Should people who lost no income or show a loss during Covid get "relief" money?

Why are we sending out all this money? The unemployment rate is 6.7% nationwide. 7 states under 4 including my "poor" state of Alabama. LOTS of people didn't lose and wages or salaries. So why is the money going out. If it is for relief shouldn't be an unemployment thing? Relief for not being employed or lost wages? If it is for a stimulus then shouldn't everyone get it so we get the most stimulus? Why put an income from 2019 ceiling on it.

Recent reports show, the previous money was invested in the stock market.

Many Americans used part of their coronavirus stimulus check to trade stocks

• Trading stocks was among the most common uses for the government stimulus checks in nearly every income bracket, according to software and data aggregation company Envestnet Yodlee.
• People earning between $35,000 and $75,000 annually traded stocks about 90% more than the week prior to receiving their stimulus check.
• “There’s clearly a correlation between Covid and people being reengaged with their money,” Bill Parsons, Group President, Data Analytics at Envestnet Yodlee told CNBC.
• The coronavirus rout also appeared to bring a copious amount of new accounts to online brokers in the first quarter

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/man...ronavirus-stimulus-check-to-trade-stocks.html

Now I encourage people to invest, it grows the economy and creates jobs. But not with "free" handout money from the government. If the government wants to get more capital in the markets the don't raise capital gains rates and corporate income tax rates. Give better tax treatment to personal investing. But just sending out fiat money from the government doesn't work you always have to pay the piper.

So should we target the relief to those who actually need it, can show they had a loss of income. Give it to everyone under an income level. Or give it to everyone.

 

I voted "Yes, with an income limit". While I don't like the idea of the government shoveling out free money merely because people were too irresponsible to save any money for unforeseen, big problems, I do acknowledge that this pandemic has created truly unique kinds of economic devastation that go way beyond harming people who don't/won't/can't "save money for a rainy day".

But, yeah, there should be limits. C'mon... some guy who is still gainfully employed makes $100k, plus corporate 'bennies', and he should get 'relief money'...? Naw, that's bullshit. Probably fairest to cut it down about $60,000/year for each person, or, $120,000 for a couple.

Still, the whole thing stinks, really. Go back and look at all those long lines of pricey, late-model vehicles with people in them, lined up for hundreds of yards, waiting for 'social workers' to load their cars up with FREE FOOD!

We've got to get everybody vaccinated, and then very quickly -- GET PEOPLE OFF THE GOVERNMENT "SUGAR TEAT"!

 

There already is an income limit. We did not get a second check. We're okay with that. Give it to the people who actually need it.

 

Only to those who actually took a big hit from the pandemic, and of course below a certain income level. I mean, while I could use a stimulus check, I don't really need it as I suffered no financial effects from the pandemic. My heart goes out to the work a day folks though, the week to weekers, and the small business owners, apartment managers, even many in the medical profession due to cancellations of appointments, surgeries and so forth. They're all getting clobbered mightily, many suffering in silence and daily fear.

 

One report saying 70% will just save the money. How about government workers how make $70,000 and haven't lost a penny of income or benefits whether they were working or not?

And again the conflict as to why. If it is to help people who have been harmed then it should be VERY targeted to just those people as the Republicans want. If it is to stimulate the economy then EVERYONE should get it so we get the most stimulus, of course that is if you believe such helicopter money really stimulates the economy more that the sugar rush I got from the candy bar I ate last night.

Unemployment is down to 6.7% in December. Less than expected. It's been on a down curve since it's peak. The economy is already strong. Get people back to work as you said EARNING money.

 

So you agree it is not for stimulus but for relief and it should be highly targeted?

 

I do.

 

Send the money to everyone! Not only are people getting relief but (hopefully) we're learning what people do with the money when they have it (investing in the stock market, as told in an earlier post.) And that could be good information for a minimum wage increase or maybe a universal basic income.

 

Oh, and giving cash to everyone will help people pay off their credit card debt and get a new start in life. Very useful feature!

 

I generally favour means-testing for government benefits but the difficulty is defining the measure in such a way that covers all of the people who really need the support without covering lots of people who don't. That is especially the case when they're looking for something one-off and very short term. There is a good chance that working out and implementing the means-testing would end up costing more than just giving the flat pay-out to everyone.

