that it only goes to those whose income is definitely impacted by the economic shutdown, the safest course to maximize public approval is to discriminate as little as possible. There will still be a contingent that gripes because many recipients "don't need it", but most of those will be placated with checks of their own: "At least the parasites didn't get anything I didn't get." There's less risk in the phase-out for higher income people, who are far fewer in number and who, even if they are affected, are less likely to find that $1200 makes up for any losses they are suffering. The better justification is to put ready cash in the hands of a broader swath of the public so that when this does lift, the economy gets a juicing. The seniors will retain more of the $1200 for spending in the local economy, as opposed to those who needed it to get by during the crisis. One issue with your first point, in regard to the higher income folks, is that the phase-out is based on 2019 tax year filings (or 2018, if they haven't filed this year). Maybe they were employed up until this crisis and are now completely out of work, but because they did well last year (or two years ago, even), they get nothing. As for your second point, that makes sense, but I'm not sure I understand the logic of the government borrowing money to give it to people to put it back into the economy down the road so that those businesses can pay taxes on it, which the government will use to make up for the lost tax revenue from this situation but not actually pay back the money they borrowed. Again, I understand it, but I'm massively conflicted about it.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 2, 2020 10:17:12 GMT -5
All I know is that the stimulus check on top of my regular Social Security check will help me keep my head above water for a good six months (with my rent now $965/mo, I can't pay my bills without support from my brother and sister) and let me get a few things I desperately need but couldn't otherwise afford (clothes, Windows 10, et al). If it didn't seem inappropriate given the circumstances, I'd liken this stimulus money to a gift from God.
Cei-U! I summon the (personally)fortuitous timing!
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 2, 2020 10:24:45 GMT -5
All I know is that the stimulus check on top of my regular Social Security check will help me keep my head above water for a good six months (with my rent now $965/mo, I can't pay my bills without support from my brother and sister) and let me get a few things I desperately need but couldn't otherwise afford (clothes, Windows 10, et al). If it didn't seem inappropriate given the circumstances, I'd liken this stimulus money to a gift from God. Cei-U! I summon the (personally)fortuitous timing! Kurt, I hear you loud and clear on this, and it is because of circumstances like yours that I am as conflicted as I am. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that your situation is SS Disability and not SS Retirement, which I feel is a different kettle of fish entirely. I don't know WHY I feel that way, but I do.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 2, 2020 10:31:30 GMT -5
Let's leave aside the so-called worries about the deficit and repaying debt, because that only matters if Republicans are running against Democrats, Pete Buttigieg's campaign pabulum notwithstanding. Believe Dick Cheney if you don't believe me; he's the one who said, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." It was the sainted Ronnie who slashed taxes and goosed Federal spending wherever it benefited the moneyed class. That created a massive deficit, which was Clinton's job to clean up, as proclaimed by the Republicans. Same thing happened to Obama, courtesy Dubya (hitting his knees every night thanking his Lord that Trump came along to suddenly make him look like the second coming, if not of Lincoln, at least his equally feckless Poppy). And even then, Obama had to throw in tax cuts galore to appease the GOP, who also wouldn't go along with anything until Social Security and Medicare had also taken a beating. Plus, we had to endure the stupidity of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a billionaire's pet project in public service clothing to convince us that austerity was the only way to get out of a recession or depression. As much as I'd be willing o crawl across broken glass on alcohol-soaked knees to have Obama in the White House right now, his administration's fealty to the Wall Street suits continues to hurt this country. And frankly, money's cheap right now. Paying for the money the feds are borrowing will not be an issue, especially compared to what will happen if this is the only financial help the economy receives. And you're right about ti being way too complicated to apply too many conditions to the program. Money needs to be pumped in ASAP. It will have not just an economic effect, but a psychological one, too. Like any of us needs more stress in our lives right now. But, the long story made short: People ain't workin'. They may have three jobs in this gig economy, but they ain't workin'. And for a lot more people receiving Social Security, than any of us probably realize, Social Security is just one more gig. So those folks need the dough just like everyone else. If it means in a minority of cases that the 1200 bucks is a one-time bonus, as MWGallaher says, it will be spent elsewhere: take-in food, extending a local newspaper subscription, paying the guy who mows your lawn, ordering something on-line. All of which make some kind of contribution to the economy. Or, and I think this is very likely, all or part of that 1200 will be going to their kids and grandkids to help them get by. At the bottom of all this, we see how abject the lies about the strength of our economy have been, when you realize how weak it is for the vast majority of Americans. I sincerely hope that wasn't too political for anybody. PS: Am I so hard-nosed that I also think that since SS recipients are probably among the most dependable bloc of voters, it was in everyone's best interest that they be included as recipients of any federal largesse? Of course I am.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 2, 2020 10:37:54 GMT -5
All I know is that the stimulus check on top of my regular Social Security check will help me keep my head above water for a good six months (with my rent now $965/mo, I can't pay my bills without support from my brother and sister) and let me get a few things I desperately need but couldn't otherwise afford (clothes, Windows 10, et al). If it didn't seem inappropriate given the circumstances, I'd liken this stimulus money to a gift from God. Cei-U! I summon the (personally)fortuitous timing! Kurt, I hear you loud and clear on this, and it is because of circumstances like yours that I am as conflicted as I am. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that your situation is SS Disability and not SS Retirement, which I feel is a different kettle of fish entirely. I don't know WHY I feel that way, but I do. There are an awful lot of people on Social Security Retirement that subsist. For the last 3-4 years before she died my Mom "borrowed" $500 here and $300 there from me three or four times a year. If you ACTUALLY want to stimulate the economy and pump life into it you get the money into the hands of people who have no choice but to spend it and allow it to turn over multiple times, as opposed to the normal American response of pumping it into corporations and 1 percenters who will use it to buy back stock or sock it into off-shore accounts and exacerbate the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 2, 2020 10:49:36 GMT -5
Kurt, I hear you loud and clear on this, and it is because of circumstances like yours that I am as conflicted as I am. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that your situation is SS Disability and not SS Retirement, which I feel is a different kettle of fish entirely. I don't know WHY I feel that way, but I do. There are an awful lot of people on Social Security Retirement that subsist. For the last 3-4 years before she died my Mom "borrowed" $500 here and $300 there from me three or four times a year. If you ACTUALLY want to stimulate the economy and pump life into it you get the money into the hands of people who have no choice but to spend it and allow it to turn over multiple times, as opposed to the normal American response of pumping it into corporations and 1 percenters who will use it to buy back stock or sock it into off-shore accounts and exacerbate the problem. Nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 2, 2020 10:57:47 GMT -5
THIS JUST IN!
