
$1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS - diogenescynic
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/business/economy/as-government-aid-fades-so-may-the-recovery.html?_r=2
======
gaius
Well as I said when Northern Rock collapsed, the best financial stimulus would
be to refund everyone the income tax they paid for the last 12 months.

~~~
jbooth
What exactly does that do for the people who've been out of work? 100% rebate
on 0 is still 0, right?

Not to make a political statement out of things but you're saying you'd prefer
they didn't get their unemployment, giving that money back to me and you as
tax rebates instead? Trying to see how your suggestion is relevant to the
article.

~~~
gaius
In this scenario, anyone who'd just lost their job would have a lump sum of
40% of their previous salary, _plus_ whatever entitlements they had for
unemployment. Anyone still in a job would have that cash to either pay down
their debts or to spend on goods and services that would sustain/create more
jobs. It's a win/win scenario.

~~~
nostromo
Sounds like a fine idea to me, but not very stimulative. More money would be
returned to high income individuals who are more likely to hold onto the extra
cash.

I'd personally rather it go to infrastructure projects -- faster cheaper
internet access, high speed rail, space elevators ;) -- and basic research.

~~~
OstiaAntica
"hold on to extra cash" is intuitive but it is not how our economy works.
Anyone saving money has that money circulated into the economy, through
stocks, bonds, or bank lending. In fact, it is the wealthy who have the
surplus capital available to invest in ventures like those you mention. It is
extremely stimulative.

~~~
nostromo
I guess we should define "stimulative." I was talking about it in a job-
creation sense.

Yes, wealthy individuals will put the money into stocks, bonds, or bank
accounts - not under the mattress. But public companies' market cap rising a
bit has a much less direct effect on jobs than creation of demand for local
goods and services. Putting extra cash in a bank account is even worse -- a
much simpler way of getting banks to lend is to reduce the prime rate, not to
increase the savings rate.

~~~
derrickpetzold
Oh my I'm afraid your understanding of economics is very poor. Infrastructure
funding can only come from tax money. Tax money can only come from the private
sector. The private sector makes by money by using capital (savings). That is
how it works. That is why savings are good and taxes are bad.

~~~
Steko
If his understanding of economics is poor, yours is even worse. All he saying
is you get a better multiplier by giving it to people who will spend the money
first on goods and services then on people who will put it directly into
savings. And he's right, which should be obvious.

~~~
derrickpetzold
That is not true. That is redistribution wealth. You are taking the money away
from the people are are making and giving to the people that are spending it.
That makes no sense. Savings is what drives the economy. Without savings there
would be no capital. omg.

Please tell me where this multiplier comes from? If money was multiplied
through taxes the USSR would still be around and booming as they had an
effective tax rate of 100%. So do tell please.

------
ratsbane
How many dollars in wallets came from programs like the Department of Defense
and the TSA? And how many came from programs related to research and teaching?

------
lojack
so is this why my $10 only has $8 of buying power?

------
nodata
So liquid cash, not assets, not investments? Seems pretty good to me, during a
terrible recession.

~~~
jtolle
Actually the article is talking about income. The current HN title is wrong.
According to the linked article:

"Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were
payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability,
according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics."

I do wonder what the figure would be for actual assets. Surely much lower than
20%, but I guess that would be hard to even calculate.

~~~
diogenescynic
I tried to use: Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets
last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security
and disability

But it was still way too long, so I had edit the title down to fit it in.

~~~
jtolle
I don't know, maybe "20% of 2010 U.S. income came from..."?

I don't have editing powers, though.

------
paulpaul12
With a growing poor population via the influx of immigrants getting out of our
financial crisis will be an even slower process. This population is the 2nd
largest and the fastest growing. They currently have minimal buying power.
Case in point go to your local state park and witness America's future. The
face of America in 30 to 50 years and the language we speak will be remarkably
different.

Im sure this will be downvoted as it's totally NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. But
for me Im all about assimilation vs a massive population changing American
culture. We are a melting pot and that's great but one who speaks English.

I dont view myself as a racist(im sure this sounds otherwise) ... but if you
go to one of your local US state parks you just might get the slap in the face
I did(i live in PA). Again this new culture currently has no buying power just
sucking off our systems and it will be years before they have buying power as
a population to help our economy.

~~~
maxharris
_as a population_

Racism is a form of collectivism, and that phrase is indisputably
collectivist: <http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html>

I agree that America should be a melting pot once again, but if you're going
to champion American culture consistently, you must wipe collectivist ideas
from your mind. We are all individuals, independent from one another, and we
must be judged and thought of individually.

Edit: to those that voted this down, why?

~~~
chc
I'm not one of the downvoters, but my guess:

1\. It's really irrelevant political squabbling. It's annoying, but even
worse, that kind of sidetrack can _ruin_ sites by bringing in people who seek
nothing more than to argue. I've seen it on other sites. Probably a lot of
people want to avoid that kind of slide.

2\. Your apparent argument is illogical. "Racism is a form of collectivism,
and that phrase is indisputably collectivist [and thus that phrase is probably
racist]" reduces to "X is a form of Y, and Z is indisputably Y [and thus Z is
probably X]," which can be substituted with "A murderer is a form of human,
and you are indisputably human [and thus you are probably a murderer]." And if
you didn't mean to imply that the phrase was tinged with racism because it was
collectivist, then it's an irrelevant reference to Ayn Rand, and many people
find Ayn Rand references annoying enough when they're on topic. It doesn't
demonstrate anything either way.

~~~
maxharris
"and many people find Ayn Rand references annoying enough when they're on
topic"

That doesn't mean they should vote it down. It's a legitimate point of view.
It's mainstream enough to the point that her views are now taught in major
universities. We're not going away.

------
antidaily
The article says "Close to $2 of every $10". No need to editorialize it.

~~~
tjic
God forbid anyone reduce a fraction!

~~~
adolph
The fraction reduction seems inflationary.

~~~
seabee
Reading this thread you'd think the difference between 20% and 19% is as great
as life and death.

~~~
antidaily
you're right, it's probably only a couple billion dollars.

