
Legislation proposes paying Americans $2k a month - freediver
https://www.news4jax.com/news/national/2020/04/15/legislation-proposes-2000-a-month-for-americans/
======
millstone
This is a good idea. Congress should commit to such ongoing payments, and the
Fed should back it with a commitment to unlimited borrowing.

Borrowing money is _incredibly_ cheap at the moment, perhaps even negative
cost! Three reasons:

1\. Interest rates are very very low. Borrow when it's cheap.

2\. With these payments, sick people won't need to go to work to have an
income.

3\. Universal payments can keep people out of programs such as SNAP, state
unemployment insurance, etc. These are currently overwhelmed and typically
have high administrative costs, plus human costs in terms of means-testing and
other shortsighted cruelties (would you like to prove you have been looking
for work?)

The article doesn't go into details about the sunsetting provisions (which
ought to be tied to infection rate, deaths, etc) but the idea of "the govt
borrows until the health crisis is over" is correct.

------
lcall
I will try to explain why this is a really harmful, bad idea; that we should
help each other, and there are better ways to do it, and that there needs to
be the basic incentive of working, in life, to live.

To the extent that we remove the connection between choices and consequences,
we harm everyone. This applies in so many ways. This includes things like
lifestyle, including habits, striving to learn & build good family ties,
honesty, choosing to pursue education and service, more than just
entertainment and pleasure (but with appropriate balance), trustworthiness,
avoiding self-destructive behaviors, etc etc. All which greatly affect
employability!

But if we make it easily survivable to live on the wrong side of those...what
do we encourage? At ever-greater cost to everyone... Think we have a drug
problem now?

Some consistently very bad experiences with medicare's and SSA's
organizational incompetence (as reflected in ability to provide remotely
useful information over many weeks and months, etc) make me definitely not
want the federal government to take ever-more resources and control of our
economy and lives.

I do believe we are responsible (before God, and if one doesn't believe, then
at least to our consciences) to care wisely for one another, and with personal
sacrifice to do so -- but not by force.

I also believe, with a fair amount of observation and study among myself and
family, that things resembling forcible socialism (or the fed. government
solving everyone's problems instead of being strictly limited to its
constitutional role) are also harmful to everyone and have been proven many
times to be a disastrous failure (Soviets, Venezuela, etc etc).

Charity by force is wrong and foolish, from Christian principle, long
historical observation, and (to me at least), logic.

Charitable service done voluntarily by individuals, organizations, families,
communities, maybe even states who can then learn from each other what works
vs. not, can be wonderful, and I and many others have seen it work in long-
term multifaceted practice. But when we force a system on everyone -- bad
things happen, in the short and long run.

We can go out and do good and solve problems, by joining with others, using
persuasion and fundraising, creating jobs programs (not federal), promoting
good ideas, seeing what has worked well elsewhere, but not by forcibly taking
control of others people's money (which represents their time and energy,
planning and preparation) and thus a loss of freedom for all. Every crisis
should not be an excuse to expand control by some, over others.

I have written many more details about this & related subjects at my web site,
which is in my profile.

I very much hope we can promote principles over politics, such as: earned
trust matters; opportunity, honesty and the Golden Rule matter; charity is
important, charity by force is wrong, and breaking the link between choices
and consequences harms everyone.

------
nodesocket
330 million americans at $24,000 a year comes out to $7.9 trillion dollars a
year. How exactly are we going to afford that?

~~~
kennywinker
> The bill, known as the Emergency Money for the People Act, would issue
> monthly payments of $2,000 to individuals and families for six months, or
> until the U.S. economy recovers from the coronavirus outbreak.

and then:

> Every American adult age 16 and older making less than $130,000 annually
> would receive at least $2,000 per month.

So every single number in your back-of-the-envelope is wrong.

1\. We're looking at some number between $12k and $24k / year.

2\. The number of americans who qualify is going to be much lower than 330mil.
Since many americans make more than $130k/year, and also many americans are
CHILDREN which only qualify for a $500/month check for their parents.

~3. For MANY of the americans who qualify, a significant chunk of the of up-
to-$24k would be eaten up by taxes.~ edit: apparently it is not going to be
considered income, which suggests it's not taxable. That differs from the
canadian strategy.

Canada is doing this now. It is absolutely the correct thing to do. You can't
tell people not to work to help other people, and not support them in doing
that.

~~~
dmitrygr
_> and also many americans are CHILDREN _

only approx 18.7% [1]

.

 _> Since many americans make more than $130k/year_

Actually, approx 90% of americans make _under_ 130k/yr [2]

.

 _> a significant chunk of the of up-to-$24k would be eaten up by taxes._

"Under the proposal, the payments would not be considered income"

.

So we can calculate approximately:

(1 - .1) * (1 - .187) * 330M = 241M people

241M x $2000 x 12 = $5.8T/year = A LOT

.

[1][https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-
distribution-...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-
in-the-united-states/)

[2][http://theglitteringeye.com/u-s-income-distributiona-
chart-t...](http://theglitteringeye.com/u-s-income-distributiona-chart-to-
contemplate/)

~~~
kennywinker
10% of americans is 33 million people. That is many.

You're still using 12 months in your calculation. The act says at least six
months, or until it is not needed. So some number equal or greater than 2.9T

Thinking about it as an annual expense seems very wrong. Even if it takes 18
months to recover, I wouldn't say it cost x/year + 1/2 * x/year I would say it
cost the total cost over the 18 months.

Fair point about it not being considered income, I missed that detail in my
haste to make sure the only comment wasn't such a blatant misrepresentation of
the cost of a program like this.

edit: now I'm just nitpicking your math, but 10% of americans make over $130k
and 18.7% of americans are children. I have to think a VANISHINGLY small
number of those two percentages overlap (children making over 130k) so your
calculation:

(1 - .1) * (1 - .187) * 330M = 241M people

should probably be:

(1 - (0.1 + 0.187)) * 330M = 235M people

Which is not materially far off your number, but it is 6M * 2k * 6 = 72B saved
for the american taxpayer ;)

