I think if they are going to do it (even though the gov is basically broke), then they should only do it for people/families living below the poverty line. It seems there is no limit on wealth or earnings to be eligible for that payout.
this sort of payout (see linked article)...btw, the 'gov' isn't broke and those payouts won't be going under mattresses...they'll get spent very quickly.
Let me know if the WaPo article can't be read...I'll 'copy & paste' it.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/covid-funerals-assistance/2021/04/06/d7d1db20-9659-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html
(no message)
needed injection of cash for a great many people - but not all as you point out. Trying to 'parse' the worthy from the un-worthy is a significant challenge which could hold up the entire program, or add more administrative cost than necessary. In some people's mind it's better to err on the side of ensuring none of the truly worthy get overlooked, even if some of the funds go to those that don't need it.
The "they will spend it" segment was a notation that the $$ doled out, for the large part, wouldn't be 'squirreled away', but rather would return immediately to the economy...not a bad thing, since those funds would 'buy stuff' and help keep jobs, etc...a fine point, I admit...the prior paragraph is the crux of my comments. Also, note that there is precedence with FEMA for this kind of payout...it's just the amount and volume that's different.
(no message)
my drift. According to sources, The Bill accelerated the projection for a return to pre-COVID economic status from 4yrs to 2yrs...with a faster return to full employment. Last night's "60 Minutes" show featured Fed Chair Powell who minced no words on his expectation of GDP growth int he neighborhood of 6%...we'll of course have to wait and see, but there's widespread belief that's his thinking is correct.
This is like that lie this bill will increase employment. Yep and employment will increase almost as much without the obscene deficit spending. Each new job actually created will cost us $900,000 in taxpayer pork.
opinion, however, of those who are, and the 'macro' response of "The Market" leads me to believe they've got this right. Your caution and concern is not unreasonable, but to reject it (The Bill) out of hand is, in my opinion, rash.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
People shot, car accidents, heart attack, cancer - yup, all Chinese Virus "related". Funny, flu deaths are non existent. Wonder why?
As to blaming 'hang nails', etc. on COVID, you on you own there.
Link: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-the-flu-season-basically-disappeared-this-year
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
and tax the rich into oblivion. Pretty good consensus there even among GOP voters.
What they want to fight about are these culture wars that are brought to us daily right here. Both sides.
We will fight about these while letting the nation fall into insolvency without batting an eye.
(no message)
couple of posts here, I made a quick call to my B&S-I-L who are PhDs in Economics and Business, respectively...right now, other countries (e.g. China, Japan and UK) have no problem extending loans at very low interest rates...i.e. we're a 'good risk' client, so we're not on the verge of bankruptcy. That doesn't mean we should start putting Bugattis in every garage, of course, but when you've got to have more than $2B to crack the "Top 400" wealthiest Americans, there's probably room for some adjustment to our tax laws...hopefully more discussion on this.
which hurts small businesses more. Go with the Ireland corporate tax rate and eliminate big business tax welfare.
I don’t care about the amount wealthy individuals pay in taxes. It isn’t as if they are burying their money in the back yard. A lot of their personal wealth ends up in the hands of those normal working people who provide them with goods and services. But there should be disincentives for them to find off shore investments and “tax shelters”.
I think most economists with any sense know the current trajectory of printing & borrowing money and running huge deficits is unsustainable.
The link provided is from 2017 and now in 2021 the trajectory is much worse than the CBO projected.
Link: https://www.pgpf.org/analysis/2017/03/as-policymakers-consider-changes-cbo-warns-fiscal-outlook-remains-unsustainable
Here's a prelude...(see attached article)...
Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/what-billionaires-said-about-wealth-inequality-and-capitalism-in-2019.html
total worth to everyone who pays zero income taxes and owns no property?
I would like to see everyone living below the poverty level to become the major shareholders in Microsoft and Amazon and Apple.
on...
What he said: “The biggest issue for entrepreneurs, for capitalists, for those of us who are successful is, if someone is only going to be paid by the hour ... they’re always going to fall behind,” Cuban told Recode Decode with Kara Swisher at the 2019 SALT Conference in Las Vegas in June. “And income distribution is … [the] disparity is going to get wider and wider.”
So, said Cuban, “We as entrepreneurs have got to make a point to give stock to everybody that works for us. Period. End of story. No exceptions, because that’s the only way people are going to get any type of equity appreciation.”