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp says he only just learned that asymptomatic people can transmit #Covid19. People "could have been infecting people before they ever felt bad, but we didn’t know that until the last 24 hours.”
Further proof, as if any is needed (look him up if you don't believe me), that Kemp is a world-class @$$#ole.
I'm sure Stacey Abrams wouldn't have known this, either.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 2, 2020 11:07:24 GMT -5
Prince Hal and Slam_Bradley , I wasn't arguing against spending that money, just that I'm conflicted about it going to Social Security recipients. The estimates are that the $350B set aside for small business loans (which become grants if they maintain their payroll for a certain period of time) could be less than 1/2 of what is applied for and needed, and certainly the gig workers with kids are needing more than a retired person with no kids. However, Slam, I absolutely see your point about your Mom and how this sort of one-time payment could have made a huge difference. My parents are in a different place, as their SS combined annually currently exceeds their expenditures (based on my calculation from last year and this year thus far), which does color my judgment of the situation, but not everyone is in the same place as they are. What I would have like to have seen was far more allocated to the individual workers and the small business owners and far less to the corporations who don't have two weeks of cash reserves to weather the storms. Maybe they shouldn't have spent it all on stock buybacks and executive bonuses and perks?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 2, 2020 11:13:37 GMT -5
Prince Hal and Slam_Bradley , I wasn't arguing against spending that money, just that I'm conflicted about it going to Social Security recipients. The estimates are that the $350B set aside for small business loans (which become grants if they maintain their payroll for a certain period of time) could be less than 1/2 of what is applied for and needed, and certainly the gig workers with kids are needing more than a retired person with no kids. However, Slam, I absolutely see your point about your Mom and how this sort of one-time payment could have made a huge difference. My parents are in a different place, as their SS combined annually currently exceeds their expenditures (based on my calculation from last year and this year thus far), which does color my judgment of the situation, but not everyone is in the same place as they are. What I would have like to have seen was far more allocated to the individual workers and the small business owners and far less to the corporations who don't have two weeks of cash reserves to weather the storms. Maybe they shouldn't have spent it all on stock buybacks and executive bonuses and perks? Well, yeah, wouldn't we all have liked that? Small problem, though. Republican Senate and "President."
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 2, 2020 11:14:08 GMT -5
Prince Hal and Slam_Bradley , I wasn't arguing against spending that money, just that I'm conflicted about it going to Social Security recipients. The estimates are that the $350B set aside for small business loans (which become grants if they maintain their payroll for a certain period of time) could be less than 1/2 of what is applied for and needed, and certainly the gig workers with kids are needing more than a retired person with no kids. However, Slam, I absolutely see your point about your Mom and how this sort of one-time payment could have made a huge difference. My parents are in a different place, as their SS combined annually currently exceeds their expenditures (based on my calculation from last year and this year thus far), which does color my judgment of the situation, but not everyone is in the same place as they are. What I would have like to have seen was far more allocated to the individual workers and the small business owners and far less to the corporations who don't have two weeks of cash reserves to weather the storms. Maybe they shouldn't have spent it all on stock buybacks and executive bonuses and perks? The corporations should have saved for a rainy day. Spent less on avocado toast and frappucinos. Maybe get a side gig driving an Uber or something.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 2, 2020 13:00:18 GMT -5
I keep thinking about the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives: "How dare you regulate my actions? I can be trusted to act in the interest of the entire community."
Liberals: "Everyone acts in his own self-interest unless you can control the urge somehow."
I'd be more succinct, but... triggers.
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Apr 2, 2020 13:25:24 GMT -5
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Apr 2, 2020 13:27:35 GMT -5
THIS JUST IN! Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp says he only just learned that asymptomatic people can transmit #Covid19. People "could have been infecting people before they ever felt bad, but we didn’t know that until the last 24 hours.” Further proof, as if any is needed (look him up if you don't believe me), that Kemp is a world-class @$$#ole. In fairness to Kemp, his office has been primarily focused on suppressing the virus' ability to vote.
|
|