Not if they die!
5 Likes
The problem is too many politicians see the need for something to be done, but are incapable of seeing how to do this as anything other than some sort of tax rebate. On some level, they buy into the libertarian argument that taxation is theft, so they can only view social spending through the lens of giving you back your money that the government has stolen.
We need more politicians who believe in the idea of redistributive justice.
1 Like
Yes, the people who are currently working will not receive additional unemployment benefits. I mean, we’re talking about the best way to provide benefits to those people (and perhaps businesses) who are experiencing a loss of income. The people in healthcare (and grocery stores!) are facing a lot of challenges right now, but unemployment is not one of them.
It’s more like everyone would be getting a loan. The people who are doing the worst get all of their loan forgiven. People whose situations are not quite so dire only get some of their loan forgiven, proportional to their need, and have to pay the rest back, but without interest. If you make a ton of money, you have to pay it back with interest and you have to take the loan even if you don’t need it.
1 Like
I’m cool with not receiving a stimulus check, but that plan you posted says I will receive a check and then pay back more than I got. The average workers who will financially benefit are the ones keeping grocery stores open, supply chains open, and providing medical care.
I’ll be honest, taking back the stimulus check next April seems ok. Taking back the stimulus check +x% seems like a real dick move.
2 Likes
The first part is the key point: Even if you believe that means testing is a sensible concept, there is no good argument for inefficiently doing it on the front end (i.e., determining who gets a check) rather than doing it on the back end (i.e., recapturing it). The second part, to me, is effectively arguing about how progressive the tax system is. At some point, someone is going to pay for the checks, and the people who pay will be wealthier/higher income.
This is my plan
NPR tag teaming with the NYT on this garbage “Republicans good, Dems bad” angle
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1242062299638218753
1 Like
a couple ideas on how to pay it back:
Don’t worry about it, the treasury is issuing bonds at less than inflation. So who gives a damn right now.
Make big business bailouts loans not grants, loans that cannot be discharged via bankruptcy.
Increase the top marginal tax rate up to 70%.
But don’t screw over people whose gross salary is going to increase from 30k to 40k.
1 Like
And now CNN and MSNBC are both carrying Mitch’s propaganda live. Unreal.
I believe it. When you get approved for SSDI, there’s a 5 month waiting period before you get your first check. Your first check is for 5 months, then after that it’s a normal check. I always assumed it was because it takes forever to process that your SSDI was approved.
How would you feel about a fix where the extra percentage you have to pay back is means-tested so someone whose salary increases, but only to 40K, wouldn’t be charged extra? I’m not sure where the threshold should be, but this feels like a scenario where Congress should get the money out now and figure out the details later. Think about ways to fix the idea instead of rejecting it flat out because you don’t like it in its initial proposed form.
I think one of the ways to pay for part of this should be Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, but maybe it’s better to not bring that up right now so the billionaires don’t get spooked.
Even on a liberal leaning forum you’re all just buying into but how are you gonna pay for it. WAAF forever.
6 Likes
How about congress intact a six month 1k/mo/person no strings attached UBI and worry about which subset of millionaires/billionaires pay for it later? The whole point is how do we pay for it is a stupid right wing talking point and always has been. We don’t ask who will pay for the war, we just fight the damn thing and worry about the debt left behind later (actually never, but that is another story). People being able to pay for groceries and essential services may keep the economy from completely imploding.
5 Likes
Isn’t that basically what we’re talking about here?
I mean, we pay for it by getting to not have our country descend into a mass of violence because tens of millions of people have no money and can’t feed their families. Where the actual money comes from isn’t even kind of important.
And I think my brain is short circuiting. I simply can’t believe that every hospital in the nation will be overflowing with patients within one week. Like I can’t accept that the hospital a half mile south of me will turn into some sort of literal ground zero.
What if we pick a few billionaires out of a hat and take their money to pay for it
5 Likes
I’m sure Bloomberg will be happy to ensure he is not chosen
No? I mean some people are I guess, but the idea that was floated that started this discussion was giving everyone a stimulus loan, payback being subject to how much your income increased/decreased from last year.
I see it as an opportunity to trick Republicans and centrists into supporting it by framing it as a loan, then pushing for loan forgiveness and relying on the masses to threaten to revolt if that doesn’t happen. Might not work, but might make it more likely that something passes quickly.