----------------------
This is the point Thomas Piketty makes...'Capital' appreciates at roughly 5%/yr, while wages barely achieve 1%/yr...simple math, and Cuban 'Gets It'.
Did Solyndra give it’s employees stock they ended up using to line their birdcages?
I got stock options that turned out well because we worked smart enough to increase the Company’s value. I also invested some of what I earned in other companies.
Link: https://www.econlib.org/mark-cuban-probably-spouts-nonsense/
surprised by the article's perspective. As for Mark Cuban, his opinion is buttressed by Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century", which is also endorsed (in large measure) by Bill Gates.
To alleviate the random failures of 'Solyndras', I'd like to see a broadly supported initiative that endeavors to achieve what the Obama administration was unable to accomplish with the "MyIRA" program...challenging, I know, but the math demands it.
If anyone wonders why Americans have lost faith in government, the sad saga of the myRA program tells the tale.
The recent announcement by Treasury Department that it will shut down this Obama-era program marked the end of a story that began, as is so often the case in government, with the best intentions. The Obama administration announced the myRA program in January 2014 as a no-fee, no-minimum-investment version of a Roth individual retirement account to address the real challenges of Americans without access to an employer-based 401(k) retirement program.
The myRA sounded like a good idea. Qualifying workers could put up to $5,500 a year into the account — or $6,500 if they were over 50 years old — which would be invested in government bonds, guaranteeing a modest but dependable return.
Yet, despite the good motives, myRA was a tiny tinker when large-scale change is demanded, a government-run program instead of a market-based response, and a dramatic waste of taxpayer dollars. Because it was managed by the Treasury Department and only invested in government securities, the private sector was kept off the playing field. As opposed to individual retirement accounts, there was no flood of financial industry TV commercials trying to persuade Americans to open a myRA.
Running the entire program through the federal government, the Obama administration spent $70 million and only got 20,000 Americans to invest — an outrageous cost of $3,500 for each new account. Of that, $10 million went to a single bank — Comerica — to act as custodian for this small number of simple, non-trading accounts.
When it comes to the crisis of retirement security and asset building, the financial industry has been either callous in a focus on serving only the very wealthy or rapacious as it saddles everyday investors with high fees. The federal government has oscillated between incompetence and indifference; between being softheaded or hardhearted. And the plight of the hundreds of millions of Americans continues as they watch inequality grow and their financial security wither.
It was not always this way. Just 10 years ago, a bipartisan collection of senators — Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint and Rick Santorum on one side of the aisle and Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer on the other — came together to support legislation to give newborn Americans a $500 “baby bond” that would grow over time. Amid the tumult of the Great Recession, this idea of a “nest egg in every crib” went the way of the Republicans’ promise in 1928 to put “a chicken in every pot” during the Great Depression.
Perhaps in a Washington struggling to find a way to make tax reform bold and bipartisan, this idea may yet have new lease on life. Whether it is policy or private sector innovation, an alternative to the status quo in Washington and on Wall Street is the only way to bridge the growing gap between a surging investing class and vast majority of Americans falling ever further behind.
Andrei Cherny, a co-founder and the chief executive of Aspiration, a financial firm, served as an aide to President Bill Clinton.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/the-sad-tale-of-the-myra.html
in the piece...I guess I didn't make myself clear on the failure of 'MyRA"...I acknowledge that fact and did my own research before posting...I also agree with the author that the goal was 'well intentioned' and absolutely needed...as this section makes clear...
"When it comes to the crisis of retirement security and asset building, the financial industry has been either callous in a focus on serving only the very wealthy or rapacious as it saddles everyday investors with high fees. The federal government has oscillated between incompetence and indifference; between being softheaded or hardhearted. And the plight of the hundreds of millions of Americans continues as they watch inequality grow and their financial security wither.
It was not always this way. Just 10 years ago, a bipartisan collection of senators — Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint and Rick Santorum on one side of the aisle and Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer on the other — came together to support legislation to give newborn Americans a $500 “baby bond” that would grow over time. Amid the tumult of the Great Recession, this idea of a “nest egg in every crib” went the way of the Republicans’ promise in 1928 to put “a chicken in every pot” during the Great Depression."
So, I'm just arguing in favor of Mark Cuban who recognizes what this author points out..."...hundreds of millions of Americans ...watch inequality grow and their financial security wither." Let's drop the political overtones and focus on ways we can help make our fellow Americans' lives more livable...getting them on the 'Capital Gravy Train' is an essential start...do you agree with that contention?
(no message)