 

This is the entire purpose of the unemployment offices. Give them the money and let them distribute it.

 

We agree far more often than you remember. I'm more conservative than not, much of the time. My lefty friends and I don't agree about a lot of things. We love each other, anyway.

 

Meh. My savings are mostly in precious metals and my biggest investment is my mortgage, and since it looks like the only way we're gonna learn what unlimited spending does is by reaping the whirlwind, lets open that faucet up all the way and get it over with! Just don't show up asking me to feed you. I got enough for me and mine, not everyone

 

I voted "Yes". While I don't like the idea of the government shovelling out free money, I do think that the government's responsibility to save lives during unforeseen, big problems should be honoured. It must be acknowledged that this pandemic has created truly unique kinds of economic devastation that go way beyond harming people who don't/can't "save money for a rainy day". Citizens pay taxes ..... don't they? I can think of a hundred things the government can save on and use the "savings" to take care of its tax-paying citizens instead. It is the government that is responsible for "saving for a rainy day" in order to take care of its population.

 

Minimum wage increase ought to be top priority.

 

We have people who really ARE essential workers, and who are making between 13 and 16 dollars an hour and who we desperately need to stay and take care of our most vulnerable demographic, the elderly and disabled in nursing homes, in hospitals, in home care, in memory care and in assisted living facilities and let me tell you that the stresses of covid are impacting us. and we are very likely to come in direct contact with this virus by doing our jobs. Now I am doing fine here in the kitchen with my wage, and I don't think I do deserve any extra income - until the minute we have a covid positive patient in our building whether it be a stimulus check or a 'hazard bonus' because that is when I bring the risk home to my family. A lot of companies started handing out covid bonuses of one sort or another but had to stop because they are running in the red - especially since they were forced to put in more expensive protocals to keep covid out, without any medicaid or medicare rate re-imbursement increases except when a specific patient has the virus.

Health care workers are woefully underpaid for the importance of what they do in the best of times. while nurses and niche medical professionals are unionized, not a whole lot of the rest of us are, and the union can't do squat about those re-imbursement rates on which these facilities depend. We are in big trouble if they decide its just not worth the stress and crap anymore during this crisis.

I think that stimulus check needs to happen regardless of any actual loss of income because its just plain worth it from a policy perspective. You need the most experience workers now, not newbies who took a class or two.

 

Milton Friedman has deluded you totally, like most of the population.

Who said anything about "unlimited spending"?

Provided government spending (+ private sector spending) doesn't exceed the nation's total output derived from available resources and productive capacity, there will be no "whirlwind". Please educate yourself.

[Even RW economists are abandoning their delusional government deficit fetish, since central bank spending after the GFC - to avoid another great depression - has demonstrably NOT resulted in inflation, even with zero interest rates].

In fact the nation has enough available resources and productive capacity to feed and house (and employ, post pandemic) everyone, whether in a pandemic, or normal times.

 

But is it being hoarded or unfairly distributed so that those on the bottom of the totem pole have difficulty in experiencing a good quality of life?

 

Most definitely, yes, In the present neoliberal supply-side, economic orthodox system.

The solution lies in the provision by government of above-poverty minimum wage employment for all who want a job.

google: Job Guarantee.

also

MMT: Sense Or Nonsense? (forbes.com)

(the above is a link explaining the moral case for the JG, as well as the mechanics of its implementation)

 

I dont know who Milton Friedman is. I mean, I've heard it somewhere, but...

So if we have (had) enough to feed house and employ everyone, how come there was so many homeless, even before the pandemic?

NB4 'because greed' jic that was ur answer... take away peoples ability to be greedy and with it their incentive to produce.

 

The point is that the list of people registered as unemployed won't cover all of the people who need additional support (and will include some people who don't). The biggest gap there would probably be the self-employed and small business owners but there are also people like those who aren't paid a flat wage but based on how long they work or their direct output - they could be still employed but suffering a large reduction in income.

 

Ummmmmm, no. Above-poverty minimum income ought to be guaranteed to each and every citizen. Not only to those who are employed. No one - I repeat - no one should be expected to live at poverty level.

 

Then why don't we pay off everyone's credit card debit at the end of every year?

 

And they should be expected to make their labor WORTH more than the minimum wage. When people expect the government to provide them with a level above the poverty line guess they do? And why should other people be expected to give their money to those people?